10 February, 2008

“Ave Sharia!”

Posted by Socrates in Luke O'Farrell, Socrates at 2:57 pm | Permanent Link

by Luke O’Farrell: [Here].

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/14/06 The Latest from Luke O’Farrell 100% similar
  3. 11/05/07 “Brain of Terror” 100% similar
  4. 01/28/08 “Sharks in the Dark” 100% similar
  5. 02/24/08 “Shoah and the Wail” 100% similar
  6. 03/06/08 “God as Gould” 100% similar
  7. 7 Responses to ““Ave Sharia!””

    1. Celtic Warrior Says:

      Maybe White Christians will now see clearly that no one, no ‘elected ‘ politician, no bishop or church leader, is going to help them. The mask is off. These figures whom they used to hold in high esteem are traitors for all to see.

      There is only one solution: join us and become White Nationalists.

    2. Ceallachain Says:

      Zounds! Look at the humanoids in those mug shots. Why are they in “civilized” Western countries again?????

      Divershitty is our strength, mu’fugga!!!

    3. honkey tonk man Says:

      All self hating white,jew loving religous leaders are military tarkets for white freedom fighters. Even the current Pope is a jew cock-sucker.
      …so here we have it,..every white christian nation is being invader with the help of white tRaitors and JEWS.
      How many white counties are therein the world?
      …Every very western white nation including Austrailia and New Zealand have the same agenda,the same type of media message,the same white hating education system,the same type of self-hating white politicians,the same JEWS,the same religous cunts preaching diversity and tolerance, …..is this just by chance that all these countries governments are pushing genocidal policies against there own white populations?
      White resistance fighters are justified at this very moment to kill those who kill us.
      ….We don’t need to wait any longer!Fuck them! We are the law!….We are the new law and white freedom fighters will be judge and jury. We will have our own justice system because trying to work within the current JEW system has brought whites ZERO respect.
      ….You get respect by scarring the fuck out of your enemies. By making them feel real pain each time they fuck with whitey.
      You must be a savage ruthless intelligent killer, willing to go to anything to win and that means killing and torture.
      … It all of a sudden totuure videos satrted showing up on youtube showing important JEWS and white politicians having their head slowly cut off or having them slowly cut to pieces using a chain saw or some other extremly brutal way of killing these mother fucking cunts then and only then will you get their attention and start to get some serious respect. …..
      …These traitors need to fear for their life every minute of the day. White warriors must show these cocksuckers that we can get to them and anybody else on our list.

      “You fight terror with even greater terror”(Adolf Hitler)

      …Look if they puch us in the face…we tear out an eyeball…they spit on us we puch strait for the throat and you hit that throat until the fucker is dead. This is how you win. You must be fucking carzy ..!!…crazy with big balls and brains.
      We whites have got to be more ruthless and cold-hearted then we have ever been!



    4. ED! Says:

      OK, lets look at a site I know most of us have been on http://www.thebirdman.org This site gets as many as one million hits a day, that is huge! There are many of us out there! The members of the jew/jesus/jahovah cult are the rich liberials fucking us to death! It/they are poisen to the White Race! I was born and raised as a christian and a liberial! These ideals have not served me in any way, shape, or form! To the contrary these ideals out of the orient have ruined the country I was born in! Liberalism is about war, loss of freedom, loss of money, loss of land, loss of life, loss of every thing that makes us happy. The rich upper class is the problem, they, the elite, are behind the ZOG! They are behind the corrupt courts of law! They are behind the police! They tax and fine us! They are behind the rape of the White Working Class! They brought the niggers and other mud races to America, and all other White Nations! It is the rich who have driven our wages into the dirt! It is the rich who have opened America’s border and let in the spics for cheap labor! The monied elites never have the mud race shit living in their posh neighborhoods, yet they mix them into our working class living areas! We suffer the crime as a result, and not the rich!

      Honkey tonk man has it right, if we want to survive as a White Race then we must fight to win! We must fight! When the flag goes up we must respond with force!

      I reject the god of the jew!



      Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin

      Heck, marry her if you want to

      By Richard Conniff

      DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 08 | August 2003

      In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.

      In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein.

