Post: #1

Your feelings about that, focused on the aussies, canadians, americans,etc who have been to the UK ( you could also include Ireland here), how do you see the social dynamics going on up there, the attitudes of people,gaming women.. etc Do you think the UK is more like the rest of europe (Or even western europe alone) or do the things just work the same way as they do in Australia, US, Canada,NZ..

My curiosity about that subject, It seems like the UK does not really belong to Europe culturally wise (at least in terms of people's mentality), or even western europe in terms of dating, meeting women and interacting with locals, and that you have to play the same games as you do in the rest of the english speaking world...

Any ideas?

Post: #2

You've got it back to front.

The USA, Canada and Australia are like Britain, not the other way around.

We are an Island that is next to Europe, not really part of it.

Millions of Brits have given their lives over the last 1000 years to remain that way.

Without sounding rude, you should study some history if you are genuinely interested in this. We got lots of it

Post: #3

If theyre not part of the anglo world it seems to me like they need to change that world's name

Post: #4

(09-04-2014 01:49 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  Your feelings about that, focused on the aussies, canadians, americans,etc who have been to the UK ( you could also include Ireland here), how do you see the social dynamics going on up there, the attitudes of people,gaming women.. etc Do you think the UK is more like the rest of europe (Or even western europe alone) or do the things just work the same way as they do in Australia, US, Canada,NZ..

My curiosity about that subject, It seems like the UK does not really belong to Europe culturally wise (at least in terms of people's mentality), or even western europe in terms of dating, meeting women and interacting with locals, and that you have to play the same games as you do in the rest of the english speaking world...

Any ideas?

Does anyone still read Anthony Sampson to learn about British politics and culture anymore? My old University of London (actually, London School of Economics and Institute for United States Studies) profs made us do so.

Perhaps the most famous (London) Times headline ever is this one:



"'Floods in Channel, Continent Cut Off'. This slight variation on a legendary headline in the London Times [see below] exemplifies Britain's notoriously insular view of the world." Or so goes an introduction to a lecture on the geological formation of the British Isles.

And so crow the pro-EU types, intent on condemning British insularity! Instead, I think it speaks to British independence of mind and culture, perhaps reviving under Nigel Farage and UKip. And something which led to the American founding as an independent nation, which other colonies followed and Britain compromised over.

At any rate, the famous headline sometimes gets spoofed or played upon (as above) or even ripped-off directly, such as in this more recent opinion piece headline from The Spectator:

"Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off"



"The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century" by James C Bennett (2004), posits that the harmony of cultural, linguistic, and political values enhanced by the internet age makes it likely that Anglophone nations will lead the new world order in the post-Cold War world.

That is, the UK, USA, Canada and Australia - with smaller nations like New Zealand and South Africa following - to be joined by the billion plus ex-colonial India, whose disparate nation is bound together by the English language, to shape international political system. In other words, The Anglosphere will lead and shape the world system.

Obviously, Obama dissents from this conception of positive and exceptional Anglo-American identity. Leftists like him are anti-nationalists, and their stance has been dubbed trans-national progressivism, or "Tranzi", believing in the dissolution of nationality and nationalism as the best direction for world politics this century.

In other words, egalitarianism for all, everywhere, without exception - something that smacks of classical Marxist-Leninism to me. (The Soviet Union claimed that mantle, and obviously failed to do so, given the fall of communism.)

It is a stimulating underlying debate.

Post: #5

(09-04-2014 03:43 AM)Beirut Wrote:  If theyre not part of the anglo world it seems to me like they need to change that world's name

Haha that's exactly what I was thinking!!

Nice post Orson

Post: #6

(09-04-2014 01:49 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  Your feelings about that, focused on the aussies, canadians, americans,etc who have been to the UK ( you could also include Ireland here), how do you see the social dynamics going on up there, the attitudes of people,gaming women.. etc Do you think the UK is more like the rest of europe (Or even western europe alone) or do the things just work the same way as they do in Australia, US, Canada,NZ..

My curiosity about that subject, It seems like the UK does not really belong to Europe culturally wise (at least in terms of people's mentality), or even western europe in terms of dating, meeting women and interacting with locals, and that you have to play the same games as you do in the rest of the english speaking world...

