England headed for A Caliphate
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
TV and credit cards
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2013
- Messages
- 8,898
- Location
- The Enlightened City
- Basic Beliefs
- Cautiously optimistic
What's in a name? It's the true character of an individual that matters most.
By the way, I wanted to name my daughter Khan but the wife was adamantly opposed to the idea.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Obviously your wife is racist scum. Divorce her. /s
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
First, it's true that poorer subpopulations tend to have more births. This is seen sometimes with immigrant populations.
However, the numerical difference is being magnified to you by some additional factors.
Example: why are they stopping at the top 10?
Hint: If you compare their 2026 list to 2024, you can rationally predict that since Patel and Taylor were only 2 births different, they swapped places in 2026, meaning 11th through 20th are all Traditional English surnames in 2026. They don't want you to know that.
Quickly skimming a list of 500 popular surnames from 1991, I observe hardly any at all Muslim surnames other than the ones present in the top 10 here (and mentioned in the article). So, I strongly suspect that around 98% to 99% of the remaining popular top 500 surnames are traditional English.
Again, that doesn't mean that 1st generation, 2nd generation etc immigrant populations like some of the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Vietnamese are not rising/birthing at a faster rate than the traditionally "English" population. But it does mean they are trying to magnify this difference by focusing arbitrarily on the top 10.
I can also say that somewhere in the chain of passing this data around and analyzing it and requesting it, it was deliberate to focus on just the top 10. The reason I can say that is because they did a Freedom of Information Request in 2024 which is where I got the top 20. They also have access to a lot of other surnames not in the top 20, such as Nguyen that you can observe from the rest of the article. So someone in this chain knew coming in that 11th to 20th would be traditional English. So, in 2026, they ignored 11th to 20th because it doesn't cause as much alarmism as desired.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,080
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Whats in a name?
Let's consider "Rob Bates, of the Centre for Migration Control think-tank".
It seems that this "Think tank" is one person.
A grassroot movement. Not grassroots, just the one grassroot.
CMC was launched in January 2024, and consists of one member of the Reform UK Party, supported by a handful of other members of the same party who have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and/or contacts in the journalism community.
This is a tiny number of British racists trying to look like a serious and popular political movement. They are in the "fake it until you make it" game; While they are still at step one, it is a good idea for the rest of us to ensure they don't get any closer to step two.
'Sweet moderation, heart of this nation, desert us not, we are between the wars' - Billy Bragg.
Let's consider "Rob Bates, of the Centre for Migration Control think-tank".
It seems that this "Think tank" is one person.
A grassroot movement. Not grassroots, just the one grassroot.
CMC was launched in January 2024, and consists of one member of the Reform UK Party, supported by a handful of other members of the same party who have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and/or contacts in the journalism community.
This is a tiny number of British racists trying to look like a serious and popular political movement. They are in the "fake it until you make it" game; While they are still at step one, it is a good idea for the rest of us to ensure they don't get any closer to step two.
'Sweet moderation, heart of this nation, desert us not, we are between the wars' - Billy Bragg.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
First name Djingis?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
That's exactly Girards theory. Jesus is the Christian scapegoat. Which is why Catholics have no need to find other scapegoats.
The harder part is to explain why this mechanism stops working for protestants. I can't remember all the details.
Edit: here's a video explaining his theory
Last edited:
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 10,205
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
thebeave
Contributor
Rats! You beat me to it.
That could be kinda funny, though, when your kid named Khan is acting up and making you mad and you scream out, "Khaaaan!". You gotta be careful when it comes to names. My cousin had a neighbor in the 70's who named their big, yellowish dog "Taxi", who unfortunately liked to run off and explore, leaving the neighbor frequently standing in an empty suburban street yelling, "Taxi!!!" like an idiot.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Corrections:
(1) I was finally able to obtain the full dataset and bypass some technical barriers to analyze the numbers directly. I took a look at the top 500 live birth surnames. Within the top 500: I observe that traditional English/Welsh surnames are not quite as high as my initial 98%–99% educated guess, but rather sit at > 80% and < 90%. Muslim-seeming surnames represent > 10% but < 20%. There is also a contingent of ambiguous Indian or Bangladeshi surnames that could be Hindu, Muslim, Jainist, or other--but even if we incorrectly assumed these were all Muslim, the Muslim-seeming surnames would still not exceed 20%. Sikh-seeming surnames are about 1%, and East/Southeast Asian surnames are roughly 0.5%.
