Four Flags: The Indigenous People of Britain (DNA, History and the Right to Existence)
By Arthur Kemp B.A. (Pub. Admin., Pol. Sci., Int. Pol.). First published in 2008 with a second edition in 2009, this third edition explains in detail the concept of ethno-nationalism. It also contains six new chapters dealing with the thorny issues of mass immigration into Britain and an important discussion on the fallacy of the “multiculturalism has failed” argument.
With regard to the latter, the author points out that it is not “multiculturalism” per se which has failed, but rather the policy of mass immigration, of which “multiculturalism” is but one symptom.
The book contains the previously availale text: Ethnic Nationalism - A Definition; Central Tenets of Ethno-Nationalism; Underlying Concepts of Ethno-Nationalism; The Implications of Ethno-Nationalism; The Practical Application of Ethno-Nationalism; Attacks on Ethno-Nationalism; and How to Argue the Case for Ethno-Nationalism.
It provides all the answers underpinning the non-racist argument for Britain to remain a British country--arguments which can be used for any nation, anywhere. Invaluable for anyone wishing to understand modern democratic nationalist ideology.
In addition, the six new chapter headings are:
- The Colonisation of Britain: White British School Pupils Set to be Minority by 2021.
- Invasion: Immigration Wave Means 650 New UK Citizens Every Day.
- German Chancellor’s “Multiculturalism Has Failed” Remarks Highlight Danger of “Adapt or Integrate” Mentality.
- The Colonisation of Britain: Bradford CoE in Crisis as Muslim Population Skyrockets.
- Study Which Claims “5.5 Million Muslims in 20 years” in Britain Is a Gross Underestimate.
- Is it Multiculturalism Which Has Failed?
- Cockneys: The First British Group to be Ethnically Cleansed. P/B 41pp.
Folk and Nation – Underpinning the Ethnostate (THIRD EXPANDED EDITION April 2011)
By Arthur Kemp B.A. (Pub. Admin., Pol. Sci., Int. Pol.). First published in 2008 with a second edition in 2009, this third edition explains in detail the concept of ethno-nationalism. It also contains six new chapters dealing with the thorny issues of mass immigration into Britain and an important discussion on the fallacy of the “multiculturalism has failed” argument.
Contrary to what the liberal left Tory/Labour/Lib-Dem/UKIP-ECHR allege, the native people of the British Isles are a distinct, identifiable and homogenous indigenous people who have every right to exist and be free from invasion and domination -- like any other indigenous people on earth.
This booklet proves that the vast majority of the British people have ancestors going back to the last mini ice age more than 12,000 years ago.
Table of contents:
1. Introduction (Deals with the denial of indigenous status to the British people)
2. Indigenous People - A Definition (uses UN and other definitions)
3. Haplogroups and the Genetic Identification of Peoples (explains Y-Chromosomes, mtDNA and Autosomal DNA in detail, and how they are used in forensics and history to identify and track peoples to specific areas)
4. The Haplogroups Which Mark the Indigenous People of Britain (explains which haplogroups are indigenous to Britain)
5. A History of the Peopling of Britain (a potted history of the people who have made up Britain through settlement, i.e. Euro base population, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans -- including figures on actual numbers of settlers and their genetic impact as measured by haplogroup)
6. Four Flags, One Nation: The right of the people of the British Isles to existence and freedom from colonisation, domination and dispossession of their lands and culture.
This booklet shows:
* Genetic evidence shows that the vast majority -- nearly 80% -- of all British people have ancestors going back to the end of the last mini ice age 12,000 years ago;
* Genetic evidence showing that the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking/Danish and Norman conquests had negligible impacts upon the British people (less than 5 percent each); * Genetic evidence showing that the Irish people have far more in common with the British than both sides of that traditional divide realise.
* The people of the British Isles have been indigenous peoples for far longer than many other nations who are already classified as "indigenous" by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
This booklet also shows how the indigenous people of Britain are fully protected by the United Nations Charter on Indigenous Peoples from "dispossession of their territory" through "mass population transfers" and from "forced integration and assimilation" and "destruction of their identity and culture" (all according to the United Nations.)
Even more importantly, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that all indigenous peoples have the right to define who is part of their nation and who is not.
This is the killer booklet to destroy the final left-liberal argument against the right of Britain to be British.
PLEASE ALSO READ THE BELOW FOUR ARTICLES
- On the Meaning of Britishness
- More on Being British
- Lies About the British Race being "Mongrel"
- England A Mongrel Nation?
On the Meaning of Britishness
Many readers will have seen the three-part series The White Tribe, shown on Channel Four in January, which was the subject of comment in these pages last month. One of the noticeable features of this programme, narrated by West Indian immigrant Darcus Howe, was the focus on native Britons who did not seem to be certain about their own identity. "Define what being British (or English) means to you," said Howe in so many words on more than one occasion. Not unpredictably, those questioned were stumped for a clear and concise answer.
This, of course, was one of the main objects of the programme. Howe and his TV paymasters know full well that a very large number of British people - probably the majority - are unhappy about the vast ethnic and cultural changes befalling their country over the past half-century. But they know equally well that most of those same British people would be reluctant to give full vent to these feelings on television before an audience of millions. Quite apart from giving a thought to what some of the neighbours might think (that nice Pakistani gentleman, for instance, who runs the convenience store on the corner and whom one would hate to offend), these people are basically polite. When a guest is in your house, you don't want to be rude to him and hurt his feelings. You try and think of the most charitable things to say about him and dismiss from your mind the least charitable. That is very British; in normal times it is a national virtue, but it can in certain abnormal times put us at an acute disadvantage. No-one, it seemed, wanted to define their nationality and its concomitant customs and traditions in such language as might seem arrogant, patronising or overbearing towards Mr. Howe. So there was a certain groping for words by those to whom the question was put, and no very convincing explanation was forthcoming.
But there was another factor at work here beside politeness and the desire not to offend. These British natives probably could not answer convincingly the question of what being British meant to them because the reign of political correctness across our land has so stifled discussion of the subject that the only answers to hand would most probably be silly ones, replete with inhibitions and blighted by ignorance.
Yet this is a subject very simple in its parameters and capable of perfectly clear exposition. There is no reason whatever why we should be tongue-tied when it is raised. It occurred to me while I was watching this programme that the time is long overdue for a bit of simplicity in definition which would spare British people - and particularly spokesmen and women for the nationalist viewpoint - the embarrassment they frequently suffer when put on the spot over the matter and are unable to translate basic feelings into articulate speech.