      In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier savagery—or worse. “You can’t marry your first cousin,” a character declares in the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. “You get babies with nine heads.”

      So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.

      But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.

      Can you marry a cousin?

      Laws governing the marriage of first cousins vary widely. In 24 states (pink), such marriages are illegal. In 19 states (green), first cousins are permitted to wed. Seven states (peach) allow first-cousin marriage but with conditions. Maine, for instance, requires genetic counseling; some states say yes only if one partner is sterile. North Carolina prohibits marriage only for double first cousins. Got that?

      Map by Matt Zang

      Source: cousincouples.com and Cuddle International.

      The idea that inbreeding might sometimes be beneficial is clearly contrarian. So it’s important to acknowledge first that inbreeding can sometimes also go horribly wrong—and in ways that, at first glance, make our stereotypes about cousin marriage seem completely correct.

      In the Yorkshire city of Bradford, in England, for instance, a majority of the large Pakistani community can trace their origins to the village of Mirpur in Kashmir, which was inundated by a new dam in the 1960s. Cousin marriages have been customary in Kashmir for generations, and more than 85 percent of Bradford’s Pakistanis marry their cousins. Local doctors are seeing sharp spikes in the number of children with serious genetic disabilities, and each case is its own poignant tragedy. One couple was recently raising two apparently healthy children. Then, when they were 5 and 7, both were diagnosed with neural degenerative disease in the same week. The children are now slowly dying. Neural degenerative diseases are eight times more common in Bradford than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

      The great hazard of inbreeding is that it can result in the unmasking of deleterious recessives, to use the clinical language of geneticists. Each of us carries an unknown number of genes—an individual typically has between five and seven—capable of killing our children or grandchildren. These so-called lethal recessives are associated with diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia.

      Most lethal genes never get expressed unless we inherit the recessive form of the gene from both our mother and father. But when both parents come from the same gene pool, their children are more likely to inherit two recessives.

      So how do scientists reconcile the experience in Bradford with the relatively moderate level of risk reported in the Journal of Genetic Counseling? How did Rothschilds or Darwins manage to marry their cousins with apparent impunity? Above all, how could any such marriages ever possibly be beneficial?

      The traditional view of human inbreeding was that we did it, in essence, because we could not get the car on Saturday night. Until the past century, families tended to remain in the same area for generations, and men typically went courting no more than about five miles from home—the distance they could walk out and back on their day off from work. As a result, according to Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, it’s likely that 80 percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer.

      Factors other than mere proximity can make inbreeding attractive. Pierre-Samuel du Pont, founder of an American dynasty that believed in inbreeding, hinted at these factors when he told his family: “The marriages that I should prefer for our colony would be between the cousins. In that way we should be sure of honesty of soul and purity of blood.” He got his wish, with seven cousin marriages in the family during the 19th century. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the banking family, likewise arranged his affairs so that cousin marriages among his descendants were inevitable. His will barred female descendants from any direct inheritance. Without an inheritance, female Rothschilds had few possible marriage partners of the same religion and suitable economic and social stature—except other Rothschilds. Rothschild brides bound the family together. Four of Mayer’s granddaughters married grandsons, and one married her uncle. These were hardly people whose mate choice was limited by the distance they could walk on their day off.

      Some families have traditionally chosen inbreeding as the best strategy for success because it offers at least three highly practical benefits. First, such marriages make it likelier that a shared set of cultural values will pass down intact to the children.

      Second, cousin marriages make it more likely that spouses will be compatible, particularly in an alien environment. Such marriages may be even more attractive for Pakistanis in Bradford, England, than back home in Kashmir. Intermarriage decreases the divorce rate and enhances the independence of wives, who retain the support of familiar friends and relatives. Among the 19th-century du Ponts, for instance, women had an equal vote with men in family meetings.

      Finally, marrying cousins minimizes the need to break up family wealth from one generation to the next. The rich have frequently chosen inbreeding as a means to keep estates intact and consolidate power.

      Moderate inbreeding may also produce biological benefits. Contrary to lore, cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts.