Any ideas?

Post: #7

(09-04-2014 04:25 AM)Orson Wrote:  "The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century" by James C Bennett (2004), posits that the harmony of cultural, linguistic, and political values enhanced by the internet age makes it likely that Anglophone nations will lead the new world order in the post-Cold War world.

That is, the UK, USA, Canada and Australia - with smaller nations like New Zealand and South Africa following - to be joined by the billion plus ex-colonial India, whose disparate nation is bound together by the English language, to shape international political system. In other words, The Anglosphere will lead and shape the world system.

Along with all this you get rampant feminism and a heavily indoctrinated class of people who are all just keeping up with the Joneses. The anglosphere is also responsible for a lot of the cultural toxicity we see today.

No thanks.

Post: #8

(09-04-2014 03:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  You've got it back to front.

The USA, Canada and Australia are like Britain, not the other way around.

This.

The other countries that the original poster mentioned are all splinter cultures from Britain.

Post: #9

(09-04-2014 01:11 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 03:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  You've got it back to front.

The USA, Canada and Australia are like Britain, not the other way around.

This.

The other countries that the original poster mentioned are all splinter cultures from Britain.

[attachment=21436]

I don't think so maybe 200 years ago but now everyone copies us.

Post: #10

(09-04-2014 01:41 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 01:11 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 03:23 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  You've got it back to front.

The USA, Canada and Australia are like Britain, not the other way around.

This.

The other countries that the original poster mentioned are all splinter cultures from Britain.

I don't think so maybe 200 years ago but now everyone copies us.

Copies "us"... the us is just a transformation and evolution from a british Isles puritan society. So whatever it becomes It will always be a split from the British.

Post: #11

(09-04-2014 08:09 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 04:25 AM)Orson Wrote:  "The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century" by James C Bennett (2004), posits that the harmony of cultural, linguistic, and political values enhanced by the internet age makes it likely that Anglophone nations will lead the new world order in the post-Cold War world.

That is, the UK, USA, Canada and Australia - with smaller nations like New Zealand and South Africa following - to be joined by the billion plus ex-colonial India, whose disparate nation is bound together by the English language, to shape international political system. In other words, The Anglosphere will lead and shape the world system.

Along with all this you get rampant feminism and a heavily indoctrinated class of people who are all just keeping up with the Joneses. The anglosphere is also responsible for a lot of the cultural toxicity we see today.

No thanks.

A lot of the toxicity actually stems from USA and not the Anglosphere to be precise. It started during WW2, interesting article about it here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20160819

Post: #12

Some sourcing for that famous headline:

A 1930 Daily Mirror headline: "Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off"
On October 22, 1957, a London Times headline declared: “Heavy Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off.”

And a Bloomberg news column, January 24, 2013: "Fog in Channel, Cameron Cut Off"

Quote:"While Prime Minister David Cameron was making his long-awaited speech on the future of the U.K.’s relationship with the rest of Europe this week, Brussels was shrouded in fog. Inevitably, a number of European newspapers recalled the old joke on British insularity, allegedly from a 1930 Daily Mirror headline: "Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off."

Cameron, in his speech, tried to play it both ways: He wants a new relationship with Europe and is at the same time determined that the U.K. should remain inside the European Union. Legislation will be prepared for a referendum to put the issue to the people....

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...on-cut-off

Well, the referendum ever happened, and Cameron is now seen as callow and the worst Torie (ie, conservative) Prime Minister since Edward Heath in the 1960s.

The point for the OP and this thread is that the relationship between the UK and Europe remains as testy as ever, unofficially - officially, however, the upper dearly crust wants to be European. Even if the next election (next May) results in a Conservative Party loss and perhaps a very unstable "Grand Coalition" government made up of all Liberal, Labor Conservative parties (ie, excluding the true Eurosceptic UKip party and others) - derisively dubbed "LibLabCon." With the middle-Englander feeling shafted by their no good "betters," friends of the European Parliament and the EU tax sucking dogs, the bureaucracy (on the Continent).

And so it goes.

Post: #13

This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

Post: #14

The world loves all things American ...except Americans. What's that tell ya?

