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
0 comment Monday, October 13, 2014 | admin
Leo McKinstry, writing for the Express, asks 'Just what does it mean to be called British these days?' It's a pertinent question these days, what with mass immigration threatening to overwhelm much of the West, or former Christendom.
We could just as appropriately ask 'just what does it mean to be called American these days?' The difference between our country and the UK is that Britain, unlike this country of ours, was not a nation of immigrants, or 'multicultural from the beginning', as leftwing propagandists shamelessly assert.
Our country, though I reject the ''nation of immigrants'' label, did, gradually, admit many immigrants from very disparate places and cultures, and we did so at considerable cost to our sense of commonality and our very identity. Nowadays almost anyone who has set foot on this soil with an intention to stay here is deemed an 'American', even if they speak no English, and even if they are openly hostile to the people of this country and our traditions. Sadly, this seems to be the case in Britain, too, though their subjection to 'diversity' is of a much more recent origin.
One element of the British identity crisis is that ironically, it is the English who seem to be marginalized and at a disadvantage, in the country which is at its core, their country. Many Americans seem not to be aware that 'British' is a kind of civic identity, whereas 'English' is an ethnic designation. Aliens and foreigners can become 'British' by obtaining a British passport and obtaining all the rights of British nationality -- but they can never be 'English', because English is an exclusive identity, based on lineage, not documents. Many Americans seem unable to grasp that the Scots are British in a civic sense, as are the Welsh, but both groups would likely object to being termed 'English', as they have their own, separate, ethnic identity. They can fly their national flags, but the English are not given the same leeway to express their ethnicity.
I would liken this to the position of White, old-stock Americans, who are oftentimes of English descent, lacking an ethnic identity. The descendants of the Irish and Scots, including Ulster Scots, have their identity and their symbols and their pride, but the Anglo-American is the invisible and silent ethnicity. In a sense I suppose this could in part be attributed to having been dominant for a long time, and taking such dominance for granted, until one day we wake up dispossessed and pushed to the margins of the society our ancestors created here.
But perhaps the English, in a similar situation in their land, will become more conscious of their own identity as they face dispossession and domination by outsiders. In a world in which everyone around you is very assertive about their own race and ethnicity and religion, it's hard to remain unaware of one's own roots and origins.
One point with which I will disagree with McKinstry in this article is his statement about the European immigrants of older times. He says that
''...the small numbers that arrived here, such as Irish labourers, or Jewish or French refugees fleeing religious persecution, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture that built our civilisation.''
I disagree that there is a 'Judeo-Christian culture.' There is a Jewish culture and a Christian one. Their commonalities are few; they share very different outlooks on God, life, and human nature. They live by rather different moral codes.
It might have been a turning point for our country, when, as the proposition nation idea grew, we began to think that there is a common Judeo-Christian culture that binds us together. Lately, building on that idea, we have the talk about the 'three Abrahamic faiths', Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a false notion, that we share some kind of common ground. The religious ''right'' in this country is thoroughly persuaded that there is such a bond, though it does not really exist.
It's with such small steps that Western countries gradually found ourselves in the multicultural soup. There needs to be a re-thinking of some of the deceptive notions that put us here.
We could just as appropriately ask 'just what does it mean to be called American these days?' The difference between our country and the UK is that Britain, unlike this country of ours, was not a nation of immigrants, or 'multicultural from the beginning', as leftwing propagandists shamelessly assert.
Our country, though I reject the ''nation of immigrants'' label, did, gradually, admit many immigrants from very disparate places and cultures, and we did so at considerable cost to our sense of commonality and our very identity. Nowadays almost anyone who has set foot on this soil with an intention to stay here is deemed an 'American', even if they speak no English, and even if they are openly hostile to the people of this country and our traditions. Sadly, this seems to be the case in Britain, too, though their subjection to 'diversity' is of a much more recent origin.
One element of the British identity crisis is that ironically, it is the English who seem to be marginalized and at a disadvantage, in the country which is at its core, their country. Many Americans seem not to be aware that 'British' is a kind of civic identity, whereas 'English' is an ethnic designation. Aliens and foreigners can become 'British' by obtaining a British passport and obtaining all the rights of British nationality -- but they can never be 'English', because English is an exclusive identity, based on lineage, not documents. Many Americans seem unable to grasp that the Scots are British in a civic sense, as are the Welsh, but both groups would likely object to being termed 'English', as they have their own, separate, ethnic identity. They can fly their national flags, but the English are not given the same leeway to express their ethnicity.
