Sunday, 27 June 2010

Bloody Liars

Click to view full size

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.

23 comments:

Tim Johnston said...

We are mutts.

I'm English, Irish, Scottish, Norse AND Welsh, and that's just what I know about. But the Britons are still, in the high 90s of percent, genetically identical to what they were thousands of years ago - but they don't make TV programmes about that, do they? They are hesitant to mention that ALL nations are a hotchpotch of genetics, but that most managed to find enough core nationhood to found countries.

One might ask, what the hell are they trying to achieve, but as you say we all know the answer: to encourage the increasing multiculturalisation of Britain.

As if we are all just supposed to shrug our shoulders and say, let the 'foreigners' in, might as well, we're all a big rainbow-coloured mass anyhow.

Sure, have a programme about the contribution of foreigners to British life : but to do so at the expense of Britishness is unforgiveable. If they believe they are presenting the "untold", "other side" of the story, it's worth remembering that the first side doesn't get told that often anymore.

alanorei said...

Thank you, Sarah

Though OT, you will see that with this interview of Diane Abott, the news is not all bad.

alanorei said...

It might be worth observing w.r.t. the battle of Trafalgar that the enemy were 100% non British.

Ditto* every conflict Britain has been involved in since the Napoleonic era, even the Boer War.

*With the exception of a miniscule number of Brits and 3 Canadians who defected in WW2. It might be added that a great many Indians, followers of Gandhi, voluntarily fought for the Japanese against the British in Burma in WW2, as the Indian National Army, or Jiffs, as they were called. I doubt if C4 will show this in the series.

The news media is resorting to the age-old device of using the exception to overthrow the rule, i.e. "If a man bites a dog, that's news."

They did the same in a recent BBC2 series about computer-generated reconstruction of historic individuals from their skeletons, the first turning out to have been a black male probably brought back as a servant by a knight who served in the Crusades.

Somehow, this is alleged to have significantly affected England's racial profile of the Middle Ages.

Rather like Nebraska Man heralded the discovery of a prehistoric race of man-apes thus 'proving' evolution.

The 'evidence' for Nebraska Man consisted a single tooth that later turned out to be that of an extinct pig, when more remains were found.

The truth is that when a 'defining moment' in British history like the battle of the Somme is studied, the film footage of soldiers on the march displays a distinct mono-ethnicity.

And it isn't black.

That is the reality.

As you indicate, Sarah, the documentary will turn out to be as bogus as Bonnie Greer.

Anonymous said...

In comparison, we here in Canada have our own multi-culti zealots who don't hesitate in going to any length in denying our heritage, too.

PaxCanadiana recently blogged about a character named Ervin Studin who gleefully envisions Canada tripling (3X) our population to 100 million people.

You can imagine with those huge numbers that our current 84% white population would probably be reduced to about 4%!

That post link is HERE.

I wrote the first two comments.

Dr.D said...

The lie with the voice of authority, they present pretty pictures, graphs, and all sort of made up "evidence" to support their lies, but when all is said and done, they are still LIES.

The ordinary person gets weary of hearing these lies, he does not have the time, and in many cases the intellectual resources, to be constantly refuting them. So there is a natural tendency to say, "whatever." Of course, this is exactly how the lie becomes established as "fact," when people give up resistance to it.

This same multicult lie is being hammered on us throughout western culture, and we have to resist it, difficult though this may be. Posts like this help to keep the truth out in front, Sarah. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

The elites are not nationalists. To rule the world they have to transform it to be without nationalism.

Anonymous said...

"With the exception of a miniscule number of Brits and 3 Canadians who defected in WW2. It might be added that a great many Indians, followers of Gandhi, voluntarily fought for the Japanese against the British in Burma in WW2, as the Indian National Army, or Jiffs, as they were called. I doubt if C4 will show this in the series."

THOUSANDS of 'em also supported Hitler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3684288.stm

Lucinda said...

The Americans at the Battle of Trafalgar were probably not there voluntarily. Some of the smattering of blacks might have been impressed from American vessels.

The British navy at that time had a voracious need for manpower, and "impressed", or drafted by force, many men, including Americans. When they were able to overpower American ships, they essentially kidnapped the sailors for service in the British Navy. That was the chief motivation for the War of 1812 between the nascent U.S. and Britain. It was sort of an "American Revolution Part Deux". We don't hold a grudge, though. :)

bernard said...

A very informative piece and very readable too.

Anonymous said...

At the Battle of Trafalgar, the sailing master of the Victory was an American, he was certainly a volunteer, no pressed man would have been given such a position.
The driving reason for the war of 1812 was that ambitious southern democrats saw an opportunity to invade Canada while Britain was involved in a death match with Napoleon, the excuse of impressment was just that, a convenient excuse.
These channel 4 scum need to be reacted to. Privatise the BBC now and get these swine fired.

Anonymous said...

Whilst we are nailing lies lets nail the one about the majority of our ancestry being "ancient Britons".
Firstly, there was no such thing. Britain, at the time of the Anglo Saxon invasion was populated by disparate european tribes, ethnically unrelated, and themselves only recent (a few hundred years) arrivals.Celtic IS NOT a race or a people, it is a lumping together of tribes as ethnically different as modern Englishmen and Moroccans-who shared some cultural practices.
There is NO such thing as a native Briton who's ancestors had lived here for ever and ever-or a native anything else-so called native Amercians, Zimbabweans, Australian aborigines are all relatively recent arrivals, and gained their land by kicking someone else off.
What CAN be said is that England has had a settled and relatively ethnically stable population since the Anglo Saxon invasion, as has been pointed out, most, if not all invaders-Normans, Vikings, etc did not involve mass migration, but a change of rulers.
ALL contemparary reports describe the "British" tribes as being kicked off the land.Anglo Saxon sources describe them as "not being fit to hold the land".
Bede, our main source tells us that the Britons (Bretons?) returned to their place of origin in modern France. The remaining tribes were pushed into West Wales (Cornwall) and Wales.
The Anglo Saxons DID NOT mix or mate with them - they were regarded with absolute contempt.
It can be said, with a fair degree of certainty, therefore, that our ethnic identity is Anglo Saxon - a fact not lost on the French or the Germans, who descibe us as such.
All this rubbish about ancient Britons is the result of the usual suspects muddying the waters and the romanticisation of the Celtic myth - just another way of seperating us from our heritage and our identity, and sadly too many nationalists fall for it.

Celtic Warrior said...

History as exposed by science.

The relatively new science of DNA has revolutionised the way we untangle the truth about the peoples of the world and where they came from. An examination of the DNA of the people of the British Isles and Ireland by prominent geneticists from Oxford University has revealed a history distinctly at odds with the accepted version of our origins.

Recent genetic studies have shown that far from being a genetic hotchpotch, the people of the Isles are extremely homogeneous. DNA studies show that 75% of us can trace our ancestry back to the end of the last Ice Age some 15,000 years ago.
North West Europe was uninhabitable during the last Ice Age. People from Southern France and Northern Spain migrated north along the Atlantic coast as the ice began to melt and arrived in the Isles around 15,000 years ago. When you look at the different areas of the Isles, these ancestors account for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of Scots and 68% of the English.

The remaining 25% of our gene pool is from the Scandinavia people that arrived in the Isles about 10,000 years ago. These Scandinavians settled on the Eastern coast of what is now England, while the more numerous Iberians occupied the Western part of the Isles.

Many people say that Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man and Ireland are “Celtic” whereas England is “Anglo-Saxon” or “Germanic” because the English were supposed to have come from northern Germany and southern Denmark. But through DNA, we find that the “Celtic” people of West Britain and the “Germanic” people of East Britain were settled here many thousands of years before the supposed split between Celt and Anglo-Saxon, when the Anglo-Saxons invaded Celtic Britain in 450AD.

As for the historic invasions, which everyone seems to think is so important to our history, the DNA evidence shows that these invasions were on a far smaller scale than previously thought and mainly consisted of invasions and settlement by ruling elites as opposed to full-scale takeovers. The Celtic invasion story has no genetic evidence and has also been questioned by many conventional historians for some years. The Roman occupation brought virtually no genetic material to the gene pool.

Likewise, England’s Germanic heritage did not come from the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions but from those Scandinavians already present in the Isles for thousands of years. The Anglo-Saxon invasion accounts for 5% of our ancestors as a whole, whilst the Normans were a ruling aristocracy who produced barely a ripple in our gene pool.

The people of the Isles then are a homogeneous people, of predominantly very old Iberian stock with an invigorating dash of slightly later Scandinavian blood, who have been here for 15,000 years. Our ancestors were the first inhabitants of these islands, and through our direct ancestry from these ancient men and women, we are the true indigenous people of the Isles.

If you are from the British Isles you are unique. You, your family and all of your ancestors have a history in these Isles that goes back thousands upon thousands of years. You should be proud of whom you are and proud to say “this is my home.” Your people, the people of the Isles, have given the world some of the most important inventions and the greatest ideas in human history.

For more information click on;
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/

Anonymous said...

We are truly in the age foreseen by Orwell.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Ah, genetic testing, I remember watching the t.v. programme, about a decade ago, repeated recently, where said genetic expert set out to prove his political opinions.It was one of the programmes that let the scales fall from my eyes as far as "scientific" t.v. documentaries are concerned-I very rarely watch them now.
The respected professor set out with the obvious intention of proving us to be the "mongrel race".
His glee at being given the honour of providing the scientific proof was palpable.Except, much to his consternation, and much to his chagrin, the proof was completely the opposite. WE ARE VERY HOMOGENOUS. Even in areas of high Scandinavian influence he could find little or no sign of the Scandinavian marker that he was looking for.
SO, at the end of the programme - WITH NO PROOF he came to what was obviuosly HIS OPINION that we all MUST be descended from the ancient Britons.
Given what he set out to prove, and who he set out to airbrush from history do you think his conclusion was completely unbiased?
Why is it so fashionable for the Anglo Saxon descended English to go along with their enemies and deny their own existence?.
Why, when there was never an ethnic cultural or racial group called the celts have we elevated them to the status of our ancestors?I will say again "CELTIC" IS A CATCH ALL NAME APPLIED TO THE MANY UNRELATED TRIBES AROUND EUROPE AT THAT TIME. THEY WERE NEVER A RACE, A PEOPLE OR A SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP OR CULTURE. Forty years ago they were described simply as barbarians.
And if the good professor has subsequently come up with the "proof" that he couldn't find whilst making the documentary, then I trust that just about as much as the other proofs that "independent" "objective" scientists keep ramming down our throats such as global warming etc.
Incidentally, the Fyrd (pronounced feared) warrior would soud much better

Anonymous said...

Ah, genetic testing, I remember watching the t.v. programme, about a decade ago, repeated recently, where said genetic expert set out to prove his political opinions.It was one of the programmes that let the scales fall from my eyes as far as "scientific" t.v. documentaries are concerned-I very rarely watch them now.
The respected professor set out with the obvious intention of proving us to be the "mongrel race".
His glee at being given the honour of providing the scientific proof was palpable.Except, much to his consternation, and much to his chagrin, the proof was completely the opposite. WE ARE VERY HOMOGENOUS. Even in areas of high Scandinavian influence he could find little or no sign of the Scandinavian marker that he was looking for.
SO, at the end of the programme - WITH NO PROOF he came to what was obviuosly HIS OPINION that we all MUST be descended from the ancient Britons.
Given what he set out to prove, and who he set out to airbrush from history do you think his conclusion was completely unbiased?
Why is it so fashionable for the Anglo Saxon descended English to go along with their enemies and deny their own existence?.
Why, when there was never an ethnic cultural or racial group called the celts have we elevated them to the status of our ancestors?I will say again "CELTIC" IS A CATCH ALL NAME APPLIED TO THE MANY UNRELATED TRIBES AROUND EUROPE AT THAT TIME. THEY WERE NEVER A RACE, A PEOPLE OR A SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP OR CULTURE. Forty years ago they were described simply as barbarians.
And if the good professor has subsequently come up with the "proof" that he couldn't find whilst making the documentary, then I trust that just about as much as the other proofs that "independent" "objective" scientists keep ramming down our throats such as global warming etc.
Incidentally, the Fyrd (pronounced feared) warrior would soud much better

Urban Commando said...

Sarah, all of this historical revisionism is redolent of Orwell's famous maxim in '1984' that: “he who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past”.

Quite terrifying when you think about it. Revisionism by stealth and the dumbed down masses accept this drivel without question.

Celtic Warrior said...

It is somewhat of a blow to be told that my ancestral "ancient Britons" never existed and we only existed as a group of disparate European tribes. Obviously the ancient recorders of history such as Pytheas, the Greek geographer, who named the archipelago off the North West of Europe the “Brittanic Isles” and Julius Caesar, were incorrect in referring to the inhabitants as “Pritani” or “Britons”.

