July 6, 2013

Inbred Rednecks v. Inbred Pakistanis

Google has 95,000 pages on "inbred rednecks" v. 242 on "inbred Pakistanis." 

First cousins who marry increase the risk of giving birth to a baby with birth defects including defects affecting the heart or lungs, a British study suggests. 
Researchers looked at birth anomalies in Bradford in the north of England where there is a large Pakistani community. In that community there's a high level of consanguineous marriage — matrimony between blood relatives. ...
 The risk of birth defects was double that in those of white British origin. ...

Of the more than a total of 11,000 babies in the study, 386 or 3 per cent had a congenital anomaly, such as heart and lung defects, cleft palates and Down syndrome. The children were born between 2007 and 2011.

These are just major birth defects. These poor kids probably have lots of minor defects, too, and learning disabilities that aren't obvious until school age.
 Less than one per cent of babies of white British origin were born to first cousins compared with 38 per cent in the Pakistani group.

Births to second cousins are probably not insignificant either, although the fraction of "shared alleles" is only 1/4th as high in offspring of second cousin marriages. (This is assuming de novo cousin marriages -- if your ancestors have been cousin marrying for a long time, your mileage may vary.)

Keep in mind that first cousin marriage is not just a cultural ideal in large parts of the world, it's a key engine of immigration fraud. An arranged marriage of an English-born girl to her cousin in the Old Country creates a visa for a member of the extended family, opening doors to more visas under "family reunification."

A dozen years or so ago, the horrible anti-immigration rightwing Danish government passed a law not giving a visa to a foreigner if his Danish-born bride is under age 24.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Incestophobia!

Anonymous said...

Inbredophobia.

Matthew said...

Your take-home assignment from this post: the next time you're in the company of friends and one of the left-wingers cracks a "joke" about inbred Southerners, counter with your own joke about inbred Pakistani-Brits, 38% of whom are married to their first cousins. Watch hilarity ensue as the conversation turns from light-hearted to nasty allegations of racism.

I've done this before. It was good times.

Lex said...

Off-topic

http://www.celebitchy.com/78395/ethan_hawke_defends_madonna_romanias_gypsies/#comments

Gypsies, celebrities, leftist zombies and real people.

Sam said...

Jews are just as inbred as Muslims, particularly the Rothschilds.

The inbreeding didn't seem to hurt Jewish IQ

Gary said...

A work colleague (in London) is of Pakistani origin. His parents were cousins. I think grandparent may have been related too. He was born with a club foot. He's getting married to his cousin in a couple of months...

Anonymous said...

The problem is not so much one-time first cousin marriages but the fact the Pakistanis and Middle Easterners are the products of many generations of first cousin marriages. That tends to really concentrate bad recessive alleles.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

It's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not company.

Anonymous said...

I believe at least one third and possibly one half of ALL marriages in the Arab world are first cousin marriages. Extrapolate this over many generations and this may partly explain why the Arab world is so dysfunctional and non-progressive.

Anonymous said...

I dislike that term "white British". A more accurate and politically powerful term would be the "native English" or "native British".

Anonymous said...

Reply to Matthew said...

Isn't it interesting how it is "okay" to mock whites, but wrong to mock Pakistanis?

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Darwin married to his cousin? European royalty inter-married a lot. Are they considered less intelligent than average? Of course they do have hemophilia and porphyria.

Anonymous said...

Jews are just as inbred as Muslims, particularly the Rothschilds.

The Rothschilds are a very specific and extreme case motivated by the need to keep wealth concentrated in the family. Inbreeding among them seems to have ended by the beginning of the 20th century. Nowadays, they are as likely to marry non-Jews as Jews. The current Lord Rothschild is a half-Jew, and his son and heir is a quarter-Jew.

Modern Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of a small medieval breeding population, but the amount of genetic sharing is similar to that of fourth or fifth cousins. It is also not the case that all Ashkenazi Jews share that amount of identical by descent DNA with one another. There exists a degree of regional substructure, so it is a bit less likely that a descendant of Volhynian (western Ukraine) Jews would share as much genetic material with a descendant of Lithuanian Jews on average as he does with other descendants of Volhynian Jews.

