The England we lost

[Brother Brutha]

By kinsmen. The Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans (= North-men), Celts, Picts, etc were all of the same related Nordic ethnic stock. So they remained homogenous, unmixed...

The "Romans" weren't. They came from all over - even Africa.

And I think you'll find that the Celts, Picts and Anglo-Saxons were all different, ethnically. They certainly were culturally.

 

[Brother Brutha]

BNP are the only party with common sense policies. They are also the only party trying to preserve Britain's Christian heritage from Islamification.

Here is a comparison of BNP policies to Lib-Lab-Con:

Where did you get that? Cut and past from the B(ritish) N(azi) P(arty) website?

 

[Research2]

The "Romans" weren't. They came from all over - even Africa.

Only 20,000 Roman troops took part in the conquest of Britain in 43 AD.
Most Roman troops were called back to Rome, leaving only a few thousand troops post-80 AD. The population of Britain at that time was 1. 5 million, therefore even if the Romans intermarried with the indigenous British, it would be less than 0.1% of the population. Also there is the fact that most Roman troops were of Celtic, or Germanic extraction anyway - as the Romans employed soldiers across their empire. In other words, the historical evidence has confirmed that the white indigenous British are homogenous, and not mixed.

The only people who reject the historical and scientific evidence are liberals or multicultralists, who want to justify modern multiculturalism - so they attempt to prove that the white indigenous British are somehow 'mongrels' or 'impure'...oddly though these same liberals and multiculturalists have no problem with accepting that the australian aborigines and bushmen of sub-sahara africa are indigenous, just when it comes to white people suddenly we are not entitled to a heritage...

 

[Ar Cosc]

Only 20,000 Roman troops took part in the conquest of Britain in 43 AD.
Most Roman troops were called back to Rome, leaving only a few thousand troops post-80 AD. The population of Britain at that time was 1. 5 million, therefore even if the Romans intermarried with the indigenous British, it would be less than 0.1% of the population. Also there is the fact that most Roman troops were of Celtic, or Germanic extraction anyway - as the Romans employed soldiers across their empire. In other words, the historical evidence has confirmed that the white indigenous British are homogenous, and not mixed.

The only people who reject the historical and scientific evidence are liberals or multicultralists, who want to justify modern multiculturalism - so they attempt to prove that the white indigenous British are somehow 'mongrels' or 'impure'...oddly though these same liberals and multiculturalists have no problem with accepting that the australian aborigines and bushmen of sub-sahara africa are indigenous, just when it comes to white people suddenly we are not entitled to a heritage...

Culture is not race.

And if people want to marry outside of their race, who are you to say they can't? You want to preserve British racial purity, go and find a nice Cheddar Girl. Always provided you don't have any non-British ancestors yourself. Which is statistically pretty much impossible.

 

[Research2]

Culture is not race.

And if people want to marry outside of their race, who are you to say they can't? You want to preserve British racial purity, go and find a nice Cheddar Girl. Always provided you don't have any non-British ancestors yourself. Which is statistically pretty much impossible.

Actually most indigenous British can trace their heritage as far back as 1086, by using historical records, most notably the Doomsday Book (which covered most of England and Wales).

Prior to 1086, there were no non-ethnic British in Britain which means most ethnic-British who can trace their heritage to the Doomsday, are of a pure linage.

Immigrants from the 3rd world (Africa, Asia etc) have only flooded UK within the last 50 years, they were not here a thousand years ago, and really have no history in the British Isles.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Actually most indigenous British can trace their heritage as far back as 1086, by using historical records, most notably the Doomsday Book (which covered most of England and Wales).

Prior to 1086, there were no non-ethnic British in Britain which means most ethnic-British who can trace their heritage to the Doomsday, are of a pure linage.

I'm not disputing that (at least, not right now). However, the Normans, the Romans, various immigrants, traders, and armies all passed through the UK. Have you any idea how microscopic the chances are that absolutely none of them appear in your family tree?

Immigrants from the 3rd world (Africa, Asia etc) have only flooded UK within the last 50 years, they were not here a thousand years ago, and really have no history in the British Isles.

So what?

 

[Research2]

So what?

They are not ethnically British.

Liberals in this thread deny that the indigenous British exist (when they do), and as an ethnic group, the indigenous British are entitled to an identity, just as every other group is.

The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?

 

[SithDoughnut]

They are not ethnically British.

Liberals in this thread deny that the indigenous British exist (when they do), and as an ethnic group, the indigenous British are entitled to an identity, just as every other group is.

The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?

If you become a citizen of a country, you are now part of that country. Whether you are British or not has nothing to do with your genes. My uncle was born in Cumbria, now he lives in America and has American Citizenship. He is a citizen of the USA. His genes don't effect anything, nor does whether he is "native" or not.

Humanity came from Africa. Everyone outside of there is a descendant of immigrants.

Besides, it doesn't even matter, considering the fact that most people are descended from various "kinds" of people and so are not indigenous anything.

 

[theFijian]

The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?

Lol, my brother has moved to Australia. He hasn't become Australian (apart from gaining citizenship), but his children are by birth. Logic applied!

Also, do you believe Acts 17:16 restricts the movement of nations as per my post in the thread you ran away from and got a mod to close down because you were upset at the pummeling your arguments were getting?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you become a citizen of a country, you are now part of that country. Whether you are British or not has nothing to do with your genes. My uncle was born in Cumbria, now he lives in America and has American Citizenship. He is a citizen of the USA. His genes don't effect anything, nor does whether he is "native" or not.

Humanity came from Africa. Everyone outside of there is a descendant of immigrants.

Besides, it doesn't even matter, considering the fact that most people are descended from various "kinds" of people and so are not indigenous anything.

Agreed. How many generations before somebody is "indigenous"? I am an ex-pat in New Zealand married to a 6th generation "pakeha". What does that make my children?

 

[Ar Cosc]

They are not ethnically British.

Liberals in this thread deny that the indigenous British exist (when they do), and as an ethnic group, the indigenous British are entitled to an identity, just as every other group is.

No, we say that, although the population of Britain is genetically slightly different, it is by no means "pure", and that the differences are in no way as fundamental as you are claiming.

And you and your mates are entitled to any identity you want. Nobody is trying to take that away from you, despite your paranoia.

The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?

I have said this I think four times to your various alter-egos, but I'll do so again. Ethnicity and culture are completely different things. A Swede who moved to China could be culturally Chinese. A British person who moved to a Reservation could become culturally Native American, and so on. And culture is infinitely more important in determining the worth of a person than ethnicity. For example, I guarantee you you'd have more in common with a black fundamentalist, conservative christian from Nigeria than you would with me, even though I am of "pure Celtic stock". Why are you so obsessed with race, when it is one of the least important characteristics of a person?

 

[Research2]

If you become a citizen of a country, you are now part of that country. Whether you are British or not has nothing to do with your genes. My uncle was born in Cumbria, now he lives in America and has American Citizenship. He is a citizen of the USA. His genes don't effect anything, nor does whether he is "native" or not.

You can only become civically apart of that country, not ethnically. If an immigrant moves to Britain they do not become an indigenous Briton, just how if a European moves to America, they don't become a Native American.

I understand you liberals oppose common sense, but one day you should embrace reality...

Humanity came from Africa.

Good luck proving that.

Besides, it doesn't even matter, considering the fact that most people are descended from various "kinds" of people and so are not indigenous anything.

Each land has an indigenous population (including Britain). Nothing you say changes that fact.

 

[Research2]

And you and your mates are entitled to any identity you want. Nobody is trying to take that away from you, despite your paranoia.

Actually you and several other Liberals have claimed in this thread that indigenous British don't exist (when they do), which is a racist stance - as it is denying the white native British an identity.

I have said this I think four times to your various alter-egos, but I'll do so again. Ethnicity and culture are completely different things. A Swede who moved to China could be culturally Chinese. A British person who moved to a Reservation could become culturally Native American, and so on. And culture is infinitely more important in determining the worth of a person than ethnicity. For example, I guarantee you you'd have more in common with a black fundamentalist, conservative christian from Nigeria than you would with me, even though I am of "pure Celtic stock".