I must admit it was a blow to my Gaelic pride to be told I’m descended from a mix of Europeans. And there was I thinking that my lily white skin and blue (Irish?) eyes always placed me apart from my slightly (and some not so slightly) darker Sasanach friends. For years I went about boasting to my Sasanach friends that I was the only true Brit among them and that they should vacate our Isles forthwith. My surname, Ó Ceallaigh like most Gaelic surnames goes back to the 11th century. I have once before suffered a major blow to my pride when told by my brother that my both my Grandmothers had maiden names which were not Gaelic. One was a Parker (Sasanach) and the other Supple (Anglo Norman). It took some time to come to grips with the fact that I’m of mixed blood and Sasanach at that. Others in my immediate family are Hilliard (Sasanach), Dinner (Sasanach), McElligott (Scots Gaelic) and FitzGerald (Anglo Norman). The shame of it is too much to bear.

However, I’ve now learned to accept that I’m no longer a true Gael but a mix of mongrel genes from the people of the Isles. I then read some books written by two prominent Oxford Professors both who were trained in medical and genetic research which gave me some hope that my ancestry was not as mongrel as I had thought but a mix of Basque and Scandinavian. Now I find out from Anonymous that I’m a mongrel after all. Is it acceptable to be proud of my mixed race descent in this politically correct world?

Thanks Anonymous for making my day.

Anonymous said...

That's why I prefer history books written before the 1960s - and ideally firsthand accounts.

Potgieter

Celtic Warrior said...

Ah! Potgieter. Now there's a name that conjures up a by-product of European spice treading, as it brings half of Western Europe, a lot of Southern Africa and some Oriental together in one group. Not all I should add, but most if we're to believe the researchers of Stellenbosch University.

Originally Dutch with a strong Flemish and German influence and a large injection of Malay and West African. Then came a large dollop of French Huguenot followed by a small sprinkling of Paddy, Jock and Rooinek. But we are not finished yet as we must not forget the large percentage of San, Khoikhoi and last but not least, a goodly addition of Bantu.

Anyhow they leave the people of the Isles way behind in the gene pool as they never went beyond the genes of the disparate European tribes, ethnically unrelated, and themselves only recent (a few hundred years) arrivals. Makes one feel as though one has missed out in the lottery of life doesn’t it?

Anonymous said...

My dear Celtic warrior, I'm sorry if I dented your pride. I didn't realise that you were from north of the border, but thought you were one of these Englishmen amongst who it now seems fashionable to romanticise about "Celtic" roots.
If you look at what you say, apart from the Anglo Saxon bit, you are actually agreeing with me.
Our respective nations were settled during the dark ages, and have had relatively stable populations since then. We were among the first sovreign
nations in the world.Very few, if any, modern nations can be said to have existed as long as we have.
I don't see why we can't be proud of our heritage, and what we have acheived in these islands over the last 15oo years or so both as seperate nations, and as one united nation, without having to hark back to some hoped for prior claim to these islands.
I still maintain that every history (until the recent revisionist histories)maintain that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes completely drove out the existing population and replaced them with their own kingdoms.
The people of North Wales and Cornwall certainly seem to think so.
Before that time I suppose Anglo Saxon history is just as much a mystery as anyone elses.
In a nutshell what I am saying is this: We cannot be called mongrel nations - no matter where we started from our respective nations have had a settled, stable, generally homogenous, population, with common cultures for well over a thousand years.
Any previous waves of immigrants have been small enough to be "diluted" into the general popultion both genetically and culturally.
Moreover they have wanted to be English/Scottish.
I have friend, born in Scotland, who has lived in England since he was a small boy.He is as scottish as Andy Stewarts sporran, fiercely Scottish, still has his accent (in his sixties).His surname is Polish. Ask him why and he'll tell you his dad was Polish - not he's Polish.He dosn't eat Polish food support the Polish football team, have ANY opinion on Polish politics, go misty eyed at the mention of Rula Lenska or describe himself as a Polish Scot.He is a Scotsman with Scotish tastes, Scotish prejudices and a Scotish heart.
I hope that you can see what I'm driving at>
We both know what and who we are, and what we want for our children and their children.
We both know that what has gone before has not theatened our culture or our identity one jot.
We both know that what is being forced on us now will destroy both.
God bless you!

