Sunday, 25 October 2009

Revelations from a bear pit - Part three

The fact that the liberal elite have completely lost touch with the heart of this country and its people could hardly have been exposed more clearly than on Thursday night by the jeers of derision which greeted any reference to a native race of Britons, and the cheers of delight awarded to anyone who claimed that no such thing as an indigenous Briton existed. I am sure that such new world orthodoxy was welcomed with with Champers cork popping glee, in the wine bars of Hoxton, and the aromatherapy scented drawing rooms of Hampstead, however, I doubt it played so well in Preston, Burnley or Porthcawl.

The official line of the red clawed multiculturalists, currently holding prominent positions in our country is that the British Islands have no indigenous people and that we are a shifting race of intermingling immigrants with no ancestral roots into into the soil of our homeland. Similar arguments are made against the claims of many native people's across Europe, for instance , as Dr. D a regular commentator at Sarah Maid of Albion recently put it, it is now all but official policy in Sweden that “there is no Swedish identity, no Swedish history, no Swedish way of life. Everything is given over to the Other, the Other that is superior to all things native.” Sweden is an extreme case but the same is happening in country after country across the continent.

In the main, what is said about Britain is that as we have in the past taken in groups of foreign refugees from violence and oppression, we have somehow surrendered our right to sovereignty, rather in the same way that if you invite a vampire across your threshold, he has then the right to take your soul.

Furthermore, the impression given is that, just like the present, wave upon wave of immigrants have arrived on our shores, continually mixing their blood with the local population until there is no defined ethnicity or heritage. This is the official story, but, of course, being such it is not the truth.

Yes, we have taken in refugees, we are good, charitable. people, and now we are paying the price for that charity. However, contrary to the impression which is given, until the human tsunami of the last forty years, the numbers involved were relatively small, certainly not enough to change the bloodline of a nation.

The largest single group of refugees and the closest to compare with the current situation, were the French Huguenots, who arrived here in the 16th Century following persecution by the Catholics and incidents such as the Massacre of St Bartholomew. The Huguenot refugees dispersed across Europe, with some 50 thousand coming to Britain and 10 thousand going to Ireland.

50,000 people may seem a lot but it is less than a quarter of the current Somali population, and the Somalis, which are by no means one of the largest immigrant groups, have only been coming for the last ten years or so.

Furthermore, the French Huguenots were white. Christian, Europeans with strong ethnic and genetic blood ties to the people of Britain, it was certainly not as if a group from an ethnically separate culture had settled here. An equivalent might be for a group of Sioux Indians taking refuge with the Comanche following a tribal war with the Apache, they are people of the same ethnic origin, and nobody would expect either group to surrender their indigenous rights on account of an act of human kindness.

Prior to the 20th Century, the Huguenots and before them the Normans, who once again are part of the same ethnic and cultural groupings as the British people were the only people from across the channel to settle in Britain in any significant numbers in the last thousand years, yet, in terms of numbers percentage of the population they bore no comparison to what is occurring today.

The other groups which came were relatively tiny. The Jewish population of Britain is often used as an example of immigrants to our country, ignoring the fact that Jewishness in itself is not an ethnicity. There have certainly been Jews in this country for at least 1,000 years, give or take three centuries of expulsion, however, the numbers involved were relatively small, sixteen thousand souls when they were expelled in 1290 . Even today, despite being resident for over ten centuries and including those Polish and Lithuanian Jews who are alleged to have arrived in such multitudes in the 19th Century, their numbers do not even match one tenth of the current official Asian population (let alone the real Asian population) and the Asians have only been coming here in significant numbers for the last forty to fifty years.

In any event, the Jews have long held strong and admirable cultural beliefs against mixing their line with non-believers, hence their presence here has had little effect on the genetic heritage of the indigenous population.

There are many claims made that there have been Africans in Britain for many centuries, because some appear in paintings in stately homes, but, these were tiny numbers brought back as servants by Aristocrats who had travelled abroad, and one might as well claim that peacocks are indigenous to Britain because a couple of toffs had a few in their gardens.

