Is England a nation for whites only?


by Sunny
21st January, 2008 at 12:28 pm    

On the OurKingdom blog, Anthony Barnett today does a very admirable job of taking apart the claim that England is a nation only for white people.

A nation is not a biological entity. Neither nationalism nor patriotism are racisms, even when racists avow them. Nationalism is an attachment to a polity, or would be polity. This is not a biological concept, its members are its citizens whatever their race. Benedict Anderson’s study ‘The Imagined Communities‘ shows why this is so in terms of the original development of nationalism. Perhaps knowing that any attempt to define a nation racially won’t work Gibson tries to use skin colour as if this was a “racialist principle”. But this is ridiculous. Any argument about skin colour soon forces us back to inner purity. We know where this leads.

“Our people will lose this country”, says Gibson. Wrong again. People like you never had it, Mr Gibson, whatever your real name, and will not do so now. The claim that “England is a white nation” is absurd as a concept, false historically, untrue as a description of the present, and will be repudiated as a claim on the future. Even better “biological egalitarianism” is true. Live with it!

20th century fascism, and even more so Nazism, was an imperial belief. It claimed the superiority of a race and set about to cleanse the surrounding parts of the planet. Gibson’s is a defensive fascism, which just asserts that England belongs to those he says are biologically qualified. But the claim is made with force despite the appearance of reason. The call to be strong, to oppose those who smell of weakness, to allege that anyone who does not “stand firm” merely accommodates out of a spineless desire for a quiet life, this is the language of the recruiting sergeant who exploits people’s anxiety with the appeal of potency.

I’ve just copied some of the main bits… but the whole article is quite brilliant. Read it and comment on it there or here.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Culture,Race politics






105 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. usy izzani faizti

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » Is England a nation for whites only? http://bit.ly/HmHzA




  1. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:20 pm  

    BTW, those “whites” are really mixed themselves…

  2. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:21 pm  

    “Indian=Indian=Hindu,

    I mean: India=Indian=Hindu

  3. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:28 pm  

    isn’t this a bit obvious – obviously if England had been a “nation” for only one race they wouldn’t let so many non-white people become citizens. Why don’t we have this discussion in the context of countries which did pursue such policies – for example in the 20th century – Egypt – threw many communities of people out of Alexandria – one of the ancient cosmpolitan cities – Jewish people for example. then there was turkey – the big swap with greece? And never mind the past i suppose – what about countries doing this now? currently? what about Arab countries – like Kuwait – and Saudi Arabia – their policy on citizenship and naturalisation – such that even people from neighbouring Arab countries – have to be around for 3 generations before they can become naturalised? Let’s focus on those places if we want to talk about this stuff. ( And given all the precious talk about Muslim brotherhood and the Muslim Ummah, it makes me laugh) compared to that stuff..

    now if you get a few people here talking about england being for whites, it seems to me to pale into comparison to stuff like ‘india for the hindus’ business, or ‘bangladesh for the bengalis’.

  4. Sid — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:40 pm  

    Yes absolutely Sonia.

    I can echo Morrissey’s words from his song “England is mine, it owes me a living” and I am not white and came here when I was 10. But I’ll vouch that no foreigner can sing these lines for any other country in the world. England we love you!

    Or Malaysia giving its Malay citizens preference in matters of business and job selection, as ‘bhumi-putros’ (children of the land), is nothing short of racist. Or the fact that if you’re a Bangladeshi passport holder, you have more difficulty walking across the border than travelling 10,000 miles to Seattle. Seattle we love you!

  5. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:45 pm  

    Does the UK do the same business as Italy, ie citizenship based on “blood” rather than being born on the soil?

    It’s so funny- an Arab friend of mine, Abdul, has lived in Italy for almost 30 years, and his wife has been there with him for more than 10. Their children were born in Italy, and the kids speak the Bolognese dialect like the old Bolognesi foggies out in the small towns. They are, in effect, Italian. Yet the kids can only have a “permesso di soggiorno” (residence permit).

  6. Ravi Naik — on 21st January, 2008 at 6:49 pm  

    I have to say I am not impressed by this article.

    Barnett is simply rebuking an old-school racist. Someone who says: “Good for the Scots I say. They are liars and opportunistic weasels and I loathe every one of them” or that “Blacks are not simply white people with a melanin problem”. We live in a world of subtle racism, which is a more ugly form.

    I don’t think there is a rational rebuttal against ‘England is for whites only’. You either believe race is the foundation of a nation, or you don’t. You either believe that people of different races must live segregated or you don’t.

  7. Jai — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:06 pm  

    Barnett is simply rebuking an old-school racist…..We live in a world of subtle racism, which is a more ugly form…..I don’t think there is a rational rebuttal against ‘England is for whites only’.

    I wonder how such people will react in the decades to come, with China and India (both obviously non-white nations) achieving an increasingly greater prominence in world affairs, and notions of automatic white superiority and supremacy thereby being challenged. Especially if — looking at the nearer future — Obama wins the US presidency.

    Think about it; the most powerful man in the world will be a black guy, and (apart from Russia) the 2 biggest countries everyone “at the top” in the West increasingly has to deal with will also be non-white.

    Perhaps the racists will revise their opinions. Or perhaps some of them will retreat further into their mental prisons, hiding under the blankets of their island fortress, attempting to make it a refuge of “white purity” in a rapidly-changing world where the balance of power will have slipped out of their control, relics of an obsolete era and an obsolete mindset, while the rest of the planet moves on.

  8. Ravi Naik — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:07 pm  

    “Does the UK do the same business as Italy, ie citizenship based on “blood” rather than being born on the soil?”

    I can be wrong, but being born on this soil does not automatically give you citizenship – your parents must have a residence status that allows them to remain in this country indefinitely.

    I didn’t know that Italy had a citizenship system based on ‘blood’. I have visited Italy several times on work, and have to say that although I was very well treated by the locals and Italian colleagues, I had very bad experiences with immigration officers when coming back to London – so I try to avoid going there. I got the feeling they are used treating brown guys as criminals, for some reason. Porca miseria!

  9. El Cid — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:18 pm  

    1) Why are you debating this nonsense?
    2) Why do you have to misquote this dickhead Gibson (“The English are a white nation” is not the same as England is a white nation”?
    3) Is PP institutionally paranoid?
    4) Did someone say strawman?

    I’m with Ravi

  10. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:44 pm  

    yep good point Sid, malaysia is a good example too.

    bangladesh refuses to give my husband citizenship, {or even a no visa stamp!) because i am a woman. pah. good old blighty however has let me become a citizen, so its a somewhat unfair situation ( the poor man has to apply for a tourist visa every time he visits me family.)

