Yesterday, much of the news media announced that the most popular children's names in Britain in 2009 were Oliver and Olivia, Oliver having knocked Jack from the top spot which it has allegedly held for the last fourteen years. Even the Guardian reported this frivolous news item, albeit, presumably conscious of its role as the mouthpiece of the fascist left, chose to illustrate the story with its own vision of British babyhood.
Most of the news items listed the top ten names of both genders, all reassuringly Anglo Saxon names like Harry, Alfie, James and Thomas, whilst the favourite girls names, such as Lily, Emily, Grace and Jessica were also all quintessentially English.
There was nothing in the story which revealed the extent to which the colonisation of our country in recent decades threatens our very future as a native people. Almost as an after thought we were told that Mohammed had only made it to number 16 nationally, albeit it was the most popular in the West Midlands .
However, as with so much else in our media, the headline only revealed part of the story and was essentially misleading. The truth lay hidden amongst the statistics.
Oliver was the most popular boys name on account of the fact that 7263 boys where named (oops! I almost wrote “Christened”) Oliver last year. However, there is only one common way of spelling Oliver, that is not the case with names commemorating Aisha's old man.
During 2009 there were 3,300 boys named Mohammed, 2,162 Muhammads, 1,073 Mohammads, and 980 called either Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or Mohammod, if you add all those together, you reach a total of 7,549.
The news media attempted to disguise the truth with a reassuringly inaccurate piece of reporting, however, the fact is that more children born in Britain last year were named after the founder of Islam, an ideology committed to world domination, than any other name, Celtic, Anglo Saxon or otherwise.
This is further evidence of just how far down the sulphurous road to our own destruction we have already traveled.
___________
Hat Tip JVS
Most of the news items listed the top ten names of both genders, all reassuringly Anglo Saxon names like Harry, Alfie, James and Thomas, whilst the favourite girls names, such as Lily, Emily, Grace and Jessica were also all quintessentially English.
There was nothing in the story which revealed the extent to which the colonisation of our country in recent decades threatens our very future as a native people. Almost as an after thought we were told that Mohammed had only made it to number 16 nationally, albeit it was the most popular in the West Midlands .
However, as with so much else in our media, the headline only revealed part of the story and was essentially misleading. The truth lay hidden amongst the statistics.
Oliver was the most popular boys name on account of the fact that 7263 boys where named (oops! I almost wrote “Christened”) Oliver last year. However, there is only one common way of spelling Oliver, that is not the case with names commemorating Aisha's old man.
During 2009 there were 3,300 boys named Mohammed, 2,162 Muhammads, 1,073 Mohammads, and 980 called either Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or Mohammod, if you add all those together, you reach a total of 7,549.
The news media attempted to disguise the truth with a reassuringly inaccurate piece of reporting, however, the fact is that more children born in Britain last year were named after the founder of Islam, an ideology committed to world domination, than any other name, Celtic, Anglo Saxon or otherwise.
This is further evidence of just how far down the sulphurous road to our own destruction we have already traveled.
___________
Hat Tip JVS
6 comments:
Disgused? Shouldn't there be an 'i' in there?
@ Dex
oops! Yes there should have been, thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected it.
Sarah
In Australia they reported that Mohammed (and various spellings) was the most popular name in UK. Must be only your papers hiding it.
I too found the BBC's distortion puzzling. For many reasons my trust and appreciation of the BBC is at an all time low. I do have a point to make about your piece however.
How do you define 'Anglo Saxon' names?
You state that Thomas and James are 'Anglo-Saxon'.
Firstly, I wasn't aware anybody still used dark age cultural groupings as identity markers in the 21st century. Secondly, these names are not 'Anglo-Saxon'. Thomas is from Aramaic and was popular in Greece, from where I believe it was further popularised throughout Christian Europe. James is a Hebrew name, and like Thomas, was made popular with the spread of Christianity.
I often question the use of 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Anglo'. I have heard 'Anglo' used to refer to U.K. companies. Is this a contraction of Anglophone? I have also heard the term 'Anglo-Saxon' used to refer to anybody from a United Kingdom, Prodestant background in the USA even if that background is Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or indeed English where an Anglo-Saxon origin is inaccurate (e.g. surname 'Goff' found in East Anglia is of Cornish and Breton origin).
Although I never think of my own identity in terms of dark age/early medieval ethnic identities, I know from reading history the idea that the Anglo-Saxon culture has provided so dominant and influential a culture in England justifying the use of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' as you have used it, is wrong.
As such I believe the term 'Anglo-Saxon' is inappropriate.
If the term 'English' is used then Thomas and James can rightly be classified as English names just as both these names could rightly be classified as Swedish, Spanish, Irish, Dutch and Scottish etc. despite their Aramaic and Hebronic origins.
How do you think the pagan Anglo-Saxons felt when Celtic and Continental monks began spreading the Christian gospel in dark age England, laying the foundations for the spread of Christian naming practices, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon practices?
Your tone suggests you are alarmed at Mohammad's popularity in England and Wales. Are you similarly alarmed at the near ubiquity of Christian names, at one time alien to the Anglo-Saxon culture which is but one chapter in the history of this archipelago?
Good Morning Macintyre
I stand corrected, I used the term Anglo Saxon quite loosely meaning that names such as James and Thomas have existed in Britain (and of course amongst our ethnic northern European cousins) for many centuries, as a result of their biblical origins.
Those names came to our shores as a result of the spread of Christianity through Europe, not as a result of the spread of peoples from the Arab world in the way in which Mohammad has reached us. The history of our Islands is a story of a small number of ethnically identical Northern European tribes markedly less diverse than existed in many other parts of the globe (The Kenyan people, for instance, are made up of some forty tribes, yet nobody questions their status as a native people)
What we are seeing today bears no similarity to anything these islands have seen before, and to suggest otherwise is, at the very least, disingenuous.
I don't think one can say that I was “alarmed” that Mohammad was the most popular name, to be “alarmed” requires a degree off surprise.
The purpose of the article was to make clear something which news agencies appeared to be seeking to hide, and also to point to its implications to the native peoples of this ancient archipelago.
Its not something that Britain empire should be alarmed of its just a name. Further more the top listed name isn't solely directed to any race, its just a COMMON.
Post a Comment