The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Cousin Marriage: It's Bad
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s a new paper in Nature on inbreeding depression: it’s bad. Don’t marry your first cousin. (Here’s my 2003 article “Cousin Marriage Conundrum.”)

Associations of autozygosity with a broad range of human phenotypes
David W Clark, Yukinori Okada, […]James F Wilson
Nature Communications

Abstract
In many species, the offspring of related parents suffer reduced reproductive success, a phenomenon known as inbreeding depression. In humans, the importance of this effect has remained unclear, partly because reproduction between close relatives is both rare and frequently associated with confounding social factors. Here, using genomic inbreeding coefficients (FROH) for >1.4 million individuals,

A sample size of > 1.4 million …

James Lee et al’s 2018 GWAS on educational attainment was the first genetic study I can remember with a 7 digit sample size. Now it’s ho-hum, but it’s still staggering when you stop to think about it. What they are doing is stitching together a whole bunch of different studies on different topics. However, among general purpose databases, the UK BioBank has the genetics of 500,000 people, while BioBank Japan has another 200,000.

we show that Froh is significantly associated (p < 0.0005) with apparently deleterious changes in 32 out of 100 traits analysed. These changes are associated with runs of homozygosity (ROH), but not with common variant homozygosity, suggesting that genetic variants associated with inbreeding depression are predominantly rare.

This study confirms the old idea that everybody has a bunch of rare recessive deleterious mutations that aren’t too bad for you if you only inherit one from your parents, which is why they are still around: natural selection doesn’t rapidly weed out rare recessive bad genes precisely because they are rare and recessive. But if your parents are closely related and thus give you two of the same recessive bad genes, uh oh …

The effect on fertility is striking: FROH equivalent to the offspring of first cousins is associated with a 55% decrease [95% CI 44–66%] in the odds of having children.

There are lots of other bad effects as well, such as that inbred people tend to walk slower, have weaker grips, and so forth.

A 55% decrease in fertility is a big toll. Why didn’t West Asians and South Asians notice how bad cousin marriage was earlier?

One reason is because children used to die so often from infectious diseases that genetic defects were not as obvious. For example, Charles Darwin, the grandson of perhaps the most famous doctor in England, married his first cousin, a Wedgewood. His ten children tended to be intelligent but sickly. He tasked one of his sons to study the question of whether cousin marriage was bad, but his son reported: Don’t worry about it, dad.

I am under the impression that the ill effects of cousin marriage were proven by American eugenicists late in the 19th Century. But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin. See HBD Chick for the profound social implications of this.

As dying of cholera or whatever has waned, West and South Asians started to notice that cousin marriage leads to hereditary problems.

Another reason might be that cousin marriage wasn’t as common in the past. My impression is that cousin marriage in the Middle East has increased as public health has improved and childhood mortality has gone down. Say that in 1850, the average Middle Eastern marriage led to a replacement level two children surviving to reproduce. (My impression from Mark Twain’s visit to the Holy Land is that the population was fairly sparse and not growing rapidly).

That would mean that the median individual would have only two first cousins, and on average only one would be of the opposite sex. Many times individuals would have no cousins of the opposite sex, so no marriage could be arranged, and other times the age differences or whatever would work against a first cousin marriage being feasible.

Fast forward to, say, 1970 and the average number of children surviving to reproduce might now be four. So now the average individual might have twelve first cousins, six of the opposite sex. So a suitable cousin marriage is easier to arrange. My vague impression from consang.net is that cousin marriage in the Middle East has been in decline in this century. But it still seems to be going strong among Muslims in Europe, in part because it ties into immigration fraud nicely: force your Bradford-born daughter to marry your brother’s son back in Pakistan and provide him with a visa.

Finally, the effects of FROH are confirmed within full-sibling pairs, where the variation in FROH is independent of all environmental confounding.

Populations high on the vertical axis, such as Polynesians and Amish, are descended from small founding colonies in the past. The horizontal axis measures inbreeding in the present, with populations to the left of 0.00, such as the Amish, Hutterites, and the British going out of their way to avoid inbreeding. The diagonal line measures consanguinity, with UK Pakistanis being exceptionally inbred. The gray dot furthest up in the upper right is Born in Bradford Pakistani (UK born).

The good news is you can fix a lot of the genetic harms of cousin marriage in one generation by not marrying your cousin. On the other hand, perhaps it’s hard for these sickly inbred people to find spouses outside of arranged cousin marriages?

 
Hide 163 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Charon says:

    Cousins? Heck, our inner cities are full of people having sex with half-siblings. Because no one knows who they baby daddy is. The results are predictable but we’re not allowed to mention.

  2. @Charon

    Is there any genetic evidence that’s true?

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  3. Hodag says:

    I wonder if the Indian American population will benefit from this as well. The ones born here definitely absorb the anti- cousin marriage idea. And the sons and daughters of the doctors in Oak Brook are terribly bright. Look at the national spelling bee.

  4. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:

    Has anyone told Pinkerite about this? Steve’s 2003 article is a major node in her Steven Pinker conspiracy diagram.

    She did us the service of proving Steve Sailer wrong:

    https://www.mcclernan.com/2018/02/steve-sailer-in-best-american-science.html

    https://www.pinkerite.com/2018/11/steven-pinker-steve-sailer.html

    • Replies: @Pinkerite
    , @Pinkerite
  5. Stogumber says:

    Even if the Amish, the Hutterites or the Orthodox Jews do a lot to avoid first cousin marriages, they are rather inbred. Nevertheless, they produce even now lots of offspring.
    Perhaps there is a curve: Inbreeding in general may be quite advantageous (or at least harmless), but there’s a point from which the line slopes downwards because the disadvantages (in particular, infertility) prevail. But where exactly would be that point? Just before the first cousin?

    • Replies: @Pericles
  6. RobUK says:

    The level in Bradford-born Pakistanis is incredible. It isn’t as if Bradford is a city cut off from the rest of the UK by mountain ranges or wide rivers, or hundreds of miles of tundra. It is part of a huge conurbation in West Yorkshire.

    Is this some idiotic tribal culture brought over and localised to where this tribe settled? Haven’t they realised it isn’t a good idea, or are they too stupid to realise?

  7. MEH 0910 says:

    Steve, you need to fix the link for this:

  8. Aj7575 says:

    So marriage within your race is the Goldilocks range? Too interbred bad and not interbred enough also bad.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @black sea
    , @Anonymous
  9. I wonder if the Indian American population will benefit from this as well. The ones born here definitely absorb the anti- cousin marriage idea. And the sons and daughters of the doctors in Oak Brook are terribly bright. Look at the national spelling bee.

    Cousin marriage is practised by South Asian Muslims, especially Pakistanis, but it is rare within most South Asian Hindu castes, with a few Southern Indian lower castes permitting limited uncle-niece marriages. The spelling bee winners are predominantly upper caste Hindus, AFAIK.

  10. Art Deco says:

    Fertility has for a generation been tanking in the Arab world and points adjacent, and that should dramatically reduce the amount of parallel cousin marriage. If you look at the more populous countries, only Yemen and Afghanistan have a tfr as high as 4.0. Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Algeria have rates between 3.0 and 4.0. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Morocco have rates between 2.0 and 3.0.

  11. Another reason might be that cousin marriage wasn’t as common in the past. My impression is that cousin marriage in the Middle East has increased as public health has improved and childhood mortality has gone down. Say that in 1850, the average Middle Eastern marriage led to a replacement level two children surviving to reproduce. (My impression from Mark Twain’s visit to the Holy Land is that the population was fairly sparse and not growing rapidly).

    That would mean that the median individual would have only two first cousins, and on average only one would be of the opposite sex. Many times individuals would have no cousins of the opposite sex, so no marriage could be arranged, and other times the age differences or whatever would work against a first cousin marriage being feasible.

    I think that this is the more likely explanation. It is highly unlikely, even with the masking effects of infant mortality, that cousin marriage was commonplace for generations, without anybody noticing the very marked decrease in fertility and high incidence of childless cousin-couples. A 55% decrease in fertility is massive. Folk wisdom would have caught on within a few generations, especially given the abhorrence pre-industrial societies had for the condition of childlessness.

  12. Nodwink says:

    If you wander into a “diverse” neighbourhood, you’ll often see the offspring of these marriages, being towed along by some hijabi. Flattened skull at the front and rear, cross-eyed.

  13. I believe Ray Stevens struggled with this issue in his groundbreaking” I’m My Own Grandpa.”

  14. Anthony Mario Ludovici wrote several very unpopular books about human breeding. He argued that incest and inbreeding were fine as long as the bad outcomes were weeded out. He insisted that the longevity of the pharaonic dynasties in Egypt proved his point. I’m not advocating any of this, but in principle it seems that inbreeding has the potential of reinforcing the good genes as well as concentrating the bad.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    , @Alden
    , @anon
  15. Ian Smith says:

    Pakistan seems awful even by Muslim standards. Anyone have any theories why?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. Nona66 says:

    The inbreeding depression effect for IQ is around 3.1 standard deviations in this study (Fig. 3, panel a). This estimate is for the theoretical case of F_ROH=1. The expected F_ROH for children of first cousins is 0.0625, so people whose parents are first cousins are expected to have 0.0625*3.1*15 ≈ 2.9 points lower IQs.

    This effect could be confounded by less intelligent people being more likely to marry their cousins. They tested for causality by comparing F_ROH within sibling pairs (it varies somewhat between sibs as per Mendel’s laws) and the effect is similar, which would suggest the inbreeding effect is fully genetic, but the effect in siblings is much less precisely estimated and is consistent with some of the effect being due to selection.

  17. Anonymous[256] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, Britain’s NHS, welfare system and Labour Party all massively incentivise consaguinous marriages amongst Pakistanis with hefty ‘disability benefits’ and ‘carer’s allowances’ which in all likelihood are more financially beneficial than work.

    Also, Pakistanis have a long and ancient tradition of exploiting disabled children as beggars, and have even been accused of deliberately maiming children for use in beggary in order to garner higher alms income.

  18. Anonymous[256] • Disclaimer says:

    As in all these matters, of course, their is an evolutionary trade-off.
    The benefits of keeping temporal wealth and power – and thus reproduction potential – within the kin group, just be balanced against probability – still remote – of an individual being genetically ‘unfit’.
    As in all these cases, the group, kinship, interest triumphs.

  19. @Steve Sailer

    Is there any genetic evidence that’s true?

    A Gofundme for 23& Me kits for them? Anyone suggesting it would be Hitler, no?

    • LOL: byrresheim
  20. @Charon

    I doubt this happens very often. Even the loosest women usually have a pretty good idea of who the father is. Occasionally, it is between two different men, but unlikely to be more than that unless the woman is a prostitute or a junkie. In that case, the state will wind up taking the child anyway, and it won’t be raised around half-siblings. Even if the child is raised by grandma and really has no idea who his or her siblings are, the chances of going on to reproduce with a half-sibling are very slim. I’m sure it happens, but very rarely. It is far more common, but still rare, for low IQ people to have children with first cousins, even outside of the immigrant communities.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  21. Cousin marriage is part of the trifecta of No’s for a successful society:

    NO cousin marriage
    NO polygamy
    NO Islam

    I personally know a Lebanese Christian from one of those villages up in the hills. He says the local priests always told them they would not marry two people from the same village.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  22. songbird says:

    But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.

    Steve, I don’t think this is right. if I recall correctly, degrees of consanguinity mean you count up, across to a sibling, and then count down.

    In the old parish records that I’ve seen, the most distant relationship that was noted in dispensations was 3rd cousins. I don’t think peasants could be expected to remember more distant relationships.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @VoiceOf(T)reason
  23. @PiltdownMan

    Almost all spelling bee winners are South Indian Brahmins. South India has higher rates of cousin marriage than the North but is far more developed culturally and economically.

    Practices vary but in South India, it’s common for cousins whose parents are brother and sister to each other to marry and also for an uncle to marry his older sister’s daughter.

    • Replies: @east indian
  24. I don’t think cousin marriage is that bad. In the same way that it selects for maladaptive recessive genes, it can also select for beneficial adaptions that are specific to your common ancestor.

    Having kinship to your bride creates a common set of conditions and bonding that strengthens your mutual expectations of each other in matrimony which greatly reduces the risk to marrying as exemplified in consanguineous marriages having lower divorce rates.

    I’d find the slightly elevated risk that your child might be sick immensely preferable to the 50/50 crap shoot that you wind up a middle-aged divorcee spending 30% of your income on kids whom your wife is raising to despise you.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
  25. Anonymous[311] • Disclaimer says:

    I am under the impression that the ill effects of cousin marriage were proven by American eugenicists late in the 19th Century. But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.

    If cousin marriage is really so bad, how have the Jews been so successful?

  26. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:

    In this case, diversity is good. When you marry within your race/ethnic group you never know if you might be related. I’ve read about of some bizarre coincidences or genetic attraction.* If you’re related you’ll have genetic similarities which might make the chance of meeting and becoming attracted to a genetic relative somewhat higher. The only way to prevent this is find a mate from a different group. If you’re white (Irish/German/English type) marry a Greek, Southern Italian, or Asian person. Rule of thumb, marry someone with wholly different physical features.

    * https://www.standard.co.uk/news/shock-for-the-married-couple-who-discovered-they-are-twins-separated-at-birth-6682411.html

    * https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/may/17/weekend7.weekend2

  27. In-breeding is phenotypically bad for the current crop of in-bred progeny. But if practiced over many generations, it would also have the effect of weeding deleterious recessive genes out of the population due to the lower fertility of those who get two copies through in-breeding.

    Also, recessive genes can sometimes be beneficial when expressed. And these good recessive genes would get a big boost in population frequency from inbreeding.

    So in a strange way, inbreeding could be a sort of very costly long run eugenics program — suppressing bad recessive genes and promoting good ones.

    On the other hand, the deleterious effects of in-breeding could be so strong that it overwhelms the effect of normal natural selection in selecting for non-recessive genes.

    So could temporary or localized in-breeding, combined with periodic out-breeding, actually be good for the species? Sounds like a thesis for some grad student.

    • Agree: BB753
  28. Whiskey says: • Website

    Devils advocate. Cousin marriage is superior as it prevents mass third world immigration. Our system is inferior as we do not have enough clannish behavior to fight back.

    If every White was a cousin family pressure would expel immigrants.

    • Troll: Ian Smith
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  29. It is interesting to see different culture’s ideas of what is and what is not considered proper marriage material.

    One time I overheard some young ladies talk about how, in their culture, what was considered the best possible match was the “cross cousin”. I think cross cousins are cousins from siblings of the opposite sex. The child of the sister marries the child of the brother. This decreases the number of cousin marriages, since cross cousin marriage only works if there are a brother and sister with siblings of the opposite sex.

    Native American cultures usually discourage marriage within a clan. Indians generally inherit their mother’s clan, so that means you can’t marry anyone in your mother’s very extended family, but you could marry within your father’s extended family. Men usually went to their wive’s village, so marrying outside the clan almost always meant marrying outside the village. Good for mixing up the gene pool. I am not sure, but I think the Dine (Navajo) keep track of both their parents’ clans.

    Many East Asians (esp. the “fancy Asians”) are from patrileneal families. They discourage marrying someone of the same surname. So two Wongs is not right.

    I noticed that Chinese are far more likely to live in small towns than Koreans. A lot of that is because if a small town has no Chinese restaurant, a Chinese family can move in and start a restaurant. Also, the marriage prospects are interesting. At least when I was dating, the Chinese families were far less violently opposed to their kids marrying non-Chinese than the Korean families. On top of that, over half of Koreans have one of three surnames: Kim, Park and Lee. A Kim may not marry another Kim. Also, many Koreans are Buddhist or Taoist, while many others are Christian. So, if a Chinese family is in a small town, and their kid is dating a white kid, that is OK. The Korean family wants their kid to only date other Koreans of the same religion but a different surname. So Koreans in the US tend to live in places with a lot of other Koreans.

