Archive for the 'Ethnocide' Category

“I am British” ethnocide

September 30, 2007

The increasing ethnic diversity of British society means it is difficult to define what makes someone British.

Prime Minister Tony Blair says that “blood alone” does not define national identity and that modern Britain was shaped by a “rich mix of all different ethnic and religious origins”.

The idea of Britishness as a unique and proud concept is out of date, embarrassing and downright rude to other people with different ethnic backgrounds. Heritage and culture are not important in this modern and enlightened age. The future is important – my future, your future and the future of society as a whole. People need to be more aware of themselves, their capabilities and achievements and not to live in the past.
Paul M Deakins, Manchester, UK

When I was growing up I had a great sense of pride in my country, Britain, where I was born. Since I have studied history I have realised that the truth is that we have no more and no less reason pride than any other nation.

Randy, UK

Search “I am British”

What ethnic group do people with ancestors in the British Isles belong to? Do people from Pakistani have Pakistani ethnicity and are British too? But people whose ancestry is in the BritishIsles now belong to no ethnic group at all?

How can an ethnic group cease to exist, other than by exterminating its members or pursuing policies that will shortly do so?

search Stephen Oppenheimer Origins British

In his 2006 book The Origins of the British, Oppenheimer argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry mainly traces back to the Paelolithic Iberian people, now represented by Basques, instead. He published an introduction to his book in Prospect magazine.[1]

Oppenheimer uses genetic studies to give an insight into the genetic origins of people in the British Isles and speculates on how to match this evidence with linguistic and archaeological data to give insights into the origins of Britain, the Celts, the Vikings and the English. He breaks down the R1b haplogroup into a detailed set of clans that are undefined.

Countries are usually named after ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are seldom named after legal entities. Nationalism is the doctrine that a state as a legal entity corresponds to a nation, i.e. a group of people. A nation is not a legal entity, its a group of people connected by common ancestry and culture. Britain is named after the ethnic group British. The ethnic group British came first and Britain as the name of a legal entity came second. In Latin, one had Brittania.

When Romans moved to Britain they didn’t stop calling themselves Roman and start calling themselves British. Britannicus doesn’t mean British it means conquered Britain.

Two years later, in 43, Claudius was granted the honorific “Britannicus” by the senate as a reward for his conquest of Britain. The emperor refused it for himself, but accepted it on behalf of his young son. This is the name by which the boy became known to posterity. According to Suetonius, Claudius doted extensively on Britannicus.

Someone who moves to Britain has as much right to call themselves Britannicus as British. In fact more right. Because Britannicus means conqueror of Britain. The Senate of Rome was not saying to Claudius that they had discovered in old genealogy records at the census that he was from Britain. They were saying he was named Britannicus for conquering Britain. So Britannicus would be a better name for a person who immigrates to Britain if a man, and Britannica if a woman. An alternative name would be Britannican. Britannican could also be used as an adjective. It would mean a non-British UK citizen. An alternative to that might by UKer or UKon or UKian.

US Census

Self-identified ethnicity in the US Census:

British 1,085,720
English 24,515,138
Scotch-Irish 4,319,232
Scottish 4,890,581
US Census Codes






They also have codes for Native American


Note that the US Census has different codes for Native American and British. Why? Are they racist?

I have at last got my hands on C. Capelli et al.: A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles, Current Biology, vol. 13, 979-984, 27 May 2003.

The other controversial conclusion is that the German/Danish element in southern England (south of the Thames) is limited, and that the male ancestry of this area ‘appears to be predominantly indigenous’.

British DNA migrations Anglo Saxon

Britain DNA immigration

By Shawn Chang

We, the Voice of Britain’s Skilled Immigrants (VBSI) hold the view that the retrospective application of the changes of the rules to existing WP and HSMP visa holders is unfair and unjust.

Identifying British nationality by DNA:,,1366117,00.html

‘I am British. It’s a blessing, really’
Iman Naji is studying French with European Studies and Spanish at Surrey University. She hopes to become a languages teacher for disabled children

Friday December 3, 2004
Guardian Unlimited

I’ve only ever lived in Britain. I go back to Morocco every summer as a holiday but I can never see myself living there. I’m too used to London, I suppose. If I’m sitting down with my friends we look like a Benetton advert. We’re all in the same boat. It doesn’t seem that people are that interested in where my family is from. When you hear me speaking, you can’t tell where they are from.

I am British, but when you go into my house and you hear the language and look at the walls and you see verses of Qur’an and the food that we eat, it reminds you of where you’re from. So you are with that all the time.

I have been fasting since the age of 13. I pray. I don’t wear the hijab, but I will eventually wear it one day.

I do think being Muslim and being British are conflicting areas. Britain as a whole is multicultural.

