The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts


by Jai
21st April, 2010 at 9:14 pm    

(Celtic Nations Map)

The BNP’s ongoing assertions about “English indigenousness” have some interesting ramifications, particularly in the context of claims of primacy, dominance and territorial “ownership” based on the notion of “we were here first”. The first inhabitants of the British Isles were the group now termed “Celts” as per the accepted definition in mainstream British discourse, and as a result, Celts and people exclusively descended from them are actually the only genuinely “indigenous” inhabitants of the British Isles.

Therefore, as a Devil’s Advocate exercise in the interests of extrapolating the type of logic that the BNP themselves use in their assertions about non-white British citizens and the BNP’s rationale for wishing to “repatriate” the latter, I’m going to use the BNP’s own terminology to demonstrate how the same line of thinking can be applied to them, as follows :

Celts have had most of their ancestral homelands in the region now called “England” stolen from them by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes (Norse Vikings), Normans, and people descended from these groups, who have committed genocide towards the Celts via a combination of miscegenation, warfare, displacement, and territorial annexation.

Furthermore, the BNP’s expectation that people exclusively descended from Celts should continue to tolerate this situation and indeed actively participate in it is an unjustifiable assumption that Celts on the British Isles should commit autogenocide; even the very act of miscegenation with Celts by members of the aforementioned groups results in the destruction of a Celtic family line that stretches back into deep prehistory.

Consequently, people exclusively descended from Celts would be justified in wishing to halt and indeed reverse any further genocide of them as a distinct people, involving both miscegenation and the colonisation & occupation of their ancestral homelands; as a result, they have the full right to demand that British citizens possessing Angle, Saxon, Jute, Norse Viking and/or Norman ancestry are repatriated back to their geographical regions of origin on mainland Europe, if necessary via the use of multiple independent DNA testing to identify and confirm non-Celtic ancestry.

At the very least, people of exclusively Celtic ancestry have the right to demand that BNP members with non-Celtic ancestry should be subject to this course of action……and as a current resident of Wales and therefore an active participant in the “bloodless genocide” of the indigenous Welsh, the BNP’s present chairman Nick Griffin should be at the front of the queue for DNA testing, with Celtic Welsh people having the right to subsequently remove his presence not just from Wales but from the British Isles as a whole.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,The BNP






152 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts http://bit.ly/ctJNNJ


  2. 5 Chinese Crackers

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts http://bit.ly/ctJNNJ


  3. Ryan Bestford

    Here's hoping nobody starts the CNP (Celt National Party) – http://bit.ly/ctJNNJ (via @PickledPolitics)


  4. earwicga

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts http://bit.ly/cOJq0T


  5. Leon Green

    RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts http://bit.ly/ctJNNJ


  6. Rachel Woodlock

    The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts http://tinyurl.com/2cu4d7s


  7. Bhaskar Dasgupta

    heh. Celts demand restitution against invaders represented by BNP. http://bit.ly/d0r3fD. #bnp #ge10 #ukpolitics.


  8. Noxi

    The BNP and the Genocide of the Celts | Pickled Politics » http://ow.ly/1BBba british national party nick griffin


  9. 3 Million Years - links for 2010-04-23

    [...] The BNP & The Genocide of the Celts (tags: BNP politics) [...]




  1. Rumbold — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:30 pm  

    Good piece Jai. It made me chuckle. Now I look forward to LJB arrving to point out he has always backed the Celts.

  2. Dalbir — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:48 pm  

    Ha ha to the BNP!

    You should’ve mentioned the destruction of the language the Scots originally spoke as well.

  3. earwicga — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:48 pm  

    :)

  4. Rumbold — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:49 pm  

    You mean those Scots, that Irish tribe who migrated east to displace the native Picts?

  5. Dalbir — on 21st April, 2010 at 9:52 pm  

    Okay, point conceded……..

    Is Welsh a more older language of this island then?

  6. earwicga — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:05 pm  

    I think Scots is a couple of centuries older than Welsh with Pictish being older. SarahAB should know about all this.

  7. Dan Dare — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:10 pm  

    Jai:

    Your use of the term ‘Celt’ is misleading, what do you actually mean by it?

    Are you referring to people with a common genetic ancestry, or members of a specific linguistic group, or both?

    Or are you simply using the term in its now discredited 19C sense to mean the people now resident in the so-called ‘Celtic Fringe’? From your map, it appears to be the last.

  8. Don — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:38 pm  

    Jai,

    I doubt they’ll get it.

  9. Dalbir — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:42 pm  

    BNP ‘logic’

    Err…anyone who came ere like after my lot, they are like….the invaders…err….especially if they is not white….

  10. Laban — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:43 pm  

    Isn’t this view a tad out of date ? The traditional theory of the Saxon hordes slaughtering all the Britons in what is now England is to a great extent built on the almost (a few Avons and Pens here and there) complete absence of Celtic place-names in England. But recent research has suggested that the language of Southern England was already more Germanic than Welsh at the time the Romans arrived.

    See this Prospect piece by Stephen Oppenheimer.

  11. Andy Gilmour — on 21st April, 2010 at 10:47 pm  

    Rumbold,

    “Displace” isn’t really the most accurate term. According to my bookshelf, a simple version is that where they met (because there were quite a few tribes in Scotland at the time, not just Picts), the two sides fought for a while, but eventually the Picts’ rulers adopted Gaelic names (even though they’d brought the Scots’ expansion to a standstill), etc, and there was more of a bonding of cultures (except the Picts didn’t go christian immediately).

    I really should get out more.

  12. Ravi Naik — on 21st April, 2010 at 11:23 pm  

    “The BNP articulate the interests of the indigenous English Folk Community through recognising them as a distinct Folk community and then working to take power from the corrupt British state and give it back to them so that they can take charge of their own lives once more. ” — Lee Barnes

  13. Ravi — on 21st April, 2010 at 11:26 pm  

    “The BNP articulate the interests of the indigenous English Folk Community through recognising them as a distinct Folk community and then working to take power from the corrupt British state and give it back to them so that they can take charge of their own lives once more. ”… Lee Barnes

    “We in the BNP will create an English Parliament for the indigenous English people themselves. The British State and its political structures will be the sole political representative bodies for all those of non-indigenous Anglo-Saxon English descent in England.” … Lee Barnes

  14. Ravi — on 21st April, 2010 at 11:49 pm  

    It’s rather unclear where such assertions are to be found, except within the confines of Jai’s febrile imagination.

    Here is what the latest version of the BNP constitution says: “Indigenous British” means together that group of nations and or communities
    historically indigenous to our British Homeland, being the first and aboriginal
    peoples of our British Homeland, and which group consists of the English, the
    Irish, the Ulster Scots, the Scots, and the Welsh racial groups

    So it clearly states that there is an English Nation and an English indigenous community.

    How’s Fred Nimbus? I am guessing both of you partied last night as if it was 1936. :)

  15. Dan Dare — on 22nd April, 2010 at 1:28 am  

    Fred is holding court at Liberal Conspiracy as we speak. If you’re quick you might get a word in before he metamorphosises into his next incarnation.

  16. boyo — on 22nd April, 2010 at 7:03 am  

    Race is really so boring. Nearly half the crew of HMS Victory were West Indian, don’t you know. But culture is important, like knowing about HMS Victory…

  17. cjcjc — on 22nd April, 2010 at 8:23 am  

    @17 nicely put!

  18. Jai — on 22nd April, 2010 at 10:04 am  

    Don,

    I doubt they’ll get it.

    Obviously not. Being psychologically stuck somewhere in the 19th century tends to have that effect on people.

  19. KB Player — on 22nd April, 2010 at 12:16 pm  

    boyo – that is nicely put. And culture evolves – once a lot of the British would have known about HMS Victory. Then times change and we start learning that nearly half of the crew were West Indian, which is news to me but natural enough given Britain’s imperial reach at the time.

  20. Celticman — on 22nd April, 2010 at 1:20 pm  

    The crew the of the Victory was one third Irish and Two thirds English,cotselsh etc.

  21. Albion — on 22nd April, 2010 at 3:04 pm  

    You guys sure do spend a lot of time and effort trying to say that the modern English people don’t really belong in this country and don’t have a very long link to it stretching back to thousands of years; sure enough, they did manage to build a country that you or parents are in such awe of they leave their own ancestral home to move to.

    85% of the British people can trace their linage back here to the Stone Age irregardless of what name they now have.

    This piece is very close to being racist.

  22. KB Player — on 22nd April, 2010 at 4:57 pm  

    I suppose I could get in a debate with the SK re the make up of British fighting forces in the past – eg Poles in the RAF, swathes of Indians, Maori etc in WWI & II etc but there’s not much point in arguing with a CAPS LOCKER.

  23. earwicga — on 22nd April, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

    Did you miss comment #13 Dan Dare?

  24. Jai — on 22nd April, 2010 at 6:57 pm  

    No Earwig I didn’t, but I believe you will find that Mr. Barnes’s personal remarks, which were written several years ago, do not reflect current party policy.

    Furthermore, “Dan Dare”, as you’ve stated yourself on the now-closed thread, assertions about BNP policies from alleged BNP members are worthless unless they “have the Chairman’s thumbprint” on them. This obviously also applies to your own ongoing comments about such matters here on Pickled Politics, unless you are prepared to send a formal written declaration in an email from an authenticated BNP email account to this website’s editorial team via both of the contacts forms here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/contact , as follows :

    “I, [insert full name], formally confirm in writing and on the record that I am officially a member of the BNP, that my statements and assertions on the comments threads of the blog ‘Pickled Politics’ are an accurate representation of the BNP’s political ideology, goals and intentions, and that I have been fully authorised to speak for and represent the BNP on ‘Pickled Politics’ regarding these matters directly by the Chairman of the BNP, Mr Nick Griffin.”

    Unless you do the above, any statements you make here regarding the BNP’s policies are worthless; furthermore, failure to do so would also raise questions about the validity of your claims to allegedly be a member of the BNP. For all anyone knows, you could just be someone pretending to be a BNP member and commenting on this blog in an attempt to promote some nefarious agenda geared towards the detriment of the BNP.

  25. Jai — on 22nd April, 2010 at 7:19 pm  

    and have to ask for the rest of us for definitions.

    Should say “…..and have to ask the rest of us for definitions”, of course.

    If you have to ask what the term means in mainstream British culture, then its speaks volumes about how detached you are from the rest of normal society in this country.

  26. Henry — on 22nd April, 2010 at 7:20 pm  

    Jai:

    “there are serious limitations to attempting to engage with members of the BNP”

    I don’t see that at all; I see you being fully engaged by supporters of the line.

    What I do see, however, is that some of your regulars are allowed to shout and scream obscenities at others they don’t agree with on this site and not only don’t get reprimanded for it, they get rewarded and encouraged to do it being banning the victim of their indecent rants.

