The Colonisation of England
I had one of ‘those’ conversations on social media yesterday. It can be found at
It arose out of a posting on the BBC Three page on Facebook.
Do shares = support? We look at Britain First in We Want Our Country Back.
There were various postings about what horrible people Britain First are and so I put in that while it is the case that BF are indeed problematic in many ways, the actual case about colonisation is one others such as myself feel great concern about.
I followed with this. I was actually picking up a theme from another thread from the same site Is Britain Racist? In which immigrants claimed to be ‘English’, but these topics overlap and interpenetrate to such a degree that it is difficult sometimes to keep them apart.
Claire Rae Randall This whole anti-white agenda which the BBC runs is absolutely unacceptable. People whose ancestry comes from Asia or Africa cannot be 'English' when they are not even European, or white. The BBC is deliberately attacking the ancestral majority of our nation. Why shouldn't the people whose ancestors built this country remain the dominant demographic in their own country? Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, but hey, Europe for Everyone! No-one is flooding Nigeria, or Pakistan, or China with millions of non indigenous people and calling them Nigerian, Pakistani or Chinese! So why should these immigrants get to call themselves English and sneer at us? And if we are so racist, how come they all want to come here? Nothing to do with the welfare benefits or high standard of living which they can get from living in our countries, I'm sure.
[And this cartoon I found recently.]
This precipitated a torrent of abuse in which I was vilified with salvoes of choice epithets which are standard ammunition in the arsenal of the antifa brigade, without actually addressing the genuine concerns which even Britain First should be allowed to express.
It is very important I have found in such circumstances to maintain one’s cool, and not descend to the depths of your opponents. All they have is abuse, while it is my firm conviction that I have a moral case for the defence of my people and civilisation.
One question is all it takes. I actually asked three, but the fact that they wouldn’t even touch the first shows their weakness. Jeers they have a-plenty but arguments they have none.
The three questions are as follows. First, how many immigrants should we accept and at what population size should we close the door? Second, how will you feel when you are the last European on your street? And third, how will you feel when your child is the last European child in their class?
To be sure I am drawing this more widely than just England or Britain, as it seems the whole of Europe is beset by this invasion at the present time.
We live in a world of practical limitation, and so we must think about the first question. It is much worse in Germany, France and Sweden, where no go areas are spreading and there is an epidemic of immigrant perpetrated rape on in indigenous white European women.
But even here in Britain, the enclaves are quite advanced. London is now less than 50% native population, and major cities such as Birmingham have a muslim presence which is beginning to flex its muscles.
There have been at least five million non indigenous people arrive in this country since the late nineties, many have had children and they are a seriously growing demographic. If we keep accepting migrants and our already swollen population also continues to grow, how many should we set as a limit to that population?
It is just a simple question. I guess I don’t really expect the antifa to engage with the second and third as these are probably too challenging and raise too much cognitive dissonance between their Cultural Marxist programming and their basic racial and animal survival instincts.
In online ‘debate’, there are certain strategies which it is important to adhere to. I’m not an expert, but I have learnt some things. Never respond to abuse, but instead reply politely pointing out that they have not answered your question but that they have resorted to unjustified abuse etc. Then repeat your case or restate it from a slightly different angle.
I am actually staggered to find how little these people have to work with. Like hyenas they pack together to attack someone who dares speak outside of the Politically Correct trope. ‘Racist’ ‘scum’ and ‘nazi’ are the standard fare, and I find that responding pointing out politely that they have no basis in evidence for actually making these slurs against you, and then getting back to the question ~ ‘How many?’
Once they have exhausted their ad hominem attacks, since they will not reply to the question, they are forced to make some pathetic attempt at reason and argument as to why it is apparently so wonderful that we are being flooded by unlimited numbers of people from a diverse selection of places in the world with which we have no history, no shared culture, language or religion.
First we get the ‘It’s great all that diversity, don’t you like a curry?’ which is easily batted away with a reply that there were plenty of curry houses thirty or even forty years ago, without the demographic overload. The point being that a small number of immigrants from different cultures can be enriching up to a point, but beyond that point the host culture starts to become eroded. I hear that many first generation immigrants who have been in Europe for a long time recognise that this is the case, (mostly West Indians and Indians I am thinking of) they aren’t keen on an ever increasing and more dominant islamic culture from Pakistan and the Middle East. They obviously like the white Anglo dominated society, which is what they came her for!
Economic benefits are cited, although with so many native Brits unemployed I find this hardly worth the time of day. Anti-English English like to sneer at the working class for not getting on their bike and trying harder, but I find this derogatory attitude to one’s own people a cheap shot. We have for too long supped at the table of the mainstream media who have sneered at the English people as no more than football hooligans.
Then we get to the meat. ‘Well your people colonised the world!’ (You might like to compare the different arguments and see how they are not all entirely consistent with each other, such as how, if there is no such thing as race, our ‘race’ can be held responsible for anything. Rather, the concept is only employed when considered useful, otherwise it is only a ‘construct’.) Well, there are British colonies around the world, which were set up by people who left our shores often centuries ago, and are certainly not representative of the native British, or English peoples. And huge numbers of today’s migrants aren’t even from territories that Britain had occupied.
The Ottoman Empire enslaved whole nations and subjected different peoples to slavery for five hundred years, and was only dissolved less than a hundred years ago. Is Turkey being asked to pay reparations?
The same with the war in the Middle East which Blair and Bush forced on the world. Huge numbers of Europeans marched in opposition to this, and yet we are to be held responsible and made to pay reparations in the form of giving our country away to people from, well anywhere really, not just the Middle East.