So for a moment I will put myself in the position of an interviewee on a TV programme asked to define what being British was - something I might indeed have been on the White Tribe programme had an original request to me to appear on it not subsequently been cancelled. This is something like what I would have said:-
"We British are the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. We are made up of various original tribal groups but all of these were European and the vast majority came from Northern Europe. We are therefore essentially a North European people. By no possible token are we a 'mixture' of races.
"As a further definition of who and what we are, I can state emphatically what we are not. We are not Negroes. We are not Asians of any description. We are not Arabs. We are not Latin Americans. We have never been anything other than white.
"In other words, we are a race - the British Race. Our national character - whatever historical and environmental factors may have played a part in forming it - is primarily a product of our racial origins."
Such words, of course, would not suffice to give anything like a full explanation of 'Britishness', as it is sometimes called. They would merely serve as an introduction. From that point on, definitions of how we see ourselves, and of why we believe in the importance of our self-preservation as a group, would proceed in the course of dialogue - in other words as answers to questions which would challenge our perception of ourselves in many details.
The sea, and of course the development of our unique English language, combined with hundreds of years of national tradition and distinct cultural evolution, have forged us British as a people separate and apart even from the other Northern Europeans from which most of us spring, so that we can today say also that we are not Germans, Danes, Norwegians or Flemings. However, the ethnic and cultural closeness to us of these peoples means that their settlement in this country would pose no great problems to us in the way of integration and assimilation. Within a generation, no trace of difference would exist except for family surnames. On the other hand, Afro-Caribbeans bearing such names as 'Smith', 'Jones', 'Brown' or 'Robinson' would forever constitute factors of differentiation through the survival of their wholly foreign and unassailable genes.
This is said entirely without 'hate'. There can be quite amicable relations between us native British and the other races of the world - providing that the latter do not occupy our living space and come to form part of our population by intermarriage and ethnic mixing. We want, in other words, to remain the people we are - the people we have been for countless centuries. Is that a crime? Everywhere in the world, environmentalists and conservationists are calling on us to ensure that we preserve elephants, tigers, rhinos, red squirrels, white whales and eagles as distinct species. If it is right that we should do this - and I, for one, believe that it is - what on earth can be wrong with us, the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, wishing also to be preserved?
Yet this very basic instinct of self-preservation - the right of every people, nation, tribe, beast, fish and bird to survive with its unique identity maintained intact - has today been branded with a word able to strike fear and horror into its targeted audience: the word 'racism'. "Oh no, I'm not a racist..." protests the nervous little housewife who has witnessed with alarm the alien takeover of her neighbourhood, and even spoken apprehensively about it to her (white) neighbour, but now finds the TV interviewer's mike thrust aggressively into her face while cameras point like lethal weapons in her direction, "but..." and so the takeover goes on. The lady is of course a racist - like the vast majority of Whites, Blacks and Asians in this country - but she is both frightened to say so and confused as to what the word means anyway.
Let us take a little further the question of what it means to be British. We have defined who we are and where we are coming from - what gives us our identity. Is it then a matter of supreme importance whether this identity should be changed - not just changed marginally by the infusion of a bit of fresh North European blood, as has happened in the past, but changed absolutely fundamentally by the settlement here, and the eventual integration into our society by inter-marriage, of large numbers of people of wholly different cultures and - let us not mince words - racial genes? Is it a question of importance that many among future generations of British citizens will not only look vastly different from us but also have fundamentally different thought processes, emotions, characters and mores - that they will, if the process of integration proceeds as intended by our governing classes, turn us into a nation not recognisable as that which our ancestors knew and were loyal to? In short, does it matter?
Well, yes it does actually. And if to state this is 'racist', so be it. We should not duck hither and thither in order to escape the label. This is not to say that we should go out of our way to use it ourselves; it is never sound politics to define what you are in terms of your enemy's language. But neither should we be so frightened of the word 'racist' that we suffer paralysis when it comes to stating why we want to preserve ourselves according to the model of the ancestral type.
Just as belittling others is bad manners, particularly in their presence, so also is boasting. We British pride ourselves on not being a boastful people. But it is one thing not constantly to proclaim our virtues and achievements to the world; it is another thing entirely not to believe in them. And if really pushed on the matter - if forced into a corner where our existence is threatened and we must explain, not just to outsiders but even to our own folk, why we must defend it - we should not be afraid to state frankly and clearly that we British are a race of truly remarkable accomplishments, accomplishments equal to any others and immeasurably greater than most.
From a group of islands off the North West coast of Europe comprising quite a tiny part of the earth's surface, we expanded and spread over five continents eventually to control something like a quarter of that same surface - quite aside from the United States of America, which was founded essentially by our own forefathers, whatever separate path it subsequently took.
It is not the place here to argue whether this control, this domination, was right or wrong, good or bad, mostly beneficent or mostly maleficent - though a strong case could be made for the former. We should simply concern ourselves with the achievement itself. It was possibly the most stupendous achievement in the history of mankind.
No less stupendous were the constructive works carried out over these vast areas once the initial control had been acquired: the founding of great states, the establishment of advanced civilisations, the taming of wildernesses, the prudent administration of regions larger than Europe itself, the building of railways, bridges, dams, cities and a host of other amenities which enormously enhanced the lives of those living in or by them.
And we should not forget the military and naval actions fought, where necessary, to acquire and later defend this enormous estate. Again, we are not here in the realm of ethics, of justice or injustice; it is not our remit in this study to debate the morality of this process. We are simply looking at it as a token of achievement - the achievement, for instance, of barely more than a hundred British troops in seeing off an attack by thousands of Zulus at Rorke's Drift, of just a few regiments in sustaining British rule over hundreds of millions in former India.
Is it unreasonable to believe that these achievements establish our claim to be a people endowed with special qualities - qualities which we may not choose to shout about but over which we quietly allow our deeds to speak for us, while ensuring that the blood lines that made for them in the past are conserved for the future?
And mention of these things covers only a fraction of the impact made by Britons on this planet. We might add to them the unsurpassed contributions to technology and science, to medicine, to human inventiveness, to the development of modern industry, to culture and the arts - with literature and the theatre in the forefront. There is not the space here to reel off the lists of the legions of our people - together with those overseas of British stock - who have led the world in these endeavours. They are there on record, however, and readers will be able to find them. Here we are in an area of knowledge which not even liberals and multi-racialists try to dispute. The sum total of the contributions to human progress of the folk indigenous to these islands, and of their descendants in the new lands they have created, is so immense as to be beyond serious challenge. It is equalled possibly by the Germans but by no others, and is certainly excelled by no-one. To the extent that Americans - white Americans, that is - have shared in this vast achievement over the short span of their history, that is something which we may quite truthfully attribute to the British and German genes which mainly prevail among them.
Yet the whole case against 'racism' - which case dominates all permitted debate in present national and world councils and shelters behind a virtual closed shop in the press and other media - rests on a repudiation of these basic facts concerning human accomplishment. It rests, in other words, on the supposition that Hottentots, Papuans or Cherokee Indians might just as easily have placed themselves in the forefront of all this creativity and progress but for some mere accident - or perhaps the brutal oppression of their white masters, which prevented them from realising their full potential - an explanation which conveniently ignores the question of how the latter came to be masters in the first place, instead of subjects.
So we come back to the theme of 'Britishness', of what it means to be British. Do not our island story, and our accompanying imperial story, provide ample explanation when such matters are raised? Are we not justified in regarding ourselves as a special people? This, incidentally, is precisely how the Jews and Japanese regard themselves, and it is no purpose of mine here to blame them for that; a sense of 'specialness' is part of the essential survival mechanism of races and nationalities, particularly those perceiving themselves to be under threat. It is valuable even when it is not justified by history; it is all the more so when it is, because being vested with credibility. My only quarrel is with those Jews who insist on their own 'special' status while denying such a thing to others - as is habitual today.
I have excluded from this study any reference to the particular moral virtues on which many Britons pride themselves, and especially I have excluded reference to the British political culture which is so often cited as an example of what our people have given to the world. I exclude such abstractions as 'tolerance', 'fair play', and the like. This is not because these things do not count in an assessment of a people's qualities, but only because what constitutes them is highly debatable and rather depends on the way one looks at history. They also appear different to people with different ethnic perspectives. Today's Iraqis or Serbs, for instance, might challenge the theory of moral virtue, of a sense of 'fair play', invested in the British who have sanctioned the bombing of their towns and the killing of their civilians in defence of no discernible British interest; they would not, on the other hand, question that the British, over history, have made an almost matchless impact upon the world. One is a question of opinion, the other of fact. And in this analysis it is always better to stick to fact.
It is not surprising, then, that New Labour and its battalions of political correctness are determined that Britain's past will be an area virtually out of bounds to young people in schools. If our young really learn about the past, they will realise that we have something special to preserve and be proud of - and, not only that, but they will learn that we are a people who could have a great future. This is providing always that we maintain the native stock from which our genius has come. But as long as our younger folk are encouraged to think that sporting skills and 'rap' music are as important attributes as scientific flair, industrial competence and literary talent - as long as their minds are submerged in the moronic 'pop' culture of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and they are not taught anything about Rorke's Drift, Waterloo and Trafalgar, about Newton, Faraday, Davy and Cockerill - they will not know what to say when asked the question: "What does being British mean to you?"
Being British, as I hope I have explained, means being an heir to a great and glorious national heritage, a heritage of immense achievement in almost all fields of human activity, a heritage which has virtually no rivals - certainly not among the peoples newly settled here and now claiming this country as their own.
Precisely because one British characteristic is that of reticence, most of us do not make a habit of trumpeting this repetitively and to all and sundry. Also, because another such characteristic (at least traditionally if not always evident today) is good manners, most of us are loath when speaking to other races to talk up our own virtues by comparison with theirs.
But there sometimes come moments in a nation's life when to downplay its achievements, most of all to forget them, is positively dangerous - dangerous to its self-esteem, dangerous to its perception of its own capabilities and dangerous to its awareness of what it must do to protect and preserve itself,
We should not want Britons to descend to the kind of insufferable national bumptiousness experienced by foreigners when some of our football fans, well laced with booze, swagger through their cities. But nor should we be reluctant, when questioned about our feeling of nationality, to explain the real foundations of our pride.
I have long been convinced that our decline during the later part of the 20th century was something which began in the mind, in a kind of self-hypnosis in which a quite silly and self-deprecating view about ourselves replaced a once-supreme national self-confidence.
We have got to rid ourselves of this complex, and a start might be made in reminding ourselves - and some others - of what the world owes to us.
For that is a mighty big debt indeed.
More about Being British
IT SEEMS to be the silly season for defining who we are, but at least there is one good omen in the current debate about what Britishness means: the press and TV would not be focusing on the subject in the way they are presently doing were they not sensitive to underlying currents of public concern that Britain's national identity is under threat, as indeed it is.
A few weeks ago we were treated to the unedifying public spectacle of a West Indian immigrant with the usual impeccable left-wing credentials taking us on a television on tour of Britain in which, with the aid of numerous carefully picked "spokespeople", he informed us that the country our parents knew was gone for ever and that we had better get used to it because there was nothing - absolutely nothing - we could do about it. This prompted an article in these columns in which I attempted to define what Britishness meant in a way our dusky tour guide and his co-participants in the programme totally failed to do.
But the media will not allow the issue to go away. It emerged again in a feature in the Daily Mail on the 30th March entitled ‘True Brit’ in which, to use the paper's words, it asked six very different Britons how they define themselves.
Sri Lankan Briton
It was clear of course from the start how the Daily Mail defined them, for among these "Britons" were Shyama Perera, a Sri Lankan, who was given first call, and Mihir Bose, the Indian sports writer. Two out of six from the ethnic minorities is apparently that paper's idea of a representative debate about our country and its identity. However, let Mrs. Perera have her say. She, she said, arrived in London in 1962 but held on to her Sri Lankan citizenship for 25 years until she went back to the Indian sub-continent on her honeymoon and noticed how no-one respected traffic lights and everyone wanted to barge in on everyone else's conversation. This was the decider:-
‘I couldn't bear the chaos and intrusion, so I applied for my British passport. I'd always known that, spiritually, I am British through and through.
‘It's nothing to do with district nurses on bicycles or bobbies on the beat. It's about Britishness as a state of being: an underlying temperance, a social tolerance.
‘You see it in the polite queues outside post offices and in banks when cashiers go to lunch at the busiest moment. London can come to a standstill while a lorry unloads scaffolding - not one driver will toot their horn.’
