Englishmen, and Other Aborigines

[Brigid]

The English have a been a conquered people since the late 17th century, most of them just don't realise it.

Yeah, probably.

A quick objective look at their history would lead one to conclude quite the opposite, in fact.

You don't understand where I'm coming from on this obviously. You will see from my other posts that I'm not in denial about the atrocities that the English have inflicted on many innocent peoples... what I'm saying is that the English today need to move on and not live in the past.

Why should I personally feel guilty for the things that occurred? Why should I feel ashamed of my forefathers? I don't.

The English are neither the stronger nor the fittest.
For a long time they were the richest, firstly because they were financially backed by The Tribe & then from there they proceeded to undertake theft on a global scale. You do realise that the history of "Britain" as you understand it today is the story of Jewish hegemony. Britain is a thoroughly kosher affair.

I have heard people alluding to it.

Are you joking?
What guilt? They don't seem guilty about maintainin their little Imperial outposts throughout the world. They haven't felt guilty enough to withdraw their occupation forces from Ireland or Gibraltar or the Malvinas. In fact they are preparing to celebrate their re-occupation of the Falklands and have even invited the Argentinian government over to rub their noses in it all with a typically British display of triumphalism.

Well, you are speaking from a biased point of view. This is obviously an emotive topic for you. I know what the Protestants in Northern Ireland are like, they are arrogant, self-righteous assholes generally, but you can't judge all English individuals on these people (assuming you tend to?).

The govt indicates no remorse via political strategies... well, that may be the case, but I was talking about individual English people.

Maybe you are referring to multiculturalism in Britian today?
But that stems directly from their Empire. If you go theiving, murdering and looting around the world and invade & occupy other people's countries then you've lost any moral basis to be outraged when the peoples you forcefully subjected to your rule then come over and settle in your country (often as a result of your country having turned their own into a backwards nowhere). It's silly to talk about recent multiculturalism in Britain anyway. It's been that way since it's inception. The entire concept of throwing English, Welsh, Scots and Irish together in one state is multicultural in itself.

I was, in part, referring indirectly to the English people's acceptance of it, not to the political policies themselves.

It is not those who can inflict the most, but those that can suffer the most who will conquer

Very emotive, if not overly sentimental.

[Reltih]

Originally Posted by Brigid

The English have nothing to be ashamed of... the strong over-taking the weak is the way of the world. Survival of the fittest.

Today they can be much prouder by the way they let and help pakis and indians do peacefully the same what they have done by weapons.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Brigid

No, I didn't forget them. Anglo-Saxon is a convenient blanket term to describe people who've descended from the Germanic tribes in the British Isles... and implies the dominance of Germanic culture, values etc within.

You're missing a large part of England's history if you think it is culturally Germanic and no more. I'll pull out the words which have French or Latin origins from your statement above: "convenient", "term", "describe", "people", "descended", "tribes", "British", "Isles", "implies", "dominance", "Germanic", "culture", "values", "etc".

England wasn't modern England until after 1066 when the French Normans came. These Normans were the first "Englishmen" to get a foothold in Ireland and were led by the very Frenchly named, Richard de Clare.

Which brings us to:

Originally Posted by Brigid

Vae Victis!
?

It is Latin for "the conquered have no rights" or "tough luck!".

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Brigid

Yeah, probably.

There can be little doubt, it's factual history.
The UK is not ruled by Westminister. It is ruled by the City of London Corporation. The City, as it is known, is a state within a state. It is above the law of the land.
In fact, MP's cannot even table questions to parliament where they concern the Bank of England. The City is in effect unaccountable and autonomous. It creates the laws, but it is not subject to them.

You don't understand where I'm coming from on this obviously. You will see from my other posts that I'm not in denial about the atrocities that the English have inflicted on many innocent peoples... what I'm saying is that the English today need to move on and not live in the past.

This is my point entirely. They need to move on. But they don't. They are still maintaining unwanted presence (including military) in foreign countries.
It's very hard to "move on" when part of your country has a foreign army patrolling the streets and supporting the government of a minority over a majority. When the empire stil exists in mothballed status (The Commonwealth) and there are still strategic imperial outposts dotted across the globe (which cost the UK a fortunate to maintain) then one wonders just how much intention there is of moving on. It may be simply that the methods have changed, but the motives have not.

Why should I personally feel guilty for the things that occurred? Why should I feel ashamed of my forefathers? I don't.

I didn't say you should. But neither should one think to pretend that England's crimes are all in the past and let's hear no more about it. They are still being committed as we speak. If we are to "move on" then we need to first address problems that still exist.

I have heard people alluding to it.

The defining moments of English & British history all involve Jewish finance or influence (Henry VIII & the Reformation, Cromwell's Civil War, The Williamite Revolution)

Well, you are speaking from a biased point of view. This is obviously an emotive topic for you. I know what the Protestants in Northern Ireland are like, they are arrogant, self-righteous assholes generally, but you can't judge all English individuals on these people (assuming you tend to?).