    You can waffle all you want about it being a private blog, it is in fact a in a public place and decency and honesty are not proprietary.

    I agree with Albion above, this post is offensive to the English and quite possibly even racist too. Why do you feel the need to try and prove that the people who built the country you / your parents have flocked to as a better country then their own don’t really have any legitimacy to call it their own?

    As Albion pointed out, around 85% of Britons can trace there roots back to the Neolithic age so all in all this post is built on a false premise anyway.

    I think this proves just how far back the average English go, and just how homogenous we really are:

    “In 1996, Bryan Sykes of Oxford University first sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Cheddar Man, with DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man’s molars. Cheddar Man was determined to have belonged to Haplogroup U5a, a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup U. U5a, the specific haplogroup of Cheddar Man, is known to be the oldest truly modern human (not Neanderthal) mtDNA haplogroup in Europe.

    As a means of connecting Cheddar Man to the living residents of Cheddar village, he compared mitochondrial DNA taken from twenty living residents of the village to that extracted from Cheddar Man’s molar. It produced two exact matches and one match with a single mutation. The two exact matches were schoolchildren… The close match was a history teacher named Adrian Targett.

    Sykes argued that this modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle Eastern migratory farmers…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man

  27. Tim — on 22nd April, 2010 at 7:25 pm  

    Jai, am I not a member of the BNP, so have no political/whatever axe to grind other than a desire for truth and for people to actually learn about subjects before repeating unadulterated rubbish.

    And if you had immersed yourself in history, archaelogy, and biomolecular science as I have then you would know that your post is total bollocks.

    Take it away and rewrite it. Better still, just bin it.

  28. Don — on 22nd April, 2010 at 7:49 pm  

    if you had immersed yourself in history, archaelogy, and biomolecular science as i have

    The polymath has spoken. It was a spoof, you twerp.

  29. Jai — on 22nd April, 2010 at 10:17 pm  

    It was a spoof, you twerp.

    Well spotted, Don. Of course it was a spoof — as anyone familiar with the idiosyncratic terminology and arguments frequently deployed by the BNP should instantly recognise.

  30. KB Player — on 22nd April, 2010 at 10:46 pm  

    And New Zealand armed forces? And Canadian armed forces? And Australian armed forces? And Indian armed forces? They all turned up to support your gig, you know.

  31. BeornWulfWer — on 23rd April, 2010 at 2:25 am  

    Well deleted. Free speech at its best.

  32. Gerald Thribb — on 23rd April, 2010 at 3:01 am  

    Indeed Beornwulfwer.

    And sloppy with it too.

    Not to mention craven.

  33. Gerald — on 23rd April, 2010 at 3:41 am  

    @ Jai

    Hmmm. Here comes the backtrack. A racist spoof, oh a what a jape. So presumably you are now saying that you do acknowledge the indigenous status of the English, that this is their ancestral homeland and they and the other Britons built this country into somewhat of a honeypot for failed states people to flock to. People like you or your forebears.

  34. Gerald Thribb — on 23rd April, 2010 at 6:36 am  

    Hello Gerald!

    Gerald here.

    We have logged your contribution at 03:41 on St. George’s Day, and are offering short odds that it will not be here at 08:00 when the censors come on shift.

    Good job we’re taking snapshots of these shenanigans for posterity, what!

  35. El Cid — on 23rd April, 2010 at 2:03 pm  

    I think you might find that the Celts actually came from northern Spain

  36. morgan — on 23rd April, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    The site, at Coedydd ac Ogofu Elwy a Meirchion, near Denbigh, has been listed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

    Scientists believe the cave could hold the key to unlocking the geological history of Wales.

    One of them – Pontnewydd Cave – is internationally renowned as the home of the oldest known human remains in Wales. A tooth found here is thought to be more than 200,000-years-old.

    A marvellous burial site from the early Upper Palaeolithic (Gravettian) was found in Paviland Cave on the Gower peninsula of south Wales. It has been dated to about 27,000 years, using radiocarbon techniques. Here, a man was buried along with ivory artefacts and red ochre powder. This indicates that modern humans were well established in Britain at that time.

    Then there is “Chedder man” found at a site at the entrance to Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge. Here, rich archaeological evidence of human occupation from the late Upper Palaeolithic (Creswellian) was found, including artefacts made from antler and mammoth ivory, as well as the bones of adults and children dating from about 14,000 years ago.

    Mitochondrial DNA recovered from this skeleton shows that the individual is closely related to living Europeans.

  37. Cameron — on 23rd April, 2010 at 9:57 pm  

    Jai

    you really are too ignorant to comment on these sort of topics, like there were peoples in the British isles prior to the Celtic invasion. The indigenous Britons of today are descendants of both groups, as well Roman and Germanic(Jutes,Angles,Saxons, etc). I’ve seen you in your role of muslim apologist censure non-Indians for their lack of knowledge of Indian history and culture. Back at ya, you don’t understand European history and demonstrate a profound ignorance of European culture. Following your own advice, before you flatter yourself and attempt comment on British ethnicity and Culture you try and get off your ass and become familiar with the subject.

  38. Ravi.Nk — on 24th April, 2010 at 9:46 am  

    The indigenous Britons of today are descendants of both groups, as well Roman and Germanic(Jutes,Angles,Saxons, etc).

    So you are saying that the concept of “indigenous” changes over time.

    Because your definition of “indigenous” of now is different from the “indigenous” of then, before the Romans and Germanic tribes invaded these lands from the original Britons, leaving a strong cultural and genetic mark on the new British descendants.

    Nothing has changed then. The indigenous concept keeps changing over the course of time based on the people that are already established here and newcomers.

  39. KB Player — on 24th April, 2010 at 10:26 am  

    When we’ve got rid of the “non-indigenous” people we could then get rid of our “non-indigenous” language and speken Angelcynnes on thyssum ealande. The Israelis got everyone speaking Hebrew, so I can’t see why we can’t dump all the French & Latin parts of our tongue and speak like the Jutes.

  40. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 10:38 am  

    Cameron,

    It would be quite interesting to know how many settlements there were on what we now call the North Sea. Which was, at one time, a chunk of land that is no more.

    I suspect there were a few folk there.

    I find this whole idea of national identity a bit disgusting to be honest. I would hope that my DNA was a million miles away from that of Nick Griffin.

    Unfortunately, it probably isn’t.

    Doesn’t mean I like it, or him, or you come to that.

  41. Traintastic — on 24th April, 2010 at 11:34 am  

    “Therefore, as a Devil’s Advocate exercise in the interests of extrapolating the type of logic that the BNP themselves use in their assertions about non-white British citizens and the BNP’s rationale for wishing to “repatriate” the latter,…”

    What a feeble and dishonest pretext.

    Yes, we get how it’s a spoof on the logic of the BNP, but it’s the ‘facts’ you base your ‘spoof’ on that give away your own prejudice. You’ve used ‘facts’ which have not only been severely discredited in recent decades (e.g. the anglo-saxon wipeout theory), they are also the stock ‘facts’ of anglophobes over the years.

    One can revile and send up the BNP without engaging in the sort of ‘spoof’ you offered, but that would have meant you passed up the chance to offer up your own racist rant.

    India itself, about which you have lectured us in the past, has a racist nationalist party, the BJP. I take it you wouldn’t object to someone writing a ‘spoof’ in which Indians and their culture and history are completely traduced and vilified – simply as a corrective to the racism and nationalism of the BJP, you understand? It wouldn’t be anything to do with using the flimsiest excuse to slag off Indians, of course. It would just be about the BJP.

    I don’t think you would believe it would be, so don’t insult our intelligence by pretending what you wrote was merely an attack on the BNP. It was more than that.

  42. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:07 pm  

    Cameron @ 37,

    Don’t really see Jai as an apologist for anything much.

    No-one here needs lessons from you on what it means to be British.

    I doubt you have anything more than a blood and skin opinion on the subject anyway.

  43. Ravi.Nk — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:09 pm  

    Yes, we get how it’s a spoof on the logic of the BNP, but it’s the ‘facts’ you base your ’spoof’ on that give away your own prejudice

    There is that whining again. What exactly are the facts that you object to and that you claim are racist?

  44. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:11 pm  

    Traintastic @ 40,

    Well, what did he get wrong, exactly?

    All you do is criticize.

    The BNP is only there to be spoofed. Some folk say there is nothing British about the BNP. I’d say there is nothing human about them either. Shower of thick thugs.

  45. Sarah AB — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:23 pm  

    @traintastic – I’m white, English – well half English, half Welsh – and I didn’t find the article offensive. It may be inaccurate – I’ll leave that to historians/geneticists to decide – but it didn’t bother me for any other reason.

  46. KB Player — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:26 pm  

    BNP – ge ealle madmodden.

  47. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:29 pm  

    Sarah AB,

    There is always the possibility that Traintastic is, in fact, an extremely sensitive wee soul.

    There are other options, most of which are a tad unhealthy, IMHO…..

  48. Traintastic — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:33 pm  

    “Well, what did he get wrong, exactly?

    All you do is criticize.

    The BNP is only there to be spoofed. Some folk say there is nothing British about the BNP. I’d say there is nothing human about them either. Shower of thick thugs.”

    You clearly have comprehension problems. I wasn’t objecting to the BNP being spoofed or reviled anywhere. I agree with it. Jai’s post went further than that into a general sneering at the English as a whole, recycling anglophobic myths about, for instance, the anglo-saxon wipeout of Celtic peoples. Recent DNA research has trashed that myth. Even at the widest level of difference in England, ‘anglo saxons’ share 60% of their DNA with ‘Celts’. In most parts of England it’s a far higher proportion.

    Jai’s piece is also based on a demonstrably false C19th notion that Celts were the first people in Britain, when, as has been pointed out on this thread, there were modern human civilisations in Britain tens of thousands of years before them. Indeed some ethnoligst estimate 75% of those currently living in Britain are descended from those people (i.e. neither from ‘celts’ nor from ‘anglos-saxons’). Celtic and anglo saxon influences have been more in terms of culture and language, not DNA. And the terms ‘Celtic’ and ‘Germanic’ are so elastic as to be almost meaningless, and of course the two ‘tribes’ are not distinct species any more than other tribes in the world are entirely distinct from each other. Jai merely replaced one false notion of (anglo-saxon) indigenousness with another false notion of (Celtic) indigenousness. There is no virtue in pointing out the constructed and contingent nature of anglo-saxon purity while opposing it with another equally constructed and contingent one.

    Yes the BNP are a shower of thick racist thugs, and Jai is himself a thick racist thug. The fact that Jai hates the BNP doesn’t make his own motives pure or excuse his own racism or false version of history.

    “Jai, am I not a member of the BNP, so have no political/whatever axe to grind other than a desire for truth and for people to actually learn about subjects before repeating unadulterated rubbish.”