    Definitely Bangladeshi citizenship only for people descended through Bangladeshi males! And we are still denying Bihari children citizenship – let’s not forget that.

    as far as i know, if a baby is born in the UK, registering it as a British national depends on the visa status of the parents – i don’t know about the details, but i do know that regardless of the parents status or the lack thereof, if the child is living here for the next ten years ( i.e. once its 10) it is entitled to citizenship. I guess the idea of the law is to avoid the old ‘having your baby born somewhere you don’t live in order to get citizenship’ “trick”.

  11. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:48 pm  

    wikipedia seems to think that italy uses the right of blood system

  12. soru — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:53 pm  

    Does the UK do the same business as Italy, ie citizenship based on “blood” rather than being born on the soil?

    Either blood or soil works.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_citizenship#Classes_of_British_nationality

    British Citizenship can be acquired in the following ways:

    lex soli: By birth in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen at the time of the birth, or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom
    lex sanguinis: By descent if one of the parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (for example by birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation in the United Kingdom). Thus, British actress Emma Watson, born in France to British parents, has British citizenship.

  13. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 7:58 pm  

    “Either blood or soil works.”

    You’re right. I’m recalling an Australian woman I met who has UK citizenship because her Brit grandfather worked in India under Brit colonial rule, even though he was not born in Britain but born into a Brit Army family in British India. I thought that was kind of weird, esp. because the same logic does not apply the other way around (ie. Indians born under British rule, like my grand parents, don’t automatically qualify for Brit citizenship). Kind of a racist privilege, but I might be wrong in my analogy.

  14. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:00 pm  

    Sonia:

    “bangladesh refuses to give my husband citizenship, {or even a no visa stamp!) because i am a woman.”

    That happens across the border in India. The last time I checked, a resident or NRI female’s non NRI husband does not qualify for citizenship, but a man’s non NRI wife does if he is an NRI or Resident Indian.

    Again, I haven’t checked this in a long time, so the rules may have changed.

  15. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:00 pm  

    Basically, the UK restricted the jus soli thing in 1983, before that, anyone who had been born on british soil automatically became a citizen regardless of their parents status.

  16. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:02 pm  

    Sonia:

    “wikipedia seems to think that italy uses the right of blood system”

    Yes, it does.

    Ravi:

    “I can be wrong, but being born on this soil does not automatically give you citizenship”

    In the US, regardless of your parents’ status, if you were born on this soil, you are an American citizen. Perhaps one of the few redeeming factors we have here.

  17. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:08 pm  

    interesting that Desi..would be good to know if its changed or not.

    With bangladesh – like many countries in the MENA, nationality is only passed down to children through the male line ( something i have gone on and on about – here on PP and elsewhere). Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be a topic of much interest to too many people, including some who proclaim to be feminists! And ironically ( 0r not so ironically) bangladeshi women married to bangladeshi men don’t seem to be bothered about this too much.

  18. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:10 pm  

    Isn’t that really essentialist, the “right of blood” system? I mean, it’s a “racial” (which is a socially constructed idea) argument rather than your upbringing, where you were born and raised, etc. And I think the latter outweighs the former. How can you tell kids born and raised in Bologna, Italy, that they are not Italian when they speak the Bolognese dialect better than they speak Arabic, speak Italian as a mother tongue, and know only Italy as their primary home? Sure, they go to the UAE every once in a while, but their home is Bologna.

    And even looking at my own comment right above ^^ about language, upbringing, and being a native speaker speaks volumes. Is this how we define “citizenship”? That English/Italian, whatever is our mother tongue and that we were socially, politically, and “culturally (for lack of a better word) raised in the Brit/Italian/American environs qualifies and/or justifies citizenship? What of those who may be migrants (so not mother tongue English/Italian, and not primarily born and raised in the UK/America/Italy) and work, pay taxes, and have planted their feet in this new country? Are they less legitimately “citizens”?

    Of course, all this comes from the mess that we know of as the “nation-state,” with borders which create entities that you can “enter” and “exit;” borders which delineate rights, which are themselves tied to “citizenship”…

  19. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:14 pm  

    of course you’re right Desi.

    interestingly, the Germans who started all this jus sanguinis business, in 2000 –

    “German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000 to introduce a modified concept of jus soli. Prior to that date, German nationality law was based entirely on jus sanguinis.”

    personally, i think the idea of a ‘national’ citizen’ in itself in this global world – is problematic. the nation-state and its borders – and this idea of nation-states competing and needing standing armies – well look what good that ever did anyone. sigh.

  20. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:20 pm  

    Sonia:

    “personally, i think the idea of a ‘national’ citizen’ in itself in this global world – is problematic.”

    But don’t you think that in some ways, having citizenship tied to bureaucratic nation-state processes IDEALLY (not always in practice, as is evidenced here in the US) guarantees and protects rights more systematically than it did BEFORE the advent of nation-states? I think it was more arbitrarily applied, and I think that today’s stateless migrants’ situation is comparable to what it was like for the majority of the people back in the day (I am not a historical expert on this, so if anyone wants to chime in, please do!)

    The biggest problem in terms of the reality on the ground (ie the nation-state is here to stay for right now, whether we like it or not, even if its idea is being challenged via migration, transnationalism, and the Internet, etc) for me is the selection process of choosing WHO gets these rights and HOW they are applied.

  21. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:27 pm  

    to be honest Desi, i think it depends on who you are and where you are from. And i don’t think it is an easy question to answer, also it it is easy to think that as a first-world citizen. Given the situations wars cause, it creates a huge further difficulty for people who manage to physically avoid death, to go somewhere else and live – despite the lip service nations pay to the rights of refugees – its a tough world out there. and if you become stateless in this day and age -when most people aren’t – its a nightmare world indeed.

    i don’t know – its a hard thing to say – im not suggesting this is simple at all. if you’re inside, warm and cosy, i can see the logic, and if you’re outside, cold and left out, i can see that point of view too.

    so when are you off to nepal?

  22. Leon — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:40 pm  

    Oh bollox, messed up above, was deleting a load of the spam links and accidentally deleted the first non spam post, sorry to El Cid (I think it was his) for removing your post!

    *hopes Sunny doesn’t fire him*

    :(

  23. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:43 pm  

    Sonia:

    “And i don’t think it is an easy question to answer, also it it is easy to think that as a first-world citizen…if you’re inside, warm and cosy, i can see the logic, and if you’re outside, cold and left out, i can see that point of view too.”

    You are absolutely right, but I don’t think it can be reduced to “first world citizen,” though. I think it’s more accurate, IMO, to see how the wealthier you are, the more leverage you have in not only practicing your said citizenship, but even bypassing it to become a “stateless” yet PRIVILEGED person, like the transnational elite, regardless of whether you are from the First World or Third World.

    There are plenty of nation-state citizens in the First World who have felt, especially after 9/11, that their citizenship and blue passport don’t mean much anymore. Before, you used to think, “Well, I am an American citizen, I have x,y,z protections.” Now, it’s like “Oh, shit, I better not have anyone the reason to think that I might be a terrorist, even if I am a citizen.”

    And of course, the vulnerability of migrants and citizenshipless/resident permitless folks in these first world countries who live in a no-man’s land…

    But my point is that I think that the nation-state is going to be around a long time, and citizenship is tied to that. Because I think that citizenship is one of those things that guarantee certain rights which you can IDEALLY fight for within a nation-state, I don’t think citizenship is entirely a bad idea given the fact that most of the globe has been compartmentalized into nation-states. Citizenship the way it is practiced today is problematic; it definitely needs to be re-conceptualized, re-worked, and the privilege factor (whether it’s based on blood, soil, ethnicity, economic and political forces, etc) needs to be removed. Then the question would be, “Well, what about folks who do NOT live in a “successful nation-state”?

    And then, of course, it remains to be seen just how effectively the principles and rights of citizenship are applied.

    It’s all a big fucking mess.

  24. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:45 pm  

    Oh, I’m leaving on Feb. 17.

    That’s really soon, now that I think about it. Shit, shit shit :)

  25. El Cid — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:47 pm  

    can’t see ive noticed Leon
    so don’t worry about it.
    anyway, it wasn’t an earth-shattering comment.
    it was also a bit critical, which means it might have fallen foul of the creeping PP censor :)

  26. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 8:51 pm  

    Re: citizenship and having papers:

    It’s interesting that I lived in Italy for 4 years sans the proper documents without any substantial problems because I had an American passport. This was NOTHING compared to other immigrants who actually had the necessary papers but lived a much more precarious life. Sure, you feel the effects of not having proper documents because you can’t apply for jobs other than teaching English, or you can’t rent from landlords because you don’t have any of the papers they require you to show, healthcare wise you have to cough up the cash at a private clinic rather than be able to visit the public hospitals etc, and when folks check your passport can be a nerve wrecking experience, but by and large, you can totally get by without any major problems. I met document-less Americans living in Italy for as long as 12 years without any problems whatsoever.

    Then, there were my friends who were immigrants but not from wealthy countries, who had their papers, but went through hell. There is a definite difference, and seeing both sides of the coin made me really mindful of the unfair privileges that exist.

  27. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:00 pm  

    So for some, lack of citizenship is no problem. For others, even having citizenship and/or permits, etc means very little.

  28. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:01 pm  

    “and if you’re outside, cold and left out, i can see that point of view too.”

    People should not be left out in the cold….

  29. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:07 pm  

    Hey, Leon, that was MY comment you deleted! About the manufacturing of ethno-religious claims tied into nationalism and nation-states, like those who claim that India=Indians=Hindus, and Israel=Jews, and so many other places

  30. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:11 pm  

    Leon, you are fired.

    Sayonara, my friend.

  31. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:35 pm  

    yep desi, fair point about the first world citizen thingie – if one happens to be a well off third world citizen, same sort of cushion thingie applies..

    i agree with you the nation-state is going to be around for a long time. it is therefore useful and imperative to consider the problems that may be embedded in this, our dominant model of social organisation.
    in the end, the monopoly on violence is really the main problem for me, not necessarily a bounded-off social construct in itself ( any group can end up doing that effectively after all ) Its when that group gives itself the legitimacy to use violence in its interactions, when it would not give an individual that legitimacy, or other organisations. i don’t see why if nowadays one State (i.e. that make up the United States) won’t declare war on another State, and similarly for example, one London Borough wouldn’t think of declaring war on another London borough, we can’t extend the same principle theoretically to nation-states. Of course the difficulty lies in the mutuality aspect – the non-violence expectation has to go both ways – otherwise boom!

  32. sonia — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:35 pm  

    ooh yes..not very far away! but very exciting..

  33. Jai — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:45 pm  

    2) Why do you have to misquote this dickhead Gibson (”The English are a white nation” is not the same as England is a white nation”?

    That’s actually a very good point. Having read the full article, the problem is that Gibson appears to be using the term “nation” to mean both an ‘ethnic’ group and a country, in the sense of “England only for the English”, etc etc.

    In reality, of course, the two terms aren’t automatically interchangeable and the presumption here is certainly not accurate, at least not in the modern era.

    And the claim that white people will become a minority in England by the middle of this century as stated in his full comment is completely false. Gibson is either grossly misinformed or he’s lying his head off.

    However, his article is a good example of the articulate, intelligent racist using pseudo-intellectual arguments, verbal sophistry and manipulation to play on people’s fears and promote his bigoted agenda.

  34. Roger — on 21st January, 2008 at 9:58 pm  

    Some years ago an Irishman maintained to me that england was a country for whites. Unethically but effectively I asked him what made him think the Irish are white.

  35. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 10:12 pm  

    Sonia:

    “therefore useful and imperative to consider the problems that may be embedded in this, our dominant model of social organisation.”

    But it’s also the dominant model of POLITICAL-ECONOMIC organization as well. It’s also the manager of allocation of resources, goods, benefits, etc.

    And coupled with this, you have as you point out here

    “Its when that group gives itself the legitimacy to use violence in its interactions, when it would not give an individual that legitimacy, or other organisations”

    both of which have created enormous “gray areas” because they lie outside the jurisdiction and/or “legitimacy” of the monopoly and/or use of markets, violence, etc. Like organized crime, trafficking, black market, being significant political-economic actors, and the way we brand individuals/groups as militias- those who exercise violence, which supposedly only the state has legitimate monopoly over.

    So, bringing this back to citizenship, that nation-state- as of right now- is one of the managers of political-economic governance and social organization. For people to reap these benefits and protections (such as union laws, minimum wage, etc), they should be able to have access to this and be part and parcel if they wish.

    Problem is that this is all ideally; plenty of governments manipulate and take advantage of the fact that they hold the key to political-economic and social organizing, and they use this to supress certain folks and/or exclude them; plenty of state policies discriminate and apply certain principles arbitrarily; and in some cases, the principles and laws themselves are completely flawed.

    I don’t have an easy answer either; I’m torn between what I believe ideally and what the realities on the ground are. If this current system is to be improved for the better, citizenship needs to be re-visited while keeping all of the messy realities in mind (stateless folks, exploited ones, vulnerable ones, migrants, and also those who have rights in name but cannot exercise and/or enjoy that, etc) and a massive overhaul needs to be conducted vis-a-vis how we think about “citizenship.” This means taking a good long hard look at racism, socio-economic discrimination, situations of refugees, situations of people who are not refugees per se but still nonetheless powerless, etc.

