PDA

View Full Version : Britain Isn't British Anymore



Cythraul
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 02:42 PM
Call me naive or whatever, but I went to my first car boot sale in about 10 years this morning and - all over-exaggeration aside - only about 10% of the voices I heard were speaking English. Clearly car boot sales attract foreigners but for a couple of hours, it felt like I had stepped into a combination of Eastern-Europe and the Middle-East. My girlfriend got quite annoyed at me as I ranted on and on, but to be quite honest I was stunned. I mean, I live in South-East England so I'm used to extreme multiculturalism, but for the first time in my life, I felt like white Britain had actually lost ownership of this country. Foreigners had always been a prominent but marginal reality, and statistically speaking, they still are the minority. But for a little while there I felt like I had glimpsed the future of my country; Polish tongue here, Pakistani tongue there, and in some perverse way it almost seemed natural - like this is the new reality and Britain no longer belongs to the British.

I suppose the only purpose of this thread is for me to vent, and pose the question - Do you think Britain will ever be British again?

hildolf
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 03:08 PM
In answer to your question I believe "No".

Who out there is in a position to reverse the damage labour has done?

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 04:32 PM
I feel your anger and confusion, mate.

I have long ago stopped recognising what foreigners say to me. If they talk to me and the English is very broken and not clear, I will constantly say "excuse me? I didn't get that"

I work on the current expansion of Bristols shopping centre, Cabot Circus, and all I have to do all day is do groundworking. It's tough labour at times, but hard work makes you a man so it is ok. The only problem I have is the constant brush with Pakistanis/Indians and Eastern Europeans.

They are rude and ignorant. They do not bother to talk in English around me and they never try to make you feel welcome in their conversations.

Walking down the highstreets, all I hear these days is the chatter of aliens and foreigners.

I, like you, rant and rave all the time about this to my partner and she too has her moments telling me to shut up, but that just makes me raise my voice till everyone can hear me. Sod them! Let them know just how you feel.

Look them in the eye and sneer "foreigner"


In answer to your question I believe "No".

Who out there is in a position to reverse the damage labour has done?


US!

Cythraul
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 04:58 PM
I feel your anger and confusion, mate.
Yes! Confusion. It's almost like I've been wandering around for the last few years with tinted lenses on, aware of what's going on but not really processing it fully, and downplaying the extent of the problem. Today the lenses came off and it became a reality to ME, not just a recognised but ambiguous issue I read about in the daily mail or the internet. I've been moaning about the scale of immigration for a while, but have tried to convince myself that I'm over-exaggerating. Today I realised that some of us are UNDER-exaggerating the scale of the problem.

It's a shame you're being ostracized at your workplace. Within certain industries imparticularly, we Brits are being made to feel like outcasts in our own damn country. Whilst I'm reluctant to generalise the entire Polish people, the ones who are extending a house across the road from me drive inconsiderately and then sneer and laugh when you honk your horn at them. IF immigration on this scale is permitted by national consent, the very least we should expect is respect and courtesy as the hosts. The problem is - the Polish and Pakistanis don't see US as the generous hosts, but the government. They're quick to differentiate us from our government. This couldn't be further from the truth. WE are the generous hosts and every Brit should be afforded basic courtesy in their own land. If I moved to Poland, I'd bend over backwards to show the Polish courtesy in their own land.

SlíNanGael
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Walking down the highstreets, all I hear these days is the chatter of aliens and foreigners.

I have never been to England but several of my friends had gone. In particular they wanted to see White Chapel. However, when they arrived there, they saw a sign that in not so many words told them that the police could no longer help them if anything happened to them. It was basically an Islamic marketplace, so they turned around and left. This should concern all Englishmen because it is an example of how unfettered immigration hurts and will continue to hurt (peaceable) tourism.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 09:17 PM
There are places to be found which are very white, like Kendal in Cumbria.

I was shocked by the whiteness of Kendal when I went there for a wedding, it seemed preternatural to me.

SouthernBoy
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I suppose the only purpose of this thread is for me to vent, and pose the question - Do you think Britain will ever be British again? I do not know. Do you realize that you are part of the problem?

Geribeetus
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 09:42 PM
I think you mean England. I am pretty sure the rest of Britain isn't so bad off, and thankfully for them it looks like they may be succeeding soon.

Dagna
Sunday, June 29th, 2008, 10:43 PM
I believe Britain is still British, but England is not English anymore, if that is what you mean.

The Horned God
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 01:33 AM
There are places to be found which are very white, like Kendal in Cumbria.

I was shocked by the whiteness of Kendal when I went there for a wedding, it seemed preternatural to me.

I was there 20 years ago and I didn't see a single black person there, nor in Lancashire either. The first blacks I ever saw was at the Liverpool ferry on the way back, they were a middle aged West Africa or Afro-Caribbean couple and I remember getting the shock of my young life. I almost shook my mothers arm off to bring the strange apparition to her attention. :D

The man noticed my sharp movements and had a rather chagrined expression on his face, no doubt at my youth and the honesty of my reaction...

Cythraul
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 08:37 AM
I do not know. Do you realize that you are part of the problem?
Because I'm half Dutch? Yes, strictly speaking, I'm the product of immigration. But the English and Dutch are genetically of similar Germanic stock. Culturally and linguistically, I am fully British (and minimally connected to the Netherlands). Your insidious point is irrelevant to the thread.

*PS I didn't mean to thank your post.

@ Geribeetus & Dagna:
I may have read you both wrong, but I don't understand the need for pedanticism here. It doesn't add to the discussion. The debate over 'England' vs 'Britain' is a seperate one and if you really want my two pence on that - I consciously choose to refer to these Isles as a singular entity because of the shared culture and DNA. If it makes participation more comfortable, please feel free to mentally substitute "Britain Isn't British Anymore" for "England Isn't English Anymore". It makes no difference to the core of this discussion.

If you're merely referring to the fact that Wales, Scotland and Ireland are less plagued by mass-immigration, well, from what I've heard, read and seen, the difference is fairly negligible. As clarified in my first post, I'm aware that South-East England represents the extremeties of England's situation and we are clearly worst off here.

Leof
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 09:25 AM
England might be a lost cause but parts of Britain are way better off than America or Canada. Remember that every place shall have it's enclave. Even if the populous still holds on to their liberalism their subconscious drive to be with their own people will make them just so happen to move to a community to be with their own kind.

hildolf
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 01:50 PM
If you're merely referring to the fact that Wales, Scotland and Ireland are less plagued by mass-immigration, well, from what I've heard, read and seen, the difference is fairly negligible. As clarified in my first post, I'm aware that South-East England represents the extremeties of England's situation and we are clearly worst off here.

I've never been to the south-east of England. But in some North-Western towns it seems like half the population is Asian and they are rude, lazy and arrogant and this was when I lived in a small town near Burnley called Nelson 14 yrs ago. No telling what the place is like now. My birth town of Nottingham has seen a large increase in chinese (sometimes I feel I am on the bus to beijing) and if you are looking for work in the industrial sector, forget it, unless you can speak Polish. In fact when my brother was looking for work, one place made it quite clear they only wanted Polish workers.

It makes me feel like all those who have died defending this land have died in vain.

Carl
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 02:02 PM
It is so complex really... some parts of the South East are very acceptable - and so they should be! But most towns are penetrated to some extent - what do you expect? For decades both parties have allowed high levels of immigration... starting with colonials who were our own Imperial kin :D. They have to live somewhere! Who goes on voting for idiotic parties who let the people down - the British, bless them. And so here we are - and there is little chance of reversing it on the horizon. Heavens - how long have we got? An increasing minority are concerned; the labour party is again on the retreat --- how do you play it - Tory Right or Radical hopeless?

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=73850

GermanWithGod
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, 08:05 PM
Call me naive or whatever, but I went to my first car boot sale in about 10 years this morning and - all over-exaggeration aside - only about 10% of the voices I heard were speaking English. Clearly car boot sales attract foreigners but for a couple of hours, it felt like I had stepped into a combination of Eastern-Europe and the Middle-East. My girlfriend got quite annoyed at me as I ranted on and on, but to be quite honest I was stunned. I mean, I live in South-East England so I'm used to extreme multiculturalism, but for the first time in my life, I felt like white Britain had actually lost ownership of this country. Foreigners had always been a prominent but marginal reality, and statistically speaking, they still are the minority. But for a little while there I felt like I had glimpsed the future of my country; Polish tongue here, Pakistani tongue there, and in some perverse way it almost seemed natural - like this is the new reality and Britain no longer belongs to the British.

I suppose the only purpose of this thread is for me to vent, and pose the question - Do you think Britain will ever be British again?

You ready to take a stand? ;)

SouthernBoy
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, 08:37 PM
Because I'm half Dutch? Yes, strictly speaking, I'm the product of immigration. But the English and Dutch are genetically of similar Germanic stock. Culturally and linguistically, I am fully British (and minimally connected to the Netherlands). You are as "British" as any other half-immigrant.
Your insidious point is irrelevant to the thread. Inasmuch you are part of the reason "Britain isn't British anymore," I find it ironic that you are complaining about it. ;)

MockTurtle
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, 08:50 PM
I suppose the only purpose of this thread is for me to vent, and pose the question - Do you think Britain will ever be British again?

It all depends on whether or not the British decide to remake 'Britain' in their own image.

You can't control everything, but there are definitely certain things you can influence, provided that both the will and the ability are present. You can't 'control' the behavior of the various non-White communities (at least not with a renegade national media in place), for instance, but you can obviously control your own actions as a people. That's how the future is always determined -- by those who have the courage to make it...

Cythraul
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008, 11:37 PM
You ready to take a stand?
Of course, but only in a sensible, productive manner.


You are as "British" as any other half-immigrant. Inasmuch you are part of the reason "Britain isn't British anymore," I find it ironic that you are complaining about it. ;)
This is a complicated issue. I feel British and that's where my allegiance lies. I don't speak Dutch, I was born and bred in England, am no less familiar with British culture than a fellow Englishman and barely more familiar with Holland than a fellow Englishman. So I guess what it boils down to is blood. Half of my blood is Dutch and half British. How much of a difference is there? White Britain is genetically diverse, and anthropologically speaking, there is nothing about me that suggests non-British. So in my situation, I believe it's acceptable to call myself British. Would you have me step down as a patriot? Am I unfit to represent my country in your eyes? I am not introducing ANYTHING non-British into Britain (other than my blood - looks like the Saxons beat me to it anyway).

Cythraul
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 12:05 AM
I forgot to point out that I think Holland is a great country, and had I been born there, and brought up there with the culture and language, I'd be a proud Dutchman. :)

SouthernBoy
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 02:30 AM
I would like to say first-off that I dislike the term "British." You can be both of different ethnicities and multiple ethnicities and call yourself "British."
This is a complicated issue. It is not. :)
I feel British and that's where my allegiance lies. I don't speak Dutch, I was born and bred in England, am no less familiar with British culture than a fellow Englishman and barely more familiar with Holland than a fellow Englishman. So I guess what it boils down to is blood. Half of my blood is Dutch and half British. How much of a difference is there? White Britain is genetically diverse, and anthropologically speaking, there is nothing about me that suggests non-British. So in my situation, I believe it's acceptable to call myself British. Shall we play fill-in-the-blanks?


