The Truth About White Girls


Very controversial comments by a blogger friend of mine on the issue of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ and exploitation of ‘our white women’. Not necessarily representative of our opinions at all, but raising some important points which perhaps need to be discussed by Muslims. I know the writer is an Asian Muslim man, so I have permitted  his ‘racial centric’ critique in the spirit of Malcolm X and indeed Franz Fanon, both of whom he references.

The alleged exploitation and degradation of ‘white girls’ by ‘Muslim gangs’ has been making the headlines in the U.K recently. A ‘grooming gang’ has just been sentenced in Oxford.

The ‘pimping white girls’ that the far-right groups such as the EDL  go on about is a very complicated situation. There are areas such as the Northwest, where ‘pimping’ and even the strip – club industry seem to be monopolised by Muslims. However, we need to bear this in mind: ‘white folk’ react a lot more badly to the same crimes when they are done by Muslims than non – Muslims. For example, plying a teenage girl with alcohol for sex is depressingly universal and a well known cultural artefact in the U.K, shared by both paedophiles and teenagers themselves. But it tends to only become an ‘issue’ when done by Pakistani pimps. So there is a  ‘if anyone is going to rape our women it should be us!’ mentality going on. One in five British women was claiming some form of sexual molestation in the 2001 British Crime Survey.

That ain’t all being done by Muslims.

In fact, a large part of the reason ‘white girls’ end up under the influence of Asian men is due to how badly they are treated by ‘white guys’. The Asian then becomes the exotic ‘other’ who is perceived as a ‘way out’ of drunkenness, broken families and poverty. The white population in some of these areas such as the North-West  is horrendously poor. This was articulated by George Orwell in his work ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’. The situation in the NW of the UK, like the horrendous situation in the NW of Pakistan, has improved little in many respects since Orwell’s time.

The ‘white girls’ see the Asian men (often Muslims in these areas) as an escape. However, the Asian men see the girls as an opportunity for an easy lay. Also, these poor girls do not realise that the Asian men have learnt how to treat women from the exact same sources as White and other men; namely porn and Hip – Hop music (a recent survey in relatively conservative China showed that 85% of teenagers said they first learnt about sex from hardcore pornography. This is not the kind with German plumbers coming round to fix a fridge and then friskiness ensues, this is stuff which even liberals like Chris Hedges and feminists like Andrea Dworkin are getting censorious about.).

On top of the fact that the conditioning of the Asian men is basically the same as the prevailing community and culture, comes the added factor that there is a huge deal of sexual repression and a militant insistence in the Asian community in the North on cousin marriages (some say 80% of marriages in the UK Pakistani community are consanguineous). In fact, not far from where some of these gangs were arrested, in a place called Dewsbury, they have an international conference of Paediatricians, since that is the only place in the world where you can see so many recessive genetic illnesses, due to the endogamy of the Asian Muslim community.

This is where religion comes in: it is twisted in such a way as to ‘justify’ forced marriage, approve of consanguineous marriage and to encourage extreme segregation from Muslim females. Meanwhile, the guys are in a highly sexualised society where twelve – year olds are having sex or even getting pregnant. However, it is impossible for most of them to find a partner. The ones who have had an arranged marriage are not happy with the partners they have (hence the urban legends of the Asian taxi drivers and ‘white prostitutes’). Meanwhile, they can see the beautiful ‘white girls’ on display, and they are stimulating themselves with easily available pornography in the privacy of their bedrooms.

So there is a huge demand for ‘white girls’. They are everyone’s ‘type’. However, as George Bernard Shaw once said: ‘There are two tragedies in life: one is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.’ It is not socially acceptable for Muslim men to be in a relationship with a Caucasian non – Muslims according to the values of their own community, it would be frowned upon and they would be pressured into an arranged marriage. Yes, I said guys being pressured, not just girls. I went to university in Manchester and all (and I do mean all) of my male Pakistani colleagues were being forced into marriages to some extent. It is a extremely common practice, to rebel against it invites ostricisation and even violence. I got a big shock.

So we have the ingredients:

– You live in the most deprived part of the U.K and whether you are a white girl or a Muslim man, you have little education and even less money or opportunities.

– As a Muslim man, you want sex, but you are not allowed to have it or you have to have it with someone you don’t like physically. You find release in pornography and masturbation, but this actually worsens your self – control and heightens your    desire.

– You like white girls because you are brainwashed by the media and since all the girls in your community look the ‘same’ (because they are often all related).

– Asian people in general also rather idiotically venerate light skin, even amongst each other. So apart from the media, they even brainwash themselves into liking white girls. We all know that in ‘Asia’, skin lightening cream is the number one ‘cosmetic’ product that people buy. You see, if it was the case that Asian men merely wanted to go for non – Asian girls that would be one thing, but you never see them with Black chicks or even mullatoes. It’s got to be a white chick or an oriental (preferably the Northern Chinese milk – bottle white ones though).

– White girls are seen as a trophy or status symbol due to the inferiority complex a lot of Asian men often have. I need say nothing more on this as Malcolm X and Franz Fanon have produced comprehensive analyses of this mentality in the Black man in America and France and her colonies respectively and their observations apply to British Asian men in their entirety.

– The religious community is silent or usually complicit. This goes for all ‘sects’/groups.

– They encourage you to ‘look down’ on white women as not worthy of your love or marriage. Although this has some basis in reality in the sense of social and religious incompatibility, they exaggerate the case since they don’t want you to do the logical thing if you are desperate and lonely and don’t have access to ‘pious sisters’ (like they do, but then, they’re not sharing), which is to get together with the nice white girl down the road. Since they think that will be disastrous for your iman (as opposed to being starved of female company and love which must be far more beneficial for your ‘iman’).

– Many of the Muslim girls are in ‘Islamic Girls’ Schools’. Not so the boys though. The girls are preferentially given an ‘Islamic Boarding Education’ (actually an imitation of Christian seminaries/convents) compared to boys. This is ostensibly to ‘protect’ them from ‘haraam’ (i.e having sex with anyone other than their cousins or who their family tells them to). However, the boys don’t need such ‘protection’. If they want to ‘sow their royal oats’ then that’s too bad, but as long as they don’t marry the ‘white slappers’ they consort with then c’est la vie.

– The above results in Muslim boys having no access to Muslim girls. At all. Ever. The religious and community establishments are in absolute and totalitarian control of the interaction between men and women. Ideologically in the case of the religious and physically in the case of the community. But with a large overlap.

– Sometimes the real reason Muslim girls are in such institutions as ‘Muslim Girls Schools’ is to dis-empower them educationally and economically and thus make them vulnerable to an ‘arranged’ marriage. No matter; by the time they get out of the ‘convent’ they will be so sexually desperate that they will take the first guy you give them. The Deobandi religious establishment in particular ignore the inglorious side of girls’ schools because it is a massive legitimacy/revenue stream for them. It’s also a great way for the Deobandi establishment to get ‘first pickings’ of any of the female religious students for their own families and contacts, thereby shutting out anyone else who may be a more ‘worthy contender’. Since all’s fair in love and war, right?

For the above and many other reasons, the market is there and someone will step in to fulfil it. Recall that in prostitution, it is not only the ‘producer’ who is exploited, but also the ‘consumer’: both are degraded and de – humanised. In the sex industry, the only one who wins is the distributor.

And the ones who are guilty are the ‘market forces’ and the ‘suppliers’.

And indeed, the biggest cause of the market forces is the culture (including all the stuff like segregation, arranged marriage & colour bias etc.)

The second biggest cause is the religious establishment, who have made marriage hard (in reality impossible) and fornication easy.

Yes, some evil Asian men (but also many Eastern European and Chinese, Black and other groups: 80% of sex workers in the U.K are illegal immigrants according to the Police five years ago. I’ll bet you it’s a lot higher in reality) have instigated a modern day ‘White Slave Trade’.

But who made the market for them to operate?

19 thoughts on “The Truth About White Girls

  1. hey mmmclmru, this is a little off topic(alot actually), but isn’t it weird how Hamza Tzortis, references Islamic philosophers that the salfi movement he belongs to basically machine guns takfir to… it is a little funny actually.

  2. Sadly, this is very well observed. IERA is a very sectarian group, however they ‘conceal’ this for the purpose of securing a wide base of funding (which last year reached £800,000 in personal donations alone). They have even tried to ban literature from other Salafi groups.

    This ‘Sultan’s Jester’ guy did excellent articles about them and agree with them completely, having spent plenty of time around IERA:

    Hamza is deserving of a whole article of his own, but I sadly can’t write one as I know him personally. He often references Ibn Taymiyyah, usually inappropriately shoe horning him into discussions where there is no need. He is clearly trying to groom people into the Salafi aqeeda and fiqh but again is occult about it. I would love to be a fly on the wall of their ‘New Muslim’ retreats, which he runs.

    You are spot on about how he also likes to use Al Ghazzali, since there is a lot of interest in him and also because IbnTaymiyya does not really even have an argument for the existence of God (which ties into why the Salafi movement is super keen on often exaggerated ‘science in the Quran’ arguments, as if one is against Kalam then one resorts to science and empiricism, and it will no doubt lead to the same problems as the hostility between science and philosophy and the preferring of empiricism over the rational method has done in the West). However, salafis sometimes take the Kalam cosmological argument from William Lane Craig who in turn took it from the Ashari theologians such as Ghazzali (he openly credits him for it). So some Salafi ‘dawah’ carriers would rather take arguments for the existence of God from Islamphobe Evangelicals rather than Orthodox Muslims. Troubling.

    I have confronted Hamza on the issue of using Al Ghazzali AND Ibn Taymiyya (who made a ‘sort of’ takfir on Ghazzali), though he is always careful to mention them in an exactly (no joke) 5:1 ratio, in favour of Ibn Taymiyya of course, and he fudged the question by saying he loves them both equally.

    Also, Tzortzis is clever enough to maintain a certain level of deniability when it comes to Salafi aqeeda, but his promotion and love of Ibn Taymiyyah is real and manifest.

    Very well spotted indeed: most people don’t pick up on the dichotomy.

    • I believe the technical term is ‘PWNED’.

      But then again, Maher is an idiot and he’d probably get refuted by an learning – challenged donkey.

    • Maher is nothing more than a zionist puppy…typical liberals who see Israel as a sort of extended Western government in the barbaric backwards middle east.

      • You should check out Kony 2012 remember that Bull-honkey? The leader considered his movement christian, they are considered christian terrorists. Yet, when Kony 2012 affected social media like herpes, NO ONE MENTIONED THIS.

    • Then you will love this: a quantitative analysis of political violence across civilizations:

      Click to access bodycount_final.pdf

      or search for ‘bodycount religious violence’

      ‘Body count

      a quantitative review of political violence across world civilizations

      key findings and analysis

      Interpreting the results:

      Our findings show that, using the entire data set for the period 0-2008, politically and religiously motivated violence has cost between 449.38 million and 708.61 million lives. The Christian civilization’s share of this is the largest with between 119.32 million and 236.56 million victims (median 177.94 million). In second place is the Antitheist civilization which has contributed with a median figure of 125.29 million deaths. The Sinic civilization is third with 107.92 million deaths (median). Fourth is the Buddhist civilization with ca. 87.95 million deaths. Fifth is the Primal-Indigenous civilization with 45.56 million deaths. Sixth is the Islamic civilization with 31.94 million deaths. Finally, seventh and last, is the Indic civilization with just under 2.39 million deaths.’

      Though Arnolds’ classic analysis of the spread of Islam and Christianity in ‘The Preaching Of Islam’ has yet to be refuted.

      As for Christians, most of the time, they were throwing pagans to the lions, not vice versa. I mean, they have not got a leg to stand on: they even had an inquisition in the New World and the Philippines and today something like 90% of US troops describe themselves as ‘Christian’.

      Christians taking Muslims to task for religious violence is like a serial rapist telling you to lower your gaze. I’m sorry, but it has to be said.

  3. Wow. I can tell the writer of this blog is a Desi male. True: cousins marriages are seen as culturally acceptable in our communities; however, what proof do you have that they form the majority of marriages? I would disagree. I never thought I would ever come across such a shallow inherent bias disguised as intellectual argument until I came across some of the content of this article! – Wow, just wow:

    “‘White girls’ (and guys) actually do look a lot better than the Asian community. Not because they were made that way or due to media images of beauty, but rather due to the fact that the inbred Pakistani (and Asian in general) community does not look, on average, as good, possibly as the result of endogamy.”

    I bet the writer is failing to get rishta aunties knocking on his door and he’s feeling rejected 😉

    Seriously speaking though, your dismissal of media propagation of the definition of beauty is actually not justified. We are constantly brainwashed (in the East and the West) that “beauty” = European facial characteristics. Colonialism and imperialism in India was also a factor in propagating this image. The Conquerors were white. The Mughals were fair-skinned. Maybe *you* subliminally hold to this narrative (that Asians are “relatively” unattractive when compared to “White” girls) because you are Asian yourself and have been subjected to this image by your culture. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as cliched as this is. Some like tan skin. Some like pale skin. You make it sound like the majority of Pakistanis are deformed creatures who drink from the Ganges River (okay, the GUYS do but not the women). I drink from Zam Zam. You have adopted your definitions of beauty from your society, and this is certainly not universal to everyone. With that said, what does aesthetics have to do with this? If you notice, many of the victims are 12 year old and younger girls. I don’t think in this age group, there is any conspicuous superiority in looks between the races. It’s about sexual and moral perversion and a disease of the heart.

    As with specifically Asian men who do this, I think it’s more about easy prey than anything. If they did it to a fellow Desi Muslim girl, it is considered much more shameful – unfortunately. A good load of them are religious women who minimalise getting to comfortable with them. Whereas, they can allow their conscience to be compromised when it comes to messing and abusing “outsider” women. Among “outsider” women, White women are the majority and probably more easily accessible to them.

    The final point I am going to make is that Desis make marriage too complicated (he/she has to be from the same family, same tribe, same region..) and when you close the door towards the halaal, you will have frustrated men who will *break* that door and enter into what is haraam. Also don’t underestimate sexual frustration. Most men in Western countries are pretty lax in sexuality and have premarital sexual relationships, whereas, this is forbidden for Muslim men. Take this point + making marriage difficult + pornography/poverty/ghettoisation/bad upbringing, and you get this fitna.

    • The writer of this blog are ‘writers’ not a writer and none of them are ‘Desi’ and some of them are not even males. Like most who claim to know the hidden, you struggle to convince us.

      I for one didn’t write the article myself and didn’t initially agree with much of it, but since your tone is uh…rude, especially as this is obviously an opinion piece as opposed to a academic critique, I will reply on the writers behalf (who you proudly and correctly surmise is an Asian male, though this was told to you at the start of the article, so don’t apply for your Girls Scout’s ‘Detective’ badge just yet).

      As for ‘What proof do you have that they (cousin Marriages) form the majority of marriages in the community’ (paraphrase):

      ‘Among British Pakistanis most marriages are transnational and have the effect of bringing in another Pakistani under the constraints of British immigration control. In one small sample, 92% of transnational marriages were with either first or second cousins.’

      ‘It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins.’

      A simple Google search would have saved you the embarrassment you are now no doubt feeling after claiming that the ‘made up’ assertion of the commonality of cousin marriage made the article ‘shallow inherent bias disguised as intellectual argument’.

      Perhaps now you will show us your proof that cousin marriages DO NOT make up a significant number of Asian Muslim marriages (the author never even said majority, he mentioned only his own circle: your reading comprehension needs work). While you are at it, perhaps you could tell us what an ‘inherent bias’ is and how you divine it.

      You again show your poor reading comprehension by asserting that the author ‘dismisses’ the media portrayals of beauty when in fact he dedicated two whole paragraphs to it.

      You take him to task for writing an opinion piece without sufficient ‘evidence’. You then go on to do even worse by telling a fantasy story about how colour bias developed (colonialism etc.) and then completely contradict your own account by asserting that it doesn’t exist and that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ and that some Asians like tan skin. You have embarrassed yourself again by making the exception the rule: If it is the case that there is a hetrogenicity of preference amongst Asians vis-a-vis skin colour and many love dark and not light skin, then perhaps you can show us some evidence that ‘skin darkening’ creams are in as much demand in these communities as the number one cosmetic product: skin lightening creams.

      If Asians themselves think there is no significant difference in looks, then why are they lightening their skins, sexually exploiting only white girls and representing themselves with the least Dravidian looking people possible in their (lamentable) media output as evinced by Bollywood and Lollywood? There is plenty of evidence that Asians themselves consider lighter skin to be more attractive. Strangest of all, are you asserting that Asians pimp girls they DON’T find attractive? Since you don’t fear to drop juvenile phrases such as ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, what forms of ‘beauty’ are said Asians beholding?

      You ask what aesthetics or race and perceptions of beauty have to do with this victimisation of ‘white girls’ but rather I could just as well ask why they are not pimping Asian, black, Chinese or any dark skinned girls. So it may well have ‘something’ to do with it. Your embarrassing assertion that Desi Asians (presumably you mean you) are too pious to be ‘pimped’, and that White girls enjoy this fate due to their greater ‘accessibility’ is illogical. So are the black and ‘other’ girls also ‘too pious’ to be exploited by these men?

      You similarly make the bizarre assertion that there is no difference in the way people of different races look at ages around twelve.

      In the next paragraph you embarrass yourself by doing an about face on your righteous indignation and implying that the white girls were ‘easy’ compared to the Desi Muslim girls who are ‘religious women who minimalise getting to comfortable with them’. Yes, the girls were ‘asking for it’ by being impious and accessible unlike the paragons of Desi Asian virtue were they? ‘Easy prey’ is not an explanation for why Asian men go hunting for said easy prey as opposed to other groups of men, so your paragraph was a bit circular really.

      You attack the writer for implying an aesthetic difference between Asians and Caucasians (something I personally disagree with strongly)…and then say that Asian men are indeed deformed creatures, something the writer never went so far as to say, not to mention that unlike you he was careful to avoid the disgraceful sexism you have shown. Worryingly, rather than understandably trying to refute the writers claim that endogamy has lead to a degeneration in the Asian Muslim community (aesthetic and otherwise), you merely defend your own gender from any kind of allusion that they may be at an aesthetic disadvantage relative to other groups, if I was unkind I would do what you did to the writer of the piece and say that this is perhaps reflecting your own insecurities.

      For someone who demands evidence and attacks writers personally for merely holding and articulating a different opinion from you, you express a great number of unsubstantiated opinions yourself. I hope you can see the irony in this.

      In your last paragraph you re-state exactly the argument of the writer, thereby agreeing with a guy who you called a shallow, biased and ‘rejected by the rishta [match making] Aunties’. Which again has curious implications for your own self perception, I would guess.

      Finally, you contradict yourself again by saying that this fitna was due to ‘making marriage difficult + pornography/poverty/ghettoisation/bad upbringing’ (which is essentially what the author said minus the comments about the looks which you seemed to find wounding), having previously said it was about ‘sexual and moral perversion and a disease of the heart’, which isn’t really the same thing is it?

      • You need to learn how to detect sarcasm and humour. My claim that Asian men are deformed creatures that drink from the Ganges River is clearly satire aimed at criticizing the writer of this blog (blog article is what I meant to write – it was a typo) in his line of reasoning that cousin marriages make people ugly, basically. And how that is significantly motivating the acts of Asian sex gangs (!) – his reasoning. Even if that is true (55% of S. Asians marrying cousins and please: Wikipedia is not a credible source), I fail to see how this affects the topic in discussion: these Asian sex gangs. Is the writer implying that since Asian women are ugly, Asian men are hunting after more beautiful women – White women? That is the vibe I got, and to me, this is utter nonsense and frankly racist. Furthermore, a major point in this article is cousin marriages. What correlation is there between Asians marrying their cousins and Asian sex gangs?!

        You misunderstood my statement regarding “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I didn’t say that I believe Asians accept it. I clearly stated Asians are subjected to media portrayals of the “ideal” European characteristics of beauty. And yes I accused the writer of falling into this also because he states he finds the European race more unattractive than Indic peoples. The cliche was used as a rebuttal to this by saying that many people like tan skin (such as many modern day Caucasians) and many people prefer paler skin (like Asians and Arabs), and the writer’s statement that “‘White girls’ (and guys) actually do look a lot better than the Asian community” is not a universally accepted statement. Instead, it is from personal bias and preference.

        Yes, “Desi” culture is racist and looks down on darker skin, and I accused colonialism for this. I’m actually surprised you questioned this point. In Vietnam and many Oriental countries, it is known that their veneration of lighter skin comes from the fact that the wealthy stayed indoors whereas the peasants laboured in the harsh heat and sun. This is just one example of a historical precedent for this perception of superior beauty, and it certainly is true in the case of British colonialism. It’s all in their literature (Ever read Kipling’s White Man’s Burden: imperialism to civilise the dark savages?) Similar case in Africa also. You misread or misunderstood what I was trying to say, I’m afraid.

        I never dismissed everything raised in this article. Read my comment again. I said “some of the content.” Some of the content which I raised issue with is quite superficial and racist. So I agreed that “making marriage difficult + pornography/poverty/ghettoisation/bad upbringing” are the real culprits behind the Asian sex gangs, and NOT people marrying their cousins! And you are correct: I found issue in the implication that White people are more attractive than Asians, which I thought was a personal bias and an opinion and shouldn’t have been thrown out like it is a universally accepted standard. I mentioned sexual frustration, and I think that really is a crucial point.

  4. If ‘Wikipedia’ is not a ‘reliable source’, then you need to tell the rest of the world (ditto with the BBC). In any case, you did not conduct a simple Google search where you would have found literally an avalanche of hits, such as this from the British Medical Journal (which perhaps is also ‘not a reliable source’ since it doesn’t say what you would like):

    SUMMARY An enquiry answered by 100 randomly selected British Pakistani mothers in the postnatal wards of two hospitals in West Yorkshire showed that 55 were married to their first cousins, while in only 33 cases had their mother been married to her first cousin. This suggests an increasing rate of consanguineous marriage in this relatively small group, by contrast with the decreasing rate observed in some other countries. The genetic implications merit further study.

    Click to access 186.full.pdf

    Again, you assert something which the author never said, which is why I mentioned that you need to read the article properly before posting harsh responses (sarcastic or otherwise). The author NEVER ONCE said that the way Asian girls look is a motivation for rape gangs or pimps: He mentioned those and other things, such as gender segregation and Muslim girls schools as well as the religious establishment, as reasons why there is a MARKET for white girls coerced by their pimps into prostitution, since both the ‘pimps’ and the users appear to overwhelmingly be Asian males.

    What he actually asserts is that the ‘guilty party’ in creating an environment (or ‘demand’ if you will) for these people to operate is those who make 1) marriage difficult (including by enforcing endogamy) and 2) put light skin on a pedestal and thus create a ‘market’ in which Caucasian girls are ‘used’ preferentially.

    Whether Europeans like tan skin or not is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about what Pakistanis and Asians like or don’t like. And since you accept that they do not ‘like’ dark skin, you then have to credit that the guy is right. And that the community is thus racist or colour biased. As to whether the writer has bought into this, you may have a point. Or not. Since he never says that he finds white people more beautiful than all others, merely that they and other groups who are not ‘inbred’, especially mixed race people are relatively more attractive than Asians. It is the Asian skin lightening and media industry who assert what you claim: that light skin is the height of beauty. The writer himself never said that ‘whites’ were better looking than say, blacks or Eskimos. In fact he took Asians to task for not ‘going after’ blacks and said when they do go after Orientals it is only the ‘white’ ones. Perhaps he could have been clearer, but again, you also did not read properly. This may not help matters, but the chap is not claiming that whites are the apotheosis of beauty (though your community does think that), he is saying Asians are relatively unattractive compared to all non-endogamous groups (i.e everyone else)

    Regarding your claim that his statement: ‘White girls’ (and guys) actually do look a lot better than the Asian community” is ‘not universally accepted’, this is correct and exactly what you expect from an opinion piece (and all other intellectual output, there is hardly anything which is ‘universally accepted’, including that fact that three is less than ten). The point is whether that statement is accepted (universally or not) by the Asian community and the people who exploit young ‘white girls’. It appears from the evidence of skin lightening, images of beauty in Asian media, the absolute preference for white girls amongst pimps and users in the current incidents etc. that it is.

    I disagree that the writer is correct on the ‘activenesses’ of Asian girls, but the evidence he uses to back up his claim that this is indeed the case is the apparent perceptions of Asians themselves, which is why I allowed such a shocking piece on the site in the first place.

    Your story about how ‘colour bias’ emerges may or may not be correct (though if we can dispense with Wikipedia and the BBC then Kipling is certainly not an ‘authority’) but is of no consequence: it may be due to the colonial experience, it may be because of the pre-existing caste system etc. These are a bit like ‘Just-So’ stories and hard to prove, but fine. Again though, the author, who I have consulted again in the light of this, does not once say that Asians are ‘relatively unattractive’ due to their skin colour, so I don’t see your point with all of this. Again, you need to read with the same care you advocate when people misunderstand your comments: he blames colour bias for the predilection for ‘white girls’. Separately he blames endogamy (cousin marriage) for the unattractiveness of Asians, never relating the issue of the unattractiveness to skin colour rather only saying that Asians find dark skin ugly and he himself finds ‘inbred’ people relatively unattractive. You disagree with the second proposition and assert that it is ‘racist’.

    This is merely reactionary on your part: he also asserts the same (that being endogamous leads to aesthetic problems) for (presumably white) hill-billies and in any case, even if he had said it only for Asians, this still would not be ‘racist’ as he said that repeated inbreeding leads to health and ‘beauty’ problems. This is a controversial assertion to be sure, but it is not racist in the least. To be racist he would have to say ‘being Asian makes you ugly’. What he in fact said was ‘Asians practice a lot of inbreeding so they are relatively not as good looking as other groups, just like white people who do the same practices’. Maybe he was not clear enough.

    Clearly this is a controversial opinion, and it depends on whether one ‘buys’ his story that mixed-race people tend to be more attractive (something many have asserted including Orwell and I personally DO agree) and that endogamy leads to enfeeblement. His proof for the second part is the narration of Umar (RA): ‘Marry from afar to avoid weak offspring’. So even Umar (RA) says mixing races is good for the offspring and makes them ‘strong’. In my opinion, interpreting ‘weak’ as ‘unattractive’ is wrong, but it is a justifiable inference and certainly not racist.

    Again in your last paragraph you agree with the writer entirely and say the same thing as him, that sexual frustration is the main thing (a subject he spends far longer discussing than Asian vs. White aesthetics). However the allegation that it is superficial is unwarranted and harsh since you as I showed are guilty of many of the same liberties and ‘just – so’ stories he undertook and at the end of the day it is an opinion piece. Thus rating the poor fellow as racist and sexually desperate himself is total overkill and you appear to have taken a leaf out of the book of post – modernist liberalism in nuking anyone who disagrees as homophobic, sexist, racist, etc.

    Saying that ‘inbreeding makes you ugly, Asians do a lot of it therefore they are ugly’ is about a racist as saying ‘eating fried foods makes you obese, ethnic groups who tend to eat a lot of fried foods may be tend to obesity’. What one can do is question the validity of the premise, namely whether inbreeding makes one ‘ugly’. We have the assertion of Umar (RA) that it makes one ‘weak’ if done excessively. Perhaps the writer should have stopped at that.

    If you consider him ‘racist’, what would you make of those thousands of paediatricians who chastise the Asian community for excessive endogamy leading to birth defects? Are they racist too? The only difference is that the writer talks about aesthetics, something that is not empirically verifiable. In any case, you still have a massive ‘issue’ vis-a-vis cousin marriage and health problems, even forgetting aesthetics.

    The writer had e-mailed us his opinion in private, just as a friend for us to read only and I suggested that we post it online, he was very reluctant because he thought people could not ‘take it’ and would ‘go nuclear’. In hindsight I see he was right and he has been labelled both racist and an unmarried reject (neither applies fortunately).

    In simple terms, the author seems to be asking ‘why is there a white slave trade amongst Asian men?’ Both you and he are saying segregation and the perception that whites are more attractive is causative, at least at the market level. The disagreement is that he is saying that this is perhaps not a mere perception but due to ‘inbreeding’ is a reality. I agree with you, he is (probably) wrong. But the community itself seemingly agrees with him.

    • Thank you for the clarification. Wikipedia is generally not accepted as a credible resource by most in the field of academia, so it’s not something I just made up. Even though I still have doubts relating to do with the accuracy of random sampling and proper statistics (can two hospitals give an accurate picture of the entire British Asian community, I don’t know), I shall give you (and the writer) the benefit of the doubt and assume you are indeed correct in your claim that cousin marriages are like an epidemic in the Asian community. As a Pakistani from ‘ethnically different’ Asian parents (my mother being Pathan; my father is not), perhaps, I am ignorant of the predominance of this practice in the UK. I knew it was socially acceptable and even know a few friends who are cousins and are married, but I didn’t know it was as wide-spread as depicted here, so I stand corrected. This may be of interest from a religious perspective:

      Okay… your clarification on most of the points is precise, clear, and helpful. However, one of my initial question was: what is the *correlation* between Asian consanguineous marriages and these Asian ‘grooming gangs?’ As someone in the medical career route, I myself strongly discourage consanguinity and encourage mixing (even outside of race) and we have established this practice is problematic, but I see this and these ‘gangs’ exploiting these Caucasian women as two separate issues, and I’m afraid I still fail to see any significant or sufficiently-supported correlation between the two. I wasn’t calling the writer a racist because he criticised the practice; I called him a racist for propagating himself (the vibe that I got) the ideals of beauty found in European characteristics (when did I say exclusively skin color? I said characteristics). It’s fine if the writer himself prefers this notion of beauty (as many Asian men do), I found issue of his attitude of (what I perceived to be something like): ‘okay, let’s be frank about it (like it’s universally accepted or obvious as he says “everyone knows but no one wants to talk about”) – White people are relatively better looking than Indic peoples’ tone. If an opinion piece has subliminal racist undertones, criticism should be expected. He could have said “according to me or according to many Asian men.” There is no way to empirically measure or prove the superiority of certain aesthetics, as you rightly pointed out.

      Also, the part that I mentioned about these gangs attacking 12 and younger girls (I believe) has less to do with these Asian men finding their aesthetics pleasing or even the ‘market/demand’ point which was raised and has everything to do with the core reason why all sexual child predators prey on children: they are vulnerable. They are weak. They are easily exploitable. Most of these men (I believe) who target children would do the same to their own younger nieces (sexual harassment by uncles is another problem within the Asian community that is swept under the rug).

  5. Many thanks.

    As for evidence, I would advise you to look up something like ‘PubMed’ to find a wealth of it, including large analyses of cousin marriages. I think Wiki and the BBC were used as sources to make the point, but the ‘scientific’ evidence is completely one sided and undeniable (vis-a-vis the prevalence of this practice in Asian communities, not that it is ‘bad’, which it is not unless taken to extremes).

    Correlations in these types of sociological ‘opinions’ as well as scientific epidemiological studies can be very hard to demonstrate and certainly cannot show causation. In this respect these types of comments are made on a ‘either you agree with this according to your experience or you don’t’ basis. Hence ‘opinion piece’, not scientific paper or even journalism.

    Not all things which are ‘true’, ‘wise’ or ‘useful’ are established by ’empiricism’. So take your first post, you made a comment which is actually understandable in the context of the day to day experience of a lot of people: that it is harder to approach or ‘chat up’ a Muslim woman than a ‘white girl’. If I happen to agree with you, this is established by personal observation and experience, not empiricism: It would be as absurd for me to say to you; ‘show me a controlled, double blind trial which establishes that Hijaabi women don’t get chatted up as much as Miley Cyrus or whoever’, just as if when my dad was giving me the talk about the birds and the bees I was to say to him ‘Hmm…can you point me to any sociological or preferably medical studies that show this is true? Don’t Gay people disagree with what you are saying?’

    In today’s society, the preference is to apply an empiricist method to all things, including psychology, relationships, sociology etc. Empiricism is considered ‘omni-competent’ to establish facts and truth in all circumstances. This is incorrect: it is ‘omni-competent’ perhaps as a method to investigate the arrangement of matter, say in physics, but is a poorer tool in, say, the motivating factors in human psychology.

    So for example, George Orwell says in his masterpiece ‘Down and Out In London And Paris’ that girls from the South of London are prettier than those in the North, due to the ones in the South being of ‘mixed ethnicity’. This is very hard to prove empirically, just as in one of his other books (‘Road to Wigan Pier’) he notes that the ‘bathing habits’ of Indians and Japanese are far ‘better’ than those of Europeans. He also notes that SE Asians are far more ‘beautiful’ than Europeans. These are his observations: they will either resonate with people who have similar experiences or with peoples’ own observation or they will not. He cannot however be said to be a charlatan because he did not refer to a meta-analyses of how many baths a week people in London have compared to Tokyo. Likewise this does not make Orwell racist.

    Beauty probably can be investigated empirically (certainly the fashion and plastic surgery industries seem to operate on this basis: certain height, certain cheekbones, certain buttocks etc.). Also it is clear what, say, Bollywood, considers ‘beauty’ (as evidenced by the total lack of Dravidian looking stars in their movies). That does not make it correct, but a ‘standard’ has been (covertly) established.

    The writer most certainly should not have said ‘according to me and many Asian men Asians are relatively less attractive’ as you suggest: it is according to almost all the women as well and nearly all of the Asian’s own media as well, so I don’t see why he should ‘own’ an opinion which is that of the vast majorities (though like all opinions, not unanimous). It is also apparently the opinion of the non-Asian fashion industry, who don’t exactly trip over themselves to get ‘indic’ models, whilst having an abundance of black, oriental and others who have dark skin and even the same skin tone as Asians (but are conspicuously not Asians) etc. Why he should be taking ownership of something which even the ‘victims’ propagate is a mystery. Though as you say, he may be part of the problem.

    He also never once ‘propagated’ the idea of European beauty, he merely said Asians are relatively unattractive due to endogamy. Asians tend to agree with the first bit but not the cause. Like I said before, I disagree on at least the first point but your community does not, so taking this guy to task for racism is harsh: and in any case, like I said, he implies that ANYONE who practices endogamy a lot will end up ‘ugly’. How is this racist? It’s like me saying ‘eating fried chicken makes you fat’ and then West Indian people (assuming they eat fried chicken) calling me racist, whilst agreeing that they eat fried chicken and that it makes you fat.

    I think it is worth examining the notion of what is and is not racist a bit more explicitly, otherwise people will be afraid to write this kind of stuff in the future, even though it may have not been put particularly well by this chap. First of all, as per Malcolm X and Fanon, I hold that, within reason, a person can criticise his ‘own’ race in ways that others may not be allowed to do. Obviously this does not mean that a Jewish person is allowed to be a Nazi. Second, let’s make this less emotionally charged. Say I am an Asian male. A Chinese girl comes up to me and says: ‘I think Asian men are ugly’. First of all, I ask her: ‘What do you mean by this?’. If she says ‘Because you have brown skin and that is ugly’ then yes, this is racist. If she says ‘because you have dark hair and only blonde or red hair is nice’ that is racist. If she says ‘because only flat noses are beautiful and Asians and whites don’t have that’ then again, it is racist. i.e she discriminated on a ‘racial’ characteristic. If however she replied; ‘In general, women like tall men without bellies and nice, prominent cheekbones as well as good personal hygiene etc. etc. and you guys are relatively deficient in that compared to say group x or indeed everyone else’, then as far as I can see, this is not racist, it is an observation that I can agree or disagree with i.e. I can challenge the observation, but I cannot dismiss it as racist, since it critiqued a behaviour of a group, which happens to be a race and said that this leads to an outcome of ‘unattractiveness’.

    What if I say that Asian guys tend to sit around all day and do not take exercise, offer the fact that India for example, has never won a track and field gold medal at the Olympics (I don’t know about the 2012 games) except in rifle shooting as evidence and then say that this means that Asian men have a relatively unattractive physique compared to, say, White men. Is that racist?

    Also, as Muslims, I think we have to accept that the assertion that cousin marriage degenerates the ‘strength’ of the community is Islamicly licit. Also, although the writer did not make himself perhaps as clear as he could or articulate this, he could say: ‘Endogamy makes Asian people weak and sickly. Not so white and oriental people who tend to be far more exogamous’. You would probably say that was racist (what is the difference between calling someone ‘weak’ or ‘ugly’? Not huge).The link you sent is excellent an articulates what the writer already said about Umar’s (RA) comment.

    The writer failed to explain that he was referring to ALL non-Asian ‘groups’ and not just ‘whites’ as benefiting from the ‘strength’ or ‘beauty’ gained by exogamy (though a careful reading makes this clear as he takes Asians to task for not ‘going after’ black girls). The bottom line is his opinion is within Islamic discourse, and the reason he gives for the ‘relative unattractiveness’ is the cultural practice of endogamy NOT RACE. Therefore by no means is he racist. He is saying, perhaps inarticulately: ‘You practice endogamy and this makes you all look the same/unattractive’ NOT ‘You are Asian and this makes you unattractive by virtue of your race’. Perhaps he should consider re-stating his case in better language.

    As for what is the link between cousin marriages and Asian men turning to or exploiting ‘white girls’ for prostitution or sexual exploitation, there is no empiricle link. There may be a correlation, but someone would have to study it. Since most or many Asian married men who use these girls WILL be married to their cousins, it is not a completely unjustified ‘inference’. This, if it were true, does not of course prove causation: i.e marrying your cousin means you will turn to exploiting women or using prostitutes (which is what these women were used as: they were ‘pimped’ out by the gangs – how they were perceived by their customers is not known to me – did they pay, did they know some were under-age etc.), and in this you are absolutely right. But it makes people wonder, just as in epidemiological studies which seek to find correlations between factors which may see unrelated. However, there should be some kind of ‘probability’, like smoking and lung cancer, so maybe the writer is stretching it.

    So again, it is debatable how the writer has articulated this, but upon allowing this to be published I took this to be ‘Asian men are forced into cousin marriages, they are not attracted to their spouse but rather to the images of beauty they see in the media and around them, therefore being married to someone they are not necessarily attracted to or not being able to get married at all, they resort to exploiting women’. I don’t think this is far fetched. However, nor does that mean it is true. We could try to look into who the ‘users’ were married to (we already know the majority of them will be married to their cousins) and were they forced, are they happy with the way their partner looks etc.(all this goes much more for women, but they are not going around behaving like these gangs or the users). I think these would be worthwhile study, but the British authorities will of course not do them and from your response, it is perhaps clear that there is not much Muslim appetite to do it either, as you are struggling to entertain the possibility.

    I take issue with the equating of this behaviour of the gangs with ‘simple’ paedophilia: the youngest girl was 11 (in the Oxford case), and interestingly we have not been told how old the oldest was. Although some of the girls were children, others may not have been: none were younger and none were boys, so we can’t really dismiss this as an ‘Asian Paedophile gang’ only, though that perhaps is part of it. If some of the girls were in their late teens, then we have to allow for the fact that these guys are a ‘pimping’ gang and all that implies and all that goes with it. It is not appropriate to take the route of certain segments of the media and dismiss the pimps users as ‘unfathomable’ paedophiles. There have been numerous such gangs around the country and they all tend to use teenage girls or older, just like ‘pimps’ in all communities. Thus the questions of why white girls, why Asian men, namely, why is there a market, and why do they buy ‘this’ and not ‘that’ are highly relevant. I think you need to look into these cases a bit before adhering to a ‘these guys are after children’ and not ‘these guys are pimping young girls’. If they are after children, why not younger and then why such ‘old’ girls?

    Also, you mentioned the age of 12 and were horrified. I understand, but 12 is the age of consent in Span, the second most populous country in Europe. (in fact the youngest girl, as I said, was 11, but the media is not giving any detail on what happened to who and when)

    The author posits forced marriage to partners that one is not attracted to as a potential cause, via a mechanism of cousin marriage being prevalent. He goes further and criticises this for being responsible for Asians being ‘relatively unattractive’. It is debatable whether this should have been mentioned in this context, but since he is trying to opine as to WHY Asian men ‘like’ white girls (and you keep forgetting, light-skinned orientals), it had to be allowed, whether true or not.

    They certainly ‘like’ white girls above all others. They certainly practice cousin marriage in a rather aggressive manner. Cousin marriage is alleged to lead to weakness, according to yours and his Islamic sources. Are these linked or causative in this case is controversial and like I said, I do not agree with him entirely (or you). But it is not racist at all.

    In any case, your feedback has been most detailed and useful to the viewers. Hopefully the author will consider revisions based on this.

    Also your manners and engagement have been exemplary (apart from your earlier comment about the author) and it is heart-warming to see people disagreeing while maintaining such excellent decorum.

  6. The writer of the piece (which was actually an e-mail) has contacted me and insisted that we remove the section ‘The One No-One Wants To Talk About’…since he himself no longer wants to talk about it.

    This puts us in a difficult position regarding censorship, but since he is doing it of his own accord to his own work, then this is fine I guess. Although people will struggle to understand what the discussion in the comments section is about now, which is a shame. I will of course have to leave that up as that is not his or ours to take down.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s