  36. Desi Italiana — on 21st January, 2008 at 10:13 pm  

    Roger:

    “Unethically but effectively I asked him what made him think the Irish are white.”

    What did he say?

  37. Laban — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:27 am  

    Jai :

    “the claim that white people will become a minority in England by the middle of this century as stated in his full comment is completely false”

    You’re right. Current estimates are for 2073. But the general trend seems pretty indisputable, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Please tell us if you do. btw, would it be a problem if it WERE true ?

    The demographer David Coleman of Oxford Uni first predicted this in 2001, saying it would happen by the end of the century.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,363750,00.html

    By last year, taking account of increased immigration since 2001, and accelerated emigration of natives, David Conway of the think tank Civitas had brought the date forward to 2073.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/22/do2207.xml

    “on present trends, by 2073, the majority population of this country will either have migrated here, or be the child or grandchild of parents who did so”

    As of 2001, 7.5% of the population were born abroad.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm

    Yet in 2003, births to mothers born abroad were 19% of English births (page 75 of the link).

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PT118_V1.pdf

    22% of English primary school children are from ‘ethnic minorities’ i.e. not “white British” in the census classifications which are used (did you know all schools classify the kids by race and report the classifications to the DFES or whatever they are called this week ?)

    http://http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6597273.stm

    And last of all the ONS population trends for 2001 – page 14 – Fertility by ethnic origin :

    white 1.8
    Afro-Caribbean 1.8
    Indian 2.3
    Pakistani 4.0
    Bangladeshi 4.7

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PT104_v3.pdf

    while the GLA figures for 2000-2001 births (table 12) give fertility in London of :

    white 1.33
    black Caribbean 1.70
    black African 2.28
    Indian 1.63
    Pakistani 2.76
    Bangladeshi 3.29
    Other Asian 3.66

    http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/DMAG-Briefing-19.pdf

    Now I’m not a demographer – but I can do compound interest. The baby-boomer generation (those born in the 50s and early sixties are ageing. UK fertility pretty much halved between 1960 and 1980 as the contraceptive pill and the sixties “sexual revolution” took off. So there are a lot more white British fiftysomethings than twentysomethings.

    While I haven’t started building spreadsheets, 2073 looks about right – maybe even conservative.

  38. Leon — on 22nd January, 2008 at 2:08 am  

    Leon, you are fired.

    Sayonara, my friend.

    *hangs head in shame*

  39. Roger — on 22nd January, 2008 at 2:18 am  

    Sonia: he maintained that anti-Irish prejudice was unhustified racism. If you take a look at depictions of the Irish in nineteenth century English popular culture, they’re very similar to later racist stereotypes.

    Laban:
    ‘“the claim that white people will become a minority in England by the middle of this century as stated in his full comment is completely false”

    You’re right. Current estimates are for 2073′
    What is the definition of white here? What percentage of nonwhite ancestry stops someone being “white”?

    ‘Yet in 2003, births to mothers born abroad were 19% of English births’
    What percentage were to ‘white’ mothers born abroad? How many had ‘white’ fathers?

    ’22% of English primary school children are from ‘ethnic minorities’ i.e. not “white British” in the census classifications which are used’
    however that classification includes people whose ancestry is partly- or even mainly- ‘white Btitish’ and a lot of people who are also classified as wholly or partly ‘white other’. An important difference is that census definitions are self-defined; school definitions almost certainly aren’t.

    Taking birth-demography in London as a basis for a national estimate is not statistically reliable for future estimates for the country as a whole.

  40. Ravi Naik — on 22nd January, 2008 at 2:34 am  

    Sonia: he maintained that anti-Irish prejudice was unhustified racism. If you take a look at depictions of the Irish in nineteenth century English popular culture, they’re very similar to later racist stereotypes.

    Indeed they were. Even in America, the Irish were initially deemed as non-white, lazy, and dumb.

    “Now I’m not a demographer – but I can do compound interest.”

    That’s the problem. Nothing tells you that the fertility rates will be maintained until 2073. More likely they will converge to white levels, as ethnic groups become more integrated. Furthermore, you are forgetting that there are eastern and southern Europeans, who I presume are considered white and indigenous in these statistics based on race.

  41. thabet — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:53 am  

    Dissolving the Union will actually help people like Jack Gibson spread their views on “England for the English [whites]“.

  42. Desi Italiana — on 22nd January, 2008 at 5:21 am  

    Bringing up fertility and birth rates of immigrants is one scare tactic that has been utilized by anti-immigrant and nativist movements in Italy as well as here in America.

    Let’s say that the population rate IS in fact fast. Are people really worried? And is that fear justifiable? (I am asking a honest question, as I’m curious. My question is not a statement).

  43. Desi Italiana — on 22nd January, 2008 at 5:22 am  

    “*hangs head in shame*”

    Oh, my poopsie. Don’t worry, I was just being sassy ;)

  44. digitalcntrl — on 22nd January, 2008 at 6:02 am  

    @ Desi Italiana

    Of course people are worried. People are always threatned by the unknown. Cultural and ethnic homogenity bring certainty. Multicultural/ethnic diversity brings the unknown. For europe at least this is definitely played out vis a vis muslim immigration/birthrates. As to whether the fear is justified that depends on what you feel is threatned. Many anti-migrant euros will say that the whole of muslim culture is the antithesis of western civilization.

    cases in point:

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/current_birth_rates_could_prod.php

    http://rickbutts.com/83/is-england-becoming-a-muslim-nation/

  45. Desi Italiana — on 22nd January, 2008 at 7:12 am  

    DGC:

    “Of course people are worried. People are always threatned by the unknown.”

    I know my question sounds like a no-brainer, but I earnestly wanted to know. For me, it’s not a problem. I grew up a pre-dominantly Mexican area, and the racist incidents we witnessed coming from the whites around us definitely points to the fact that people didn’t like the demographic evolutions.

    But in my opinion, it shouldn’t be seen as a threat and that fear and subsequent backlash, IMO, is not justified. That’s just me, though.

  46. john Grimbits — on 22nd January, 2008 at 8:18 am  

    the ethinicisation of Britian is Enthinic cleansing!
    all you none whites a racist because you now time is on your side and this will end up a none white country , how fare is that on the white population, we are the ethnic minority population in the world and britain should be kept white and genitically strong. You none white live on a anti-white vocabulary – enthnic minority , positive predudice etc – that enabled you to keep emigration high and the enthinic cleansing of britian going, we need to stop this there is no shortage of none whites in the world. The liberal ideology of the time alows and encouranges none white to be as racist as they like and get tell them they are not doing so. England need to sucure a white future, i’m sure you will think i’m mad etc but i dont want to live in an enthnic England, if you like enthin so much stay in India.