  30. Anonymous[391] • Disclaimer says:

    Being the offspring of close relatives had no impact on that Shickelgruber kid.

  31. Mike1 says:
    @PiltdownMan

    While true the Hindus are still breeding within a very small circle. You don’t just breed within your caste, you breed within your sub-caste of which there are tens of thousands.

    • Replies: @east indian
  32. With hindsight we know the inbreeding of the Hapsburgs, Romanavs, et al was a horrible idea. Does anybody know the first time a biologist or biologist-adjacent scientist floated the idea that they might be doing themselves in with this bloodline preoccupation? Obviously it was not obvious to them in 1500.

    How soon after 6 November 1661 did people realize that this was going to get ugly?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

    • Replies: @gcochran
  33. I have to wonder how much cousin marriage in strict Muslim societies (i.e., those which assiduously police the baring of female skin and chaperone women and girls outside of the home) is a function of cousins of a peer age having greater unrestricted access to one another than outsiders. There seems to be a significant notion that girls are spoiled if a boy lays a hand on them (willing or no) so cousin marriage may be a win/win solution to a “kissing cousins” problem. On the other hand, my suspicion is that sexual abuse within families is sky high in those societies, so perhaps not – unless unloading a girl “spoiled” by an already married male cousin on the latter’s younger brother to preserve family honor and family secrets is part of the whole system.

    I recall a BBC piece about congenital defects in the “Asian” population of Britain due to cousin marriage, and there was an interview of practitioners who rationalized/justified it on grounds of familiarity and high family support for the new spouses.

    I’ve also theorized that the high prevalence of latent homosexual behavior in those societies may be a function of the relative dearth of visual displays of the female form during the boys’ sexual awakening. In other words, if everyone but your mother and female relatives is wearing garb designed to camouflage the female form and cover any possible part of the female body capable of perception as erotic, but boys and men are relatively much more freely shown, you may fixate on boys and men as your erotic outlets. It’s sort of like a Sapir-Whorf theory for development of the nascent libido where the utter absence of the natural object of sexual attention sublimates the desire to the available object(s). I don’t know what else would explain the phenomenon observed by U.S. Servicemen during the “GWOT” of being propositioned by local men, and being told “women are for children, man are for pleasure” by the locals engaged in homosexual behaviors.

    • Replies: @Anon
  34. So, I’ve actually thought about cousin marriage and its effects before in regards to the elite in passing. I’m a sickly inbred. My beloved is also a sickly inbred. We have family shrubs, not family trees, *but* they’re different shrubs because they come from entirely different parts of the world. Ergo, different genetic diseases. Because of how small of a population “society” is, relative to its host, and because you can’t mate downwards without severe social stigma, the UMC+ will always trend towards becoming more and more related over time. In a pre-industrial society, it is also breeding at a very high rate. But in industrial societies, it has the lowest fertility, below replacement, which means it is constantly shrinking below population viability and needs infusions of “New Money” to stay alive. But once you cream your original host population for IQ, where do you get more people?

    Well, in other countries, there are people that have similar culture to yours because they’ve conveniently evolved to fill the same niches. So imperialism allows you to acquire more elite populations to sustain your own, which is being gene shredded. So there’s a sort of biological incentive for elites to want to build empires.

    America, being the global empire, has the unique advantage of being able to brain drain the entire world. So it might absorb historical elites from the entire planet, gene shred it all, then implode, leaving all of Earth dumber.

    I apologize if this thought isn’t well formed.

  35. So if a couple gets married in Pakistan and moves to the United Kingdom, and then gets a divorce, are they still siblings?

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  36. @Paleo Liberal

    At least when I was dating, the Chinese families were far less violently opposed to their kids marrying non-Chinese than the Korean families.

    Fwiw, Korean women in the USA have the highest rate of intermarriage among Asian women. I think that has been so for the last 40 years.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  37. My impression is that you haven’t done any research on this topic, Faux Steve.

  38. nebulafox says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    The interesting thing I’ve noticed is that East Asians care a lot more about who their son dates than their daughter, and that South Asians care a lot more about who their daughter dates than their son.

    (The Chinese guys in Africa who are marrying the local women often dare not bring them back to China to face their parents. Granted, Africans are a bit beyond the pale for both cultures no matter who is marrying who, but even with white women, I’ve seen pressure on Chinese guys to marry someone who, if not Chinese, can at least look Chinese. For Indians, it is the other way around: the pressure is on the girl to find a nice desi guy, whereas the guy can-within reason, aka, whites or East Asians for the most part-get sanction to date interracially.)

    • Replies: @Sammy Coulton
    , @Emilia
  39. My first love in college 40 years ago married her first cousin. Her daughter just had a baby.

    My anecdotal evidence.

  40. I am under the impression that the ill effects of cousin marriage were proven by American eugenicists late in the 19th Century. But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.

    These two have been at each other’s throats for ages, so it’s ironic the eugenics movement finally got the Church’s opposition to first-cousin marriage enacted into law somewhere. Namely, in about half the states in the US. According to the map on Wikipedia, it’s legal everywhere else in the world.

    But one reason it’s not prohibited in Europe is that no one was doing it anyway. They were listening to the Church. A determined couple could get a dispensation, eg, Tony Bennett’s parents. But that was rare enough that the state had no reason to get involved. Heck, Spain didn’t even have civil marriage until well into the 19th century.

    Incidentally, those state laws apply to same-sex unions, which is totally wacky. How long before the inevitable court case throwing that out?

    The horizontal axis measures inbreeding in the present, with populations to the left of 0.00, such as the Amish, Hutterites, and the British going out of their way to avoid inbreeding.

    Even those weren’t enough for the Amish, whose communities were so small and tight they still suffered from inbreeding. (I once saw a young Mennonite woman knitting while waiting at a depot of some kind; her middle and ring fingers were fused on both hands.) In the last 50 or so years, doctors have encouraged their marrying into more distant communities, where everybody isn’t their third cousin six times over. That’s why you see them waiting at depots now. Visits home.

    But if your parents are closely related and thus give you two of the same recessive bad genes, uh oh …

    If both parents are free of such genes, consanguine marriage would continue the purity, wouldn’t it? Isn’t that what happened with generation after generation of sibling marriage in the Egyptian royal family?

    However, recessive genes aren’t the only risk coming from inbreeding, just as lung cancer isn’t the only problem stemming from smoking. There is a general weakening going on regardless.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  41. @nebulafox

    What you’re saying about Desis is outdated. Most Desi women under 25 never experienced such “pressure”.

  42. Lot says:

    Thanks for keeping us up to date. Agree with your analysis.

    “ My impression from Mark Twain’s visit to the Holy Land is that the population was fairly sparse and not growing rapidly”

    The Ottoman Empire taxed it to death and drafted the men to die in its endless wars.

    In 1919, the population of modern Israel and Jordan combine was 700,000. That was far less than in Roman times.

    A few factors led to subsequent rapid population growth:
    1. Loss of Turkish authority as UK, France and Russia meddled in the area.
    2. Massive immigration from the violent border areas of the Ottoman Empire, plus poorer Egypt.
    3. Jewish migration itself increased population and also brought improved agricultural, medicine, and sanitation.
    4. When the Jewish population started to really grow, the Ottomans encouraged Muslim migration further.

    So you see really astounding population increases between the various censuses from the late 1800s to 1949.

  43. @PiltdownMan

    South Indians, of most varieties, including the high castes, were big into cousin marriage; they were permitted to marry their cross cousins but not the first cousins; and, as you have rightly said, a very limited number of uncle – niece marriages. Now it has fallen down dramatically, especially in the last thirty years. But before that they were interbreeding for centuries, without much visible damages to the society. They built good empires and societies, and were good in mathematics too. There must be some reason for this. But then according to the South Indian system, there was no distinction between own siblings and first and even second cousins, so, many cases of cross cousin marriages could be between second cousins.

