Keir Starmer

Before I started tracing my ancestry I thought I was about as English as it was possible to be,though I knew I had some Irish ancestors.

I soon found I had lots of Irish ancestors, including two Catholics who married in a Catholic church in Dublin in 1800. (My grandad, who descended from them, I never knew, but apparently he had no time for Catholics or Irish. How ironic!)

I also found I had lots of Welsh ancestors. In fact, as far as I can trace it (18th century) my father's line goes back to Wales, although I don't have what people would usually think of as a Welsh name.

Then (after about 20 years of on and off research) I got back to the middle ages. (Though most lines tail off much earlier I should add.) And I found I have ancestors from all over Europe, including Russia and Byzantium. I have a shit ton of Norman ancestors and in fact descend from nearly all the old noble houses, despite being a total pleb. I also have ancestors from all over England - including fucking Liverpool.

In short, in terms of ancestry, I am European. And I'll tell you something else - I reckon we are all of us pretty much cousins, albeit pretty far off. The very idea that you can somehow be pure English is nonsense.
 
mexico1970 said:
Every nation is a nation of mongrels if you use the definition of some on here, trying to argue out the European heritage would apply to every other continent also.

Europe has a culture and within that larger culture there are sub cultures and micro cultures which have been driven by whatever region those practices developed. Europeans invading other Europeans cultures have happened for thousands of years, the same things happened in Africa and Asia are they too lands of mongrels?

There can only be one reason why a vocal minority willingly misinterpret or misrepresent that fact and it's not for scientific reasons.

Let's skip the out of Africa theory and head straight back to the primordial soup and the patch of sludge we all hail from, we can safely assume that it's water in whatever part of the world we sprung from. That way we can forgo the political jiggerpokery and stunning semantic gymnastics we see from some wishing to denigrate any western culture as 'Mixed', 'mongrel'.
Click to expand...
Good point, there is always a rush to trash any ideas of identity, with the
'We're all mongrels' tag. The exact same thing can be applied to the African continent, different tribes moved and invaded, the Zulus are a prime example, arab influences are there, so these are not one homogenous people.
 
urban genie said:
So this LBC great replacememt theory kurfuffle.

Starmer beimg a useless twat when it comes to challenging conspiracy theories or much a do about nothing.?


Loving those on SM trying to defent the theory or starmer bywaffling on about the indigenous population.

Their isn't an indigenpus population never has been for the near 12000 years people since permamently settled on this Island range.
Click to expand...
Through an increase in DNA testing, it is becoming clear that there is an prevalent ancient British DNA.

While Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Atlantic Bronze Age, Elp culture, Hilversum, Celtic, Roman, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frisian, Dane, Norse, Norman and Dutch have added to our admixture; there is a strong distinct ancient British Isles (Great Britain and Ireland) DNA within us.

70FB8232-0960-4383-A6F8-5B2AC3B9EEF4.jpeg

A lot of the ancient immigrations were small and it was the culture that came with them, not a displacement of the population. Last last great displacement of the population was back when the Yamnaya culture came from the Eurasian Steppe, 5,000 years ago. The idea that the Celts came and displaced the Britons is proving to be incorrect. It didn’t happen. It was Celtic culture that displaced the preceding culture, not the people.

Later invaders were more the ruling classes, sgain, adding to the admixture, but not displacing the population.

www.newscientist.com

Ancient invaders transformed Britain, but not its DNA

Anglo-Saxons still dominate England THEY came, they saw, they conquered. But while the Romans, Vikings and Normans ruled Britain for many years, none left their genetic calling cards behind in the DNA of today's mainland Caucasian population. That's the message from the most comprehensive...
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com

www.oum.ox.ac.uk

Settlers

www.oum.ox.ac.uk www.oum.ox.ac.uk
“In some cases there is a clear genetic signature associated with cultural change. For example, the genetic data suggests a large movement of people from Northern France into England and Scotland between 6,000 and 3,000 years ago, at about the same time that agriculture began to be widespread. In contrast, the Norman invaders, who greatly changed the language and government of Britain, have left little genetic legacy.”

“
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mexico1970 said:
Every nation is a nation of mongrels if you use the definition of some on here, trying to argue out the European heritage would apply to every other continent also.

Europe has a culture and within that larger culture there are sub cultures and micro cultures which have been driven by whatever region those practices developed. Europeans invading other Europeans cultures have happened for thousands of years, the same things happened in Africa and Asia are they too lands of mongrels?

There can only be one reason why a vocal minority willingly misinterpret or misrepresent that fact and it's not for scientific reasons.

Let's skip the out of Africa theory and head straight back to the primordial soup and the patch of sludge we all hail from, we can safely assume that it's water in whatever part of the world we sprung from. That way we can forgo the political jiggerpokery and stunning semantic gymnastics we see from some wishing to denigrate any western culture as 'Mixed', 'mongrel'.
Click to expand...
Britain Firsts view
www.patriot-campaigns.uk

VIDEO: Britain is an ancient nation with a glorious history

It is time for the Silent Majority to fight back....
www.patriot-campaigns.uk www.patriot-campaigns.uk
 
BrianW said:
Before I started tracing my ancestry I thought I was about as English as it was possible to be,though I knew I had some Irish ancestors.

I soon found I had lots of Irish ancestors, including two Catholics who married in a Catholic church in Dublin in 1800. (My grandad, who descended from them, I never knew, but apparently he had no time for Catholics or Irish. How ironic!)

I also found I had lots of Welsh ancestors. In fact, as far as I can trace it (18th century) my father's line goes back to Wales, although I don't have what people would usually think of as a Welsh name.

Then (after about 20 years of on and off research) I got back to the middle ages. (Though most lines tail off much earlier I should add.) And I found I have ancestors from all over Europe, including Russia and Byzantium. I have a shit ton of Norman ancestors and in fact descend from nearly all the old noble houses, despite being a total pleb. I also have ancestors from all over England - including fucking Liverpool.

In short, in terms of ancestry, I am European. And I'll tell you something else - I reckon we are all of us pretty much cousins, albeit pretty far off. The very idea that you can somehow be pure English is nonsense.
Click to expand...
There’s not really any such thing as English mate. English is a language not an ethnicity.

Unless we show to have Anglo-Saxon genes (people from rural East Anglia and Kent, who have all four Grandparents who are also from rural East Anglia and Kent, show more Anglo-Saxon genes), we are British before English and actually there is barely any such thing as “English”/“Scottish”/“Welsh” other than language and borders drawn on a map.

England hasn’t even been a country since 1707.

And a quote from that Oxford study I posted above, “The genetic map of Britain shows that most of the eastern, central and southern parts of England form a single genetic group with between 10 and 40 per cent Anglo-Saxon ancestry. However, people in this cluster also retain DNA from earlier settlers. The invaders did not wipe out the existing population; instead, they seem to have integrated with them.”

So even in high Anglo-Saxon gene areas of Britain, 60-90% of their DNA is more ancient.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mexico1970 said:
I don't understand what they are fighting back against, this lunatic mob doesn't represent the views of anyone who isn't a racist. Odd bunch of idiots.
Click to expand...
Certainley are odd just had it sent to me and had been reading this thread thought it sort of fitted.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
There’s not really any such thing as English mate. English is a language not an ethnicity.

Unless we show to have Anglo-Saxon genes (I think people from rural East Anglia and Kent show more Anglo-Saxon genes), we are British before English and actually there is barely any such thing as “English”/“Scottish”/“Welsh” other than language and borders drawn on a map.

England hasn’t even been a country since 1707.
Click to expand...
That's not strictly true, either.