  47. Sofia — on 22nd January, 2008 at 9:40 am  

    I couldn’t stop laughing when I read Grimbit’s post..ok now I know it’s not “fare” for all us “enthins”/ “enthnics” to take over because the whites need to keep “genitically strong”, so if you send all back to India, can you promise not to start that empire thing again?? huh huh please

  48. soru — on 22nd January, 2008 at 11:15 am  

    I don’t care what skin colour the inhabitants of the UK in 2073 are. It would be nice if they can speak english better than grimbits, though.

    Let’s say that the population rate IS in fact fast. Are people really worried?

    Generally speaking, it is rare to find someone with political preferences or principles radically different from you or me. 99% of the time, people with wierd politics hold those views _because_ they believe wierd facts to be true.

    An unrealistically high immigration rate, especially from a coherent single group, would actually be a problem, _were it the case_. Fast enough, and you would be lucky to avoid a civil war. Look at say the Palestinian mandate in the 1920/30s.

    There is, of course, no prospect of an elected government allowing any such thing – it’s a point to be made for accuracy’s sake, not a political imperative.

  49. Ravi Naik — on 22nd January, 2008 at 11:27 am  

    “all you none whites a racist because you now time is on your side and this will end up a none white country”

    Are you making a parody of a racist? It seems so.

    What I think is funny about nationalist parties is that they always castigate immigration, but never emmigration. I guess that doesn’t buy votes from expats, but nevertheless sounds hypocritical.

  50. Ravi Naik — on 22nd January, 2008 at 11:30 am  

    “I couldn’t stop laughing when I read Grimbit’s post..ok now I know it’s not “fare” for all us “enthins”/ “enthnics” to take over because the whites need to keep “genitically strong”, so if you send all back to India, can you promise not to start that empire thing again??”

    You are funny, sofia. :D

  51. sonia — on 22nd January, 2008 at 11:48 am  

    good point Ravi – “What I think is funny about nationalist parties is that they always castigate immigration, but never emmigration. ”

    Yes i think its always ironic when you hear people go on about “immigration” etc. and you know they have a house in the South of France or something like that. ALso what tends to annoy me is when people say things like ‘immigration’ and complain about people on short-term visas , and then you ask about their kid who is on a year out in Australia working in a bar or sth, and they say “oh but of course they’re not an immigrant!” Well perhaps the same applies to other young people who also want to travel/work around the world. But no! anyone who is in britain doing that sort of thing is clearly a ‘migrant worker’. That kind of terminology just buys into the status quo debate.

  52. sonia — on 22nd January, 2008 at 11:51 am  

    this is the thing – globalised travel and living for some, but ‘migrant workers’ for the rest!

  53. Sid — on 22nd January, 2008 at 12:18 pm  

    It’s a bitch john Grimbits, England is a beeeatch.

  54. Jai — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:01 pm  

    Let me get this straight. People are claiming that non-white groups in the UK — who, I believe, currently constitute only about 10% of the total British population (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) — will outnumber the other 90% in less than a century ? In the entire country, not just high-density ethnic areas like London, Leicester etc ?

    Seriously ?!

    And that’s not taking into account fluctuations in the birth rate during this century (as Ravi has already mentioned), along with the fact that — again, unless I’m wrong — the greater proportion of immigrants into the UK are currently from Eastern European countries. Who, I believe, are presently classified as “white”.

    What I think is funny about nationalist parties is that they always castigate immigration, but never emmigration.

    Aren’t there something like 750,000 Brits currently living in Spain ?

    That’s an absolutely huge number, when you consider that it’s taken nearly 40 years for (for example) the British Indian Sikh and Hindu communities respectively to reach and overtake equivalent numbers.

    *************

    Incidentally, the last weekend’s FT Weekend magazine supplement had an excellent essay on the case for free global migration. I think it was on page 16.

  55. pounce — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:07 pm  

    “Yes i think its always ironic when you hear people go on about “immigration” etc. and you know they have a house in the South of France or something like that.”

    Funny you should mention that. Did you know that the British National Party have built a base of operations in which to sit out the chaos which they fear will engulf Europe when the world’s hydrocarbons run out.
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,2132236,00.html

    Strange that a party built on saving the so called British identity (Asimov Foundation style) plans to do it from a foreign land.
    You’d think they would have settled on darkest and deepest Wales, Scotland, Ireland or even the fens. (Where your brother is also your sister) But Croatia.?

  56. Roger — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:22 pm  

    “Let me get this straight. People are claiming that non-white groups in the UK — who, I believe, currently constitute only about 10% of the total British population (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) — will outnumber the other 90% in less than a century ?”

    That’s the idea. They confuse various categories, of course- as I pointed out above, there’s debate about whether the irish or their descendants are ‘British’ or ‘white’ and the same applies to other Europeans if you use the assumptions of paranoiacs as a basis for argument. Equally, any ‘non-British’ and/or ‘non-white’ ancestry excludes people from the white British category they favour- which means it’s actually already too late to do anything about it and has been for a couple of hundred years.

  57. Kismet Hardy — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:24 pm  

    Fear of a Brown planet

  58. Katy Newton — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:43 pm  

    I hate the ethinicisation of England too. Kate Moss has a lot to answer for.

  59. Bert Preast — on 22nd January, 2008 at 1:46 pm  

    “Aren’t there something like 750,000 Brits currently living in Spain ?”

    Nah. It’s reckoned to be about 120,000 iirc.

  60. Roger — on 22nd January, 2008 at 3:15 pm  

    Similar fears were expressed three hundred years ago: http://www.luminarium.org/editions/trueborn.htm

  61. newmania — on 22nd January, 2008 at 3:16 pm  

    I did some figures and reckoned with some basic maths that it would be in about 50 years and I would not be suprised there are about eight Boroughs in London where the proportion of children speaking English as a second language , if at all , is over 60%,.
    What most do is adopt a universal Liberal attitude deriving rights from basic humanity when they are in somneone elses country but take a Communitarian view of their own.This latter view ,common to the English but more so to others, derives rights and values from a percieved multigenerational contribution or membership of an ethnic club, the English.

    Rights to the country are not automatically bestowed. These two views are the heart of conflict whithin the British poltical system as well I would only say it is a mistake to regard one as respectable and the other as not .

  62. Don — on 22nd January, 2008 at 3:22 pm  

    Good link, Roger. Wasn’t familiar with that.

  63. newmania — on 22nd January, 2008 at 3:30 pm  

    The false paralell between English emigration and immigration is too often spouted throughlessly.Other countries set their rules and we abide by them. .It has no impact on what our rules might be

    The principle of reciprocity posited is not one upon which our current imigration could be founded in that our brute interest would be suited by stopping say 75% of inward immigration(97 levels ) which would not effect the recipriocity of our outward emigration at all. Britains go where their capital or skills are required and not to the same places from which inward migration originates . Of course the EU complicates this question gut thats another subject.

    In think we all belive in biological equality , that has nothing to do with the existence of a people which we call a nation. We are subjects not citizens and if you look at what I was calling the Communitarian outlook then establishing rights in this community is not a matter of immediate assertiveness so much as long term earning . That why the rate on immigration is important whereas its fact is accepted by all reasonable people as matter of basic freedom of movement .

    Asserting rigths ina setlled Community is more the bahaviour of a colonising force than an economic migrant.

  64. Jai — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:31 pm  

    Bert,

    I’ve tracked down that article from FT online — it’s actually 760,000 Britons currently living in Spain.

    Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/19c9a430-c3c9-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html

    (Sunny, Rumbold, Rohin etc: If you get a chance, please do check out this article when you have a spare few minutes. It’s extremely good and would also be an excellent source of reference for a related article here on PP, if one of you guys were interested in writing it).

  65. Bert Preast — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:43 pm  

    I think you’ll find that’s 760,000 who own property in Spain. Most of ‘em don’t live here.

  66. Jai — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:50 pm  

    I did some figures and reckoned with some basic maths that it would be in about 50 years and I would not be suprised there are about eight Boroughs in London where the proportion of children speaking English as a second language , if at all , is over 60%,.

    London is not the whole country. Neither is Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford etc.

    It is disingenuous to take unrepresentative examples and extrapolate them to the entire UK.

    Perhaps a more honest technique would be to analyse what percentage of the total British population currently lives in these cities, project the figures forward, and then see what proportion of the total population of the UK at a particular date in the future (which will also have increased) will reside in those cities at that time, compared to the proportion living in the rest of the country.

    Unless one is claiming that by the end of the century, the vast majority of Brits (both white and non-white) will be living in the same cities which currently have such a “disturbingly” large ethnic population…..

  67. Jai — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:52 pm  

    Bert, I’m assuming you’re saying that the FT is wrong, because that article explicitly states that 760,000 Brits are currently living in Spain, not just that 760,000 Brits own property there.

  68. Bert Preast — on 22nd January, 2008 at 4:52 pm  

    Blimey, just done some checking and Jai is quite right.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

    Over 3/4 of a million of us. And strangely only 83% of us are male or female. One of the more alarming immigration statistics there.

  69. G Howard — on 22nd January, 2008 at 7:46 pm  

    Funny how the red indian of America is now recognised as losing their homeland to people from the east? Perhaps tomorrows history will be acknowledged that was what happened in the UK, albeit through less bloodthirsty and more insidious methods…

  70. Ravi Naik — on 22nd January, 2008 at 10:30 pm  

    The false paralell between English emigration and immigration is too often spouted throughlessly.Other countries set their rules and we abide by them.

    So, are you insinuating that immigrants in general do not abide by British laws? That’s silly. And as much as there are immigrants who are crooks, who do not abide by our laws, I can assure you that there are British expats who misbehave, and who do little to blend in or learn the local culture. And no I am not talking about colonial times, but the present day.

    There is indeed a parallel between immigration and emigration, one that is overlooked by nationalist parties. In other words, if one defends that nation can only be comprised by people English ancestry – then emigrants – like immigrants – are violating that creed.

  71. Anthony Barnett — on 23rd January, 2008 at 12:20 am  

    Can I go back to Ravi’s comment no 6 and El Cid (9). I was not trying to argue with what the ‘old fashioned racist” said. I tried to set out the counter case. This includes that fact, as I emphasised, that we don’t “debate” with such views but this does not mean we are frightened of diagnosing them for what they are: an act of force disguised as words. The reason for doing this is that these ‘arguments’ are out and about and quite well written and therefore potentially influential on others, especially younger citizens and students – especially now if as a result of the recession they are educated but unemployed.

  72. john Grimbits — on 23rd January, 2008 at 6:19 pm  

    If india was going to become white or english in a hundred years would you like something done about ? weren’t the English ‘kicked out of India – Asia’?
    Come on its not right to make Brtian an enthnic country, you “Browns’ what quotas only one way which is in YOUR benifit – this might not be your fault its ours for letting it happen, there is a big difference in old white moving to die in Spain and lots of young ‘Asians’ coming here, its not the same at all.
    There should be a quota to keep Britain 80 % white, maybe pay the best Aryan example to have 3 4 children. A I just dont like Enthnic culture either particularly Islam and Eid etc No No No! Race, Culture Economy all interlinked, after a tipping point there’s no going back, Think about from the other point of view for a change the world big England is small, even if you are progressive do you really want Islam everywhere? Your in favour of immigration because you are just as racsit (positive rascism) as me.

  73. Desi Italiana — on 23rd January, 2008 at 6:22 pm  

    In light of Grimbits’ comments, yes, I would like to see the UK become completely brown in the next 100 years where the primary religion is Islam.

    Where will you go, Grimbits?

    Long live Browns!

  74. Jai — on 23rd January, 2008 at 7:03 pm  

    Okay, since I have a spare couple of minutes, I’ll bite.

    weren’t the English ‘kicked out of India – Asia’?

    Yes, because they originally arrived as traders, expanded their operations to include raising armies, then exploited the collapse of the local imperial power to forcibly impose their own rule over the Indian population, first via the East India Company and then post-1857 directly via the British Crown.

    Hardly a comparable scenario to the growth of the Asian population here in the UK during the past 40 years, unless you think that they’ve all been directly employed by various Indian companies (and still are), and are being supported by the Indian government to infiltrate British society and eventually overthrow the local ruling authorities.

    Come on its not right to make Brtian an enthnic country,

    Nobody is trying to make it “ethnic” (and incidentally, white people are an ethnic group too).

    there is a big difference in old white moving to die in Spain and lots of young ‘Asians’ coming here, its not the same at all.

    Most ‘young Asians’ were actually born in this country.

    There should be a quota to keep Britain 80 % white,

    Why ?

    Simply stating “I don’t like ethnics” isn’t good enough. Give us concrete reasons.

    maybe pay the best Aryan example to have 3 4 children.

    Do you even know what the origin of the word “Aryan” actually is ? The real source and the exact translation of the word, not the misappropriation by Hitler and his Nazi friends.

    You may be in for a shock, particularly in relation to its connection to ancient Indian and Persian history.

    Here’s some breaking news: You may be white but you are not necessarily Aryan. Furthermore, some Asians are probably much more “Aryan” (with regards to the real historical and ancestral meaning of the term) than you are.

    A I just dont like Enthnic culture either

    Which “ethnic culture” ? Asian ? Far Eastern ? Middle-Eastern ? African ? Caribbean ? Latin American ?

    Or just any culture originating in non-white people ?

    particularly Islam and Eid etc No No No!

