Lascaux cave art

Lascaux cave art

Sunday, March 02, 2014

An Interesting Exchange of Views on Immigation

Amazon.uk is a useful tool in which to deliver a pro-Germanic and anti-liberal message.Sometimes debates start which are not always planned or initiated by me. The following is an example of a recent hostile anti-English comment posted in response to a review of mine discussing a pro-immigration book:

" Your review doesn't appear to actually review the book, it's just provided you with a platform to air a rather short-sighted view. I asked if you knew what the word England translates as to put into context what you wrote. I've no doubt you were shocked to discover what the word meant as there's no balance or reason to your thoughts. To take into account the fact that English is a Germanic language and the land got its name from immigrants, I'll address those thoughts:

"An experiment in social engineering that the British peoples never asked for and never wanted."

The British people, as demonstrated, are descended from immigrants. The language they speak is Germanic. Alongside Anglo-Saxons and Jutes, you have Normans, Picts, Romans, Celts and Vikings among others. Therefore there is no such thing as a pure English identity and in referring to "the British people", you refer not to a homogenous race but an assortment of influences over time. In consideration of this, it's ironic that you go on to say:

"History reveals to us that fundamentally different peoples require their own living space."

Britain is made up of fundamentally different people. I'll reiterate, you speak an immigrant's language and are descended from one (just like me).

"It is only when biologically homogenous societies are interfered with that racial hatred occurs-the fault of those liberals who have and are masterminding this insanity."

The idea of homogeny is a misnomer. The indigenous people, as I have demonstrated, are descended from lots of different immigrants. The idea of, now, comparing a Scouser with a Cockney and claiming parity seems odd. The same as if someone from Cornwall claimed to be the same as someone from Bolton. It's not necessarily so.

As you've discovered that the land you live in refers to those from a foreign land, it might be worth bearing in mind the next time you address race or immigration (to spell it out for you: you're descended from an immigrant!)."

My reply:

 "I see that you have been waiting-literally waiting a long time for me to respond to your question. Were you on the edge of your seat all this time?
Let me address your argument point by point.
I was not "shocked" at all. I have been studying Indo-European, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon history for several decades now and I am a practicing Wodenist so I am hardly going to be surprised and certainly not "shocked" by the fact that the English are a Germanic people. I am myself half German so I consider the German, English, Netherlandic and Scandinavian peoples to be all part of one meta-ethnicity, the Germanic peoples.
The Anglo-Saxons are not native to Britain but their longevity here is sufficiently distant in time for them to be classed as an indigenous people under the definition of the term by the United Nations. Indeed there is increasingly more and more evidence coming to light that Germanic people have been settling here before the common accepted date of 449CE.
Prior to the Coming of the English these islands were populated by Indo-European peoples who were responsible for the construction of stages II and III of Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments. More than likely these people too originated in Germania. Anglo-Saxons, `Vikings` and Normans all originated in Germania (which includes Scandinavia) and regardless of what Germanic or Indo-European dialect they spoke they were all part of one biological and cultural group-the Germanic peoples. The `Celts` are a literary fiction. There is no evidence at all that such a people ever existed in Britain but it is a useful term to label the pre-Roman populace. Many of these people too were Nordic Indo-Europeans. The `Picts` are an unknown quantity however. The `Romans` were not by and large Roman or even Italian. Many if not most of these soldiers were in fact Germanic auxillaries. Recent genetic research indicates that the vast majority of the indigenous peoples of Britain share the same Indo-European haplotypes regardless of national labels. There has therefore been no multiracial immigration into England or Britain prior to the 1950s.
English and German being the languages of my forefathers are Germanic tongues. Germanic is MY native language. It is native to the people of England. What is happening to England today is without precedent in our history and as far as I can recall we have never been consulted over whether this country should allow itself to be inundated with so many diverse alien people. It is ironic that the English fought an unnecessary war to prevent an illusory German invasion and then allowed itself to be deceived by its politicians into allowing a peaceful invasion from practically every country in the world. All this to provide cheap labour for greedy capitalists.The English are now awakening but is it already too late?"