    Exactly. It would help if people like Ravi and Douglas Clark had the intellectual depth to be able to envisage that there are not always only two sides to an argument, and got beyond the kneejerk reaction of smearing their opponents as defenders of the BNP when they are nothing of the kind.

  49. Traintastic — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:35 pm  

    “There is always the possibility that Traintastic is, in fact, an extremely sensitive wee soul.

    There are other options, most of which are a tad unhealthy, IMHO…..”

    Of course, smear your opponent as a racist if they don’t agree with you. Typical Douglas Clark secure in the knowledge that your abuse of other posters gets a free pass. What a narrow-minded, self-righteous and dimwitted tosser you are.

  50. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 12:48 pm  

    Traintastic,

    Can you breed with an Inuit?

    Y’know, have kids and stuff.

    What the hell does it matter what someones DNA says about them. It seems to me that finding love and affection is more important than any debate about mitochondrial DNA, or whatever other measure you might make. There are cultural differences, to be sure. Nowt to do with genetics. A love of cricket, for instance, seems to be quite widespread. Can’t understand it myself.

    Are you going to apply that DNA test to absolutely anyone you might get into bed with? And, if so, why?

    Or not.

    Don’t really see why you have come on here, all guns blazing, to defend, well, what exactly?

  51. douglas clark — on 24th April, 2010 at 3:11 pm  

    Traintastic @ 48,

    “There is always the possibility that Traintastic is, in fact, an extremely sensitive wee soul.

    There are other options, most of which are a tad unhealthy, IMHO…..”

    Of course, smear your opponent as a racist if they don’t agree with you. Typical Douglas Clark secure in the knowledge that your abuse of other posters gets a free pass. What a narrow-minded, self-righteous and dimwitted tosser you are.

    I am asking you if you are a wee sensitive soul.

    It appears that you are.

    Are you a racist?

    Just asking….

    You are the one asking for honesty around here. Well, lets hear it.

  52. Jonathan — on 24th April, 2010 at 4:31 pm  

    @ various

    “before the Romans… leaving a strong cultural and genetic mark on the new British descendants.”

    Actually science tells us that, genetically, “there are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.”

    “Well, what did he get wrong, exactly?”

    Pretty much all of it.

    Science also tells us the reality of the homogenous and indigenous status of the British people and also comprehensively destroys the myths about the “Celts” that this rather silly piece is trying to further:

    “The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, I.E those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both “Basque” and “Celt” are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt “Basque” or a Basque “Celtic”, is a fallacy.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes

    “Can you breed with an Inuit?”

    As someone else pointed out on this site, a Lion can, and has, breed with a Tiger; it is called a “Ligger” and is neither a Lion nor a Tiger. If all Lions were to do this, there would be no Lions left. I think you understand the analogy. And you might think that is fine, which is up to you, but there are many other people who don’t, and that is up to them.

    I agree with Traintastic, all Mr Clark seems to offer up here is extremely obnoxious abuse for people he doesn’t agree with and he seems to be encouraged to do so. That is not debate. What is the point in that?

  53. Dan Dare — on 24th April, 2010 at 7:17 pm  

    Jai is now back-pedalling furiously and would wish us to accept that his original remarks were merely intended as a “spoof”.

    That being the case, he should have no difficulty in affirming what was said in #33:

    … So presumably you are now saying that you do acknowledge the indigenous status of the English, that this is their ancestral homeland[?]…

    How about it Jai?

    Since my posts in this thread (and others) have had a habit of not appearing, or appearing briefly and then disappearing, I have taken the precaution of retaining a screenshot.

    Submitted at 19:15 on 24.4.10

  54. NotDigby — on 24th April, 2010 at 7:19 pm  

    This post by Dan Dare was submitted a few minutes ago and failed to appear, so here it is again.

    What is it you characters are afraid of that you need to resort to censorship and banning?

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

    Jai is now back-pedalling furiously and would wish us to accept that his original remarks were merely intended as a “spoof”.

    That being the case, he should have no difficulty in affirming what was said in #33:

    … So presumably you are now saying that you do acknowledge the indigenous status of the English, that this is their ancestral homeland[?]…

    How about it Jai?

    Since my posts in this thread (and others) have had a habit of not appearing, or appearing briefly and then disappearing, I have taken the precaution of retaining a screenshot.

    Submitted at 19:15 on 24.4.10

  55. Ravi.Nk — on 24th April, 2010 at 7:46 pm  

    I agree with Traintastic, all Mr Clark seems to offer up

    First of all, IAAE: nice try in posting all these comments using names of different people and then agreeing with them. I mean, this is just sad and pathetic. Yes, there is something in your messages that gives you away.

    As someone else pointed out on this site, a Lion can, and has, breed with a Tiger; it is called a “Ligger” and is neither a Lion nor a Tiger. If all Lions were to do this, there would be no Lions left. I think you understand the analogy. And you might think that is fine, which is up to you, but there are many other people who don’t, and that is up to them.

    It is actually called a “Liger”. A “Ligger” just sounds like a racist epithet against ligers. ;-) I have no idea what is your argument, but nobody gives a damn if you are racist and you mate with someone of your own race for the purpose of extending your race. But it seems that you have a problem if people of your race are not racist and don’t give a damn about the race of their partner. The fact is that you or the BNP do not own the people that you wish to represent, and have no rights or say over who they should or should not mate.

    Science also tells us the reality of the homogenous and indigenous status of the British people and also comprehensively destroys the myths about the “Celts” that this rather silly piece is trying to further

    Bryan Sykes provided a hypothesis, there is no universal consensus on his interpretation. There is enough evidence that Celts originated from Northern Spain, and Anglo-Saxons from Germany and Denmark. And the Romans just came in between.

  56. NotDigby — on 24th April, 2010 at 8:03 pm  

    Ravi opined:

    There is enough evidence that Celts originated from Northern Spain

    Rubbish, there is no such evidence.

    But I should ask you the same question I asked Jai, and which he has sidestepped.: what do you mean by ‘Celt’?

  57. Jonathan — on 24th April, 2010 at 8:26 pm  

    @ Rav

    “First of all, IAAE: nice try in posting all these comments using names of different people and then agreeing with them. I mean, this is just sad and pathetic. Yes, there is something in your messages that gives you away.”

    First of all you are quite clearly unable to accept that your arguments are scientifically wrong and so resort to the playground tactics this site is renowned for.

    In common with all people that have to use these silly little games to cover up the fact that they have been proven wrong, you provide not a shred of proof for your conspiracy theories because you have none, you make the accusations purely as a smear and a “look over there” distraction away from the fact that you are wrong.

    Now that is truly sad and pathetic.

    “I have no idea what is your argument”

    Then why are commenting on it and calling me a “racist” then? You crank.

    “The fact is that you or the BNP do not own the people that you wish to represent, and have no rights or say over who they should or should not mate.”

    What are you rambling on about now? Who said anything like that? What a crank.

    “Bryan Sykes provided a hypothesis”

    Actually it is Professor to you and it is not a hypothesis but a genetic fact. The term “Celt” is a cultural term, not a genetic one.

    I think Professor of ‘Human Genetics’ Sykes at the University of Oxford is just a little more credible then you, don’t you? In fact right now I think given your opening remarks just about anyone has more credibility then you on any topic.

    Just to help you further understand the term:

    “Celts (pronounced /ˈkelts/ or /ˈselts/, see names of the Celts) is a modern term used to describe any of the European peoples of antiquity who spoke a Celtic language.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

    “And the Romans just came in between.”

    Already knocked your rubbish about the Romans down with scientific fact; you’re just going to have to try another angle to deny the British and English people’s existence and legitimacy.

    “There is enough evidence that Celts originated from Northern Spain”

    Let’s see it then, because after that outburst above you can’t really expect anyone to take your word on anything now can you?

    And given that the term “Celt” is a cultural term not a genetic one there are some terminal difficulties in this: “But both “Basque” and “Celt” are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt “Basque” or a Basque “Celtic”, is a fallacy.”

    But go then, let’s see this independent and credible evidence, or let’s have an apology out of you all.

  58. Ravi.Nk — on 24th April, 2010 at 11:09 pm  

    Then why are commenting on it and calling me a “racist” then? You crank.

    What was the point about the liger, and say some people do not like mixing? Is miscigenation wrong? Should the government prohibit it? I mean, just say it.

    “There is enough evidence that Celts originated from Northern Spain”

    Let’s see it then, because after that outburst above you can’t really expect anyone to take your word on anything now can you?

    Here you go:

    Sykes’ and Oppenheimer’s books, based upon recent genetic studies, make a case for the majority of Britons having ancestors from the Iberian Peninsula, as a result of a series of migrations that took place during the Mesolithic and, to a lesser extent, the Neolithic eras…

    …By far the majority of male gene types in Britain and Ireland derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland.

    The plot thickens… ;)

  59. KB Player — on 24th April, 2010 at 11:25 pm  

    What a bunch of weirdos all this lot are, wanting to prove pure Celtic or Romanno-British or Jute/Frisian/Danish/Anglo/Saxon. Creepy too, with their horror at cross-breeding, which is one of the themes of Mein Kampf. Assuming they could prove these pure blood lines, how does it follow that these should be preserved as a ruling majority? It seems to me as crazy as, say, chucking out all the foreign plants -(eg beech trees) and reverting back to the very limited number of native species.

    I mean, I can imagine a harmless hobby of tracing DNA ancestry, but actually having a political movement that some way enforces a continuation of this kind of DNA is utterly freaky and weird.

  60. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 12:17 am  

    Ravi @56

    Unfortunately Sykes and Oppenheimer have both been overtaken by events. At the time they were writing five years ago, it was still generally believed that the R1b lineage (ie ‘Celts’) derived from the autochthonous hunter-gathers who emerged from the Franco-Cantabrian refugium in the Upper Paleolithic.

    That hypothesis has been demolished by later genetic research which has shown that the predecessors of the British R1b population, as defined by the M269 marker, did not enter Europe from the east until around 5.5 kya. Thus the R1b lineage is too young to have been present in Britain in the UP and Mesolithic. It is now believed to have arrived in the Neolithic, around 4.5 kya. The oldest strains of the R1b-L21 and R1b-S68 subclades which characterise most the male population in Britain are to be found in the Rhineland and in Frisia, respectively, not in Northern Iberia.

    Here’s some bedtime reading for you:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336805/?tool=pmcentrez

    Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

  61. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 1:32 am  

    It is now believed to have arrived in the Neolithic, around 4.5 kya. The oldest strains of the R1b-L21 and R1b-S68 subclades which characterise most the male population in Britain are to be found in the Rhineland and in Frisia, respectively, not in Northern Iberia.

    I want to know: (a) your source, (b) the percentage of R1b-S68 found in most of the male population in Britain, and (c) the revised percentage of male gene types in Britain found in (and derived from) Northern Iberia.

