Anglo-Saxon institutionalised racism

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 19, 2006, 01:00 AM | #

Thomas’ is weird. In 2002, Molecular Biology and Evolution publishes his paper suggesting that the

...best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. Such an event would simultaneously explain both the high Central English-Frisian affinity and the low Central English-North Welsh affinity.

Now he produces this paper inferring that English/Northern Germans have a genetic propensity toward genocidal apartheid. He suggests the Welsh genetic markers match more closely with Ireland, but doesn’t explain the significant variance within the two Welsh towns examined.

Is a Fergusonesque justification for a multicutural Britain or are the Welsh now looking for reparations for this horrible genocide? It somehow smells politically expedient.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 19, 2006, 01:22 AM | #

Is Mark Thomas a Jew? His post-doctoral work was funded by the Wellcome Trust.

Some of his publications:

Founding Mothers of Jewish Communities: Geographically Separated Jewish Groups were Independently Founded by Very Few Female Ancestors. American Journal of Human Genetics 70: pp 1411 ­ 1420.

The Cohen Modal Haplotype and the Origins of The Lemba - The “Black Jews of Southern Africa”. American Journal of Human Genetics 66; pp674 - 686.

High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews. Human Genetics 107, pp. 630-641.

Genetics: The pursuit of Jewish History by Other Means. Judaism Today 10, pp 4 -

A genetic date for the origin of Old Testament Priests. Nature. 394, pp138-140.

Posted by JJR Apologist on July 19, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

Key conclusion of paper: group selection works. What worked on Celts can be put to work by Jews upon modern Britons.

Posted by James Bowery on July 19, 2006, 01:56 AM | #

Anyone who does a population displacement analysis of the Isles without taking into account RH incompatibility isn’t credible.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 19, 2006, 07:32 AM | #

The lesson of this paper is about race-replacement: by invading and imposing economic pressures on the Celts, the Saxons pulled off what we now know to be “race-replacement”. And the same pattern is being repeated in Europe today - the State is mulcting indigenous Europeans and bribing fecund migrants from the Third World to breed.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 19, 2006, 08:48 AM | #

I have written some extensive comments on this latest research, and its moral implications (Fred Scrooby will particularly like this one) at my blog:

http://ravingwingnut.blogspot.com/2006/07/anglo-saxons-outbred-celts-with.html

Posted by perroazul del norte on July 19, 2006, 10:45 AM | #

Remember this study?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Posted by Matra on July 19, 2006, 11:21 AM | #

It somehow smells politically expedient.

Perhaps. The author’s use of the big bad bogey word “apartheid” indicates an attempt to vilify. However, from another viewpoint the research could indicate the usefulness of an apartheid-style system.

But is it true anyway? Celtic displacement was more widespread in England than the rest of Britain but I was under the impresssion that even in England the genetic changes brought about by the Anglo-Saxons weren’t that great. Yet according to Thomas the natives were driven to extinction.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 19, 2006, 12:10 PM | #

For years the academic establishment assumed a model whereby Saxons and Celts lived alongside one another.  Then genetic research revealed a picture in which the indigenous Britons - not Celts, of course (already a political label) - were driven across Offa’s Dyke.  Academics have had to adapt.

It seems likely that a few pockets of indigenous habitation remained - not in Cornwall, strangely.  The largest was likely Sussex.  But in Roman times the south was an impenetrable woodland and it probably remained sufficiently so to shield significant numbers of natives.

As regards Saxon ethnic cleansing, genetically it was probably not very thorough.  I can quite imagine that men and boys were slaughtered when their living places were overun, whilst women and girls were kept as slaves and, no doubt, for other purposes if their physical attributes merited it.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 19, 2006, 01:29 PM | #

Who cares? They may be right, but it doesn’t change the morality of immigration today.

Posted by James Harrison on July 19, 2006, 03:39 PM | #

We’re studying ancient history that occurred 1,500 years ago, wherein the Britons were ethnically cleansed or diluted by the Saxons; and what scares me is that in another fifteen centuries, the Earth’s inhabitants could, potentially, be studying America—about how the whites were cleansed or chased out by the savagely parasitic Hispanics.

This is the possibility we face in the coming decades: We must prepare ourselves, otherwise our people face absolute destruction.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 19, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Ben, I might weigh in but given my post I’d rather keep my glass house intact.  =D

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 19, 2006, 04:06 PM | #

Whoops!  Meant for that to go in my post about the HATE CRIME.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 19, 2006, 05:16 PM | #

Good point James!

I wrote to Professor Thomas and much to my surprise he responded.

DJ

Professor Thomas,

It was interesting reading the Times report of your recent study. However, some questions arose. It appears to use the same data collected for your 2002 paper,  however, reaches a different conclusion. Initially you wrote:

The best explanation for our findings is that the Anglo-Saxon cultural transition in Central England coincided with a mass immigration from the continent. Such an event would simultaneously explain both the high Central English-Frisian affinity and the low Central English-North Welsh affinity.

Now your model changed. Why is that?

How do you explain the significant variance within the two Welsh towns examined?

Madison Grant contended that the term Celtic implied cultural and linguistic differences. The Celts he claimed were a Nordic people. Is this position at odds with your findings?

Also how do you reconcile the findings of David Miles who argues that around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters, with the results of your work?

Yours very truly,
Desmond Jones.

Mark Thomas:

It was interesting reading the Times report of your recent study. However, some questions arose. It appears to use the same data collected for your 2002 paper,  however, reaches a different conclusion. Initially you wrote:

Now your model changed. Why is that?

Because Archaeologists could not accept such a large immigration, and because there is historical evidence of ethnic division and an economic division, some 200 years after the migrations. This led me to seek an alternative explanation for the high male-line Anglo-Saxon contribution to the English gene pool. An apartheid-like social system would do that (please
see enclosed paper).

How do you explain the significant variance within the two Welsh towns examined?

Small population size, low migration rates between locations and
consequently, high rates of genetic drift. Most other Welsh locations we have examined since the 2002 study look like Llangefni in terms of their Y chromosome distribution.

Madison Grant contended that the term Celtic implied cultural and linguistic differences. The Celts he claimed were a Nordic people. Is this position at odds with your findings?

It depends on what he means by Nordic.

Also how do you reconcile the findings of David Miles who argues that around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters, with the results of your work?

There is not necessarily a contradiction - ice age hunters were around in, well, the ice age! We are talking about much more recent times. But it is also worth pointing out that this claim is in a book - not a peer-reviewed scientific study. I would like to see the evidence.

Best wishes

Mark