How true are our national identities?

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Englegast

Did you know that there are only 24 words of Celtic origin in the English language?

I didn't.

Of course since 1707 England has been submerged in the UK, but the old identity is begining to reawaken.

Yes, that's what I meant. Britishism f.e. is wrong : Pakis or Jamaicans are not english nor british. In fact I was refering to my own country. My identity , national and ethnic, has been misleaded.

[Englegast]

Yes, that's what I meant. Britishism f.e. is wrong : Pakis or Jamaicans are not english nor british.

British itself as an identity originally meant the descendents of the ancient Britons who today are the Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrians. British as you probably understand it was coined by James 1 in that sense it is artificial. But it has been corrupted now by the liberal-fascists to include anyone born in the UK. It gets worse since communist mayors like Ken Livingston now try to claim the pakis and negroes are English.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Englegast

Of course since 1707 England has been submerged in the UK,

Most unpleasant for all concerned

but the old identity is begining to reawaken.

Let's hope so, then we can all dispense with the faux-British identity

[Gil]

A good rule of thumb:



Almost all previous anglo-saxon settlements became "England", "the land of Engles or Angles" and the rest of the isle retained most of their indigenous population.
Of course there is something called genetic drift and population movements and as such over the course of the centuries the other regions received anglo-saxon input and England more indigenous input.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Englegast

liberal-fascists

To whom are you referring? B.N.P. perhaps?

[Englegast]

To whom are you referring? B.N.P. perhaps?

Nope the establishment parties Labour, Tories, Liberals. Claim to be for democracy and freedom of speech but are no more than fascists with a liberal bent. Political Correctness is their weapon of choice. I am a member of National Front myself. I consider BNP to be far to leniant in its attitude to non-whites.

[Englegast]

Almost all previous anglo-saxon settlements became "England", "the land of Engles or Angles" and the rest of the isle retained most of their indigenous population.
Of course there is something called genetic drift and population movements and as such over the course of the centuries the other regions received anglo-saxon input and England more indigenous input.

Have you seen these studies carried out on the y-chromosone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/program...sults_01.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/19/7/1008

[Englegast]

Let's hope so, then we can all dispense with the faux-British identity

Northern Ireland is going to be a difficult issue to solve. I have only recently been researching Irish history, since finding out I have ancestors from there, the only resolution I can see is an independent Ulster. Perhaps with a slow integration into the republic.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Englegast

Northern Ireland is going to be a difficult issue to solve.

That's an understatement

I have only recently been researching Irish history, since finding out I have ancestors from there,

Where were they from?

the only resolution I can see is an independent Ulster.

That is what is advocated by some of the Loyalists, disillusioned with Britain & Unionism.
That won't work though, I'm afraid.
For a start, the majority of people in Ulster want to be part of a 32 county Republic. The confusion arises here is because the Unionists refer to the six county statelet as "Ulster". This is incorrect. What they are actually reffering to is "Northern Ireland". The two are not the same thing. Ulster is a historic province which consists of nine counties. Six of them are British controlled (Northern Ireland) and three have been part of the Republic since day one. The fact is that you have around 40% of N.I. being Nationalists, when you add the overwhelming Nationalist majority in the Ulster counties om the ROI then there is a clear majority in favour of unification. That is in fact the reason why the border was drawn round only six of the nine counties in th first place, to guarantee what they thought would be a permanent Unionist majority.

Perhaps with a slow integration into the republic.

I think that is what will happen. I think that is what is happeneing at the moment.
The demographics are telling. The nationalist population is outstripping the unionist population in N.I. Their permanent inbuilt majority turns out not to be so permanent as they had thought. The way things are going they will not be able to claim that N.I is part of the UK based on a democratic right.
Some Unionists have advocated "Re-Partition". That is give Derry, Tyrone & Fermanagh to the Republic (all three now have Nationalist majorities) and make N.I. comprise of the three that still have a Unionist majority (Antrim, Armagh, Down). But really, this is only delaying the inevitable. What happens 50 years on when those last three have nationalist majorites as well?

I think Dublin & London are basically preparing the way for N.I. to be intergrated with the rest of Ireland. I cannot see the IRA disbanding for anything less, to be honest

[Englegast]

That's an understatement

He He maybe.

Where were they from?

Well my great grandmother on my mothers side was from Cork. I have not been able to trace much beyond that though. She married a Scotsman from Perthshire. My great grandmother on my fathers side was registered as living in Salford in Manchester. I do not if she was born there or in Ireland, her parents however were from Ireland, but the record I have does not say where exactly. As it happens I am expecting a phone call from a cousin of mine tonight who might be able to help me there. I also have a sneeking suspicion that another great grand-mother on my fathers side was Welsh, I don't know this for certain.

Well as far as I personaly am concerned the north belongs to Ireland. It is quite ironic really that the Unionists are more pro-British than most people in the UK. I blame the Normans for the bad blood between Engle and Gael. Anglo-Irish relations before the conquest were very good.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Englegast

I am a member of National Front myself. I consider BNP to be far to leniant in its attitude to non-whites.

I thought that NF was no longer in existance.

This lenient attitude towards immigrants by the BNP.. do you refer to such things as a half Turk (I think) having made it into the BNP, and some Jews too?
In any case, BNP is, to the best of my knowledge, a WN party. Which makes of it a unique case outside America.

What about England First?

[Englegast]

I thought that NF was no longer in existance.

Nope still kicking, just.

This lenient attitude towards immigrants by the BNP.. do you refer to such things as a half Turk (I think) having made it into the BNP, and some Jews too?

Well if you read their manifesto. They don't even believe in compulsary repatriation.

In any case, BNP is, to the best of my knowledge, a WN party. Which makes of it a unique case outside America.

But like you said above they have a Jew, a half-Turk, and a Sikh who stood for council elections in Newcastle. They are not a WN party, they claim to be a British nationalist party. In my oppinion they are just a vehicle for Nick Griffin's ego. I know many BNP'ers who are pissed off with him.

What about England First?

There are no true English nationalist parties. Something I am looking into myself.

Besides there won't be an England if there are no whites here. So it is a caseof needs must.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Englegast

Well if you read their manifesto. They don't even believe in compulsary repatriation.

Repatriation/deportation is a problem that we are finding in Spain nowadays with every arrival of illegal immigrants. They can't "repatriate" them because they do no state their country of origin, and the Moroccan authorities, once they have left Morocco, they don't admit them back in through legal channels.

For repatriation, you need two ends. One country that wants to deport them, and another country that wants to admit them as nationals.

Now, for England this poses the problem that most of the immigrants are not a new phenomenon. Most have been there for a couple of generations. No other country is going to admit them as nationals. Further, the levels of mixing between natives and immigrants is not low, and neither is their spring.

I remember seeing many English young women pulling a trolley with, most often, a half black baby and then another one from their hands. That was some 7 years ago, and it was normal to see it in the working class areas. I believe that most were single mothers. Then, among the middle-high class, mixing with types such as second generation Indians was not all that rare.

With such high rates of half-castes who have no other citizenship but the British, repatriation in international legal terms is not a choice.

Umh.. LOL. I was thinking that perhaps the solution may only lie in using the U.S. as a dump. I never thought that they might be of any use. Surprise, surprise.

But like you said above they have a Jew, a half-Turk, and a Sikh who stood for council elections in Newcastle.

Isn't that the result of "Britishism"? I observed that most immigrants from former British colonies never refered themselves as "English", but they did call themselves "British". That seemed to be widely accepted.

That, I believe, it is the result of clinging to ideas of imperialism which block the development of a proper nationalist idea. Under Britishism (imperialism), there is room for the acceptance of peoples who have English as their language and culture.

[Englegast]

For repatriation, you need two ends. One country that wants to deport them, and another country that wants to admit them as nationals.

This is true. In the case of the Asians though many of them still have property and/or relatives back in India. The real problem will be what to do with the blacks. Also remember Idi Armin?

Now, for England this poses the problem that most of the immigrants are not a new phenomenon. Most have been there for a couple of generations. No other country is going to admit them as nationals. Further, the levels of mixing between natives and immigrants is not low, and neither is their spring.

Some immigrants are 3rd generation. But as the Duke of Wellington famously said, not everything born in a stable is a horse.

The mixed-race percentage is about 2.5%. I think race mixing has been over exaggerated, largely by the marxist-multi culti media.

With such high rates of half-castes who have no other citizenship but the British, repatriation in international legal terms is not a choice.

Well that would depend on the strength of the nationalist government in power. As I said above remembet Idi Armin?

Isn't that the result of "Britishism"? I observed that most immigrants from former British colonies never refered themselves as "English", but they did call themselves "British". That seemed to be widely accepted.

Not as many refer to themselves as British as you might imagine. Many are British-Asian/Muslim/black etc. The majority though still refer to themselves as Sikh, Indian etc. Remember the picture that media land paints, and the real word are often very different.

That, I believe, it is the result of clinging to ideas of imperialism which block the development of a proper nationalist idea. Under Britishism (imperialism), there is room for the acceptance of peoples who have English as their language and culture.

This is very true. Post-imperialism is something that is affecting the English more than most. The Welsh, Scots and indeed Irish elites were as much benefiters from the empire as the English elite. The difference was that these countries retained their identity in opposition to the London government, especially Ireland. The English managed to submerge themselves into "Britishness" in a way that the other island nations did not. The end of empire and the slow dissolution of the UK is leaving many English at a loss to who they are.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Englegast

This is true. In the case of the Asians though many of them still have property and/or relatives back in India.

Isn't there an Indian woman who is a British peer? Lady ... ?

The real problem will be what to do with the blacks.

I remember a.. umh.. black Labour(?) MP who years ago proposed that the British Government paid the repatriation of Afro-Caribbeans, and a subsidy for them to live there.

The proposal provoked outrage among all British politicians.

Also remember Idi Armin?

Blurly, and unless you refer to the events where he chopped off people and put them in the fridge, I don't know what about him.

The mixed-race percentage is about 2.5%. I think race mixing has been over exaggerated, largely by the marxist-multi culti media.

Well, I was speaking from my personal observations. Of course that this will vary much depending on areas.

Well that would depend on the strength of the nationalist government in power.

It would be fooling oneself to think that any country in Europe can solve the situation alone, isolating itself from the rest of the European countries and from the rest of the world.

It would be already very difficult in some countries, and almost impossible in other countries where the numbers of immigrants of several generations account for much of the population.