    Both of those are tied to religion, not “culture” (“ethnic” or otherwise).

    even if you are progressive do you really want Islam everywhere?

    Why are you assuming that all Asians are Muslim ?

    Or that all Asian Muslims want to spread Islam “everywhere” ?

    Your in favour of immigration because you are just as racsit (positive rascism) as me.

    The greater proportion of immigrants to the UK are currently from Eastern Europe, as has been discussed previously.

    So is it everyone you have a problem with — all recent immigrants — or just the smaller percentage who aren’t from Europe ?

    And if it is the latter, provide solid reasons.

  75. Ravi Naik — on 23rd January, 2008 at 7:46 pm  

    “white people are an ethnic group too”

    In my book, an ‘ethnic group’ corresponds to people with the same cultural background, and thus it may trascend race. Hence, white people can be part of different ethnic groups. Though your point is valid in that it is incorrect to say that only non-white people are “ethnics”.

    “Here’s some breaking news: You may be white but you are not necessarily Aryan. Furthermore, some Asians are probably much more “Aryan” (with regards to the real historical and ancestral meaning of the term) than you are. “

    His use of “Aryan” shows that he engages in neo-nazi forums. He will be more familiar with terms and numbers such as ZOG, 14 words, and 88, than History or reality for that matter.

  76. Don — on 23rd January, 2008 at 8:21 pm  

    By the way, did anyone check Roger’s link at #60? I’d forgotten how much I like Defoe.

    ‘A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
    In speech an irony, in fact a fiction;
    A banter made to be a test of fools,
    Which those that use it justly ridicules;
    A metaphor invented to express
    A man akin to all the universe….

    For fame of families is all a cheat,
    ‘Tis personal virtue only makes us great.’

  77. Sid — on 23rd January, 2008 at 8:26 pm  

    yes it’s wonderful stuff.

  78. john Grimbits — on 24th January, 2008 at 9:45 am  

    I still dont feel you are really listening, my language isn’t perfect etc Aryan, or White, or enthnic group, (i do have a soft spot for the third reich mainly because if definately avoids enthnic culture i guess non white could join in too didn’t Turkey fight with hitler? lederhosen cooll budism, saris rubbish )
    The point is that europe was a white country and is going to become non white and you dont mind and i do.
    because i find the cultural and economic change depressing, It is right to keep England a white country. I am family with “history” the winners decide reallity (hitlerism i know) so history is what you want it to be either way.
    England is going through “ethnic” change from a white country to a non white country, which i think is wrong, because it will “change’ history as a result. Economic realities will become “ethnic” it will mean “ethnic control of our minds!. Let India Asian have a strong Culture and best of luck to them be you have to stop “browns’ coming in, no fair on them but not fair on White england to let them all in how ever nice they may be and however

    And i dont think Nazi culture was any more insular than islam or Eid,
    Not that i am a violent skin head, although most of my hair has fallen out anyway. but i do like Iron Crosses thought.
    a weak whiteEngland is bad news. I do thinki prefer Germany toEngland now, and pray that same donesn’t happen to it, and think they have ever right to keep average white thick english types like me out.

  79. Ravi Naik — on 24th January, 2008 at 11:35 am  

    “I still dont feel you are really listening… because i find the cultural and economic change depressing, It is right to keep England… a weak white England is bad news. I do thinki prefer Germany toEngland now

    It is you who is not listening to yourself.

    You say you prefer a country with a different culture than yours (german language, etc.) Which means, for you, the English culture is irrelevant. So, don’t bring culture nor economics, you are simply depressed and frustrated because non-whites live in this land.

    “The point is that europe was a white country and is going to become non white and you dont mind and i do.”

    The Third Reich was destroyed 50 years ago, and thus Europe is not a country.

    Why are obsessed with skin colour and physical appearance, john? Why – in your opinion – can’t people with different physical appearance live together in the same land?

  80. Jai — on 24th January, 2008 at 11:36 am  

    i do have a soft spot for the third reich mainly because if definately avoids enthnic culture

    The Third Reich pillaged and grossly distorted numerous concepts and symbols from ancient India and incorporated them into its fascist “culture”, most notably the Swastika and the concept of a person being “Aryan”. Both of which were therefore of “ethnic” origin, in case you haven’t noticed.

    And that’s before we even get to the topic of exactly how treasonous it is for an English person to be such an admirer of the Nazis, considering the huge price that British people at the time had to pay as a result of their efforts to defeat the Germans, and the plans that the Nazis actually had for the inhabitants of the UK if they had succeeded in winning the war.

    The point is that europe was a white country and is going to become non white

    No it isn’t.

    It is right to keep England a white country.

    I notice that comprehensive reasons for this opinion still haven’t been provided.

    England is going through “ethnic” change from a white country to a non white country,

    No it isn’t. About 90% of the population is still white, and assuming that non-white birth rates stabilise, the vast majority of Brits will continue to be white for the foreseeable future. In fact, this will be increased by the huge numbers of Eastern Europeans who have arrived here in recent years, assuming that they stay here for the long-term and have children.

    I do thinki prefer Germany toEngland now, and pray that same donesn’t happen to it,

    Good luck, because Germany has a huge Turkish population and the proportion of Muslims there is considerably higher than it is in the UK.

  81. Sofia — on 24th January, 2008 at 11:41 am  

    I’m thinking John is some phd student who is taking the royal piss out of the picklers…

  82. Sofia — on 24th January, 2008 at 11:44 am  

    I mean, he uses the word insular within context and then says Europe is a country???

  83. Jai — on 24th January, 2008 at 11:44 am  

    I’ve been having the same suspicions (not necessarily that he’s a PhD student, but that he’s some guy goofing around). The jokes in his last paragraph give it away.

  84. Ravi Naik — on 24th January, 2008 at 12:09 pm  

    I’ve been having the same suspicions (not necessarily that he’s a PhD student, but that he’s some guy goofing around). The jokes in his last paragraph give it away.

    Damn it. I missed that. :D

  85. Sofia — on 24th January, 2008 at 2:01 pm  

    yup totally …

  86. Sofia — on 24th January, 2008 at 2:03 pm  

    oops i meant yup totally to john joking around, not referring to ravi..:)

  87. Ravi Naik — on 24th January, 2008 at 3:34 pm  

    The reason for doing this is that these ‘arguments’ are out and about and quite well written and therefore potentially influential on others, especially younger citizens and students – especially now if as a result of the recession they are educated but unemployed.

    Fair enough. However, I feel that comments like Gibson’s actually do not help the racist cause. Words like “hate” and even “racism” have been thrown out of the neo-racist narrative. Why? Because people – even the most prejudiced ones – do not want to be associated with hate, racism, skinheads and neo-nazis. The term ‘racist’ has such a negative connotation, that they themselves have adopted their own politically correct term – “racialists”.

