operation bullfinch

i had intended on posting about this a lot, but the topic makes my blood pressure go up (no joke), so i’ve had to avoid it. but now i see that douglas murray referred to it in an article of his in standpoint, so i thought i’d at least quote him on it and maybe throw in some links to a few news stories.

operation bullfinch, in case you haven’t heard — and you may not have even if you live in the u.k., the media coverage has been so shamefully lacking — is an investigation into yet another one of these muslim-men-“grooming”-young-white-girls cases in the u.k. yes, ANOTHER one — not to be confused with what happened in rotherham which i posted about last autumn — and not to be confused with whatever the h*ll was going on here in birmingham. no, operation bullfinch was an investigation of a “grooming” case in oxfordshire which has now been brought to trial.

here from murray (you should read his whole article, btw, which is on immigration in general — great stuff):

“Census That Revealed a Troubling Future”

“… Although immigration has boosted the economy and made Britain a more diverse and in some ways interesting place, it has also made us poorer, drained our resources and brought cultural practices we could happily do without. In January a gang of nine Muslim men — seven of Pakistani origin, two from North Africa — went on trial at the Old Bailey for the sex trafficking of children from the ages of 11 to 15. One of the victims sold into slavery was a girl of 11. She was branded with the initial of her ‘owner’ abuser: ‘M’ for Mohammed. The court heard that Mohammed ‘branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew about it’. This did not happen in some Saudi or Pakistani backwater, but in Oxfordshire from 2004 to 2012.

“Of course gang-rape and child abuse are not the preserve of immigrants. But as recent child rape-gang cases in the north of England have also shown, there are specific cultural ideas and attitudes that some immigrants bring with them — about women, other races and sexual minorities — which are not even medieval yet….


“Attempts to impose parallel legal systems, ‘blasphemy laws’, and other new ‘norms’ of behaviour are subtler versions of the same. But so fearful of ‘racism’ and so in retreat is the core culture that it can barely rouse itself even to point any of this out. What media reporting there is of cases such as that in Oxfordshire is not only scant and periodic, but fearful and hedged with caveats to the point of obliqueness….

the best reporting on this trial, which is still ongoing (we’re now up to day 26), has come out of a local oxford paper, The Oxford Times (here’s their Operation Bullfinch archive page). the case, so far anyway, seems mostly to be based on testimony from the girls (now women), some friends of the girls, and some social workers. there might be some other witnesses, too, but like i said, i haven’t been following the case all that closely.

what’s come out in the testimonies so far will make your stomach turn. if even only half of it is true…:

“Oxford sex ring trial begins”

“The prosecution has opened its case at the Old Bailey against nine men, aged between 24 and 38, accused of sexually exploiting six under-age girls in the Oxford area….

“The court heard that the nine men accused of sexually abusing young girls in Oxford ‘ensured girls were guarded so that they could not escape’.

“The charges, spanning a period from 2004 to January of last year, relate to offences that are alleged to have been committed against girls aged between 11 and 16. They took 30 minutes to be read out in court.

“Jurors at the Old Bailey were told that one alleged victim, who cannot be named, was ‘sold’ to Mohammed Karrar at 11 to ‘cure her bad attitude’, then repeatedly raped by him and his brother, Bassam Karrar.

“The court was told that Mohammed Karrar charged other men £400 to £600 to rape the girl, now in her 20s, in a way she described as ‘torture’ until she was 15. She also claimed to be injected with heroin.

“After being impregnated by a member of the group at age 12, the court heard that Mohammed Karrar arranged for her to have an illegal abortion in a back-room in Reading. The girl claims she was also beaten for falling pregnant.

“Jurors were also told that on one occasion Karrar heated a hair pin with a lighter and branded the girl’s buttock with the the letter M as he claimed to ‘own her’….”

“Bullfinch Trial Day 24: Girl claims she was physically abused”

“A TEENAGER yesterday told a jury she was physically abused by a man who charged £600 for others to have sex with her….

“The woman is one of six to claim they were groomed and abused by nine men accused of running a child sex exploitation gang in Oxford. Known as Girl 4, as she cannot be named, she says brothers Mohammed and Bassam Karrar raped and prostituted her between the ages of 11 and 15.