Celtic Warrior said...

Anonymous wrote;

Why, when there was never an ethnic cultural or racial group called the celts have we elevated them to the status of our ancestors?I will say again
"CELTIC" IS A CATCH ALL NAME APPLIED TO THE MANY UNRELATED TRIBES AROUND EUROPE AT THAT TIME. THEY WERE NEVER A RACE, A PEOPLE OR A SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP OR CULTURE.

As far as the Isles are concerned Anonymous need not worry as it is now a well established fact, supported by many historians, that no great invasion of the Isles took place by the Celts. At most, it was a cultural and language invasion. The Celts did however exist as a unified group in central Europe and is substantiated by the archeological finds at Hallstatt in Austria and La Tène in Switzerland. The Celts also flourished in the general area now covered by the modern countries of France, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.
The first literary reference to the Celtic (Κeltoi) people is by the Greek historian Hecataeus of Miletus in 517 BC. Herodotus wrote about the Celts in the mid 5th century BC and located them around the source of the Danube. La Tène cultural material has been found over large areas of Europe, including parts of the Isles (the Lake dwellings at Glastonbury are an example of La Tène (Celtic) culture).
The later Romans used the term Celtae to refer to the continental Gauls, but apparently not to their cousins across the channel in the Isles. The latter were long divided linguistically into Goidels (Gaels) and Brythons (Britons).
The English word Celt is a modern word, coined in 1707 by the Welsh scholar Edward Lluld, who with other 17th century scholars, brought academic attention to the languages and history of these early inhabitants of the Isles. The 18th century brought a wave of enthusiasm for all things "Celtic". The antiquarian William Stukely pictured a race of "Ancient Britons" constructing the "Temples of the Ancient Celts" such as Stonehenge in Wiltshire and Newgrange in Meath. This was just so much romantic pie in the sky. Whilst the reference to “Ancient Briton” is correct, the reference to “Ancient Celt” is way off the mark as the Celts never invaded the Isles. Newgrange, built about 3200 BC and Stonehenge built about 2500 BC were built millennia before the Celts were even heard of. And as they had to be built by someone who resided in those places, Ancient Briton is as good a name as any.
It was only in the latter half of the last century that the advent of a human rights culture and at the behest of the European Union, which has allowed the so called “Celtic” countries of Scotland, Wales and Ireland to readopt the mantle of “Celtic” culture and express their pride and re-emphasise their own unique and un-English cultures. It’s also the reason I use it as part of my user name. The fact that it also brings in a large number of dollars especially from white Americans trying to find their cultural and historical roots, may also have something to do with it.
"The whole nation is war-mad, both high-spirited and ready for battle, but otherwise simple, though not uncultured."
-- Strabo, 1st century A.D. Greek geographer
"Golden is their hair and golden their garb. They are resplendent in their striped cloaks, and their milk-white necks are circled with gold."
-- Virgil, 1st century B.C. Roman poet

Sigbrit said...

Aaaah... Celtic. I am afraid that the 'evidence' saying that Aglo-Saxons and 'Celts' did not mix has now been rubbished by genetics. Whether it was propaganda or romanticism we now know that th Anglo-Saxons and the 'celts' did mix very enthusiastically. We even know from written accounts that the Anglo Saxon army that supposedly fought against the Romano British was lead by Cerdic/Caradoc, a Welshman! So the 'English' are not Celts thing is a lie. This is a problem for fringe nation separatists as they have built an entire dogma on denying English Celtic ethnicity. Indeed, it is now apparent that the English have more people descended from the 'celts' than any other nation. But maybe we should do what they do in the rest of European academic circles. Refer to the 'Britons' as 'central migration Celts', the Gaels as 'southern migration celts' and the Germano Scandinavians as 'Northern migration Celts'.

Anonymous said...

I dont want to muddy the waters here but...

The AngloSaxons may not have interbred with the RomanoBrits in the way the Normans did later. But one can be pretty certain they took the cutest girls for their own. Result: a mixed population.

Control of fertile females is one of the keys to survival.

Thats what honour killings are all about. Control of females. Its A-0K for asian muslim males to impregnates non-muslim white girls, thats great for them, their genes get into our genepool. But woebetide anyone interfering with their women. Thats rarely tolerated, you the male interloper will be punished (Kris Donald) and sometimes they will punish their own women too. The geneflow is almost all one way.