In his interview with Nick Griffin last night, the congenitally supercilious Jeremy Paxman attempted to question the existence of such a creature as a native or indigenous Briton, by seeking to exaggerate the number of immigrants who have come to Britain over the centuries, and as ever, he raised what he and the other Historical deceivers believe is their trump card the Huguenot refugees who arrived here after 1571.However, let us look at this claim that Britain is a nation of immigrants, and that what is happening to day is no different to what went before. Does the fact that, as an act of charity we took in a group of of persecuted French protestants 430 years ago invalidate our claim to be an indigenous people. Let us look at the truth of the Huguenot lie.
French Queen Catherine de' Medici 'exults over the dead bodies of the Huguenots' In the late 16th Century, following persecution in France, most famously on the Eve of St. Bartholomew, when many thousands of their numbers were massacred in Paris, around 200,000 Huguenots fled from France and were dispersed widely throughout Europe, and even further afield, Some even traveling as far as South Africa where their descendants can be found amongst the Afrikaner community (odd we have never heard Paxman claiming there is no indigenous South African people) others went to the newly found colonies in Canada and North America (does that mean Native Americans are not indigenous?). Within Europe, Huguenots refugees settled in Holland, Germany (mostly what was then Prussia) Switzerland, Scandinavia and Russia.
Some came to Britain, and it is true that prior to 1948, the white, European, Christian Huguenots were the single largest immigrant group to come to Britain. However, at even the most generous estimate of their numbers, 50,000, amounted to less than a fifth of the current Somali population, which, estimated at a quarter of a million, is certainly not even one of the largest immigrant groups in the country
As to the Eastern European Jews, the other group mentioned by Paxman, they were a few thousand at most, less in numbers probably than the current Melanesian population. Prior to that you have to go back a thousand years to find any significant numbers of invaders, and even then, the Normans, and the Danes before largely sent their soldiers home after they had done their pillaging and in any event they were tiny numbers by comparison with what we see today.
Before 1948 Britain was not a "Nation of Immigrants" as the media liars try to pretend. As acts of charity for which our enemies now seek to punish us, we took in immigrants and refugees, but, as with the Huguenots, we did in relatively small numbers who were easy to assimilate and which did not overwhelm the native population or change the genetic DNA of our nation. What we are seeing now bears no comparison to what went before. It might as well be a completely different universe and is as close as you can come to the bloodless genocide of a people
_______________
Footnote: From Wikipedia: Jeremy Paxman has been publicly criticised over his and his partner's home help arrangements. Having advertised on a Romanian website, they hired two people at below minimum wage without a written contract. While this is not illegal in the UK if employees live in, Paxman, known for grilling interviewees on workers' rights issues, was criticised when his employees went public, claiming to have been paid "the bare minimum. - Perhaps Mr. Paxman should declare an interest when discussing immigration
9 comments:
Sarah what this exchange reveals is that our closet immigrants know that they've seized the levers of power in the British state and do not intend handing those instruments over to the natives. It also means that they have other immigrants lined up to succeed them when they move onto bigger and better things.
With this in mind the BNP is revealed as nothing more than a shibboleth keeping the real question off air.
"Who are our leaders really for their allegiance has never been to the British people?"
Sarah,
A great article, Sarah. You've highlighted a couple of things that I believe are very important.
Firstly, that those who scoff at the idea of an indigenous Briton, and then cite the Huguenots as an example, should realise that their ancestors are indistinguishable from the native Britons - both culturally and ethnically. As you state they were fully assimilated.
Secondly, that we cannot absorb the post-1948 waves of immigrants without changing the native population.
On a slightly different note, I love it when people tell me that 'we've always been a tolerant and welcoming people'. As it obviously means that they believe Edward I's expulsion of the Jews to be tolerant, the same applies to Elizabeth I's repatriation of the Blackamoors. The BNP policy of VOLUNTARY repatriation is therefore above reproach - or they are forced to admit they're just repeating sound bites from the liberal media, and haven't a clue about history.
Ultimately it may prove easier to use the term 'indigenous European', than 'indigenous Briton', and thus avoid the whole argument. But I suppose that opens up a can of worms with the Poles...
A key question is, who persecuted the Huguenots?
The answer is as follows.
Louis XIV was inveigled into revoking the Edict of Nantes, decreed in 1598 by his predecessor, Henry IV, who as a result was assassinated by a monk in 1610.
Prominent among those who influenced Louis was his confessor, Fr. Pierre La Chaise, SJ, who suggested that the self-indulgent king could atone for some of his debaucheries by eliminating the Protestant problem once and for all.
Revoking the edict that officially guaranteed protection for Protestants (though not in practice) happened on October 18th 1685 and the persecution ensued soon afterwards.
All this is described in Rev. J.A. Wylie's extensive 2-volume History of Protestantism.
The same enemy confronts Britain today.
In his book "Origins of the British" (2006), Professor Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):
"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."
410 years ago my French Huguenot ancestor came to America to claim land awarded him in exchange for fighting for the British against the French monarchy.
Were it not for the British stand against tyranny four centuries ago, I'd not be here today.
where is the British stand agains tyranny now, their country is flooded with genes from underachieving people.
Any argument to try and make people the same is hopeless.
Any interbreeding with weaker nations will cause a weakened Britian, end of story , everyone understands the realities of thatEven in India people want to marry "Lighter" as the people of aryan stock is still admired there.
This has nothing to do with racism but is a truth the human race has known for thousands of years.
Why is it so hard to understand this basic truth?
"Nation of immigrants" is the new anti-white buzz phrase. First used to destabilize white America now it can be applied to all western countries.
Thanks for posting the new SA Sucks website Sarah, Ive been getting the word out to as many folk as I can.
Ultimately it may prove easier to use the term 'indigenous European', than 'indigenous Briton', and thus avoid the whole argument. But I suppose that opens up a can of worms with the Poles...
I'm happy withn that from a WN standpoint. After all the war on whites is global.
A couple of Polish guys Ive worked with have both joked to me about how we will need them around when the time comes to fight the Muslims. A fight they appeared to relish the idea of.
I think the Poles who settled in UK after WW2 represent the biggest single immigrition in our history. About 750,000. But we dont hear much about it compared to the blessed Empire Windrush, Huguenots & Ugandan Asians.
I think two related factors are at work.
One, those Poles and their offspring have largely blended into the host population. They dont, as a group, commit more or less crime than the natives. Succeed or fail academically, succeed or fail financially and so on. They dont stand out positively or negatively, and of course they dont stand out visually, ethnically. So they dont engender emnity or jealousy. Because of this they have dropped below the threshold of interest. There is really not much to see.
Which leads to the second point. Apart from the relative obscurity the left don't really want too much scrutiny of this issue. The Polish Resettlement Act was passed in 1948, the same year we first began to receive the blessings of the Empire Windrush. Thats a much more important event to the left. Comparison with another immigrant group would bring a massive downer on that.
The last thing they want is any appreciation that a large number of white Christians can settle without the enedemic problems we normally associate with immigration. I cant think why one group would work out but not the other so best to avoid thinking about the 1948 Poles altogether.
To argue with myself though, the Huguenots fill a similar category, though much smaller in number than the Poles, yet the left are always eager to cite them.
I forgot to add...
The difference between the Huguenots & Poles is that the Huguenot settlers are safely far away in historical terms.
The 1948 Poles are still in living memory. And their arrival coincides with many more diverse, vibrant folk. The Polish story is an indictment of the vibrant immigration, if the powers that be were dwell on the Polish story too much people might be tempted to ask that if we needed all this immigration. And we are always told we do, why couldnt we have just had more Poles or similar?
Post a Comment