The British are the most docile, fucked up, White people on the planet. Hitler made a big mistake by not killing every one of them.

BTW, the majority of British are not of Anglo-Saxon descent, recent genetic studies prove it.

And yet I read just recently in the daily rag a study that showed that Britons are of Germanic descent. So who to believe? What the fuck does it matter anyway? White is White!

`Give it another few hundred years.`

We don`t have that long. This battle is over within 2, max 3 decades. Mabbe less.

I saw this in the British Daily Mail - it will be one of the stories in the new upcoming Hawthorne Report. :cheers:

And yet I read just recently in the daily rag a study that showed that Britons are of Germanic descent. So who to believe? What the fuck does it matter anyway? White is White!

`Britons` are not of Germanic descent but English people are.

`Britons` are not of Germanic descent but English people are.

The science of DNA has put to bed a lot of myths about the origins of racial and ethnic groups.

Myth #1 -- The jews are "Semites". False. The Ashkenazim jews are most closely related to Kurds with some German and Slavic mixture.

Myth #2 -- The Slavs are "Mongolians" False. There is almost no trace of Asiatic blood in Western Slavs, and the Russians show 10%-15% Mongolian blood - the highest levels of admixture are found in the Eastern provinces.

Myth #3 -- Many White Americans have "Indian" blood. False. Most of the stories told by White families of "great Indian" relatives are bullshit.

Myth #4 -- The English are really Germans. Bullshit, see below.

Issue 127 , October 2006
Myths of British ancestry

by Stephen Oppenheimer

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
Stephen Oppenheimer's books "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story" and "Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World" are published by Constable & Robinson
The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Many myths about the Celts

Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first arrived during the Neolithic period. The regions we now regard as Celtic heartlands actually had less immigration from the continent during this time than England. Ireland, being to the west, has changed least since the hunter-gatherer period and received fewer subsequent migrants (about 12 per cent of the population) than anywhere else. Wales and Cornwall have received about 20 per cent, Scotland and its associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England, being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population from outside over the past 6,500 years. These estimates, set out in my book The Origins of the British, come from tracing individual male gene lines from continental Europe to the British Isles and dating each one (see box at bottom of page).

If the Celts were not our main aboriginal stock, how do we explain the wide historical distribution and influence of Celtic languages? There are many examples of language change without significant population replacement] http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817 [/url]

ONLY IN ENGLAND!

the land of bad food, warm beer, ugly women, faggoty accents, the start of the industrial revojewtion, bad composers (except handel, who was german), jane austin, all the other shitty women authors up to and including the wiccan mistress who lamely and politcally correctly rips off tolkien - j.k.rowling, socialized medicine, insanely exhorbitant taxation, gun confiscation, british board of jewish deputies, and now -- anti-HATE laws.

Fissile, I see that you get your `science` from a book written by a jew.
Do you have any more jewish propaganda that you wish to share with us?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=396406&in_page_id=1770
It is a rivalry that has prevailed throughout two World Wars and countless football clashes. But it seems the English and Germans have more in common than one might have thought.
New research has found that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain from the continent 1,600 years ago was so successful that native characteristics were virtually wiped out.
And as a result experts say this has left England with a population made up largely of Germanic genes and with a language that owes much to our Anglo-Saxon invaders.
The new study explains that the majority of original British genes were wiped out in favour of German ones through a system of apartheid set up by the invaders. This allowed the Anglo-Saxons to out-breed the Brits and our country became 'Germanised.'
It is thought between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrated from modern-day Germany, Holland and Denmark into what is now England between the fifth and seventh centuries AD. At this time there were more than two million native Britons living in the country.
But within just 15 generations, the British genes were on the way out, while the Germanic ones were flourishing.
Until now geneticists and archaeologists have been unable to reconcile how a relatively small number of invaders so successfully took over the UK gene pool. Now scientists have used computer analysis to work out how this could have been achieved within just a few hundred years.
They have concluded the Anglo-Saxons probably brought with them an apartheid regime, similar to that seen more recently in South Africa. Under this servant-master system, the Anglo-Saxons would have enjoyed a more prosperous existence and so their offspring would have flourished.
Through restricting intermarriage, they also helped prevent native British genes getting into their own population. This left England culturally and genetically 'Germanised', according to the study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The authors pointed to the fact that ancient texts show a far greater value was put on the head of an Anglo-Saxon than a Briton. If an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the perpetrator's family had to pay 'blood money' two to five times greater than the fine payable for the life of a native person.
Lead researcher Dr Mark Thomas of University College London's department of Biology, said the ethnic distinction of the native British and Anglo-Saxon populations could only have lasted for so many years through some kind of social segregation.
He said: "The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years. An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.
"We believe they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.
"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."
The Anglo-Saxon period came to an end in 1066 when Duke William of Normandy came to England and defeated Harold in the Battle of Hastings. However the legacy of that time can be seen in modern-day place names that end in 'ham' which means settlement, 'ton' which means farm or village and 'den' which means hill.
Other words we still use today that can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon era include daughter from 'dohter' and father from 'faether'.

