Anyone who has watched Channel 4 for in excess of twenty minutes within the last ten days will know that they will be showing a series of documentaries over this coming week entitled “Bloody Foreigners” which they describe as “highlighting the role played by foreigners at iconic moments and crucial turning points in British history”.
The multicultural zealots at channel 4 certainly seem very anxious to promote “Bloody foreigners” as the trailer for the series seems to run between every programme and almost at the end of every commercial break. Again and again the same commercial is repeated as if the makers are desperate that nobody should fail to notice it is on or not understand what it is all about.
“We are an Island nation, we have withstood invasion and foreign intervention for centuries ....or so we like to think!” snarls the narrator “However, if you take a closer look and you will find the people who sailed the ships and fought the battles which forged this country, weren't always British!” by this point, if you shut your eyes, you can imagine the drops of saliva drooling down his chin as he spits the words into the microphone, the final word “British” almost hissed with twisted lipped contempt. His words are spoken aggressively, challengingly, almost threateningly like a playground bully pointing to an imagined victory, or maybe a rapist reminding his victim what's been done to her.
Whatever the views of the actor reading the lines, his venomous delivery certainly manages to embody the hatred and contempt with which the elitist effluent who commissioned this series view the native people of our islands.
The series starts with what they refer to as “The Untold Battle of Trafalgar”, .... “untold” since when? Multi-culti groupies have been pointing to the single black figure amongst around 100 white ones in the painting of The death of Nelson by Daniel Maclise (see above) for decades, as if this single lone individual is proof of Britain's historical diversity.
According to the Channel 4 website, of the 18,000 men involved in the Battle of Trafalgar some 1,400 (just under 8%) were not British, however, what exactly does this mean?
As with all modern versions of history usually presented in large print and bright colours and revelling in the glories of diversity, things are not always as the seem.
Let us take the crew of HMS Victory for example. According to the Victory Muster Book. out of a total compliment of 662, 589 were British, including 441 Englishmen, 64 Scots, 64 Irish, 18 Welshmen and 3 Shetlanders, in addition there were two Channel Islanders and a Manxman.
Of the remainder 21 were American, some of whom may, of course, have been freed slaves, but there is certainly no evidence of this and given that the Battle of Trafalgar took place 60 years before the American Civil War, in all likelihood, the American contingent, the largest single non British group, were of European, predominantly British origin, that is to say in line with the 1805 US demographic. A further 37 were Europeans made up of 7 Dutch, 6 Swedes, 4 Italians, 4 Maltese, 3 Norwegians, 3 Germans, 2 Swiss, 2 Portuguese, 2 Danes and 1 Russian.
This leaves a remaining 12, of which one was Brazilian, one Indian, one African (presumably the little chap in the Maclise painting) and nine were categorised as “West Indian”. No doubt Channel 4 will wish to present the "West Indians" as the Afro-Caribbeans we now associate with the West Indies. However, things were very different in 1805, much of the West Indies, such as Jamaica had been British colonies since the middle of the seventeenth century and had a significant white population of British origin, given that most of the non-white population at the time were slaves, there is no evidence that the nine West Indians were not of white British ethnicity.
Whatever the truth, and whatever Channel Four's claims, it is clear that those of non-British, and certainly of non-European origin involved in the Battle of Trafalgar were a very tiny minority, certainly smaller than the 8% the dishonest pretend historians on Channel 4 would seek to pretend.
Even if it had been 8%, if that was the extent of the modern non-British invasion of Britain many of us would be considerably less concerned than we are.
However, whatever the numbers, what difference does it make? Sea-faring is by its very nature international, in the 18th and early 19th centuries small minorities of people of all sorts of nationalities served on ships of other nations, but it is only we, the British who are now expected to surrender our nationhood because a couple of foreigners fell foul of the press gang.
By the beginning of the 19th Century, there were white men living and working amongst the tribes of North America and Canada, but nobody would think to question the Native Americans claims to be the Indigenous First people of America (more of which later).
However, don't expect, honesty, fairness, or anything approaching truth from Channel Four or any Western media.