Certainly despite the 19th century appearance small pockets of Africa immigrants in places like Cardiff's Tiger Bay or the East End of London, prior to the 20th century the numbers of non-Europeans residing in this country were insignificant, despite the impression which our overlords seek to present. In any event, a claim to indigenous status is not dependant on the fact that no other ethnic group ever visited your land, if it were, the indigenous peoples of Australia and America would have lost their status long ago.

We are being denied our claim to our native land because we have at times in the last few centuries been hospitable to people in need and that is an outrage.

However, let us go back even further into our past, and there we encounter the bizarre ramblings and weird fantasies of Question Time panellist Bonny Greer, in respect of whom I must take issue with Nick Griffin, who apparently believes that, unlike the other panel members, Ms. Greer acted with decency and integrity. In response to this I will merely say that only a man could fail to see the poison and two faced deceit in Bonnie Greer.

This Chicago born playwright and, Gordon Brown appointed. Deputy chairman of the British Museum, who has lived in England since the 1980's but speaks with voice resonating in mint juleps and Acacia blossom, in the apparent belief that an Antebellum note might give her the credibility of a Maya Angelou, whilst at the same time evoking images of slavery, is as fake as is her accent.

This third rate story teller and quango appointee sought to pose as a historian on the basis of an affirmative action appointment and lecture Nick and the audience on the subject of Ancient history, a subject she apparently learnt from a multicultural propaganda pop-up book for under fives.

I will not pay this charlatan the respect of addressing her assertion that Britain has no indigenous population because “the Neanderthals got here first” other than to say that so did the Velociraptors and what the hell have Neanderthals got to do with indigenous human beings you stupid fake?

Bonnie then rushed forward a few thousand years to state that Rome was a multiracial society (oh yeah?, and look where that got them!!) and that the Romans bought battalions of Asians and Africans here, many of whom were left behind to mate with the local population. On the basis of this statement she asserted that there was no such thing as an indigenous race of Britons, and that what there is some global blend of all humanity. (Click here to watch Bonnie speak of the Romans)

I have seen similar claims before, usually in large print and bright colours in publications praising the glories of diversity, and I have no doubt that there is a display of lifelike dolls at the British museum showing Rastafarian Romans arriving in Londinium. However, I have yet to find a serious historical source supporting Bonnie's version of British history. It may be therefore that she is relying on a source which applies a similar degree of poetic licence to British history as they does to black history.

However, let us give Bonnie G the benefit of the doubt and assume that her tale of African and Asian Romans is true and then lets consider the ramifications of this. To take Bonnie's analysis to its logical conclusion, there must also be no such thing as an indigenous African, after all, although it might not suit Bonnie's narrative to admit it, the Arab slave traders got to Africa long before the Romans got here, and they stayed a damn sight longer (in fact they were still there well into the 20th century) they most certainly raped and mixed their genes with the locals. Why doesn't the melodious Ms. Greer pop over to Kenya, Uganda, Zaire and Tanzania and tell them they are not indigenous?

Similarly, I seem to recall that Alexander the Great invaded India, and that he took himself an Asian bride. His lonely soldiers had been away from home for twelve years, so you can be damn sure they mixed with the locals. I am sure we would have a whip round to fly Bonnie out to the Punjab so she can tell the Punjabis they have to give up any claim to their homeland because they are part Macedonian. However, I suggest she makes sure her medical insurance, and will, are up to date first.

Oh my, young Alex got to Afghanistan too didn't he, they will really enjoy being told their country ain't their own!!

However, lets drop these ludicrous claims that a native people can cease to be so on account of rape and hospitality, it is all a smoke screen designed to hide the true agendas of the likes of Bonnie Greer and Jack Straw. They know damn well who the indigenous population of Britain are, because they have sent an adult lifetime conspiring against them.