This and other attractive features of human behaviour resolved Mrs. Perera that Britain was the best place to be. Very conveniently, however, she failed to address the question of why people, according to her own account, behave so differently in the Indian sub-continent. Could it have anything to do with national character and temperament? That would seem to be a question fraught with danger because it might lead us to a discussion of that taboo subject of race. Mrs. Perera would of course repudiate this by saying that she, having integrated herself into a British environment, has acquired British habits and attitudes on such matters as queuing, and that therefore everyone else can do so. But national identity is not about how the odd individual thinks and behaves; it is about how people in the mass - the average do so. A great many people of Afro-Caribbean origin have been brought up in the same British environment as Mrs. Perera. Some individuals amongst them have adapted to that environment and taken on British modes of behaviour but an uncomfortable number have not, as is easily demonstrable to anyone who cares to observe.
Subject of the Crown
Next in order to define being British was Sir Roy Strong. What made him British, he said, was being a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. What did that mean? Well, said Sir Roy, the Crown holds its diverse peoples in unity, one symbolised by a flag, the Union Jack. United we stand, divided we fall, and...
‘We have warded off every threatened invasion from without, including the might of Napoleon and Hitler.’
But wait a minute! All the threatened invasions from without of which Sir Roy was speaking belong to ages before the huge influx of non-white races into Britain which began in the 1950s. Yes, at such times the country was united precisely because its people had a sense of belonging together, of being a single national entity, albeit with some minor variations as between English, Scots, Welsh, etc., and variations among those tribal groups. The British broadly looked the same, thought the same, shared an overall common culture and felt a sense of common loyalty to one another. That enabled their armed forces, responsible for national defence, to feel and act as one with London cockneys identifying themselves proudly with Scottish Highland and Yorkshire regiments and not infrequently serving in them. Within the British armed forces, as my own experience testifies, there was constant joking and leg-pulling between those of different regional backgounds, but nothing approaching the bitterly hostile "racism" which now, apparently, causes deep divisions among serving men and women on the frank admission of the Ministry of Defence.
Would Britain, in a future war, be united and able to stand, or divided and prone to fall, with armed forces made up of the chaotic ethnic mix of which it is now composed? And would British citizens on the Home Front be able to behave in the calm, stoical and community-orientated way they did at the time of the Blitz in the early 1940s? Perhaps Sir Roy prefers not to consider such uncomfortable questions.
What is an invasion?
But there was another glaring oversight in Sir Roy's analysis obvious except to the purblind liberal. He spoke of invasions being "warded off", but are the only invasions military ones? Is not any massive influx of foreign people over our borders, which portends huge and permanent changes in our national state of being, an invasion, quite regardless of whether it occurs by means of armed force or not? Elsewhere in this issue we shall focus on the threatened secession of the main part of America's south western area due to the encroachment of Hispanic immigrants over the past three or four decades. Had the same process occurred by means of an armed attack by the army of Mexico and the annexation by that country of the south western states of the US, no-one would think of describing it by any word other than invasion. Yet if these states are lost to the US by demographic conquest and a subsequent political "opting out" by an Hispanic majority, the result would be no different. It seems futile to point out out to the likes of Sir Roy Strong that the same rule would apply to Britain; even if areas conquered and colonised by non British immigrants did not actually secede politically from the United Kingdom, but remained within it so that their people could continue to claim welfare benefits and other rights, they would cease to all intents and purposes to be British in the sense that we know the term. They would, in effect, have been invaded.
Sir Roy went on to speak of the rich cultural "heritage" which British people share, and alluded to Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Robert Burns and Dylan Thomas. He said that the British identity was one which he, as an Englishman, could share, not only with the Scots and the Welsh, "but others who have come to these shores, from Jews to Jamaicans..."
Frankly, this is pure drivel. Whatever one's individual preferences concerning writers like Wilde and Thomas, their works do belong to the authentic Anglo-Celtic-European cultural soil. But was Sir Roy seriously suggesting that there could ever have been a Jamaican Shakespeare, or for that matter a Jamaican Elgar, Turner or Christopher Wren? If he is, why have such immortal geniuses never emerged from that or any other Caribbean environment - or from out of the hundreds of millions who populate Black Africa or the Indian sub-continent from which Mrs. Perera has come?
Sir Roy concluded by speaking of his pride in his British identity, "an identity which it has taken centuries to forge and one which should not now be thrown away but rediscovered in all its pride of collective achievement."
Excellent sentiments! But where lies the danger of our identity now being thrown away? I suggest that it lies, not only in the political correctness of Tony Blair Cool Britannia culture, but also in the vast changes in our population that are now taking place through immigration of peoples culturally a whole world removed from us, and from the prolific birth rate of those of them already here. Yes, Sir Roy, our identity has taken centuries to forge; and what has forged it has been the merging and development of closely related North European peoples with only very minor ethnic variations between them. This identity will most surely be thrown away through similar merging between the native British and the mostly alien newcomers of the post-1945 period - just as prize dairy stocks will be destroyed by the interbreeding of them with stocks of wholly different origins and type. These truths are elementary to any farmer, and neglect of them would soon lead to ruin, but apparently when it comes to applying them to human species the subject is unfit even for decent discussion!
Life in the country
To Val Hennessy, another contributer, "the essence of Britishness is found where I live, in rural Britain." Miss Hennessy went on to speak of:-
‘Woods carpeted with bluebells, ringing with birdsong... you can't beat the beauty of our countryside, a pair of wellies, a pub lunch and walking the dog in a land of people who love dogs.’
And there was more of the same: ancient churches; National Trust gardens; village stores; cream teas; coffee mornings; the singing of Handel's Messiah. Miss Hennessy expressed her infuriation that in Blair's Britain these things were scarcely understood, and I, for one, would not argue with her on that point.
But how do these images come to be regarded as intrinsic to Britain? Apart from the natural beauty of the countryside - which many nations, and indeed races, can claim of their native habitats - they are products of our own traditions and culture, which stem in turn from the type of people we are. Those who note with satisfaction that the British love dogs ought to go and see how dogs are treated in, for instance, India. Ancient churches? Yes, well, one will find churches of great beauty over most of Europe, though the beauty is often of a different kind. But what of Africa or the West Indies? Any churches of similar quality to be found in such places are certain to have been designed, and their construction overseen, by Whites. National Trust gardens? Another art form in which we British are unexcelled. Again, beautiful gardens may also be found in Continental Europe and lands overseas colonised and built up by Europeans. But where, except when created by white expatriates, are they to be found in the lands from which most recent migrants have come? Handel? Well, he was German but nonetheless European. Is there a West Indian Handel, or an Asian one? If so, I have yet to hear of him!
And if the red guards of multi-culturalism and multi-racialism have their way, Miss Hennessy may not for very much longer be hearing the Messiah in her village hall but may find that it has been replaced by gangsta rap, or some such new British musical idiom. I suspect that already that stirring sound can be heard across the local garden hedges by means of walkmans or in the pubs in response to the debased demand of the growing legions of morons who patronise such ports of call.
Inventors of cricket
Mihir Bose, by his own account, came to Britain as a young student. After his studies he had three choices: he could have gone to America, returned to India or stayed here. "I chose to stay here," he affirmed, "and have never regretted it."
That I would not doubt. A return to his homeland would not have been likely to enhance Mr. Bos's pay packet and living standards, so it was a case of Britain or the United States. Maybe his fondness for cricket ruled out the latter country. Anyway, Mr. Bose was very proud of being British, he said. But his pride was not in the great wars the country has won, or the nationalism that can so often turn to jingoism and violence. It is, he said, "in the cultural and scientific riches of this country and its sheer humanity."
All this deserves a little closer analysis. Pride in victorious wars cannot, to any intelligent person, go to make up the be all and end all of patriotism and a sense of national identity; but in the case of a country like Britain at least, it should form quite an important part. An element of our self-respect demands that when our courage has been put to the supreme test it has not been found wanting. Only the bully goes looking for war as an end in itself, but history demonstrates that armed struggle is a recurring feature of the lives of most nations, and it is no more than human to gain satisfaction from struggles in which we or our ancestors have performed well.
But of course, quite regardless of arguments as to how important military prowess is in the folklore of any nation, British military prowess and achievement are not part of Mr. Bose's folklore, no matter how he may protest to the contrary. That he should seek patriotic inspiration in the martial deeds of is own forebears, whatever they may be, would be understandable. But one can hardly expect him to gain any such inspiration from those of our forebears - especially when some of them were at the expense of his.
As for cultural and scientific riches, those of Britain may indeed by admired by the likes of Mr. Bose, but I find it difficult to see how he can be "proud" of them. I might as well settle among Australian Aborigines and proclaim that I am "proud" of their having invented the boomerang! It all gets us nowhere in defining national identity.
Sheer humanity? It is at this point that we have to be careful, for what is happening is that we are being flattered. Native Britons, I am afraid to say, have an almost fatal weakness for this kind of compliment. It adds to our feel-good reserves just when we are most in need of them. Mrs. Perera knows that too, as she has demonstrated in her talk of an underlying temperance, a social tolerance. It is of course vital to those from outside who want our gates to remain open to them that Britons should be laid-back as to who comes through the gates. Of such a laid-back attitude all sorts of descriptions might apply: lazy, apathetic, cowardly, stupid, wishy-washy, unvigilant, unpatriotic, lacking in duty towards posterity - the list is extensive. But tell British people that they are these things and they might not like it. How much more comforting it is to their consciences to put it all down to their "humanity" and their "underlying temperance". In that way they can enjoy a little glow of self-righteousness instead of reproaching themselves for their failure to defend their frontiers and their heritage!
All this having been said, it is true that there is a certain humanity and temperance in Britons (and other Northern Europeans). Those things can be our strength or our weakness depending on circumstances. They are a strength when the need is for social cohension, respect for the law, polite behaviour, care for the very old and very young and other needy folk amongst us all civic virtues in times of national security and calm. On the other hand, when not carefully rationed and regulated this very same humanity and temperance can be a grave weakness in times of danger, when our national survival is under threat and we are beset by enemies who wish us ill. Prudent politics demand that we should not get carried away by slushy sentiment and dazzled by words when such things come into the equation but should know where the brake needs to be applied to them.
But this is not to say that when faced by enemies we have not usually displayed great humanity and temperance towards them. The British when victorious in war have generally taken their enemies prisoner and provided them with food, warmth and as humane conditions as circumstances have permitted a much kinder treatment than scalping them or putting them in the stewing pot. But this is the way we British are as a people. It stems from something in the race. Take away that racial ingredient, and there is no certainty that our captives would not have been subjected to much more barbaric practices.
For the future, we should endeavour to maintain the same standards of humanity in our dealings with other races, but this is very different from allowing them to walk all over us and take away our country.
Malcolm Bradbury, another writer, clearly wants it both ways, which might be because he wants to appeal to opposite sections of his reading public at the same time. His sense of Britishness, he said...
‘...derives from both sides in this political debate. I want, as a writer, to live in a cosmopolitan and creative nation, active in the energetic cultural life of the 21st century world.
‘But that surely means sustaining much that is distinctive about Britain: its peculiar traffic between tradition and change, elitism and democracy, the strength of its countryside and the traces of past human history. It means not letting our urgency to live in the electronic present destroy continuity with the Britain of the past.‘
‘Britishness for me is not being quite American, not being European. It means not over-emphasising the tradition, yet not discarding the past. Above all, it means hoping that the result of our growing energy and diversity is a society comfortable with, and optimistic about, itself.’
The amount of waffle in all this leaves one breathless, but there are a few things which call for comment. There is nothing uniquely British about the problem of reconciling tradition with the modernisation essential to national efficiency; every nation has to grapple with that, but some do it better than others. Wise statesmanship is most certainly needed here, and wise statesmanship is something which we in contemporary Britain have not got. The climate of dripping liberalism almost everywhere results in our constantly sacrificing the best of our traditions in pursuit of an efficiency which we seldom seem to achieve. It is the innate silliness of the liberal consensus which dictates that efficiency and tradition must inherently be in conflict with one another, whereas in more adult and mature cultures that is rarely so. Just what has the downgrading of Shakespeare in favour of Rasta poetry got to do with getting British industry and public services to run better?
Mr. Bradbury seems to feel that, as a writer, he needs to live in a nation that is cosmopolitan and creative, as if both those things hung essentially together. They do not. Perhaps the most culturally creative period in English history was the Elizabethan period, not one noted for being cosmopolitan. It is true, of course, that the greatest fertility of European culture has come from the influences of one highly developed national culture bearing upon another; but that is not the same thing as cosmopolitanism. Great European writers, poets, artists, musicians and architects have enriched their output through contact with the works of others of different nationality but within a framework of common race; and virtually all the great art of Europe bears the imprint of such contact. But how much has European culture been enriched by contact with that of Asia? Not a lot. And with Africa? Not at all. Nevertheless, when Mr. Bradbury spoke of cosmopolitanism he clearly meant multi-racialism, not the mere cross-fertilisation of European national cultures that has been taking place for centuries.
And what of Mr. Bradbury's reference to "the energetic cultural life of the 21st century world?" Here, it seems, he was confusing energy with deafening noise, lurid illustration, literary shock and outrage and mere architectural bigness.
But he also wanted, so he said, to sustain much that is distinctive about Britain. What does this mean in his language? Not being "quite American", not being European in other words, being more American than European. Just how this tallies with British distinctiveness is not explained, but we must not be unfair to Mr. Bradbury. By this time he was running out of space.
The passage about a society being comfortable with... itself seems to come right out of the phrasebook of John Major. But is it an ideal to be aspired to? It all sounds too much to me like smugness, stagnation and contentedness with the second-rate and the inferior. A nation comfortable with itself seems to be one not disposed to strive to eliminate the rottenness within, to reach after new and expanding horizons, to excel. It all evokes the image of old age, when great ambitions have been renounced and a cosy chair by the fireside is the highest aim - not a state to be disparaged in individuals who get to that stage of life but hardly an ideal for nations which, to survive, must submit themselves to a constant process of renewal.
Light amid the fog
By far the most sensible contribution to the subject of Britishness came from Alan Massie. "I am British," he said, "because I am Scottish." And he continued:-
‘Some may see this as a paradox. It isn't. It is a fact of history. Likewise, William Hague is British because he is English. We are what we are as a consequence of centuries of history.
‘Some may resent this fact. But their resentment makes no difference...
‘My eight great-grandparents were all born, and lived all their lives, in Aberdeenshire. This reinforces my sense of Britishness because they, too, were inextricably British Scots...
‘Then I am a child of the Empire, which was always the British Empire, never the English or, indeed, Scottish Empire. At the age of 19 my father went out to be assistant manager of a rubber estate in Malaya...
‘I am British because I recognise how, over three centuries at least, Scotsmen and Englishmen have influenced each other.
‘The Romantic Movement, which in the early 19th century produced the finest flowering of English poetry since the Elizabethan Age, had its roots in Scotland.
‘The greatest moral force in Victorian England was a Dumfriesshire peasant's son, Thomas Carlyle. We have helped form each other, Scots and English; and what we have formed is British.’
Nowhere here, of course, is there mention of the dreaded word race, but one gets the feeling that it was not far from Mr. Massie's mind when he wrote the words. He is British because he belongs, ethnically, to one of the most vital and valuable components of the British Nation and ipso facto to the British ethnic Nation as a whole. At last we were getting somewhere near the core of the matter, even if Mr Massie, as a professional journalist, had to be a bit careful about his choice of words.
He spoke of the British being "a consequence of centuries of history." That is of course true, though it is not the whole truth. The American people are the consequence of their (fewer) centuries of history, and in their case that is nearly the whole truth. But in the case of us British the historical process happened to jell with ethnic homogeneity and compatibility - and was in fact primarily a consequence of those things. This makes our identity all the stronger, if only we rediscover the will to assert it.
So, out of six definitions published by a national newspaper of what Britishness means we have just one which makes a bit of sense, and out of the other five we get two provided by people who by no stretch of imagination are British. O tempora, O mores!
All of this just illustrates the world of fantasy in which the media dwell, but to some extent even the media are the victims of concepts of Britain which would seem absurd even to Continentals, most of whom know the meaning of nationality quite clearly.
Go to most parts of Europe and you will find refreshingly commonsense and down to earth definitions of what a nation is: it is, according to such definitions, a community of people distinguished by an ethnic identity, that is to say people belonging to a particular biological type, recognisable by physical characteristics, mentality, language, culture and norms of behaviour. Of these things, the last three can be acquired through environmental influences - but only within the boundaries imposed by the first two. These are truths that can, and should, be accepted whatever one's political views about the race issue may be. In former Yugoslavia, for instance, it is well understood that a Albanian Kosovan does not become a Serb merely by living in Serbia and learning the Serbo-Croat tongue. These two nationalities are also distinct races. It is not considered beyond the realms of polite conversation to state the fact.
Even in Britain we were not always so daft about this matter. My main dictionary is Chambers's Twentieth Century, published in 1934 but not much changed since the first edition of it appeared in 1896. There nation is described as what it is: "a body of people born of the same stock", and later: "a race."
By this definition, Britons can be Scots - as is Alan Massie, English - as is William Hague, or Anglo-Irish with a bit of Scots as I am. They can be these things because the stocks in question are close enough to be considered as of the same racial family. They cannot, remotely, be Sri Lankans, Indians, Jamaicans or people of any other stock hundreds of centuries removed, in anthropological and evolutionary terms, from the peoples of Europe. This is not to "hate" them. It is not to suggest ill-treating them. It is only to recognise difference.
We therefore return to the definition of Britishness which I ventured in these columns two months ago: We British are the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
England A Mongrel Nation?
by David Richards
England a ‘Mongrel Nation’: the latest enemy shot in the propaganda war against our nation and people. The latest trick by our rulers to bamboozle and browbeat the English people into accepting the multiracial society foisted undemocratically on them became evident over the summer with the broadcast on the Discovery Channel of a three-part, three-hour propaganda piece called Mongrel Nation. This featured two innovations. First was a move away from simply presenting a multiracial England as a fait accompli, something that just happened, rather like wet weather or a failure of the turnip crop, and simply has to be accepted. Not simply to peddling the well-worn line that the people of these islands are a nation of Immigrants, a "Mongrel Nation", anyway, so the arrival of the latest wave of millions of Africans and Asians is nothing new or different in view of previous settlement by waves of – though this is not stressed – thousands of North-West Europeans. But to a new line that mass immigration is not only not a new evil, it is not an evil at all, but a positive good. We are a nation of mongrels and we should be proud of it. This argument needs to be exposed and answered by all Racial Nationalists: we are not a mongrel nation and we ought not to be one.
The second innovation was in the packaging of the argument. They have clearly realised that the English people have increasingly seen though politicians and pundits, so another finger-wagging lecture on the Virtue of Tolerance from one of the Great and the Good will get them nowhere. Instead, their propaganda is to be peddled by people they hope we will believe, media "celebrities". In this case transvestite comedian – and loyal Labour party supporter – Eddie Izzard.
This is, if anything, even more absurd than the argument itself. The idea that just by being famous you become an expert on history and politics on whose every word we should hang is both silly and an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. Though it may make for some unintentional comedy. Perhaps next blonde bimbette Jordan will be wheeled out to confront us with a couple of substantial points in favour of the multiracial society! Or perhaps a lecture on the Liberal Consensus from Posh and Becks, the latter already a shining example of a species known to Americans as a "wigger"! And so on. Insert your suggestions here! Perhaps the most effective riposte would be to put their ideas to the test by dumping the lot of them in the middle of Moss Side at midnight. (Editors note: Moss Side is a mainly West Indian ghetto in the English city of Manchester) The result, no doubt, would be to give a whole new meaning to "I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here"!
Despite the unintentional appropriateness of using a comedian as a mouthpiece for multiracist propaganda, we still need to look at the lines he was given to speak. When we do, the first and most obvious point emerging from the series as a whole was the sheer crudity and one-sidedness of the propaganda. There isn’t even pretence of balance. Hitherto apologists for the Multiracist Mess have at least admitted that there have been problems along the way to the liberal Promised Land. At most they have argued that the gain in terms of an excitingly diverse society (very exciting indeed in some parts of our inner cities!) is worth the pain of racial tensions, riots, crime, natives feeling their areas have been taken over or that.
Immigrants have taken their jobs etc etc. The usual Labour/Tory/Lib Dem line. Or that the pain is simply something we have to put up with because multiracialism is inevitable and unavoidable and we can’t do anything about it now. The new BNP line?
But Mr Izzard simply pretends the pain never happened at all. He presents a history of Immigration in which talented newcomers poured endless benefits over grateful natives, with no downside at all. To take just one example, he mentions the influx of West Indians into Britain in the 1950’s. And he mentions –as a praiseworthy example of American cultural influence – the rise of the Teddy Boys in the same decade. (Editors note: Teddy Boys were very similar to the Rockabillys in the States) But he carefully avoids any mention of the fact that these two groups met in West London in 1958, in a well-known encounter – the Notting Hill Race Riots. Which, like all race riots, never happened in Eddie’s happy mongrel nation. All gain no pain. Perhaps, in view of his profession, we are meant to laugh.
But it does beg the question – if Eddie’s rosy picture is true, and immigration has been such an unqualified benefit, why do we need him to tell us about it? If his programmes were true, they would be unnecessary. Simply three hours of stating the obvious. Which, clearly, they aren’t. What they are is another insult to the viewer’s intelligence. We are supposed to accept an obvious farrago of nonsense, what even committed multiracists would admit is a totally distorted, one sided picture unrecognisable to any student of modern English history, simply because it is served up by someone who is well known. Well known, to remove the urine totally, as a comedian!
Mind you the indigenous viewer gets more than his intelligence insulted. According to Eddie, we as a people are lazy, stupid, dirty and backward. Needing wave after wave of Immigrants to civilize us. From Romans to teach us how to cook to Pakistanis to teach us how to work hard and run corner shops! We don’t seem to have invented anything ourselves, and how we conquered the greatest Empire in world history is a total mystery. But it was worth it – without the Empire we wouldn’t have learned to wash our hair or eat curry! If Eddie had unleashed this ethnically insulting diatribe at anyone else he would now be in the dock under the Race Relations laws. But we natives clearly have no rights and are fair game to be ridiculed on our own TV.
Though in fact we aren’t the only victims of the sort of crude ethnic stereotyping multiracists usually loudly deplore. The Irish dig holes and lay bricks. Blacks are musical and have natural rhythm. Pakistanis run corner shops. Indians cook curries. Jews make money, own chain-stores and control the media. And so on. All apparently excused as grist to the propaganda mill.
But Eddie’s outpouring isn’t all bad. The history, as opposed to the politics, is quite entertaining. It even manages to be true occasionally. He tells the tale, sometimes even rather well, which every Englishman should know, of the invasions of our land by Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. Albeit without stressing the fact that most of our national heroes, from Boudicca, King Arthur, King Alfred and Hereward the Wake through to Sir Francis Drake Admiral Nelson and the Duke of Wellington owed their national herodom to fighting, with increasing success, waves of actual and would be immigrants. Nor, more importantly, hinting at one enormous and obvious fact. Until the past century or so, all these Immigrants were our fellow Europeans, in fact except for some of the Romans our fellow North-West Europeans, ethnically almost indistinguishable from the people they found here. Which cannot be said for the West Indian and African Negroes or the Indian and Pakistani Asians who have been arriving more recently.
Even if some of them arrived a little less recently than most of us think. Eddie Izzard is right to say that some Black Africans started arriving here as long as 400 years ago. Mostly as slaves or, at most, servants. He argues from that that they must have interbred with the natives, although even he admits he has no evidence that they did. What he doesn’t mention was that the big race problem that did arrive after the Second World War wasn’t non-Whites, it was liberal multiracialism. Before which the natural ethnic immune system operated in a healthy manner. No decent white woman would have anything to do with a Negro or a Chinaman, and such mixed-breeds as did occur – usually begotten by White men on Black slaves and whores – were simply classed as more Blacks or Asians. To be periodically rounded up and thrown out of the country, as happened a number of times between Queen Elizabeth I’s edict of 1596 expelling "blackamoores" from England to the West Indians marched to the docks by troops at bayonet point after the Liverpool and Cardiff race riots in 1919.
Just how much the past was a different country can be seen from the fact that in the 1940s the wife of a retired Army Major thought nothing – and nor did anyone else – of refusing to share a hotel with "Negroes", with the full backing of her husband the Major. The retired Major in question was Clement Attlee, and he was Labour Prime Minister at the time! Can’t see our own Cherie doing that these days, somehow! Or go to the National Newspaper Library in Colindale, NW London, and read the national papers from the 1950s reporting the activities of the first post-war Black Immigrants. Under today’s Thought Control "hate crime" laws, the whole of Fleet Street would have ended up behind bars for the way they reported racial matters. Eddie, or his scriptwriters, of course hopes we’ll just imagine everyone was always as Politically Correct as we are supposed to be now, and so the mere presence of non-Whites automatically implies an epidemic of interbreeding and mongrelisation with the locals. What actually happened was simply that a few seaports developed small dockside ghettoes populated by non-Whites and mixed-breeds (regarded as "beyond the pale" in more ways than one!). A few small mongrel neighbourhoods rather than one mongrel nation.
To make us look more of a "mongrel nation", Mr Izzard doesn’t just ignore how little different from us the pre-20th Century Immigrants who did interbreed significantly with the natives were. He also deals with only one part of the British Isles. His "mongrel nation" isn’t the British but the English. That’s clever – it means he can hold up the admixture of Welsh, Scots, Ulster and Irish blood in many English people as further evidence of "mongrelisation". Just as a 1960’s propaganda poster cited Welsh, Australians and New Zealanders – the latter peoples then almost totally of British descent - as examples of how the British "have always been a good rich mixture"!
Finally, to make us a mongrel nation, made up entirely of Immigrants, Mr Izzard, or those who wrote his script, pull the most audacious propaganda stunt of all – they simply write the original natives of our country out of the story altogether! The original natives from whom, as modern genetic research shows, all native modern Britons are mostly descended. The people who have lived in these islands for thousands and thousands of years. Some of whom walked here, because they came here before Great Britain was an island. These people apparently never existed!!
Instead, according to Eddie, "The first people to really settle in England were the Celts. They arrived about 2500BC. "In fact, the first people to really settle here weren’t Celts. And they arrived about 10,000 years before 2500BC. If Eddie cares to go, for example, to Cresswell Crags in Derbyshire he can see the remains they left behind, way back in the last Ice Age. As modern DNA and RNA research shows, these people were our ancestors. Their strain has been added to over the millennia by some other Northern European additions, but they are our rootstock. To the extent that, for example, when the remains were found in Cheddar Gorge of a hunter who died there over 9000 years ago, around 7150 BC, Oxford University scientists were able to show that he was the direct ancestor of the typical local modern resident they tested, Cheddar schoolteacher Adrian Targett. Of course, according to Eddie Izzard, Mr Targett’s ancient ancestor never existed, as England was empty until 5000 years afterwards. If we are to believe Eddie, the empty land of England just sort of sprouted ancient monuments like Stonehenge (much of which dates to 3100 BC) and lots of dolmens, stone circles and passage graves. All of which must have just sprung up untouched by human hand like magic mushrooms, since they can all be proved by radiocarbon dating and similar scientific techniques to date from before, sometimes thousands of years before, "the first people really settled in England".
But obviously Eddie, or his scriptwriters, don’t expect anyone to notice this amazing load of codswallop, of doctored history and crassly biased politics. Not surprising if they think the English are the nation not just of mongrels but of morons they depict! Sadly for him, and them, as the votes for racial nationalist candidates rise across the country fewer and fewer of us are likely to be taken in by this sort of twaddle, especially if nationalists arm themselves with the facts about who we are and what we achieved, ourselves alone, without needing Immigrants to do it for us. Plus the other side of the argument – what Immigration has done to us rather than for us! If this is the best the other side can do, we shall have little difficulty answering it.
But there is no room for complacency. Mongrel Nation was only the first rather feeble shot in the barrage of multiracist pro-Immigration propaganda which our masters are likely to use their media and its celebrity creatures to unleash on us. There will be much more, and probably better argued. We must be ready to stand and return fire. For, at last, the debate they hoped would never happen, the debate about the makeup and identity of our Nation, has begun. The English people have at last forced them, by the first rumblings of our awakening, to answer to them, to justify the greatest crime and treason ever committed against our nation and our people. They will find they cannot do so. We are not a mongrel nation, and if we have the will we shall never be one.
David Richards, Exeter, Devon
Lies About the British Race being "Mongrel"
A surprisingly intense advertising campaign is being undertaken by a satellite/cable TV channel in the run up to their launch of a new series to be broadcast in June. Considering that the Discovery Channel has a market share of 0.3% of the national TV audience, the advertising particularly, in the London area seems disproportionate. Perhaps the advertising budget belies the significance being attached to the series by the producers. This particular mini-series is not just another wildlife show highlighting the plight of some species on the verge of extinction. This is a three-part series about a very real group of humans facing deliberate extinction- the English!
The series fronted by transvestite, "celebrity" Eddie Izzard, which bears the highly offensive and racist title of "Mongrel Nation" claims that "...the English and their culture are perhaps more of a melting pot than they might think - that in other words they are a Mongrel Nation."
So who in the Discovery team wrote this little piece?
Why was this preview written in the 3rd person?
Does it not indicate that the person who wrote this isn't English, in which case such a phrase is clearly and undeniably "racist"?
Would this same person use the term "mongrel" to describe people in Britain of mixed race parentage?
The choice of cross-dresser Izzard is no mistake; whilst he can be a genuinely funny man on stage, he is very popular with the young, chic professionals, but he is also an ardent Europhile and New Labour supporter. He donated £10,000 to the party during the last general election campaign.
The media would never get away with undermining the traditions of any other people. It is questionable whether even those of our British family of nations who are Scottish, Welsh or Irish would be the target of such an attack on history, culture and values. To belittle the traditions of the Scots or the Welsh would quite rightly lead to public uproar, questions in Parliament with the editors and producers being forced to make a public apology.
One hates to think of the international repercussions if a British TV series suggesting that for example, Indian culture is largely derived from the pale complexioned invaders from Europe 1500BC who introduced the Hindu religion and the art of writing to the Aboriginals already living there. One hates to think of the outrage about a series showing the very cosmopolitan origins of the Jews.
Just looking at the programme preview indicates that the research is badly flawed and highly inaccurate. For example "the eponymous English Sunday Roast which was actually introduced to our diet by the invading Romans."
Man was roasting meat in various parts of Europe long before the Roman invasion of these islands. In addition, the Romans could not have introduced this method of cooking to the "English" because, the Germanic speakers who gave their name to the language spoken today, landed on these shores after the Roman legions withdrew. Viewers with a genuine interest in history will doubtless be unconvinced by Discovery Channel's misinterpretation of European history. Sadly the vast majority of viewers will absorb the lies, half-truths and falsehoods like a sponge and recount the stories parrot-fashion to all they meet the next day.
The key element in all this, is that the Discovery Channel, (and the other channels which will broadcast this series in the months to come) is setting out to promote the lie that England is a melting pot of nations and races. It is setting out to distort history and to make us English folk believe that we haven't anything that is unique and special, nothing worth cherishing and nothing worth preserving. It is logical therefore, that as the English have nothing worth saving that the UK (of which the English are numerically the largest component) will lose nothing of value by submission to the greater powers of the European Superstate. It will lose nothing if these islands are opened up to all newcomers. All migrants are welcome, so goes the message, because of course they bring so much benefit to the English who haven't a thing of value of their own.
For a more accurate and truthful story of the history of these islands, our readers are encouraged to read the text of the BNP Chairman's excellent article "The Celts" found at the website of the USA journal "National Vanguard" . In addition Freedom Books stocks volumes that are more scholarly than Discovery's drivel.
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH HISTORY
THE BRITISH ISLES
THE ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH NATION
For those so minded, it would be useful to lodge a complaint with the Discovery Channel. Firstly and immediately in direct response to the offensive title "Mongrel Nation" and later AFTER the first programme has been broadcast. Genuine feelings will be more effective after the first show is broadcast on June 4th.
Contact Viewer Relations at:
PO Box 846
0117 954 9137
The lions need to start roaring again!