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.

British in name only

Were I to take a trip to Mexico and buy a Saguaro Cactus, which I then brought back to Britain and planted in my own garden, the cactus would not suddenly metamorphose into a British plant merely on account of its change of location, neither would it become so, were I to take a cutting and re-plant it in a different part of Britain. Indeed, were I to spread the seed of my imported cactus across the country from Bolton to Brighton via Blaenau Festiniog it would remain a Mexican cactus which I had imported to Britain.

Likewise, I would be roundly mocked were I to claim the sea hibiscus to be a British plant merely because I had successfully cultivated a couple of generations of it in a green house in Tring. I would face more than mere mockery in the case of certain other plants, such as the invasive Japanese knotweed, the Virginia Creeper or the South American water hyacinth (one of the fastest growing of plants currently choking rivers and waterways across the countries it has invaded) more likely I would be accused of environmental terrorism were I to bring it here, no matter how much it might thrive at the expense of the local population.

An elephant is not a British species, even if it is the third generation calf of a mother born in a travelling circus and now living in Regents Park Zoo. Tiger breeding programmes at Longleat do not claim to be producing “British Tigers”, neither are the giraffes and zebras which contentedly live out their days in the same “Safari Park” ever anything other than African animals.

Outside Zoos and Safari parks a number of foreign animal species run wild in the British countryside, mostly introduced unnaturally through the stupidity of man, and most cause havoc and devastation to the natural environment and indigenous fauna, such as in the case of the vicious and carnivorous mink, freed from fur farms by so called “animal lovers” in the 1980's, and which have spent the last twenty years eating the natural wildlife, such as the water vole, almost to the point of extinction. No environmentalist refers to the mink as a British species, neither do they the, north African love birds, accidentally released into Britain during the late 20th Century and now plaguing fruit growers across the country, the poisonous North American bullfrog, or the foreign crayfish which have so far killed over a fifth of the native varieties.

The reverse can apply, after many centuries, the rabbit, descendants of the European wild rabbit introduced to Britain by the Romans, but not recorded in the wild until the 12th Century, is now widely viewed as a native animal, but it remains a serious pest, although not to the extent it became when introduced to the truly alien environment of Australia.

A, thankfully dead, piranha was recently found in a Devon river and, if global warming is real and continues, it is more than possible that, crocodiles or alligators could survive in English rivers, were anyone crazy enough to import them, however, few would want to, and nobody would call them British.

Yet we grant the honour of being called British to far more dangerous, murderous and indeed no less alien creatures than crocodiles, we grant it unquestioningly to men and women who's only claim to Britishness is an accident of birth, but who's true inheritance, culture and, in most cases, if the truth be told, true national allegiance, lies far from our shores.

Last night, I lost count of the number of times that various newscasters referred to the men convicted of conspiracy to blow seven packed aircraft out of the sky, as “British”, yet they are not British in any true or natural sense. They have been granted British passports because their parents happened to be here when they were born, but location does not change a nationality, their nature, culture, race and inheritance has come down to them, through thousands of generations, from their ancestral homelands, and, as we saw from their pre-recorded suicide videos, that is where their hearts and souls belong also.

Rashid Rauf

Their alleged handler Rashid Rauf (above) was also born in Britain, but left hurriedly after his uncle was stabbed to death. Rauf is believed to be a leading Al-Qaida operative behind terror attacks across the world, including the attacks in London of the 7th and 21st of July 2005. There are doubts as to whether Rauf is still alive, or, as the Americans claim he was killed by a bomb dropped from an unmanned “drone” in November 2008. However there are less doubts as to whether he considered himself “British” or where his loyalty lay, despite his accident of birth.

There are many like them, whilst one anchor baby gives a dynasty access to our country, the skies approaching Britain are full of pregnant women grasping entry visas long enough to get them in and out of the maternity wards. Yet the children, who by chance of Birth, have anchored their parents, and often their grandparents to our country, are no more part of the indigenous people of Britain than I would be Czech had I been born prematurely whilst my parents were enjoying a City break in Prague.

I would still be British had I been born on the open seas, for it is to Britain that I trace my genes and my bloodline. These men have no such claim, and to grant them one, is not only artificial but it denies them their true culture.

Commentators, speak of a “common British character” as if British genes are injected into arrivals at what is laughably called 'Immigration control'. A British character is no more something one develops by the act of getting off a plane at Heathrow than a French Character is something you gain by arriving at Paris Charles de Gaulle.

No matter how many laws the treacherous governments of this land may have written they can not change nature. An Englishman does not become Chinese by being born in Beijing and a Somali does not become British by being born in Telford. Location does not change genes, and to claim otherwise is all part of the fantasy world created by political correctness, where, to take it to its logical conclusion to become a horse, a sheep need only to be born in a stable.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar owe their claim to Britishness to a piece of paper and the malevolence of politicians. It is merely ethnic cross dressing which can be locked away when the pantomime is over, and certainly will be when we are all called to take a stand. In their genes, hearts, souls and allegiance they are Pakistani, and that is what matters to them.

They are also not British Muslims, the only British Muslim involved was the convert Donald Stewart-Whyte, who was cleared of all involvement in the airliner bomb plot. The others are only British by dint of political whim. However, politics change only transitory perceptions, it does not change reality. To call these men “British” would be correct only if you define nationality in the narrow terms of geographical location at the point of birth, I do not accept that definition, and self evidently neither do they.

_________________________________