I feel British and that's where my allegiance lies. I don't speak Chinese, I was born and bred in England, am no less familiar with British culture than a fellow Englishman and barely more familiar with China than a fellow Englishman. So I guess what it boils down to is blood. Half of my blood is Chinese and half British. How much of a difference is there?
I feel British and that's where my allegiance lies. I don't speak Urdu, I was born and bred in England, am no less familiar with British culture than a fellow Englishman and barely more familiar with Pakistan than a fellow Englishman. So I guess what it boils down to is blood. Half of my blood is Pakistani and half British. How much of a difference is there?I believe your argument holds no more water than the two above. You are mixed. It is unimportant in what manner and to what extent. Should I allow you to call yourself "British" I will have weakened my own argument. You are not "British" nor shall you ever be and nor shall anyone else be "British" that is not first of British ancestry.

I love diversity and I would not have the unique ethnicities of the world destroyed because of the "feelings" of one mixed person or of any number of mixed persons.
Would you have me step down as a patriot? Yes, and I believe it would be dishonest for you to do otherwise.
Am I unfit to represent my country in your eyes? Yes, and it is no more your country than it is mine. ;)
I am not introducing ANYTHING non-British into Britain (other than my blood - looks like the Saxons beat me to it anyway).Should all the peoples of the Earth intermingle with modern Africans because they might have distant African ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory)? :rolleyes:

Veritas Æquitas
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 04:11 AM
I would have to disagree with you southern boy.. As much as I enjoy reading your posts and think you're an intelligent guy.. It's true that the english and dutch share similar racial stock, both are germanic, thus
in my opinion are compatable.. I think the problem isn't specifically that eastern europeans aren't able to intergrate into british/english society, but that they simply don't want to abandon their native culture for english culture just yet.. Which I think is to be expected of fresh immigrants from any culture, which isn't germanic, thus intergratable.. What I mean is that, and I say this in a colonial's point of view, I would sooner accept a person who shares racial similarities to myself as a canadian I.e white than I would a pakistani.. But anyway, I don't think that because a person has non english anscestry (but certainly has european anscestry), but is culturally and linguistically english, that somehow he is part of the problem.. Correct me if iam wrong, but I don't think the dutch are balkanizing england like the asians are... If they are then they sure aren't making a big stink about it like the asians are...

Boernician
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 07:11 AM
I would have to disagree with you southern boy.. As much as I enjoy reading your posts and think you're an intelligent guy.. It's true that the english and dutch share similar racial stock, both are germanic, thus
in my opinion are compatable.. I think the problem isn't specifically that eastern europeans aren't able to intergrate into british/english society, but that they simply don't want to abandon their native culture for english culture just yet.. Which I think is to be expected of fresh immigrants from any culture, which isn't germanic, thus intergratable.. What I mean is that, and I say this in a colonial's point of view, I would sooner accept a person who shares racial similarities to myself as a canadian I.e white than I would a pakistani.. But anyway, I don't think that because a person has non english anscestry (but certainly has european anscestry), but is culturally and linguistically english, that somehow he is part of the problem.. Correct me if iam wrong, but I don't think the dutch are balkanizing england like the asians are... If they are then they sure aren't making a big stink about it like the asians are...



I agree
There is always the gap between idealism and reality. The fact is that the Anglo-Saxons came from old Friesland in modern-day Holand or the Netherlands. The closest language to English is Frizian. You were raised in an English culture and their native languages English I don't know how more English you can get. So instead of a thousand years ago with Hengist and Horsa, you can with mom and her Porsche(excuse the pun.
As for the matter of Britain leads go back to the beginning as we say in philosophy. What is Britain anyway, was primarily an invention of James the sixth of Scotland James the first of England. Although James Stewart was a Scot he really had nothing but contempt for his fellow Scotsman. So his vision was to simply eliminates the borders there is no Scotland England and Wales there is only one Great Britain, Ultimately, the term Briton is from Celtic </wiki/Celtic_languages> *Britto, plural *Britton-es, whence the Welsh </wiki/Welsh_language> collective Brython.
Obviously the term Britian isn't Anglicized version of the same thing. Or technically speaking one could argue that the only people who are British , are descendents of the ancient Celts who once controlled the island. Another word modern Welch and people whose ancestors were the Strath Clyde.Britons. So you would have to subtract Normans, Anglo-Saxons, and Goidelic Celts. The term British is really nothing more than a political term invented 400 years ago for the convenience of the King.
It has nothing to do with one's ethnicity since the country is populated by descendents of the Normans,Brythonic celts,Goidelic Celts and Anglo Saxons,Jutes and and Danish Vikings. The entire history of humankind as one of migration from one place to another. However, once people were settled they didn't usually allow another ethnic group to come into their territory it was always war.
To me the problem is that the modern nationstate is based on government and economics not on ethnicity and kinship. Part of the dynamics of this is also the problem of colonization, going off to strange wonderful places conquering the indigenous population and utilizing their resources. In the process you always end up mixing with the indigenous people if not racially and least socially, and the door that swung open to let you in the country and also swings open to let them in your country, particularly as cheap labor.

The solution is to return people of North Western European origin back to their home countries and remove those who are different races and ethnicities back to their countries. If this can be done without violence or viciousness, then we can still trade with one another but not live in each other's country.

However if these people would say American and English descent returns to England he must leave his American-ism behind . He should steep himself in the tradition of his forefathers and the traditions of the indigenous English. The same is true of Scots and Irish and Welsh if you return there.

As I said in another post recently idea that DNA test which shows the groupings of people in the world with the the same clusters of DNA. And once you go back to ancient times the geopolitical name for the area or your ancestors lived didn't even exist.

So I have clades better in Sweden northern Germany Belgium the Netherlands and the border between France and Belgium. Basically they come down to the same thing indigenous Celtic tribes such as Belgae, being either conquered or merge with Germanic tribes like Tuetons.
The problem is not migrations, without migrations there would be no humankind, the issue is preserving the ethnic identity of the Celtic and Germanic people in the island now called Great Britain.

Or I'm saying is I'm a believer in ethnic apartheid without all the evils of the South African version. Imigration of western europeans to another country in Europe is fine as a long as they assimilate to the language and customs of thier new country.

Cythraul
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 11:19 AM
I believe your argument holds no more water than the two above.
Then you know nothing of Germanic racial and cultural solidarity. The English aren't a race, the Belgians aren't a race, the Italians aren't a race, the Afghans aren't a race, the Namibians aren't a race and the Koreans are not a race. State borders do not signify genetic seperation! All of my ancestors are from the North-West of Europe (though there may be a Spaniard and German lurking somewhere in my distant ancestry) and are of similar European stock (English and Polish, or English and Pakistani are not similar). I'm surprised that you'd so boldly state that the Dutch are no more similar to the English than Pakistanis are, particularly considering how this is a "Germanic" preservation forum, not an English or British preservation forum. As pointed out by Boernician, my dose of continental Germanic-ness is just a little more recent than it is for most English. The Poles are not Germanic and the Pakistanis are not Germanic, niether are they willing to completely exchange their language, culture and religion for the British way. My mother was! Small numbers of immigrants from Germanic countries into Britain are welcome because there is a similar culture and not least because most Germanic countries are wealthy enough that their citizens do not come here for the purpose of 'betterment' (read: benefits, jobs and a spineless host).

I do not pretend to be what I am not. I am a born and bred Brit with a wonderful Dutch mother. She very quickly adapted to the English way of life (before I was even born) and has added nothing non-British to my upbringing (mostly because there is such a tiny divergence between British and Dutch culture). She, like me, looks typically British (as most Dutch look near-identical to the English). Perhaps Morrissey said it best - "Irish blood, English heart", though for me it would be "Cross-border Germanic blood, English heart".

Perhaps, by your recommendation, I should leave The Althing and never speak of racial or cultural preservation again. Would that please you? After all, it appears I have no country to call my own in your eyes.

Bärin
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 02:15 PM
SouthernBoy is absolutely right, 100%. It might hurt the feelings of mixed people, but it's how it is. The tolerance for white multiculturalism here is too high. Two European ethnicities mixing is still mixing and multicultural. The Dutch aren't "British". Try inviting thousands or millions of Dutchmen to Britain and see how "British" it stays, why of course the culture and language wouldn't be affected. :rolleyes: You whine about foreign immigrants from outside of Europe, but you fail to see immigration to Europe is as detrimental to the "Britishness" of your country.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 02:29 PM
Well, 19th century PM Benjamin Disraeli already said Britain was more an Asian than an European power. He was right. Once GB enjoyed her splendid isolation and was not bothered by the happenings in continental Europe - now it will be the first country of Europid race and European culture that will go down the drain.

Cythraul
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 02:56 PM
Yes, and it is no more your country than it is mine. ;)
Oh... ok, I was unaware that one of your parents is British and that you'd lived here all of your life. You must have accidentally chosen the wrong option when filling in the 'country' part of your Althing profile ;). By the way, I hope you realise that by your own logic, you are of 'American' ethnicity and unable to claim European descent. That's fine, as long as you're aware.

I'm confused as to why both yourself and Barin are here on a Germanic preservation site if you fail to see the genetic and cultural kinship that Germanics share. If I am as unnatural as a Polish/English mix, or a Pakistani/English mix, then you really might as well be posting on a 'human race preservation' site. Again, borders do not signify the end of one genetic type and the beginning of another. All that borders signify is the beginning of one language, culture and law, and the end of another.

PS - Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I encourage you to be completely open and honest. It makes the discussion more purposeful. I'm comfortable with who I am and what my beliefs are. There are many, many Europeans with distant and recently mixed genetic heritage, and many who post here on the Althing.


Try inviting thousands or millions of Dutchmen to Britain and see how "British" it stays
If they all immediately adopted the language, law, culture and general British way of life like my Mother did, then I'd have little to complain about. Still though, you give a poor example. There's a vast difference between isolated cases of immigration and mass immigration. If you look back at my original post in this thread, I wasn't "whining" about too many brown faces or too many Slavic faces, I was complaining about the lack of English-speaking people and the overwhelming swarm of foreigners currently in my area of England. I speak English and English only, I love British culture and know no other, and furthermore I look wholly British (Brunn + Atlantid apparently). If this post had been about non-British genes entering the British gene pool, then yes, I'd be somewhat of a hypocrite admittedly.

GermanWithGod
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 04:08 PM
Of course, but only in a sensible, productive manner.


I can swing my cricketbat sensibly :D!!!

Bärin
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 06:02 PM
I'm confused as to why both yourself and Barin are here on a Germanic preservation site if you fail to see the genetic and cultural kinship that Germanics share. If I am as unnatural as a Polish/English mix, or a Pakistani/English mix, then you really might as well be posting on a 'human race preservation' site. Again, borders do not signify the end of one genetic type and the beginning of another. All that borders signify is the beginning of one language, culture and law, and the end of another.
Germanic preservation doesn't mean mixing with everyone just because they are Germanic. I respect Germanic preservation, that's why I respect the English, Dutch and other nationalities and don't go immigrate into their countries or mix with their people. Do you see this forum has country forums, for Germany, England, Sweden and others? That we aren't all forced to speak only English and consider ourselves as "British"?
Pray tell, how is it Germanic preservation if a Dutchman ditches his language and culture in order to become "British"? It's the reverse of preservation! How much of your Dutch ancestry have you "preserved"? Do you speak Dutch? Are you culturally Dutch?


