By Max Musson:
Despite attempts by proponents of multiculturalism and multiracialism to convince us that we British are a mongrel nation of immigrants and that we should not object to the relatively recent influx into this country of non-White immigrants because we have already absorbed admixture from the Vikings, the Normans, the Belgae, the Angles and the Saxons, as well as the Celts, the evidence produced by archaeologists who strive after the truth demonstrates otherwise.
It is true that there have since the end of the last glaciation been successive invasions of not just Britain, but most of Europe and if these invasions were a feature of our ‘manifest diversity’ as multiracialists claim, we would expect to see evidence of significant changes having taken place regarding the physical characteristics of European populations.
We would expect reconstructions of earlier inhabitants of Britain and Europe to show significant racial differences if the historic and pre-historic invasions had in fact brought with them people of significantly different racial type, and we would expect to see the typically modern British/European physiognomy appear only recently.
In the news at present there are details of the new visitors centre that has been constructed at Stonehenge and part of the exhibition at the new centre is a reconstruction based upon a skull found at the site, dating back to 3,500 BC.
This was the skull of an ancient Briton who lived during Neolithic times; before the arrival of the Celts; before the arrival of the Belgae; before the arrival of the Romans and the Vikings, the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons, and so surely, if all these invaders had been significantly different as the multiracialists imply, then the aboriginal Britons must have looked substantially different to the typical indigenous British people of today.
However, when we look at this face from our distant past, we find that far from being significantly different, the first impression one has is of how alike the modern indigenous British this reconstruction is:
One is therefore drawn to the only logical conclusion, which is that the Celts, the Belgae, the Romans, the Vikings, the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons etc must have been people of almost identical racial type to the people of ancient Britain and also to the British people of recent indigenous origin, and the multiracialists are therefore completely wrong in their assertions that we British are a mongrel nation.
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Dispater
- Edit
I’m amazed that Stonehenge weren’t persuaded to make him black.
Steve
- Edit
I think the whole “mongrel nation” thing is propaganda from the usual suspects & shows what they’re trying to make us into, if we allow it to happen.
The same thing is happening to other European nations.
Steve
- Edit
Part of that was also to devalue the existing culture so that it didn’t seem worth saving or defending.
The attacks on the British Union flag were all part of that, along with seemingly unrelated digs at our culture.
Multi culti & diversity is the thing that is pushed as the way to go in future.
If anything is a mongrel nation I would say that about Israel with their people connected by religion but coming from all over the place.
Very few have DNA routed in the area.
Steve
- Edit
Very few have DNA rooted in the area.
Cry Havoc!
- Edit
We know this to be true despite what the media would have us believe otherwise.
I recommend Brian Branston’s book “The Lost Gods of England” that describes exactly what a modern Englishman is.
It is written from the English (Anglo-Saxon) perspective and deals with language, culture, gods et c, but it is relevant for any Celtic scholars.
I do not intend to quote from the book, but in essence it shows our common racial heritage to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and also to the first settlers of our land. The point is that we should not believe the lies that the multi-culturists want us to believe, because we are not a mongrel nation, no more than any other North Western European country.
Unfortunately the multi-cult people have access to that most powerful propaganda tool: television, and are succeeding in convincing our kin that we are mongrels.
Nimble
- Edit
I’m always amazed the anti-White left even push this tired old ‘nation of immigrants’ line, surprisingly in every White country regardless of whether there’s even a slight way the truth can be flipped to argue this, as if the groups of Norwegians (just Norse at the time), Danes, Saxons, Angles and Celts are as radically different to one another as a modern day Englishman or Scotsman is to someone from Somalia or the Middle East.
It’s so laughably pathetic that it’s surprising they even have the gall to suggest it. It’s so easy to refute, yet to date I have only seen one person actually counter this feeble claim in a debate, Douglas Murray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDGejzIi8ts
2:10
BritishActivism
- Edit
There is an insidious attitude perpetuated by the ‘liberal left’ which still seems to dominate discourse and wider opinions when it comes to what is taking place. This ranges from some degree of sophisticated sophistry on immigration, to outright lies about the ethnic make up of our past.
.
The following article I am about to link to is a very frustrating read for any nationalist to wade through and is your typical leftwing diet of distorted opinions as to what the rights and wrongs of this whole debate is about our identity, our continuance – and by extension, the ‘unfounded fears’ of immigration that have traditionally been stated throughout different eras.
.
I will leave it to Max Musson to decide whether he wants to risk drawing attention to this site at The Guardian (via any traffic monitoring at their end) by adding a direct link, but in the meantime if anyone wants to look, it is in the ‘comment is free’ section of the Guardian newspaper, called ‘Immigration is not the problem’ and is written by Kenan Malik.
.
(Those who are computer literate enough will be able to copy and paste this following text to their address bar after the standard three w’s and the dot: theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/12/immigration-not-problem-hostility-migrants?)
.
Although I know it is the usual fodder we come to expect, I suppose that this is a prime example of the counter-argument we face on the immigration and nationality issue – and typical of something that we sadly still need to shatter as being a legitimate narrative out there in society. It still has a form grip, whether we like it not, no matter how ridiculous we find it, or how annoying we find it for somebody like Malik to be telling us who we are and what we ought to be doing.
.
Apologies if I am asking too much, but maybe the good folks behind Western Spring (and perhaps those in the comment section) could definitively deconstruct this piece to the high standard we normally see on this website.
.
Most of it is obvious, take the ending of the article for example, which blames immigration controls and ‘fortress Europe’ for the deaths of those 300 Africans off the coast of Italy.
.
The moral high ground is obviously our own and not the open borders lobby, for if they knew they were not going to ‘make it’ for a new life (and would not be accepted), they would not have even set off in the first place nor been exploited by people-traffickers.The deaths are on their hands, not ours.
.
It goes without saying that not having border controls or tight immigration controls around Europe will only lead the vastly poor, numerous (and quadrupling) third world to head to the first world, and thus these lands will become the third world too, with our eradication being part of the ultimate process.
.
However, there is a lot of other things to dissect in the article – and who knows, a proper and robust deconstruction of it may prove useful for years to come.
.
I know from my own comprehensive compilation of segments of TV documentaries featured in my youtube video which I made in 2011 called “Lost Voices of Britain” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qoi8B62w64 – that the arguments of “we cannot cope with these people”, “you cannot fit a quart into a pint pot” – and “there are no jobs and no houses for these people” are arguments which have generally failed and which have given Kenan Malik succour for the thesis behind his article.
.
UKIP are pushing the same kinds of arguments as we found in the 1960s, and whilst most of them are useful (and to some degree in our own image and desires), I suspect that things will continue to roll on like they have done since the 1960s…..and all that will bring for the future.
.
This is why Nationalism and Western Spring is important and different. Not only do we have the wider anti-immigration issues under our belt, but we go much deeper and back to the fundamentals of the issues instead of all the side-issues and “safe” issues relating to wealth, jobs, ‘culture’ or whatever else.
There are a few interesting quotes in the Guardian piece though, such as this one:
.
“Balfour was prime minister in 1905 when Britain introduced its first immigration controls, aimed primarily at European Jews. Without such a law, Balfour claimed, “though the Briton of the future may have the same laws, the same institutions and constitution … nationality would not be the same and would not be the nationality we would desire to be our heirs through the ages yet to come.”
.
Regards,
B.A.
Steve
- Edit
We need to remove the reasons for them to come, they need to understand that there is nothing here for them.
At the moment the opposite is true.
Nimble
- Edit
‘that the arguments of “we cannot cope with these people”, “you cannot fit a quart into a pint pot” – and “there are no jobs and no houses for these people” are arguments which have generally failed and which have given Kenan Malik succour for the thesis behind his article.’
.
They haven’t failed B.A., they are still true. There are numerous arguments one could argue for a pro-immigration stance, there are arguments most people could argue to be pro-most things, but mine is a simple argument.
.