  44. @imper-v-ious

    You are right; and even South Indian Brahmins used to have cross cousin marriages till about thirty years ago.

  45. @Mike1

    But sub castes will run into hundreds of thousand people easily.

    • Replies: @Mike1
  46. utu says:

    If marrying cousins is bad, marrying siblings would be worse and marrying yourself (self-cloning) should be the worst. But cloning is not the worst. Cloning means preservation of existing traits and not making them better or worse.

    But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.

    But was the Catholic church concerned with the quality of offsprings? No, it was the homogenization project to break up the local ethnic and tribal bonds and allegiances to make them more pliable for universal values and authority of the Catholic church. So, what next we may expect from Clark, Okada and Wilson? That inter-ethnic breeding between couples with largest genetic distance is the best and will produce a super (non)race with the least of deleterious traits? Something along Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi? Though while Coudenhove-Kalergi promoted European-African mixing to create new Egyptian race in Europe he also believed that the master class or race consisting of old aristocracy (like himself) and the Jews should be left intact because after all somebody has to be in charge.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Anonymous
  47. @Joe Blow

    Druse are also very inbred. They marry cousins and don’t marry outside the Druse community. But there are more Druse than Samaritans, which may be why the Druse haven’t had the serious issues.

  48. @kaganovitch

    Maybe my problem was dating Korean girls from rich Seoul families instead of Korean-American girls from Flushing. The rich daddies in Seoul could tell their daughters to stop dating a white guy and they listened, not wanting to upset the money supply. The working class Koreans in Flushing probably didn’t have that kind of leverage.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    , @Reg Cæsar
  49. Cortes says:

    What’s the incidence of “double” first cousins? My parents met at their older siblings’ wedding. My guess is that such matchups can’t be that uncommon. So until earlier this year I had 3 double first cousins (one died).

    The effects of gene concentration could be greater than anticipated, I believe. In our case it was 2 brides for two brothers but if there were onward transmission of different surnames the potential for innocent inbreeding would remain in certain places after a couple of generations.

  50. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Even those weren’t enough for the Amish, whose communities were so small and tight they still suffered from inbreeding. (I once saw a young Mennonite woman knitting while waiting at a depot of some kind; her middle and ring fingers were fused on both hands.) In the last 50 or so years, doctors have encouraged their marrying into more distant communities, where everybody isn’t their third cousin six times over. That’s why you see them waiting at depots now. Visits home.

    It’s very sad that they have to resort to that, especially since they don’t use technology to keep in touch.

  51. But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.

    Are you sure you don’t mean “fifth degree of consanguinity”? Your first cousins (descendants of a common grandparent) are in the fourth degree of consanguinity with respect to you; your first cousins once removed (children of one’s first cousins) are in the fifth degree; and your second cousins (descendants of a common great-grandparent) are in the sixth degree.

    One’s fifth cousin is a descendant of a common ancestor five generations ago – a great-great-great-great-grandparent. Avoiding such a match would have been almost impossible in many smaller communities in the past.

    • Agree: Paleo Liberal
    • Replies: @ken
    , @Jack D
  52. If all of this is true, should we not see dramatic declines in birth rates through out the MENA and South Asian regions in the coming years? Add to the mix the preference in South Asia for male offspring and the resulting gender imbalance, and birth rate ought to drop even further. It will be interesting if these regions have the lowest birthrates in the world in 2040.

  53. JimDandy says:
    @Anonymous

    Well, when you think about it, they have been successful, and, at the same time, they really haven’t.

  54. Concerning inbreeding, little is known. To quantify what is known, is hocus-pocus.

    Not even in dogs, take the famous(Bagdadi and Bin Ladin, in a short while Assange) Malinois, and in a much better controlled environment, …little is known. Genetic drift on top of that, as to general health, character, cognitive capacity, looks, …little is known.

    Science at it´s best, producing papers.

  55. JimDandy says:

    So, I’ve heard some startling numbers, like half of all Muslim babies born in England have first-cousin parents. And it’s higher than that in Pakistan? Do these studies actually exist? What are the actual numbers?

  56. Alfa158 says:
    @RobUK

    The people being brought in are pretty dim, but the people promoting the colonization of Western countries aren’t stupid.
    They know what they are doing.
    They know what the outcome of this colonization will be.
    This outcome is what they want.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  57. ken says:
    @Joe Blow

    Continuous is the key word. A single instance of first cousin marriage doesn’t automatically produce inferior children. On the other hand I don’t even talk to my first cousins.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    . But the Catholic church had long before come down against marriage with up to your fifth cousin.”

    Which, as per usual, just means rich guys had to pony up money for indulgences (cousin OK this time) and annulments (What, my cousin? If only I had known!)

    The Church also forebode divorce but just rebranded it as annulment if you had the dough. The church bans abortive too; just ask Joe Biden.

    The church also “came down” on homos, which is why there are none among the clergy to this day.

    Thank god for the church ‘s wise moral guidance.

    • Replies: @BB753
    , @ken
  59. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Yes, see John M Bradley’s Behind the Veil of Vice. Homosexuality is expected and tolerated until the expected and perhaps arranged marriage. Most all actual “traditional” societies are thus. Women are controlled and boys need an outlet. Only Catholics are naive enough to think their little angels will save themselves for marriage or some other nonsense.

  60. “There are lots of other bad effects as well, such as that inbred people tend to walk slower, have weaker grips, and so forth.”

    Zach Goldberg has just posted a study of grip strength.

    Men of course have stronger grip strength than women. But Icelandic babes have stronger grip strength than Indians!!

    (Dunno which Indians they sampled. The Punjabis I’ve known have been big macho dudes.)

  61. Pinkerite says: • Website
    @Anon

    Damn right I proved him wrong. His claim that there’s an inverse connection between democracy and consanguinity is wrong, based on the data.

    Here’s my question – why do you all get your science info from a marketing guy whose entire career is funded by the racist right? Oh right, most of Steve Sailer’s fans are racists.

    https://www.pinkerite.com/search?q=sailer

  62. Pinkerite says: • Website
    @Anon

    That’s right I proved Sailer wrong – his claim in the 2003 article was that consanguinity prevented democracy in Iraq – I provided examples of countries with a higher consanguinity rate that were democracies.

    Why do you all get your science information from a marketing guy?

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  63. A 55% decrease in fertility is a big toll. Why didn’t West Asians and South Asians notice how bad cousin marriage was earlier?

    Because they were inbred!

  64. Lot says:
    @utu

    “ marrying yourself (self-cloning)”

    Cloning is making an exact copy and does not involve inbreeding. The problems with cloned higher animals are not related to inbreeding depression.

    Now if a human hermaphrodite created a baby from
    its own sperm and egg, that would indeed be far worse than cousin marriage.

    I am not sure if it would be twice as bad or 50% worse than full sibling breeding in # of rare recessive double copies, I’d have to think through the math a bit.

    • Replies: @utu
  65. @Tono Bungay

    How did that turn out for Cleopatra?

  66. Lot says:
    @songbird

    That does make more sense and I think you are right.

    And that method correctly reflects that a second cousin is more distantly related than someone and their second cousin’s blood parent (you are more closely related to your parent’s first cousins than you are to their children, who are your second cousins.)

    WRT dispensations, how many royals in history are not married to at least 5th cousins?

    I also recall most election seasons reading articles like “Obama and McCain are 4th cousins once removed.”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  67. Jack D says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    From the wiki:

    The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church have a long history of marital prohibitions,[citation needed] called impediments to marriage, which limit the marriage of two closely related relatives. Initially, canon law followed Roman civil law until the early 9th century, when the Western Church increased the number of prohibited degrees from four to seven.[3] The method of calculation was also changed to simply count the number of generations back to the common ancestor.[4] This meant that marriage to anyone up to and including a sixth cousin was prohibited. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 decreed a change from seven prohibited degrees back to four (but retaining the same method of calculating; counting back to the common ancestor).[5]

    I agree that prohibiting marriage of 6th cousins is impossible in a small community but that’s what the church said. They must have realized that it was impractical because I gather than canon law now allows marriage of even 2nd cousins.

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
  68. What, no Dueling Banjos reference?!

  69. Alden says:
    @Tono Bungay

    Doesn’t seem to have hurt theRothschilds.

  70. utu says:
    @Lot

    “Cloning is making an exact copy and does not involve inbreeding.” – No, cloning is the most extreme inbreeding. You can’t inbreed more than cloning. The reason I brought it up is why less extreme inbreedings like sibling marriage (1st order) is worse than 1st cousins marriage (2nd order) which is worse than 2nd cousin marriage (3rd order) while the 0 order marriage (cloning) is better than the 1st order (siblings) marriage. So we have a strange non-monotonical sequence: (0 order) (2n order)>(3d order). Anyway, Go Clone Yourself.

    • Replies: @Lot
  71. Mike1 says:
    @east indian

    They can be this big but they can also be far smaller. It’s not a marrying your cousin situation: just a large chance of a common ancestor.

    The US equivalent would be the Mormons. There are millions of them but the original population was small (and in their case recent). Medical professionals in Mormon areas politely call them “homogeneous” and this does apply to sub castes.

  72. notsaying says:

    Here’s a wonderful article from the Daily Mail that puts a human face on cousin marriage in the UK. I would urge you to read the whole thing, it’s free.

    The effects are terrible when this is common, yet there are still many people who continue to practice it:

    Shockingly, cousin marriages are a key factor in an average of two child deaths every week.

    Thousands more children of consanguineous marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems. These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders.

    According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

    They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

    In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative.

    Meanwhile, … in Birmingham in 2009-2010, the combined infant stillbirth and death rate ‘definitely or probably’ due to genetic disorders inherited from Pakistani cousin parents was 38 times higher than that among white European babies in the city.

    … ‘Almost a third of the affected children die before five years of age.

    Most of the survivors suffer chronic disability, and they are cared for by their families, posing tremendous emotional and financial strain.’

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5927581/The-tragic-truth-cousin-marriages.html

  73. notsaying says:

    More about the terrible effects of cousin marriages from the BBC article:

    There are some people speaking the truth but the “World Health Organisation insists that attempts to stop consanguineous marriage are ‘undesirable and inappropriate’” and various town councils still support it too. There doesn’t seem to be a mass organized effort to just outlaw cousin marriage, which seems incredible to me.

    Maybe the increasing numbers of disabled children will push the UK to do something: “In Yorkshire and Humber (embracing Bradford, Kirklees, Leeds, Sheffield, and Rotherham) doctors are having to deal with 600 cases a year — a number they expect to rise to 2,400 a year by 2031.

    This is bad and hard to read:

    ‘A terrible burden is put on the cousin parents who have, often unwittingly, given birth to a baby with a lifetime of tricky health problems. Their own relationship suffers.

    ‘They often put the baby in the corner of the room, try to ignore it, and struggle to get on with their lives because there is nothing else they can do.

    ‘They often go on to have more disabled children by playing Russian roulette with genetics.’

    These people need to be rescued from themselves. How can the World Health Organization and others in positions of authority not demand that cousin marriages be outlawed?

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
  74. @Jack D

    I believe Wikipedia is wrong about how the degrees of consanguinity are calculated. I have done a fair amount of genealogy – some of it in the medieval period – and find plenty of marriages of fifth cousins (properly so called). I believe that the degrees of consanguinity permitted without a dispensation have pretty much always been as they are now.

    The Table of Kindred and Affinity in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer has its antecedents in pre-Reformation Catholic canon law as it stood prior to the English Reformation, just as it liturgically reflects the pre-Reformation Catholic rite of Sarum. If a wholesale loosening of the pre-Reformation standards on the forbidden degrees of consanguinity was the intent or effect of the English Reformation, that would (I think) have been remarked at some point by historians, and it has not been.

    We must remember that Henry VIII made his case for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon on the basis of consanguinity (she had been his elder brother’s wife) – and his argument was rejected, because the Church had already given its dispensation for the marriage. It would not have been in Henry’s interest to liberalize the rules regarding consanguinity, when he had based his case for annulment on their strict interpretation.

  75. Anonymous[311] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfa158

    The people being brought in are pretty dim, but the people promoting the colonization of Western countries aren’t stupid.
    They know what they are doing.
    They know what the outcome of this colonization will be.
    This outcome is what they want.

    What will the outcome be? What is motivating them to want it?

    • Replies: @BB753
  76. 50% of muslim marriages are to first cousins.

    What could go wrong?

  77. johnm33 says:
    @RobUK

    Marrying cousins drops the IQ by about 15 points, women starting having kids young does the same, they do both, so yes they are too stupid to realise.

  78. @Lot

    WRT dispensations, how many royals in history are not married to at least 5th cousins?

    Note that monarchy survives in the Protestant lands primarily, where consanguinity rules are less strict, and even though that strain is inherently more republican. Rome, and presumably Constantinople, prefers royalty, but their congregants by and large don’t.

    The modern European tendency is that you can have a king or a pope, but not both. This is very likely no coincidence.

    • Replies: @Cortes
  79. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    But cloning is not the worst. Cloning means preservation of existing traits and not making them better or worse.

    I believe evolutionary biologists argue that you are in a sense making those existing traits worse because the rest of the environment is not static and is constantly evolving. A deer that’s cloned is getting “worse” if, say, faster wolves are evolving. This is the Red Queen hypothesis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_Hypothesis

    The Red Queen hypothesis (also referred to as Red Queen’s, the Red Queen effect, Red Queen’s race, Red Queen dynamics) is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in a constantly changing environment, as well as to gain reproductive advantage.

    The hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species,[1] and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.[2]

    • Replies: @utu
  80. Cortes says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Trend-setting Spanish monarch married a “commoner”:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_VI_of_Spain

    Guaranteed support from CNN at least.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Anonymous
  81. @Paleo Liberal

    The working class Koreans in Flushing probably didn’t have that kind of leverage.

    Plus, Queens happens to be the most diverse county of the 3,100+ in the US. Toronto-on-Long Island.
    If Kim Kim dates a white guy, well, it could be worse. A whole lot worse.

    Die Welt tells us,

    Das ist der unterschätzte Stadtteil von New York
    Hier liegt Guatemala gleich neben dem Pandschab, Polen grenzt quasi an Westafrika, und mitten in Klein-Griechenland serviert man böhmische Knödel. Nur Queens ist der wahre Melting Pot.

    https://www.welt.de/reise/Fern/article150249436/Das-ist-der-unterschaetzte-Stadtteil-von-New-York.html

  82. Tipsy says:

    Consanguinity is only one of the poisoned fruits of polygamy, but it’s a big one. The graph above dove-tails nicely with the one in the link below.

  83. @Lot

    ‘…So you see really astounding population increases between the various censuses from the late 1800s to 1949.’

    You’re confusing Zionist propaganda with fact, Lot. Joan Peters is not a source.

    • Replies: @Lot
  84. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    Interesting but invoking the Red Queen hypothesis amounts to moving the goalposts as the grasping at straws in a last-ditch effort.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  85. Pheasant says:
    @RobUK

    They are from a particular part of Pakistan that is like the Pakistani equivalent of mississippi: its a north west province where the people are particularly backward.

    Add to the fact they do not want outmarriage among English and other immigrants and you have a recipie for disaster.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  86. Pheasant says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Just what precisely do you have against Mormons anyway?

  87. BB753 says:
    @Anonymous

    In a nutshell:

    Outcome: chaos
    Motivation : totalitarian state

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  88. Pheasant says:
    @Anonymous

    They expelled the retards from thier gene pool.

    I went to a Catholic school with officially no Jews (plenty of cryptos though) and the most severly disabled kid was one with cerebal palsey whose first name was Aaron. I saw his parents one day by chance and now looling back at it years later I realise they pawned off thier own special needs child on the Catholic school (where I am from Jews have thier own exclusive schools the main one of which was about 15 mins drive away). Nice if you can get away with it- make other groups of people pay for your genetic mistakes.

