0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 | admin
There is an interesting and informative exchange here on Daniel Hannan's blog on the Telegraph UK website.
I've posted a video or two of Hannan, or linked to articles of his. And readers have warned me that he is not on our side, a fact of which I am aware. But even knowing that I was appalled at his responses on the thread to commenter 'cotewood.'
From one of cotewood's comments:
''Yesterday, Daniel Hannan made a remarkable and fundamentally Marxist response to a question I asked him, and I want that comment front-of-house for a while, at least, so those many DT readers who admire him may understand what is really inside his head.
It is cowardice and careerism.
This was my question:
Do the English have the same right to life and land as every other people everywhere, or is there some strange thing about us which demands that we be race-replaced in England by Africans and Asians?
To this Daniel said:
I've already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?
Now, "the cut-off point" for being one with the English nation is clear to me. With intent or by stupidity, our political class launched a war of word and deed against the English on 22nd June 1948 - the day the Windrush docked. In this war our natural rights and interests, our voice, the very fact of our nature and our existence have been denied.
For me, then, the English remain the true and only people of this land, and can be discovered today only in the descendants of those who were the English before this criminal enterprise began.
Notice that Daniel is saying the same as any Socialist Workers Party member. He says that the English, as they exist in kinship today, are no different to Somalis, Afghans, Albanians, Poles, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Zimbabweans, Libyans ... You name it, that's what the English are. A capacious bag into which anything can be stuffed. Essentially meaningless.
Would he say that to a Jew? No. You can't tell a Jew he has no ethnicity, no collective being of his own that didn't belong to any African or any Arab. So why does he think the English are of so little account?
Why, because he is afraid of the party apparatus. He is afraid that he will be asked by some Pakistani constituent whose grandfather came here in 1954 "Why aren't I English?" He is afraid to tell him, "Because you're Pakistani. You can't be both"
Then we come to the second half of my question: why we English apparently have no right to a place of our own on this earth. With typical libertarian fatuity Daniel replies:
Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.
But territory is not debated at the level of house deeds and patio areas. This is a pathetic and unworthy evasion. Territory is the guarantor of a people's existence. The land of England is our guarantor. It is what our forefathers laboured to make and to pass down to their posterity - not to Africans and Asians. It is what they fought and died to defend.
The little Tory hides behind a piece of title paper while his people are dispossessed. Where is the true stature of the Englishman in that? I do not see it. And yet Daniel is not ashamed. He is proud to wag a finger at the hated BNP!
Really, this is where England ends, in the evasion and shamelessness of its politicians. God help us.''
Cotewood says it all very eloquently, and Hannan's responses seem irritable and shallow -- typical of the politician. I had the vague notion that Hannan might have some greater feeling for his country but it appears he is not much different than the rest. His point about regarding Britishness as a civic identity (which it is, actually, as contrasted to Englishness) tells it all. He is one of those proposition nation people, one of the melting pot advocates.
Here is a kind of encapsulation of the exchange between Hannan and 'cotewood', who is the person some of us know as Guessedworker at Majority Rights, apparently.
What he says about the predicament of his kinsmen and his country applies to our situation, too.
And it seems that the politicians are the same all over the Western world; they owe their allegiances to someone other than their own people, their ethnic brethren.
I've posted a video or two of Hannan, or linked to articles of his. And readers have warned me that he is not on our side, a fact of which I am aware. But even knowing that I was appalled at his responses on the thread to commenter 'cotewood.'
From one of cotewood's comments:
''Yesterday, Daniel Hannan made a remarkable and fundamentally Marxist response to a question I asked him, and I want that comment front-of-house for a while, at least, so those many DT readers who admire him may understand what is really inside his head.
It is cowardice and careerism.
This was my question:
Do the English have the same right to life and land as every other people everywhere, or is there some strange thing about us which demands that we be race-replaced in England by Africans and Asians?
To this Daniel said:
I've already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?
Now, "the cut-off point" for being one with the English nation is clear to me. With intent or by stupidity, our political class launched a war of word and deed against the English on 22nd June 1948 - the day the Windrush docked. In this war our natural rights and interests, our voice, the very fact of our nature and our existence have been denied.
For me, then, the English remain the true and only people of this land, and can be discovered today only in the descendants of those who were the English before this criminal enterprise began.
Notice that Daniel is saying the same as any Socialist Workers Party member. He says that the English, as they exist in kinship today, are no different to Somalis, Afghans, Albanians, Poles, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Zimbabweans, Libyans ... You name it, that's what the English are. A capacious bag into which anything can be stuffed. Essentially meaningless.
Would he say that to a Jew? No. You can't tell a Jew he has no ethnicity, no collective being of his own that didn't belong to any African or any Arab. So why does he think the English are of so little account?
Why, because he is afraid of the party apparatus. He is afraid that he will be asked by some Pakistani constituent whose grandfather came here in 1954 "Why aren't I English?" He is afraid to tell him, "Because you're Pakistani. You can't be both"
Then we come to the second half of my question: why we English apparently have no right to a place of our own on this earth. With typical libertarian fatuity Daniel replies:
Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.
But territory is not debated at the level of house deeds and patio areas. This is a pathetic and unworthy evasion. Territory is the guarantor of a people's existence. The land of England is our guarantor. It is what our forefathers laboured to make and to pass down to their posterity - not to Africans and Asians. It is what they fought and died to defend.
The little Tory hides behind a piece of title paper while his people are dispossessed. Where is the true stature of the Englishman in that? I do not see it. And yet Daniel is not ashamed. He is proud to wag a finger at the hated BNP!
Really, this is where England ends, in the evasion and shamelessness of its politicians. God help us.''
Cotewood says it all very eloquently, and Hannan's responses seem irritable and shallow -- typical of the politician. I had the vague notion that Hannan might have some greater feeling for his country but it appears he is not much different than the rest. His point about regarding Britishness as a civic identity (which it is, actually, as contrasted to Englishness) tells it all. He is one of those proposition nation people, one of the melting pot advocates.
Here is a kind of encapsulation of the exchange between Hannan and 'cotewood', who is the person some of us know as Guessedworker at Majority Rights, apparently.
What he says about the predicament of his kinsmen and his country applies to our situation, too.
And it seems that the politicians are the same all over the Western world; they owe their allegiances to someone other than their own people, their ethnic brethren.
Labels: England, Mass Immigration, Political Classes, Race Replacement, Uk