British and Proud
04-26-2009, 06:33 PM
The Blood Of The Isles
It seems a 'leaked' BNP manual has caused quite a stir in the media this week, as it reveals that the BNP do not acknowledge the existence of black and Asian Britons:
"These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese.
"Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as 'racial foreigners', a non-pejorative term... The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult."
Predictably this generated scorn and hysteria amongst the politically correct, but the unpalatble truth is black and Asian people are obviously either immigrants, or the descendents of immigrants who almost certainly arrived in this country within the last sixty years. One can tell at a glance that their ancestors evolved in a warmer climate in which dark pigmentation was necessary to protect them from strong UV rays, and thus clearly they are not indigenous to the British Isles. Their ancestors would not have fought in the Battle of Hastings nor sheltered from the Blitz, even!
The term 'British Asian' clearly refers to an Asian person who has been born in Britain and is in possession of a British passport. The individual may or may not be culturally British, but is likely to speak Urdu or Hindi at the very least and usually practices a faith which is alien to these shores. As I have written previously:
Can anyone tell me what is British about a man who attends his local mosque, speaks Urdu as his first language (at home, in the community centre, local shops, etc), wears traditional muslim clothes, grows a beard as thick as his fist, eats halal meat, avoids alcohol, makes his wife wear a niqab, supports the Pakistani cricket team and would like Sharia Law to replace the current legal system?
The individual I described above is (in my opinion erroneously) considered British by our ruling elite, as were the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks. Does that individual sound British to you? Were those responsible for the biggest terrorist attack on the British mainland really our compatriots?
Historically nations have usually grown organically, through the shared bonds that unite the people - culture, language and race (ethnicity). Nationality would confer rights and impose duties, but it would also ensure a cohesive, productive society. Remove these common bonds and society will likely become fragmented, ghettoised, and in the worst case scenario, violent. Just look at Yugoslavia.
Of course states can be manufactured, the USSR is a prime example. Stalin sought to remove and mix the ethnic populations. The following is from Wikipedia:
The partial removal of potentially trouble-making ethnic groups was a technique used consistently by Joseph Stalin during his career: Poles (1939-1941 and 1944-1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944-1953) Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians (1941 and 1945-1949), Volga Germans (1941), Chechens, Ingushs (1944), Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union.[2] It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics.[5] By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.[6]
However the dissolution of the Soviet Union saw the emergence of the old nation states - Russia, Belarus, the Baltic nations, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. The old bonds had endured the Soviet era and survived intact.
Similarly in times of adversity, our common bonds have united us and given us the strength and resolve to resist whatever was thrown at us eg. the Blitz Spirit and Dunkirk. Conversely today our cities are fragmented along racial and religious lines, and I suspect many so called Britons would be reluctant to put their lives at risk for Queen and country.
Nope, the BNP are right. Those of us who are English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster-Scots, Manx and Irish are the true British. Through our veins flows the Blood Of The Isles:
It’s Official: British (a.k.a. America’s Founders) Not Diverse At All
By Steve Sailer
As every schoolboy used to know, the episodes of group migration into the British Isles were remarkably few between the Norman Conquest of 1066 and the beginning of modern mass immigration after 1945: the French Huguenot refugees, the modest flow of Ashkenazi Jews, and a few others. Nevertheless, in recent years the politically-correct elites on both sides of the Atlantic have begun to promote the improbable contention that Britain has always been a land of immigration.
Ironically, just as this has become an article of faith, genetic evidence has begun to pile up about how profoundly wrong it is. Not only did immigration after 1066 play a vanishingly small role in the makeup of the offshore islanders, but even the famous invasions of previous millennia—Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Romans—merely added a fairly minor overlay to the prehistoric gene pool.
Political control and even language varied in the British Isles over time. But the oldest occupants endured, adapted, and flourished. In the words of Oxford University geneticist Bryan Sykes in his new book Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland [published in the United Kingdom under the title Blood of the Isles]:
"We are an ancient people …"
The family trees of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are overwhelmingly indigenous to the British Isles since far back into prehistoric times. The title of Sykes' first chapter, "Twelve Thousand Years of Solitude," summarizes this finding. The "average settlement dates" in the Isles for the ancestors of modern British and Irish people, he estimates, were around 8,000 years ago.