  62. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 1:38 am  

    @ Rav

    Well at least you have seen sense enough to stop your silly games and accusations; but unfortunately you have still not proven your idea “that Celts originated from Northern Spain” as not only is there mention of Celts in that quote, but as already explained to you this expert explains that the term “Celt” is a cultural one, not a genetic one.

    So your still in the same position as you were before: You’re just going to have to try another angle to deny the British and English people’s existence and legitimacy.

    As for the liger thing, your man brought it up with his “Can you breed with an Inuit” and I simply explained that whilst you can, just as a Tiger can breed with a Lion, the result is neither a Tiger nor a Lion just as the result would be neither an Inuit or the other party.

    The rest is your own imagination.

    @ KB player

    I assume your observation is directed at the author of this badly written, scientifically wrong piece of anti-English propaganda?

  63. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 2:03 am  

    Ravi @59

    You are just taking your first baby-steps towards enlightenment and I do not want to spend too much time until you reached a sufficient level of understanding.

    Your first assignment is to read and digest this Wikipedia article, and the accompanying citations, then we can proceed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b

    Don’t worry, this particular Wiki is reasonably up-to-date and reliable.

  64. Sarah AB — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:01 am  

    @KB Player – yes, from a scientific perspective this is an interesting topic – I remember reading about that DNA match between the Cheddar man and modern local residents and finding the link rather pleasing and intriguing – just as it’s intriguing to learn that internal evidence proves how very ancient the Basque language is – eg because there is a link between the word for stone and words for various weapons and tools which would have been made out of stone in the distant past. BUT I have no wish for policies concerning immigration/race to be based around information about the movements of people living thousands of years ago. I suspect that, for some commenting here, an interest in these rather recondite matters came after they had formulated views about race and immigration. I agree with Douglas at 49 – there are so many factors which determine whether we feel we have something in common with someone – interests, politics, age, education, class, profession – and people with close DNA matches – such as siblings – are often very different from one another and/or don’t get on.

  65. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:52 am  

    but unfortunately you have still not proven your idea “that Celts originated from Northern Spain” as not only is there mention of Celts in that quote, but as already explained to you this expert explains that the term “Celt” is a cultural one, not a genetic one.

    If you click the link I provided along with the quote, you will see it is about Celtic migration to Britain. The burden of proof is on your side, not on mine. Mind you, before the Celtic migration, there were pre-Celtic indigenous people already living in Britain, but we know very little about their culture. Again, the definition of indigenous keeps changing over time.

    It is well established that there is a close genetic and cultural link between Celtic people from Northern Iberia and Britain. NotDigby’s counter-argument that Celtic refers to a cultural link not a genetic one is flawed (is he really your expert?). The fact that not all Celtic groups are genetically linked, does not mean that some of these groups cannot be ethnically related.

    As for the liger thing, your man brought it up with his “Can you breed with an Inuit” and I simply explained that whilst you can, just as a Tiger can breed with a Lion, the result is neither a Tiger nor a Lion just as the result would be neither an Inuit or the other party. The rest is your own imagination.

    First of all, most people would answer “yes” and move on. In your case, you decided to bring the Liger as to make a point but then you became too ashamed to go all the way and say it. Second, the Tiger and the Lion belong to different species. Humans of all races belong to the same species.

    So your still in the same position as you were before: You’re just going to have to try another angle to deny the British and English people’s existence and legitimacy

    First of all, I have never denied English people’s existence. I have seen them with my very own eyes and have interacted with them in a number of ways. However, let’s make it clear that the only merchants of social and ethnic exclusion are the BNP on the basis of indigenousness.

    If that’s your rhetoric, then we will call your bluff and demand that yourself (IAAE), Nick Griffin and all others that live by social and ethnic exclusion to publish their genetic tests to see how indigenous they really are. I am particularly curious about Nick Griffin’s origins.

  66. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 12:24 pm  

    Nah Jonathan, I was talking to you, you blood-line obsessed weirdo. You sound as cranky and crazy as someone who wants to restore the Stuarts to the English throne.

    Sarah – yes – it’s interesting, just like learning about the relationship of languages is interesting, most in Europe descending from Proto Indo-European, while others like Basque and Finnish bearing no relation to other languages. (It’s years since I’ve learned this so I may be out of date.) Language has some bearing on politics (eg Welsh and Gaelic), but blood-lines . . ah well, the volk are a joke and a nasty one at that.

  67. Naadir Jeewa — on 25th April, 2010 at 12:45 pm  

    I think this article highlights the dangers of fighting primordialist myths of nationalism with other primordialist ones.

    I’m a happy ethnosymbolist myself. Ethnies have lots of symbols lying around, that can be mobilised in different ways at different times for different political purposes by different people to constitute an ethnicity.

  68. Jemmy Hope — on 25th April, 2010 at 3:22 pm  

    Anyone surnamed Griffin will be a descendant of -
    a) Breton settlers in East Anglia post-1066
    b) A Welshman originally named Gruffudd who settled on the Anglo-Welsh border
    c) An Irish clan originally surnamed Ó Gríobhtha

    The Beaker Folk shall rise again!

  69. Don — on 25th April, 2010 at 3:36 pm  

    KB,

    You sound as cranky and crazy as someone who wants to restore the Stuarts to the English throne.

    Hey! That was uncalled for. A Stuart restoration could have a lot of advantages to a significant number of people.

  70. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

    @ Rav

    “The burden of proof is on your side, not on mine.”

    Very interesting comment, with my side being the indigenous English having “to prove to your side” primarily non-indigenous people that we do indeed exist in our land.

    And the other aspect to this is that the author of this article has the burden of proof, not us. And the very anti-English premise of this article has already been demolished.

    “If you click the link I provided along with the quote, you will see it is about Celtic migration to Britain…It is well established that there is a close genetic and cultural link between Celtic people from Northern Iberia and Britain.”

    You really cannot grasp fundamentals: The term “Celtic” is a cultural one, not a genetic one.

    “notDigby’s counter-argument that Celtic refers to a cultural link not a genetic one is flawed (is he really your expert?).”

    Are you for real? Do you really not understand what is going on but comment anyway? I explained this to you in detail. Jesus F Christ.

    Once more for you: The expert is the very same expert you use, Professor Sykes:

    “The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, I.E those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both “Basque” and “Celt” are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt “Basque” or a Basque “Celtic”, is a fallacy.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes
    “First of all, most people would answer “yes” and move on.”

    And your proof for this is…

    Just because the deluded cranks you mix with might, don’t confuse that with ordinary people who actually think for themselves.

    “In your case, you decided to bring the Liger as to make a point but then you became too ashamed to go all the way and say it”

    Say what you crank? I said exactly what I wanted to say. No more, no less.

    “Second, the Tiger and the Lion belong to different species. Humans of all races belong to the same species.”

    And yet they can still interbreed just as humans can.

    And I know that you are not the brightest star in the sky, so this is probably way over your head, but consider this fact and what it actually means:

    ” Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn’t find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study. “

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html

    “First of all, I have never denied English people’s existence.”

    Really? Because at the start of your remarks you said the burden of proof was on the English to prove that they are indigenous and therefore exist.

    “then we will call your bluff and demand that yourself (IAAE)”

    Ah, back to the unprovable conspiracy theories again because you have been taken apart once more!

    Playground stuff, but go on then, once more what actual proof do you have that I am who you now claim I am? What evidence?

    None. It is a lie and a typically bizarre leftist distraction game. So what does that make you personally?

    (But what difference would it make anyway? You would still have been proven wrong.)

    “publish their genetic tests to see how indigenous they really are”

    How about you publish yours first? I am particularly curious about your origins.

    Then maybe, just maybe, the English might consider that they have to answer to a foreign interloper to prove their legitimacy in their homeland.

    But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

    @ KB Player

    No you were talking to the blood obsessed weirdo who wrote this anti-English hate piece and all the people that support it; you were talking to yourself too.

  71. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 4:13 pm  

    Well.

    It all depends on some concept of different species. Which is, apologies, a heap of shite.

    It is perfectly obvious that the human race is not so diverse that realistic prospects of children from the link up of our extreme differences can’t provide viable offspring.

    Frankly, I don’t care about the depth of a human genome in the UK.

    It is just shite.

    Are we supposed to assume that having sexual relationships with BNP members is a positive thing?

    Personally, I’d prefer the whole human race to die out.

    BNP fanboys are an atrocity, a dismal version of humanity.

    I am pretty sure about that.

  72. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 4:34 pm  

    @ Douglas Clark

    Well there you go; that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it in this democracy of ours.

    Just as other are entitled to their opinions.

    And the truth is that your politics and your party don’t speak for anywhere near as many people as the BNP do.

    In the last major nation-wide election in this country (last year’s European elections) the BNP got three times more votes then the SNP and now has the same number of MEP’s.

    Also consider this discovery (you will have to read the article for context) and see if you can work out what it actually means:

    ” Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn’t find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study. “

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html

  73. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 4:47 pm  

    Jonathan @ 72,

    I’d like to think most Scottish people don’t give a fuck for what you think.

    I could be wrong about that.

    Let’s see how all your fans writing on here win.

    You don’t actually have a clue about alternate identities, do you?

    It is pretty obvious that you have a one tracked mind.

  74. Bee — on 25th April, 2010 at 5:06 pm  

    “that this is their ancestral homeland and they and the other Britons built this country into somewhat of a honeypot for failed states people to flock to. People like you or your forebears.”

    A lot of that honey came from the blood, sweat and tears of the people of those “failed states” before they were “failed states”. A lot of those lands were honeypots for the Britons. If your country was such a honeypot before all these coloured immigrants descended upon you, why did your forebearers feel the need to leave its golden shores and travel to all these “failed states” looking for riches and resources? You descended on us before we descended on you. You didn’t build your “honeypot” all by your indigenous selves, no matter what you believe. When our forebearers saw their wealth being sucked away to create your honeypot, they merely followed the trail honey:) And if you believe current immigrants are a source of your failures now and not your successes, well your forebearers contributed to our failures as well:) If only they had stayed in Britain like good indigenous people do.

  75. Sarah AB — on 25th April, 2010 at 5:33 pm  

    @Jonathan. “And yet they can still interbreed just as humans can.”

    Not really. A union between a lion and a tiger is quite different from one between any two humans as lions and tigers are different species – which is why ligers, like other hybrids such as mules, have compromised fertility.

  76. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 6:29 pm  

    A correction to post 63.

    In the following, R1b-S68 should be replaced by R1b-S21.

    The oldest strains of the R1b-L21 and R1b-S68 subclades which characterise most the male population in Britain are to be found in the Rhineland and in Frisia, respectively, not in Northern Iberia.

  77. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 6:35 pm  

    The BNP has amazing party intellectuals. Other parties’ intellectuals will study up stuff like economics or political history and theory, the BNP always goes in for race studies, with emphasis on species analogies. Party rank and file – ignorant thugs. Party thinkers – wacky holocaust deniers and cranky DNA spotters. They are deeply, deeply weird.

