Thursday, 10 September 2009

The Blame the Name Game.

Sky makes much of the list of most popular boys' and girls' names. The rather plain and crinkly 'Jack' is the most popular name for boys, and Mohammed is about 16th. Unless you include all the variants - Muhammad etc - which you should really, because it's an Arabic name so its translation into the Roman alphabet is a nearest-fit phonetic thing. They are all the same name. So it's the second most popular.

Does this mean imminent Islamisation of the UK? Should we prepare for Sharia law? Of course not. The explanation is much more simple.

Pretty much every single baby boy born to Muslim parents will have the name Mohammed as his first name. That's in homage to their prophet. Then he'll have one or two 'everyday' names for general use because otherwise it would end up like the old Monty Python 'Bruces' sketch. So every single Muslim boy has that name.

Christians don't call every male child 'Jesus', in fact they rarely do that at all. If they did it would be in the number 1 spot. Buddhists, as far as I am aware, rarely, if ever, name their children 'Buddha'. In fact, no other religion has a custom of using one particular name in the name list bestowed upon every male child. Everyone else chooses from a very, very long list of names and some let their imaginations run away with them, and name their kids 'Apple' or 'Beetroot' or 'Beef Sandwich' or' Armchair'. So the high ranking of Mohammed is an artefact brought about by one group - Muslims - with a tradition of using the name all the time.

It's not an even distribution so the position of 'Mohammed' in the list is statistically irrelevant. We are not about to be overwhelmed.

Besides, I'm not worried about that at all because there's something far more sinister to be concerned with.

An awful lot of parents are naming their children after this guy:

Now that is a very worrying trend indeed.

(Addendum: the name 'Evie' has just entered the top ten. Wonder where that one came from?)


Anonymous said...

hmm, quite.

I'm quite perplexed, as 'Jack' is not even a 'proper' name!

Much better giving them a long name they may hate but has many shortened forms, eg Elizabeth, Jonathan etc.

Call me Mo said...

My 86 year old uncle Jack suffered the prejudice of the vicar refusing to chrisian him unless he was named John Jack. Do all Sikhs have the name Singh incorporated in their title? When we have a prime minister called Tracy or Darren,I'll start to worry.

A.B. Gordon said...

Kaur (Princess) for girls, Singh (Lion) for boys.

TheBigYin said...

I wonder if Tower Hamlets are worried about Islamisation? They sure are worried about Islamic smokers.

Uncle Bob said...

Where was Gordon on the list? In hiding?

Henry North London said...

Kaur means lioness

Raj Kumari is princess

FireForce said...

People named after "The usless cunt straw" that will look good in the phone book!

A.B. Gordon said...

Jesus (Hay-zeus) is common in Spanish speaking nations for boys. Buddha? His name was Sidharta, Buddha was his title/descrition. Hindus? Lots of Krishnas & Shivas.

I'm alright Jack said...

It would be easier if they just gave us the number of muslims being born then we could understand the demographics.
Say for example we had one million births last year.

If there were 100,000 Jacks then there would have to be 99,999 or less muslim births ( since you said all muslims use the Mohammed variant as part of their name)

If there were 10,000 Jacks then there would be 9,999 or less muslim births.


Anonymous said...

some estimates suggest that as a demographic group muslims are growing 10 times faster than any other group. Even if this is an overestimate,we ARE about to be overwhelmed. two generations,and then we're done.

A.B. Gordon said...

Can I be overwhelmed by Queen Rania of Jordan?

Anonymous said...

Evie - the only recent use I can think of is for the heroine in the film "V for Vendetta" - surely a favourite of this organ's prime ejaculator? (But still not a patch on the graphic version).

As played by the lovely Ms Natalie Portman.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the 'of ancestry' Jewish Straw was 'Christened' JOHN Whitaker Straw. He decided to call himself Jack possibly in the hope that JWS would become as catchy as JFK. Or perhaps he just wanted an airport named after him? I can't believe he wanted to get himself assassinated but one can always live in hope.

Charles said...

Stupid fucking post. Maybe you should try travelling, LegIron? Maybe around a few Latin countries where it seems every other bloke is called Jesus? Yeh, that's right, Christians who call their sons Jesus. Fucking retarded post in general. This website seems more and more to pander to the knuckle dragging cunts in the BNP.

There is a lot more to the world than the UK and maybe it's about time you bothered to go abroad for a change. And by abroad I mean further away than France.

Have lost faith in this website - first OH shifted from being a true Libertarian to a BNP mouthpiece, and now you are doing the same. Makes me embarrassed to read this blog.

hypocisy corner said...

mohammed? wasn't he that bloke that had a chat with the angel gabriel?

hmmmmmmmmm...that's really likely......

about as likely as there being 72 virgins in heaven! what happens up there? are 72 new ones made continuously?if you are a 'spirir' in heaven then how does one have carnal relations then?

jesus fucking wept!

typos above said...

hypocrisy+spirit ffs!

Anonymous said...

Christians don't call every male child 'Jesus', in fact they rarely do that at all.