Steve Sailer said...

The DuPont family practiced cousin marriage to keep the money in the family.

ben tillman said...

I remember how surprised I was to learn at my bar prep course at the U of H law center that first-cousin marriage was legal in Texas (and not in Arkansas or Louisiana). Later I dated a girl from Louisiana whose aunt and uncle had a couple foster kids, one of whom was a product of brother-sister incest. Yikes!

But it was about 10 years later that I figured out why first-cousin marriage was legal in Texas.

It's the anusim in the Valley.

I was dating a girl whose step-mom had married a Longoria. My girlfriend was shocked to learn that her step-siblings had a first cousin who was going to marry *his* first cousin despite the fact that he was about 25 and very successful with the ladies and she was circa 35 and not very attractive. But a commitment to endogamy can really limit one's options.

ben tillman said...

Google has 95,000 pages on "inbred rednecks" v. 242 on "inbred Pakistanis."

How strange. That's not what I get.

I get 121,000 hits for "inbred rednecks" and 271 for "inbred Pakistanis".

Why would we get different results?

Anonymous said...

Since white people are still the main economic engine of western countries, they are held to much higher standards than anyone else. In a way, it is the modern "White Man's Burden."

I will not debate the fairness of that practice, or how much of it is forced rather than spontaneous, or how much from outright government and corporate coercion rather than a sense of honour and fair play.

But it does explain why it is a greater sin for white people to be inbred than for other races....

RWF said...

As someone else has already said, one off cousin pairings aren't great but it's the fact that it occurs over multiple generations that really amplifies genetic diseases.

A few generations of cousin marriage is worse than a one off sibling match up.

eah said...

consanguineous marriage

If the cousin's hot, why not?

And the rest of it? That's what the NHS is for.

Reg Cæsar said...

Did you know that when identical twins marry, the chances of birth defects in the next generation drop to zero? Why? Because-- duh-- they're identical.

So can someone tell me why eight of the twelve states that instituted "gender-free" marriage felt it necessary to rewrite the language in their codes to prevent such unions from taking place? (One state already had degendered language, and three haven't changed the old language-- yet. Presumably father can marry son in those states.)

I mean, really, who cares if bugger and buggee are blood kin? I sure don't. Do you?

World according to Gubbler. said...

"Since white people are still the main economic engine of western countries, they are held to much higher standards than anyone else. In a way, it is the modern 'White Man's Burden.'"

Not quite. After all, Jews are richer than white gentiles, but Jews are not held to any kind of standard, let alone high standard, and can get away with just about anything. The likes of Tim Wise and Harold Meyerson can dump on whites who fought in WWII or poor whites in the South, but they still got their media gigs.

Also, American's urban liberal whites are the richest people in America, but they are held to a lower standard than poorer whites in the South are. If people who have more are held to a higher standard, it certainly isn't the case in the US.

According to the Narrative, some hillbilly in the South must sacrifice more than Wall Street Jews or white urban liberals must do in order to fight 'white privilege'. Notice how NY can stop-and-frisk anyone. Notice how privileged liberal trust fund kids in places like Seattle and Portland are full of themselves with moral narcissism, while the poor 'white trash' who tune into Paula Deen are made out to be the source of America's injustice and inequality.
(Besides, all this homomania has made it so much easier for privileged white liberals to hog the banner of equality. In the 60s, white liberals felt they had to rub shoulders with Negroes, Indians on reservations, poor Mexicans, Appalachian hillbillies, and etc. to be accredited with egalitarianism. Now, all they need do is wave the 'gay flag' at a 'gay pride rally' or be friends with some rich gay, and THAT makes them the paragon of 'equality'. So, if you're a rich urban liberal, you never need to leave your cocoon to be 'progressive' since there are lots of fancy homos in that cloistered world.)

Same thing in the UK. The rich liberal elites are full of themselves. They get richer and more privileged by the hour, yet they brag and show off how 'progressive' and 'wonderful' they are. And they dump all the blame on the likes of Emma West. Ms West acted like a fool and said ugly things, BUT she was driven to desperation by elites in the government who dumped all the problems of 'diversity' on poorer white Britons who have to live right next to the problem caused by British elites who send their own kids to fancy schools.