    Richard III should have won the Battle of Bosworth and the descendants of the house of Lancaster should be restored to the monarchy.

  78. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 6:37 pm  

    Ravi @ 65

    NotDigby’s counter-argument that Celtic refers to a cultural link not a genetic one is flawed…

    That is not an argument that I have deployed, and would not do so because it would be false (as written).

    And anyway, I don’t believe that either you or Jai have yet delivered a defintion of the term ‘Celt’ that you bandy about so freely.

    What does it mean, in your view?

  79. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 6:59 pm  

    NotDigby baby @ 76 and 78,

    you do realise you are an idiot?

    I couldn’t give a fuck about subclades.

    You lost, because of the paper, scizzors, string ability of folk to see sex, or love, as more important that your racist shite.

  80. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 7:11 pm  

    Scissors, Dougie, surely?

    The present discussion concerns the question of who is and who is not part of the indigenous population of the British Isles.

    Genetic geneaology (which by definition rests on knowledge of haplogroups and subclades) is probably the only way in which that question can be answered.

    It’s perfectly fine that you couldn’t give a fuck about it, in which case one wonders why you persist in haunting this particular thread.

    So why not fuck off and do something else, and leave the rest of us to continue with a sensible and reasoned discussion.

  81. Ravi.N — on 25th April, 2010 at 7:16 pm  

    Really? Because at the start of your remarks you said the burden of proof was on the English to prove that they are indigenous and therefore exist..

    You misunderstood me. I specifically mentioned that people who want to exclude others on the basis of their lack of “indigenousness” should provide genetic proof that they themselves do not have foreign gene types. I mean, Jonathan, we can tolerate ethno-whiners like yourself, but ethno-hypocrites? That would be too much.

    What does it mean, in your view?

    If you do not know, you should learn a thing or two before commenting. I guess that’s the reason you decided to bypass my questions in #61.

  82. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 7:35 pm  

    @ Douglas Clark

    Well clearly the majority “of Scottish people don’t give a fuck for what you think” actually Douglas; that much is a fact. The SNP are still a minor fringe party and so are your ideas.

    And we do know that three times more people nationally voted last time for the BNP then the SNP so more people are inclined to BNP ideas then yours.

    No need to cry over it, it’s just the way it is.

    @ Bee

    “A lot of that honey came from the blood, sweat and tears of the people of those “failed states” before they were “failed states”

    Firstly, in the main, the areas that the world’s greatest explorers and empire builders, the British, went to were not states; for instance Australia, Canada and Australia were only born as states when the British formed them and places like India and Pakistan only become the nations they are now after the British created them.

    “If your country was such a honeypot before all these coloured immigrants descended upon you, why did your forebearers feel the need to leave its golden shores and travel to all these “failed states” looking for riches and resources?”

    You answered your own question there, and in conjunction with point above, this was not immigration so the correlation is erroneous; it was empire building in a different era.

    “You descended on us before we descended on you”

    As explained above it is not the same; You didn’t descend upon us at all; if you had tried that our military would have smashed you.

    You emigrated here on the say so of governments that have never had any mandate to do so, and for reasons never explained.

    But the one reason never put forward in public by any party is that we deserve it / it’s our comeuppance / revenge.

    “You didn’t build your “honeypot” all by your indigenous selves, no matter what you believe.”

    Yes we did, my ancestors may taken and traded foreign resources, but the country itself with all of its legal, governmental etc infrastructures and intricate organisations was an organic product of the indigenous British.

    “When our forebearers saw their wealth being sucked away to create your honeypot, they merely followed the trail honey:)”

    For one, the British took only a fraction of these resources and are most certainly not living on them now, and haven’t been for quite some time; and secondly you didn’t follow anything; as explained you were allowed to come here on the say so of governments that have never had any mandate to do so and it occurred enmasse long after the British left these regions.

    “And if you believe current immigrants are a source of your failures now and not your successes, well your forebearers contributed to our failures as well:)”

    The regions with huge populations that Britain was able to dominate with minuscule numbers, like India, were clearly already failed regions are how else could we have done it?

    100,000 Britons being able to control nearly 1 billion people says it all; and also says that it couldn’t have happened with much consent too.

    We left much more benefit in government, laws, infrastructure then we ever took, especially in Africa where they had not even invented the wheel by the time we arrived.

    But the bottom line is that was then and this is now. We care about now.

    @ Sarah AB

    “Not really”

    Absolutely.

    “Like other hybrids such as mules, have compromised fertility.”

    Right you mean, for instance, how the indigenous Britons did not have to worry about Sickle Cell Ammonia unless they interbreed with Africans? And then their offspring do?

    That type of genetic transference?

    @ KB Player

    You have clearly been criticising the author of this post as a “blood obsessed weirdo” and all that support him and have to overcompensate with your silly little UAF stereotypes as a result.

    You are a very prejudiced individual, a bigot in fact.

  83. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 7:57 pm  

    Not Digby @ 80.

    Y’what?

    It’s perfectly fine that you couldn’t give a fuck about it, in which case one wonders why you persist in haunting this particular thread.

    No, it is a difference of opinion about what it means to be British.

    As far as I am concerned it is about being a citizen, as far as you appear to be concerned it is about some sort of obscure DNA.

    There are a few folk here that I would vote for, just because I agree with them. There are, OTOH, folk like you that I wouldn’t vote for no matter how white you turned out to be.

    That, Digby, has never been a measure for me, or anyone sane.

  84. Sarah AB — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:09 pm  

    Jonathan – you mean sickle cell anemia rather than ammonia I think! Actually that disease is difficult to get unless both your parents have it. And it is indeed particularly associated with certain ethnicities and hardly at all with others. So I would have thought a bit more marriage between population groups would be a good way of cutting the incidence of the disease.

  85. Ravi.N — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:13 pm  

    The regions with huge populations that Britain was able to dominate with minuscule numbers, like India, were clearly already failed regions are how else could we have done it?

    The Indian subcontinent from the 1st century until as late as 1700 was one of the richest regions in the world, with wealth that was equivalent to the whole of Europe. The Europeans had developed far better weapons and machinery for war, which gave them advantage over Asia.

  86. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:13 pm  

    Jonathan @ 82,

    What a complete joy to have you comment on here!

    Have you ever commented on here before?

    I think I am right in saying that the SNP are close to winning in Scotland, though the voting system might mean that we do not win seats off Labour.

    I have no idea what your stupid sentence is supposed to prove:

    And we do know that three times more people nationally voted last time for the BNP then the SNP so more people are inclined to BNP ideas then yours.

    If English folk are daft enough to vote for you, well, hell mend them. We, for obvious reasons, don’t even stand candidates in England. Your candidates in Scotland will get fucked. Your thugs will not win a seat and be fortunate to save a deposit.

    What a complete utter fool you are.

  87. Naadir Jeewa — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:14 pm  

    Sickle Cell Anemia is an evolutionary adaptation to malaria. Heterozygous carriers face a 20% reduction in mortality.

  88. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:22 pm  

    @ Douglas Clark

    “No, it is a difference of opinion about what it means to be British.”

    But you don’t actually want to be British, do you Douglas? And neither do you want another 5 million people to continue be British if you had your way.

    But your ideas are ‘rejected’ by the majority of the Scottish people, and given your stance on independence you have little right to comment on what you think should happen UK wide and no right to comment as such on England.

    It is not your difference of opinion that is really the issue here, I have already said your opinion is your absolute right to hold and so have others, the issue is the nasty abuse you use for those you disagree with and your lack of respect for their right to hold an opinion different to yours.

    As for your end remark about a country retaining its real character “has never been a measure for me, or anyone sane” for one as I have said, three times more people nationally voted BNP then SNP at the last major election so that puts your ideas into perspective, and secondly you claim to be a nationalist, so can you please explain what that actually means to you and the nationalist policies you advocate?

    I think that might be more constructive as you are not interested in this thread, and hopefully more civil.

  89. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:30 pm  

    Sickle Cell Anemia is an evolutionary adaptation to malaria. Heterozygous carriers face a 20% reduction in mortality.

    There is also a related genetic disease called Thalassemia which affects Southern Europeans (Greeks and Italians), and that also gives them some protection against Malaria. But of course, I can understand why Jonathan wants to focus on Sickle Cell Anemia.

  90. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:36 pm  

    Jonathan,

    You haven’t a scooby, have you?

    I am very fond of a lot of folk that comment here. I am very fond of OGH, and folk like Rumbold and Jai and Sonia, not to mention Sarah AB, Naadir Jeewa and others. (Not you, obviously.)

    When I say ‘fond’ it means in this context that they sway my opinion, that they are worth listening to, that they are, well, quite intelligent and quite persuasive. And decent.

    It is not my problem that three times as many people voted for your idiotic party than the SNP.

    I have already explained why that might be. It will be interesting to see whether you gain or lose votes in the coming election. I suspect the latter.

  91. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:49 pm  

    @ Naadir

    Yes, I know what it is. The point still stands.

    @ Rav

    “…which affects Southern Europeans (Greeks and Italians)…”

    But not indigenous Britons. Why is that?

    “But of course, I can understand why Jonathan wants to focus on Sickle Cell Anemia.”

    Watch out, more conspiracy theories from Rav. Even facts are conspiratorial when they do not conform to the PC propaganda!

    The fact is that Ethnicity is a major factor affecting the health of individuals and communities, and so is intermixing exposing offspring to diseases and ailments previously not associated with their indigenous British parent.

    Another example is Tay Sachs disease, is almost exclusively found only in Ashkenazi Jew’s; it is not found in the indigenous British.

    Even in minor areas of health, ethnicity plays a major role such as with Lactose intolerance, which affects (over their lifetime) as many as 25% of white Europeans but up to 50-80% of Hispanic people, along with people from southern India and Ashkenazi Jews, but nearly 100% of American Indians (Native Americans.)

    There are other negative effects too:

    “A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems, and various aches and pains.”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_20_20/ai_111529997/

    “Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race.”

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/93/11/1865

  92. douglas clark — on 25th April, 2010 at 8:55 pm  

    Jonathan,

    I don’t think that a random selection of shite is particularily useful. Other than proving that you can find a random selection of shite to quote.

    Still, I suspect the mentally deranged find a pleasure in that.

  93. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:02 pm  

    @ Douglas Clark

    “I am very fond of a lot of folk that comment here. I am very fond of OGH, and folk like Rumbold and Jai and Sonia, not to mention Sarah AB, Naadir Jeewa and others. (Not you, obviously.)”

    All fine and well, but the problem is that this is not a school playground where that kind of abusive behaviour is to be expected nor is it a social club, this is a political site in the public domain that posts articles for debate.

    If you can’t handle that and you are after company instead, then you are in the wrong place.