In a further episode from the Bloody Foreigners series we can look forward to “The Untold Invasion of Britain” the story of Septimus Severus, who they refer to as “Rome's African Emperor” and who, they claim, “fought a brutal campaign in Britain, crossing Hadrian's Wall and helping to forge the English-Scottish divide familiar to us today”. It is certainly true that Sepimus Severus was involved in securing peace with the Picts in 210 AD but to call him an “African” is rather stretching the truth. Although born in what is now Libya, his mother was an Italian noble woman and his father Publius Septimius Geta, only half Libyan, the other half being Punic that is to say of Phoenician Cypriot ancestry. However, I guess calling him “Rome's quarter Libyan Emperor, didn't have quite the same ring.
In other episodes of this august series we are due to learn that there were some Polish people flying with the RAF in World War II, (I er... think we knew that as we have been told this lots of time, not withstanding which the episode will still be called “The Untold Battle of Britain”) and in “The Untold Great Fire of London” we will be told that “foreigners were wrongly blamed for staring the fire", I guess that will be like one of those "expose the viewer to their own racism" episodes from US cop shows where, for once, the black man turns out not to be guilty of the rape/murder/mugging and we are all supposed to feel guilty for assuming he was.
I guess the trailers are focusing on the Trafalgar episode because it is the only one where they can show that non whites were involved, albeit very, very few.
What is Channel 4's motive, what is the sub-text of this patently misleading little series of programmes?
In fact there are a number of subtexts. The first one is obvious, they are telling us that because there were a smattering of “non-Brits” involved in important historical events (34 Poles in the RAF, one African on the Victory etc.) we owe people of other nationalities a huge debt of gratitude and should gather daily on the sides of the roads leading to Gatwick, Stanstead, Heathrow and Victoria coach station to cheer, wave flags and toot with our vuvuzles as uncapped masses of immigrants arrive.
Of course, there were significantly greater Americans involved both in the battle of Trafalgar and much more so in World War 2 but for some reason the Liberals don't see that as a reason for us to feel indebted to America (or, at least they didn't prior to the Obama coronation)
The second sub-text is the old undermine the way the British feel about themselves technique. It is a re-telling of the old 'Brits are mutts' lie.
These constant attempts to re-write our history (that is to say lie about our history) in order to deny that there is such a thing as a native Briton have now gone beyond a joke, and it is time that we, as a people fought back against the 'Britons are a mongrel race' calumny.
We as a people are descended from the Picts or Cletic tribes with some involvement of the Anglo Saxon tribes from what is now Denmark and Saxony in Western Germany. Er .... that's it, that is all, that is our so called "diverse" ethnic heritage.
Prior to the 20th Century we were one of the least ethnically mixed people on the planet. The Romans fought us and indeed ruled us for a while, they did not change our DNA, and as for the ludicrous Bonnie Greer's matronly fantasy about Rastafarian Romans cavorting with Celtic maidens, that remains the same historically unsubstantiated crap it was when it bubbled out of her disingenuous Quango appointee gob on Question Time.
A small number of our nobility mated with the Normans after 1066, we, the ordinary people, didn't, another small number of our nobility mated with the relatively small number of Huguenot nobility who we gave refuge to in the sixteenth century, we the ordinary people didn't. Some of our nobility may be mutts, which is probably why so few of them give a damn about the country now that they charge for access to their country seats (whenever didn't they?). However, the ordinary British people did not mix sexually with other races to any genetically significant degree until after the Empire Windrush incursion of 1948.
The native Americans include any number of tribes the Apache, Cheyenne, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Navajo, Crow, Shawnee, Pawnee, Shoshone and Sioux to name but a few but nobody suggests they are anything other that a genetically distinct, indigenous, people. Kenya has some 40 tribes including the Kikuyu, the Luhya, the Luo (Obama's father's tribe) Kamba, Samburu Kisii, Masai Meru and the Kalenjin, however, you would be met with screams of "racist" if you claimed there were no native Kenyans. We originate from three tribes and yet we are called mongrels, can you not see the lie?
We are lied to by the day, and by the hour, this is more of the same.
The “Bloody Foreigners” series will be nothing more than another dose of multicultural propaganda fermented by the bigoted contempt and hatred which our media and our political elite feel for us. However, they are the ones deserving of contempt for they are the liars and this is just another lie.