Brits used to be into class snobbery, but since that is no longer viable, 'moral superiority' is the new superiority, and it's hogged by white elites who went to the 'right schools', hobnob with the 'right kind of people', and mutter the 'right kind of sentiments'. Of course, they can afford to do so since their privilege and wealth cushions from the growing problems of 'diversity' in Britain.

So, white elites in Britain increase 'diversity' and take moral credit for being 'inclusive', 'tolerant', and 'egalitarian'. It makes them feel oh so superior and fancy. They hug themselves and dilly dally with the fancy elites from Asia, Middle East, and Africa at cocktail parties. They are snobbish and preening in their self-regard and moral narcissism.

But all this 'diversity' is proving to be a heavy burden on poorer whites in the UK, and they complain, sometimes bitterly, but then, the elites call them 'racist' and turn up their noses at them. PC moral supremacism is the new class snobbery.
Worse, whites who complain of 'diversity' on twitter are even rounded up and dragged off to prison in the middle of the night.
The terminology has changed, but it's the same old class system with the higher-ups putting on fancy air and acting better than the rabble.

Hunsdon said...

ben tillman said: It's the anusim in the Valley.

Hunsdon said: Well, I swan! A fellow does learn something new, every day, if he looks around a bit. I had no idea.

Svigor said...

Modern Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of a small medieval breeding population, but the amount of genetic sharing is similar to that of fourth or fifth cousins. It is also not the case that all Ashkenazi Jews share that amount of identical by descent DNA with one another. There exists a degree of regional substructure, so it is a bit less likely that a descendant of Volhynian (western Ukraine) Jews would share as much genetic material with a descendant of Lithuanian Jews on average as he does with other descendants of Volhynian Jews.

Jews (who narrowed the discussion to Ashkenazis? Oh, right, that was you.) are a relatively inbred group, like most west Asian populations; no need to forget the central point while discussing the details. E.g., Jews as a whole are a lot more inbred than "rednecks" as a whole.

Why would we get different results?

Quotation marks.

Anonymous said...

"It's the anusim in the Valley."

For the non--Jewish-south-Texans:

"Anusim is a legal category of Jews in halakha (Jewish law)... forced to abandon Judaism against their will... yet continue to do whatever is in their power to continue practicing Judaism under the forced condition."

"... the Lower Rio Grande Valley, informally called The Valley... According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2008, 86 percent of Cameron County, 90 percent of Hidalgo County, 97 percent of Starr County, and 86 percent of Willacy County are Hispanic."

Matthew said...

Cousin marriage was quite common amongst pretty much everyone until a) industrialization and modern transportation made it easier for a man to meet a woman from a more distant village or city, and introduced population densities where your nearby neighbors weren't all likely to be relatives; and b) scientists, prodded on by no less than Charles Darwin, began to understand the dangers of inbreeding. Prior to that, everyone from Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin and Charles II of Spain on the high end, to Henrietta Lacks (see: HeLa cells) on the very low end, practiced cousin marriage.

My grandmother was raised in a small, rural southern town. Her brother married a woman from a nearby town who turned out to be his third cousin, though neither of them knew until well into their 65 year marriage. That's how it is in many rural places: inbreeding (if you consider that inbreeding) is as likely to be accidental as deliberate. In the Islamic world, it's deliberate.

Matthew said...

No different than the religious argument, though: watch gay man vigorously defend Muslims and Muslim immigration, whilst bashing far more moderate religions like Baptists or Mormons.

It makes no sense. It's not happening in the logic centers of their brains, if they have one

Anonymous said...

alRe Anonymous at 3:59 PM: I don't like the ''White British'' label either, because it's redundant. British people(s) are White. Others are not British, regardless of holding British passports or birth certificates.
The term 'English' is not the same as British, because 'British' includes several different national groups while English describes a specific people, an ethnicity which can't be attained by becoming naturalized or getting a UK passport.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that first cousin marriage is not just a cultural ideal in large parts of the world, it's a key engine of immigration fraud. An arranged marriage of an English-born girl to her cousin in the Old Country creates a visa for a member of the extended family, opening doors to more visas under "family reunification."