    Haredim in Israel and elsewhere are famous for dumping brain damaged and genetically disordered children on charities. It is actually becoming something of an epidemic in Israel.They even tell the mother not to look at the baby’s face even once as it will haunt her for the rest of her life so strong is the maternal instinct.

    When you think about it it is just another example of the Jewish strategy of socialising costs and privatising profit.

    Sinister people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Pericles
  89. @Pinkerite

    Really? Wow, Brian Ferguson is your go to guy on refuting evolution? The guy who thinks human researchers are the reason that chimpanzees go to war with neighboring troops. Iraq has a lower rate of inbreeding than Nigeria and Nigeria is a democracy, that’s your counterargument? Nigeria was ruled by a collection of military juntas for over thirty years, that sounds just a wee bit less democratic than say, I don’t know, Britain or the Netherlands. However in the article I believe Steve cited a higher rate than you mentioned anyway, something between 45-55 percent. The rates in both Iraq and Nigeria are very high compared to most countries in the world.

  90. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @RobUK

    The level in Bradford-born Pakistanis is incredible. It isn’t as if Bradford is a city cut off from the rest of the UK by mountain ranges or wide rivers, or hundreds of miles of tundra. It is part of a huge conurbation in West Yorkshire.

    Is this some idiotic tribal culture brought over and localised to where this tribe settled? Haven’t they realised it isn’t a good idea, or are they too stupid to realise?

    That.

  91. Emilia says:
    @nebulafox

    By “within reason,” do you mean Blacks or Hispanics would be verboten?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  92. Steve-O says:

    Wouldn’t a population at replacement level mean everyone had four first cousins (their dad’s sister’s two kids and their mom’s brother’s two kids)?

  93. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tono Bungay

    The overall health of the parents might be a factor in the success or otherwise of consanguinity.
    The Davidic Dynasty lasted c. 400 years.
    Maybe it’s just not such a good idea for half starved yokels from the hill tribes of Pakistan.

  94. Lot says:
    @Cortes

    She might be a commoner, but she’s hot in a classy way, and from the most noble part of Spain, Asturias, which either was never conquered by the Muslims, or was conquered for the shortest time and first to throw off the Mohammadian yoke, depending on how you look at it.

  95. Lot says:
    @Colin Wright

    Was Mark Twain in on the Ziospiracy too?

    There are population estimates reported in original pre-1949 publications, all derived from Ottoman sources.

    They tell the same story as the Zionists, and Twain, of a depopulated region in the 19th Century that experienced rapid Muslim migration afterward.

    Does it really matter though if the 1949 Muslim population of Israel was 10% or 50% migrants from other regions and their descendants? Is that going to change anyone’s mind on the issue? I am interested in the truth and calling it as I see it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Anonymous
  96. @Charon

    I always suspected that the ghetto sobriquet of choice “Motherf*cker” was more than just an insult.

  97. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emilia

    White Hispanics fine, even light mestizos might be okay, but indios and substantially indio mestizos probably not. Blacks would be m streng verboten probably. That would include pardos or zambos or mulattoes I would suspect. Mariah Carey might get a Billy Martin because of her thick phat…..bank account.

  98. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pheasant

    When you think about it it is just another example of the Jewish strategy of socialising costs and privatising profit.

    Sinister people.

    All capitalists and money oriented people do that. That’s the number one strategy for having more money than the other guy. Jews are maybe more successful at it, along with Chinese.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  99. Lot says:
    @utu

    “ No, cloning is the most extreme inbreeding. ”

    There is zero inbreeding depression in clones because the clone has no more pairs of rare recessive genes than the mother.

    Mating between siblings produces more such pairs, cloning doesn’t.

    With plants this is the difference between propagation from a cutting and a seed from self-pollination.

  100. @william munny

    Even the loosest women usually have a pretty good idea of who the father is.

    That wouldn’t be enough. She’d need to know who all her boyfriends’ girlfriends are.

    Or more exactly, a couple considering having sex would need to know one anothers’ parents’ entire history of sexual partners. Which would be implausible even if their courtships weren’t so short, and their IQs so low.

    • Replies: @Nico
  101. @Lot

    ‘… I am interested in the truth and calling it as I see it.’

    Sure, Lot. That’s you.

  102. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Why do you say that? It’s an argument for how cloning would be worse. Also, note that in your hypothetical, you’re talking about cloning an individual who is descended from generations of non-clones.

  103. anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:

    On the other hand, perhaps it’s hard for these sickly inbred people to find spouses outside of arranged cousin marriages?

    Sickly inbred people? Lol!

    The idea of consanguineous marriages probably has to do with the hope that close family support will help sustain the marriage better, and the good effect it will have on the children. I am sure it is not always true, but hopefully better than other cultures, especially the west.

    So, given the prevalence of infidelity, and broken families in the west, that too by couples who ostensibly started their non-consanguineous marriages with “compatibility” and “love,” the question is whether their cultural system is any better?

  104. MEH 0910 says:
    @Pinkerite

    Oh right, most of Steve Sailer’s fans are racists.

    Nancy G. McClernan, your boyfriend wears blackface:

    Scott Adams Retweeted:

    • LOL: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  105. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pheasant

    Mormons are not Muslims, they’re Masons.

    As in Freemasons. Not freemartins.

    Although Martins aren’t free.What’s a D-45 going for now?

    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Anonymous
  106. A “sample size” in 7-digits or more strikes me as approaching a population.

  107. @MEH 0910

    Kashana didn’t quite capture the crazy-eyes, though.

  108. Amirite says:
    @Pinkerite

    I went through your blog and found no definitive proof of anything; only lengthy, unstructured posts containing endless appeals to authority. I doubt you even understand much about science.

    I’m sure you do understand how democracy works, though: none of your posts are open to comments.

  109. Pericles says:
    @Stogumber

    I seem to recall an article discussed here that made the case for third cousins being optimal. Perhaps someone else can remember the link.

  110. Pericles says:
    @Pheasant

    They are from a particular part of Pakistan that is like the Pakistani equivalent of mississippi: its a north west province where the people are particularly backward.

    On the other hand, I’ve never met, or even seen on TV, a pakistani I would consider smart. So don’t expect too much. Some of them were well dressed though.

  111. Pericles says:
    @Pheasant

    How nice of them, but then again not entirely unexpected.

    I did read somewhere that, likewise, adopting a Chinese baby in recent years has meant taking on one with various severe problems, genetic, developmental, medical, etc.

    (My own view on adoption is this: Get your own kids while you’re young enough. Don’t adopt outside your race. Just don’t. And 100% globally ban homo adoption on pain of gravity wins.)

  112. Nico says:
    @International Jew

    In practice, in the First World men can father only so many children before paternity courts catch up to them. This likely holds true even in inner cities, where additionally men are statistically very likely to spend at least a significant part of their virile years incarcerated. All in all the black TFR in the U.S. remarkably considering that demographic’s well-known libido hovers around 1.8 to 1.9: indeed, one really fantasizes (at least I do) how blessedly low it would sink if we removed the institutional incentives for dad-milking and bastardy.

  113. TTSSYF says:
    @imper-v-ious

    It’s not a “slightly elevated” risk when it has gone on for centuries, as it has in the Islamic world, where it is sanctioned. Along with causing increased incidents of otherwise rare genetic disorders, it also intensifies fanaticism and tribalism. I have anecdotal evidence of all of these negative attributes when I became acquainted with a family from Syria and several of their friends from other parts of the Middle East.

  114. TTSSYF says:
    @Whiskey

    We also wouldn’t have a cohesive country. It would be the Hatfields and the McCoys writ large.

  115. TTSSYF says:
    @notsaying

    Or, as I witnessed, they rack up huge hospital bills (granted, of necessity) and never pay them.

  116. @anonymous

    Given that the peoples who currently practice cousin marriage haven’t made the news lately for any positive achievement, your argument is ridiculous.
    The Middle East situation speaks for itself, and the Pakistani community in Bradford is only sustainable due to the British welfare system.