So being Muslim is not multicultural but conflicts with multicultural.


In population genetics, the case of one way migration is often treated in what is called the “Island Model”.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

What this means is that the genes initially on the island, in effect, disappear. But the West is the Island, and we don’t survive in this model. We are being voted off the island by the genes of the immigrants. This never stops. Every cohort of immigrants is voted off the island in genetic terms by the following cohorts.


As the theorem says, immigration causes genetic replacement. The British Isles were not a nation of immigrants prior to the current immigration waves. Even the impact of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Romans may have been small.

According to Stephen Oppenheimer, “The Origins of the British”, DNA studies show that the impact of Vikings, Normans, and even Romans, Angles and Saxons on British DNA frequencies were slight. However, this is not a consensus position at this point.

When non-British enter Britain and claim they are British and the theorem says that one way migration causes genetic replacement, we can characterize the immigrants not as benign but as pushing the genetic replacement. Those who come to a place and say the people there are not any ethnic group or different from those coming are engaging in immigration hypocrisy. The immigrants are engaging in genetic replacement as the theorem says.

When immigrants say the people living in the place are not members of any ethnic group, which they do by taking their ethnic group name as a generic name, then they are engaging in false statements on behalf of immigration. Since the theorem says that immigration causes genetic replacement, immigrants who take the name of the indigenous ethnic group as a generic non-ethnic group name are engaging in deception.

Notice these migrants do the opposite of what European migrants did when they entered lands. The Europeans didn’t say they were Mohawks or Apache. They didn’t deny that Mohawk was an ethnic group. Americans who go to Britain don’t announce themselves at customs as Mohawks.

But now the same immigrants coming to European lands who say all European migration in history or before history was racism say Europeans were racists who caused ethnocide of Mohawks and Apache. At the same time, they say that British is not any ethnic group. But the theorem says that these immigrants are causing genetic replacement and that over time this will be 100 percent.

the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”

== Numerical Example for US

If US population was stable at 300 million and immigrants each year are 2 million, then genetic replacement is rapid. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. With 2 million entrants that means 2 million births. So the ratio of births to deaths is 1/2. With a 25 year cycle from birth to parent, we get a survival ratio of 1/2 raised to the number of 25 year periods. So in 2 periods we have 1/4 and in 3 we have 1/8.

immigrant births

Births to illegal alien mothers—AKA “anchor babies”—accounted for a whopping 42 percent of all immigrant births in 2002.

915,800 in 2002 (22.7 percent of all births)

Births to immigrant mothers have quadrupled over the past three decades: [Table1, below.]

The number of non-white Americans exceeded 100 million for the first time in 2006, according to a just released Census Bureau report.

According to the latest figures, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 66.4 percent of U.S. population on July 1, 2006. Minorities were 33.6 percent of the total. As recently as 1990, 76 percent of Americans called themselves non-Hispanic white. In 1965, the American population was 88 percent white.

Births to white, non-Hispanic women have already started to fall in absolute terms. (Table 2) White, non-Hispanic mothers gave birth to 2,244,288 children in 2006. That was about 28,000 fewer births than in 2005, a decline of 1.25 percent.

Over the same period births to minority mothers rose by 2.78 percent.

In 2006 45.9 percent of live births were to minority mothers. That was up from 45.0 percent in 2005.

Here’s the next big headline (you read it on VDARE.COM first):

bullet If white births continue shrinking and minority births growing at the present rate, minorities will account for more than half of all births by 2011.

By 2021 more than 60 percent of births will be to minorities (Table 2.)

What the theorem says will happen is what is happening. Imagine that. We are seeing genetic replacement in the U.S.

Graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 in the U.S. Fertility drops except when immigration was restricted when it rose. That was called the baby boom. So during immigration, fertility fell, just like the theorem says.


Suppose the UK had a population of 75 million, then with a lifetime of 75 years, one million would die per year. If immigrants were 500,000 per year, then one would have 500,000 births. So the genetic survival ratio per generation is 1/2. So in 75 years one has 1/8 of the starting genes.

A two-page report from the Office for National Statistics yesterday illustrated graphically how Labour lost control of immigration.

  • Immigration estimates out by 45,000 a year
  • Minorities fill 20pc of school places
  • Yesterday’s report puts the assumed annual net immigration figure closer to 200,000 – a four-fold increase in a decade.

    Because of emigration and immigrant births these estimates underestimate the extent of genetic replacement.

    At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday.

    The above is already surpassed.

    Net foreign immigration reached 340,000 in 2004 before falling to 290,000 in 2005.

    Graph of UK fertility shows drop since 1960. This is what the theorem says. Funny about these math theorems being proven right.

    The last decade has seen a 77 per cent increase in births by mothers born outside of the UK, with the figure climbing to almost 150,000, or over a fifth of all babies, last year.