The 'English' peoples are the collective Germanic settlers who united under one identity, culture and terminology that was done to protect themselves from invaders. "British" is an act of union which applied to all subjects of its empire, from Africa to the Indian Subcontinent. The English language has seen many changes but it's roots are based on Germanic languages and modern day Frisian is very similar to Old English. England IS a country, what it is not is a sovereign state recognised by the UN (as the UN regards the country as the United Kingdom, not it's separate members. Ask the Scottish and the Welsh how much that terminology pisses them off)

The idea that the English are a 'specific race' i'll grant you is bumpf, but the concept of 'Anglo-Saxon', as they did not refer to themselves as such, and to suggest that the culture, concept and identity of 'English' and 'English people' is wholly represented by just it's language is incorrect. The English are a Germanic people and it's culture and basis are shared with those groups. Over the course of several hundred years, that culture and people identified itself, established itself, and called itself "the English".

'British', to use it's modern phrasing, is merely a reference to the Acts of Union 1707 that unified the countries that make up the island of Great Britain. There is literally nothing more to it than that. The Britons and the British are not the same thing. Britain is a country, and the people living here are regarded as 'British'. Modern day Britons share no connection to the historic Ancient Britons, who themselves are a people whose origins and genetic heritage, like the neanderthals, is pretty much gone. The Celtic Britons and the Anglo-Saxons more than likely shared the same genetic heritage, so when the 'mixed', they didn't do so in the sense it was two races combining together. (Same with the Scandivavians; they're a Germanic peoples, too)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31905764
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Good point, there is always a rush to trash any ideas of identity, with the
'We're all mongrels' tag. The exact same thing can be applied to the African continent, different tribes moved and invaded, the Zulus are a prime example, arab influences are there, so these are not one homogenous people.
Click to expand...
I concur, Zulu's originated from North Africa under the Arabian influence.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
That's not strictly true, either.

The 'English' peoples are the collective Germanic settlers who united under one identity, culture and terminology that was done to protect themselves from invaders. "British" is an act of union which applied to all subjects of its empire, from Africa to the Indian Subcontinent. The English language has seen many changes but it's roots are based on Germanic languages and modern day Frisian is very similar to Old English. England IS a country, what it is not is a sovereign state recognised by the UN (as the UN regards the country as the United Kingdom, not it's separate members. Ask the Scottish and the Welsh how much that terminology pisses them off)

The idea that the English are a 'specific race' i'll grant you is bumpf, but the concept of 'Anglo-Saxon', as they did not refer to themselves as such, and to suggest that the culture, concept and identity of 'English' and 'English people' is wholly represented by just it's language is incorrect. The English are a Germanic people and it's culture and basis are shared with those groups. Over the course of several hundred years, that culture and people identified itself, established itself, and called itself "the English".

'British', to use it's modern phrasing, is merely a reference to the Acts of Union 1707 that unified the countries that make up the island of Great Britain. There is literally nothing more to it than that. The Britons and the British are not the same thing. Britain is a country, and the people living here are regarded as 'British'. Modern day Britons share no connection to the historic Ancient Britons, who themselves are a people whose origins and genetic heritage, like the neanderthals, is pretty much gone. The Celtic Britons and the Anglo-Saxons more than likely shared the same genetic heritage, so when the 'mixed', they didn't do so in the sense it was two races combining together. (Same with the Scandivavians; they're a Germanic peoples, too)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31905764
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry, when I say British I mean ancient British, as in, Britons, rather than British Empire British.
 
Starmer is more likely to appeal to people who think they are "not political" - the majority.

The truth is many people believe that only "Leftism" is political. The rest is the "natural order of things".This is a delusion, because even being absolutely neutral is "political" in its way. But it's how many people think.
 
BrianW said:
Starmer is more likely to appeal to people who think they are "not political" - the majority.

The truth is many people believe that only "Leftism" is political. The rest is the "natural order of things".This is a delusion, because even being absolutely neutral is "political" in its way. But it's how many people think.
Click to expand...
You’re quite correct and it’s important to highlight that being a centrist doesn’t mean you sit on a fence for every policy.

Blair’s Third Way government went left or right based on specific policies they thought it suited them to.

That for me is the best form of government, even though things Blair did I disagree with, ie Iraq War, mass immigration to a level never seen before that gave birth to the radical right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top