(2) Within the 11th–20th ranks, the list is not 100% traditional English, though it remains heavily dominated by them. There is one Muslim-origin surname (Rahman) that rose into the top 20 from the 21st rank the previous year.
(3) I think the main point still stands: different subpopulations have vastly different distribution frequencies for surnames. When you isolate the top 10, you end up projecting a distorted estimation onto the whole population compared to looking at the top 20 or top 500. Surnames in some subpopulations can be far more heavily concentrated. If 7% of British Pakistanis share a surname like Khan, but traditional English surnames are spread across a massive pool where even a common name like Smith accounts for about 1% of the overall births, you inevitably get these statistical clashes right at the very top of a ranked list.
This same frequency dynamic applies to first names. If a far larger portion of Muslim families name a first or second son Muhammad, it will naturally rank high on an absolute list because traditional English given names are spread across a much wider variety of choices.
It doesn't seem that this dynamic ends merely by looking at the top 500, either. That, too, can be non-representative of the entire population for the exact same reasons.
But clearly, focusing strictly on the highest individual frequencies at the absolute top gives the highest probability of achieving a false, misleading impression of overall demographic totals. Cherry-picking a top 10 cutoff to imply a general collapse is, at best, mathematically naive--and at worst, deliberate alarmism. When someone is fully aware of all the surnames in the population and their frequencies, but chooses to present only a non-representative top-ranking list, it tends to be the latter. Again, I don't deny that poorer or 2nd, 3rd generation immigrant populations are rising at a greater rate, but displaying the top 10 artificially magnifies the data.
(1) I was finally able to obtain the full dataset and bypass some technical barriers to analyze the numbers directly. I took a look at the top 500 live birth surnames. Within the top 500: I observe that traditional English/Welsh surnames are not quite as high as my initial 98%–99% educated guess, but rather sit at > 80% and < 90%. Muslim-seeming surnames represent > 10% but < 20%. There is also a contingent of ambiguous Indian or Bangladeshi surnames that could be Hindu, Muslim, Jainist, or other--but even if we incorrectly assumed these were all Muslim, the Muslim-seeming surnames would still not exceed 20%. Sikh-seeming surnames are about 1%, and East/Southeast Asian surnames are roughly 0.5%.
(2) Within the 11th–20th ranks, the list is not 100% traditional English, though it remains heavily dominated by them. There is one Muslim-origin surname (Rahman) that rose into the top 20 from the 21st rank the previous year.
(3) I think the main point still stands: different subpopulations have vastly different distribution frequencies for surnames. When you isolate the top 10, you end up projecting a distorted estimation onto the whole population compared to looking at the top 20 or top 500. Surnames in some subpopulations can be far more heavily concentrated. If 7% of British Pakistanis share a surname like Khan, but traditional English surnames are spread across a massive pool where even a common name like Smith accounts for about 1% of the overall births, you inevitably get these statistical clashes right at the very top of a ranked list.
This same frequency dynamic applies to first names. If a far larger portion of Muslim families name a first or second son Muhammad, it will naturally rank high on an absolute list because traditional English given names are spread across a much wider variety of choices.
It doesn't seem that this dynamic ends merely by looking at the top 500, either. That, too, can be non-representative of the entire population for the exact same reasons.
But clearly, focusing strictly on the highest individual frequencies at the absolute top gives the highest probability of achieving a false, misleading impression of overall demographic totals. Cherry-picking a top 10 cutoff to imply a general collapse is, at best, mathematically naive--and at worst, deliberate alarmism. When someone is fully aware of all the surnames in the population and their frequencies, but chooses to present only a non-representative top-ranking list, it tends to be the latter. Again, I don't deny that poorer or 2nd, 3rd generation immigrant populations are rising at a greater rate, but displaying the top 10 artificially magnifies the data.
thebeave
Contributor
A decent analysis of why they might have stopped at 10. But then again, "Top Ten" (of anything) is a popular, generally oversimplifed way of presenting information. Not too short, not too long. It's a round number and Top Ten has nice ring to it. It seemed to have become popularized by David Letterman's Top Ten Lists, but you see it constantly on youtube, for example. "Top Ten funny moments on Seinfeld" or "Top ten bass fishing tips", etc, etc. So, Occam's Razor may be at play here. Also, what is the historical context of presenting the top surnames? Have they been traditionally publishing the top ten for, say, the last 50 years? Or is it a new thing, done just recently in order to be manipulative and misleading?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
When immigrants move to a new country they typically want to blend in. The fact that an immigrant parents don't pick names from the new countries culture is weird imho. Its a statement. We can discuss what statement that is. But its weird.