The indigenous, native, population of Britain are the ones not protected by the race relations act, they are the ones who Greer and others have built entire careers on calling racists. The indigenous population are the ones who any other ethnic group can beat to a pulp whilst phoning three car loads of cousins as reinforcements, after which the police will say “Hate crime? what hate crime?”. They are the people who can be murdered by thugs who shout “That will teach a white man to interfere in our business” but who's killers are not charged with a racially aggravated crime.

The indigenous people of this country are the ones whom the establishment, the media and those behind that shambles on Thursday night have spent the last fifty years discriminating against and seeking to dispossess.

You know who we are Ms. Greer, we know who you are, we know what you are doing, and hear me now, we are not going to let you do it any longer.

15 comments:

Viking said...

brilliant!

one of the best posts of yours I've read and thanks for a few laughs -
I just had a look at that clip and it's hilarious!
She tries and fails to have a go at Nick Griffin for a cheap laugh, and I'm sure half of England was watching in disbelief as a foreigner lectured them on their own history - I'm half English and I wouldn't even do that!
More sinister is the re-reading into ancient history of the modern multicultural dogma. Sure, the Romans had a 'multicultural' society, but only Romans were in charge of it and if you raised your barbarian head too high it'd be severed at the neck by the local centurion, as the Judaeans and others discovered.
The Romans destroyed unfamiliar cultures, not glorified them, just ask the Dacians. O wait, the Romans killed them all...

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

S, you've been drawn off mark and entered the realms of the transhumanists.

The delightful inhabitant of windy gangsterland has been instructed to take the narrative outside school history bounds under diversity cover.

BNP might concur.

Dr.D said...

It is a sad day when the British need an American born negro to teach them (I should really say tell them lies) about British history.

This argument about who has lived in a place since the last ice age or such is fallacious. A better way is to say what people have occupied the land for the last 300 years or so. These are the indigenous people of the land. They may have acquired it by conquest, but it is their now, and that is that. We do not need to go back many thousands of years to establish ownership.

Applying that idea to the UK, the indigenous people are the people who were there in say 1700. How many muzlims or blacks do you suppose there were in London in 1700? Not many! And that is the point. They don't belong there today because they have no claim to be the land; their people did not come from their.

naldo said...

You are completely bonkers.

Ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of a human being's character.

It is one of the many concepts which fascists like the BNP use to try and divide humans and propogate hatred against those who don't fit in with their ideal.

People should be afforded rights on the basis of how they behave not where their ancestors come from.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Naldo

I am not surprised that you call your own blog "Fuzzy Logic".

Ethnicity seems to mean a great deal to the real fascists, the enemies of the BNP, given how frantically they are trying to prove the native British people have none.

Whist you are chanting your brain washed, old fashioned, establishment bottom kissing mantra about the BNP, you might wish to consider why the British people are the ones having their rights taken away, not the other way round

Or are you too much of a politically correct bigot to care about the fate of those who are not listed in the New Labour approved lexicon of protected peoples?

Ron said...

The jeers of derision are because we dont feel the need to define ourselves like you do. And your definition is so arbritrary it just makes people laugh.

Anonymous said...

Mr Naldo's World...read on and recognise the world of responsibity and intellect he embodies.

He is a self-hating drug user who attacks what he can't attain. An invert with zero status. To sustain his sense of 'rightness' he denies to offend. Denies to please his companions and his dealers and find assuagement for his self-hate in multicultural dogmas.

What a prawn!

From his 'Fuzzy Logic' Website

'Social highlight of the week was gettin el reekio on Sunday in the really rather jolly Port O Leith. The Port has a fine selection of competitively priced bevvy, a jukie to die for and lenient yet clued up barstaff, all of which encourage the kinda clientele only a proper misanthrope could fail to love. And they let dugs in. Perfect'

The last two lines says it all!

Anonymous said...

Funny how that rule only applies to non-Africans. In South Africa, the true indigenous people, the San, were over-run, decimated or chased into the Kalahari Desert by the darker hued hordes which moved down from the north. But try to use the above argument with them!

Rhinocéros said...