Post: #15

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Post: #16

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

Post: #17

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

BEcause the term "anglo" has nothing to do with the original anglo-saxons but It is about being native english speaker. And from a cultural stand point language isnt enough but also you need to be culturaly a British Isles off-shot.

If you knew a bit of history you would know anglo-saxons rarely were a dominant group in the british Isles, they were only minority groups, same for other newcomers such as the vikings, romans, etc. The british Isles has been populated by the same group since a long time ago (The ancient britons who were a ice age hunter gatherers ) who were not related in the least with modern germanics or celts. Thet were related to the populations of the atlantic seaboard back then . Calling the english/british anglo-saxons is as wise as calling the Bolivian people spanish, both have nothing to do with those peoples besides language. You can say it also by the looks of the people that the british arent of germanic origin, most have subpar statures and there are few blondes compared to the countries where real germanics and central-european celts populated. I can easily tell apart groups of British/aussie and most white americans, compared to sandinavians, dutch and german people, because the earlier are darker features in average and dont look like germanic people at all.

Post: #18

(09-05-2014 10:24 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

All those influences are greatly exaggerated. Go to england today and you will see how the people don't look much different to the Irish. And go to Denmark and people look nothing like British Islanders.

The saxons, roman, etc was more of a linguistical and cultural influence, but the native british populations were never pushed away. I almost never see very nordic looking british men, most british men look like they are straight up descendants of the ancient british people. I could name countless of public figures none of who look remotely scandinavian, such as victoria beckham, rowan atkinson (mr bean), Cheryl cole, sean connery, tom jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom, Joe Cole, Gordon Banks, Noel Gallagher, Brian May, etc.

THe UK was the only place in Northern Europe where I didnt feel as a foreigner, not because of the diversity of the place, but because there are so many ethnic british men with dark features that I think a true blonde actually stands out more over there.

Post: #19

(09-05-2014 11:30 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 10:24 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

All those influences are greatly exaggerated. Go to england today and you will see how the people don't look much different to the Irish. And go to Denmark and people look nothing like British Islanders.

The saxons, roman, etc was more of a linguistical and cultural influence, but the native british populations were never pushed away. I almost never see very nordic looking british men, most british men look like they are straight up descendants of the ancient british people. I could name countless of public figures none of who look remotely scandinavian, such as victoria beckham, rowan atkinson (mr bean), Cheryl cole, sean connery, tom jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom, Joe Cole, Gordon Banks, Noel Gallagher, Brian May, etc.

THe UK was the only place in Northern Europe where I didnt felt as a foreigner, not because of the diversity of the place, but because there are so many ethnic british men with dark features that I think a true blonde actually stands out more over there.

I read a paper that estimated ~30% of England and Scotland's genepool came from recent invaders. Ireland had less, Wales had the least.

The bulk of the genepool came via Spain and France's Atlantic seaboard.

Post: #20

Not sure if serious, you should definitely take a look at any data about Brits, the majority are not of celtic origin. Welsh, Cornish and Scottish are.

Post: #21

(09-05-2014 11:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:30 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 10:24 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

All those influences are greatly exaggerated. Go to england today and you will see how the people don't look much different to the Irish. And go to Denmark and people look nothing like British Islanders.

The saxons, roman, etc was more of a linguistical and cultural influence, but the native british populations were never pushed away. I almost never see very nordic looking british men, most british men look like they are straight up descendants of the ancient british people. I could name countless of public figures none of who look remotely scandinavian, such as victoria beckham, rowan atkinson (mr bean), Cheryl cole, sean connery, tom jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom, Joe Cole, Gordon Banks, Noel Gallagher, Brian May, etc.

THe UK was the only place in Northern Europe where I didnt felt as a foreigner, not because of the diversity of the place, but because there are so many ethnic british men with dark features that I think a true blonde actually stands out more over there.

I read a paper that estimated ~30% of England and Scotland's genepool came from recent invaders. Ireland had less, Wales had the least.

The bulk of the genepool came via Spain and France's Atlantic seaboard.

About 30% of dna was found to be related to the newcomers in places such as eastern england. The anglosaxon influence is even lower than that. In places such as Wales and South-west england close to 100% of ancient british dna was found in the samples.