Actually, English people tend to have little in common with nothern Unionists.
The Unionist community is in some respects a parody of Britishness, a kind of Hollywood version of what they imagine Britishness to be. The Orange Order has recently said that the annual Orange marches should be promoted as a tourist attraction. I would go ever further and turn parts of East Belfast & certain other areas into a theme park.

The govt indicates no remorse via political strategies... well, that may be the case, but I was talking about individual English people.

Unfortunately, in a democracy the people elect the government.
You may not have personally, but if you are indifferent to certain policies that your elected government carry out then you are guilty by association. That, sadly, is the nature of the beast.

I was, in part, referring indirectly to the English people's acceptance of it, not to the political policies themselves.

But how many of them complain about the Union (which is multicultural) itself?
Are these people just racist as opposed to being against multiculturalism?

Very emotive, if not overly sentimental.

It reveals a very different way of thinking between two peoples.

[Errigal]

Quote: Brigid

You don't understand where I'm coming from on this obviously. You will see from my other posts that I'm not in denial about the atrocities that the English have inflicted on many innocent peoples... what I'm saying is that the English today need to move on and not live in the past.

England does have to move on. The England of today has nothing to do with images of Anglo-Saxon warriors, or even the British Empire at its height. Amazing as it might seem, the UK under Tony Blair is almost exclusively a tool of East European Jews from Russia and America. They use it as a safe haven, a money laundering operation, a home base for their propaganda campaign, and as a source of troops and diplomats to fight for Israel and the US. That is the "here and now" situation.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Brigid

Marrying native women?? That's very optimistic (blinkered) of you Susi. But no, I was referring to genocide, torture, rape... invasion in general.

Ever heard of the Métis?

No, I didn't forget them. Anglo-Saxon is a convenient blanket term to describe people who've descended from the Germanic tribes in the British Isles... and implies the dominance of Germanic culture, values etc within.

As Milesian said... what about the Latin, French, and Celtic influences? :\

You don't seem to be very knowledgeable when it comes to English (and Welsh and Irish and Scottish) history...

Oh, and for you...

There's no need to be insulting.

How the word was coined is perhaps of marginal importance, but not why. I disagree that the use of the word "white" is intended specifically to shift the blame of past atrocities (conducted by the British) to all Europeans.

I think the use of the word "white" has no purpose other then to lump all Europeans into one category (including the English).

Modern times are perverted though. Removed from the natural order of things as it were. I agree that now should be the time for us to see the survival of the fittest... but I fear we won't.

Remember what I said about romanticizing the past...?




Yes, this is what I said here...

Originally Posted by Brigid

Why should I personally feel guilty for the things that occurred? Why should I feel ashamed of my forefathers? I don't.

How long has your family been in Australia again...?

Well, you are speaking from a biased point of view. This is obviously an emotive topic for you. I know what the Protestants in Northern Ireland are like, they are arrogant, self-righteous assholes generally, but you can't judge all English individuals on these people (assuming you tend to?).

And you're speaking from one too. Personally, I agree with him.

[Brigid]

Righto... I hope everyone's having a great time aboard the bash Brigid bandwagon... ... but I'll kick all of your asses tommorrow It's too late here now and I'm too tired.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by A Few Acres of Snow

England does have to move on. The England of today has nothing to do with images of Anglo-Saxon warriors, or even the British Empire at its height. Amazing as it might seem, the UK under Tony Blair is almost exclusively a tool of East European Jews from Russia and America. They use it as a safe haven, a money laundering operation, a home base for their propaganda campaign, and as a source of troops and diplomats to fight for Israel and the US. That is the "here and now" situation.

That's about the sum total of it, yes.
But it extends back to the formation of the Union.
The price for financing Cromwell's New Model Army was the re-admission of Jews to England. The price for financing William's coup over the Stuart dynasty was the setting up of the Bank of England (ie. private control over the English economy). This gave the right to create and control money to a group of private bankers (formally, it was a royal perogative - the Royal Mint).
Rothschild once famously remarked that he cared not who made the laws, as long as he controlled the money (ie. he was the one in actual control of the country)

The Union with Scotland is said by some to have been largely about gaining control over the independent Scottish mint.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Brigid

Righto... I hope everyone's having a great time aboard the bash Brigid bandwagon... ... but I'll kick all of your asses tommorrow It's too late here now and I'm too tired.

Umh.. I won't jump in just now. You have a lot of work in arrears as it is at present. But don't hold your breath.

Originally Posted by Brigid

?

Vae Victis is Latin for "woe to the vanquished" (or to the "conquered"). See here. Defeat will be, without a hint of doubt, sour for the conquered.

[Brigid]

Today they can be much prouder by the way they let and help pakis and indians do peacefully the same what they have done by weapons.

I don't think mass immigration, displacement of natives and enforced multiculturalism can ever truly be considered peaceful.

You're missing a large part of England's history if you think it is culturally Germanic and no more.