If they all immediately adopted the language, law, culture and general British way of life like my Mother did, then I'd have little to complain about. Still though, you give a poor example. There's a vast difference between isolated cases of immigration and mass immigration. If you look back at my original post in this thread, I wasn't "whining" about too many brown faces or too many Slavic faces, I was complaining about the lack of English-speaking people and the overwhelming swarm of foreigners currently in my area of England. I speak English and English only, I love British culture and know no other, and furthermore I look wholly British (Brunn + Atlantid apparently). If this post had been about non-British genes entering the British gene pool, then yes, I'd be somewhat of a hypocrite admittedly.So you wouldn't mind immigrants in your country if they spoke English? If Slavic and Pakistani faces speak English, it would be all fine? :rolleyes:

SouthernBoy
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 06:36 PM
But anyway, I don't think that because a person has non english anscestry (but certainly has european anscestry), but is culturally and linguistically english, that somehow he is part of the problem.. Correct me if iam wrong, but I don't think the dutch are balkanizing england like the asians are... If they are then they sure aren't making a big stink about it like the asians are... It is good that the Asians are making a "big stink." Would you rather they integrated and the British might never rid themselves of them?
The fact is that the Anglo-Saxons came from old Friesland in modern-day Holand or the Netherlands. The closest language to English is Frizian. You were raised in an English culture and their native languages English I don't know how more English you can get. So instead of a thousand years ago with Hengist and Horsa, you can with mom and her Porsche(excuse the pun. Is everything that happened one-thousand years ago good? ;)

Were I to tell you you were one two-hundred and fifty sixth Native American would you feel justified in choosing a bride from a nearby Indian reservation?
However, once people were settled they didn't usually allow another ethnic group to come into their territory it was always war. Why should they allow it now? :)
Imigration of western europeans to another country in Europe is fine as a long as they assimilate to the language and customs of thier new country. What degree of "assimiliation" will they undergo?

Take for example two children:

You tell the first that he is as English as the cliffs of Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover). He is descended from the first men to set foot in England. You teach him the English language and you impart to him the customs and traditions of his ancestors.

The second child you tell is half-Swedish and half-English. While he is as much Swedish as he is English, you teach him English traditions and customs. Should he ask about his Swedish heritage, you quiet him and explain that geography dictates that he be raised as an Englishman.

Which has a stronger sense of identity? Which cares more about the English ethnicity? Which is more inclined to believe that ethnicity does not matter? Which is more susceptible to the Multiculturist talking-points that we are "all the same" and "all equal?" Which will love England more? Which will be more prepared to fight and die for England?
Then you know nothing of Germanic racial and cultural solidarity. There is neither Germanic racial solidarity nor Germanic cultural solidarity.
The English aren't a race, the Belgians aren't a race, the Italians aren't a race, the Afghans aren't a race, the Namibians aren't a race and the Koreans are not a race. How is it that you define "race?"
All of my ancestors are from the North-West of Europe and are of similar European stock (English and Polish, or English and Pakistani are not similar). Your conception of "similarity" seems different than mine. ;)
I'm surprised that you'd so boldly state that the Dutch are no more similar to the English than Pakistanis are, particularly considering how this is a "Germanic" preservation forum, not an English or British preservation forum. Did I state that?

I believe the best method for Germanic preservation is the preservation of the Germanic ethnicities. :)
As pointed out by Boernician, my dose of continental Germanic-ness is just a little more recent than it is for most English. Did you read my question?
Should all the peoples of the Earth intermingle with modern Africans because they might have distant African ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory)?[...]
The Poles are not Germanic and the Pakistanis are not Germanic, niether are they willing to completely exchange their language, culture and religion for the British way. My mother was! Why should someone do that?
Small numbers of immigrants from Germanic countries into Britain are welcome because there is a similar culture and not least because most Germanic countries are wealthy enough that their citizens do not come here for the purpose of 'betterment' (read: benefits, jobs and a spineless host). Who decided they were "welcome?"
I do not pretend to be what I am not. I am a born and bred Brit with a wonderful Dutch mother. She very quickly adapted to the English way of life (before I was even born) and has added nothing non-British to my upbringing (mostly because there is such a tiny divergence between British and Dutch culture). You seem proud of this. Do you care about your Dutch heritage?
Perhaps Morrissey said it best - "Irish blood, English heart", though for me it would be "Cross-border Germanic blood, English heart". Shall we surmise your allegiance?
Perhaps, by your recommendation, I should leave The Althing and never speak of racial or cultural preservation again. Did I make such a recommendation?
Oh... ok, I was unaware that one of your parents is British and that you'd lived here all of your life. We are neither "British" as I understand it.
By the way, I hope you realise that by your own logic, you are of 'American' ethnicity and unable to claim European descent. That's fine, as long as you're aware. There is no "American" ethnicity and I have no ethnicity. The mixed do not possess that luxury.

As one is of both black and white, one is neither black nor white. As you are of both Dutch and English, you are neither Dutch nor English.
I'm confused as to why both yourself and Barin are here on a Germanic preservation site if you fail to see the genetic and cultural kinship that Germanics share. I recognize the kinship. :)
Again, borders do not signify the end of one genetic type and the beginning of another. All that borders signify is the beginning of one language, culture and law, and the end of another. There are more important things than genetics. ;)

Cythraul
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Pray tell, how is it Germanic preservation if a Dutchman ditches his language and culture in order to become "British"? It's the reverse of preservation! How much of your Dutch ancestry have you "preserved"? Do you speak Dutch? Are you culturally Dutch?
My Mother didn't ditch her culture. In fact, she didn't need to because the similarities between life in Britain and life in Holland are similar. She speaks Dutch in Holland and English in England. She has British citizenship and acts as any other British women would. I don't speak Dutch and probably know nothing more about Dutch culture than any other visitor to Holland would. Like I said, I was born in Britain and raised as British. My mother doesn't care much for preservation. She is her own woman and we have contrasting views on the matter.



Take for example two children:

You tell the first that he is as English as the cliffs of Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover). He is descended from the first men to set foot in England. You teach him the English language and you impart to him the customs and traditions of his ancestors.

The second child you tell is half-Swedish and half-English. While he is as much Swedish as he is English, you teach him English traditions and customs. Should he ask about his Swedish heritage, you quiet him and explain that geography dictates that he be raised as an Englishman.

Which has a stronger sense of identity? Which cares more about the English ethnicity? Which is more inclined to believe that ethnicity does not matter? Which is more susceptible to the Multiculturist talking-points that we are "all the same" and "all equal?" Which will love England more? Which will be more prepared to fight and die for England?

You can't measure someone's pride in a country only by the blood that runs through their veins. Someone with 100% English blood may have more reason to love, care and fight for his country but that does not necessarily mean he will. I care about my country more than most.

Geography does not dictate your ethnicity exclusively, but language, culture, location of birth and blood do. I tick 3 out of 4 of those boxes. It seems you'll never accept that Dutch and English blood is more similar than English and Pakistani so I'll refrain from repeating my views on that.



There is neither Germanic racial solidarity nor Germanic cultural solidarity.

No? So Wotan and Odin were completely different gods?



How is it that you define "race?" Your conception of "similarity" seems different than mine.

It would appear so. I'm not an anthropologist but this is my take on the matter: The Caucasian race is split up into sub-races, which include the Germanics, the Slavs, the Mediterraneans (among others). Germanic people around Europe are derived from a number of central Germanic tribes who settled various pieces of land. The Dutch and the English owe much of their ancestry to the Saxons, whereas the Polish do not. Therefore, in terms of ancestry, the Dutch and English are derived - in general terms - from a common source.



Who decided they were "welcome?"

Good question. They are welcome by me. Others may have different views and I should have pointed that out.



You seem proud of this. Do you care about your Dutch heritage?

I care about my Dutch family as people, but Holland is not my home and never will be - Britain is.



There is no "American" ethnicity and I have no ethnicity.

I see. But you still call it your home? A country you care about? So America is a nation that you can call your home regardless of what your ancestry is. There's hope for me after all. I'll become a proud American! :)



As one is of both black and white, one is neither black nor white. As you are of both Dutch and English, you are neither Dutch nor English.

According to your worldview it would seem so. After posting on The Althing and Skadi for around 2 years, this is the first time anyone has ever questioned my British-ness. Maybe our little discussion will bring some more opponents out of the wood work (as if I require anymore due to my so-called 'liberal' views... or maybe my view of ethnicity and preservation is not so outlandish after all.



There are more important things than genetics. ;)
YES! PRECISELY! And seeing as how there is nothing aside from my genetics that is non-British, it would seem that the more important aspects of ethnicity - as recognised by you - all reside within me!

GermanWithGod
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 07:44 PM
I think this is straying off the point at hand. I havn't read above, but regarding north western groups and English... the dutch are perhaps the closest thing to english outside of england, and are genetically identical to many britons, specifically the south east areas.

The point is in many places briton really is not british anymore. Londonistan and all surrounding major towns/citys e.g. slough (which i now think can be deemed as part of greater-londonistan) are now supposedly 60&#37; foreign, and that is only a vague estimate.

Going to london is like visiting the congo, its a disgusting filthy grey mass of urban smokey shite full of everything but englishmen in many places.

I am not a maniac and don't plan to be the next guy fawkes, but my tolerance levels now are so bad that should i get involved in any incident involving one of these people - god help them.

As for the goverment, i hope their flaming rabbits die.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 09:09 PM
You can't measure someone's pride in a country only by the blood that runs through their veins. Someone with 100% English blood may have more reason to love, care and fight for his country but that does not necessarily mean he will.I agree. I suppose my hypothetical-exercize was only "food for thought." ;)
I care about my country more than most. I believe you do. :)
Geography does not dictate your ethnicity exclusively, but language, culture, location of birth and blood do. I tick 3 out of 4 of those boxes. Ancestry is the only immutable quality of ethnicity. It is also the most important in my opinion.

What does "location of birth" matter? Are the children of ambassadors born abroad not of their parents' ethnicity?
It seems you'll never accept that Dutch and English blood is more similar than English and Pakistani so I'll refrain from repeating my views on that. Where did I say that?
No? So Wotan and Odin were completely different gods? Are we referring to the same word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solidarity)?
Therefore, in terms of ancestry, the Dutch and English are derived - in general terms - from a common source. What does a "common source" matter? I have addressed this:
Should all the peoples of the Earth intermingle with modern Africans because they might have distant African ancestry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory)?[...]
Good question. They are welcome by me. Others may have different views and I should have pointed that out. I wonder what "British" people think. ;)
I care about my Dutch family as people, but Holland is not my home and never will be - Britain is. The melting pot does yet boil. :)
I see. But you still call it your home? A country you care about? So America is a nation that you can call your home regardless of what your ancestry is. There's hope for me after all. I'll become a proud American! You can call "home" wherever it is that you like, but that does not mean you are indigenous to that area or that you belong there.
According to your worldview it would seem so. After posting on The Althing and Skadi for around 2 years, this is the first time anyone has ever questioned my British-ness. Maybe our little discussion will bring some more opponents out of the wood work (as if I require anymore due to my so-called 'liberal' views... or maybe my view of ethnicity and preservation is not so outlandish after all. In my experience, people are often revulsed by any proposed restriction as to who their prospective mates might be. :(

Is it possible to convince someone who has been told their entire life that ethnic-mixing is acceptable, whom may have participated in ethnic-mixing, and whom may be ethnically-mixed themselves that ethnic-mixing is wrong?
YES! PRECISELY! And seeing as how there is nothing aside from my genetics that is non-British, it would seem that the more important aspects of ethnicity - as recognised by you - all reside within me! Ancestry is important. :)

Boernician
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 09:15 PM
It is good that the Asians are making a "big stink." Would you rather they integrated and the British might never rid themselves of them? Is everything that happened one-thousand years ago good? ;)

Were I to tell you you were one two-hundred and fifty sixth Native American would you feel justified in choosing a bride from a nearby Indian reservation? Why should they allow it now? :) What degree of "assimiliation" will they undergo?

Take for example two children:

You tell the first that he is as English as the cliffs of Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover). He is descended from the first men to set foot in England. You teach him the English language and you impart to him the customs and traditions of his ancestors.

The second child you tell is half-Swedish and half-English. While he is as much Swedish as he is English, you teach him English traditions and customs. Should he ask about his Swedish heritage, you quiet him and explain that geography dictates that he be raised as an Englishman.

Which has a stronger sense of identity? Which cares more about the English ethnicity? Which is more inclined to believe that ethnicity does not matter? Which is more susceptible to the Multiculturist talking-points that we are "all the same" and "all equal?" Which will love England more? Which will be more prepared to fight and die for England? There is neither Germanic racial solidarity nor Germanic cultural solidarity. How is it that you define "race?" Your conception of "similarity" seems different than mine. ;) Did I state that?

I believe the best method for Germanic preservation is the preservation of the Germanic ethnicities. :) Did you read my question? [...] Why should someone do that? Who decided they were "welcome?" You seem proud of this. Do you care about your Dutch heritage? Shall we surmise your allegiance? Did I make such a recommendation? We are neither "British" as I understand it. There is no "American" ethnicity and I have no ethnicity. The mixed do not possess that luxury.

As one is of both black and white, one is neither black nor white. As you are of both Dutch and English, you are neither Dutch nor English. I recognize the kinship. :) There are more important things than genetics. ;)

Is everything that happened one-thousand years ago good?

Were I to tell you you were one two-hundred and fifty sixth Native American would you feel justified in choosing a bride from a nearby Indian reservation?
The first part of your question is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the discussion goodness or badness is not the point. The point is that the Anglo-Saxons who make up a substantial portion of the English population and by which they are are the same people that came from the Netherlands before it was a nationstate.

The second part of your question is what in philosophy we call a reductio ad absurdum. The reasoning is too fallacious to even answer.
2. Why should they allow it now?
I already answered that question the corpus of my post. The nationstate has nothing to do with ethnicities in the nationstate is controlled by commercial and political interests. That's reality versus the ideal. Commercial interests are solely interested in capital they have no regard for culture.
3.What degree of "assimiliation" will they undergo?

They will learn the language and its culture and identify themselves by it. That also goes for their names. In Thailand for instance if you immegrate their you have to learn Thai, but you have to take a Thai name, a Chinese person cannot move to Thailand and call himself Yo Wing Chan, he would have to change that to a Thai name for instance Pone Sompatch.

4. Which has a stronger sense of identity? Which cares more about the English ethnicity? Which is more inclined to believe that ethnicity does not matter? Which is more susceptible to the Multiculturist talking-points that we are "all the same" and "all equal?" Which will love England more? Which will be more prepared to fight and die for England?

England no longer is it exists as a nationstate it's part of Great Britain., you may fight and die for England in your mind butyou are actually fighting for the nationstate of Great Britain. A well-trained mercenaries from another country fights just as well if not better than a member of the indigenous population who does not come from a martial tradition. That's just a simple fact it's been that way for all of mankinds innumerable wars. The Romans successfully employed both Celts and Germans and Dacians as soldiers. The Caliphates employed Slavic slaves as soldiers. The Gurkhas fight just as well for Great Britain as he do for India

I don't identify with United States of America as my country died at Appomattox. That didn't affect my career in the military one iota, I just didn't have the Patriotic zeal. None of that affected my efficiency in combat.
5.There is no "American" ethnicity and I have no ethnicity. The mixed do not possess that luxury.

As one is of both black and white, one is neither black nor white. As you are of both Dutch and English, you are neither Dutch nor English.
Ethnic, you have to define your terms southern boy so we know exactly what you're talking about when he used the word ethnichere is the dictionary definition.
a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b: being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c: of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics </dictionary/ethnics> <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>
If you define an ethnicity as nationality and language and culture are fairly irrelevant. A Belgian is a Belgian whether he speaks Flemish or Wallon. Somebody that is Dutch that lives in the Netherlands is Dutch regardless of whether he speaks Dutch or Frisian.
There are nations which are by nature multilingual and in some cases multiracial, that certainly is the case with the United States and I would not be one to say they should change. I just believe the regions of the country have every right to identify themselves with their culture. You certainly must have some feeling for that because you call yourself southern boy.
I do want to see any culture or group of people and language be obliterated by another one and that also goes for Third World countries. When United States defeated Mexico in a war \they took over the Southwest and California they agreed in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that people in those areas would be bilingual, which is tantamount to saying they acceptedthe presence of Mexicans and Spanish in the South West. Case closed.
Forthose who come from Mexico for a reconquista, should be deported immediately, if he did not immigrate by the proper processes they should be thrown out of the country as well.
Thiose who are American citizens and applaud such an effort should be inprisoned as traitors or exiled.
6. There are more important things than genetics.
Well you're either a nurture or nature guy or acombination of both.
Maybe I'm not getting your argument . How do you define an ethnicity.? If you leave out nationality which you don't ,when discussing being British, which is not a ethnicity it is a nationality. Being Scots, or Irish, or Ulsterman, or English, or Welsh is an ethnicity. The country is comprised of those groups for a thousand years as individual groups and for 400 years as a nation.
Remember William of Orange King of England he spoke only Dutch. They have grand parades celebrating his victory on July 12 of every year in Ulster. The Queen of England's from the house of Saxe Gotha that's not near London.

In regard to Barin. I too have a hard time understanding why someone who calls themselves a communist would concern themselves with ethnicity. This is certainly not in the line of Marxist Leninism thought,which is solely concerned with dialectical materialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Now I am a secessionist and I will always remain one. I believe that small countries based on a confederation of common interests which includes language and culture is the ideal. I do not subscribe to the idea that all men are created equal in talent morality or any other way except in that they should be treated equally under the law.

Obviously that's what Thomas Jefferson meant. I hold no animus towards any group provided they do not try to take away or suppress my heritage. Unfortunately that is the case with multiculturalism which isn't multicultural at all since it disdains and attempt to obliterate, Western European culture.

You may not choose to identify yourself with a group but if you speak their language if you eat their food, and you have a regional dialect in your part of the culture, and most likely part of the same race. I had no problem with people who want to be multicultural or even marry someone that's not their race as long as they don't shove it in my face. In America that's how it is though in many cases they do shove it in your face.

As I mentioned before is simply a fact that many people in America may have ancestors not of Western European origion, but that portion is so small and them that's it is irrelevant. I identify with certain cultures primarily in the British Isles . I also identify with southern culture of the old South and also Texas. That's because I was raised by those people that's who I was around.

I would like to see those cultures survive. Those that argue about cultures being equal are obviously brainwashed or demented. A Masai hut made out of cow dung is not equal to Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Waters, or the Taj Mahal. Having just said that, I would lot not like to see the Masai culture be wiped out either

Cythraul
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 11:31 PM
I agree. I suppose my hypothetical-exercize was only "food for thought." ;) I believe you do. :) Ancestry is the only immutable quality of ethnicity. It is also the most important in my opinion.

And I also agree. Ancestry is important. I have both British and Dutch ancestry, but because I was born and raised British, my Dutch ancestry serves no purpose for my future.

Let me qualify, once and for all, why I call myself "British" and not "English". It is because my Father (and therefore myself also), whilst largely English, has some pre-Saxon blood no doubt. Looks like I'm a mongrel in more ways than one. Oh dear.



What does "location of birth" matter? Are the children of ambassadors born abroad not of their parents' ethnicity?

Again, location of birth is not an overriding factor. My view is that a number of factors contribute to the integrity of one's ethnicity. If the child of the ambassador is brought up with his/her parent's homeland culture and language foremost, as well as carrying the blood of the ambassador's homeland, then the location of birth does not detract from the ethnicity of the child.



Where did I say that?

Well, we've been 'discussing' for a couple of pages now about how I'm just as bad as the mixed children of English/Pakistani parents. If not, I've very much misunderstood you.



What does a "common source" matter?

It matters greatly! We may all be Africans if we go far enough back (let's not discuss the validity of that here), but our culture 200,000 years ago compares little to our culture now. By the time of the Saxons, the human race had pretty much diversified into the same ethnic groups we have now and the English and the Dutch are both members of that same branch that emerged and has not sprouted further tangeable cultures or religions since (other than materialism :mad:).

My use of the "common source" argument is simply meant to demonstrate to you how much more compatible the English and Dutch are than the English and Polish, therefore it's vital to this discussion seeing as you seem to think that the Dutch and English are as alien to each other as Germanics and Slavs.



You can call "home" wherever it is that you like, but that does not mean you are indigenous to that area or that you belong there. In my experience, people are often revulsed by any proposed restriction as to who their prospective mates might be. :(

I'm not wholly indigenous to Britain, and you are not at all indigenous to America. And yet, nearly all Germanics would support the notion that America is/was largely a Germanic country. The Saxons weren't indigenous to Britain and niether were the Celts, therefore the English are not indigenous to the piece of land called "Britain". Would you say that enough time has passed for the English to call the Southern section of the British Isles their indigenous home? Well perhaps in a thousand years, my children's children will be accepted as indigenous Brits too.

This brings me to another point: Am I allowed to breed? Should I end my polluted, mixed bloodline now and castrate myself?



Is it possible to convince someone who has been told their entire life that ethnic-mixing is acceptable, whom may have participated in ethnic-mixing, and whom may be ethnically-mixed themselves that ethnic-mixing is wrong? Ancestry is important. :)
Yes, it is possible. Here I stand as an example. But you need to understand that different Germanics have different interpretations of what constitutes "ethnic-mixing". Flick on over to the miscegenation threads and you'll notice that many, like me, find inter-Germanic mixing acceptable. As it happens, I have chosen another British girl to spend my life and I'll encourage my children to find local partners. This is because whilst I'm the product of inter-Germanic mixing, I feel that it has no bearing on my future, or the future of my children. Had I been the product of genuine miscegenation (say English/Pakistani), a) I would never have become a preservationist, and b) my "mixed" status could not help but have a bearing on my future bloodline. The English and Dutch are racially and culturally compatible (and often racially indecipherable). The English and Pakistanis are not.

Bärin
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 01:32 AM
My Mother didn't ditch her culture. In fact, she didn't need to because the similarities between life in Britain and life in Holland are similar. She speaks Dutch in Holland and English in England. She has British citizenship and acts as any other British women would. I don't speak Dutch and probably know nothing more about Dutch culture than any other visitor to Holland would. Like I said, I was born in Britain and raised as British. My mother doesn't care much for preservation. She is her own woman and we have contrasting views on the matter.
See, this is why I oppose this white multiculturalism. It's very very rare when a person can preserve both ethnicities. Your mother preserved her Dutchness because she is Dutch and adopted Britishness without being British. But the mixed children will always have difficulties. How can you call something like that preservation? You carry on part of your heritage, at the expense of the other. That's multiculturalism for you, destroyer of cultures.