People can adopt cultures but they have no ancestral link to them.

Why are you so obsessed with race, when it is one of the least important characteristics of a person?

Its only you liberals who are obsessed with race, particularly you are obsessed with denying white people (mostly the white British) a heritage, but when it comes down to any other race suddenly you are all for them.

Why for example do liberals allow and promote organisations like the Black Police Association (listed on the Liberal Democrats website), which only allow black members (whites cannot join), but when whites set up their own orgsanisations for only whites it is suddenly racist?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Actually you and several other Liberals have claimed in this thread that indigenous British don't exist (when they do), which is a racist stance - as it is denying the white native British an identity.

How does anyone else's opinion take away from your right to identify as whatever you want? You and your mates can organise meetings, breed only with each other, and sing songs about how great it is to be "native British", and the skin-colour of the man who owns the local shop will have absolutely zero bearing on any of it.

And no, nobody has claimed that there's not a genetic group that could be identified as "British". They've just pointed out that it's almost identical to other Northern European ethnicities, and that it doesn't determine your culture.

People can adopt cultures but they have no ancestral link to them.

So what if those people who adopt the culture have kids and grandkids? Do the grandkids now have an ancestral link (especially if the second parent is from the original culture)? If so, then what's the problem? And what's so important about having an ancestral link anyway? Can you only believe in democracy if your ancestors came from Greece? Can you only eat Indian food if you're from the subcontinent?

Its only you liberals who are obsessed with race, particularly you are obsessed with denying white people (mostly the white British) a heritage, but when it comes down to any other race suddenly you are all for them.

There you go stereotyping again. We're not the ones who "only want to live with our own (racial) kind". We're all for judging people on their merits, not their skin colour, unlike you.

The only thing I'm for is equality. I don't promote any race above any others. I don't think any race is "better" than any others, and I don't see race as something that has to be "preserved" at the cost of taking away peoples' right to have kids with whoever they want. Cultures have intrinsic values and qualities. Race is just an arbitrary thing some people inexplicably like to use as a classification.

Why for example do liberals allow and promote organisations like the Black Police Association (listed on the Liberal Democrats website), which only allow black members (whites cannot join), but when whites set up their own orgsanisations for only whites it is suddenly racist?

Liberals are not a monolithic group. I oppose any group that's organised along racial lines, whether that's black, white, or Pacific Islander. However, I will support the right of people to set up whatever group they want, so long as it doesn't preach hatred or violence against another. How does that fit into the nice little box you've made for liberals?

I also notice you've ignored my point about your obsession with race. You'd have a lot more in common personality- and worldview-wise with a Nigerian conservative Christian, so why would you let a liberal atheist like me into your country, but not the guy who thinks and acts so much more like you do?

 

[Research2]

How does anyone else's opinion take away from your right to identify as whatever you want? You and your mates can organise meetings, breed only with each other, and sing songs about how great it is to be "native British", and the skin-colour of the man who owns the local shop will have absolutely zero bearing on any of it.

And no, nobody has claimed that there's not a genetic group that could be identified as "British". They've just pointed out that it's almost identical to other Northern European ethnicities, and that it doesn't determine your culture.

Some posters in this thread have claimed anyone can become British - as long as they move to Britain.

This is wrong for many reasons.

Firstly and most importantly its wrong because it denies the indigenous British a heritage. If anyone can be British then the ethnic-British are no longer entitled to an identity.

So what if those people who adopt the culture have kids and grandkids? Do the grandkids now have an ancestral link (especially if the second parent is from the original culture)? If so, then what's the problem?

If the people adopting the culture, are of a related ethnic root then they can become 'British', in the ethnic sense and be as British as an indigenous Briton. An example would be the minority of native Britons who have partial-Huguenot heritage, but the Huguenots assimilated and fit the ethnic mold of Britain.

To quote Nick Griffin on who an indigenous Brit is:

''...it's anyone who is effectively so melded into the majority english, british population so nobody knows, so nobody cares''

And what's so important about having an ancestral link anyway?