I would liken this to the position of White, old-stock Americans, who are oftentimes of English descent, lacking an ethnic identity. The descendants of the Irish and Scots, including Ulster Scots, have their identity and their symbols and their pride, but the Anglo-American is the invisible and silent ethnicity. In a sense I suppose this could in part be attributed to having been dominant for a long time, and taking such dominance for granted, until one day we wake up dispossessed and pushed to the margins of the society our ancestors created here.
But perhaps the English, in a similar situation in their land, will become more conscious of their own identity as they face dispossession and domination by outsiders. In a world in which everyone around you is very assertive about their own race and ethnicity and religion, it's hard to remain unaware of one's own roots and origins.
One point with which I will disagree with McKinstry in this article is his statement about the European immigrants of older times. He says that
''...the small numbers that arrived here, such as Irish labourers, or Jewish or French refugees fleeing religious persecution, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture that built our civilisation.''
I disagree that there is a 'Judeo-Christian culture.' There is a Jewish culture and a Christian one. Their commonalities are few; they share very different outlooks on God, life, and human nature. They live by rather different moral codes.
It might have been a turning point for our country, when, as the proposition nation idea grew, we began to think that there is a common Judeo-Christian culture that binds us together. Lately, building on that idea, we have the talk about the 'three Abrahamic faiths', Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a false notion, that we share some kind of common ground. The religious ''right'' in this country is thoroughly persuaded that there is such a bond, though it does not really exist.
It's with such small steps that Western countries gradually found ourselves in the multicultural soup. There needs to be a re-thinking of some of the deceptive notions that put us here.
Labels: Britain, England, Ethnonationalism, Multuculturalism, Nationality, Proposition Nation
0 comment Wednesday, July 16, 2014 | admin
As if to illustrate what I was blogging about yesterday, from the Anglo-Saxon forum, a thread requesting ''More English ladies comments, please" -- from a forum participant who thinks too few women post on the nationalist forum.
And as if to confirm the idea that many women ''don't get it", see this response from a female commenter:
Okay, I'm English and female but having had an albeit brief look around the site my feelings are that there seems to be a lot of anger/agression around (although as I said I've only had a brief gander). I'd also like to add that there seem to be some friendly folk on here too though.
I realise this in an 'ethnic English site' (maybe it's me who is in the wrong place? ) and I'm interested in all things English...but I'm also interested in other places and people too and hope I'm tolerant of others. Maybe it's a male thing or maybe I just need to look around here more but could it be that first impressions could be a bit off putting?
I'm not planning to form an opinion that quickly but just thought I'd give you feedback on my first impressions...and seeing as you seem interested in possible reasons more females don't post.''
I know this is not ladylike of me, but it's lucky I cannot reach through the computer screen to this woman.
I would certainly love to have a talk with her, shall I say. Does she not see any reason to be angry? Does she live in some part of the UK which has been blissfully free from the ''enrichment'' that has been visited in other less fortunate areas? Or is she just one of those pathologically ''nice'' ladies who thinks we can all just get along if we try hard enough, and avoid playing rough?
The men who respond to her post, sadly, also show that they haven't eradicated political correctness from their minds, and feel compelled to half-apologize for their feelings of anger, and assure the lady with the delicate sensibilities that they really aren't bigoted:
You have to realise where the anger is aimed. Its not at all foreigners. Its at ALL those who would erase or undermine our identity and culture for the supposed reason of tolerance.
ALL nations have tolerant people so tolerance is no indication of identity national or ethnical.
I have several black and masses of Asian friends. All my asian friends talk English around me they dress in English clothing they appreciate that there is an ethnic English who have claim to be the indiginous folc of England.
Just as I accept their Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnicity.''
This makes me sad. Please, stop protesting that you have nonwhite friends; nobody on the other side is the least bit impressed. Boast that you have friends from your own folk; that shows integrity, and takes more courage these days.
