British Genetics 101

The first three programs from the television series Monarchy by the British historian David Starkey are currently being featured by TOO in its video section. The program first aired on British television from 2004 to 2006. The BBC page on the series is here. The DVD can be purchased through TOO here.

The program is one of many contributions to an ongoing discussion about English and British identity. Starkey focuses on the history of the monarchy, from the withdrawal of the Roman legions to modern times. The monarchy is the oldest institution in Britain, originating with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (abbreviated to “Saxons”) who settled in large numbers around 500 A.D. The Saxons were relatively egalitarian, selecting their kings and expecting them to rule with the consent of the people. The Normans, who five centuries later literally decapitated the Saxon monarchy and took its place, were obliged after a time to adopt what had become a core feature of English political tradition. Starkey attributes English representative democracy to this ancient Saxon folkway, though he makes no attempt to compare it with the preceeding native Celtic polities. Was not Boudica a popular patriotic leader? The question is more than academic because there is much evidence that Anglo Saxon Britons carry a great many Celtic genes, as discussed further below.


Nowhere does Professor Starkey draw comparisons with other civilizations and show that democracy in stratified societies is a monopoly of European derived peoples, as argued by Kevin MacDonald—ancient Greece and Rome, to some extent the ancient Saxons kingdoms, England and the Icelanders. Nowhere is he so impertinent as to suggest that the democratic impulse springs from European ethnicity or that Anglo Saxons or any other tribes have an interest in maintaining themselves. Nevertheless it is an instructive program.

We can expect more popularizations concerning English and British identity if only to satisfy demand. There is a general sense among the British that their identity is under threat. As the country is steadily colonised by visible minorities from the Third World, the competition to redefine the country’s identity acquires high stakes. The establishment, without any opposition from Britain’s oldest institution, is attempting to steer the discussion in a direction that will help native Britons accept the ethnic transformation of their country.

Genetics is one aspect of the discussion concerning identity, and in a scientific age an important one. When identity correlates with genes, such as in matters pertaining to ethnicity, nationality, and race, the great emotions often evoked are completely appropriate because they bear on survival. Not personal survival. Everyone dies sooner or later. But the higher form, the reproduction of kin. J. Philippe Rushton, Ted Sallis and Frank Salter have laid this out convincingly, showing how it derives from evolutionary theory. The inarticulate yet powerful feeling of protectiveness towards group identity is adaptive like the sex drive or hunger or thirst, though more dependent on culture. Defending the status and meaning of who we are generally defends what we are. Pride and attachment to group identity is the functional equivalent of parents loving their children.

The Wikipedia entry on the Anglo Saxon settlement of Britain surveys some of the genetic evidence of the conquest’s genetic impact. The article wisely does not come down in favour of any one interpretation. There is no scientific consensus. The discussion is in flux. The Wikipedia article provides the main hypotheses of interest to genetic identity:

  • Wholesale replacement of the original Celtic population by incoming Germanic peoples (traditional interpretation).
  • –          The settlers came from a wider stretch of Northern European coastline, from Frisia to Southern Sweden.
  • The Celtic population of England was not driven out but replaced over three centuries by an apartheid regime in which Anglo Saxons had privileged access to resources and women, thus outbreeding the natives, especially Celtic men (see especially here).
  • The Germanic inflow was much less than previously thought, according to Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes in the book Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland (buy through TOO here). Most English Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA are Celtic. There were late survivals of Celtic language and culture not only in Wales and Scotland but Cornwall and elsewhere.
  • Consistent with Sykes’ view is the contention that two thirds of English genes and three quarters of British genes are descended from the Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–10,000 before present) British population that emerged from the ice age redoubts in Western Europe.
  • The Germanic inflow was not great but the existing population was already largely Germanic due to inflow before the Roman conquest (see here).

Whichever of these emerges as the truest hypothesis, it does not reduce the measured genetic similarity of the British peoples, our similarity to other native populations of Europe, or our manifest racial identity. Moreover the archaeological evidence is that we are the indigenous peoples of the British isles or, at the least, of Western Europe, reaching back perhaps 30,000 years with some amalgamations along the way. These are the important facts to keep in mind because our identity, genetic unity and possession of our ancient lands are being reduced or swept away in a historical eye-blink.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

40 Comments to "British Genetics 101"

  1. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    January 28, 2011 - 6:01 am | Permalink

    Galton and Ronald Fisher theorized that marrying heiresses (who necessarily tend to be from small families) led to a diminishing number of descendants.