Some people are patriotic and have a spirtual connection to their country and ancestors.

Don't you claim to be liberal and democratic? Everyone's different remember...

Can you only believe in democracy if your ancestors came from Greece?

Democracy is a product of the western world only.

Can you only eat Indian food if you're from the subcontinent?

People can eat what food they want. However its pretty sad and annoying when you see a British person eating foreign food when we have our own.

There you go stereotyping again. We're not the ones who "only want to live with our own (racial) kind". We're all for judging people on their merits, not their skin colour, unlike you.

The liberal elite who run UK are ethnically cleansing Britain. This is widely known and will be further confirmed when the 2011 census statistics prove white native British are a minority in many more areas.

Will UK census 2011 reveal white-minority towns?

 

[theFijian]

You can only become civically apart of that country, not ethnically. If an immigrant moves to Britain they do not become an indigenous Briton, just how if a European moves to America, they don't become a Native American.

I understand you liberals oppose common sense, but one day you should embrace reality...

No they don't, but they're children will become indigenous. Welcome to reality

 

[Ar Cosc]

Some posters in this thread have claimed anyone can become British - as long as they move to Britain.

This is wrong for many reasons.

Firstly and most importantly its wrong because it denies the indigenous British a heritage. If anyone can be British then the ethnic-British are no longer entitled to an identity.

Culturally British. There is a difference between culture and ethnicity. I must have told you this 20 times before, and you have continuously failed to address it. Are you suggesting we ban black people from playing cricket and drinking tea in the afternoon, so these can be part of an exclusively "British" cultural identity?

And again I ask, how does the skin colour of the Pakistani who owns the shop round the corner in any way affect your right to identify with whatever label you choose? Nobody's forcing you to adopt their culture, and absolutely nobody is forcing you to have non-white kids with them.

If the people adopting the culture, are of a related ethnic root then they can become 'British', in the ethnic sense and be as British as an indigenous Briton. An example would be the minority of native Britons who have partial-Huguenot heritage, but the Huguenots assimilated and fit the ethnic mold of Britain.

Ethnicity is not culture. How is a black person who was born in Britain, speaks colloqial English with an East London accent, plays football with his mates, goes for a pint of ale in the local pub afterwards, any less culturally British than his white mate who does exactly the same thing?

To quote Nick Griffin on who an indigenous Brit is:

''...it's anyone who is effectively so melded into the majority english, british population so nobody knows, so nobody cares''

That's good for him. Now tell me why a black person can't become melded into the majority British population. And don't repeat your tired lines which amount to "because they're black, and black people aren't British. Graagh, liberals!". Give me an actual, solid, tangible reason why black people cannot adapt to British culture.

Some people are patriotic and have a spirtual connection to their country and ancestors.

Don't you claim to be liberal and democratic? Everyone's different remember...

Good for them. And how are a few black and Asian people living in the same country as them going to somehow break their magical "spiritual connection" to their ancestors.

And did you just claim that only white people can be patriotic? What about mixed-race people? Can they be patriotic for no country?

Democracy is a product of the western world only.

So is that a yes, or a no? Do you think that black people are incapable of embracing democracy, as a result of their ethnicity.

People can eat what food they want. However its pretty sad and annoying when you see a British person eating foreign food when we have our own.

Ever eat a potato, or anything made from a potato? That's south American. I'm guessing you wouldn't consider that sad and annoying.

The liberal elite who run UK are ethnically cleansing Britain. This is widely known and will be further confirmed when the 2011 census statistics prove white native British are a minority in many more areas.

Will UK census 2011 reveal white-minority towns?

Given your stringent definition of "native British", I'm guessing they're the minority in every area. And your "ethnic cleansing" line is a load of paranoid excrement. Do you seriously think that there's a massive liberal plot to corrupt your pure, Aryan bloodline, by bringing in a load of pesky attractive foreigners to breed with ethnically pure British, to create a nation of mongrels? What possible motivation would the evil liberals have for doing this? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?!