I don’t want non-Whites in my country, I don’t like the fact that in my own homeland’s capital city my people make up only 45% (not actually my people, just Whites in general in London) and dropping of its population, I don’t like walking the streets of my cities and towns and being an ever increasing minority of my ancient homeland, I want my homeland for the racially English, Scottish and Welsh people.
.
That’s it, no convoluted debates that go on and on, just that, and I don’t feel the need to have to explain myself further, that is my argument, and I couldn’t care less what economic benefits mass immigration may or may not bring, I couldn’t care less if mass immigration made Britain into a heaven on earth of wealth, if I can’t recognise the country I grew up in and have to see my race dwindle and dwindle over the years, then it isn’t worth one pound of profit or one doctor in the NHS.
BritishActivism
- Edit
On the contrary, the arguments I cited (and which indeed Kenan Malik has pretty much mocked in his article) have clearly failed.
.
I am not saying there are not problems with schools, housing, transport, jobs – I am saying the argument of securing an ethnically British future in Britain has traditionally failed when being put on that kind of basis.
.
That was my point about why nationalism and ‘western spring’ is different. How it has different rationale (a different set of tools available) in order to express ourselves on top of (not necessarily instead of) those arguments about jobs and housing or the economy etc.
.
When people from the 1960’s (in my documentary compilation I linked to) are perhaps citing precisely the same ‘side issues’ as a mask for what is taking place – and when parties like UKIP are still effectively using the same arguments 50 years later but without a mask (for they clearly believe in multiracialism and are not just ‘boxing clever’) – then it must clearly have failed, for nothing has abated, it has got ten times worse.
.
For Mr Malik, that we have managed to cope with this influx over that time period (and prior) gives him a strength of argument that people are always saying this kind of thing throughout the years – and that, as we have had a ‘continuous flow’ throughout our history, how nothing is really different today in this regard and that people like ourselves and the general ‘anti-immigration’ lobbyists will once again be proven wrong in our tales of how the system cannot cope and how we cannot house or school everybody etc.
.
You see, the answer you gave is the opposite of those ‘side issues’, which is precisely what I mean when we need to be able to deconstruct the prevalence of Mr Maliks assertions – and thus put forward a full deck of cards by which this game of discourse can be won, or at least understood and agreed to by more participants in the game.
.
Like yourself, I could not care less for propping up material wealth or ‘filling jobs’ in the short term when it is at the expense of eradicating the British people forever.
.
However, how we set about putting this forward and rendering the opinion piece of Mr Malik null and void is unfortunately still up for grabs out there in the nation. (I think you may want to read his piece if you have not already done so).
.
We can talk plainly amongst ourselves on nationalist sites about not wanting ethnic minorities here etc until the cows come home, for we are all here for a reason and often have years of considered thought under our belts.
.
However, we must consider that we may be dwelling in an echo chamber whilst Mr Malik (and the rest) step merrily onwards with the kinds of arguments. Ones that have continually conned and resonated with people whilst the nation slowly slides away from us – and whilst new generations get ever more accustomed to what is coming and become less of the opinion that there were indigenous people at all or that it even matters, for they will cling to the idea that we have “been a long transition” and all that “race stuff” is “nonsense” in the “21st Century” anyway.
.
Unrepentant
- Edit
‘the fact that in my own homeland’s capital city my people make up only 45% (not actually my people, just Whites in general in London)’
Nimble, I don’t mean to be pedantic, however this is the second time this week I have read that statistic and it needs to be nipped in the bud. Wikipedia states that:
‘According to the Office for National Statistics, based on the 2011 Census estimates, 59.8 per cent of the 8,173,941 inhabitants of London were White, with 44.9 per cent White British, 2.2 per cent White Irish, 0.1 per cent Irish traveller and 12.1 per cent classified as Other White.’
That indeed accords with the statistics I recall when the results of the census were published. Yes, that does not take into consideration illegal immigrants, but the official statistics show London was a little under 60% white, and nearly 45% ‘white British’.
Max Musson
- Edit
Pedanticism is not something one can indulge in when it comes to demographic statistics as the truth of the matter is that neither the government nor anyone else has any idea how many people, let alone how many immigrants live in this country. Therefore, whether Nimble is right or you are Unrepentant, no one can say.
.
Within the ‘White British’ category, there will be a proportion of Jews, just as within the ‘Other White’ category there will be Roma gypsies, and a substantial number of Hispanics from Central and South America, many Iranians and Turks, who like to think of themselves as ‘White’ but may not be in our estimation. Trying to produce reliable statistics is a ‘dogs breakfast’ of a guessing game, it has been this way for the last thirty years, and this is what the government intended when they stopped collecting rigorous demographic statistics.
.
Upon visiting our capital city centre, the overriding impression is that perhaps only one in four or one in five people are of indigenous British extraction and therefore the most pessimistic of ‘official’ estimates are likely to be the most accurate in my view.
Unrepentant
- Edit
Max,
.
There is a justification for my pedantry which I believe is more than adequate: CREDIBILITY.
.
You see whenever I read what I consider to be a dubious statistic, I’m inclined to check its veracity. When the author is a nationalist an inaccurate doesn’t invalidate the point that’s being made, for in my case he’s preaching to the converted. I agree with the sentiment expressed by Nimble, for example.
.
However, when I’m reading an unfamiliar site and I’m uncertain about the validity of the argument – e.g., gun crime in Switzerland – I would check the statistics quoted in order to verify them. If it turns out they’re false, I would be of the opinion that either: i) the author’s trying to deceive me OR ii) the author’s not properly checked the statistics. In the latter case I would consider that if the author’s wrong about that, then he will likely be wrong about other things too. In other words, the author would lack credibility.
.
Now the reason a lot of people become nationalists is that they have a questioning mind and can see through the mainstream media’s lies. If statistics expressed by nationalists are incorrect – especially ones that exaggerate the problem – then they may well conclude that we’re being disingenuous, too.
.
Of course Nimble could have written ‘the official statistics are X% but these are likely to conceal the true extent of the problem because of Y and Z’. But to quote an incorrect figure that exaggerates the problem leaves us open to ridicule and/or accusations of mendacity.
.
I once read a draft copy of a proposed BNP leaflet that claimed the Muslim population would exceed the indigenous population by 2026. Now it may be that the author had confused statistics for school children in a particular city for projected statistics for the UK as a whole, but they were clearly wrong and I told the author so. He said to me “what, you think it’ll be sooner than that?”
.
Another example is a free publication that I often read when travelling to work called ShortList. In one addition there was an article on the UKIP’s conference which included the following paragraph:
.
‘That said, after classily singling out Romanians as to blame for 92 per cent of ATM crimes in London, he claims: “More people settled in this country in 2010 than came here for the previous 1,000 years.” In reality, according to the Office For National Statistics, 591,000 people came here in 2010, and in 2006 alone 596,000 came.’
.
This is actually a misquoted fact from Migration Watch, though they state 1066 to 1950. But there goes UKIP’s credibility in a lot of people’s minds.
.
Sources (prefix with www.):
shortlist.com/home/on-tour-with-ukip
migrationwatchuk.co.uk/briefingPaper/document/269
.
We have the truth on our side. The official statistics are bad enough as they are, and even they’re fudged as we can correctly point out. We do not need to invent our own as it undermines our credibility.
.
UBN
Max Musson
- Edit
I did not mean to be offensive in my use of the term ‘pedanticism’ and I accept your reasons for placing importance upon accuracy. Mine was a somewhat glib response in order to provide the opportunity to highlight the governmental policy of making statistics in this field almost un-usable. I do apologise.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Max, part of the problem with these statistics is that people can fit themselves into whatever category they wish and the Office of National Statistics has no power to correct them. I heard of a case where a Sikh of (presumably) Indian extraction chose to describe himself as “white British” and the ONS had to take him at his own estimation. It would be better if ethnicity were objectively recorded by the Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages as perceived by them, but it is not.
There are up to a million people in this country who would be accepted by us as “White British” because they are white and of British Isles origin, but do not necessarily think of themselves as British because they are Australians, South Africans etc. I know a young chap with dual Australian/British nationality whose parents were both born in England but emigrated to Oz in the fifties; in the recent census he described himself as “Other White” – despite being a racial nationalist of strongly British sympathies. Then there are white people who are not of British descent but are married to British people and who therefore have White British children.
In other words there might be more White British out there than the statistics appear to show, but we will never know because of that lack of an objective ethnic registration system.
Max Musson
- Edit
You are of course correct Frederick, however by far the largest factor creating error is that for the last 30 years at least, our government have made no real attempt to count arrivals and departures at airports, sea ports and passing through the Channel Tunnel and they literally have no idea how many people there are in this country of whatever race or nationality and probably could not even estimate accurately to the nearest 5 million as far as the overall total is concerned.
.
All of the official statistics published are simply the products of guess work, flawed self-certification such as you describe, or compilations of already flawed statistics. We can attempt to gain credibility by quoting official statistics, but in reality such statistics are worthless I terms of accuracy.
.
All we know for sure is that this country is now awash with foreigners and people of alien race, to such an extent that our survival as a distinct nation is in mortal danger, and that as each year goes by our situation worsens significantly.
unrepentant
- Edit
Max,
No apology necessary, but I believe we all need to be very careful when quoting something to ensure that it is accurate. I always check anything provided to substantiate an argument for authenticity, and on several occasions I have found many apocryphal quotes. Unfortunately that’s the nature of the internet, given that anybody can write anything – not that the mainstream media aren’t known to fabricate and distort things, too.
Steve
- Edit
Talking about CIF, there is a zionist website called CIFwatch full of trolls & zionists constantly whinging about how hard done Jews & Israel are.
It has a sister site called BBCwatch & is much the same thing.
I believe they are both operated out of Israel.
If you want a crash course on dealing with trolls & the tricks they use, go on there & make a negative comment & watch the swarm descend.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I must admit I was pleasantly surprised to see a face which you could very easily see in Wiltshire right now, and would walk past without a second glance. I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, but we are told so often that “Britain has always been multi-racial and multi-cultural” that even I have been influenced by what I know to be a lie! It is still a wonder though that “they” didn’t make him a bit, well, …darker.
Max Musson
- Edit
What appears to be happening now with these kinds of reconstructions is that in addition to the reconstructive artist’s interpretation of bone markings etc., as a means of gauging facial morphology, geneticists are getting involved, analysing DNA taken from the skulls and thereby determining colouration. It seems that science is working in our favour in that the body of evidence in support of our beliefs is now becoming so great as to be impossible to ignore, well for scientists at least anyway!
Steve
- Edit
I guess their funding will get cut off then!
Tony L
- Edit
Quite right. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Celts are all of the same race. They bear a different culture, that is all. Racially, they are alike.
jackdaw
- Edit
They have to deny our existance in order to get away with the scheduled genocide . I think thats the normal procedure. Too bad they didn’t anticipate our resistance !!
Steve
- Edit
I think that’s why they went the softly softly route over a long period of time to try & slowly freeze out any opposition to what’s being done.
Arcturus
- Edit
I’ve always found the “mongrel nation” argument to rely on a complete non sequitur. The British are made up of several distinct groups of white Europeans, most of them making up a minority of our gene pool – therefore we ought to invite upwards of five million people from Africa, the middle east, Asia and India to come and live here. It doesn’t follow. And if it did, it would apply to every ethnic group on Earth and essentially require us to call for the genocide of every one of them.
.
Maybe the liberals can argue that it’s not an argument FOR immigration, merely an argument against the rejection of immigration. Well, I find that this doesn’t make sense either. Just because something has happened in the past which we can consider to be bad doesn’t mean we should invite it to continue. Murder rates are too high in London? “Well, we’ve always had murder in the past – let’s have some more”. Nobody should be able to get away with this kind of reasoning.
Shaun
- Edit
I’m surprised. I thought an early Englishman would be an evil-looking little cretin with a hatred for women, homosexuals and Jews — with, of course, a smithereen of knowledge that he “stole” from Africa.
.
No, the guy looked very, very English! Hang on .. if he looks very, very English then that must mean that the other races that came afterwards must have looked very, very similar to him?
.
Sorry, have I just had a “racist” thought?
Max Musson
- Edit
Not at all Shaun, that’s the point the article makes and there is nothing racist about it!
Shaun
- Edit
No, Mr. Musson, race is just a ”social construct” so it makes no difference that all white immigrants to pre-multiracial Britain looked the same; also, as race doesn’t exist, I must add that these early white immigrants were social constructs before the concept of social construct even existed!
Actually, I wonder if this early Englishman (who was white as a social construct) ever had ”racist” thoughts towards Blacks, Asians or Jews? I mean, he didn’t even know these people existed (Jews hadn’t even formed at this date), so it would be hard for anti-Whites to shame him down with the ”R” word.
No, I know it: this early Englishman was, at this time, preparing the social dominance hierarchy of White racism while knowing that his whiteness was just a social construct even though he wasn’t aware of other races existed even though they don’t exist in the first place.
Arcturus
- Edit
It amuses me how multiculturalists claim that race doesn’t exist, and yet they’re perfectly adept at counting with exquisite accuracy the proportions of members of each race in towns and cities, places of employment and television shows for the purposes of ensuring equality of the races.
.
You can’t have it both ways.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
A lie is always contradictory and a fundamental lie is always fundamentally contradictory.
Albert
- Edit
86% of White British DNA can be traced back 15.000 years, The other 14% are Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Frisians, Viking, Norman,
It took this Country Thousands of years to evolve into one of the great Civilisations, only to be wreaked forever by 60 years of third world mass immigration.
Britain may well become the first country in the history of civilisation, to be conquered not by War, Famine, or Plague, But by uninvited mass immigration allowed by continuous treacherous governments since the end of WW11.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
To counter this ridiculous “mongrel” argument, say this :
White + non-white = mongrel
White + White = White (and thus not mongrel).
Up until the mass immigration of non-Whites Britain was a “mixture” of Whites + Whites and thus not mongrel.
Max Musson
- Edit
That is another very good mantra. Thank you.
Corky341
- Edit
Many years ago I read Arthur Kemp’s book ‘Four Flags, The Indigenous People of Britain’. I got him to autograph my copy and asked him how long the research took. I was informed that it took a relatively short time because ALL the evidence is already ‘out there’. Both as studies by esteemed anthropologists, sociologists and the like, but more conveniently for us, most of the subject matter has been published on the internet. The left’s use of the phrase ‘mongrel nation’ can and should be very easily debunked. (ISBN 978-1-4452-8775-1 ( if anyone is interested).
Max Musson
- Edit
Arthur Kemp is right, that the evidence needed to demonstrate that the nationalist position is overwhelmingly correct has existed for many decades. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but the fact that our liberal and leftist politicians wilfully ignore the evidence and persist with destructive policies. The destruction of our nation and race is not happening by accident, it is a deliberate objective of the liberals and the left.
concretepigeon
- Edit
Chap named Oppenheimer has found through extensive study that although we were invaded many times, in essence we are still mainly Celtic.
Also, the Normans were not French but Scandinavian……..
Max Musson
- Edit
And even the French descended from the Franks, who were Germanic.
Anglo
- Edit
Not Celtic, but pre-Celtic.
However, there are many other studies that show a significant proportion of English DNA is of Germanic, not “Celtic” or pre-Celtic origin.
In this context I am speaking as an Englishman (not a Briton!) who has to defend his English identity not just from Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Afro-Caribbeans but from Irish, Scots and Welsh (and their self-loathing English advocates) who argue there is no such thing as English, that England is not a real nation, and that I, and my fellow English are “just Celts”.
Max Musson
- Edit
The Celts were a Germanic tribe, as were the Belgae, who also invaded Britain and after whom Belgium is named.
Albert
- Edit
85% of the indigenous population can trace their DNA back 12.000 years to after the last Ice Age, the other 15% are Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Fresians, Vikings and Danes,
So most of us are in fact ancient Britain’s a Celt people that originate on the Iberia Peninsula.
Now I consider myself English..but if i have Celt blood in me … then I’am very proud to come from the best of European stock.