Okay, how extended can the family be if they are all married to one another? It is not like Mexicans who can use chain migration to link to everyone in the whole freakin' country who lacks an 8th grade education.

CJ said...

Very-recently-deposed Egyptian supremo Mohammed Morsi married his first cousin when she was 17 and keeps her dressed in a bag:

As is common in the Arab world, Umm Ahmed married her cousin, Mr Morsi, at a young age - 17. In an interview with the state-owned Nos Al-Donia magazine geared towards women readers, she said her ring and dowry were "simple". "What pulled me to him was a sense that he was a responsible man who will protect me," she said of Mr Morsi. Less than two years after she married Morsi, she joined him in Los Angeles, where he was studying for a doctorate in engineering.

Auntie Analogue said...


If consanguineous marriage is so bad, why do people say, "Two heads are better than one!"?

Anonymous said...

Jews as a whole are a lot more inbred than "rednecks" as a whole.

Ashkenazi Jews are among the Jewish populations commonly but incorrectly thought to be most inbred, so discussion of Ashkenazi Jews is relevant. And at least for Ashkenazi Jews I can find a writeup based on a PNAS article that shows the common intuition to be incorrect.

Do you have any similar information that supports your contention?

Anonymous said...

Ashkenazi Jews are among the Jewish populations commonly but incorrectly thought to be most inbred, so discussion of Ashkenazi Jews is relevant. And at least for Ashkenazi Jews I can find a writeup based on a PNAS article that shows the common intuition to be incorrect.

That's because they're a hybrid population that hybridized relatively recently. So they automatically show up as more outbred even if they inbreed among each other.

Anonymous said...

In fairness, some gays like Bruce Bawer have been sounding the unPC alarm about muslim immigrants for a while.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

"The problem is not so much one-time first cousin marriages but the fact the Pakistanis and Middle Easterners are the products of many generations of first cousin marriages. That tends to really concentrate bad recessive alleles."

It may explain why so few of them are hot chicks, since they are being selected for cousin-ness rather than sexiness.

And I find most of them about as sexy as my cousin(s), which is not much, not being an inbred Southerner and all...

Ex Submarine Officer said...

"Okay, how extended can the family be if they are all married to one another? It is not like Mexicans who can use chain migration to link to everyone in the whole freakin' country who lacks an 8th grade education."

You are linked to everyone via your cousins...

Ex Submarine Officer said...

""Your take-home assignment from this post: the next time you're in the company of friends and one of the left-wingers cracks a "joke" about inbred Southerners, counter with your own joke about inbred Pakistani-Brits, 38% of whom are married to their first cousins. Watch hilarity ensue as the conversation turns from light-hearted to nasty allegations of racism."

Or, forget the Pakistanis, bring up the Ashkenazim, show 'em you really mean business.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

The brightest of South Indians -Tamil and Telugu upper castes are quite inbred. They not only have cousin marriages but quite often uncle and niece marriages and occasionally aunt and nephew.

Anonymous said...

Anusim is a legal category of Jews in halakha (Jewish law)...

I thought someone misspelled "Anusism", whatever that may be.

Anonymous said...

Cousin marriage was quite common amongst pretty much everyone until a) industrialization and modern transportation made it easier for a man to meet a woman from a more distant village or city,

What about the Catholic Church and its prohibition of cousin marriage? How does that fit in? Did the ban apply only to first cousins, or wasn't it widely observed until modern technology made it practical?

Anonymous said...

eah
"If the cousin's hot, why not?"

Apparently it was the default for most of the world for most of world history.

Except for the last 1000 years or so in Europe - especially northern Europe.

Weird huh?

ben tillman said...

"
Why would we get different results?

Quotation marks.


I thought of that and performed my search both ways. Without quotes my search returned 217,000 results for inbred rednecks.

Cail Corishev said...

Why would we get different results?

Hitting a different server, most likely. The big search engines have servers at various locations on the net to spread the load and improve speed. Your searches usually get routed to the one closest to you in network terms, but if that one's unusually busy you could hit a different one for a while. Those numbers are also estimates, so different servers will make different guesses based on what they have cached.

pat said...