Yes, yes, a fine post but are we English unable to define what makes us English or, indeed, British.

Should I have to justify my nationality in my own country ? No! It's my country because my great-grandparents were born within five miles of my house. They built farms and houses which still stand today. The family history goes back much further, probably to the Setanta tribe here in north-west England, though none were large landowners, nobility, etc.

That's what makes our family English and British.

As long as the BNP represents families like ours then they will have our vote.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Oh Ron (03:12)

You define yourself, you so define yourself!!!

LOL!

alanorei said...

Thanks again, Sarah

I would hope this article could be sent to Ms. Greer (copied to JSJS (Justice (!) Secretary Jack Straw)).

One way to assess the historic BME influence in Britain would be to examine Britain's Bayeux Tapestry scene by scene.

If 'Bonnie and Clyde' (Ms. Greer and J(!)SJS) are right about this nation's ethnic background, you should be able to find at least one black face (or severed head) amongst those gallant House Carls willing to fight and die for good King Harold.

In truth, those valiant men set a fine example, one in principle to be emulated.

siward said...

Ron 03.12

Go to Wales, Scotland or Ireland and jeer openly in derision - in shops, cafes and bars - at the way these locals define themselves.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes.

naldo said...

Yo, Sarah, sorry for takin so long to get back to ye.

I really dinnae get this thing about the ethnic majority of these islands (whites like masel) havin our rights taken away.

Scotland is a small nation with a flourishing diversity of what i'd call native tongues (lowland Scots, Doric and Gaelic being the biggies). The only threat to these languages and their associated cultures is that from England (we're its economic play thing) and USA (whose domination of music, film and youth culture in general is changing the way the whole world speaks and acts).

Immigration from other countries is an absolute boon to Scotland. Our population is falling cos we are still a net exporter of people. We need others to come in and do some of the jobs we can't fill ourselves. I've spent a few weeks working on a fishing trawler this summer and without brave and very hard people from Eastern Europe, that industry would fold immediately because not enough Scots have the gumption to get out and do it. Bizarre but entirely true.

I think you're right to say that immigration has been faster in the post second World War period than at any other time in history. The reasons for that are that we desperately needed people to do the jobs our war dead and injured couldn't do, our economy was expanding faster than our natural population growth could support and latterly the EU insisted on freedom of movement for labour and capital across the whole Union.

I'd guess you're not a fan of the EU - I am but that's probably another argument.

My point is that if you took away all the people who've settled here in that period i've described, the country would stop functioning. WHile there may have been ocasional local problems of overcrowding, too much stress on services etc. the contribution immigrants have made to this country far outstrip the negatives.

Our culture and our rights are not under threat as long as we keep our culture alive. That means celebrating our culture and should never mean attacking other people's unless what they want to do is illegal or we consider it immoral.

Naeb'dy's gonna take my Scottishness away fae me but that doesnae mean Scotland needs fewer foreigners to come and stay here and, as long as they work hard and play fair, i don't give a damn where they come from, what they look like or who they procreate wi.

We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns.

naldo said...

Anonymous, you make very bold claims about me for one who's so cowardly as to hide behind the sofa of anonimity.

Who are you and why do i offend you so much?

And what's a drug user if it isnae most of us? The very few non drug users i have ever met were devout Presbyterians, Muslims or recovering alcoholics.

I like a bevvy almost as much as i like a good curry. The two the gither even better.

And what's up wi dugs?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Naldo

When you have finished kissing the establishments bottom whist attempting to chant the distorted mantra of our age (not an easy task), you might like to come up for air and take a peek at reality.

You might want to ask yourself why so many of the original inhabitants of Scotland are leaving, and what "boon" the immigrants have actually been, given that following a 50 year invasion we are now gripped by the worst recession ever recorded and that, as a nation, including Scotland, we now have a larger national debt than we have ever had in our history.

You claim that nobody will ever take your Scottishness away from you, however, it is already being taken away, and I regret that you will live to regret your gullibility and your naivety.