    As for infidelity, the vast majority of children born in most cultures, including the West, know who their father is. Infidelity, “open marriages”, cuckolding etc aren’t as prevalent as HBO and other major media companies want you to believe. And even in your degenerate West, only a tiny fraction of men are either willing or weak of character to accept infidelity of any kind.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  117. First two asides. 1) I thought the prevalence of cousin marriage was greater in Europe’s past (and virtually anywhere) since most people tended to marry someone living within a few miles of where they lived. It just could not be any other way. 2) If the Roman Catholics’ were so much against it, how did the royal families get so inbred?

    Maybe I missed this in the article, but the occasional 1st cousin marriage is no big deal unless there is some obvious existing genetic disorder. And even that is likely the result of earlier marriages making the current cousin marriage not so “occasional”.

    My in-laws are first cousins, their fathers’ are full brothers. They were an incredibly happy couple. Something to aspire to. (In spite of nasty and ignorant attitudes of some family and “friends”.) The limit to my wife’s and my number of children is totally because we stopped at the number we wanted. My sister-in-law was limited to one child by marrying men who did not want children. Nothing to do with her fertility. Our children have the maximum number of children they wanted due to personal decisions. So much for lack of fertility. And as a matter of fact, my wife’s parents have more grandchildren and great-grandchildren than the total belonging to their five siblings combined. And the current prospects for the next generation is none for the siblings.

    As to disease. We are told MS is not genetic. The curious thing is, my mother-in-law has a niece or nephew, one from each of her siblings, who have MS. My wife and sister, both almost 70 have no hint if this. Maybe a double dose of one set of their great-grandparents helped my wife and her sister? Eh?

  118. @anonymous

    It seems to me a system of arranged marriages between families that know each other but are not consanguinous would meet most of your (quite valid) criticisms of the present system in the West.

  119. @Pheasant

    Polygamy is so bad even the Mormons dropped it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  120. “and other times the age differences or whatever would work against a first cousin marriage being feasible.”

    No. Child marriage is endemic in these populations, even the ones in western countries. Age is no barrier to incest with these people.

  121. Anonymous[397] • Disclaimer says:
    @ken

    On the other hand I don’t even talk to my first cousins.

    Why not? What is the relevance of this fact?

  122. @songbird

    Steve, I don’t think this is right. if I recall correctly, degrees of consanguinity mean you count up, across to a sibling, and then count down.

    That’s probably what he meant.

    Actual 5th cousins only share one common set of 4th great-grandparents (of which you have 32) and have less than 0.05% of their precise DNA in common (above basal levels). By comparison, siblings and parents share 50% of their DNA with you and first cousins share 12.5%.

    Not only would it be ridiculous to ban marriages between 5th cousins, and serve no useful purpose, but it would be all but impossible, 400 years ago or even today.

  123. Anonymous[397] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    In a nutshell:

    Outcome: chaos
    Motivation : totalitarian state

    That raises another question: why do they want a totalitarian state?

    • Replies: @BB753
  124. black sea says:
    @Aj7575

    I think Edward Dutton argues that marriage with someone at the level of eighth-cousin kinship is the ideal between not too familiar and not too exotic.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  125. BB753 says:
    @Anon

    In those days, only royalty was conceded annulment. Even to this day, even rich people can’t get annulment easily.
    As for cousin marriage, the Church didnt have to enforce the ban because it became an ingrained taboo among ordinary people. Boffing your first cousin was incest.

    • Agree: Alden
  126. ken says:
    @Anon

    Shocking news! People sin.

  127. @imper-v-ious

    You make a good point, but the trust and related benefits you’re seeking, can be accomplished by marriage of, say, third cousins.

    First-cousin marriage increases the prevalence and severity of negative genetic conditions beyond a reasonable assessment of the benefit, and it just isn’t necessary to go to that extreme. It also should strike people as disgusting to have sexual intercourse with someone that closely related to your own parents and siblings. Our peoples wisely gave up and prohibited the practice, and neither the UK or any of the formerly western countries should allow it for their invader-settlers either.

    If genetic testing reveals that someone has conceived a child with a first cousin, a half-sibling, an uncle/aunt or niece/nephew, the entire family should be deported if either of the parents is a noncitizen … or denaturalized and then deported if a naturalized citizen. Perhaps a long prison term for the father before his deportation.

    • Disagree: John Henry
    • Replies: @John Henry
  128. @Anonymous

    Good question. For one thing, then-Semitic Jewish men intermarried very, very widely with italianate women over several centuries.

    See Jon Entine column about genetic testing of ashkenazim Jews, Genetic Literacy Project. The ashkenazi “Jews” had a maternal line that was on average eighty percent Italian, meaning they are typically ranged somewhere around forty percent Italian overall. The paternal lines were, as expected, just as heavily Semitic (I.e. like Arabs and Sephardic Jews).

    Elsewhere, many Jews married Germanic and Slavic peoples in more recent centuries, though apparently not nearly to the extent that they had earlier married Italians. Seems like Jews picked up more surnames and vocabulary from the Germanic and Slavic host peoples, than they did from the Italians, by far, but the genes not so much.

    Ultra-Orthodox and Hasidim are a different story, and for them inbreeding appears to be a bigger genetic and social problem, both in Israel and their other biggest concentration, the USA. Even many other Jews (some of our acquaintance) find those folks to be generally odd, nasty, untrustworthy, and yes, too often suffering the effects of prolonged inbreeding.

  129. @black sea

    Interesting. Couldn’t one be an eighth cousin with someone who is largely of a different race?

    For example, I’m white and the two popular genetic tests show me to be nearly 100% European, while my wife is Asian and tests 95% nonEuropean. Yet recent test updates state that we are both (probably) a tiny part English/Irish.

    Also, I’m very Italian and my wife has a tiny part Italian.

    We could well have a common ancestor way back. Meaning a couple-few centuries, not millennia.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  130. Pheasant says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s a joke among the hdb-sphere.

    Joseph Smith’s similarities to Muhammad,polygamy, breeding inside the group etc

  131. @Lot

    The territories of the late Ottoman Empire were mediaeval in culture. The arrival of modernity brought about a large natural increase in population, in addition to any changes caused by migration.

    This effect was not confined to Palestine. The population of Iraq – including historic Mesopotamia – was a mere 3 million at the time of the British Mandate in the 1920s. By the time of the second Gulf War in 2003, it had increased eightfold to 24 million.

  132. Anonymous[397] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    There are population estimates reported in original pre-1949 publications, all derived from Ottoman sources.

    They tell the same story as the Zionists, and Twain, of a depopulated region in the 19th Century that experienced rapid Muslim migration afterward.

    Actually, no. The Ottoman sources show that Jews were a teeny fraction of the population of the area (<10%), and most of those in Jerusalem. The area was overwhelmingly Muslim.

    • Replies: @Lot
  133. Anonymous[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Polygamy is so bad even the Mormons dropped it.

    Polygyny is so good that rivals to Mormons forced Mormons to drop it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  134. Anonymous[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @Setting things right

    Given that the peoples who currently practice cousin marriage haven’t made the news lately for any positive achievement, your argument is ridiculous.

    Jews have some of the highest IQ scores of any group and also have won a lot of Nobel Prizes.

  135. Pheasant says:
    @Anonymous

    Wow thank you so much I have never heard that defence of the Jews before.

    /Sarcasm filter off.

    Pretending that everybody who has wealth freeloads off of the commons is plain nonsense. It might have been true of your ancestors in eastern Europe and among the Chinese Diaspora but it is not the case in the western world as our societies would not function if everybody did that.

    At least the Chinese mind thier own business and do not put out some piss poor apologetics like your people do.

    It says a lot that you think every person has gotten rich by ripping other people off by e.g not paying taxes etc.

    Like I said sinister people.

  136. Lot says:
    @Anonymous

    “ The Ottoman sources show that Jews were a teeny fraction of the population of the area (<10%), and most of those in Jerusalem.”

    Agree, and I didn’t say otherwise. In fact it was much much less than 10%.