I have an Iranian friend who moved to Denmark as an adult. He changed his first name to an ethnic Danish one. Just to make his life easier. Both his kids have Danish names (born in Denmark. I don't understand why any immigrant wouldn't behave like this. He put lots of effort into learning Danish to speak fluently. Its just the smart thing to do.
I'm also an immigrant to Denmark. I've also put a lot of effort in being able to blend in. Its normal if you're an immigrant. Its super weird not to imho. Its just dumb
Last edited:
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
What are you basing this on? Some do but a lot don't seem to from what can be seen in many cities in Europe and some cities in the USA. Although this may have been the case for first generation immigrants, it seems that the second generation and beyond are getting pretty caught up with their "homeland" identity and culture.
I don't think it is weird at all. Seems quite logical really.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
When Scandinavians came to the United States, within 2–3 generations, they Anglicized the spellings of names most often, but did not otherwise change them. The -ss- in surnames became -s- and the k very often became a ck or a c--in Erik, for example. Scandinavian diacritics were removed to be consistent with American English orthography: e.g., Jørgensen became Jorgensen. It doesn't seem like they by and large began to choose non-Scandinavian-sounding first names until they were marrying non-Scandinavians. Also, like many other immigrant groups, there was economic stratification, leaving open certain kinds of jobs, and there was ethnic clustering regionally. Many Scandinavians settled in the Midwest, like Minnesota, for example. They learned English generally and eventually, but before that, they created various Scandinavian-language newspapers that were read in areas like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North and South Dakota.
Italian immigrants in the US also gave children names like Giuseppe, Maria, or Antonio. Within 2–3 generations, these also became Anglicized to Joseph, Mary, or Anthony. These are still popular first names among Italian-Americans. There is a link both to ethnicity and Christianity (i.e., Biblical names). Unlike Sweden, where you traditionally took the father's first name as part of your surname, in some Italian traditions, the first child was named after the father's father and the second after the mother's father. While that explicit tradition has faded, you will still find far more Anthonys than Williams among Italian-Americans.
In some of our major cities in the US, there was a history of ethnic clustering. We often still have vestiges of these locales through place names, and there is still some ethnic clustering. NYC has Little Italy and Chinatown; New Orleans has the French Quarter and more. Boston also has a Little Italy and Chinatown. There are many other cities with ethnically named regions.
Immigrants in England are learning English. They use the English alphabet to spell their names. There is also economic stratification and ethnic clustering. There are some areas of London with higher concentrations of Bangladeshi or Turkish people, for example.
WAB
Contributor
We only have ten fingers****, so anything past ten is superfluous. A beautiful person can only be measured up to ten.*** Try as we might, we can't turn a Marshall stack higher than ten (unless we're Marty McFly). Heck, we didn't even get more than ten commandments (unless we believe Mel Brooks)! Surely, surely, Almighty God could have thought up at LEAST eleven, maybe twelve commandments? When I was a kid, the most gears I could get on a bike was ten. Oy, it goes on...
***Well, Sydney Sweeney gets an eleven. Ten for general appearance, plus two for you know, and then subtract one for being named after a place in bloody fucking Australia.
**** Alright, eight fingers and two thumbs (generally speaking).
Last edited:
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,415
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,415
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
I lived next to a fellow whose surname was Beer. Had a son and called him Moore.Rats! You beat me to it.
Poor kid.
Very Australian though.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 7,415
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
From Google AI
The UK first began analyzing and publishing data on the relative frequency of leading surnames in 1856, with the release of the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Registrar General of England and Wales.
This historic 19th-century report was the first official effort to track how common specific names were across the population, highlighting the heavy dominance of traditional names like Smith, Jones, and Williams. In modern times, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) routinely analyzes naming data using birth registrations and census records to track how these rankings evolve over time.
It is not a recent thing.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,080
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
From a think tank with one member, who is a known racist fuckwad?
Surely not!?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The ONS tracks the names of births, i.e. first and last name. People may put in a Freedom of Information Request for analysis of the full dataset, like all the last names with counts or the top 10 or the top 20 names with counts. This then means the ONS "routinely analyzes naming data and census records." These requests came from a specific person, i.e. see bilby's post. The ONS does not give out the full data, like first and last names together of individuals because it violates privacy too much. So in the data that they released as per FOI, they only gave last names and counts and only down to surnames with counts of 3 not below that or it would be too close to violating confidentiality.