    ‘Tony’ Bliar has far more Jewish ancestry than Cameron.

    • January 28, 2011 - 6:34 am | Permalink

      ‘Tony’ Bliar has far more Jewish ancestry than Cameron.

      Do you have a source on that?

  2. MS's Gravatar MS
    January 27, 2011 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Some call it Darwinism. I read comments about multi-cultural, multi-racial values being imposed on Britons. Nothing like has been imposed from the outside. It is not like a military occupation left its genetic imprint on Britons. It is Britons themselves who elected and re-elected leaders whose loyalties were elsewhere and implemented agendas to mongrelize the country. Britons destroyed the only nation that stood for national and racial identity. Britons were not happy until all major German cities had been incinerated with white phosphorus, killing millions of white women and children through fire and post-war genocidal policies that included planned starvation. It is ironic that now the British are realizing – without admitting it – that perhaps a mistake was made somewhere, but nonetheless they are still looking for someone to blame. The fact is that in 50 years, the people who will be in charge of Britain will be the descendants of those who never hewed and put together two stones of the British cathedrals and monuments or accomplished other achievements that make Britain what it is. Probably omelet cannot longer be undone and Britain is toast. Given the imperialistic policies that Britain has pursued and benefited from through the centuries some people will toast to that.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 28, 2011 - 5:03 am | Permalink

      @ MS …
      Some good observations there!

      Please understand the British situation can only be properly understood AFTER one realizes and accepts its Establishment (or ‘elite’ to use the modern jargon) are predominantly the products of unions between Jews … or a non-Jew and a Jew. A century or more ago, hundreds of English gentlemen had married Jewesses in order to acquire the wealth to keep a roof over their heads.

      Please note that both Tony Blair and David Cameron have distant ‘Jewish’ ancestors. Even Simon Cowell, the presenter of various TV talent spotting shows is from Jewish lineage.

      Then in addition, is the long standing myth that posits the Queen (and many of her ancestors) are direct descendants of King David of Judah. At the height of the British Empire (late 19th century and early 20th) Britain was seen as the “New Israel” and the “New Jerusalem”.

      If you study the backgrounds of all bone fide members of the House of Lords over (say) the past 50 years you would likely find an astonishingly high proportion of them were Jews or half-Jews.

      As for the word British … “Brit” (B’rit) means ‘covenant’ in Hebrew, while the word “ish” means ‘people’. Therefore to speakers of Hebrew, the British are simply “the people of the covenant” (The People of Israel). So even the damned country and its inhabitants end up being named by foreigners!

      Furthermore, according to Heraldry, the British Coat-of-Arms is that of the 12 tribed “Kingdom of Israel” … and Christ their ‘Rightful’ KING !!

      Academics do exist (and they are apparently taken seriously) who firmly believe the English language was derived from Hebrew.

      You couldn’t make this stuff up even if you were smoking dope whilst holding a pencil in your hand!

    • January 28, 2011 - 6:27 am | Permalink

      A century or more ago, hundreds of English gentlemen had married Jewesses in order to acquire the wealth to keep a roof over their heads.

      Ah, like in The Way We Live Now.

      Please note that both Tony Blair and David Cameron have distant ‘Jewish’ ancestors.

      Do you have a source on that?

      Even Simon Cowell, the presenter of various TV talent spotting shows is from Jewish lineage.

      It does look like he’s half-Jewish:

      Then in addition, is the long standing myth that posits the Queen (and many of her ancestors) are direct descendants of King David of Judah. At the height of the British Empire (late 19th century and early 20th) Britain was seen as the “New Israel” and the “New Jerusalem”.

      Yes, British Israelism, one of the most moronic ideas in human history. The degree to which it caught on was extremely disturbing.

      Academics do exist (and they are apparently taken seriously) who firmly believe the English language was derived from Hebrew.

      They aren’t taken seriously by any mainstream scholars today.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 28, 2011 - 7:55 am | Permalink

      @ Reginald …
      Follow this link, then start digging deeper. His Jewish roots are from this side of the family tree:
      If I recall correctly, Blair’s ‘genetic’ connection is at the grandparent or great-grandparent level. Not easy to find as TPTB may have deleted the offending article.

      Anyway, if it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, then it must be a …

      David Cameron has Jewish roots twice over!:

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 28, 2011 - 8:07 am | Permalink

      @ Reginald (Reply #2) …
      Here is some more info on Britain’s current Prime Minister, David Cameron:
      “Illustrious Jewish Roots” …

      His family got rich thanks to his great-grandfather enjoying a Directorship of The Chartered Bank (now Standard Charter Bank), in the days when it helped to sell Opium to the Chinese:

  3. HA's Gravatar HA
    January 27, 2011 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    RE: the “general sense among the British that their identity is under threat,” wasn’t also there a sense they were under threat from Hitler’s conflicts with the Czechs and Poles? Maybe if they felt less threatened then they’d be less threatened now.

  4. TicTac's Gravatar TicTac
    January 26, 2011 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

    English & British Identity:

    Some of the English prefer to call themselves English rather than British, just the same for the Scots and the Welsh. But I think most of we Brits like to use both titles to describe ourselves. It’s a kind of inner national pride with an outer national pride.


    I don’t think the “are we more Saxon or are we more Celtic” question means that much.
    I like to think we are a bit of both – with a touch of Viking.


    Yeah, I do feel like the immigrants are taking over our country.

    I wish we had a Boudica or a William Wallace or an Alfred the Great leading us. They fought for their people, not like the modern British leaders.


    Anyway, the multi-cultural multi-racial ideal being forced onto we Brits will fail. Ethnic competition, racial tensions will lead to race wars. It always does. It always will.


  5. Pterasaur's Gravatar Pterasaur
    January 26, 2011 - 3:46 pm | Permalink

    The Y-DNA of the Anglo, Saxon, Jute, and Frisian settlers of England corresponds to R-U106 (R1b1b2a1a1*). The branch of R1b that corresponds to the native Celtic Britons, Scots, and Irish is R-P312 (R1b1b2a1a2*). This was the great racial divide between peoples in the British Isles before the mass migrations following World War II.

    There is a notable population of I1 on the Eastern coastlines of the British Isles which corresponds to longstanding Scandinavian settlement. A distinct Norman lineage has not been positively identified, but may be revealed in time. When compared to most other lands, the British Isles had been blessed by being relatively homogeneous throughout the ages. Of course, all that has now changed.

    Not to digress, but my result is a sub-clade of U-106, namely, L-257, which corresponds to the Frisian invaders of England. Some have suggested that these invaders eventually became the Mercians, whose language was to underlie modern English.

    If you are a racial nationalist consider having your DNA tested. Know your ancestors.

  6. January 26, 2011 - 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Architect of European Union honored;

    What architect of European wrote:

    The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

    • Thripshaw's Disease's Gravatar Thripshaw's Disease
      January 27, 2011 - 2:41 am | Permalink

      I’ve read about this fanatical Coudenhove-Kalergi guy before. He’s considered the founding father of the EU. He advocated a unified Europe run by Jews as the master race (interbred with some European royalty) and the racial destruction of white goyim by interbreeding them with negroids and arab muslims to create a slave race. However, this psychopath is not regarded as a hater: in fact he is lauded by the Eurocrats and his picture has been put on an Austrian stamp. If there is a conspiracy to destroy the white race and install Jewish rule, the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi may well explain it. Does somebody know if they are available in English? I believe his main work is called Praktischer Idealismus (“Practical Idealism”) published in 1925! How could anyone have known that Europe would be run by Jews in 70 years with an aim to mongrelize the white race back then without having been aware of a plot? He was very close to Otto Von Hapsburg and received funding from the Warburgs and Schiffs.

  7. January 26, 2011 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    A quasi-lighthearted suggestion: For a sense of perspective, take the first two columns in this link (remove the BC and AD and put minus before the BC first column figures), mark and paste the two columns into Excel, and scatterplot them adding 2011 = 6,896. What do you notice?

    Next look at Russia since 1989 here. The same sad picture can be seen for all Eastern Europe as well the West – see Spain etc.

    Perhaps someone could help out with another nagging problem? Given the very small numbers estimated to comprise the entire global population at around the time of the Jewish Diaspora (and even smaller during the Diaspora out of Africa), and given that the majority of the global population seemed to live in S Asia or China (not forgetting those left behind in Africa), when did those allegedly leaving Israel in droves lose their darker (Arabic) pigmentation, and are we to expect Africans and Chinese etc who move(d) to the USA and Europe in slightly more recent times to lose theirs some time soon too? If so, is there any record of this happening en masse? Or, did White mutants (or prospective mutants) perhaps leave the Middle East and Africa and thus not die from skin cancers (which dark melanin protects against whilst making one prone to rickets and thus ‘jelly legs’ in Northern latitudes (it limits vitamin D synthesis required for calcium absorbtion from UV light)?

    There probably weren’t a lot of people about in 3000BC, or even later in 1AD/70AD for that matter. Furthermore, presumably there would have been consideable admixture/assortive mating in small populations like England during earlier centuries (and up to avalable cheap mass transport?)

    I’m a little wary of good/clever story tellers, e.g. most human females and those with feminized brains. Whilst they can be very imaginative and entertaining writers (cf. Harry Potter), i.e good at fabrication, they tend to be not so good at the harder, quantitative based sciences and engineering (cf PISA, SATs, NAEP, and other measures of IQ). In the end, and one must ask whether it is better to be led by good story tellers or by good engineers.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 27, 2011 - 1:45 am | Permalink

      I am an Engineer, David, so perhaps you would like to follow my lead?

      You have uploaded another interesting post, but it does contain serious flaws that you have accepted from others, or from your primary education. You have not yet (I am assuming a lot here, so please excuse my presumptions) got around to looking at them more closely, and thus, ultimately rejecting them. I refer of course to the “Out of Africa” theory and the concept of the “Jewish Diaspora”. They are both hoaxes … or intellectual errors based upon a false and biased reading of history … whichever you prefer.

      The issue of Melanin and evolution is of course one of the keys to our better understanding of migration patterns. I do not believe for one moment that a male/female pair of Negroes leaving sub-Saharan Africa and heading for the north of Finland could give birth to a bloodline that after 1,500 years would show much lighter skin and different facial features (such as a longer nose for heating the cold air being breathed in). More likely, the line would have died out due to complications brought on by a chronic lack of Vitamin D (as you elegantly illustrated above). One should conscientiously avoid the mistake of postulating paths of evolution that are simply figments of the imagination tailored to meet the requirements of sick contemporary dogmas.

      Pyramids have recently been discovered in Bosnia that are grander in scale than those seen in Egypt, and if memory serves me well, they are older too. There is much we still do not know about the great Eurasian landmass. There is mounting evidence that posits human life actually began / evolved in several different places, and did not spread outwards from a single location, such as some remote valley in Ethiopia.

      Your final sentence hit a certain nail on the head. Surely England is the premier example of what happens when a nation is ‘led’, over the course of circa 130 years, by ‘good’ story tellers (e.g., the garrulous, former war correspondent known as Winston Churchill). I could list more examples, but I know you have a clear picture already.

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 27, 2011 - 9:32 am | Permalink

      If human face shape or skin, hair and eye color were due to natural selection then Africans would have evolved an inate preference for black skinned and broad nosed women (the genes of men who did not prefer these characteristics would have dissapeared over time). In fact we can see that men of other races think European women are very attractive. On these grounds alone it is likely that European face shape and pigmentary traits are due to sexual selection

    • January 27, 2011 - 10:38 am | Permalink

      Someday January 27, 2011 – 9:32 am “In fact we can see that men of other races think European women are very attractive. On these grounds alone it is likely that European face shape and pigmentary traits are due to sexual selection”

      Yes, but whilst most people/groups assortively mate, that a minority doesn’t is statistically odd. But how does one measure similarity here? That some don’t assortively mate is presumably why some assert that there is something ‘wrong’ with those who don’t? In some instances non obvious assortive mating is obviously down to limited choice/opportunity (e.g. a small immigrant enclave or colony), and avoidance of inbreeding. Whilst there are some benefits to endogamy, there are also some costs (cf. the higher frequency of genetic polymorphisms (e,g CYP21) and mutations in the Ashkenazim and amongst Muslims in the UK. The higher prevalence of sensory Special Education Needs here is probably explained by cosanguineous marriages amongst Pakistani Muslims. Looking back through human history when populations were far smaller and less mobile, there must have been far more inbreeding.

      What’s truly remarkable surely is how different human males and females are given that the major difference is just down to the extra genes on the Y chromosome (both males and females having one fully active X where most of the sex genes are). Even the tips of the X and Y exchange genetic material, and yet the SRY gene on the Y starts a cascade which leads to major sex-differences, especially after puberty. These differences between males and females are of more interest to me than the differences between the same sex across groups, and has to also take on board that brain-gender differs not only between individuals but also, probably, at the group level (see PISA), effected through assortive mating over thousands of generations limited by gene-barriers like oceans, mountains etc. Sex is not as dimorphic as many imagine.

    • February 1, 2011 - 10:39 am | Permalink

      “Someday January 27, 2011 – 7:33 am European face shape and pigmentary traits are due to sexual selection. I should have thought it was pretty obvious; European women are regarded as very attractive by other races.”

      But all ‘face shape and pigmentary traits are due to sexual selection”.

      Why do all ethnic groups in the USA, UK, EU etc, predominantly assortively mate when there’s so much more opportunity to do otherwise?

      You clearly just make a lot of stuff up, and aren’t at all led by the evidence (probably image?). It isn’t ‘autistic’ to be evidence-based you know, just smart, aka not dumb. People like Simon Baron-Cohen would have people believe otherwise for some reason, but as the prevalence is only about 1/300 and not a lot more (1/100?) for Autistic Spectrum Disorder, having an extreme male brain has been stretched too far by some to promote feminism and Libertarianism/anarchism don’t you think? Still if people prefer Hollywoodesque Harry Potter like material, there’s definitely a larger market for that these days as the population dumbs down. That material is very popular with children, women and those with feminized brains (arrested development). Lowish IQ used to be referred to as ‘retarded’ with some justification, as IQ was measured not just relative to peers, but age referenced too). Some people just never grow up.

      It takes all sorts to make a world, and the dumber they are (the more feminized their brains in the Liberal-Democracies?) the more opportunity to make profits for some.

  8. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    January 26, 2011 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    “Nowhere does Professor Starkey draw comparisons with other civilizations and show that democracy in stratified societies is a monopoly of European derived peoples, as argued by Kevin MacDonald—ancient Greece and Rome, to some extent the ancient Saxons kingdoms, England and the Icelanders.”

    The issue has been democracy for whom as the elite has worried about the masses struggling for a piece of the pie.

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      January 27, 2011 - 7:33 am | Permalink

      European face shape and pigmentary traits are due to sexual selection. I should have thought it was pretty obvious; European women are regarded as very attractive by other races.

  9. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    January 26, 2011 - 11:31 am | Permalink

    Prior to the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher’s ideologically driven administrations orchestrated by her Jewish mentor, ‘Sir’ Keith Joseph [ ] … it was possible to travel short distances around Britain and enter what felt like quite different territories, w.r.t. local dialect (accent), local food, the type of beer drunk, the kind of work done, general attitudes, and even the look of the people. Travelling around England before 1980 was like experiencing a great swath of Europe, but in microcosm. Then came Thatcherism with the sole objective of destroying centuries of tradition in order to enforce a false homogeneity, of a kind traditionally celebrated both by Communism and the Talmud.

    For example, to the northeast, England was home to a great many of Viking stock. Blonde haired, strong, warrior types — N.B. I mean the males not the women!. In and around Liverpool there were a great many Irish and Scots which is one reason why Liverpool produced so many great musicians and singers. There was once a strong folk music tradition around the Liverpool area. In South Wales the people were very warm yet tough and hardy: generations of men working in the bowels of Slate and Coal mines had bred a short, squat, but very tough breed. Across in East Anglia was another genetic type entirely who were a throw-back to Southern Jutland. These tended to live in villages having strange and ancient names. Cornwall was very different to everywhere else … more like the Basque country of northern Spain, while dotted all around London lived the Jew-dified faggots (with hybrid bloodlines going back two centuries or more) who married women but had sex with other men. The women they did marry reminded you of horses.

    Admittedly, some of the above remains the same (such as the village names!) but the visage I have facetiously painted has indeed been greatly changed by the Masonic-Jewish master plan that required the destruction of industries right across the length and breadth of Northern England, with the concomitant transfer of economic activity down to the South East of England (their stronghold) to be based largely on “Services”.

    The North was further damaged by many of its residents being forced to either relocated “daown Souf” (at very high cost) or to simply emigrate. Most of those that chose to remain in the region, or found themselves stuck by circumstance, have since been emasculated by spending too many years scraping by in meaningless jobs or on Government handouts.

    Since the mid 1990s, many young white girls indigenous to the North of England have ended up being “groomed” by Asian immigrants (principally those from Pakistan and/or Bangladesh) so that by the age of say 14, they are already being passed around as objects of sexual titillation. Typically these girls (one was aged only 12) are offered small gifts, and driven around in expensive cars, before being plied with vodka, cocaine and heroin, and then gang-raped.

    The British National Party were the first to draw the public’s attention to this “grooming”, but were immediately accused (by the establishment) of inciting racial hatred using any one of several ‘PC’ laws newly constituted by Sweetie-Boy ‘Tony the Teflon Bliar’ and his Cabinets stuffed to the rafters with faggots, Jews, and Radical Feminists. The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin was arrested in 2004 after comments he made about the Muslim paedophile grooming gang scandal were broadcast on a BBC documentary titled, The Secret Agent. Amazingly he was charged with “using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred” — simply for reporting the truth … a truth that had been passed to him by ordinary members of the British public who had witnessed this first hand. Mr. Griffin was eventually acquitted of all charges, but only after two trials during which he and his family were put through hell (and great expense).

    Only during the past 18 months has the British mass media felt sufficiently morally obliged to actually report criminal cases associated with this widespread sexual grooming of young white girls by Asian males (1st or 2nd generation immigrants).

    Don’t ask me why their Mothers and Fathers are not looking after these vulnerable girls properly. That, I would venture, is an entirely different subject. Perhaps it is their loss of self respect and racial identity that renders their parents powerless and immobile?

    Today, you can travel the length and breadth of England and (excepting the change in landscapes) be struck by an alarming degree of ‘cultural’ uniformity now being ‘celebrated’ by its increasingly dumbed-down populace. The only real exception is London itself, which like New York City in the USA, does not belong to the country in which it resides. It is “alien territory”.

    Without reservation, I do applaud Mr. Dodgson’s article. Its subject matter is indeed an important one. But, we must tread carefully as England in 1979 and England in 2011 are two vastly different places.

    • January 26, 2011 - 4:38 pm | Permalink

      Whilst many would recognise much of the above as a fair description, a repeat word of caution. Offending behaviour statistics indicate that Muslims are under-represented in crime. There are pressures to secularise Muslims for reasons oter than Islam being Zionists’/Israel’s enemy in the Middle East), I have given elsewhere – i.e the Islamic proscription of interest based banking and loans (riba) which is clearly bad for Liberal Democratic nations’ financial service sector and thus their economies. It would thus be wise to be sceptical about any political party or movement which vilifies Islam….

    • Dark Henry's Gravatar Dark Henry
      January 26, 2011 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

      Very instructive post. I would not have imagined that England was so diverse even as close as circa 1980. I could have thought that the Vikings in the NE, Angles in the E, Celts in the W and SW, etc would have been something characteristic up to, say, the XV century but not later.
      If so it is another indictment against liberalism. The problem predates WWII, but after it with the defeat of Germany, it became rampant as anything associated with Nation would be attacked. In perspective looks like England was on the wrong side of WWII, ditto for the USA…

    • January 29, 2011 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

      “Since the mid 1990s, many young white girls indigenous to the North of England have ended up being “groomed” by Asian immigrants (principally those from Pakistan and/or Bangladesh) so that by the age of say 14, they are already being passed around as objects of sexual titillation. ”

      It just goes to show you how spiritually sick and depraved the white race has become collectively, that we tolerate our young females being the concubines for the races that are colonizing our own homelands.

    • NoToFreeMasons's Gravatar NoToFreeMasons
      January 31, 2011 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

      Very true. Which makes it all the odder that now Nick Griffin is starting to go soft on Zionists; his article, published last year on the BNP website, in which he responds to Shimon Peres comments about the Islamification of Britain and its subsequent growing ’anti-semitism’ makes his volte-face abundantly clear.

      No mention was made of who is the driving force behind mass third world immigration. It’s one thing minding ones words to stay out of prison, but it’s unacceptable to start giving creadence to the architects of the destruction of the UK

    • February 1, 2011 - 7:38 am | Permalink

      “No mention was made of who is the driving force behind mass third world immigration. It’s one thing minding ones words to stay out of prison, but it’s unacceptable to start giving creadence to the architects of the destruction of the UK”

      We’ve been told it’s good for the economy given our falling and dysgenic birth rates. Don’t we want more non-discerning (lowish IQ) shoppers and more to hawk credits cards etc to? Note: 2003.

      Isn’t it good to secularise these immigrants? That way they won’t be troubled by all that haram riba malarchey will they? Especially if they equate trying to be frugal and responsible with being a terrorist ;-)

  10. reader's Gravatar reader
    January 26, 2011 - 7:55 am | Permalink

    FYI, there are many older and IMO, very interesting books on these topics at

  11. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    January 26, 2011 - 6:53 am | Permalink

    There’s an interesting thread on this subject here:


  12. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    January 26, 2011 - 1:42 am | Permalink

    An interesting subject for sure. Not having read Syke’s book yet, one is tempted to speculate about how much of British genetics & ethnicity is Old European, Haplogroup R1b(M343)? This genetic haplogroup was evidently indigenous to the British Isles after the retreat of the Würm/Pleistocene glaciation, way before the Celtic intrusions, and the imposition of the Celtic language. How much Celtic/Indo-European genetic material came with the Celtic expansion from the Pontic Steppes? It would be nice to know, and perhaps Sykes does spell it out, now that we have modern DNA sequencing techniques. Still today, many people mis-perceive the Old Europeans to have somehow been “Celts”. This linguistically Celticized Old European population was then over run by the Anglo-Saxons, who Anglicized most of them in speech, and left their genetic mark most notably in eastern England. If this is indeed the case, then a large portion of today’s ‘Anglo-Saxons’ are really, for the most part, Old Europeans, or old line, Indo-European ‘Celts’ who are Anglicized in speech.

  13. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    January 26, 2011 - 12:57 am | Permalink

    This is twaddle compared to what has been going on since WW2. I first visited England (from Australia) in 1975. I recall getting lost in a slum area of Birmingham late one afternoon, no street directory in the borrowed old Austin. Suddenly it was as if I had been somehow transported to Mombassa or Nairobi. Enoch Powell was the local MP where we were located, he spoke of the unspeakable insanity of importing 50,000 darkies annually. In recent years it’s been more than 300,000, the Labour Party of Bliar and Brown admitted they were deliberately doing this to ‘change the country’. They and all those behind this madness should be publicly beheaded in the Tower of London.

    • Masculinity's Gravatar Masculinity
      January 26, 2011 - 8:31 am | Permalink

      Here here!

    • Richard IV's Gravatar Richard IV
      January 26, 2011 - 9:46 am | Permalink

      Until you guys start calling it what it is – deliberate genocide, heads are not going to roll.

  14. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    January 26, 2011 - 12:24 am | Permalink

    If we took all the breeds of dogs and then interbred them , destroying there genetic diversity and the historical lineage , people would be outraged . Yet they allow exactly the same thing to happen to The European people as the article this article says : ‘In the wink of an eye’.
    The Scandinavian people have been their for thousands of years ; quite obviously they evolved there . To flood the country with immigrants and bastardize a very interesting part of humanity is incredibly destructive. This area is the most obviously unique but the same goes for the whole of Europe . Another great disgrace for the 20th century.

    • Richard IV's Gravatar Richard IV
      January 26, 2011 - 9:44 am | Permalink

      Tom, I think the word you are searching for is Genocide and yes it is deliberate:

      “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”


    • January 26, 2011 - 10:02 am | Permalink

      To repeat (ad nauseam?) it’s being done to replace ageing and then shrinking populations. Across the Libertarian democracies (because of the nature of their socio-economic systems), this predicts falling numbers of consumers, falling property prices, and thus shrinkage of the money supply (which is largely based on loans/debt). Muslims are being secularised because of the Islamic proscription against interest (riba). In effect, Islam can be seen at root, as socialist (think of some of the former Soviet republics now part of the CIS and SCO, and consider Palestine today) not Libertarian.

      A lot of the core asumptions of many people reading and writing to blogs such as this are going to have to be reexamined and perhaps abandoned if this analysis is sound, and with that, many of their derivative, misguided. ‘beliefs’ as Libertarianism as Liberal-Democracy has proven itself to be ‘biologically unfit’ and dysgenic

  15. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    January 25, 2011 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Though I’m certainly in no position to question their science, I’m more than a little suspicious of the egos of people like Stephen Oppenheimer. The general approach (to science) of this personality type is “Everything you’ve learned up to this point concerning my field of expertise is wrong – has been for thousands of years – but I’m here to set the record straight!” It’s a type of sensationalism that sells books.

    We seem to be living in an era where DNA “evidence” trumps all other evidence, archaeological or otherwise, rather than complementing it, and automatically turns theory into fact. It’s not unlike the “arrogance” that modern scientists accuse 18th or 19th century scientists of.

    That being said, this is one of the most interesting articles I’ve read on TOO. I’d sure like to see more in this vein.

  16. sk's Gravatar sk
    January 25, 2011 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

    The British are not being replaced because of Celtic or Saxon or Norman roots. They are being replaced because they are WHITE. The same push for white genocide is going on in all white children’s homes.

    • ethnonationalist's Gravatar ethnonationalist
      January 26, 2011 - 6:15 am | Permalink

      “The same push for white genocide is going on in all white children’s homes.”

      Not really. I don’t see enyone pushing “White genocide” in Belarus or Latvia.

      Let’s face it, there is no “White genocide” in Britain or in Europe.
      What is going on in Britain is genocide against the native English population.
      If it were a “White genocide”, than Poles, Bulgarians, Irish, Lithuanians, etc. would not be permitted to immigrate to England.

    • January 26, 2011 - 8:22 am | Permalink

      More accurately… they are being replaced because like most Europeans across the EU, they are not replacing themselves, and, those who are replacing themselves, are (statistically speaking) disproportionately not as smart as those who are not. It seems to me that many reading and writing to this blog have not taken this on board, i.e that it’s happening. There is a widespread myth (sadly taught to university humanties and social science students) that science and rationality is a matter of argument and evidence. It is not about argument, and where argument features it plays a handmaiden, computional role. Science (Pursuit of Truth not validity) is about critical masses of empirical evidence and functional relations between classes. It is not about telling credible/convincing stories. It is not populist.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      January 26, 2011 - 11:44 am | Permalink

      @ ethnonationalist …
      I think the term we should consider using is the “genocide of White Nations”. That would more accurately describe the phenomenon. What they are trying to kill, most of all, is any sense of national identity.

      Please understand this was planned long ago, and it was first put into action during the latter years of the Second World War. Look up the Atlantic Charter and read the words of that document carefully.

      Franklin D. Roosevelt was either a Communist or a Communist stooge! He was arguably the most incompetent, evil, and Jew-friendly Presidents the USA has ever installed in the White House. And that is surely saying something!

  17. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    January 25, 2011 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    It is increasingly meaningless to talk about England or Britain as a homogeneous entity. Everything I’ve read about this subject suggests that at least eastern England has been heavily Germanicized – both in terms of culture, linguistics and genetics.

Comments are closed.