      Consider, for example, the marriage of Albert and Bettina Rothschild. Their children were descended from a genetic pool of just 24 people (beginning with family founders Mayer Amschel and Gutle Rothschild), and more than three-fifths of them were born Rothschilds. In a family that had not inbred, the same children would have 38 ancestors. Because of inbreeding, they were directly descended no fewer than six times each from Mayer and Gutle Rothschild. If our subconscious Darwinian agenda is to get as much of our genome as possible into future generations, then inbreeding clearly provided a genetic benefit for Mayer and Gutle.

      And for their descendants? How could the remarkably untroubled reproductive experience of intermarried Rothschilds differ so strikingly from that of intermarried families in Bradford?

      The consequences of inbreeding are unpredictable and depend largely on what biologists call the founder effect: If the founding couple pass on a large number of lethal recessives, as appears to have happened in Bradford, these recessives will spread and double up through intermarriage. If, however, Mayer and Gutle Rothschild handed down a comparatively healthy genome, their descendants could safely intermarry for generations—at least until small deleterious effects inevitably began to pile up and produce inbreeding depression, a long-term decline in the well-being of a family or a species.

      A founding couple can also pass on advantageous genes. Among animal populations, generations of inbreeding frequently lead to the development of coadapted gene complexes, suites of genetic traits that tend to be inherited together. These traits may confer special adaptations to a local environment, like resistance to disease.

      The evidence for such benefits in humans is slim, perhaps in part because any genetic advantages conferred by inbreeding may be too small or too gradual to detect. Alan Bittles, a professor of human biology at Edith Cowan University in Australia, points out that there’s a dearth of data on the subject of genetic disadvantages too. Not until some rare disorder crops up in a place like Bradford do doctors even notice intermarriage.

      Something disturbingly eugenic about the idea of better-families-through-inbreeding also causes researchers to look away. Oxford historian Niall Ferguson, author of The House of Rothschild, speculates that that there may have been “a Rothschild ‘gene for financial acumen,’ which intermarriage somehow helped to perpetuate. Perhaps it was that which made the Rothschilds truly exceptional.” But he quickly dismisses this as “unlikely.”

      At the same time, humans are perfectly comfortable with the idea that inbreeding can produce genetic benefits for domesticated animals. When we want a dog with the points to take Best in Show at Madison Square Garden, we often get it by taking individuals displaying the desired traits and “breeding them back” with their close kin.

      Researchers have observed that animals in the wild may also attain genetic benefits from inbreeding. Ten mouse colonies may set up housekeeping in a field but remain separate. The dominant male in each colony typically inbreeds with his kin. His genes rapidly spread through the colony—the founder effect again—and each colony thus becomes a little different from the others, with double recessives proliferating for both good and ill effects. When the weather changes or some deadly virus blows through, one colony may end up better adapted to the new circumstances than the other nine, which die out.

      Inbreeding may help explain why insects can develop resistance almost overnight to pesticides like DDT: The resistance first shows up as a recessive trait in one obscure family line. Inbreeding, with its cascade of double recessives, causes the trait to be expressed in every generation of this family—and under the intense selective pressure of DDT, this family of resistant insects survives and proliferates.

      Click on the image to enlarge (184k)

      The Inbred Rothschild Family

      This picture gallery portrays members of five generations of the legendary Rothschild banking family, beginning with founder Mayer Amschel and his wife, Gutle. In an effort to build the fortune he had created, Mayer wrote a will that made intermarriage lucrative for his offspring. They took his point and frequently inbred: Cousins began marrying cousins, and in one case, a niece wed her uncle. Albert considered marrying only two women, both cousins. He chose Bettina, with whom he had seven children. Subsequent generations began to outbreed more frequently.


      The obvious problem with this contrarian argument is that so many animals seem to go out of their way to avoid inbreeding. Field biologists have often observed that animals reared together from an early age become imprinted on one another and lack mutual sexual interest as adults; they have an innate aversion to homegrown romance.