    I don’t care if you don’t agree with me and feel you have to hate people that don’t agree with you. Just accept that we live in a democracy where differing opinions are not only tolerated but essential and that abusing people you don’t agree with is the most un-democratic and un-British of traits.

    Not that you want to be British, but it rather looks like you are stuck with it in any case.

    “When I say ‘fond’ it means in this context that they sway my opinion, that they are worth listening to, that they are, well, quite intelligent and quite persuasive.”

    You must admit that you start off on a position diametrically opposed to real nationalists and filter comments through that lens. From what I have seen, and I haven’t been here long, but you don’t really seem to debate so much as abuse people that you don’t agree with anyway.

    “And decent.”

    Very rich. See above.

    “It is not my problem that three times as many people voted for your idiotic party than the SNP.”

    It is your problem when you talk as if you have so much support and the BNP have none.

    And if we are idiots and get three times more votes then the SNP, where does that leave you on that chart?!

    But why can’t you answer my queries, can you please explain what being a nationalist actually means to you and the nationalist policies you advocate?

  94. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:03 pm  

    Dougie @83

    There are two aspects to being British, as I believe you are well aware.

    First, there is civic Britishness, which is defined by the citizenship and naturalisation regulations. These of course can be amended from to time for political purposes by the then current regime, as has occured on numerous occasions since the inception of the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    And then there is ethnic Britishness which arises by descent from one or another of the constituent ethnies that comprise the indigenous population of the British Isles.

    The first can be bestowed or revoked by administrative fiat, according to the prevailing political wind, while the second is a function of who you are and where you’re from, and cannot be altered or rescinded even if you yourself would wish it.

    Clear now?

  95. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:08 pm  

    But not indigenous Britons. Why is that?

    Naadir already gave you a hint. It is not an advantageous trait in Britain because it was not affected by Malaria. Mind you, in the US, sickle cell only affects 0.20% of black population and the tendency is to go down.

    A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression

    How cute. And you understood from this study that it had something to do with mixing genes from different ethnicities, like the diseases you mentioned previously?

  96. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:12 pm  

    You have clearly been criticising the author of this post as a “blood obsessed weirdo” and all that support him and have to overcompensate with your silly little UAF stereotypes as a result.

    No I haven’t. You can’t read. You’re the blood obsessed weirdo. The post is a moderately funny spoof of the tribal obsessions of the BNP – and with every remark you make I can see you really are beyond parody.

    I demand that all the descendants of Normans be returned to France, starting with Ricky Gervais!

  97. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:16 pm  

    Jonathan @ 92

    “abusing people you don’t agree with is the most un-democratic and un-British of traits”

    Jonathan @ 82

    “You are a very prejudiced individual, a bigot in fact.”

    Regard those two statements. Jonathan proves his own un-Britishness.

  98. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:17 pm  

    Malaria was actually quite prevalent in Britain until the middle 19C, especially in marshy areas like the fens before large-scale drainage was common. It wasn’t called malaria though, it was known as ‘Ague’.

  99. Naadir Jeewa — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:30 pm  

    @93 – A marvelous abuse of Hans Kohn‘s work on nationalism. The whole point is that the Anglo-American tradition is fundamentally a civic nationalism, traceable all the way back to 1608 when the courts chose to grant equal statuses to Scottish and English subjects.

    So, you want to junk that tradition in favour of a later model of Eastern ethnic nationalism?

  100. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:51 pm  

    @98

    Subject and citizen are entirely separate concepts. The status of British citizen did not exist until it was created in 1981.

    But yes, I would propose that of all the possible ways to organise human society, ethno-nationalism is the model which is one which will produce the lowest level of inter-ethnic strife. The dismal history of earlier multi-ethnic states is the obvious first exhibit in support of such a proposition.

    Have you noticed how many ethno-states have been created since WW II. More are on the way.

  101. Naadir Jeewa — on 25th April, 2010 at 9:55 pm  

    @99 – Yes, but the British subject was still a civic nationalism. It always has been.

    So, you basically admit that you want “indigenous” Brits, whatever that is to you, to junk the entire political system that’s been in operation for 402 years?

  102. Sarah AB — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:00 pm  

    @99 “The dismal history of earlier multi-ethnic states”. Like the Roman Empire?

  103. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:07 pm  

    @ Sarah

    Yes that would a prime example. It’s often held that the beginning of the decline can be dated to the Edict of Caracalla in AD 227, by which Roman citizenship was offered to all free men throughout the Empire as a means of enhancing tax revenues.

    Rather similar in many important respects to NuLabor’s ‘managed migration’ scheme, a principal benefit of which is said to be the increased tax receipts that it delivers. This last claim is of course very hotly disputed.

  104. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:08 pm  

    @ Ravi

    “It is not an advantageous trait in Britain because it was not affected by Malaria”

    Malaria was once common in this country as a matter of fact, so once again you are so very wrong.

    But it is not an ‘advantageous trait’ for the indigenous Britons now in any case, who don’t have to worry about it and all the negative health aspects it attracts unless they choose to unless they interbreed with Africans; and thier children do.

    So my point still stands, what is your point exactly?

    “Mind you, in the US, sickle cell only affects 0.20% of black population and the tendency is to go down.”

    In the United States, about 1 in 500 black births have sickle-cell anemia.

    “How cute. And you understood from this study that it had something to do with mixing genes from different ethnicities, like the diseases you mentioned previously?”

    I think my introduction of “There are other negative effects too” covered that it was separate from the diseases I mentioned earlier. Try to keep up.

    @ KB Player

    “No I haven’t. You can’t read.”

    Yes you have as this whole piece is based upon blood, and this is no spoof as the author tried voraciously to defend his anti-English article until he realised the game was up and backtracked.

    We are all still waiting for him to address comment 33 too.

    Emphasized

    “The post is a moderately funny spoof of the tribal obsessions of the BNP”

    I wonder how funny you would find so-called spoofs that weren’t anti-English? How about a similar anti-Jewish / anti-Black / anti-Asian spoof, would you find that equally amusing?

    “Regard those two statements. Jonathan proves his own un-Britishness.”

    Wow, you really are far gone aren’t you?

    Nothing in these two statements is even remotely abuse, I leave that to you and your un-British ways; no, they are two measured statements of fact taken, aside from your other incessant abuse, from comment 77.

    What is about people like you and hateful abuse for people you disagree with? If you don’t like democracy there are plenty of countries out there for you. If you think everyone should think as you do or be punished / abused / put to death the USSR has now gone, but you could try China?

  105. NotDigby — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:09 pm  

    @100

    Not the entire political system, just some bits of it.

    The British subject was a subject of the Crown and not of any ‘civic nation’.

  106. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:24 pm  

    What is about people like you and hateful abuse for people you disagree with? If you don’t like democracy there are plenty of countries out there for you. If you think everyone should think as you do or be punished / abused / put to death the USSR has now gone, but you could try China?

    A robust democracy allows for a lot of shouting, heckling and abuse. There was once this fine old British tradition of pelting candidates who stood for election. You may, of course, not be interested in any British history after the time the Iceni went about in woad.

    It’s a huge jump to get from verbal abuse on a blog to wanting death sentences for dissidents. However, if that’s your fantasy, enjoy it.

    Oh, and only one of those two statements was abusive, which was the point of my comment. It is abusive to call someone a “bigot”.

    BTW what is totally un-British of you is your total lack of any sense of humour whatsoever, however much amusement you (unconsciously) provide.

    Destroy Christianity! It is an import from the Middle East via Europe!

  107. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:47 pm  

    @ KB Player

    The British are renowned the world over for their cool, calm, reserved politeness. If you don’t know this then you really do need to get away from your UAF friends and mix with some normal people.

    It’s not a huge leap at all for political abuse to turn into political violence; all regimes that have practised such savagery are made up of people like you who started off with the verbal abuse of political opponents, and then, ended up with gulag and the gun.

    The left for instance have murdered 110,000,000 innocent people so far, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987, so I think I have every right to point out that your tactics are to dehumanise perceived political opponents and why.

    And to call you prejudiced and a bigot is 100% accurate unless you really claim to have met or carried out an independent academic study on the membership of the BNP let alone the one million who voted BNP last year; if you have not, and of course you have not, then your comments at 77 are just stereotypical leftist rubbish and consequently both prejudiced and bigoted.

    I have a great sense of humour, but funnily enough it is another British trait not to meekly giggle whilst some extremist abuses you.

  108. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 10:53 pm  

    don’t have to worry about it and all the negative health aspects it attracts unless they choose to unless they interbreed with Africans; and thier children do… So my point still stands

    Did you calculate the risk of having children with sickle cell disease if you mated with an arbitrary British African female? Because when you use the term “worry”, it seems like you have.

    “Mind you, in the US, sickle cell only affects 0.20% of black population and the tendency is to go down.”

    In the United States, about 1 in 500 black births have sickle-cell anemia.

    I guess basic maths is not your strongest subject, uh?

  109. Jonathan — on 25th April, 2010 at 11:16 pm  

    @ Rav

    What was the point of your last comment? What do you think you actually achieved.

  110. KB Player — on 25th April, 2010 at 11:21 pm  

    I have a great sense of humour

    Please provide quotations and/or links. You can’t merely assert such a thing, especially as every statement you’ve made here directly contradicts this.

  111. Ravi.Nk — on 25th April, 2010 at 11:51 pm  

    Malaria was actually quite prevalent in Britain until the middle 19C, especially in marshy areas like the fens before large-scale drainage was common.

    I stand corrected.

    It’s often held that the beginning of the decline can be dated to the Edict of Caracalla in AD 227, by which Roman citizenship was offered to all free men throughout the Empire as a means of enhancing tax revenues.

    Can you name one credible Historian that believes that this edict marked the decline of Rome, and why would it have that effect?

  112. NotDigby — on 26th April, 2010 at 12:09 am  

    If memory serves, it’s in Gibbon. One of the unanticipated side-effects was to diminish the attractiveness of military service for non-Romans, since prior to Caracalla’s edict that was one of the few ways that aliens could attain citizenship.

    This had the general effect of weakening the Empire militarily, which weakened its ability to resist the barbarian invasions in the third and fourth centuries.

  113. bananabrain — on 26th April, 2010 at 10:14 am  

    Another example is Tay Sachs disease, is almost exclusively found only in Ashkenazi Jew’s; it is not found in the indigenous British.

    ahem – tay sachs and the other genetic disorders found in ashkenazi jews are, as far as i am aware, the result of too much inbreeding, particularly in the more exclusivist ultra-orthodox sects and not enough openness on the conversion front. i think you’ll probably find that if they intermarried with the indigenous british, it would sort that out quick-sharp. a ban against intermarriage is only going to be effective if you have a large enough population to start with, unfortunately if some bugger knocks off a couple of million people from your gene pool it can tend to cause after-effects. but then we know how the bnp aren’t sympathetic to such strategies, don’t we?

    am i the only one here, however, that thinks that the possession or non-possession of a gene or set of markers and whether those things were common in a particular area either 100, 500, 2,000 or 100,000 years ago is a pretty rubbish basis on which to determine how to organise our social and political systems?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  114. Jai — on 26th April, 2010 at 11:07 am  

    Jai’s post went further than that into a general sneering at the English as a whole, recycling anglophobic myths about, for instance, the anglo-saxon wipeout of Celtic peoples.

    Technically it’s “pro-Celtic” rather than “anti-English”, but in any case it was a deliberate extrapolation of the warped logic and historical ignorance of the BNP, held up as a mirror to the far-Right. It’s truly an ugly reflection, isn’t it ? It’s supposed to be.

    The fact that it includes the prolific use of the exactly the same arguments and weird pseudo-scientific terminology that the BNP use should be a clue, along with the words “Devil’s Advocate” and the fact that English members of PP’s editorial team who authorised & published the article and numerous regular PP commenters (including those who are white) who have read this website for many years were all instantly able to recognise the underlying premise and intention.

    If someone is a not a regular reader of PP (and isn’t aware of — for example — various serious articles I’ve written here during the course of the past 6 months), especially if they aren’t familiar with the specific terminology and arguments used by the BNP, their confusion can be forgiven. However, in other cases, the rest of us can be forgiven for taking the assertions “I’m not a member of the BNP, but….” with a pinch of salt, since it has the same lack of credibility as “I’m not a member of Al-Muhajiroun, but….” and BNP activists are known to heavily comment on websites whilst claiming not to be members of the party, as part of the BNP’s propaganda strategy.

    In fact, the disingenuous and indignant screams of “racism” prove the ongoing similarity to the behaviour and modus operandi of Islamist fanatics once again. As does the exploitation of academic tracts to further their own agenda of division and the bigotry they are betraying in their own comments whilst claiming to be so offended by the main article.

    The BNP supporters here are behaving exactly as predicted and indeed exactly as intended, from start to finish.

  115. Jai — on 26th April, 2010 at 11:16 am  

    In fact, objections to the main article duplicate the behaviour and mentality of a certain US-based fanatical Islamist group which is currently so outraged at “South Park” and has made veiled threats towards the show’s creators on the basis that it has allegedly “offended” them.

    India itself, about which you have lectured us in the past, has a racist nationalist party, the BJP. I take it you wouldn’t object to someone writing a ’spoof’ in which Indians and their culture and history are completely traduced and vilified – simply as a corrective to the racism and nationalism of the BJP, you understand?

    I’d have no objections to it at all if it was written by those who are the direct targets of Hindutva bigotry. Extreme Right-wing Hindutva groups in India, especially the Shiv Sena, the RSS and the Bajrang Dal, are the near-exact Indian counterparts of the BNP and the EDL.

    I’ve seen you in your role of muslim apologist

    ……and the remark above proves my point perfectly. Once again.

    I’m not interested in actually commenting further on this thread — unless any counterparties have been authorised to formally speak for & represent the BNP directly by the party’s senior leadership and are willing to confirm that in writing in a legally-binding email from an authenticated BNP email account send to this website’s editorial team via the usual contact forms — but in all aspects it is good to see that it has elicited exactly the reaction from the far-Right which was intended.

    Beyond that, don’t expect any further responses from me irrespective of how many comments are addressed to me or what questions are asked, because I actually have zero interest in engaging in any conversations with members of the BNP (again, unless it is “on the record” as stipulated above), in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that I have zero interest in engaging in any conversations with members of Al-Muhajiroun.

  116. Jai — on 26th April, 2010 at 11:23 am  

    Clarification, before I permanently sign-off from this thread completely:

    I’d have no objections to it at all if it was written by those who are the direct targets of Hindutva bigotry.

    Written by those who are specifically citizens of India themselves (especially those who were actually born in India) and are targets of the aforementioned Hindutva bigotry, of course.

  117. Ravi.Nk — on 26th April, 2010 at 12:12 pm  

    If memory serves, it’s in Gibbon. One of the unanticipated side-effects was to diminish the attractiveness of military service for non-Romans, since prior to Caracalla’s edict that was one of the few ways that aliens could attain citizenship…This had the general effect of weakening the Empire militarily, which weakened its ability to resist the barbarian invasions in the third and fourth centuries.

    Well then, how does the unintended effect of Caracalla’s edict (failing of a multi-ethnic empire) relate to modern day multicultural Britain?

    Mind you – I do agree with the basic tenants of liberal nationalism. I feel that the strict idea that Nations have to be necessarily comprised by people that look alike, a rather primitive concept. But then again, when you keep referring to the Stone Age as some kind of society model to aspire for, one should not be surprised.

  118. 5cc — on 26th April, 2010 at 1:51 pm  

    Alboin & Henry:

    I keep seeing the ’85% of British people can trace their family back to the stone age’ argument bandied about. I’ve never seen the proof. Got any links?

  119. Ravi.Nk — on 26th April, 2010 at 2:01 pm  

    I do agree with the basic tenants

    It should be tenets.

  120. NotDigby — on 26th April, 2010 at 4:54 pm  

    Well then, how does the unintended effect of Caracalla’s edict (failing of a multi-ethnic empire) relate to modern day multicultural Britain?

    History demonstrates that multi-ethnic societies lack the political and social ‘glue’ necessary to resist the centrifugal forces that inevitably lead to balkanization.

    This has been observed so many times, from the Roman Empire, to Austria-Hungary, to the FRY that it hardly needs mentioning. Once central authority cracks the society fractures into its natural constituent parts. The only way that multiethnic states can be maintained intact is through increasingly more draconian central political control in enforcing ‘equality’ and in pandering to fractious minorities.

    The same process is underway in Britain, and the rise of English nationalism will be the catalyst that will result in the demise of the British state. That’s what the multiculturalists fear most.

  121. douglas clark — on 26th April, 2010 at 5:27 pm  

    NotDigby,

    Dan Dare, perhaps?

    It seems to me that building a wider identity, one that cuts across warring people, such as Europeans, and stopping them starting World Wars might be a positive?

    That might, obviously, be a worthwhile political project in itself.

    I can’t see a downside….

  122. NotDigby — on 26th April, 2010 at 5:44 pm  

    Dan Dare appears to be banned Dougie.

    I agree that such a project would be worthwhile.

    In the coming age of shortages and global resource conflicts it may even be necessary for our survival.

    A Europe of Nations, from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

    Take a gander here

  123. Jonathan — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:10 pm  

    @ KB player

    “Please provide quotations and/or links. You can’t merely assert such a thing, especially as every statement you’ve made here directly contradicts this.”

    How absurd. Are you for real?! I said you were far gone, and then some. Do you really think someone’s life is somehow documented on line with links?! Especially something as abstract as a sense of humour.

    Stunning craziness. Pointless nonsense.

    What I can provide is links and quotes of your incessant, self-initiated dehumanising abuse of people you don’t agree with and we can judge your sense of humour as revealed by just this one thread.

    @ Jai

    “Technically it’s “pro-Celtic” rather than “anti-English”

    Not at all. Nice try though. In the very first line you question “English indigenousness” by putting it in speech marks, as if it is not a reality.

    You then go on to claim:

    “Celts have had most of their ancestral homelands in the region now called “England” stolen from them by Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes (Norse Vikings), Normans, and people descended from these groups, who have committed genocide towards the Celts…”

    Firstly failing to grasp that the term “Celt” is cultural and not genetic and secondly failing to provide a single scrap of proof of any genocide

    The truth is that the Scots, Welsh and Irish all largely share the same R1b gene as the English, and estimates indicate that 88% of indigenous British share a homogeneity going back to the Neolithic age and even largely to the Mesolithic age. (See below)

    “…and the fact that English members of PP’s editorial team who authorised & published the article and numerous regular PP commenters (including those who are white) who have read this website for many years were all instantly able to recognise the underlying premise and intention…”

    Would it be fair to say that your English members of PP editorial team are just a tad biased? Politically allinged? And that the likelihood of an objective assessment is remote, to say the least? If that is not fair, please explain why, and who are these English staff?

    “As does the exploitation of academic tracts to further their own agenda of division and the bigotry”

    Is there no honesty and integrity at all in these debates?

    Could it not be that what you warp into “exploitation of academic tracts” could in reality simply a presentation of facts to support the counter position? After all, if these facts did not exist in the first instance, they could not be presented, let alone be “exploited”, as you put it?

    Could it not be what you warp into “an agenda of division and bigotry” is again a legitimate counter point to your contention supported by the facts that you also think are being “exploited”?

    Sheesh. Talk about being so heavily entrenched that one has an automatic filter for even factual content, with the filter placing the appropriate negative political perspective on objective facts in order that they can be negated.

    @ 5cc

    I keep seeing the ‘85% of British people can trace their family back to the stone age’ argument bandied about. I’ve never seen the proof. Got any links?

    I’ll pitch my oar in here for a second.

    One very credible scientist places the percentage at around 88%, the link is to Wikipedia but there are further links to the source; I have only abstracted the salient points as I see them:

    • The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, I.E those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both “Basque” and “Celt” are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt “Basque” or a Basque “Celtic”, is a fallacy.

    • The Anglo-Saxons made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes’s opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.

    • The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.

    • There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.

    • In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes

  124. douglas clark — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:29 pm  

    Jonathan,

    I find your reference, well, I dunno exactly?

    He claims to have proved what exactly? That there is an arrowhead of backward time to the Stone Age?

    Perhaps it is true.

    It would assume, would it not, that Romans never had sex with natives? Nor these Norsemen either?

    I find it hard to believe, but there you go.

    There also seems to be folk that find your present ideas that people cannot mix a bit, well alien?

    I wonder why that is Jonathan?

  125. KB Player — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:29 pm  

    Jonathan – it’s quite easy to provide examples of humour by links. Your quips and jokes must be on threads somewhere, if not on this one. I mean someone with a “great sense of humour” can’t be po-faced all the time on the internet.

    Anyway, since you doubt my humour, here’s a piece of mine written to amuse:-

    http://arts.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/26/the-griffin-encounter-an-airport-novel-for-short-haul-flights/

  126. Sarah AB — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:45 pm  

    I missed that one on HP, KB Player – very good! Are you Sylvie Krin in your spare time?

  127. KB Player — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:51 pm  

    Thanks Sarah. No – though if Private Eye would offer me the job, I’d take it on.

  128. Jai — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:54 pm  

    I didn’t intend to comment further on this thread, but as a final word I must pick up on the references to the historian Edward Gibbon and Rome. In his extensive writings, Gibbon didn’t actually identify “multiculturalism” or “multiethnicity” as a contributing factor in the decline of the Roman Empire – he specifically blamed the eventual adoption of Christianity as a formal religion by Constantine and its imposition on the empire for what happened during the subsequent centuries, and Gibbon held it as a stark contrast to what he viewed as the more enlightened, tolerant and pluralistic attitudes of the “pagan” Roman emperors towards the extremely diverse range of peoples living within the empire.

    “Multiculturalism” or “multiethnicity” as per the modern far-Right’s perspectives on the concept had absolutely nothing to do with the decline of Rome, at least where Gibbon’s own writings are concerned.

    Furthermore, Gibbon’s writings about the fall of Rome were written near the end of the 18th century. Whilst the far-Right’s distorted worldview is already well-established as a result of them effectively being psychologically trapped several centuries in the past themselves, people wishing to gain a more up-to-date analysis of the Roman Empire and the reasons for its eventual decline are advised to read more recent works which, unlike Gibbon’s famous multivolume treatise, weren’t actually written more than 220 years ago.

    Suitable exhaustively-researched and meticulously-detailed books about Rome have been written by acclaimed & best-selling modern-day classical historians such as Adrian Goldsworthy and Tom Holland. Goldsworthy in particular is a contemporary authority on the subject, and in “The Fall of the West: the Death of the Roman Superpower”, he specifically identifies the catalysts for the decline of Rome as being a combination of excessive bureaucracy and the excessive self-interest of political leaders. The BNP leadership, of course, fall very much into the latter group, and like their fanatical Islamist counterparts, they are therefore an intrinsic part of the problem, not the solution.

    Incidentally, since “Dan Dare” has been formally banned from this website by Sunny Hundal, he should be advised that if he is using aliases in an attempt to circumvent the ban and thereby continue to comment on PP, he is in violation of British laws pertaining to electronic communication and is therefore guilty of an ongoing criminal offence. The same applies to anyone else here who has been formally banned by this blog’s editorial team but is still using multiple aliases and/or other methods to attempt to circumvent their banning. PP may be in the public domain but it is still private property.

  129. douglas clark — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:56 pm  

    Hmm…

    Sunny Hundal, someone is deleting me.

    I have commented on your enemies and still you appear to delete me?

    Y’now what post I want you to release.

    Do it!

  130. martin — on 26th April, 2010 at 6:57 pm  

    It is a fact that many immigrants to the UK are useless trouble makers who contribute nothing to society

    Like this guy:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636123/Immigration-migrants-in-their-own-words.html

  131. Jai — on 26th April, 2010 at 7:04 pm  

    5cc, Ravi,

    Just before I sign-off from this thread, I thought you’d be very interested in reading the following article, since Professor Oppenheimer and claims about percentages of ancestry traceable to the Stone Age are often mentioned by BNP members. The article below includes Professor Oppenheimer’s own views about the attempts of the BNP to hijack his writings in order to further their agenda.

    Suffice to say, he doesn’t exactly have a high opinion of the BNP, especially Nick Griffin.

    http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/10/nick-griffins-bad-science.html#more

    Extract:

    Griffin Watching Nick Griffin’s performance on Question Time last night, I was struck by more than his objectionable views and evasive answers. He also seems to have a distinctly sketchy grasp of science, which he misrepresents to support his idea that Britain belongs to its “indigenous people”. He described white English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people as “Britain’s aborigines”, suggesting these groups are descended from an ancestral population that arrived 17,000 years ago. Scientists, he said, would happily confirm this.

    His comments seem, so far as I can tell, to be based on the hypothesis advanced by Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, in his book The Origins of the British. This uses genetic data to suggest that about 75 per cent of British ancestry can be traced back to very ancient times, before the Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Celts — the argument is summarised nicely in this Prospect piece. I decided to take Mr Griffin at his word, and rang Professor Oppenheimer to see what he made of his comments. He also thought the BNP leader was relying on his work — and he was less than impressed.

    Professor Oppenheimer said:

    “I assumed he was misinterpreting me. After the programme I went back to look at what I’d written. I wrote quite a bit about issues of racism. I feared some people like Griffin would probably hijack this — I assumed that fascists would cherry-pick different bits from my book to support their views.”

    One aspect of Mr Griffin’s claims is very easily debunked. The date he quotes is flat-out wrong. Scientists agree Britain was unpopulated 17,000 years ago. Continuous habitation was established only about 15,000 years ago, according to Professor Oppenheimer, and other researchers think it was more recent still. Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, director of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain (AHOB) project and author of Homo Britannicus, puts it at 11,500 years ago.

  132. persephone — on 26th April, 2010 at 7:09 pm  

    “ the original Britons were Neanderthals”

    So the missing link are BNP supporters. Yeah I get to see why BNP link themselves to Neanderthals….

  133. douglas clark — on 26th April, 2010 at 7:30 pm  

    Persephone,

    So the missing link are BNP supporters. Yeah I get to see why BNP link themselves to Neanderthals….

    Yup!

  134. Don — on 26th April, 2010 at 7:33 pm  

    What have Neanderthals ever done to you guys?

  135. KB Player — on 26th April, 2010 at 7:43 pm  

    What have Neanderthals ever done to you guys?

    Don’t get me started on my ex-boyfriend. . .

  136. Ravi.Nk — on 26th April, 2010 at 8:22 pm  

    In his extensive writings, Gibbon didn’t actually identify “multiculturalism” or “multiethnicity” as a contributing factor in the decline of the Roman Empire

    Dan Dare (notDigby, etc) and IAAE (Jonathan, etc.) have been repeating the crap they’ve learnt in Stormfront, though they are careful not to tell the whole damn story.

    There is an extremely popular document in these white supremacist sites which provides a rather amusing and totally inaccurate account of the History of the world’s major civilizations. The main theme is that all worthy civilizations were in fact white, including Egypt and India. And all big civilizations and Empires collapsed because of miscegenation. That includes Rome (miscegenation with slaves), Portugal (miscegenation with people from their colonies), and India where Aryans (as in Europeans) mixed with Dravidians.

    Of course, the document is meant to alert Western countries about non-white filth and how mixing with a superior gene pool will collapse the West.

  137. Jai.S — on 26th April, 2010 at 8:24 pm  

    5cc, Ravi,

    Just before I do completely sign-off from this thread, I thought you’d be very interested in reading the following article from The Times, since Professor Oppenheimer and claims about percentages of ancestry traceable to the Stone Age are often mentioned by BNP members.

    The article includes some fairly blunt views by Professor Oppenheimer about the attempts of the BNP to hijack his writings in order to further their racist agenda (he clearly has a very low opinion of them), along with criticisms of the BNP’s misappropriation of genetics and ancient history by Professor Chris Stringer, from the Natural History Museum and the director of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain (AHOB) project.

    http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/10/nick-griffins-bad-science.html#more

  138. KB Player — on 26th April, 2010 at 9:16 pm  

    It is evident that the final result of all their studies in DNA & archaeology & hereditary diseases & history is “miscegenation bad”, QED. All their reasoning goes backwards from that point.

  139. 5cc — on 26th April, 2010 at 10:44 pm  

    Jonathan, IAE, whoever:

    We’re presumably talking aboyt the same Bryan Sykes who said:

    “We are not a race at all. We’ve been mongrels for 10,000 years and it has done us a lot of good,” he said. “You find exactly the same DNA fingerprint in what you otherwise consider to be different ethnic groups. It shows those ethnic groups are relatively recent ethnic constructs. The history of our species is one of movement, mixing and flux. There is no such thing as a genetically pure race.”

    From DNA reunited (The Times)

  140. jonathan — on 27th April, 2010 at 1:52 am  

    @ Douglas Clark

    Why ask me what he “claims” to have proven? Why not read it for yourself if you are really interested and leave it alone if you are not.

    So back to it, what is your definition of nationalism and what nationalist policies do you advocate?

    I really cannot understand why you are so reluctant to answer but are so proud of being a nationalist.

  141. jonathan — on 27th April, 2010 at 2:53 am  

    # 127

    “Incidentally, since “Dan Dare” has been formally banned from this website… he is in violation of British laws pertaining to electronic communication and is therefore guilty of an ongoing criminal offence.”

    Wow.

    That is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on the internet for quite some time, in fact quite possibly ever; and just as true as the flat earth theory.

    Really Jai, where is your head at, friend?

    Though it does make sense now why some are so keen to call and accuse others ‘sock puppets’. It is preclusion to c*nsorship for ‘awkward’ customers.

  142. Ravi.Nk — on 27th April, 2010 at 7:34 am  

    The article includes some fairly blunt views by Professor Oppenheimer

    We’re presumably talking aboyt the same Bryan Sykes who said…

    So, Jai and 5cc’s articles (#137 and #139) pretty much debunked every single “scientific” argument by our BNP friends in this thread. Both articles confirm Celt migration from Northern Iberia, and one genetic experts is also curious about Nick Griffin’s origins.

    I really feel for Sykes and Oppenheimer whose scientific work has been hijacked and misinterpreted by ignorants and fools to pursue their racist agenda.

  143. Jai — on 27th April, 2010 at 10:59 am  

    That is probably the most ridiculous thing I have heard on the internet for quite some time, in fact quite possibly ever; and just as true as the flat earth theory.

    If a person has been formally banned from a website and told by the website’s editors & owners to stop posting messages there, and they persist in doing so via aliases or other methods designed to circumvent the ban, in British legal terms it is classified as harassment via electronic communication. The same laws that also classify repeatedly emailing someone after they have asked you to stop as harassment. Both are illegal in the United Kingdom, and render the perpetrator liable to be reported to the police and subsequently subject to criminal prosecution.

    Given the fact that both of the recently-banned individuals are self-declared members of the BNP, and at least one of them is a prolific contributor to the rabidly antisemitic and racist ‘Majority Rights’ blog along with the neo-Nazi forum ‘Stormfront’, claims to have direct access to the BNP’s leadership, and has repeatedly made explicitly racist remarks on other threads here on PP along with explicitly making positive references to Hitler and using Third Reich terms as sources of inspiration for potential BNP policies, I’m sure that both the police and the security services would be particularly interested in investigating the matter, including reviewing all of the relevant electronically-archived information from multiple websites (which can of course be forensically recovered even if it has ostensibly been deleted and/or attempts have been made by the sockpuppeting individuals to cover their tracks). I wonder if the BNP could afford the subsequent negative publicity.

    For people who frequently so loudly proclaim their “legal right to free speech” and their “legal rights as a legitimate political party”, it is interesting to see the BNP simultaneously casually ignoring other aspects of the British legal system when it suits them. Again exactly like Al-Muhajiroun, it’s yet another example of people with a certain mindset believing that British laws don’t actually apply to them, unless it involves an aspect they wish to exploit.

    It is preclusion to c*nsorship for ‘awkward’ customers.

    In the United Kingdom, owners of websites have the full legal right to ‘censor’ whoever they want to when it comes to what is displayed on their own blogs and who is allowed to comment on them, especially when it involves people who have already been banned and are attempting to illegally circumvent the ban. Again, according to British law it’s the website owners’ private property, their discretion, and their legal right.

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.