I like Stefan Molyneux’s example of the hornet’s nest. If while on a picnic, father espies a hornet’s nest and goes poking it with a stick, and the hornets come out (a good metaphor for islam I would venture), in the way that hornets do, and sting everything in sight, including father’s poor children and their mother, then the ‘payback’ model of why we are having to put up with so much immigration is satisfied. Justice is seen to be being done when the innocents related to the perpetrator are made to suffer.
Oh, and then there is the ‘England is a nation of mongrel immigrants anyway’. Apparently the various invasions that these isles have experienced are justification for another. Having spent hundreds of years getting over the traumatising effects of small numbers of racially similar groups from the European continent invading and taking over, but eventually becoming broadly reconciled between these groups as over the centuries they have gradually blended and the differences have become blurred and even forgotten or lost, it is now proposed that we engage in the whole business all over again.
However, this time, we don’t have a sparsely populated island with only a few million occupants, we have an increasingly overcrowded one.
This time, the arrivals are not to be counted in the thousands or even tens of thousands over generations or centuries, but in the hundreds of thousands and the millions.
This time, they are not closely related and racially similar groups from Europe, but widely diverse groups from all over the world.
This time, they are not, as our most recent conquerors the Normans were, Christians, but mostly of a religion that has been at war against Christianity for almost the entirety of its 1,400 year history.
And of the refugees which we have taken in over the centuries, the largest group were the French Protestant Huguenots, who were a finite limited number over a specific time frame, racially similar and of a similar Christian religion.
And so, because this nation has been invaded or offered hospitality on occasion, we are to be morally bound to accept unlimited numbers of racially different muslims who act in many ways as if they are indeed as much invaders as were the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings or Normans.
The abuse continues with assertions about one’s lack of ‘racial purity’ due to the above, and one is obliged to counter that genetic studies have shown that many English people have as much as 87% of their DNA from the founders who first came up to this land at the end of the Ice Age, and so qualify as a ‘First People’.
It is most important that one does not allow the impression to form that one believes that one’s people is better than another’s. Indeed, one must make it clear that in the interests of true diversity, it is necessary for each people to have a land and territory of their own. Loving one’s own people does not have anything to do with hating another. White identity in no way necessitates racism against other groups.
I would use the example of Nigeria, a country I know well from my childhood. There are three regional tribal groups, the Hausa/Fulani in the north, the Yoruba in the West, and the Ibo in the East. They will all consider themselves to be Nigerian, but beyond that, tribal identification is of paramount importance.
Now as a child I lived in Nigeria for some years and returned periodically until my father retired. I don’t know how easy it is for a Brit to gain Nigerian citizenship, (probably more difficult than it is for a Nigerian to gain UK citizenship) but if I were to go there and work and seek residency it might be possible. They certainly don’t have tens thousands of British seeking citizenship, of that I’m sure.
Now if I were to do this, and knowing and having a love for the country since my childhood, I could call myself a Nigerian citizen. I might even call myself a Nigerian at a pinch, although I feel that is pushing is a little, however, wherever I might live in that country, I could never be a Hausa, or a Fulani, or a Yoruba or an Ibo. It’s simply not possible. They are primary ethnicities which depend on tribal ancestry.
And as is the way I regard my own English ancestral ethnicity. Immigrants are now claiming this identity for their own, and many such as I find this unacceptable. If I appropriated a Hausa identity from living in Hausaland, I would be taken to task, and so it should be either way.
The Balkanisation of Europe is being taken on in numerous ways. The deconstruction of the English so as to make way for the colonisation of our homeland by others is an essential part of this. If the nice cop of ‘vibrant multiculturalism’ and ‘economic need’ isn’t persuasive enough, the nasty cop of ‘racist imperialism’ and the ‘mongrel nation of immigrants’ is sicced on us. We must be denigrated into submission.
So, as a humble keyboard warrior I see it as my duty to defensively deconstruct these attacks on our people and throw them back at the anarchists who seek to destroy the work of two thousand five hundred years of European culture since the emergence of the cultural theme of Reason among the Greeks.
It is vital to understand that the antifa hordes are not operating from real consciousness or an understanding of the problems of migration that are being discussed. They have been conditioned over a lifetime of schooling and watching the BBC to have no sense of their own identity or culture, and that any remnant which they do have left is to be a source of guilt and shame.
Pay no heed to the fact that if you are English, then you are a proud member of the first people who stood against perhaps the most ancient institution in the world, which all nations, cultures and civilisations had practised, that of slavery, and abolished it within our jurisdiction. And if you are of European descent, you can be proud that your people followed the lead of Britain in abolishing it in yours.
And yet, the native people of Britain, the Scots, Welsh, Irish and English are perpetually vilified as racist. Here we see Cultural Marxism at work, because it works most effectively when it reverses the truth, and makes it a lie. The British races are not racist. If is was understood, there was a mass movement to spread the benefits of reason and science to the whole world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and while some of this may have been misguided, the impulse was well meant. My father built roads, bridges, and housing in Africa, which would otherwise have never been built, but he would be called a racist exploiter even when he was an employee of the Nigerian government. Cultural Marxism snaps at the heels of white European, or English self doubt. We always want to do better, so question ourselves. This opens the door for colonisation of the mind, which is the precursor to colonisation of one’s territory. As the master strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his classic ‘The Art of War’, the cheapest victory is one which is bought without fighting, but only by having undermined the will of the enemy to resist.
The Cultural Marxists are employing this method, and we must fight back, by speaking the truth, by speaking politely and by believing in our own right to survive.