And one more thing, tell me how ethnicity is unbreakable linked to culture. No little rants about liberals, no personal attacks on my intelligence, no quotes from 19th century eugenicists. Tell me what real, physical factors preclude a black or Asian person from adopting the exact same culture as someone who has lived in Tunbridge Wells for 200 generations? If you have to rigidle define "culture" to do so, please go ahead, I have all day.

 

[Research2]

Culturally British. There is a difference between culture and ethnicity. I must have told you this 20 times before, and you have continuously failed to address it. Are you suggesting we ban black people from playing cricket and drinking tea in the afternoon, so these can be part of an exclusively "British" cultural identity?

I don't know what this has to do with what was raised.

And again I ask, how does the skin colour of the Pakistani who owns the shop round the corner in any way affect your right to identify with whatever label you choose? Nobody's forcing you to adopt their culture, and absolutely nobody is forcing you to have non-white kids with them.

See 1 above.

Ethnicity is not culture. How is a black person who was born in Britain, speaks colloqial English with an East London accent, plays football with his mates, goes for a pint of ale in the local pub afterwards, any less culturally British than his white mate who does exactly the same thing?

There are two definitions of British - civic and ethnic.

The ethnic-British are only the indigenous peoples of Britain i.e the Picts, Scots, Celts, Anglo-Saxon etc related kindred peoples who have been here for thousand(s) of years and created Britain.

That's good for him. Now tell me why a black person can't become melded into the majority British population. And don't repeat your tired lines which amount to "because they're black, and black people aren't British. Graagh, liberals!". Give me an actual, solid, tangible reason why black people cannot adapt to British culture.

They don't share the indigenous phenotype, and that pretty much answers the rest of your posts. Physical appearance is a factor of ethnicity, not the sole factor, but nontheless a factor which proves common ancestry or descent.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I don't know what this has to do with what was raised.



See 1 above.

IT has everything to do with what was being raised. You're saying that the "liberal elite" are denying you your right to an identity, by allowing immigration, but have not provided one iota of evidence to back this up, and when challenged you have ignored the question, or tried to change the subject.

There are two definitions of British - civic and ethnic.

The ethnic-British are only the indigenous peoples of Britain i.e the Picts, Scots, Celts, Anglo-Saxon etc related kindred peoples who have been here for thousand(s) of years and created Britain.

Yes, we know your opinions about what constitutes an ethnic Briton. Now explain to us why people who aren't ethnically British can't become culturally British, and why these people shouldn't be allowed to live in Britain.

They don't share the indigenous phenotype, and that pretty much answers the rest of your posts. Physical appearance is a factor of ethnicity, not the sole factor, but nontheless a factor which proves common ancestry or descent.

And again, I'll say "so what"? They're not ethnically the same as the Britons 2000 years ago. We've established that. Now why should people of different races not be allowed into the UK?

 

[Research2]

IT has everything to do with what was being raised. You're saying that the "liberal elite" are denying you your right to an identity, by allowing immigration, but have not provided one iota of evidence to back this up, and when challenged you have ignored the question, or tried to change the subject.

Its already been proved the indigenous British are 2nd class citizens in our own country. If you are an immigrant, the goverment looks after you - hence housing goes straight away to immigrants, while the indigenous British on the housing registers (who have been listed for years) never get housing. The same applies to jobs, immigrants are given jobs over indigenous British.

Yes, we know your opinions about what constitutes an ethnic Briton. Now explain to us why people who aren't ethnically British can't become culturally British, and why these people shouldn't be allowed to live in Britain.

Its not my opinion, its a proven fact. Ever looked at a census form? If anyone can be British, why all the different boxes of ethnicity to tick?

And again, I'll say "so what"? They're not ethnically the same as the Britons 2000 years ago. We've established that.

They are not descended from the people who created or have paid into Britain - therefore why should they be considered 'british' or equal? There are native British who have ancestors who built this land, and have paid their taxes all their lives, while immigrants have been here less than 5 or 10 years sponging off the system - yet according to the Liberals logic anyone can be British...

As i said, your views are anti-common sense.

Now why should people of different races not be allowed into the UK?

Britain is full. We are the 2nd most populated country in Europe, but are just a tiny Island, more and more people flooding us is not beneficial.