    The 1919 700,000 people census recorded 12,000 Jews, 1.7% of the population. Now if you only include the area the 1919 Zionists reasonably thought they’d get, specifically part of Jerusalem and the northern 1/3 of 1949 Israel, maybe they were 8%.

  137. Muggles says:

    A couple of random thoughts on all of this:

    Where I grew up in central Montana there were several Hutterite colonies, small villages of farmers who lived fairly collectively. The longstanding rumor (among local high school males) was that they would periodically “recruit” college football players and other suitable young men for stud service in those places. I have no idea if any of that was ever true and never saw anything in print about it. However being good stock breeders they must have known about in-breeding. They are known to have group parties of young unmarried people from non local colonies which presumably provide some safe genetic stock. Young people for the most part don’t romantically link (for long anyway) with people they have grown up with and lived closely with. Even non relatives. You know too much about them for one thing. Not usually sexually appealing.

    The second thought is this: while “cousin” marrying is dangerous, there is the fact of adultery and fathering children which are part of someone else’s family. This is fairly widespread and while socially and religiously condemned (and punished) does diversify the “family stock.” Also, in Western societies until recently, a lot of informal adoptions of especially male children were done. Orphans often. sometimes from siblings who children were orphaned. Or even just friends. Family trees from 150 years back are full of non genetic related siblings. In more primitive societies now, you still have this practice. So not every “cousin” is a genetic relative. Or even sibling. That might tend to somewhat balance out the inbreeding. Esp in places like India/Pak/ME/Africa.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  138. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Polygyny is so good that rivals to Mormons forced Mormons to drop it.

    It’s not worth a shit to any decent society. It makes bulls out of the alpha few and steers out of the rest.

  139. @Muggles

    I saw a Mormon movie about a 1950s Mormon missionary in the South Pacific and a middle-aged Islander woman offers asks him to give her daughter a half-white baby. So maybe Polynesians view outbreeding as a good thing due to their small founder populations on different islands?

    • Replies: @Cortes
    , @BB753
    , @Foreign Expert
  140. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Although Martins aren’t free.What’s a D-45 going for now?

    https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/D45Y8–martin-d-45-natural

    $8,999

  141. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    Born in Bradford?

    Wuzzat?

  142. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Aj7575

    So marriage within your race is the Goldilocks range? Too interbred bad and not interbred enough also bad.

    Pretty much.

    It’s just common sense. No one needs aboriginal or congoid genetics in the modern world.

  143. Cortes says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Probably.

    The whole Greek idea of

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

    was imagined (by Robert Graves, I believe) as a way to ensure that island elites could benefit from the presence of the captains of ships. Perhaps in Graves’s book on Hercules?

    Elsewhere, maybe nonsense, but lurking is the notion that Hebridean islanders would kidnap visiting males to improve the gene pool.

  144. nymom says:

    Western medical technology has provided the increased life span for these countries…

    I think the world might be better off if we would have just left other people/countries alone and left them to their natural birth and death cycles.

  145. @Paleo Liberal

    On top of that, over half of Koreans have one of three surnames: Kim, Park and Lee. A Kim may not marry another Kim.

    This isn’t true. Korea has a clan system as well; a given Kim may be a Gimhae Kim, a Gyeongju Kim, etc. etc. and there are thousands of subgroups within those clans. The old ban was on marrying within the clan, not within the same surname.

    Of course, now they’re Westernized, so expect first-cousin, state-sanctioned anal marriage any day now.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  146. @RadicalCenter

    I have a feeling that a lot of “pure” Asians really aren’t.

    I’ve known a few Chinese men with hazel eyes. One came from a place in Taiwan where Chinese drove our Dutch colonists in the 1600s. The others were from a family originally from Tai Shan (Toisan), which has been a seaport with a lot of European and American trade for centuries.

  147. BB753 says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I heard a similar story from an old Dutchman years ago. He told me tribal chiefs in Indonesia would offer foreigners to impregnate women of the clan. So he did.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  148. @RadicalCenter

    BS. You conflate habitual cousin marriage with occasional cousin marriage. The latter is no problem except to ignorant bigots. See my remarks.

  149. @imper-v-ious

    Please see my remarks. Besides, I like telling of our grandchildren they are their own 4th-Cousins as well as being 1st Cousins and brothers and sisters.

  150. @Steve Sailer

    Not sure, but I think in Palau young women would be expected to go to other villages and engage in a kind of religious prostitution and then return if/when they got pregnant.

  151. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753

    I’m told that many young Dominicanas try to get pregnant by suitable white men so as to have a lighter and more-likely-to-succeed child. no experience, no interest in Dominicanas. I’m told that ball players are much in demand for this , ahem, service.

    My father was there in the sixties and said that had he been interested he could have had a different one every night. Also said that while he made no effort to look, you could not help but notice a lot of Dominican men were equine in the pants department.

    There was an article in a liberal magazine years ago called “In Search of the Big Bamboo” about female sex tourism to those places where the local men are said to be bejingled, but if it’s on line now it’s behind a paywall.

    • Replies: @BB753
  152. BB753 says:
    @Anonymous

    In Hispanic countries, there are many poor women who get pregnant single and in their late teens. Regardless of the loose morals involved, it’s also a survival mechanism for them because in countries basically without a social security or retirement pensions, children look after their sick or aging mothers and relatives. So, if they can’t find a husband as soon as possible, they’ll take the shortest route to maternity: bastardy, as it used to be called.
    Also, unlike US underclass women who tend to mate with lowlife thugs, they look for upper-class whitish donors or even foreign tourists for involuntary insemination. “The whiter the better” is still ingrained in Latin America.

  153. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cortes

    What’s the point of monarchy is the ruling family is just the same as everybody else? You may as well go republican in that case.

  154. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ian Smith

    Inbreeding. In other muslim cultures, it’s simply tolerated. In Pakistan, it’s encouraged.

  155. @Pinkerite

    Oh right, most of Steve Sailer’s fans are [so-called] “racists.”

    Why do you harbor such virulent, unreasoning hatred toward the autochthonous peoples of Europe and their diaspora?

    Educate yourself.

    Let go of your hatred.

    Learn to be more tolerant. Try to express what passes for your “thoughts” without the constant use of anti-white slurs.

    Thanks.

  156. @Unladen Swallow

    So you prefer your science opinions from a marketing guy than an actual well-respected anthropologist. How… interesting. And of course you misrepresented what he said about chimps. But he has a new book coming out on chimps, I’m sure you’ll be reading it.

    The issue isn’t whether or not Nigeria is a better democracy than another country. The issue is whether consanguinity has an inverse relationship to democracy. The answer, based on the data, is “no.”

    And that’s not even the only problem with Sailer’s argument. He also believes in the Natural History of Ashkenazi hypothesis which holds that consanguinity made the Ashkenazi hyper-intelligent.

    When Jews do it, it makes them smart. When Ashkenazi do it, it makes them less capable of democracy. How does that work, exactly?

    Ferguson points out the problems with the Ashkenazi claim:

    https://www.pinkerite.com/2019/09/the-brian-ferguson-interview.html

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  157. @Are Pinker fans graphophobes

    Appeal to authority is not an argument, and Ferguson is hardly a well regarded anthropologist in any case. Nigeria was ruled by a collection of juntas for the last third of the previous century, that wouldn’t strike anyone sane as particularly democratic, nor would the ethnic cleansing, numerous insurgencies, massive corruption, and regular electoral fraud either.

    I don’t think these problems exist in Belgium, Canada, or Switzerland, all of them multi ethnic democracies. Steve was talking correlation in any event, there are few things in social science are true one hundred percent of the time, by that standard nothing in the social sciences would be true, which seems to be standard you want to hold Steve to.

    Getting back to Ferguson, no journal would publish his article despite his political ideology being far more more inline with academia’s than the paper he was attacking. He self published it on his own website, it didn’t even pass peer review. Regarding chimps I saw an article quoting him in the mainstream media arguing that they were induced into fighting by humans, that’s pretty unambiguous.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS