Twits

A total of 30 million Brits have foreign ancestors, with 23 per cent originating from Ireland.

Given that Homo Sapiens originated in Africa it would be true to say that 100% of Britons have immigrant ancestors.

Idiots.

17 comments on “Twits

  1. So the UKIP will be campaignng to allow all Africans into the UK as we are really all related anyway?

    Thought not.

    Better put the bottle down well before blogging Tim.

  2. 5% of Brits have origins in Canada, according to the article! Is it remotely likely that 3 million Brits are descended from Hurons or Eskimos?

  3. Well it basically tells the English that they don’t have any legit dibs on your country anymore and certainly no identity other than a make belief one — you guys are all just squatters here, like everyone else.

    It also removes any cultural claims of the English, since you can’t really say ‘English’ if it’s 50% Russian (etc).

    Them’s deliberatly placed ideas, so that people have the right kind of pattern to use in pub arguments and so that people are scared to like their own history and culture.

    So, don’t call the authors twits, but gifted manipulators and liars.

    The same meme is also peddled in almost any other nation in the EU.

  4. Well JohnB, the lie is in the way the story is spun, and the fact that all those immigrants of yesteryear assimilated instead of, as they now do, impose their culture onto their hosts.

    Moreover, all the immigrants of yesteryear used to be from the same cultural background, similar enough for intermarriage to take place — something that is conspicuously missing, due to religious and social incompatibilities of the current immigrants to which those are stubbornly clinging, in ways that would put the NF of old to shame too.

  5. Surely this is irrelevant?

    I would be more interested to know the extent to which we share common ancestors. We all have thousands of ultra-great-grandparents if we could trace back far enough. All we can really say about them, is that they all had sex, and babies. Some of them were exotic, but most of them were local. What else would you expect?

    There is a website , I can’t find the URL, but you can enter your surname and it shows you the geographic concentration of that name. There is a swathe of the border country full of folk with the same name as me.

    I reckon we are much more genetically homogenous than we realise.

  6. For the avoidance of doubt, Tim, those of my Irish ancestors who decamped to the mainland were all born after 1801, at which point Ireland was part of the United Kingdom – my maternal grandmother, God rest her soul, who was a full boona native Irish speaker from the Gaeltacht, was apparently wont to remind those who tried to ethnify her that she was born a British citizen.

    This is a true, if inconvenient, fact which those who produce such studies often ignore. I don’t know if the sin is sufficiently grievous to label it lies or manipulation, but it’s still note really telling the whole truth.

  7. @ Cinnamon: so in other words they aren’t lying. Glad we got that sorted out.

    @ Martin: what the hell has that to do with anything? You might as well say that people from the Indian subcontinent born before 1947 don’t count as ‘foreign’ either…

  8. “similar enough for intermarriage to take place — something that is conspicuously missing blah blah”

    Ahem. The UK has one of the highest rates of mixed marriage in the world (the same proportion as the US even though our non-white population is less than 1/3 the size).

    Tim adds: Indeed, I’ve always thought it to be one of our saving graces. Without looking at the figures (rather, recalling from dim memory) the inter marriage rate (although that might be the parenting of children rate rather than actual marriage) is something like 25% for Afro-Caribbeans in the UK while it’s something like 4 or 5% for African Americans. Thus the “different colurs” or races thing is something which will simply be solved by the passage of time. Might take a few generations…..but that’s the way it works. No one gives a damn any more about my own third generation Irish background and certainly not the influence of 7 or 8 generations ago Hugenots.

  9. @Tim: So, where are all the British-Pakistani brides that are being married to males of English descent, or shall we be more inclusive and (say) to Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist British men?

    @johnb: you could claim they are not lying, but then it’s also true that they are only partially telling the truth and are spinning the facts to suit their dream. So, yeah, it’s a lie they are perpetrating, albeit in a supporting role to a greater one.

    Either way, it’s not the DNA that is the issue but incompatible cultures.

    And as for racism… — it usually is the immigrant families that detest intermarriage and will not accept the partner who has the ‘wrong’ race or religion.

    (not mentioning people who confuse their children with livestock and mate them with an arranged marriage, as the farmer takes the bull to the cow. For bonus points, find me a case of an arranged marriage between cultures… funny that we are so tolerant and accept this practice — as for keeping the ‘blood pure and true to (insert nationality/religion here)’ this is right up there along with the racial purity certs Germans used to have to produce before tying the knot.)

  10. Good remembering – the mixed marriage rate is exactly 25% among people from black Caribbean backgrounds (30% for men and 20% for women).

  11. John,

    Hope you felt good after the mouthfart. Good for clearing the chest.

    I want you to tell me right now at just what points in British history the Indian subcontinent was ever considered part of the United Kingdom. No if’s, buts or maybes, no sly and crafty references to others having said things they have never said, like ‘Let’s kick out the darkys’ (one of your more atrocious slurs); just references to laws and dates.

    When you aren’t able to find anything, I hope you have the honesty and good grace to admit the truith of my point that many Irish migrated to the mainland when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom; and that by law, such people were not ‘immigrants’ in the commonly understood sense of the word, but intranational migrants – for want of a better word, metacommuters.

    That was the point that I was making; not the one you rather feebly attempted to distort it into.

    Go for it, Johnny Boy; if you’re hard enough.

  12. Fuck you, you pompous cretin.

    The fact that we treated our colonies in Ireland and India in slightly different ways administratively has no bearing whatsoever on whether Irish people are any more or less ‘foreign’ than Indian people.

    So, where are all the British-Pakistani brides that are being married to males of English descent

    If you’d bothered to look at the link, you’d see that c.4% of British-Pakistani women marry outside their ethnic group. That’s twice the rate seen among white women, although it is less than 1/4 the rate among black women.

  13. “Fuck you, you pompous cretin. “-

    Feel free to take your own advice. Your immediate resort to ad hominem abuse and denunciation is, I must admit, actually preferable to your previous tactic of deploying very nasty smears, smears which have in fact bordered on actionable lies. It’s not a good idea to try to twist a lawyer’s words, because we understand that words are dangerous tools that should be used with the greatest care; but I suppose I couldn’t have hoped for a clearer answer to the question I asked you. Your answer is that you have no answer; and your spastic reversion to the leftist default modes of denunciation and trying to shout your opponents down shows you to be the leftist ideologue I have suspected you to be. Your mind is closed.

    “The fact that we treated our colonies in Ireland and India in slightly different ways administratively has no bearing whatsoever on whether Irish people are any more or less ‘foreign’ than Indian people.”

    Define ‘slightly different’ – OK, one was a colony of the United Kingdom, while the other was not. It was part of it. That difference makes natives of those who came from the one which was part of the UK, while the others were foreigners, at all times and under all circumstances. That’s a pretty clear difference, and one with nothing slight about it. Next time, get your facts right.

  14. Either way, it’s not the DNA that is the issue but incompatible cultures.

    It takes a great deal of propaganda, not to mention the threat of legal punishment, to get intelligent people to believe that, or to believe that they should immigrate and intermarry themselves out of existence. You hope for the colour problem ending through intermarriage is — in a situation of continued immigration — a recipe for slow-motion extinction of the native British population.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.