Post: #22

(09-05-2014 11:42 AM)bojangles Wrote:  Not sure if serious, you should definitely take a look at any data about Brits, the majority are not of celtic origin. Welsh, Cornish and Scottish are.

Then how comes modern english men look very similar to modernday Irish and scots?

English, Sottish and Irish women looked exactly the same to me, and not because they are fat, but from a racial stand point they are extremely similar. The Germans look like a different race, the Danes too. I think even in central-east europe I saw more real germanic influence (angles and saxons were germanic tribes)than anywhere in the UK. You can see it in many czech who basically look very german, same for areas in southern poland or even among slovakians. True blondes in the UK are rare, At least in the area in southern england were I was stationed, the standard is very dark hair (or mousy) with pale skin and usually light or hazel eyes. ALmost every single blonde women I saw there was bleached.

Post: #23

Here's an interesting article from which your study above comes from:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/featur...shancestry

However the comments are more interesting and kind of prove what me and Deluge are saying.

This is a 2014 study:

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

Amazing site actuallly

Post: #24

(09-05-2014 11:46 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:40 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 11:30 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 10:24 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

All those influences are greatly exaggerated. Go to england today and you will see how the people don't look much different to the Irish. And go to Denmark and people look nothing like British Islanders.

The saxons, roman, etc was more of a linguistical and cultural influence, but the native british populations were never pushed away. I almost never see very nordic looking british men, most british men look like they are straight up descendants of the ancient british people. I could name countless of public figures none of who look remotely scandinavian, such as victoria beckham, rowan atkinson (mr bean), Cheryl cole, sean connery, tom jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom, Joe Cole, Gordon Banks, Noel Gallagher, Brian May, etc.

THe UK was the only place in Northern Europe where I didnt felt as a foreigner, not because of the diversity of the place, but because there are so many ethnic british men with dark features that I think a true blonde actually stands out more over there.

I read a paper that estimated ~30% of England and Scotland's genepool came from recent invaders. Ireland had less, Wales had the least.

The bulk of the genepool came via Spain and France's Atlantic seaboard.

About 30% of dna was found to be related to the newcomers in places such as eastern england. The anglosaxon influence is even lower than that. In places such as Wales and South-west england close to 100% of ancient british dna was found in the samples.

No it's 30% overall, Eastern England is a little higher.

Post: #25

(09-05-2014 11:30 AM)TonyManero Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 10:24 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:31 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is a half-joking question...but why aren't Denmark and Northern Germany in the "Anglosphere"? After all, that's where the Angles came from...

The Angles were running away from the Saxons, who in turn were running away from the Goths, who in turn were running away from the Huns. There weren't any pure Angle or Saxon cultures left on the continent by the end of this process. Note that the whole process began with the Celts running away from the Angles (the Romans also getting involved at some point).

The Saxons conquered the Angles in Angleland (England), and the two cultures merged, but then the Saxon overlords were in turn conquered by the Normans, who spoke French, but were ethnically Norwegian. You could say that Anglo-Saxon culture is actually Anglo-Saxon-Normandic.

Excellent. I figured it was something like that (they all left the continent). Don't forget the Vikings in the northeast of England (Danelaw). Interesting that the Normans (Norsemen) were also descended from Vikings, too, so it's like a double-colonization in a way. It's all traced back to the Scandinavians...

All those influences are greatly exaggerated. Go to england today and you will see how the people don't look much different to the Irish. And go to Denmark and people look nothing like British Islanders.

The saxons, roman, etc was more of a linguistical and cultural influence, but the native british populations were never pushed away. I almost never see very nordic looking british men, most british men look like they are straight up descendants of the ancient british people. I could name countless of public figures none of who look remotely scandinavian, such as victoria beckham, rowan atkinson (mr bean), Cheryl cole, sean connery, tom jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom, Joe Cole, Gordon Banks, Noel Gallagher, Brian May, etc.

THe UK was the only place in Northern Europe where I didnt feel as a foreigner, not because of the diversity of the place, but because there are so many ethnic british men with dark features that I think a true blonde actually stands out more over there.

Why are you turning this into a race thread? No one was talking about race.