9 comments:

Unknown said...

My friend, anyone Germanic in England is most assuredly an immigrant whether recent or ancient, in the sense of not being native. The native British Islanders were NOT Germanic. And I don’t think you want to take the UN’s word for one thing (the definition of indigenous), while rejecting it for another (its stance on multiculturalism, diversity, asylum and immigration). So indigenous means original people, and for England, that is not Germanic. Here is the evidence.

-”Speculation has run somewhat wild over the question of the composition of the Early Britons. But out of the clash of rival theories there emerges one–and one only–which may be considered as scientifically established. We have certain proof of two distinct human stocks in the British Islands at the time of the Roman Conquest; and so great an authority as Professor Huxley has given his opinion that there is no evidence of any others. [Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) 19:1 Huxley: On Some Fixed Points in British Ethnology. 1871].

Read more here: http://selfuni.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/arguments-against-immigration-in-england/

Wotans Krieger said...

According to the United Nations own definition of an indigenous population, the English qualify as an indigenous people in Britain, bearing in mind that even taking the accepted late date of 449CE (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles)the English people have been present in England for over 1,500 years. Evidence now suggests that a Germanic presence predates this quite considerably.
I am not referring to the `British`-this is a political term. The only people that could qualify to be called `British` in any meaningful sense are the pre-Anglo-Saxon conquest population which are today known as the `Welsh`. I am not talking therefore about the `British` but the ENGLISH people. As a foreigner you probably don`t understand that there is a difference! The English are those who claim descent from the various Germanic tribes which populated England and the border regions, the majority of whom were Saxon. A negro thus can never be an Englishman.
My whole argument is that multiracial immigration, ie non-Europid is a relatively new and unwelcome development despite the arguments of race traitors who try to claim that this country has always been a multiracial shithole. That is a lie and one that I will continue to challenge until I enter Walhall!

Unknown said...

"A negro thus can never be an Englishman." Careful: calling dark-skinned people "negroes" means light-skinned people are "albinos". But that's another topic.

The topic at hand is who was first in England. Put plain and simply, they were neither white, Germanic, Indo-European or Europid.
-"The earliest of these two races would seem to have inhabited our islands from the most ancient times, and may, for our purpose, be described as aboriginal. It was the people that built the “long barrows”; and which is variously called by ethnologists the Iberian, Mediterranean, Berber, Basque, Silurian, or Euskarian race. In physique it was short, swarthy, dark-haired, dark-eyed, and long-skulled; its language belonged to the class called “Hamitic”, the surviving types of which are found among the Gallas, Abyssinians, Berbers, and other North African tribes; and it seems to have come originally from some part either of Eastern, Northern, or Central Africa. Spreading thence, it was probably the first people to inhabit the Valley of the Nile, and it sent offshoots into Syria and Asia Minor. The earliest Hellenes found it in Greece under the name of “Pelasgoi”; the earliest Latins in Italy, as the “Etruscans”; and the Hebrews in Palestine, as the “Hittites”. It spread northward through Europe as far as the Baltic, and westward, along the Atlas chain, to Spain, France, and our own islands. 1 In many countries it reached a comparatively high level of civilization, but in Britain its development must have been early checked. We can discern it as an agricultural rather than a pastoral people, still in the Stone Age, dwelling in totemistic tribes on hills whose summits it fortified elaborately, and whose slopes it cultivated on what is called the “terrace system”, and having a primitive culture which ethnologists think to have much resembled that of the present hill-tribes of Southern India. 2 It held our islands till the coming of the Celts, who fought with the aborigines, dispossessed them of the more fertile parts, subjugated them, even amalgamated with them, but certainly never extirpated them. In the time of the Romans they were still practically independent in South Wales. In Ireland they were long unconquered, and are found as allies rather than serfs of the Gaels, ruling their own provinces, and preserving their own customs and religion. Nor, in spite of all the successive invasions of Great Britain and Ireland.” http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/Crests.htm

Unknown said...

Here is further evidence that non-Europid immigration or settlement into the British Isles is nothing new:

-”Most readers of history know about the Celts, ancient inhabitants of Europe, whose priests were known as the Druids. It is generally thought that these Celts were Caucasoids, but Sir Godfrey Higgins, after much study came to the conclusion that they were a Negroid people. Higgins wrote a ponderous volume entitled The Celtic Druids. In the following passage from his Anacalypsis he modestly refers to it as an essay: “In my essay on the Celtic Druids, I have shown that a great nation called Celtae, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremity of Britain. The religion of Buddha of India is well known to have been very ancient.” (Higgins is here referring to the first Buddha, who is supposed to have lived between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago, and not to Gautama Buddha who lived about 600 years B.C. There were at least ten Buddhas mentioned in the sacred books of India.) “Who these can have been but the early individuals of the black nation of whom we have been treating I know not, and in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says Cuthies (Cushites), i.e. Celts, built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former; and the learned mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black curly-headed Buddha.” (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book I, Chap. IV, New York, 1927.)”

http://2017blackart.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ethiopia-and-the-origin-of-civilization-by-john-g-jackson/

Unknown said...

Granted, the following link pertains to Ireland, but Ireland is part of the British Isles, so…

-“…Candid authorities like the British Egyptologists Gerald Massey and Albert Churchward, the Scottish historian David Mac Ritchie, and the British antiquarian Godfrey Higgins, have done exhaustive research and brought many facts to our knowledge. Tacitus, Pliny, Claudian and other writers have described the Blacks they encountered in the British Isles as “Black as Ethiopians,” “Cum Nigris Gentibus,” “nimble-footed blackamoors,” and so on.

From all indications, the ancient dwellers of the British Isles and Ireland, like the Kymry (one of the names given to the earliest inhabitants, from whom the Picts and Scots descended), were Blacks. David Mac Ritchie has provided substantial evidence in his two-volume work, Ancient and Modern Britons that the Picts as well as the ancient Danes were Blacks. The Partholans, Formorians, Nemeds, Firbolgs, Tuatha De Danann, Milesians of Ireland and the Picts of Northern Scotland were all Blacks.

The Firbolgs (believed to be a section of the Nemeds) are believed to be so-called pygmies or the Twa. They are the dwarfs, dark elves or leprechauns in Irish History. The British Egyptologist Albert Churchward is convinced that the Tuatha-de-Danann, who came to Ireland, were of the same race and spoke the same language as the Fir-Bogs and the Formorians…” (http://culturalhealth.blogspot.com/2011/03/irish-leprechauns-were-originally-black.html)

Unknown said...

As for Indo-European speakers, even if they were the first arrivals to the British Isles, that wouldn't serve your argument. See here:
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/gc_dunn/Comparative_Linguistics.pdf

It is not being multiracial that makes England a $#!+hole you describe it to be. Have you ever read Dickens? Have you had a look at the last time England was not multiracial? You can here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487041/Dickens-London-brought-life-Fascinating-snapshot-Victorian-street-traders-taken-dawn-photography.html

And what makes a race pure? Inbreeding. That's right, inbreeding. Albinos, as you, apparently, would have us called, have less genetic variation between them, and a disproportionate number of deleterious genetic mutations. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/abs/nature06611.html) So apparently we need a little race-mixing now and then.

Either way, there is no case against immigration into the British Isles. Negros, not albinos, seem to have been here first. At least they aren't committing genocide, deforestation and slavery like the Brits did when they paid a visit!

Wotans Krieger said...

`Unknown`, I see that you have been busy. I do not have time to address your rather extensive comments today. Rest assured I will reply to you but in the form of a separate article which I will give thought to within the next week. To simply answer your points using the comment facility would not do them justice.
Regards.

Unknown said...

Thanks Wotanskrieger. I don't mean to remain anonymous. I blog at http://selfuni.wordpress.com and http://qahiri.wordpress.com. I go by taj-akoben. I look forward to sharing more research. I've been reading your blog for some time. Peace.

Parriah Pottymouth said...

Inbreeding? Genocide? You are embarrassing yourself