Morcar
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 04:15 PM
Mixing is inevitable. It is a natural course of action and not evil in itself, as long as it can be controlled and does not pose a threat to the nation. One drop rule is a myth. It is only a matter of how deep you search in your genealogy to find some "admixture".


What is your priority then Barin? What is of the absolute value in your eyes and what is of a relative value? Single human being and his/her right to freedom... or the "race", "the tradition" the "collective purpose"???

Angelcynn Beorn
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Am i alone in seeing the irony of saying someone of Dutch heritage but English culture can't be English, when the English are of Dutch (and German and Danish) heritage themselves?

SouthernBoy
Friday, July 11th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Thanks for all the responses. I will try to address all of them. :)

The first part of your question is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the discussion goodness or badness is not the point. It was not a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29) but a question.
The point is that the Anglo-Saxons who make up a substantial portion of the English population and by which they are are the same people that came from the Netherlands before it was a nationstate. Is it permissable for an English to marry a Dutch for that reason? :)
The second part of your question is what in philosophy we call a reductio ad absurdum. The reasoning is too fallacious to even answer. How did you discover the reasoning behind my question? Are you clairvoyant? ;)

I believe a valid-comparison exists between an English of some Anglo-Saxon ancestry that marries a Dutch and a white American of some Native American ancestry that marries a Native American.
The nationstate has nothing to do with ethnicities in the nationstate is controlled by commercial and political interests. That's reality versus the ideal. Commercial interests are solely interested in capital they have no regard for culture. I agree.
They will learn the language and its culture and identify themselves by it. That also goes for their names. In Thailand for instance if you immegrate their you have to learn Thai, but you have to take a Thai name, a Chinese person cannot move to Thailand and call himself Yo Wing Chan, he would have to change that to a Thai name for instance Pone Sompatch. I do not believe this will prove sufficient. :(
A well-trained mercenaries from another country fights just as well if not better than a member of the indigenous population who does not come from a martial tradition. I agree. I should have added "all else being equal." ;)
I don't identify with United States of America as my country died at Appomattox. This is another bag-of-cats. :D
That didn't affect my career in the military one iota, I just didn't have the Patriotic zeal. None of that affected my efficiency in combat. How can you tell what affected your efficiency in combat?
Ethnic, you have to define your terms southern boy so we know exactly what you're talking about when he used the word ethnic... An "ethnic" is a member of an "ethnicity." An "ethnicity" is "a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationality)."
If you define an ethnicity as nationality and language and culture are fairly irrelevant. A Belgian is a Belgian whether he speaks Flemish or Wallon. Somebody that is Dutch that lives in the Netherlands is Dutch regardless of whether he speaks Dutch or Frisian. I understand "ethnicity" as being synonymous to "nationality." :)
There are nations which are by nature multilingual and in some cases multiracial, that certainly is the case with the United States and I would not be one to say they should change.Which nations are multilingual or multiracial? Do you mean "countries?"

I believe "nation" to be synonymous to both "ethnicity" and "nationality" and I know none that are multilingual or multiracial.
Well you're either a nurture or nature guy or acombination of both. This is another bag-of-cats unfortunately. You can make a thread on the topic if you like. ;)
If you leave out nationality which you don't ,when discussing being British, which is not a ethnicity it is a nationality. Being Scots, or Irish, or Ulsterman, or English, or Welsh is an ethnicity. The country is comprised of those groups for a thousand years as individual groups and for 400 years as a nation. The British may one day become an ethnicity, but I would rather their comprising member-groups continued to exist. :)
Remember William of Orange King of England he spoke only Dutch. They have grand parades celebrating his victory on July 12 of every year in Ulster. The Queen of England's from the house of Saxe Gotha that's not near London. I do not believe the royalty of Britain is representative of the general-population.
I have both British and Dutch ancestry, but because I was born and raised British, my Dutch ancestry serves no purpose for my future. It should in my opinion. :)
Let me qualify, once and for all, why I call myself "British" and not "English". It is because my Father (and therefore myself also), whilst largely English, has some pre-Saxon blood no doubt. "Pre-Saxon blood" does not necessarily disqualify him from being English. Will you elaborate?
Again, location of birth is not an overriding factor. My view is that a number of factors contribute to the integrity of one's ethnicity. If the child of the ambassador is brought up with his/her parent's homeland culture and language foremost, as well as carrying the blood of the ambassador's homeland, then the location of birth does not detract from the ethnicity of the child. I agree. :)
Well, we've been 'discussing' for a couple of pages now about how I'm just as bad as the mixed children of English/Pakistani parents. If not, I've very much misunderstood you. I believe you have. Can you quote where I said you were "just as bad" as half-English and half-Pakistani children? ;)
By the time of the Saxons, the human race had pretty much diversified into the same ethnic groups we have now and the English and the Dutch are both members of that same branch that emerged and has not sprouted further tangeable cultures or religions since (other than materialism :mad:). I am confused. Are you saying it has not sprouted further tangeable-cultures since the English and the Dutch?

The English and the Dutch are distinguishable and I believe they should stay that way. :)
My use of the "common source" argument is simply meant to demonstrate to you how much more compatible the English and Dutch are than the English and Polish, therefore it's vital to this discussion seeing as you seem to think that the Dutch and English are as alien to each other as Germanics and Slavs. I agree the Dutch and the English are more compatible than the English and the Polish, but I believe neither are compatible.
I'm not wholly indigenous to Britain, and you are not at all indigenous to America. And yet, nearly all Germanics would support the notion that America is/was largely a Germanic country. The Saxons weren't indigenous to Britain and niether were the Celts, therefore the English are not indigenous to the piece of land called "Britain". Do you believe the English are not primarily-descended from the indigenous peoples of England (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817)? :)
Would you say that enough time has passed for the English to call the Southern section of the British Isles their indigenous home? They are "indigenous" in my estimation.
Well perhaps in a thousand years, my children's children will be accepted as indigenous Brits too.In a thousand years, the children of all immigrants may be accepted as indigenous British. I would mourn the day. :(
This brings me to another point: Am I allowed to breed? Should I end my polluted, mixed bloodline now and castrate myself?I believe you should locate a half-English and half-Dutch woman of your caliber and have as many children as you can afford. ;)
But you need to understand that different Germanics have different interpretations of what constitutes "ethnic-mixing". Flick on over to the miscegenation threads and you'll notice that many, like me, find inter-Germanic mixing acceptable. Were everyone right, there might be no argumentation. :D
As it happens, I have chosen another British girl to spend my life and I'll encourage my children to find local partners. I ask you to reconsider, but I shall go no further. :(
This is because whilst I'm the product of inter-Germanic mixing, I feel that it has no bearing on my future, or the future of my children. Had I been the product of genuine miscegenation (say English/Pakistani), a) I would never have become a preservationist, and b) my "mixed" status could not help but have a bearing on my future bloodline. The "genuine" is a matter of perspective. Would the half-English and half-Pakistaki you referred to not try to convince us that he was not the product of genuine-miscegenation (http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/answer.asp#r1) and his "mixed" status would have no bearing on his future blood-line?
The English and Dutch are racially and culturally compatible (and often racially indecipherable). The English and Pakistanis are not. This is your opinion and it is understandable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) that this would be your position.

Boernician
Saturday, July 12th, 2008, 12:01 AM
Efficiency in combat is based on training and personal disposition. Controlling both fear and anger and a firm belief in your fire team.You must be either conditioned to kill or possess the will already.

I was always very aggressive in combat it is I think inherited. My ancestors were all martial types from the Old country to the new. I grew up with images of Inniskillin Fusiliers, Confederates in Uniform,the Rebel yell of my Southern side,the NO SURRENDER of my Ulster Reiver side..I always followed Forrest's dictum Get Um Scared,Keep um Scared.
As Patton said let the other poor son of a bitch die for his country.;)

Skarpherdin
Saturday, July 12th, 2008, 12:18 AM
the cause for Britains loss of its own culture is due to there open door policy on immigration
they let all the Muslems in from there own war torn countries, if they just sent them back there'd be no trouble

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, July 12th, 2008, 12:55 AM
Take for example two children:

You tell the first that he is as English as the cliffs of Dover (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FWhite_Cliffs_of_Dover) . He is descended from the first men to set foot in England. You teach him the English language and you impart to him the customs and traditions of his ancestors.

The second child you tell is half-Swedish and half-English. While he is as much Swedish as he is English, you teach him English traditions and customs. Should he ask about his Swedish heritage, you quiet him and explain that geography dictates that he be raised as an Englishman.

Which has a stronger sense of identity? Which cares more about the English ethnicity? Which is more inclined to believe that ethnicity does not matter? Which is more susceptible to the Multiculturist talking-points that we are "all the same" and "all equal?" Which will love England more? Which will be more prepared to fight and die for England? There is neither Germanic racial solidarity nor Germanic cultural solidarity. How is it that you define "race?" Your conception of "similarity" seems different than mine. ;) Did I state that?

Your argument fails because England is not teeming with half-Swedish or half-Dutch "mix bloods".

Cythraul is probably one in twenty-thousand (or whatever) who is English with a Dutch parent, living in England. This is where assimilation happens.

Hypothetically if one in twenty English children had a Dutch/Swedish/German parent then you could argue that's excessive, but any sensible country would have an immigration policy to peg the numbers back, in the first place.



I believe the best method for Germanic preservation is the preservation of the Germanic ethnicities. :) Did you read my question? [...] Why should someone do that? Who decided they were "welcome?" You seem proud of this. Do you care about your Dutch heritage? Shall we surmise your allegiance? Did I make such a recommendation? We are neither "British" as I understand it. There is no "American" ethnicity and I have no ethnicity. The mixed do not possess that luxury.

As one is of both black and white, one is neither black nor white. As you are of both Dutch and English, you are neither Dutch nor English. I recognize the kinship. :) There are more important things than genetics. ;)Cythraul is English enough if he is born in England and his mother is a Dutch woman. The fact he is half-Dutch is an interesting aside to share with people who know him over a beer, but no more. What's more, he has shown himself to be thoughtful about his English and Dutch heritage, more so than the majority of pure English.

And as people have said, a good chunk of the English genepool was drawn from that part of Continental Europe.

BTW, the Dutch are perceived to be the least exotic Europeans in the eyes of the English, both physically (because their physicality is not remarked upon except for their height) and their culture (naval & trading tradition, Protestant, easy-going folk).

Drakkar
Saturday, July 12th, 2008, 05:27 AM
Do you think Britain will ever be British again?
It can be.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/0d/300px-Sutler2.jpg
;)

Cythraul
Sunday, July 13th, 2008, 11:17 PM
Thanks for the interesting replies. I've been away this weekend but I'll pick up on this thread tomorrow (at work ;)).

Talan
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:18 AM
Just want to point out how much was in the last post... OEN makes this forum what it is today.

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:47 AM
Well, 19th century PM Benjamin Disraeli already said Britain was more an Asian than an European power.

No wonder....


Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS (born Benjamin D'Israeli; 21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Conservative statesman and literary figure. He served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister—the first and thus far only Jew to do so....

Disraeli's biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Spanish ancestry, possibly referring to the ultimate origin of his family heritage in Spain prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492.[5] His father, Isaac D'Israeli, a literary critic and historian, though Jewish, in 1817 had Benjamin baptised in the Church of England, following a dispute with their synagogue. The elder D'Israeli (Benjamin changed the spelling in the 1820s by dropping the apostrophe) himself was content to remain outside organized religion....

Disraeli was a staunch supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. Over the objections of his own cabinet and without the Parliament's consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44&#37; of the shares of the Suez Canal Company.

Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over Britain's Balkan policy. Disraeli saw the situation as a matter of British imperial and strategic interests, keeping to Palmerston's policy of supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russian expansion. According to Blake, Disraeli believed in upholding Britain's greatness through a tough, "no nonsense" foreign policy that put England's interests above the "moral law" that advocated emancipation of small nations.[47] Gladstone, however, saw the issue in moral terms, for Bulgarian Christians had been massacred by the Turks and Gladstone therefore believed it was immoral to support the Ottoman Empire. Blake further argued that Disraeli's imperialism "decisively orientated the Conservative party for many years to come, and the tradition which he started was probably a bigger electoral asset in winning working-class support during the last quarter of the century than anything else".[47]

A leading proponent of the Great Game, Disraeli introduced the Royal Titles Act 1876, which created Queen Victoria Empress of India, putting her at the same level as the Russian Tsar. In his private correspondence with the Queen, he proposed "to clear Central Asia of Muscovites and drive them into the Caspian".[48] In order to contain Russia's influence, he launched an invasion of Afghanistan and signed the Cyprus Convention with Turkey, whereby this strategically placed island was handed over to Britain.

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli


That Britain was more of an Asian power was down to the likes of D'Israeli :mad:.... Jews (Zionists) who sought "British" power in the region of their beloved Zion as a means to one day regain control of their long lost Jewish homelands. The English people were USED as pawns. "Great Britain" (as an institution) was used as a tool by Zionists to realise their own agenda. The long-term consequences for the English people was of no concern to them....

.... and today we see those consequences.

I don't think the concern should be over whether or not "Britain is British", but rather, whether or not "England is English".

Its important to remember though.... Rome wasn't built in a day... England wasn't destroyed in a day (and yes, she is currently destroyed as far as I can see).... it will take more than a day to rebuild her.... not just save her, but rebuild. The UK must be redefined. I feel that the only saviour of England will be the deconstruction of "Great Britain", as it was Great Britain that was the undoing of England.


Oh and Southern Boy.... please stop talking crap. England needs young men like Cythraul.

SouthernBoy
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Your argument fails because England is not teeming with half-Swedish or half-Dutch "mix bloods". Please elaborate as to why that is the case. :)
Cythraul is probably one in twenty-thousand (or whatever) who is English with a Dutch parent, living in England. This is where assimilation happens. I do not want assimilation in any form.
Hypothetically if one in twenty English children had a Dutch/Swedish/German parent then you could argue that's excessive, but any sensible country would have an immigration policy to peg the numbers back, in the first place. Any "sensible" country would try to prevent it altogether and I can argue ethnic-mixing is excessive whensoever I choose. ;)
Cythraul is English enough if he is born in England and his mother is a Dutch woman.When you say "English enough", you appear to suggest that to be English is to exist within a continuum. I do not believe that is the case.

You are either English or you are not.
What's more, he has shown himself to be thoughtful about his English and Dutch heritage, more so than the majority of pure English.Have you heard of Leo Felton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Felton)?
And as people have said, a good chunk of the English genepool was drawn from that part of Continental Europe. What is a "good chunk?" Did you miss my "out of Africa" analogy?
BTW, the Dutch are perceived to be the least exotic Europeans in the eyes of the English, both physically (because their physicality is not remarked upon except for their height) and their culture (naval & trading tradition, Protestant, easy-going folk). Some might perceive Asians as being less exotic than blacks. Both are exotic and an English should want for neither, nor should they want for a Dutch.

Why even look at it as though it were a more-or-less situation?
Oh and Southern Boy.... please stop talking crap. England needs young men like Cythraul. I disagree. :)

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:47 AM
I disagree. :)

No you don't!! :nono0000:


:p


No seriously... the English members here don't have a problem with Cythraul, so why should you???

I find it rather ironic that a foreigner to England is criticising foreign input in England, whilst at the same time advocating his own (foreign) opinion as being the one that should be accepted by the English on this forum! :D

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:52 AM
English and Dutch are separated by what, 1000-1500 years? Genetically, they are essentially the same, their languages are similar, core values of culture are similar. I don't see any problem with someone being both

Iron Struggle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 07:06 AM
My girlfriend got quite annoyed at me as I ranted on and on, but to be quite honest I was stunned. I mean, I live in South-East England so I'm used to extreme multiculturalism, but for the first time in my life, I felt like white Britain had actually lost ownership of this country.

I know the feeling. It's horrible. Whenever I see the BBC Britain is unrecognizable. In America it's much worse. The US accepts 800 thousand to one million legal immigrants a year and 90 percent of them are non-white. If we look at a naturalization ceremony its a sea of brown, black and yellow. The worst thing is nobody says anything.



I suppose the only purpose of this thread is for me to vent, and pose the question - Do you think Britain will ever be British again?

By the time the British wake up, and that is if, millions of minorities will have penetrated. The British are too civilized to kick them out. These non-whites will intermarry and their children will date white and so on. I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I believe this is our horrible reality. Its sad really, heartbreaking. A once proud Anglo Saxon nation is sealing their fate as a non-white, third world slum.

The best thing we can do is generate as much money as possible to counter our opponents. We need White and Germanic Nationalists to get involved in film, finance, politics, media etc. Apart from this thing we can vote BNP, give money to good candidates, convert people and find good spouses to have many white children with and prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 08:11 AM
That Britain was more of an Asian power was down to the likes of D'Israeli .... Jews (Zionists) who sought "British" power in the region of their beloved Zion as a means to one day regain control of their long lost Jewish homelands. The English people were USED as pawns. "Great Britain" (as an institution) was used as a tool by Zionists to realise their own agenda. The long-term consequences for the English people was of no concern to them....

Sorry, but your assumptions are incorrect, at least as far as they apply to Disraeli. Disraeli wasn't out to further Zionist interests at the expense of the English population; his support for the British Empire was based on his own individual racial beliefs and perspectives. He believed that Jews were very capable intellectually, but he also thought that Anglo-Saxons were racially superior as well.



From Chapter 24 of 'Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography', 1852, by Benjamin Disraeli:

"But the influence of a great race will be felt; its greatness does not depend upon its numbers, otherwise the English would not have vanquished the Chinese, nor would the Aztecs have been overthrown by Cortez and a handful of Goths. That greatness results from its organisation, the consequences of which are shown in its energy and enterprise, in the strength of its will and the fertility of its brain."

[...]

"The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors. But though nature will never ultimately permit this theory of natural equality to be practised, the preaching of this dogma has already caused much mischief, and may occasion much more."

This doesn't exactly sound like the sort of racial egalitarianism and 'pro-integrationist' talk that many Jews are accused of these days!

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 08:59 AM
Sorry, but your assumptions are incorrect, at least as far as they apply to Disraeli. Disraeli wasn't out to further Zionist interests at the expense of the English population; his support for the British Empire was based on his own individual racial beliefs and perspectives. He believed that Jews were very capable intellectually, but he also thought that Anglo-Saxons were racially superior as well.


"The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors. But though nature will never ultimately permit this theory of natural equality to be practised, the preaching of this dogma has already caused much mischief, and may occasion much more."


This doesn't exactly sound like the sort of racial egalitarianism and 'pro-integrationist' talk that many Jews are accused of these days!

What use is a broken tool?


"Great Britain" (as an institution) was used as a tool by Zionists to realise their own agenda.

If you were going to use someone to do your dirty work for you, would you find someone who was weak and vulnerable? Someone on the verge of collapse? Or would you find someone strong and stable (and then support them in areas relevant to the realisation of your own agenda) to ensure their success for as long as they are useful to you?

Of course, after they've served their purpose, and you no longer have need for them, your support can be withdrawn and the consequences of your work will be their problem to deal with (or be destroyed via, as it were).

Watch carefully as the Zionist elites pull their "support" out of the US and redirect it to China. What is happening to the US economy now has been a long time coming...

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 09:33 AM
What use is a broken tool?

Can you prove that Disraeli had the sort of ulterior motives you're talking about? I've yet to see your evidence.



If you were going to use someone to do your dirty work for you, would you find someone who was weak and vulnerable? Someone on the verge of collapse? Or would you find someone strong and stable (and then support them in areas relevant to the realisation of your own agenda) to ensure their success for as long as they are useful to you?

Of course, after they've served their purpose, and you no longer have need for them, your support can be withdrawn and the consequences of your work will be their problem to deal with (or be destroyed via, as it were).

Watch carefully as the Zionist elites pull their "support" out of the US and redirect it to China. What is happening to the US economy now has been a long time coming...

What purpose did it serve to deliberately weaken the US through the promotion of integration/race-mixing? Furthermore, what agenda is being served by redirecting support to China? IMO, much of the behavior of Jews is rooted in paranoia; it is a kind of special 'collective paranoia' that has functioned as a protective 'shield' in the evolutionary struggle for existence. It has proved very useful in keeping them insulated and also stimulating them to compete with surrounding populations, but to suppose that it is constantly serving some sort of 'higher plan' or deliberate goal is mistaken.

Anyways, this still doesn't prove that Disraeli was acting in this manner. That's the specific point I originally addressed.

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Can you prove that Disraeli had the sort of ulterior motives you're talking about? I've yet to see your evidence.

I don't need to provide evidence, because I'm not on trial. (And honestly, I don't think it would be worth all of the time it would take to gather info that I've read over the years from dozens, perhaps hundreds of different sources, piece it all together and show where I've drawn my conclusions from.) So here's my suggestion... Look into the relevant info yourself, do some reading around, be critical, try to view things from various perspectives to ensure you're not missing too much, and then come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to convince anyone, nor dictate to anyone... I just express my opinion as I see it, gleaned from the knowledge I've gained thus far.

You are out of order to demand so rudely that I provide evidence to support my views. If you wish to have a conversation about it, fine. We can exchange ideas. If not, naff off.




What purpose did it serve to deliberately weaken the US through the promotion of integration/race-mixing? Furthermore, what agenda is being served by redirecting support to China? IMO, much of the behavior of Jews is rooted in paranoia; it is a kind of special 'collective paranoia' that has functioned as a protective 'shield' in the evolutionary struggle for existence. It has proved very useful in keeping them insulated and also stimulating them to compete with surrounding populations, but to suppose that it is constantly serving some sort of 'higher plan' or deliberate goal is mistaken.

Anyways, this still doesn't prove that Disraeli was acting in this manner. That's the specific point I originally addressed.
I don't know what you're talking about.... "deliberately weaken the US through the promotion of integration/race-mixing" :confused: When did I say they did this in the US?? In fact, I don't think that I mentioned "integration/race-mixing" at all in this thread. You are assuming too much Mock Turtle.... and I think you're confused.

When I said "what use is a broken tool?", I was meaning that it wouldn't have been in the Zionists' interests to promote "racial egalitarianism and 'pro-integrationism" in the UK because this would undermine the strength and stability of the body they wish to use for their own purposes.... and that would make no sense now, would it?