    As Britain’s demographics change, Mohammed is expected soon to replace Jack as the most popular boy’s name. It has already pushed Thomas into third place.

    Is Mohammed a British name?

    Today’s “Times” is running a story about the Deobandis – an extremist Islamic group which control “more than 600 of the 1,300 mosques in Britain”.

    The centerpiece of the story is Sheikh Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq, a cleric with an intense loathing of the west and Britain in particular.

    According to ul Haq the demonic powers of the West have joined together in a concerted, potentially genocidal mission to humiliate, murder, rape and pillage Muslim lands and people. Their target is Islam.

    There are no white people working in the Immigration Department, that is why your letter went unanswered. A friend of mine spent 4 years trying to get a British passport. He had British grand parents, a first from Cambridge, lots of money, (he was a lawyer and an internet entrepreneur) but because he came from Zimbabwe, he was denied a passport. Never once did he see a white face when dealing with officials. He went to Australia. Write to your MP, in fact go and see him/her.

    The theorem doesn’t happen on its own. The people make it happen. This is what is happening. This is what its like to ignore theorems. You can ignore the theorem, but the theorem won’t ignore you.

    ==World IQ Graph

    Graph of European Fertility

    == Contacting your Member of Parliament




    Find your MP


    Enter your postcode to find the name and contact details of your local MP.

    Use the advanced search page to search by names, party, constituency or county.


    When to contact your MP

    Everyone has a right to contact their local MP to discuss issues affecting them, but they can?t deal with all your problems so make sure you?re going to the right place.


    Calling with a simple question might get a faster response than writing. You will talk to a relevant office or have to leave a message. Phone the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and ask for your MP by name. If you do not know their name then phone the House of Commons Information Office on 020 7219 4272.

    You may also contact your MP through their local constituency office. Addresses and contact numbers will be listed in local libraries, town halls, an MP’s personal website or through the House of Commons Information Office.

    By letter

    When writing to any MP the address to use is: House of Commons London SW1A 0AA. A letter allows you to explain yourself more clearly and in detail and the MP will have a record of your problem.


    The majority of MPs now have email addresses that you can write to our directory of MPs lists all available addresses.
    See the directory of MPs


    There is no general fax number for the House of Commons or listing of MP’s fax numbers – please telephone the MP’s office first if you need to send a fax. is a non-partisan website run by a charity which aims to make it easy for people to keep tabs on their elected and unelected representatives in Parliament, and other assemblies.

    This is a well organized website. You can cut and paste from Migration Watch or from this website or others in your letter to your member of Parliament or to use in a phone call. Keep your letters civil or your phone calls. That gives them more impact. The staffer may already be on our side, don’t alienate them.


    ==US You can send a fax

    The above have talking points for your phone calls and current legislation.

    Your ancestors and maybe your relatives or even you today are fighting for our freedom and our existence. They had to fight every day, they didn’t take many days off. There is a reason they call it “The Battle of Britain”.

    All we have to do is send a fax or call or write a letter a few times a year, but even once makes a difference. Be polite. Say you want to stop all immigration including asylum, family reunification, and work related.

    Remember, when you get angry write. When you get really angry, edit. When you edit so that its civil and fact and theorem based it has impact. You show your emotion by doing what it takes to make it translate into action, and that means editing. You will talk to staffers, who may already be on our side.

    ==When is the best time to call or fax or write?

    When its fresh in your mind and you can cite some of the numbers or references. Citing sources gives much greater impact. Copy the weblink for a source even if its not a live link they know you are backing up what you are writing. So when is the best time? Right now.


    You can cut and paste the above quotations from Nagylaki on the Wright Island Model. The textbooks in genetics are on our side. Copy in the weblink as well to the Nagylaki paper. We have to use the academic resources that are on our side. There is nothing they can say to answer this theorem. Push it. Push it hard but civil. The theorem applies to everyone, each year’s immigrant cohort will go extinct the same as those already here from future immigration.

    When dealing with your representatives or their staff never say I won’t vote for so and so if he doesn’t do such and such. Always make it sound like voting isn’t part of the equation and that you are just discussing the issue. Make it sound like you are positive towards your representative overall. You want them to feel that they can reach you and that you have an open mind on them as a person. Let them think your vote matters, don’t actually say it.

    No one wants to listen to someone who has a closed mind against them. So seem like you are mildly positive about your rep. If you talk to a staffer, by civility and tone of voice, make the staffer feel you are even more positive on them as an individual. Staffers may be of any ethnicity, but will likely mirror their district. If you have facts and theorems those will help you on your call whoever the staffer is. Calls have impact. So do letters that have quotes from science journals or other facts or data. Staffers are busy so you can actually help educate them. Not many are in the library checking genetics journals.

    %d bloggers like this: