There is something special about the internal conditions of the English.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

There is something special about the internal conditions of the English.

Everything is relative so some things are only visible in a comparison. There is a strange condition about the English / British. Leading English / British individuals do hardly identify with their own English / British common people. They completely don't care about their own commoners, not de facto and also not in any ideology.

In contrast to this you have the ideology of socialdemocrat "folkhemmet" in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, in Russia you had the communism that focussed on the working population and in Germany you have not just some basic social(ist) views as well, but also the nationalsocialist figure of "Volksgemeinschaft" as an ideal and such thoughts are - of course without this a "probematitc" "Nazi" reference - common sense basically throughout Europe as a whole.

What made the British Isles differ in not considering all the indigenous people to be part of a common solidarity community, de facto and ideologically?

Also, the attitude towards the Irish f. i. is much more rejecting and hostile, than Swedes are towards the Finns or the Sami or the Germans were towards the indigenous historical Wends (Slavs).

I think this is connected to the topic in question.

I have my ideas, but I prefer to first hear the unaltered opinions of thoughtful individuals with connection to the British Isles.

Maybe because the British lower classes - unlike the lower classes of other European nations except for Russians- will crack you in the back of the head with a bottle. There is a reason why the British - really the British lower class - aren't liked in Continental Europe. They bring problems with them and unfortunately it's cheap enough for them to fly across Europe to watch soccer games, etc. They get drunk and lash out violently.

Now why would any sensible person want to associate with people who behave that way and why wouldn't people look down on them? Drunkenness is a serious problem among British 'commoners.'

[Creoda]

Very interesting to get to know that structure. It has some points that are new to me.

What is the ideological background of the White Australia policy then and from where did it come?

The so-called White Australia policy (don't think it was ever officially named that) came about largely from trade unionist pressure to keep Asian labour out, and was widely supported on both sides of Aus politics from Federation in 1901 until the 1960s, because our racial consciousness/ethnocentrism hadn't yet been shamed out of us. Actually in the first place it was more of a British Australia policy that gave heavy favouritism to UK immigration, which was then relaxed to allow mass immigration of continental Europeans after WWII.

Very good detailed article here:
https://www.amren.com/features/2013/...ite-australia/

[Grace O'Malley]

Simply because Britishness is a political and syncretic identity. The main problem is that the nationalism that the British Identity was built upon: Acts of Union, Protestantism, Empire and a fear of a foreign threat (such as France historically) etc. have largely declined. Note all the immigrants have spent their lives being told they're British rather than English or Welsh or Scottish. Being white is only half of being a ethno-nationalist, you must first and foremost be a nationalist, and that means allegiance to your own homeland above all others.

The main positive I could see from all this is at least rekindling some kind of English nationalism which is far less cucked than the British globohomo identity. Scottish nationalism barely exists and is not to be confused with Scottish secessionism. Welsh nationalism exists only during international rugby tournaments. Irish nationalism is the manifestation of small country syndrome and the desire to differentiate from the English.



And Irish Catholics don't have a hostile ideology in any sense? Every war Ireland has ever fought against England has been for the sake of making sure a Catholic, a foreigner, or both is in charge of England. Whether to invite the King of Spain to either become King of Ireland himself or send one of his family members, with a view towards an eventual conquest of England (Flight of the Earls), or for fighting to restore the King of England to his throne because he was Catholic (Williamite War).

Throughout the 18th century there were various plots by Irish Catholics to coordinate attacks on Britain with France, there was a whole regiment of Irishmen serving the King of France. The Irish rebellion in the beginning was also made up of a very, very small group of terrorists. People like the Cuban-American de Valera fucked the whole thing up because they wanted a Catholic Republic, not a free Ireland. Now Irish nationalism devolved into civicuck nationalism pretty quickly.



Popery is fit only for the barbarous peoples across the Channel and the Rhine.

What is wrong with Irish wanting to oust a foreign power? Also what is the relevance of posting a Senegalese-American who is not Irish and doesn't live in Ireland?

[Pro.crasti.nation]

Interesting topic. I often wondered why, growing up in the '80s, all the middle class voices in the media, academia and entertainment, found it profoundly embarrassing when any nationalist/patriotic sentiment was expressed in public.

Part of it seemed to be about taste and the character of the English (ie, the characteristics that upper middle class Englishmen ascribed to themselves). They loathed boorish people, louts, loudmouths, Americans basically. They preferred subtle and sanguine expressions of fidelity and affection, not hot passionate speech or action.

Most patriotism/nationalism came out of people, in moments of convenience or need. Like the crooked "nabobs" that made a fortune in India, then went back to England to try and earn respectability, to go with their newly acquired wealth. They'd buy "rotten boroughs", get into parliament, etc., try and convince people that they were acting in British/Christian interests, when indulging in some scam or slanted trade in India.

I figured that given how strong and dominant Britain had very recently been, in the world, it made little sense to tub-thump. There was no feeling of insecurity, of uncertainty and fear, on the part of the governing conscience of the British. At least that's what it seemed to me.

I guess it is an imperial heritage, that the higher up in society you went, the more French you inserted into your regular speech, the more you referenced cultures from around the world (a colleague of mine spoke Vietnamese, Thai and several other niche languages - her parents and grand parents being entirely upper class), the less interest you took in England itself. You become accustomed to thinking of the world as part of your "area of effect", and the nation as being an irrationally parochial and limited perspective.

I did notice though, a distinct class (ethnicity?) based disdain for the working class. Something akin to what we (desis) have when it comes to the lower castes (both Muslim and Hindu). I remember my former boss, jokingly mocking me for (at the time) living in Ilford. Apparently, City people "don't do Essex" (and specifically Ilford, which had a chav like aura, from what they said).

Part of that was the obvious cultural differences. There is a working class culture that is at odds with the well healed elite self-image. British media itself, portrays the working class as knuckle dragging chavs. As prone to irrational violence, both domestically and, most famously, in the public sphere as part of tribal rituals such as football games.

Many working class people seemed to have disdain for college and university, they saw it as a way of "bettering yourself" of forgetting your origins. Basically as black people are said to feel with regards to education and socio-economic improvement.

I do think a lot of it these days, is actually a global phenomena, that is just working through the advanced economies, before reaching into the developing ones.

Capitalism or at least the rise of industrialism and the radical growth in value and utility of labour, lead to strong currents of social change. It lead to a new class of people - the middle class - that would intermediate between the upper and labour. And the Upper class got nervous as democracy combined with economic liberty, led to a challenge on their power.

So they push Socialism, to halt the engines of free trade and exchange. To impose themselves in a paternalistic role (as "the party"), divvying out the wealth of the middle class, while pointing at the upper class to induce envy and resentment in the lower class.

Socialism has never done anything but stagnate and starve. That's why Hindu Brahmins love it so much, that's why British elites love it so much, that's why it never dies, despite its horrendous track record.

[PhenotypeMaster]

There is something special about the internal conditions of the English.

Everything is relative so some things are only visible in a comparison. There is a strange condition about the English / British. Leading English / British individuals do hardly identify with their own English / British common people. They completely don't care about their own commoners, not de facto and also not in any ideology.

In contrast to this you have the ideology of socialdemocrat "folkhemmet" in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, in Russia you had the communism that focussed on the working population and in Germany you have not just some basic social(ist) views as well, but also the nationalsocialist figure of "Volksgemeinschaft" as an ideal and such thoughts are - of course without this a "probematitc" "Nazi" reference - common sense basically throughout Europe as a whole.

What made the British Isles differ in not considering all the indigenous people to be part of a common solidarity community, de facto and ideologically?

Also, the attitude towards the Irish f. i. is much more rejecting and hostile, than Swedes are towards the Finns or the Sami or the Germans were towards the indigenous historical Wends (Slavs).

I think this is connected to the topic in question.

I have my ideas, but I prefer to first hear the unaltered opinions of thoughtful individuals with connection to the British Isles.

This is very easy to answer, it's simply because your social class is what defines you in british society.