As far as the US and China are concerned : The Zionists used the US economy, political power and military to suit their own purposes, and now that the US has been compromised for various reasons, the Zionists are putting their support into the next world power and economic powerhouse.... China. It's a matter of being insightful, and seizing opportunities as they arise, for the Zionist leaders.

Cythraul
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:25 AM
Can you quote where I said you were "just as bad" as half-English and half-Pakistani children?
....
I believe a valid-comparison exists between an English of some Anglo-Saxon ancestry that marries a Dutch and a white American of some Native American ancestry that marries a Native American.

That's one example.

When you say "valid-comparison", you are suggesting that miscegenation between Native Americans and white Americans is no worse than miscegenation between English and Dutch. If I'm wrong, correct me and cease using an extreme example of something to exaggerate my circumstance.



I believe "nation" to be synonymous to both "ethnicity" and "nationality" and I know none that are multilingual or multiracial.

Try Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland). Though no doubt you'd be reluctant to accept it as a real nation in the strict sense of the word.



I do not believe the royalty of Britain is representative of the general-population.

So are they not permitted to call themselves "British"?



"Pre-Saxon blood" does not necessarily disqualify him from being English. Will you elaborate?

I didn't disqualify him from being English. My Father is English and proudly so. But if we're getting pedantic about the relationship between the names of countries and the stock therein, then it is more specific to call him "British" because his ancestry extends beyond those who forged the nation of England. Why do you accept Celtic and Germanic interbreeding as rightful to 'England' but not Germanic and Germanic interbreeding as acceptable? Why should my Father be allowed to call himself 'English' when he is not of 100% Saxon lineage? Your logic seems inconsistent.



I am confused. Are you saying it has not sprouted further tangeable-cultures since the English and the Dutch?

No, I'm saying that it has not sprouted further tangeable racial groups since the English and the Dutch. Therefore, my English/Dutch mix is no more of a bastardisation - and is not a new bastardisation - than when the Saxons first came to Britain and altered its genetic make-up forever.



Do you believe the English are not primarily-descended from the indigenous peoples of England (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817)? :) They are "indigenous" in my estimation.

I believe that the English are not wholly descended from the indigenous peoples of Britain. The English (aside from a vast minority whose bloodline is traceable as pure Saxon) are a Celtogermanic mix. I'm not qualified to suggest what ratio of Saxon to pre-Saxon this mixture is but I do know that Saxon genetic traits are not indigenous to the piece of land called 'Britain'.



:(I believe you should locate a half-English and half-Dutch woman of your caliber and have as many children as you can afford. ;)
...
I ask you to reconsider, but I shall go no further. :(
Are you serious? Even if such a ridiculous idea were in any way realistic, how would it help the situation? Where would me, my 'mixed' wife and my 'mixed' children be able to call home? Is it useful to create a new ethnicity for every mixture in the world? Do you really want to mathematically square the number of ethnicities in the world be creating a new one for every possible combination of ethnicities? How about people who are the product of an English/Dutch Father and an English Mother (like my children will be)? Will they constitute a new ethnicity who are only permitted to mate with other quarter-Dutch Englishmen?

Let's return to the real world and find real ways to deal with situations like mine. I'm opposed to misgenation across different races. Germanics constitute one race and are genetically compatible. I wouldn't have done what my Father did and married outside of Britain, but I am lucky that he at least chose another Germanic woman so that me and my brothers are not of mixed-race. Furthermore, being born and raised in England, and knowing no other language or culture, we are genetically and culturally indistinguishable from other Englishmen. The same could not be said for an English-Pakistani man of mixed parenthood and here's the bottom line:

A person of mixed race (and sound mind) would never become interested or involved in racial or cultural preservation in the first place. They would inter-marry with others who are equally as uninterested in preservation, and if everyone were preservationists - as they should be - then this person would not find a mate.

I stand for British and Germanic preservation. The British culture is the only one I know, and the Dutch blood running through my veins adds nothing, and 'spoils' nothing of the British/English genepool.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:32 AM
I don't need to provide evidence, because I'm not on trial.

I didn't say you were on trial. You just made a claim, and I challenged you on it.



(And honestly, I don't think it would be worth all of the time it would take to gather info that I've read over the years from dozens, perhaps hundreds of different sources, piece it all together and show where I've drawn my conclusions from.)

The 'hundreds' of different sources pertaining specifically to Disraeli and his ulterior motives regarding the British Empire? Somehow, I find that a little difficult to believe, but I guess it's theoretically possible.

Keep in mind, I'm only talking about your observation concerning Disraeli; the evidence I've seen doesn't point to him having ulterior motives on the British Empire, or the English nation for that matter.



So here's my suggestion... Look into the relevant info yourself, do some reading around, be critical, try to view things from various perspectives to ensure you're not missing too much, and then come to your own conclusions. I'm not here to convince anyone, nor dictate to anyone... I just express my opinion as I see it, gleaned from the knowledge I've gained thus far.

I have 'read around', quite a lot actually. I've just come to different conclusions as far as Disraeli's intentions are concerned based on what I've encountered.

I understand you're just expressing your opinion; that's perfectly fine. I'm just trying to challenge one of your opinions in a rational manner, that's all.



You are out of order to demand so rudely that I provide evidence to support my views. If you wish to have a conversation about it, fine. We can exchange ideas. If not, naff off.

WHOA! I wasn't trying to 'demand' evidence, nor was I trying to be rude. You've misinterpreted my post. It wasn't my intention at all to come off as 'pushy' or demanding. I'm very much interested in hearing your ideas on the issue; that's all I was trying to get at in the post. I apologize for the misunderstanding.



I don't know what you're talking about.... "deliberately weaken the US through the promotion of integration/race-mixing" :confused: When did I say they did this in the US?? In fact, I don't think that I mentioned "integration/race-mixing" at all in this thread. You are assuming too much Mock Turtle.... and I think you're confused.

No, I'm not confused. I was just taking your reasoning a step further concerning the behavior of 'Zionist elites' and the US. It's well-known that Jews are disproportionately represented in the US media; that has been the case since before the Second World War. Obviously, much of the success of the left-wing integrationists and egalitarians is due to the undeniable support coming from the mainstream media. My point was, what purpose would it serve for the Jewish minority to do this? It has clearly had a 'weakening effect' on the country.

I understand you're talking about the UK, but this point is about the US, where the Jews are clearly an influential minority group.



When I said "what use is a broken tool?", I was meaning that it wouldn't have been in the Zionists' interests to promote "racial egalitarianism and 'pro-integrationism" in the UK because this would undermine the strength and stability of the body they wish to use for their own purposes.... and that would make no sense now, would it?

As far as the US and China are concerned : The Zionists used the US economy, political power and military to suit their own purposes, and now that the US has been compromised for various reasons, the Zionists are putting their support into the next world power and economic powerhouse.... China. It's a matter of being insightful, and seizing opportunities as they arise, for the Zionist leaders.

I understand perfectly the point you're making -- they gravitate towards the most powerful country, and if they happen to support that country it is only through self-interest and not out of a genuine concern for the interests of that country.

Essentially, you're saying that this behavior is following a coherent pattern in terms of ethnic self-interest and separatism. THAT'S where my other point comes in: how does the other behavior of Jews (i.e. the integration promoting behavior) fit in with this otherwise coherent pattern? The widespread Jewish support for policies such as integration/miscegenation is thoroughly documented (I can provide references on request). You're talking about 'seizing opportunities'; well, in this case, what transpired was more than that, it also involved actively supporting certain ideologies that have clearly weakened the US. I'm just asking how you reconcile these facts with the idea that there is an underlying pattern to 'Zionist behavior' in history.

SouthernBoy
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 11:07 PM
When you say "valid-comparison", you are suggesting that miscegenation between Native Americans and white Americans is no worse than miscegenation between English and Dutch. If I'm wrong, correct me and cease using an extreme example of something to exaggerate my circumstance. It is only "no worse" inasmuch as both are miscegenatory and I dislike all miscegenation. If you asked whether I would rather an English marry a Dutch than a mixed American marry a Native American, I would answer that I would prefer the former.

It was a "valid-comparison" because both instances are wrong and the same justification seemed ascribed to both. It is not important as to which is more wrong in my opinion.
Try Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland). Though no doubt you'd be reluctant to accept it as a real nation in the strict sense of the word. Switzerland is a country, not a nation. ;)
So are they not permitted to call themselves "British"? They can call themselves whatever they like. They are not "British" as I understand it. :)
I didn't disqualify him from being English. My Father is English and proudly so. But if we're getting pedantic about the relationship between the names of countries and the stock therein, then it is more specific to call him "British" because his ancestry extends beyond those who forged the nation of England. Is he descended from those who forged the nation of England? Do you mean to suggest that he is not English because his English ancestors have ancestors who were not English by virtue of there being no England?
Why do you accept Celtic and Germanic interbreeding as rightful to 'England' but not Germanic and Germanic interbreeding as acceptable? Why should my Father be allowed to call himself 'English' when he is not of 100% Saxon lineage? Your logic seems inconsistent. I do not accept Celtic and Germanic interbreeding as "rightful" to England. Your father is "allowed" to call himself English insofar is he might be descended from those "who forged the nation of England" as you phrased it. :)

I would have opposed the mixing that took place during the creation of the English nation were I alive when it took place. I was not and the English nation in my estimation is worthy of distinction. It has ceased to be a mixture of ethnic-groups and has become an ethnic-group. The Dutch are similarly situated.
No, I'm saying that it has not sprouted further tangeable racial groups since the English and the Dutch. Therefore, my English/Dutch mix is no more of a bastardisation - and is not a new bastardisation - than when the Saxons first came to Britain and altered its genetic make-up forever. While it might be argued that it is "no more of a bastardisation," it is a "new bastardisation." Miscegenation in the past does not justify miscegenation in the present as "two wrongs do not make a right."
I believe that the English are not wholly descended from the indigenous peoples of Britain. The English (aside from a vast minority whose bloodline is traceable as pure Saxon) are a Celtogermanic mix. I'm not qualified to suggest what ratio of Saxon to pre-Saxon this mixture is but I do know that Saxon genetic traits are not indigenous to the piece of land called 'Britain'. I agree. :)
Are you serious? Yes.
Even if such a ridiculous idea were in any way realistic, how would it help the situation? It would "stop the bleeding" and prevent further ethnic-mixing.
Where would me, my 'mixed' wife and my 'mixed' children be able to call home? You can "call home" wherever you choose. I do not know where you should live however. How destructive might you be? Will you pursue ethnic-mixing for your children as you have for yourself?
Is it useful to create a new ethnicity for every mixture in the world? Do you really want to mathematically square the number of ethnicities in the world be creating a new one for every possible combination of ethnicities? I do not believe an ethnicity should be said to exist after one generation of ethnic-mixing.
How about people who are the product of an English/Dutch Father and an English Mother (like my children will be)? Will they constitute a new ethnicity who are only permitted to mate with other quarter-Dutch Englishmen? They will not constitute a new ethnicity, but they should only mate with other ¼ Dutch and ¾ English people. "The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons," as it is said. You will have limited those with whom they should mate.
Let's return to the real world and find real ways to deal with situations like mine. I'm opposed to misgenation across different races. Germanics constitute one race and are genetically compatible. I wouldn't have done what my Father did and married outside of Britain, but I am lucky that he at least chose another Germanic woman so that me and my brothers are not of mixed-race. I can think of no reason anyone should not count their blessings, but to ethnically-mix like your father did is wrong and unfair to your children. :(
Furthermore, being born and raised in England, and knowing no other language or culture, we are genetically and culturally indistinguishable from other Englishmen. There are other important means of distinguishment.
A person of mixed race (and sound mind) would never become interested or involved in racial or cultural preservation in the first place. They would inter-marry with others who are equally as uninterested in preservation, and if everyone were preservationists - as they should be - then this person would not find a mate. Any person of "sound mind" will become interested in racial and cultural preservation and I wish it were that everyone were preservationists. We might not be in this predicament. ;)
I stand for British and Germanic preservation. The British culture is the only one I know, and the Dutch blood running through my veins adds nothing, and 'spoils' nothing of the British/English genepool.We may never agree on this. :(

RedJack
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:26 AM
You whine about foreign immigrants from outside of Europe, but you fail to see immigration to Europe is as detrimental to the "Britishness" of your country.