It seems a 'leaked' BNP manual has caused quite a stir in the media this week, as it reveals that the BNP do not acknowledge the existence of black and Asian Britons:
"These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese.
"Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as 'racial foreigners', a non-pejorative term... The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult."
Predictably this generated scorn and hysteria amongst the politically correct, but the unpalatble truth is black and Asian people are obviously either immigrants, or the descendents of immigrants who almost certainly arrived in this country within the last sixty years. One can tell at a glance that their ancestors evolved in a warmer climate in which dark pigmentation was necessary to protect them from strong UV rays, and thus clearly they are not indigenous to the British Isles. Their ancestors would not have fought in the Battle of Hastings nor sheltered from the Blitz, even!
The term 'British Asian' clearly refers to an Asian person who has been born in Britain and is in possession of a British passport. The individual may or may not be culturally British, but is likely to speak Urdu or Hindi at the very least and usually practices a faith which is alien to these shores. As I have written previously:
Can anyone tell me what is British about a man who attends his local mosque, speaks Urdu as his first language (at home, in the community centre, local shops, etc), wears traditional muslim clothes, grows a beard as thick as his fist, eats halal meat, avoids alcohol, makes his wife wear a niqab, supports the Pakistani cricket team and would like Sharia Law to replace the current legal system?
The individual I described above is (in my opinion erroneously) considered British by our ruling elite, as were the perpetrators of the 7/7 attacks. Does that individual sound British to you? Were those responsible for the biggest terrorist attack on the British mainland really our compatriots?
Historically nations have usually grown organically, through the shared bonds that unite the people - culture, language and race (ethnicity). Nationality would confer rights and impose duties, but it would also ensure a cohesive, productive society. Remove these common bonds and society will likely become fragmented, ghettoised, and in the worst case scenario, violent. Just look at Yugoslavia.
Of course states can be manufactured, the USSR is a prime example. Stalin sought to remove and mix the ethnic populations. The following is from Wikipedia:
The partial removal of potentially trouble-making ethnic groups was a technique used consistently by Joseph Stalin during his career: Poles (1939-1941 and 1944-1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944-1953) Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians (1941 and 1945-1949), Volga Germans (1941), Chechens, Ingushs (1944), Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union.[2] It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics.[5] By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.[6]
However the dissolution of the Soviet Union saw the emergence of the old nation states - Russia, Belarus, the Baltic nations, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. The old bonds had endured the Soviet era and survived intact.
Similarly in times of adversity, our common bonds have united us and given us the strength and resolve to resist whatever was thrown at us eg. the Blitz Spirit and Dunkirk. Conversely today our cities are fragmented along racial and religious lines, and I suspect many so called Britons would be reluctant to put their lives at risk for Queen and country.
Nope, the BNP are right. Those of us who are English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster-Scots, Manx and Irish are the true British. Through our veins flows the Blood Of The Isles:
It’s Official: British (a.k.a. America’s Founders) Not Diverse At All
By Steve Sailer
As every schoolboy used to know, the episodes of group migration into the British Isles were remarkably few between the Norman Conquest of 1066 and the beginning of modern mass immigration after 1945: the French Huguenot refugees, the modest flow of Ashkenazi Jews, and a few others. Nevertheless, in recent years the politically-correct elites on both sides of the Atlantic have begun to promote the improbable contention that Britain has always been a land of immigration.
Ironically, just as this has become an article of faith, genetic evidence has begun to pile up about how profoundly wrong it is. Not only did immigration after 1066 play a vanishingly small role in the makeup of the offshore islanders, but even the famous invasions of previous millennia—Normans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Romans—merely added a fairly minor overlay to the prehistoric gene pool.
Political control and even language varied in the British Isles over time. But the oldest occupants endured, adapted, and flourished. In the words of Oxford University geneticist Bryan Sykes in his new book Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland [published in the United Kingdom under the title Blood of the Isles]:
"We are an ancient people …"
The family trees of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are overwhelmingly indigenous to the British Isles since far back into prehistoric times. The title of Sykes' first chapter, "Twelve Thousand Years of Solitude," summarizes this finding. The "average settlement dates" in the Isles for the ancestors of modern British and Irish people, he estimates, were around 8,000 years ago.