For real inbreeding you need breeding - preferably royal.

The Hapsburgs are of course the primary example. Type in "Hapsburgs" and Google suggests third "Hapsburg Inbreeding". The Wikipedia article on the Hapsburgs produces a picture of Charles II - a man more than just conventionally ugly.

I was watching Don Carlos last night. I'm going through the Covent Garden production with Villazon this week an act at a time. Villazon as Charles (Carlos) is a handsome, slim, athletic and ardent. The real Carlos by virtue of his family's consanguinity was a twisted dwarf with psychotic tendencies.

The Windsors have had much the same problem although not quite so extreme. Victoria married her first cousin. The unhappy issue of her line - like that of the Hapsburgs - has provided fodder for the public arts. One of whom (Prince Albert) is portrayed as Jack the Ripper in "Murder by Decree" (a recent Sherlock Holmes flic) and "From Hell" (a Johnny Depp vehicle) and at least a dozen more plays, TV movies and musicals.

Another genetically defective descendant of Victoria was George VI. He inherited a bad stammer. His affliction was sympathetically portrayed recently on the screen in "The King's Speech".

So although consanguinity is bad for commoners, in royalty it has inspired a large number of excellent stage and screen works.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Or, forget the Pakistanis, bring up the Ashkenazim, show 'em you really mean business.

Except, ex-SO, the Ashkenazim are not nearly so inbred. Extensive inbreeding over the past few hundred years would show up as sharing a large number of relatively long segments of identical by descent DNA. Ashkenazim have an increase in small blocks of identical by descent DNA but do not show an increase in longer identical by descent segments. The Ashkenazi data is consistent with sharing a large number of ancestors but remote in time. The fact that the Levant, where their remote ancestors originated, was a strategic corridor from an early date and that Ashkenazim subsequently experienced a degree of admixture in Europe further mitigated the effects of strict endogamy over the last millennium.

Anonymous said...

"Cousin marriage was quite common amongst pretty much everyone until a) industrialization and modern transportation made it easier for a man to meet a woman from a more distant village or city, and introduced population densities where your nearby neighbors weren't all likely to be relatives; and b) scientists, prodded on by no less than Charles Darwin, began to understand the dangers of inbreeding." - The Church outlawed cousin marriage out to the 4th cousin something like 1500 years ago. They did it ostensibly to protect their own power, because the clanish nature of a society produced by such inbreeding means that there are other competitors to the church.

archivist said...

"Cousin marriage was quite common amongst pretty much everyone until a) industrialization and modern transportation made it easier for a man to meet a woman from a more distant village or city,

What about the Catholic Church and its prohibition of cousin marriage? How does that fit in? Did the ban apply only to first cousins, or wasn't it widely observed until modern technology made it practical?"

I have family records from the late 18th c., where a couple first cousins had to obtain a dispensation from the Catholic Church in order to marry legally and in the Church. I don't know how they decided that -- were there any insane people in the family? that sort of investigation...
The Catholic Church prohibited first cousin marriage and even discouraged more distant cousin marriage, but you could always get "dispensations." Various royal families married cousins over the generations, but in the case of the Spanish royal family, it was definitely cited as a reason for some severely handicapped monarchs.

Anonymous said...

No different than the religious argument, though: watch gay man vigorously defend Muslims and Muslim immigration, whilst bashing far more moderate religions like Baptists or Mormons.

Watch western white gay man of Christian heritage vigorously defend Muslims - of which he never had much contact. And such contact was with Muslims who never suspected he was gay, and otherwise acting on impeccable company behaviour. He never sees what goes on behind closed doors in Islam.

It makes no sense. It's not happening in the logic centers of their brains, if they have one

It makes perfect sense. Western gays are operating from their memory centres. It was not Muslims who abused them, beat them, spat on them, denied them housing, employment, promotion, etc. It was Baptists, Mormons, and other conservative Christians. Western gays are likely to see Muslims as their brothers in suffering against a common enemy. Or if not, a foil for native Christians. They rarely foresee that Christians and Muslims might gang up on gays in some distant future.

In future generations expect more sense from western gays re. Muslims, simply due to more contact.

Anonymous said...

And at least for Ashkenazi Jews I can find a writeup based on a PNAS article that shows the common intuition to be incorrect.

No it doesn't. Ashkenazi Jews are the product of mixing between Middle Easterners and Europeans over 1000 years ago. Since that time, they've inbred heavily and nothing in the paper you grab at challenges this fact.

Do you have any similar information that supports your contention?

"Our ability to detect a person’s distant cousins is also influenced by the ancestry of the individual. If you are Ashkenazi Jewish, you may have noticed that 23andMe’s Relative Finder feature shows you over a thousand cousins. This is because Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to each other than a random sample of European-Americans. Over the past several hundred years, a cultural tendency to choose marriage partners of the same ethnicity (also known as endogamy) means that Ashkenazi individuals are more likely to share the same ancestors. In fact, we estimate that any two randomly chosen individuals who identify as Ashkenazi are on average the genomic equivalent of 4th-5th cousins, because they share many recent common ancestors."

http://blog.23andme.com/news/announcements/how-many-relatives-do-you-have/

Svigor said...

Do you have any similar information that supports your contention?

I have logic. "Redneck" includes Scots-Irish, English, Scots, Irish, French, German, Austrian, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish, Italian, and many other European stocks (apologies to the many I left out; the half-Greek redneck I know, for example). I'm confident that makes rednecks a lot more genetically diverse than Jews, or Ashkenazi Jews.

Svigor said...

Then there's the fact that Jews, including Ashkenazi Jews, have been practicing endogamy much more strictly, and for a longer time, than Europeans. Even now, their "intermarriage" rate is much lower than for Euro-Americans.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 7/7/13, 12:56 PM -

In a typical inbteeding scenario, such as what "rednecks" are uncharitably accused of, the products of the inbreeding would share increased numbers of long identical by descent DNA segments. That phenomenon is not seen in Ashkenazi Jews. They share an increase in short segments, indicating recombination-related breakup of the ancestrally donated segments over a significant span of time. Moreover, the PNAS article referenced found that the average amount of identical by descent DNA shared among Ashkenazi Jews was not significantly greater than in most other populations sampled. The 23andMe cousin finder algorithm is picking up on those small identical by descent fragments, which are likely of Middle Eastern origin (given their age) and relatively distinctive in their database. Ashkenazi Jews are also over-represented among 23andMe clients.

W. Smith said...

Such a high proportion of Pakistanis in England (and I do mean England - whevener you hear of this or that immigration woe afflicting "Britain" or "the UK", you can count on England bearing 90% of the brunt of it and usually much closer to 100%) are seriously inbred that it is adding many million - probably billions - of pounds to our national healthcare and social security bills. These people never work (even the non-genetically ruined ones are workshy at best) but as long as they have functioning reproductive organs they may be relied upon to marry and procreate still further degraded offspring with a spouse imported from the old country.

The selection for cousinliness over attractiveness among Pakistani females (in fact I suspect that the Pakistani elders actively desire ugly daughters in order to repel the attentions of the indigenous males) probably helps drive the industrial scale rape and enslavement of vulnerable English girls by Pakistani men and other miscellaneous SW-Asian/African Others who drift into their ferociously racist and sexually depraved orbits in the wastelands that were formerly agreeable English towns and cities.

(I'm a peace-loving guy, but if further cases of mass Pakistani rape emerge - and they undoubtedly will - then I sincerely hope some community justice is meted out. Our young girls need to know that someone is prepared to take action to protect them, and the malevolent squatters who are implanted in our communities like some inbred bio-weapon need to be made to understand that this behaviour will not be tolerated. The commenter Rob was correct - the entire Pakistani community knew that this was happening, knew it for years, and was evidently very satisfied with it. A future recalibration of "inter-community relations" will need to take this fact into account.)

rob said...

Anonymous said...
Wasn't Darwin married to his cousin? European royalty inter-married a lot. Are they considered less intelligent than average? Of course they do have hemophilia and porphyria.


Hemophilia was not a result of inbreeding. Inbreeding leads to heterozygote depression, and Hemophilia is an X linked trait. Males only have one X chromosome, so are never heterozygotes.