From fissile:

The British are the most docile, fucked up, White people on the planet. Hitler made a big mistake by not killing every one of them.

BTW, the majority of British are not of Anglo-Saxon descent, recent genetic studies prove it.

And this has to do with what, exactly, besides diverting this thread?
Christ, even a fucking newbie could see through that tactic...

You're getting sloppy in your old age fizzie,

From A.L.:

Why is this troll allowed to post freely on this forum with Aryans?
Clearly he hates Aryan people and should be confined to the hoosegow with all the other kike trash.

Fissile, I see that you get your `science` from a book written by a jew.
Do you have any more jewish propaganda that you wish to share with us?

Couldn't agree more.

Hey fizzy, do you really think anyone here besides yourself would even bother to sit through that latest drivel you call a post? (see #19)
A ten thousand word diatribe to divert from the original subject of this thread? Sloppy, dude.
You are good for a chuckle, if not much else, I'll give you that.
A prime example of how kikes shoot themselves in the foot, each and every time they attempt to be clever.
Thanks for your contribution fizzie!
This concludes today's lesson, folks.

Oh yeah, and let's don't forget the original subject of this thread: a White child's flat out and awe-inspiring rejection of shit skinned muds and all that that entails, in spite of fizzy-like kikes' best attempts to the contrary!!!:D

Good day.

88

The British are the most docile, fucked up, White people on the planet. Hitler made a big mistake by not killing every one of them.

BTW, the majority of British are not of Anglo-Saxon descent, recent genetic studies prove it.

Really? I read recently EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE -- that recent studies showed the English to be virtually geneticallhy identical with Germans.

The science of DNA has put to bed a lot of myths about the origins of racial and ethnic groups.

Myth #1 -- The jews are "Semites". False. The Ashkenazim jews are most closely related to Kurds with some German and Slavic mixture.

Myth #2 -- The Slavs are "Mongolians" False. There is almost no trace of Asiatic blood in Western Slavs, and the Russians show 10%-15% Mongolian blood - the highest levels of admixture are found in the Eastern provinces.

Myth #3 -- Many White Americans have "Indian" blood. False. Most of the stories told by White families of "great Indian" relatives are bullshit.

Myth #4 -- The English are really Germans. Bullshit, see below.

Issue 127 , October 2006
Myths of British ancestry

by Stephen Oppenheimer

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
Stephen Oppenheimer's books "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story" and "Out of Eden: The Peopling of the World" are published by Constable & Robinson
The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Many myths about the Celts

Celtic languages and the people who brought them probably first arrived during the Neolithic period. The regions we now regard as Celtic heartlands actually had less immigration from the continent during this time than England. Ireland, being to the west, has changed least since the hunter-gatherer period and received fewer subsequent migrants (about 12 per cent of the population) than anywhere else. Wales and Cornwall have received about 20 per cent, Scotland and its associated islands 30 per cent, while eastern and southern England, being nearer the continent, has received one third of its population from outside over the past 6,500 years. These estimates, set out in my book The Origins of the British, come from tracing individual male gene lines from continental Europe to the British Isles and dating each one (see box at bottom of page).

If the Celts were not our main aboriginal stock, how do we explain the wide historical distribution and influence of Celtic languages? There are many examples of language change without significant population replacement] http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817 [/url]/blockquote>Isn't Stephen Oppenheimer a fucking jew, F?

 

The British are the most docile, fucked up, White people on the planet. Hitler made a big mistake by not killing every one of them.

BTW, the majority of British are not of Anglo-Saxon descent, recent genetic studies prove it.

WTF?

First of all, that's not what the recent studies showed. They showed that there was a remarkable amount of sucess of Anglo males on those Isles, evidenced by the fact their genetic "footprint" mostly in the southern parts. Your contention that the research doesn't say this is 180 degrees incorrect.

In fact, I should write something on the remarkable lack of fighting between Celts and Germanics, even though they had distinct cultures and dialects. It's never mentioned by anthropologists or historians, although it is noteworthy. It's because Celtic girls are purdy (never doubt human sluttiness as a biological/cultural paradigm).

Also, it's us Germanics who are the most docile, fucked up White people on the planet. G'ahead, I'd love to see you argue the "con" side of that one. Go for it! :box:

I'll take anyone here. :box: :box:

Fissile, I see that you get your `science` from a book written by a jew.
Do you have any more jewish propaganda that you wish to share with us?

I see that you can't face reality. Fact: The English are mongrels, not Germans. The studies that "prove" the English to be German used very small samples and assumed that this was the norm for all of England -- bad science.