    So what does the racialist narrative (BNP, etc) say? That they don’t hate other races, so they cannot possibly be racists. They just love their race, and thus they want to preserve it against genocide (they actually use that term), and thus the real racists are those who are not opposed to miscegenation.

    I do think that this sort of message is far more dangerous than Gibson’s racist message, because it appeals to sections of the mainstream, specially those – as you point out – are unable to make it in our society.

  88. Bert Preast — on 24th January, 2008 at 4:58 pm  

    “I do think that this sort of message is far more dangerous than Gibson’s racist message, because it appeals to sections of the mainstream, specially those – as you point out – are unable to make it in OUR society”

    Ravi totally giving the game away.

  89. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2008 at 5:29 pm  

    Ravi,

    How many white Brits do you think bite at either message? I’m pretty sure it’s a small minority. A decreasing minority, to boot!

    As a man, which trumps all other understanding, a hot chick is a hot chick, no matter what her race is. I’d assume it works for women too.

    So miscegenation is bloody well inevitable.

    Which is a good thing. Not something to be feared.

  90. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 5:36 pm  

    Grimbits:

    “a weak white England is bad news.”

    Oh, don’t worry, sweetie. When the browns take over England, it will be ten times stronger! Maybe not a “strong white England,” but a strong England nonetheless.

    Smooches.

  91. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 5:38 pm  

    I think it’s really mean that people are making fun of Grimbit’s English, whether he/she is a troll or not. Very snobby, and not very nice. Maybe it’s not his/her mother tongue.

    But his/her atrocious and racist views whereby he/she aspires for a Fourth Reich in England is well worth making fun of.

  92. john grimbits — on 24th January, 2008 at 6:56 pm  

    a fourth English Riech what an ace idea!
    Something we could all believe in.
    Well would have to be ‘german’ any of you mind
    speaking germany and wearing laderdosen etc
    not me!
    See you all in Val Halla
    i’ll blag my way in say i had an acident
    and dont forget to leave the enthnic stuff at the gates thank you very much.
    uber und aus!

  93. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 7:02 pm  

    “a fourth English Riech what an ace idea!”

    Yeah, I’m sure you’d think that.

    “and dont forget to leave the enthnic stuff at the gates thank you very much.
    uber und aus!”

    Why, you certainly are one silly aadmi.

  94. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2008 at 7:13 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    I am white. I am British. Please do not respond to trolls such as John Grimbits. He is an out and out wind up merchant, and speaks not a word that I, or most folk I know, would agree with. He is a tit.

    I think, after a pretty rocky start, that you and I are friends. Which is frankly more important than John fucking Grimbits, is it not?

    Nepal? I am hoping you’ll blog from there.

  95. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 7:22 pm  

    “Please do not respond to trolls such as John Grimbits.”

    Oh, stop :) Trolls can give comic relief. It’s obvious that “Grimbits” (what an apt handle!) is spoofing.

    “I think, after a pretty rocky start, that you and I are friends.”

    Jaan, careful of saying that. Making cyber alliances is all good, but should not be taken seriously because then you have to deal with passive-aggressive and back-handed comments when your “friend” feels indignantly slighted by your comments because he/she wasn’t “expecting” you to post a certain thing. And then a whole thread gets ruined because of personal insults, etc.

  96. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 7:23 pm  

    “Nepal? I am hoping you’ll blog from there.”

    If I have an internet connection, then yes :)

  97. john grimbits — on 24th January, 2008 at 8:05 pm  

    trolls are never more serious that when they are spoofing!

    ethnic culture at the door that is

  98. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2008 at 8:45 pm  

    Well, Desi Italiana, in response to this:

    Jaan, careful of saying that. Making cyber alliances is all good, but should not be taken seriously because then you have to deal with passive-aggressive and back-handed comments when your “friend” feels indignantly slighted by your comments because he/she wasn’t “expecting” you to post a certain thing. And then a whole thread gets ruined because of personal insults, etc.

    “So far, so good.”

    ………….—-………

    Who’s Jaan?

    What is this passive-aggressive thing of which you speak? Perhaps we could fall out about that? Or maybe not?

    I don’t know if you remember our first few sallies on here, but we were reading from different scripts. Seems we are reading from similar ones now. Long may it continue, although I’d expect a chum to tell me when I am wrong and I’d expect a chum not to get all huffy when I did the same, and vice versa, obviously. Which is a bit different from your characterisation of web friends. It’s worked for me in the past.

    Rumbold and I are hardly bedfellows, but I respect everything he says. Meaning that I listen to what he says, engage brain and either go, yeah Rumbold or, naw Rumbold. Sometimes the arguement that follows the latter, changes my mind. That is what I call a good web relationship.

    Oh, I do so hope you have a web connection. You’d be sadly missed, and not just by me.

  99. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 8:59 pm  

    Douglas,

    “Who’s Jaan?”

    “Jaan/jaanam” would be the English equivalent of “love,” as in “my love.”

    You better learn these Hindi/Urdu words fast, because pretty soon, England is going to be all brown!

    All brown!

  100. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2008 at 9:52 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    “Jaan/jaanam” would be the English equivalent of “love,” as in “my love.”

    And, what, I’m supposed to dislike you? And you express “love”. I’d be a fool to reject any love pointed my way.

    because pretty soon, England is going to be all brown!

    Maybe, and I’m supposed to be worried? That miscegination would be oh, so good. I have no problem with that. If you want to alienate me, you’ll need to do better.

  101. Desi Italiana — on 24th January, 2008 at 9:54 pm  

    Douglas:

    “And, what, I’m supposed to dislike you? And you express “love”. I’d be a fool to reject any love pointed my way.”

    I never implied that you would cringe if I called you “jaan”…

    “Maybe, and I’m supposed to be worried? That miscegination would be oh, so good. I have no problem with that. If you want to alienate me, you’ll need to do better.

    I was being sassy, in light of my responses to Grimbits :)

  102. douglas clark — on 24th January, 2008 at 10:10 pm  

    Desi Italiana,

    Cool.

    I think you have done an admirable thing. Going off to Nepal is completely amazing. I have nothing but admiration for you.

  103. john Grimbits — on 28th January, 2008 at 10:07 am  

    Nazi culture was superior to multi-cultures/ ism

    and achieved much more, is in fact the basis for the modern world

    britian / europe needs to be kept white or it will fail

    bad news for all the enthnics in asia as well

    let us all hope the fatherland isn’t distroyed by culture

  104. Chocolate — on 13th March, 2008 at 8:47 pm  

    John Grimbits,
    what right do you have to talk about “brown people” like that? have you heard of racism? i suggest you look it up.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.