This man gives a good, honest response, not grammatically or orthographically correct, but most importantly, not politically correct, so I give him high marks:
We have been accused of being white sumpremists, nazi, ignorant, everything you can think. Well we come out fighting when this happens , ans we beive that patriotic ethnci englsin peopl should no longer havetput up with ths. Or idenity is being squeesed to death by multicult rubbish and pc liberal appeasemnt.
Its so not matter of being tolerant, we have been that for to long hence our current dire straights and troubles. I love thework reinactors and living hisrory doe, they do a huge amont to keep our culture al heritahe and ideniity going. BUT i do not want to see our idenity tobe eventually only be found in those places. All of England is my home. I taked pride in putting my ethnic englsh idenity, people and counrty first. This right not wrong. This is England so our people our culture and our idenity must be dominate and come first. (as other countries culureis and idenity should do in their own lands)
No one are fefending ethnnic english interests and our country so t is up for us to do this. We may at times coem across a angry and at time we are, but we have aims and one is not to roll over.''
Meanwhile, things are hotting up in Luton, Bedfordshire. The BBC offers the usual biased, servile, politically correct version of a protest march in Luton, in response to a recent clash when Islamic hecklers disrupted an event welcoming British troops home.
Here is blogger Lionheart's report of things, complete with video coverage.
From what I could see, the young English men protesting were mostly restrained, if a bit rough around the edges.
The police, however, seemed more ready to intimidate and confront these young men than they were in recent videos I saw, where they retreated from hostile Pakistanis running through the streets. What a disgraceful police force; politically correct to the core. Brave when confronting their own, but servile when facing Islamics. What a disgrace.
The discussion on Lionheart's blog is interesting; the first comment is critical of Lionheart and the protesters, but he answers quite adequately.
Meanwhile the BNP website apparently suffered a DOS attack over the weekend, the 'Largest Cyber-Attack in History'
The Green Arrow quotes Nick Griffin:
The size of the renewed assault is unparalleled and there is no doubt that whoever has organised this has had to pay out a serious amount of money to the criminal underworld.
On Friday the servers of Clear Channel, part of a huge conglomerate that provides billboard advertising to the BNP, suffered a similar attack. Their IT professionals tracked the criminal activity back to a notorious "anti-fascist" organisation openly aligned to the Labour Party and supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This organisation was protesting at the decision by Clear Channel to allow the BNP to display advertising in support of our European Election Campaign.
[...]
The attack on the BNP website is an indication of the increasing desperation of our opponents, who, unable to defeat us in democratic debate, would rather just have us closed down. BUT THEY WILL NEVER WEAKEN OUR RESOLVE TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY!''
I hope he is correct, and I know that in the UK as in all of the West, the women will have to get on board and support the effort, or at least stop holding the men back with all that prissy, self-righteous niceness. Women of past generations knew that sometimes niceness and palaver is not enough; sometimes it's necessary to defend yourself, your people, and your way of life.
It appears as though things may come to the boil sooner in the UK than here in our country, and the way things play out there may influence events here; the converse will be true if things heat up here first. We can only guess and speculate, however; the situation is unpredictable. But I certainly wish our British and English cousins well.
And as if to confirm the idea that many women ''don't get it", see this response from a female commenter:
Okay, I'm English and female but having had an albeit brief look around the site my feelings are that there seems to be a lot of anger/agression around (although as I said I've only had a brief gander). I'd also like to add that there seem to be some friendly folk on here too though.
I realise this in an 'ethnic English site' (maybe it's me who is in the wrong place? ) and I'm interested in all things English...but I'm also interested in other places and people too and hope I'm tolerant of others. Maybe it's a male thing or maybe I just need to look around here more but could it be that first impressions could be a bit off putting?
I'm not planning to form an opinion that quickly but just thought I'd give you feedback on my first impressions...and seeing as you seem interested in possible reasons more females don't post.''
I know this is not ladylike of me, but it's lucky I cannot reach through the computer screen to this woman.
I would certainly love to have a talk with her, shall I say. Does she not see any reason to be angry? Does she live in some part of the UK which has been blissfully free from the ''enrichment'' that has been visited in other less fortunate areas? Or is she just one of those pathologically ''nice'' ladies who thinks we can all just get along if we try hard enough, and avoid playing rough?
The men who respond to her post, sadly, also show that they haven't eradicated political correctness from their minds, and feel compelled to half-apologize for their feelings of anger, and assure the lady with the delicate sensibilities that they really aren't bigoted:
You have to realise where the anger is aimed. Its not at all foreigners. Its at ALL those who would erase or undermine our identity and culture for the supposed reason of tolerance.
ALL nations have tolerant people so tolerance is no indication of identity national or ethnical.
I have several black and masses of Asian friends. All my asian friends talk English around me they dress in English clothing they appreciate that there is an ethnic English who have claim to be the indiginous folc of England.
Just as I accept their Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnicity.''
This makes me sad. Please, stop protesting that you have nonwhite friends; nobody on the other side is the least bit impressed. Boast that you have friends from your own folk; that shows integrity, and takes more courage these days.
This man gives a good, honest response, not grammatically or orthographically correct, but most importantly, not politically correct, so I give him high marks:
We have been accused of being white sumpremists, nazi, ignorant, everything you can think. Well we come out fighting when this happens , ans we beive that patriotic ethnci englsin peopl should no longer havetput up with ths. Or idenity is being squeesed to death by multicult rubbish and pc liberal appeasemnt.
Its so not matter of being tolerant, we have been that for to long hence our current dire straights and troubles. I love thework reinactors and living hisrory doe, they do a huge amont to keep our culture al heritahe and ideniity going. BUT i do not want to see our idenity tobe eventually only be found in those places. All of England is my home. I taked pride in putting my ethnic englsh idenity, people and counrty first. This right not wrong. This is England so our people our culture and our idenity must be dominate and come first. (as other countries culureis and idenity should do in their own lands)
No one are fefending ethnnic english interests and our country so t is up for us to do this. We may at times coem across a angry and at time we are, but we have aims and one is not to roll over.''
Meanwhile, things are hotting up in Luton, Bedfordshire. The BBC offers the usual biased, servile, politically correct version of a protest march in Luton, in response to a recent clash when Islamic hecklers disrupted an event welcoming British troops home.
Here is blogger Lionheart's report of things, complete with video coverage.
From what I could see, the young English men protesting were mostly restrained, if a bit rough around the edges.
The police, however, seemed more ready to intimidate and confront these young men than they were in recent videos I saw, where they retreated from hostile Pakistanis running through the streets. What a disgraceful police force; politically correct to the core. Brave when confronting their own, but servile when facing Islamics. What a disgrace.
The discussion on Lionheart's blog is interesting; the first comment is critical of Lionheart and the protesters, but he answers quite adequately.
Meanwhile the BNP website apparently suffered a DOS attack over the weekend, the 'Largest Cyber-Attack in History'
The Green Arrow quotes Nick Griffin:
The size of the renewed assault is unparalleled and there is no doubt that whoever has organised this has had to pay out a serious amount of money to the criminal underworld.
On Friday the servers of Clear Channel, part of a huge conglomerate that provides billboard advertising to the BNP, suffered a similar attack. Their IT professionals tracked the criminal activity back to a notorious "anti-fascist" organisation openly aligned to the Labour Party and supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This organisation was protesting at the decision by Clear Channel to allow the BNP to display advertising in support of our European Election Campaign.
[...]
The attack on the BNP website is an indication of the increasing desperation of our opponents, who, unable to defeat us in democratic debate, would rather just have us closed down. BUT THEY WILL NEVER WEAKEN OUR RESOLVE TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY!''
I hope he is correct, and I know that in the UK as in all of the West, the women will have to get on board and support the effort, or at least stop holding the men back with all that prissy, self-righteous niceness. Women of past generations knew that sometimes niceness and palaver is not enough; sometimes it's necessary to defend yourself, your people, and your way of life.
It appears as though things may come to the boil sooner in the UK than here in our country, and the way things play out there may influence events here; the converse will be true if things heat up here first. We can only guess and speculate, however; the situation is unpredictable. But I certainly wish our British and English cousins well.
Labels: Activists, England, Ethnonationalism, Feminism, Jihad, Nationalism, United Kingdom