You ain't been to South America lately, have you? Every fucker there is named Jesus - and they all think they're brilliant sons because of it, so they live with their mothers until they're forty and spend their nights frequenting cut-price brothels.

mexicano said...

You´re being somewhat complacent, methinks. The most popular names for newborn boys in Brussels, the capital city of the European Union, for 2006:

1) Mohamed
2) Adam
3) Rayan
4) Ayoub
5) Mehdi
6) Amine
7) Hamza

I put it to you that those are not, by and large, traditional Belgian names. Similarly, in The Hague, variations of the name Mohammed have taken first, second and fifth place in the table of most popular names for boys.

They´re here, they´re real and unless something happens (something with a capital ´S´) they´re going to outbreed us.

hangemall said...

Totally off topic, but I've just come across this on the Beeb, about climate change sceptics.

"The survey, by Cardiff University, shows there is still some way to go before the public's perception matches that of their elected leaders."

Errrrmm. Isn't this the wrong way round? Shouldn't the elected leaders' perception match that of the public?

It doesn't matter what the subject is, nor the technical rights and wrongs.

Sorry if the above doesn't make too much sense, but I'm on my second hefty slug of The MacAllan after a couple in the pub.

Leg-iron said...


Yes, I know about the prevalence of Jesus as a name in Latin American countries. The survey was a UK survey which isn't, so far, classed as Latin. The Romans gave it their best shot but well, it just wasn't British, you know? Those Romans deliver pizza now.

As for pandering to the BNP - by saying muslims aren't all out to get us, I'm pandering to the BNP? Please explain.

Mexicano - Brussels can fall to the Visigoths for all I care. That's their problem. We've been invaded many times by much bigger armies that weren't based on hooded yobs with as much grasp of real despicable behaviour as your average hippie. Where are they now? They're still here, working and paying taxes and saying 'bloody immigrants ' in every accent you can think of. We absorbed them.

The rabid fundamentalists of Islam like to say there are a million of them. There are fifty-nine million of us. Of those million muslims, how many do you think came here to wage war and how many to just live a quiet life? Do you really imagine all those corner shops are secret terror cells? Really? Even the ones that sell tobacco and booze late at night?

The fundamentalists overestimate their support among the Muslims who live here. They draw their converts from the young and impressionable. These suckers think they are on a mission from God and that they can't be hurt. They imagine that wearing a black ski mask acts like armour. They have been suckered into thinking like Charles - any mention of any ethnic group in any context is some kind of BNP propaganda. Jerk those knees, boys, jerk those knees.

So they beat up a few fat guys who aren't looking for a fight. Wow, that's something to be scared of, right? Let them play with the street people and see how they do.

They are prodded into action by UAF, an organisation run by the three main parties. They are deluded. They are not the enemy.

Your enemy is in government and in quangos. Your enemy is in fake charities and in unaccountable councils who can do as they please, get caught and are never punished.

Non-muslims outnumber muslims by 60 to 1 in this country. Two generations to takeover? Shit meets fan long before two generations are up. That's a scare story. Only a few are involved in terror actions and of those few, most don't even know why. Muslims have been in this country a long time. They are settled and doing very nicely. They don't want sharia law and radical twats messing up their business any more than we do. They are British now.

While we're watching the Muslims, and the Muslims are watching us, the real enemy is laughing at us both.

Look at Hangemall's comment. We aren't thinking the way Government wants us to think yet. Our own government wants to control every thought.

And you're worried about a few jihadists?

Remember cowering from the IRA? Remember how we let Hitler walk all over us? How do you like living under Norman rule or Roman law?

Oh wait - we don't. We disposed of them all. Even Cromwell, once he took power and turned out to be as much of a twat as King Charles. Cameron might like to take note.

We are deflected by making us hate immigrants when the real enemy are those who invite them here. They are scapegoats. We are mugs. We've had immigrants since before the Celts (who were immigrants) and we just absorbed them. The difference is, we didn't afford them any special treatment other than to make them one of us.

Know your enemy. Don't waste your energy fighting the wrong ones. Leave that to the UAF.

Your enemy was here before any of these immigrants arrived and it thrives when you blame who you're told to blame.

Ask yourself - are immigrants fining people for overfilled bins or searching photographers or banning things? No? Who's doing that?

There's your enemy. See them for what they are.

Call me Infidel said...

It's the Demography stupid......from Mark Steyn

Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

You can kid yourself that it doesn't matter, but when you are living in a third world hell hole that was once Great Britain and you are a pensioner you may well feel differently. This isn't about racism. Since when has islam been a race? It is a matter of cultural survival and at the moment the West is losing.

JuliaM said...

"As for pandering to the BNP - by saying muslims aren't all out to get us, I'm pandering to the BNP? Please explain."

You're clearly a double agent, Leg-Iron. Charles is on to your game. The jig's up now!

"This website seems more and more to pander to the knuckle dragging cunts in the BNP."

Some of the best take-downs of the BNP I've ever seen have been here on this blog, Charles. I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the word 'pandering'...

lilith said...

In Spain they call their girls Jesus too. And their boys Marie.

electro-kevin said...

They're only naming them 'Jack' after the father !

