The darkest hour is just before dawn. A huge swath of this planet, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Philippine Sea, has been held in a synthetic, forced nightfall for nearly fourteen centuries. But the sunrise is coming, it is coming sooner rather than later, and this light will be the life of men.

Everywhere in the western world, people look at the savage violence that is a daily occurrence in the Muslim world and shake their heads in stunned disbelief. A pastor of a very small Christian flock in Florida burns a Koran. Weeks later at literally the global antipode, Muslim imams drive through neighborhoods in a vehicle with loudspeakers attached, calling the townsfolk to riot. The townsfolk respond, and before it is all over, at least 22 innocent people are dead at the hands of these townsfolk, with at least two of them beheaded. How is this possible? How can this be? How can human behavior and culture be so monstrously different? Is this difference attributable to nothing more than environmental nurture theory?

No. There is something else. There is a catalyst -- absent in every other culture on earth -- that has poisoned the cultural soil, thus yielding the fruit of bad harvest for nearly 1,400 years. That catalyst is inbreeding. As a direct result, the Muslim population is mentally developmentally disabled on a mass scale.

All human cultures display strict prohibitions against inbreeding and consanguineous marriage. Incest is a universal taboo. This is a transcendent anthropological fact. As a Roman Catholic, I attribute this to what is called "The Natural Law." Every human person without exception is created by God with a deep, innate knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Stabbing someone in the neck for no reason whatsoever is just as wrong here in Lone Tree, Colorado as it is in the Amazon basin, as it is on the high plateaus of Mongolia.

But there is one culture, one faux "religion," that expressly condones and encourages consanguineous marriage and breeding. That system is Islam, and the document that explicitly ratifies incest is the Koran, specifically Sura 4 verse 23:

Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage -- if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time -- but do not break up existing marriages.

Sounds like an exhaustive list -- but it is not. It is the most lax incest prohibition in all of human culture. There is a massive omission: cousins only once removed. In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one. Mohammed himself married Zaynab, who was his father's sister's daughter. Mohammed and Zaynab were direct first cousins.

Marrying your first cousin is the genetic equivalent of marrying your half-sibling. Think of your own family. Let's say your dad has a sister, who is "Aunt Linda" to you. Your dad and Aunt Linda, being full siblings, have exactly the same genetic constitution. Their family trees prior to their generation are identical. Therefore, if Aunt Linda has any children, who are your first cousins, they are, in genetic terms, 50% identical to you. You share one of your two genetic constituencies with your cousins, thus making them genetically the same as a half-sibling would be.

First cousin marriage for just one generation is extremely risky in and of itself. This is why virtually every other culture on earth prohibits it, and treats it as a cultural taboo. When two people come together who carry so many similar genetic alleles, the chance of an undesirable recessive trait expressing itself in their offspring soars. Now, understanding that single-generational risk, understand that Muslims have been marrying their first cousins over and over again for 1,400 years. Sit in stillness for a moment with the full, terrifying gravity of this.

The Reproductive Health Journal[1] reports the following rates on consanguinity in Arab countries.

Muslim men are never, ever allowed to be around, see, converse with or otherwise interact with any females outside of their families. However, they are permitted to act as chaperones for their female first cousins. If your first cousin is the only person of the opposite sex you ever get to interact with, is it any surprise that Muslims are marrying their first cousins more as the rule than as the exception?

According to the BBC,[2] 55% of Pakistani-Britons are married to a first cousin, and as a corollary to that produce "just under a third" of all children in the UK with genetic illnesses, despite being only 3% of the total births.

As a direct result of inbreeding, the Muslim population is the only population on earth that is mentally and physically devolving. This inherent weakness makes Muslim populations more susceptible to nefarious, oppressive leadership and mass manipulation. The amount of objective evidence supporting this statement is colossal and obvious.

But there is hope. All is not lost. In my education in animal husbandry, I was keenly interested in my genetics classes. One of the key concepts in farm animal genetics is "hybrid vigor." This is the genetic principle which states that the crossbreeding of two genetically diverse plants or animals of the same species yields offspring of increased vigor and other superior qualities. All plants and animals have been designed to "bring out the best in themselves," and our DNA has built-in fail-safes to edit and correct any flaws which creep into our DNA over time. Given this, if the people now living under the fist of Islam are finally freed and can court and love and marry whomever they choose, thus reopening the genetic pool, this will allow hybrid vigor to cleanse and restore to full health their populations.

". . . et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt."

Footnotes

[1] http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/17/table/T1

[2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

This comment by a reader, FeralCat, corrected a mistatement in the text: "Your dad and Aunt Linda, being full siblings, have exactly the same genetic constitution. Their family trees prior to their generation are identical." Sidebar: The second statement is correct but the first one is not. In order for siblings to "have exactly the same genetic constitution [presumably meaning DNA]" they would have to be identical twins (that is what identical twins are - the same genetic "constitution"[DNA]), otherwise their "genetic constitutions" are only 50% (+/-50%) the same. For example, the parents (same parents) of "dad" and "aunt Linda" could each have one gene for blue eyes and one gene for brown eyes (brown's dominate so both parents would have brown eyes), but "dad" could get a gene for blue eyes from each of their parents and "aunt Linda" could get a gene for brown eyes from each of their parents. Same would go for blood type, etc, etc. If a woman (or any female) had two eggs that were fertilized (by the same man/male) and one of the eggs divided and one did not, she would be carrying triplets, all three babies would have the very same family tree, but only the two babies from the same fertilized egg would have exactly the same genetic "constitution" (DNA). The two babies from the same fertilized egg, for just a couple of so many examples, might both have blue eyes and O type blood, but the other baby, for just a couple of so many examples, might have brown eyes and AB type blood. My sister and brother and I all have the very same family tree, but we most assuredly do not have the "exactly the same genetic constitution". In fact, all three of us, at various times, have stated that the other two must have been somehow switched at the hospital! The above was only meant to "set the record straight" with regard to genetics and does not alter your main point about Muslim 'inbreeding' which I believe to be most valid, especially when done generation after generation after generation ... ... ... which would add immensely to the likely inbreeding consequences. Perhaps if you changed "same genetic constitution" to something like "same genetic well".

Posted by: GeorgiaBoy61 on Apr 14, 01:06 AM Drew, re: "According to the BBC, 55% of Pakistani-Britons are married to a first cousin, and as a corollary to that produce 'just under a third' of all children in the UK with genetic illnesses, despite being only 3% of the total births." Bruce Bawer recounts in his seminal book "While Europe Slept," that not only do Muslim emigres marry cousins or close tribal kin, they practice what is nicknamed "fetching marriage" in many European nations. That is, they do not marry Muslims already in that nation (Holland, Norway, etc.), they explicitly choose to marry someone in the home country who is then imported. "Fetching" is done for both Islamic men and women. Once in their new homes, they are remarkably fecund, and often go on welfare within hours of landing. The take-home message is that Muslims inter-marry to preserve tribal culture and traditional ties - which sounds unthreatening - but it means that they have no intention of assimilating into their new cultures. Serfer62, re: "The main area of this problem is Arabia not Islam." Wahhabi Islam, which causes so much of the world's trouble with the so-called "religion of peace," originated in Saudi Arabia. You are correct on that score. But is the Uzbekistani variety of Islam really so different as you seem to believe? Perhaps, perhaps not... time will certainly tell.

Posted by: Blooddraken Apr 16, 03:17 AM I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Not about the Muslims, but the genetics of incest. Unless they're identical twins, siblings only share half their genetics. 1st Cousins only a quarter. Other than that, I have no issue with your article.

Ann Barnhardt added this comment: Thanks to one and all for the great comments so far. A few points: 1. As any good teacher knows, the best way to introduce a concept is first in its simplest terms, hence my very simple, intuitive, layman's explanation of the genetic relationship between first cousins. Had I begun with an uber-technical, graduate school level explanation of recessive allele expression probabilities, I would have lost a lot, if not most, of the readers. Now that the topic has been broached, I hope that professional geneticists and anthropologists will expand and inform the world on this extremely serious situation without fear of being called "racist" or "islamophobic". 2. Remember, we are NOT talking about one generation of first cousin breeding. This has been going on for 1400 years. The compounding effect magnifies the genetic distortion. The mental image I have is of dough being kneaded. With every generational stroke, the dough is turned back in on itself — over and over again. 3. For the sake of brevity, I did not mention the phenomenon of double-cousins and double-cousin marriages, which are common in Islamic cultures. If two brothers marry two sisters, their respective children will be "double cousins". When those double cousins then marry each other, which is not at all uncommon, the compounding effect is massive. If you click on the embedded citation from the Reproductive Health Journal, you will see that the left-most dataset on the table includes statistics for double cousin marriages, which are annotated as ">1C", which reads "greater than first cousins". 4. The primordial, root problem is indeed the Islamic totalitarian political system itself. Inbreeding is merely a byproduct and partial explanation of the Islamic cultural and intellectual milieu. As Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

Posted by: SGM Apr 16, 11:08 PM I take exception to one of Ms.Barnhardt's premises: that we should attempt to alleviate the problem created by this inbreeding by welcoming opportunities to dilute the bad blood by intermarriage with normal people. That would imply letting them into our society. Do you want your daughter to help in this campaign to fix their bad gene pool? I can answer for myself - NO. I agree more with the commenter who thinks we should isolate these people and let them do whatever it is they do. We should withhold assistance from them, we should quit trying to foist off good government on them, we should respect their desire to finish themselves off and hope they step up the pace. If we aren't over there trying to meddle and "fix" the mess it won't bother us. Just don't let them in the Western countries. We really have no right to help them. They are adults, even if they are mentally off. We have no standing to try to re-breed them into some sort of normal culture. It is not possible. After 1,400 years, you'd think we would learn this. They should not be allowed to immigrate here or study here or visit here and we should stay out of their countries. I question whether we should even maintain diplomatic missions there. What's the point?

 

Ann Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant, American patriot, traditional Catholic, and unwitting counter-revolutionary blogger. She can be reached through her business at www.barnhardt.biz.

This article appeared April 13, 2011 in the American Thinker and is archived at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_keystone_of_the_islamic_mi.html. Thanks are due Gabrielle Goldwater for sending us this article.

 

_________________________End of Story___________________________

HOME

Featured Stories

Subscribe

Quotes

Background Information

News On The Web

Archive