That's just silly. Obviously Dutch, or Swedes or Norse or Germans moving to Britain aren't changing the racial make up of the island. Pakis, etc. are. The Poles are more different than the Germanics, but still not as alien as the Asians. Of course, Britain is overpopulated as it is, so any large amount of immigration even from kindred peoples would be a problem because of overcrowding, but Cythraul here certainly isn't, especially since he is willing to speak out about and resist the displacement of the British.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:55 AM
You are either English or you are not.Have you heard of Leo Felton (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fforums.s kadi.net%2Fredirector.php%3Furl%3Dhttp%2 53A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%2 52FLeo_Felton)? What is a "good chunk?" Did you miss my "out of Africa" analogy? Some might perceive Asians as being less exotic than blacks. Both are exotic and an English should want for neither, nor should they want for a Dutch.

Were the Celts, Saxons, Danes, Normans, magically English only after they set foot on English soil?

Are the descendants of Danes to be viewed as foreign?

I don't see where any of this gets us. The English are a mix of the indigenous folk, plus Continental invaders. This makes the English what they are.

There need to be shades of grey in all of this. A German from Schleswig-Holstein may feel closer in many respects to the Danish than he does to his German compatriots far down in Bavaria (who knows).

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 01:16 AM
Were the Celts, Saxons, Danes, Normans, magically English only after they set foot on English soil? They became English in my opinion. :)
Are the descendants of Danes to be viewed as foreign? Which descendents of Danes is it to which you are referring?
I don't see where any of this gets us. The English are a mix of the indigenous folk, plus Continental invaders. This makes the English what they are. They are what they are and should stay that way. ;)
There need to be shades of grey in all of this. A German from Schleswig-Holstein may feel closer in many respects to the Danish than he does to his German compatriots far down in Bavaria (who knows). Does that German not feel closer to another German from Schleswig-Holstein than to either a Bavarian German or a Dane?

I am not averse to regionalism. It is important to mate with a person as similar to onesself as possible. :)

Deary
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 03:28 AM
Southernboy, what do you suggest Cythraul do? He has no control over the fact that he is half-Dutch. He has no option but to choose one side of his heritage to identify with and preserve. It is most logical that he favor British considering his upbringing. From what I can tell, he isn't advocating multiculturalism or the decisions of his parents; he's trying to do better. Cythral is handling the situation of his mixed heritage as best as he possibly can. We should, at least, be thankful for this and for the fact that his Dutch background won't be any drop of poison to the blood of the Isles. There is no sense in lecturing and ridiculing someone for things beyond their reach, and especially someone that could set as an example for many.

I didn't read every argument made on the matter. I apologize if I have repeated points or misinterpreted anything.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 06:28 AM
Southernboy, what do you suggest Cythraul do?
I believe you should locate a half-English and half-Dutch woman of your caliber and have as many children as you can afford.[...]
He has no control over the fact that he is half-Dutch. He has no option but to choose one side of his heritage to identify with and preserve. I believe he has other options. :)
From what I can tell, he isn't advocating multiculturalism or the decisions of his parents; he's trying to do better. Cythral is handling the situation of his mixed heritage as best as he possibly can. We should, at least, be thankful for this and for the fact that his Dutch background won't be any drop of poison to the blood of the Isles. Did you read all that he wrote?
There is no sense in lecturing and ridiculing someone for things beyond their reach, and especially someone that could set as an example for many. I agree. ;)
I didn't read every argument made on the matter. I apologize if I have repeated points or misinterpreted anything. Do not worry. It happens all the time. :D

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 08:25 AM
SouthernBoy,

You haven't got a leg to stand on. A by-product of a Dutch **mother**, English surname remember, English father telling him how the world works, and so on..... as a rare occurrence in the nation of England.....

Guess what, this man will be fully assimilated!!

Cythraul
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 08:27 AM
We may never agree on this. :(
I fear we won't, but nevertheless, it's been an interesting, if occasionally demeaning debate.

And Deary - among others - made a valuable point. I don't fully advocate my Father's initial choice of bride, but they are both wonderful parents who I'm grateful for. Luckily, since he chose a Germanic woman, my future bloodline has not been put in jeopardy. There is no solution for a child of mixed-race, only prevention. Fortunately for me, I'm not mixed-race and I'm near-certain my Father would never have chosen a non-Celto-Germanic woman.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 09:34 AM
It is only "no worse" inasmuch as both are miscegenatory and I dislike all miscegenation. If you asked whether I would rather an English marry a Dutch than a mixed American marry a Native American, I would answer that I would prefer the former.

It was a "valid-comparison" because both instances are wrong and the same justification seemed ascribed to both. It is not important as to which is more wrong in my opinion. Switzerland is a country, not a nation. ;) They can call themselves whatever they like. They are not "British" as I understand it. :) Is he descended from those who forged the nation of England? Do you mean to suggest that he is not English because his English ancestors have ancestors who were not English by virtue of there being no England? I do not accept Celtic and Germanic interbreeding as "rightful" to England. Your father is "allowed" to call himself English insofar is he might be descended from those "who forged the nation of England" as you phrased it. :)

I would have opposed the mixing that took place during the creation of the English nation were I alive when it took place. I was not and the English nation in my estimation is worthy of distinction. It has ceased to be a mixture of ethnic-groups and has become an ethnic-group. The Dutch are similarly situated. While it might be argued that it is "no more of a bastardisation," it is a "new bastardisation." Miscegenation in the past does not justify miscegenation in the present as "two wrongs do not make a right." I agree. :) Yes. It would "stop the bleeding" and prevent further ethnic-mixing. You can "call home" wherever you choose. I do not know where you should live however. How destructive might you be? Will you pursue ethnic-mixing for your children as you have for yourself? I do not believe an ethnicity should be said to exist after one generation of ethnic-mixing. They will not constitute a new ethnicity, but they should only mate with other ¼ Dutch and ¾ English people. "The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons," as it is said. You will have limited those with whom they should mate. I can think of no reason anyone should not count their blessings, but to ethnically-mix like your father did is wrong and unfair to your children. :( There are other important means of distinguishment. Any person of "sound mind" will become interested in racial and cultural preservation and I wish it were that everyone were preservationists. We might not be in this predicament. ;)We may never agree on this. :(

Not to get personal, but your own profile reads "Ethnicity: English/Scottish/Irish", doesn't that make you more mixed than him?

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 09:45 AM
You haven't got a leg to stand on. I have several. ;)
I fear we won't, but nevertheless, it's been an interesting, if occasionally demeaning debate. Thank you for all the responses. :)

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."

Not to get personal, but your own profile reads "Ethnicity: English/Scottish/Irish", doesn't that make you more mixed than him? Is it more a case of the pot calling the kettle black or of the pot calling the kettle a kettle?

Oswiu
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:38 PM
Some pretty absurd stuff has been written in this thread!
This caught my eye, though:

Let me qualify, once and for all, why I call myself "British" and not "English". It is because my Father (and therefore myself also), whilst largely English, has some pre-Saxon blood no doubt. Looks like I'm a mongrel in more ways than one. Oh dear.
Cythraul, I beg you, drop the 'British'. Be 'English'. Your father is English, and your reasons for diminishing his Englishness apply to all Englishmen. Were they valid, there would be no such thing as Englishmen from 450 AD onwards! Your Dutch mother is of an allied stock to the English and has had little cultural impact on you.

Being British might soon have as much relevance and power as people who are to all intents and purposes Russian identifying themselves as 'Sovetsky' in the newly Ukrainianising Crimea'. Look what is happening to them. Englishness is under enough attack from without, we don't need valuable Englishmen with Dutch mothers chipping away at it from within. I have far more reason to call myself 'British' than you do, but even I forgo that.

Bridie
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:42 PM
^ Well said Os. :)


And this caught my eye in particular....


I don't fully advocate my Father's initial choice of bride,

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Cythraul
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:53 PM
^ Well said Os. :)


And this caught my eye in particular....



:eek: :eek: :eek:
I suspect you might have misinterpreted what I meant there so before some faeces hits a fan, know that what I meant is that I think it makes most sense to find a partner from within your own country. "Advocate" was the wrong word. Another statement of mine said how grateful I am for my mother and how I wouldn't change her for anyone. In terms of character, my Father couldn't have chosen a better woman. The fact that she is Dutch doesn't bother me, I just feel the most ideal partnership to be between two with the same nationality.

And Oswiu - I see your point. I think I explained to you once how my inclination to use the term "British" stems from my fascination with megalithic Britain. But your request is noted ;)

Oswiu
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 03:32 PM
And Oswiu - I see your point. I think I explained to you once how my inclination to use the term "British" stems from my fascination with megalithic Britain. But your request is noted ;)
I share the fascination, and I do think I half recall our earlier talk on the same theme - I'm probably repeating myself now, but what the hell: These monuments have been visited, studied, venerated, and had folklore attached to them by English people for a millenium and a bit. Their history didn't stop when the nearby villagers ceased to understand and name them in the original way they were intended. Modern archaeology neglects this aspect of them, and modern new-age rubbish is usually too reliant on a poor understanding of this archaeology. There's a missing link of meaning here - the old English folklore surrounding the Stones.

And look at my get out clause - I recognise the political and strategic need to go for 'English' as my ethnic title, but I still have a 'religion' field in my user details to fill in! :p

Cythraul
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 03:44 PM
And look at my get out clause - I recognise the political and strategic need to go for 'English' as my ethnic title, but I still have a 'religion' field in my user details to fill in! :p
Yes! I like that. It's a nice touch. And actually, all jokes aside, it's a pretty accurate way of describing me - Politically and culturally 'English', whilst spiritually 'British'. Good work ;). I might have to steal your idea.

Heiliger Tod
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 10:10 AM
Personally I would marry a woman of any Northern European stock, be they Dutch, Belgian, French, German, Scandinavian, Russian or English, whatever. I am one for the preservation of English heritage but at the same time I'm not quite this obsessive about it! :p

Most likely they'll be English anyway seeing as thats where I'm from/living.

Cythraul
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008, 11:33 AM
Personally I would marry a woman of any Northern European stock, be they Dutch, Belgian, French, German, Scandinavian, Russian or English
I probably would too, but I do think it's preferable to pair up with an English rose ;).