      But what they are avoiding, according to William Shields, a biologist at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse, is merely incest, the most extreme form of inbreeding, not inbreeding itself. He argues that normal patterns of dispersal actually encourage inbreeding. When young birds leave the nest, for instance, they typically move four or five home ranges away, not 10 or 100; that is, they stay within breeding distance of their cousins. Intense loyalty to a home territory helps keep a population healthy, according to Shields, because it encourages “optimal inbreeding.” This elusive ideal is the point at which a population gets the benefit of adaptations to local habitat—the coadapted gene complexes—without the hazardous unmasking of recessive disorders.

      In some cases, outbreeding can be the real hazard. A study conducted by E. L. Brannon, an ecologist at the University of Idaho, looked at two separate populations of sockeye salmon, one breeding where a river entered a lake, the other where it exited. Salmon fry at the inlet evolved to swim downstream to the lake. The ones at the outlet evolved to swim upstream. When researchers crossed the populations, they ended up with salmon young too confused to know which way to go. In the wild, such a hybrid population might lose half or more of its fry and soon vanish.

      It is, of course, a long way from sockeye salmon and inbred insects to human mating behavior. But Patrick Bateson, a professor of ethology at Cambridge University, argues that outbreeding has at times been hazardous for humans too. For instance, the size and shape of our teeth is a strongly inherited trait. So is jaw size and shape. But the two traits aren’t inherited together. If a woman with small jaws and small teeth marries a man with big jaws and big teeth, their grandchildren may end up with a mouthful of gnashers in a Tinkertoy jaw. Before dentistry was commonplace, Bateson adds, “ill-fitting teeth were probably a serious cause of mortality because it increased the likelihood of abscesses in the mouth.” Marrying a cousin was one way to avoid a potentially lethal mismatch.

      Bateson suggests that while youngsters imprinting on their siblings lose sexual interest in one another they may also gain a search image for a mate—someone who’s not a sibling but like a sibling. Studies have shown that people overwhelmingly choose spouses similar to themselves, a phenomenon called assortative mating. The similarities are social, psychological, and physical, even down to traits like earlobe length. Cousins, Bateson says, perfectly fit this human preference for “slight novelty.”

      So where does this leave us? No scientist is advocating intermarriage, but the evidence indicates that we should at least moderate our automatic disdain for it. One unlucky woman, whom Robin Bennett encountered in the course of her research, recalled the reaction when she became pregnant after living with her first cousin for two years. Her gynecologist professed horror, told her the baby “would be sick all the time,” and advised her to have an abortion. Her boyfriend’s mother, who was also her aunt, “went nuts, saying that our baby would be retarded.” The woman had an abortion, which she now calls “the worst mistake of my life.”

      Science is increasingly able to help such people look at their own choices more objectively. Genetic and metabolic tests can now screen for about 100 recessive disorders. In the past, families in Bradford rarely recognized genetic origins of causes of death or patterns of abnormality. The likelihood of stigma within the community or racism from without also made people reluctant to discuss such problems. But new tests have helped change that. Last year two siblings in Bradford were hoping to intermarry their children despite a family history of thalassemia, a recessive blood disorder that is frequently fatal before the age of 30. After testing determined which of the children carried the thalassemia gene, the families were able to arrange a pair of carrier-to-noncarrier first-cousin marriages.

      Such planning may seem complicated. It may even be the sort of thing that causes Americans, with their entrenched dread of inbreeding, to shudder. But the needs of both culture and medicine were satisfied, and an observer could only conclude that the urge to marry cousins must be more powerful, and more deeply rooted, than we yet understand.

    6. Celtic Warrior Says:

      Last night I switched on the jew tube to see how the controlled media was handling the Archbish affair. The ‘news’ showed the assembled lemmings at the Anglican General Synod give the lame brain bishop a standing ovation!

      How the jews and muslims must be laughing at them.

      In a way this is good news for us. Events are slowly coming to head, this is a time for in-depth preparation, but we mustn’t show our hand too early. Let’s be ready when a stray spark ignites the multiculti powder keg.

    7. Fr. John Says:

      “The members of the jew/jesus/jahovah cult are the rich liberials fucking us to death! It/they are poisen to the White Race! I was born and raised as a christian and a liberial!”

      I reject the ‘god’ of the jews as well, which is why I am a Christian.
      What is your excuse?

      Your ignorance…

      as well as a lack of spell-checker, is indictment enough for your insanity. [liberial?]