The English upper classes are probably mostly descended from Germans, but that's not the case for the common Englishman. The majority of Englishmen are Celtic in origin, not German.

BTW, I've worked with, or went to school with, quite a few off the boat Germans and English. It's been my personal observation that the English don't look, or act, anything like Germans.

ETA: English girls easily rank as the ugliest in Europe. Englishmen flock to Eastern Europe looking of Slavic girlfriends -- fortunately most Slavic girls don't give them the time of day.

Very interesting story.

I talked to a woman who was moving her child out of an local elementary because her daughter was used as a tool to teach the Mexicans to read.

She didn’t have to speak out yet cause the school district provided on option to sign up at another elementary school out of your area but you had to provide the transportation.

Really? I read recently EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE -- that recent studies showed the English to be virtually geneticallhy identical with Germans.

Indeed.
Not only do we have the evidence of genetics to establish this but we have archaeology,linguistics,place names and contemporary Anglo-Saxon and native British more or less contemporary historical accounts which show that the Germanic tribes that formed the English left the Danish and north German shores en masse from the mid 5th century onwards to colonise what became England.
The English in the main established themselves by a ruthless war of genocide of the ancient Britons and ethnic cleansing.There may have been some limited intermarriage with native British women but then again the continental Germans also intermarried with Celts and Slavs in the border lands so this does not trouble me at all.
Fissile is clearly a troll advancing a jewish agenda on this forum and I am surprised that he has been allowed to get away with it for so long.He contributes nothing positive to this forum but indeed is an active hindrance.

=Fissile]I see that you can't face reality. Fact: The English are mongrels, not Germans. The studies that "prove" the English to be German used very small samples and assumed that this was the norm for all of England -- bad science.

All genetic studies are relatively `small` samples and their data is projected outwards to form assumptions about the gentic composition of the population as a whole.
But you are ignoring one important fact. Due to the recent influx of foreigners in to England and Britain from the 1950s onwards the only scientific way of sampling the population is to check first the backgrounds of those who are offered up for sampling. Clearly taking DNA samples from people who have no established roots in England would be folly and would tell us nothing.
Therefore samples are usually taken from people from established families in rural areas as this gives us a more reliable indicator of the Celt-Teuton genetic interface. It would be pointless taking samples from racially diverse urban areas such as inner cities for instance.

The English upper classes are probably mostly descended from Germans, but that's not the case for the common Englishman. The majority of Englishmen are Celtic in origin, not German.

On the contrary the English Upper Class and I mean the nobility is generally of Norman rather than pure Anglo-Saxon descent. However we need to bare in mind that the Normans were Norsemen and hence Germanic just as the Danish settlers were.
England was already a fully formed society with an English nobility and peasantry at the time of the Norman Conquest. Therefore it would be logical to assume that pure Anglo-Saxon blood is to be found not amongst the nobility but the ordinary established population of England-below the Upper Class[ie nobility].That would make the mass of English people generally Anglo-Saxon.
There is no evidence that ordinary English people are `Celtic`. This is merely your opinion and not an established fact.
How do you account for English people having Germanic surnames?
How do you account for modern English being devoid of any Celtic words or loan-words?
How do you account for the sudden appearance of Nordic long headed skulls in burial sites with Germanic artefacts predominating from the mid 5th century onwards?
How do you account for the absence of Celtic place names for most of England outside of Cornwall apart from river names?
When France was invaded by the Franks and the Normans they left little trace upon the population in terms of language,genetics,place names etc but this was not the case in England. If it was purely a warrior elite who imposed their customs upon the native Britons then this would not explain why English is a Germanic language with no Celtic loan words.Also the almost complete absence of Celtic place names demonstrates that this was a mass invasion and displacement of the indigenous population.
Archaeologists have found entire settlements along the Danish and north German/Frisian coasts that were depopulated from the mid 5th century onwards at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon invasions.
Furthermore the Danish and Norman invasions would have bolstered the already Germanic gene pool in England-not diminished it.

BTW, I've worked with, or went to school with, quite a few off the boat Germans and English. It's been my personal observation that the English don't look, or act, anything like Germans.

I am of mixed German and English descent and I can tell you that the Germans and English have no visible differences in racial phenotype.We are one Volk and it is ony a jew or a race-traitor `white` who would seek to cause enmity between Teuton brothers.

ETA: English girls easily rank as the ugliest in Europe. Englishmen flock to Eastern Europe looking of Slavic girlfriends -- fortunately most Slavic girls don't give them the time of day.

You clearly are not English and have no first hand experience of England but your posts on here show an obvious venom and hatred of England and the English.
Perhaps you should seek some therapy to get to the root of your phobia/hatred?
In the meantime let`s confine this yid to the hoosegow!