In memo veritas, as it were: a recent meme listed the “five stages of UK journalism”. Stages three and four are, respectively, ‘cope’ and ‘attack’. In the case cited in the meme, migrants eating swans stolen from parks and waterways, stage three, is ‘eating swans is actually a good thing and here’s why’, and stage four is ‘people who complain about swans are actually the problem’.
Britain’s inexplicably revered NHS is simultaneously plumbing the depths of stages three and four – but not about something as trivial as migrants eating swans. No, much worse: the NHS is literally trying to defend in-breeding.
The NHS has been urged to apologise for publishing guidance extolling the benefits of first-cousin marriage despite the increased risk of birth defects.
Guidance published last week by the NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme says first-cousin marriage is linked to “stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages”.
That’s what the Hapsburgs said, too. It sure worked out well for their drooling, gibbering, offspring.
As for those ‘economic advantages’, what they mean in practice is weaponising importing cousin brides as a backdoor immigration program and whole families sponging off welfare for multiple generations.
Cultures that encourage first-cousin marriage have also been accused of oppressing women and being used as a tool to suppress personal freedoms.
Dr Patrick Nash, an expert on religious law and director of the Pharos Foundation social science research group in Oxford, called the guidance “truly dismaying”.
“Cousin marriage is incest, plain and simple, and needs to be banned with the utmost urgency – there is no ‘balance’ to be struck between this cultural lifestyle choice and the severe public health implications it incurs.
Does anyone reading this notice what they’re not saying? Where and among whom is all the cousin-marriage happening? Instead of coming straight out and saying it, we get this sort of ridiculous dodging:
The NHS guidance points out that the practice has been legal in the UK since the 1500s as a loophole for King Henry VIII to marry Catherine Howard, his ex-wife’s cousin.
Quite notably, neither of the present King’s wives were even remotely related to him, so it would seem that rampant in-breeding is a problem springing from something other than archaic laws. The article doesn’t mention it once. Everywhere, the legacy media’s response is avoidance.
The text arrived minutes after I finished talking to a GP in south-east London about the fraught issue of cousin marriage: “Please can I ask you not to mention xxxxx or xxxxx?,” she wrote, mentioning two areas where she practised as a locum.
Now, why not? Is there something distinctive about those areas? A preponderance of a particular demographic?
Bit by bit, the truth slips through the cracks.
Discussing cousin-to-cousin marriage and the genetic disorders that can result, a senior clinician in one of Bradford’s main hospitals told me it was “a definite issue” that neither he – nor any of his colleagues – would speak out about.
The health visitor who had worked in some of the most deprived areas of West Yorkshire admitted there was a “massive problem” involving “loads of kids with all manner of chronic illnesses” but she could not go on the record.
Bradford. West Yorkshire. Hmm, what is notable about those areas? Oh, yes, the frequency with which they pop up in reports about Muslim child-rape gangs.
Finally, buried deep in the second article, some cadet journalist briefly forgets everything they’ve been taught about legacy media ‘reporting’ and accidentally lets the truth slip.
Patrick Nash, an academic who specialises in religious law, suggests that between 38 per cent and 59 per cent of British Pakistanis marry their first cousins, a rate that may be rising. Among Irish travellers, rates are thought to be high as 40 per cent.
Aaaaaannnndddd… there it is!
Of course, as if to atone for the dreadful faux pas of telling the truth, the legacy media immediately hit the ‘distract’ button again.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 also criminalises sexual activity with certain family members, but does not include first cousins. Indeed, Queen Victoria and husband Albert were first cousins, as were Charles Darwin and wife Emma.
That’s it: dig back 150 years and more to try and deflect from the fact that Pakistani Muslims in Britain aren’t just responsible for decades of horrific child rape of white British girls, but are in-breeding like rabbits. And that’s just how they like it, apparently.
Independent MP Iqbal Mohamed from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire – where the population is more than 40 per cent Asian – argued a ban would be ineffective.
“The reason the practice is so common is that ordinary people see family intermarriage overall as something that is very positive, something that helps build family bonds and helps put families on a more secure financial foothold,” he said.
Never mind the appalling cost on their own children, let alone the British taxpayer who has to foot the medical bills for life for the progeny of imported, inbred, cousin rooters.
One briefing into child deaths in Bradford, Birmingham and the London borough of Redbridge found that up to 40 per cent of them may be “due to genetic disorders associated with consanguinity and chromosomal conditions” […]
In Pakistan, the prevalence of the blood disorder thalassaemia is seven per cent compared to a global average of one per cent. Many of these disorders require lifelong treatment and can lead to premature death.
Indeed, look at this map of the global distribution of in-breeding. Notice a pattern?
Of course not: that would be ‘racist’.