No, I didn't say that it was culturally Germanic and no more. I said predominantly. But of course this is debatable.

Look, everyone who detests me using the blanket term "Anglo-Saxon"... I've only come to use it since frequenting these sorts of forums as a means of distinguishing between predominantly Germanic Brits and predominantly Celtic Brits. Some seem to consider themselves more one than the other (this is highly subjective) depending on which areas of Britain their ancestors originated and what sub-race they belong to. I have no qualms with just using the label "English"... it's all just semantics to me. I think people know who I refer to.

There can be little doubt, it's factual history.
The UK is not ruled by Westminister. It is ruled by the City of London Corporation. The City, as it is known, is a state within a state. It is above the law of the land.
In fact, MP's cannot even table questions to parliament where they concern the Bank of England. The City is in effect unaccountable and autonomous. It creates the laws, but it is not subject to them.

I'd be interested in reading more on this. Have you got any sources I can read up on?

I didn't say you should. But neither should one think to pretend that England's crimes are all in the past and let's hear no more about it. They are still being committed as we speak. If we are to "move on" then we need to first address problems that still exist.

Yes, you are implying that ethnic English should be ashamed and guilty then by saying that not only should the current problems be dealt with, but the past should weigh on modern English citizens too... as if individuals feeling so guilty as to allow complete esteem degradation and invasion will right past wrongs. It won't. You speak of "moving on" in the political arena, but this sphere is out of the hands of ordinary English. You say we need to address the problems that still exist... but what good will that do? I have no power to change things... I personally can only play with the hand I was dealt... and I have no power.

So the question is Milesian... who do you think the enemy is... the modern day English masses, the English politicians, The City of London Corporation or the Jews? Or all of the above? You hate them all?

Unfortunately, in a democracy the people elect the government.
You may not have personally, but if you are indifferent to certain policies that your elected government carry out then you are guilty by association. That, sadly, is the nature of the beast.

Rubbish. Democracies don't work that way and you know it. That is how it has been romanticised and idealised, but even in a democracy individuals have little power. To hold all personally accountable for the actions of their govt (indifference or no) is ridiculous. I must admit though, it is surely an effective justification for those who wish to despise all English people, believing them to be intrinsically and uniquely evil and deserving of suffering to feel righteous in doing so.

But how many of them complain about the Union (which is multicultural) itself?
Are these people just racist as opposed to being against multiculturalism?

I don't know about that.

It reveals a very different way of thinking between two peoples.

You mean you and me? Or the Irish and the English? Well, I hardly think I can be representative of the modern English mindset in general... especially when you consider that I'm actually Australian. Nevertheless, think of it from my point of view... your comment was on the offense, mine was on the defense.

England does have to move on. The England of today has nothing to do with images of Anglo-Saxon warriors, or even the British Empire at its height. Amazing as it might seem, the UK under Tony Blair is almost exclusively a tool of East European Jews from Russia and America. They use it as a safe haven, a money laundering operation, a home base for their propaganda campaign, and as a source of troops and diplomats to fight for Israel and the US. That is the "here and now" situation.

Sure. As I said, I'd like to read more on this.

Ever heard of the Métis?

No. And I just don't care about Canada to be honest.

You don't seem to be very knowledgeable when it comes to English (and Welsh and Irish and Scottish) history...

Like I said above, it's all just comes down to semantics and certain people here wanting to nit pick.

There's no need to be insulting.

No real need perhaps... but I do enjoy amusing myself.

How long has your family been in Australia again...?

I don't see the relevance? You might need to spell it out.

Umh.. I won't jump in just now. You have a lot of work in arrears as it is at present. But don't hold your breath.

Okay, I'm free for abusing now... but get in quick, this opportunity won't last forever.

[Carnyx]

Well, the thing that must have saved Aussies from miscegenation with Australian Abos was their unattractivness (of the latter I mean).
A squaw, I "can" understand in an extrem situation, now an Abo female... Now I have no doubt it takes place currently, but people are so fucked up they would reproduce with anyone or anything.

[Brigid]

Well, the thing that must have saved Aussies from miscegenation with Australian Abos was their unattractivness (of the latter I mean).
A squaw, I "can" understand in an extrem situation, now an Abo female...

Oh come on Carnyx, don't be racist. Black is beautiful, didn't you know? You know you want them...

Now I have no doubt it takes place currently, but people are so fucked up they would reproduce with anyone or anything.

Very very rare these days (and those men that do partner with abo women are almost exclusively drug-fucked dole bludgers), but it did happen with surprising frequency (ie, not that often, but still more than one would expect) in the days when men outnumbered women to a huge degree in Australia.

But whether we're talking about native American women or native Australian women being exploited, it makes no difference. Both situations can never be justified as it is/was WRONG. Men's preferences for sexual partners (play things) is irrelevant in these situations.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Brigid

Oh come on Carnyx, don't be racist. Black is beautiful, didn't you know? You know you want them...