“On Wednesday she told the jury Mohammed Karrar, 38, made her feel like they were in a relationship before making her have sex with other men.

“Yesterday, she said when she was 12 he physically abused her as well.

“The young woman said the two brothers would rape her together….

“Giving evidence through a video link, the teenager said when she was 12, Mohammed Karrar tried to rape her in a bathroom, but she grabbed his knife and threatened to stab him.

“He took her downstairs and hit her around the head with a metal baseball bat, the court heard.

“She said: ‘I remember whistling in my ear. My head felt really heavy and pounded.’

“When she came round he was assaulting her with the bat handle, the jury heard….

“She said Mohammed Karrar would take her to hotels and private properties to serve drink, drugs, and provide sex services.

“There would be up to 15 men and it could happen up to four times a week, the court heard.

“The child was made to act out men’s ‘weird fantasies’ and was sexually assaulted with knife handles and meat cleavers, the court heard….”

i’ll stop there.

but before i end this post — the msm is bad, but i just want to have a go at the social workers and teachers and police, etc. — the people charged with looking after these girls who are all from low-class, troubled backgrounds. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!:

“Care staff ‘knew girl was being groomed'”

“A TEENAGER went missing from a children’s home 126 times and it was the ‘general consensus’ among staff that she was being groomed, the Old Bailey heard….”

well, jesus! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! it’s your JOB!

as somebody named doug, quoted by the derb (via roissy), said online the other day:

“I guarantee you the white people in these institutions are some of the most selfish, ambitious and unscrupulous human beings you will ever meet.”

previously: diversity über alles and rotten in rotherham

(note: comments do not require an email. the defendants.)

so … why ban cousin marriages?

update 02/01: i’ve tried to leave a couple of (very civil, of course) comments on huffpost — to try to, you know, have a conversation about the bans on cousin marriage in parts of the u.s. — but to no avail. my comments are not allowed through moderation. just thought i’d share.

another update 02/01: on huffpost, somebody calling themselves tylerious linked to this from wikipedia:

“A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce ‘just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses.'”

that is exactly the point i made in the first section (“disease”) of my original post below, i.e. in regularly inbreeding societies, the risks of genetic defects are higher than what dr. younus quoted. the figures he quoted are for western societies with little inbreeding.

jayman tweeted about an article written by a dr. faheem younus and published (originally) in the huffington post entitled “Why Ban Cousin Marriages?” dr. younus writes (link added by me):

“[L]et’s be clear. I don’t intent to *promote* cousin marriages. But when 25 US states ban such marriages in a free society, we ought to at least have a conversation about it.”

absolutely! i agree. (see entire blog…. (~_^) )

dr. younus, who is orginally from pakistan btw, goes on to present arguments against what he calls “the ‘Disease-Incest-Einstein’ line of American reasoning” that stands in opposition to cousin marriage — in other words “you don’t have to be an Einstein to know that incestuous relationships lead to diseases in the babies.” he attempts to show how these three objections to cousin marriage — disease (or congenital conditions), incest (the ewwww factor), and that all smart people know it’s a bad thing — are just flat out wrong….

1) disease. dr. younus says:

“The risk of birth defects in children born to first cousins is increased from a baseline of 3-4 percent to 4-7 percent according to the National Society of Genetic Councilors (NSGC). In this modern age, this risk could be mitigated by mandating — as the State of Maine has done — pre-marital genetic testing. The NSGC, however, considers the risk to be so insignificant that it does not recommend additional testing or screening.”

the above statement demonstrates a gross misunderstanding on dr. younus’ part of the risks of congenital conditions in consanguineous relationships. sure the risk of birth defects in children born to first cousins is pretty low (4-7%) in the united states (and other western countries) where cousin marriage is not the usual practice. but in societies where cousin marriage is the norm (egs. saudia arabia, pakistan, afghanistan, sudan), the risks are much higher. in, for instance, dr. younus’s country of origin, pakistan [pdf]:

“It is estimated that about 10 percent of congenital and genetic disorders worldwide are associated with customary consanguineous marriage; in most of the Middle East, the proportion is 30 percent, and in Pakistan, it is 40 percent.

the higher (much higher) risks of birth defects from cousin marriages in these other societies are a result of the fact that these populations have been practicing cousin marriage for generations — many, many generations. probably for literally millennia in saudi arabia and nearly as long, if not as long, in south asia.

when you have multiple (upon multiple) generations of inbreeding, cousins from these families will inevitably share many more genes in common on average — including genes related to diseases — than cousins in western societies where there is little inbreeding. the inbreeding coefficient of first cousins is usually reckoned at 6.25%, but this can be twice as high in long-term, regularly inbreeding populations — such as in pakistan.

in addition, as my long-suffering regular readers already know, the type of cousin marriage favored in the arab world and places like pakistan and afghanistanfather’s brother’s daughter (fbd) cousin marriage — leads to even greater inbreeding than other forms of cousin marriage (cross-cousin marriage, for instance) since it promotes a tendency towards double-first-cousin marriages (see previous posts for more on why this is — here and here and here).

all of this amounts to no small set of problems. the saudis and other arab nations have probably spent something like half their oil profits (<<possible hyperbole alert) on studying and trying to come up with solutions to deal with all of the genetic defects connected to consanguineous mating in their populations, and concerns were recently raised about the high rates of genetic defects in the u.k.’s pakistani population, a highly consanguineous group.

2) incest. dr. younus says:

“As you cross the scientific hurdles, you will be confronted with a mountain of taboo cloaked in words like ‘gross,’ ‘icky,’ ‘yucky. But where do such taboo feelings originate from? Not a single verse in the Torah, Bible or Quran — books revered by three billion followers of the three Abrahamic religions — prohibits cousin marriage, which were common in Jewish, Christian and Islamic history.”

uh … no, actually. cousin or other close marriages have, indeed, been common in jewish and islamic societies, but not so much in christian societies. i should qualify that: not so much in european christian societies.

again this is familiar ground for my regular readers out there — cousin marriage began to be banned by the christian church in europe as early as the 500s. since then, cousin marriage has been banned to various degrees and at various points in time by the roman catholic church, the eastern orthodox church, and even some of the protestant churches — not to mention secular authorities. (for more on this, see my mating patterns in europe series below ↓ in the left-hand column, and jack goody’s The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe and michael mitterauer’s Why Europe?, in particular chapter three).

the avoidance of cousin marriage has been especially strong over the past one thousand to fifteen-hundred years in northern and western europe (with some notable exceptions) — and a bit weaker (or having a later commencement) in eastern and southern europe. (there have also been some pockets of long-standing close marriage practices in northwestern europe — see the auvergnats in france and the border reivers of england whose descendents moved to appalachia for example).

since a large percentage of americans are of northwest european extraction, it shouldn’t be surprising that they aren’t fond of the thought of cousin marriage. whether they experience an ewwww response to the thought of cousin marriage for cultural reasons, or perhaps even biological ones, i don’t think it’s unreasonable that they (we) should desire american society — which was founded by northwest europeans after all — to remain one in which cousin marriage is not a regular occurence.

3) einstein. dr. younus says:

“This is the ultimate argument made in support of banning cousin marriages. It’s so obviously wrong that ‘You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure it out.’ In the evidence driven societies we have a different word to describe such claims: myth. Myths are best broken by data. The fact that 20 percent of global marriages take place between first cousins and most societies, including Europe and Canada, consider cousin marriages to be legal should give us a pause.

just because a lot of people in the world do something does not necessarily mean that it’s a good idea.

research has shown strong negative correlations between inbreeding rates and national average iqs — in other words, the greater the amount of inbreeding, the lower the average national iq — see here and here. there is also a pretty strong correlation between consanguinity rates and corruption levels (see also here) — the greater the amount of cousin marriage, the greater the amount of corruption in a society. finally, there is a strong negative correlation between cousin marriage and democracy — the more cousin marriage in a society, the less democratic it’s likely to be (see here).

it’s not completely clear, yet, why any of this should be — i have my own theories which you can find by poking around on the blog (if you’re really curious, you could do worse than starting here or here) — but whatever the reasons behind these not-so-optimal connections between cousin marriage and the characteristics of a modern, open, and free society, it doesn’t take an einstein to figure out that the two DO NOT seem to go together.

see also: Cousin Marriage Conundrum by steve sailer, Veil of Fears by stanley kurtz, and Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development by parapundit.

(note: comments do not require an email. kissin’ cousins.)

religious affiliation of international migrants

from pew (pew! pew!): Faith on the Move.

nearly three-quarters of all immigrants in the u.s. today (er, well, 2010) are christians (that’s ’cause we’ve got so many mexicans):

39% of immigrants in the e.u. originating from outside the e.u. are muslim:

one-quarter of all jews in the world today have migrated to a new country (a lot of them to israel):

“Of the seven groups considered in this study, Jews have by far the highest level of migration, in percentage terms. About one-quarter of Jews alive today (25%) have left the country in which they were born and now live somewhere else. The proportions of Christians (5%) and Muslims (4%) who have migrated across borders also exceed the global average of 3%.”

370,000 foreign-born jews live in the united states.

(note: comments do not require an email. why so many?)

more on policing expenses in a diverse society

the other day i posted about some research on the costs of policing in the different swiss cantons and how the more diverse a canton’s population, the more money was spent on policing. the researcher thought this fits pretty nicely with genetic relatedness and inclusive fitness-related behaviors — and so do i.

olave wondered, tho, if more policing might be required in those cantons with greater numbers of immigrants with impulse control issues — like africans, for example. well, because i got a screw loose curious, i thought i’d check the numbers out.

population stats for switzerland are available from the swiss government here (you didn’t know i was fluent in swissese, did ya? (~_^) ). now, afaict, the numbers aren’t broken down by race, so i used nation-of-origin as a proxy. that’s not exactly right, of course, ’cause a lot of people of african descent immigrating to switzerland might be coming from places like france and germany. but what can a gal do? consider this a rough guide.

so, having said that, i found that there was a correlation of 0.48 between number of african or african-descent immigrants in a canton and the amount of money spent on policing in a canton. that’s not 0, but that’s not that high either:

illus – x-axis = percentage of african immigrant in canton; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.

the highest correlations were between total population and total monies spent (0.93) and total foreign population and total monies spend (0.94). but those two things — total population and total foreign population — have a correlation with each other of 0.93, so who knows what’s what here. maybe you just have to spend more money on policing the bigger your population gets and, of course, immigrants usually go to places with high population numbers (i.e. cities). coincidence. or, maybe your high population centers (i.e. cities) have higher crime rates because of all the immigrants there. or, maybe there’s something about population density that requires greater policing (i didn’t check that out … yet). so, who knows?

i wondered if a lot of diversity might impact on policing costs — i.e. if a community has 50 different ethnic groups in it versus 5. do the policing costs go up then?

so, because i really got a screw loose i counted how many different countries the immigrants in each canton came from. here are the figures i got (don’t ask me why they’re listed in this order — this is the way they popped out of the swiss database!):

Uri = 74
Schwyz = 123
Obwalden = 87
Nidwalden = 87
Glarus = 88
Zug = 132
Solothurn = 145
Schaffhausen = 117
Appenzell Ausserrhoden = 93
Appenzell Innerrhoden = 63
St. Gallen = 151
Graubünden / Grigioni / Grischun = 131
Aargau = 161
Thurgau = 138
Ticino = 159
Vaud = 178
Valais / Wallis = 157
Jura = 117
Zürich = 179
Bern / Berne = 180
Luzern = 150
Fribourg / Freiburg = 160
Basel-Stadt = 159
Basel-Landschaft = 151
Genève = 190

and i get a correlation of 0.65 between number of different countries from which immigrants in a canton hail and amount of money spent on policing in each canton. that’s a stronger coefficient than the researcher’s -0.541 for his similarity index (“number of citizens and proportion of foreigners”) and amount spent on policing in 2009.

here are a couple of nifty charts (i arranged the data on the x-axis backwards so that you could compare these with the researcher’s, rolf kümmerli’s original charts):

illus – x-axis = number of different countries immigrants in cantons come from; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.

that crazy outlier is zurich. (presumably you have to spend a lot of money on policing to protect — all that money!) if i take zurich out, the chart looks like this:

illus – x-axis = number of different countries immigrants in cantons (minus zurich) come from; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.

the more immigrants you have, the more money you have to spend on policing (or so it seems). the more different types of immigrants you have makes it even more likely you will have to spend more money on policing (or so it seems).

previously: “can we all get along?”

(note: comments do not require an email. more swiss chicks!)

india and china’s missing girls

we’ve all read about this before i’m sure, but here’s a story about some recent research (published in the lancet) on female feticide/infanticide in india:

Rise of ‘missing girls’ in India and China

“New data from the most populated countries, China and India, indicate that the practice of aborting female fetuses and murdering girls after birth is still widespread, despite efforts in both countries to curb this extreme gender bias.

“In China, the 2010 census reveals there are now 118 boys for every 100 girls, a skewed sex ratio that is higher than a decade ago. The sex imbalance has left millions of bachelors unable to find brides, mainly in rural areas.

“In India, a new study reported in the Lancet journal indicates that 3 million to 6 million females were aborted during the past 10 years, mainly to couples whose firstborn was a girl and mainly among the more well-off families.

“With increasing wealth has come greater access to mobile ultrasound units that can determine the sex of the unborn….”

i was surprised that it’s wealthier people that are aborting girls more, but then it does make sense since they are the ones who can afford an ultrasound, etc., etc.

the researchers point out this irony in the lancet article: “Recent increases in literacy and Indian per-person income might have thus contributed to increased selective abortion of girls.”

aaaah, progress! so much for modernization leading, inevitably, to modern, western-like societies.

and, don’t forget (from the csm): “Yet such abortions can be found in many places, including among some immigrant groups in the United States.”


(note: comments do not require an email. or a valid i.d.)

mexican kids in california are fat…

…and their mothers don’t (really) know it

“[C]hildren from the CA sample were significantly (p < 0.01) more likely to be at risk for overweight (15 vs. 8%) or overweight (42 vs. 7%) compared to children from the MX sample, using the CDC criteria. However, the prevalence of maternal overweight and obesity was similar in CA and MX with 38 and 34% classified as obese, respectively. Children from the CA sample were more likely to have a mother with a high school education or greater (16 vs. 2% p < 0.01) than children from MX. Approximately 42% of mothers in the CA sample had lived in the US less than 10 years and over half (56%) of the MX mothers reported that at least one of their family members currently lived in the US….

"With all but one of the mothers from the California sample underestimating their child’s weight, this study found a higher level of misperception than other studies of mothers of young children in the US. Other studies in the US have found that mothers’ misperception of their overweight children’s weight status ranged from 32% from an analysis of non-Hispanic white mothers in NHANES to 79% in a study of mothers attending either WIC or private clinics [27–31]. Studies focusing on Hispanic or Mexican–American mothers in the US have also found that maternal misperception of child weight status is prevalent [2, 3, 7, 17, 32]."

…and a lot of them want the kids to be fatter!:

“The results of this study showed that Mexican mothers residing both in the US and Mexico frequently underestimate their child’s size. Additionally, this study showed that approximately one-third of the Mexican immigrant mothers in the US and one-half of mothers in Mexico wanted their children to be bigger than they currently perceived them to be.


previously: mexicans think mexicans should be mexican

(note: comments do not require an email.)

john vs. juan

here’s a couple of maps of baby name popularity in the u.s. from babynamewizard.com — john vs. juan.

according to babynamewizard, which tracks baby names from 1960 to 2009, the popularity of the name john for a boy peaked in 1964. it’s been downhill ever since. juan was not so popular in 1960, but is now much more popular than john in many states.

calling a spade a spade

so, the 2009 PISA results are out. (see also here, and steve sailer here, here and here.)

i took a look at vol ii, “Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes” [.pdf file], which, amongst other things, examines how immigrants in various countries did on the PISA tests.

here’s what they had to say [pgs. 77-78]:

Performance, immigrant status and country of origin

“The relative performance of students with an immigrant background cannot be attributed solely to their country of origin. Figures II.4.11 and II.4.12 show the performance of students with an immigrant background from the OECD and other countries across a number of host countries, before and after accounting for the socio-economic background of the students or the host country. These figures highlight how performance varies for students with the same country of origin across different host countries. They also show how students from different countries of origin fare within the same host country.

“Figure II.4.11 shows, for example, that students with an immigrant background from Turkey perform 69 points lower in Austria than in the Netherlands, even after accounting for their socio-economic status. In Luxembourg, students with an immigrant background from Portugal perform 65 score points below students with an immigrant background from France, after accounting for their own socio-economic status. Students with an immigrant background from Germany perform 44 score points higher in Switzerland than in Luxembourg, while students with an immigrant background from Portugal in Switzerland outperform students with a similar background in Luxembourg by 65 score points (Table II.4.5).

“The performance of students with an immigrant background from countries and regions outside the OECD are represented in Figure II.4.12. Students from China perform well above the OECD average (above 560 score points) in Australia and New Zealand. Students with an immigrant background from South Africa also perform above the OECD average in Australia and New Zealand, even after accounting for socio-economic background. Students with an immigrant background from Pakistan perform above the OECD average in the United Kingdom but well below it in Denmark, even after accounting for socio-economic background (Table II.4.5).”

so. what does this tell us, besides the fact that the writers of this report must be mentally retarded?

it tells us diddly-squat. zip. zilch. nada. it’s just a waste of paper binary code.


because different peoples is different (duh!).

take their example about turks. they said: “students with an immigrant background from Turkey perform 69 points lower in Austria than in the Netherlands, even after accounting for their socio-economic status.” right there they’re assuming that everyone from turkey is the same. have they ever been to turkey? (i have to guess not.) there’s a big, BIG difference between the people in hellenized western turkey versus central turkey versus eastern turkey which is full of kurds. why — WHY — would the PISA people assume that all these people would do equally well in school ANYwhere? i betcha they don’t do equally well in school back in turkey.

and, ’cause of chain migration, turkish immigrants in different countries in europe come from different regions of turkey:

“So, one quarter of the Turkish immigrants over 18 who live in Belgium was born in Afyon Province (Western Anatolia). There is a similar concentration of Turks from notably Karaman Province (Central Anatolia) in the Netherlands. The Turks living in Sweden come primarily from Kulu (Konya Province, Central Anatolia), while 60% of Denmark’s Turkish immigrants come from the Kurdish areas of South-east Anatolia.”

i dunno what the differences are between these different “turks”, but i betcha a brewski that there are some!

and that’s not even the worst of it. look at the bit about portugese immigrants (just look at it!) — or about german immigrants: “In Luxembourg, students with an immigrant background from Portugal perform 65 score points below students with an immigrant background from France, after accounting for their own socio-economic status. Students with an immigrant background from Germany perform 44 score points higher in Switzerland than in Luxembourg, while students with an immigrant background from Portugal in Switzerland outperform students with a similar background in Luxembourg by 65 score points.”

sounds interesting, but when they say “students with an immigrant background from Portugal,” they mean ANYbody from portugal! from ethnic portugese to brazilians! *facepalm* again, “students with an immigrant background from Germany” might mean anyone from an ethnic german to an ethnic turk or kurd to an ethnic iraqi.

gibberish! that’s what it all is — gibberish! as sherlock holmes said, “how can you build on such a quicksand?”

answer: you can’t.

all of this reminds me of this hysterical story about a new yorker swpl woman who was horrified when her toddler called a black man (laurence fishburne, actually) “doggie” out in public. this woman was distraught thinking that her child was (*gasp*) a racist, when really all he was was a kid who didn’t have a word for “black man” or “african american male” or whatever (probably because he’d never been taught those words) and he was struggling for a word to express the fact that he was looking at someone who looked different than himself and his family (i.e. not white).

from the mouths of babes, eh?

what’s really sad is when you think about all the pc-thinking people around the world today (like the PISA people) performing linguistic and mental gymnastics in order to not be “racist” when even little kids can see there are differences between different peoples.

and, even worse, the absolute confusion they (including/especially journalists) are causing with their word games (eg. is this man really swedish? i bet not!).

(note: comments do not require an email.)