I'm in agreement with you about the reason for Mohammed - but why the concealment of this fact by the ONS ?

Anonymous said...

Legiron, the point you need to take on board is that population growth is geometric not linear.

If UK resident women of asian origin breed more and younger than ethnic whites, and women born in asia breed more and younger still (source ONS)then you have a demographic timebomb. Add in net white emigration and net asian immigration and you have an even worse situation.

The question is not IF, because all things being equal that's a mathematical certainty, but WHEN.

I suspect white anglo-saxons will become an ethnic minority in this country within my lifetime. And what makes me really suspicious is that when the ONS produce birth statistics as they did last week, they break it down every which way but by ethnic origin. Clearly they have decided to conceal, and all we're left to go on is the evidence of our own eyes and tidbits like boys names.

And I'm not a BNP supporter or sympatheiser, just a worried middle class white guy who grew up in the 70's and doesn't recognise his own country anymore.

Anonymous said...

Despite their ineptness, the BNP are the only UK party that highlights the fact that we are getting colonized by those fun loving Muslims!

If you think they are bad, what kind of party will rise to the surface in thirty years?

Islam is Nazism with beards.

But us European types are much better at Totalitarianism once we get going.

Libertarianism will be great for us if we did not have that lot here.

BNP now.

Or stylish uniforms and concentration camps in thirty years?

Ed P said...

The naming is just the start of a chronic & scandalous abuse of children - religion, any religion, should not be inflicted on them. Religious indoctrination - brain-washing - is an obscenity. Let them decide if their parent(s) religion is valid when they're old enough to make a reasoned judgement. And stop state support for all religious school too!
A sane society would laugh at the sky-pixie brigades, with their idiotic nonsense, rejected by rational people just as phlogiston, flat-earth and other crackpot theories were in previous centuries. I'm renaming my pets jesus & mohammed just to piss off the neighbours.

A.B. Gordon said...

In a worse case scenario "they" cannot take over the country but can hold Leicester, Oldham, Tower Hamlets et al.

Anonymous said...

We are not going to wake up one day in 20 years time and find there’s been a muslim take over of the country, with a caliph sitting in no. 10.

But what I predict will happen will be the de facto setting up of autonomous muslim enclaves within Britain, areas where the native population has all but fled or been driven out, and the authorities have only nominal control.

With the vast disparity in birth rates, white flight from the cities, authorities reluctant to enforce the law in muslim areas (think bigamy), and the continuing push for Sharia law, who’s going to stop the muslim colonisation of parts of Britain?

mexicano said...

OH, If you were guilty of complacency in your original post then you are guilty of missing the point in your subsequent response. I made no reference to the jihad, radical imams or any other such disruptive element within the Muslim community. All I pointed out is that they are outbreeding us. If one section of a society outbreeds another by a significant margin then there is no need for violence, terrorism or anything else - power will be theirs by default. What they do with that power is yet to be decided, but understand that we will have no voice in that decision.

beckton said...

I am sick of this we-were-all-immigrants-once crap. It's meaningless. We didn't have 'immigration' between 1066 and 1946; we had occasional arrivals of relatively tiny numbers of people from neighbouring countries whose children merged seamlessly into the established population. Trying to pretend that what has happened over the last 60 years is comparable to that is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

It took only 30,000 active combatants to wrest control of Chechyna from the Russians. It was only the Russian militaries willingness to level entire cities to get at their enemies that won it back again. 1,591,000 Muslims living in Britain as of 2001. It could never happen here...

Charles said...

Leg-Iron, an apology is due.

To be honest, I kind of switched off when I got to the point where you started mentioning how no Christians call their sons Jesus and I do feel very stupid after having actually sat down whilst sober and read the rest of your post.

But can you really deny that OH has a rather anti-Islam stance going on? His posts are full of hate towards those people with brown skin and names like Ahmed and Mohammed even though he claims to be a Libertarian, which is my only excuse for jumping to conclusions regarding your post.

Please accept my humblest apologies for over-reacting to what is a rather well written post by you. I'm actually rather embarrassed by what I wrote last night.

However, I must ask you why on Earth you bother writing for OH. And before you try to tell me he is a Libertarian as well. He ain't. It seems every post he makes is full of bile towards a young religion. Please see his post "How come there's no peace?". Any one of his criticisms could be quite easily aimed at any Christian country (by which I mean a country where the VAST majority of people are EXTREME believers, as opposed to the UK/US/Europe where Christianity is more of a conviction than a belief). Again, please see Latin America and certain African countries. I lived in Venezuela for years and I know that life there is as cheap as any other Islamic country.

It is not a problem of Islam, it is a problem of Religion in general.

That's not to say that religion itself is wrong and evil, but religion provides the wrong and evil in society an easy excuse to kill and maim those they disagree with. I guess that's the problem with believing in something that doesn't require empirical evidence.

Once again, I am truly sorry for sounding off over nothing. And once again, OH is a CUNT. Truly, madly, deeply, CUNT. In future I shall read your blog direct rather than relying on OH to consolidate "Libertarianism" for me.


Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails