| Original Message |
St George (no login)
Posted Oct 26, 2003 2:36 PM
The Prince of Wale's words may well be, as you say "interesting", but as much as I would be willing to fight and die for Queen and country,the Prince of Wales doesn't have to live in the front line of the
multi-racial experiment. He is well out of the way living in plush cosy palaces. I put to you that if you want the views of people that really count regarding this issue, then you ask the ordinary white, working classes of Oldam, Bradford, Burnley or any of the other dozens of hell holes that have been enforced to except this disasterous multicultural
beast.
Now then, you claim that certain places are connected. Indeed this is true. But you amuse me somewhat by the comment you make that you can
casually "walk from france to india via the caucasus if you want. and then double back from there to go to africa, all on foot." Bloody hell, have you ever tried it? You are talking about quite a few thousand
miles there my friend. Then you go on to talk about that you can "get to africa and china from europe on foot." Even Ian Botham would be hard pressed to do that mate, or perhaps they travelled by magic carpet. No but seriously though, It wasn't quite as to and fro as you are trying to make out. Obviously there were white migrations from the Caucasus region, but it didn't happen just like that but over many generations and they were few and far between. The question I put to you that will smash your theory to smithereens is what about Australia? That continent was completely untouched by any outside influence or
interference until the Dutch discovered it back in
the 17th century. The people there are very distinct from all the other races of the world. The same may be said of much of the animal and plant life, Kangaroos and koalas being two examples of many.You won't find them anywhere else, they are unique to Australia and have evolved totally seperately from any other species on any other continent. If
you have happened to have read all the posts under this topic, you will notice that I happened to agree with the gentleman (st george the turk) I think it was who stated that in the north of England, many
people still have Viking dna and in the south they have Saxon. Now then sir, if the people of this tiny little island have still not mixed to the extent of us all having the same amounts of Viking and Saxon dna, then how the hell do you expect people to believe that we have mixed sufficiently with all these other races that you talk of, who are tens of thousands of miles away and have absolutely nothing to do with us.
The next part of your rather impressive research is something that I have come across many times before in my debates with the anti-white brigade. It goes "Britain has always been a mixed society, a nation peopled by migrants" How utterly insulting. To insinuate that we are a mongrel nation made up of half breeds is put around by people like you
because you are obviously pro multi-racial and youare trying to convince everybody that we should have an open border policy for every African or Asian immagrant that feels like coming here and taking a
share of what we have worked hard for. I have already stated in previous posts that the people that inhabit this island, all come from the same white, European racial stock and I am not going over old ground again.
I can not understand why you seem to think that
because large numbers of immagrants work as shopkeepers, in restaurants or on the London underground that its a massive achievement in itself but I have to concede that there are large numbers of foreign doctors in this country, although personally, I would much rather go and see an English one everytime. I'm pretty sure I heard once though, that over 50% of all doctors who get struck off are Asian. Don't quote me on that yet , I have to do a bit more research on that one. As for the point about curry being as popular as fish and chips, well, I agree with that one but let us not forget that curry was first made by the British out in India to try and disguise rotton meat that they were trying to feed to
the troops out there (and I sometimes wonder whether the same practice is still used in some of the curry houses over here today). I have to say though, I have my doubts whether it would remain as popular as fish
and chips, if that before the meal, the customer was invited to take a quick tour around the kichens where the succulent meal was being prepared. Third world immagration, in many cases, brings with it third
world hygene standards. For example, you can not deny that in Asia, many people use one hand for eating and the other hand for.... let's just say, cleaning certain bodyparts with.
We now move along to the part in which you are trying to prove that we have had all kinds of people from other races coming here in great numbers and mixing with us for thousands of years. You start off by
pointing out the Jewish merchants in medieval England. A good point my friend, but what you don't go to say is that in the year 1290, England formally expelled all of its Jews from it's borders. Every last one had to leave. It's well documented in Simon Schama's book "A history of Britain", Who happens to be a Jew himself. Jews have also been expelled from a number of other European countries aswell, right up to Germany in the 1930's and 40's.You write about Flemish, French, German and Dutch immagrants coming to this land from the fourteenth century onwards and later the starving Irish who were trying to escape from the disasterous Irish potato famine of the 1840's. ALL these groups of people were as I have said before, basically the same racially as the people of their new host country. So far, after all your painstaking research, I see no evidence whatsoever that Britain was a mixed race, mongrelised country before the mass immagration of the 1950's.
This next part, is the closest we have come to it so far. During the Elizabethan era, there were, as you rightly said 20,000 black slaves living in London. This however was obviously far too many for Queen Elizabeth 1 who in 1601 ordered every single on expelled from England and taken back to the (then British) American colonies. Again you have
failed to mention this important fact. You can go and read about it yourself if you like, it is featured in March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp, but it does also appear in various other good history books. You
seem to be trying to lead the reader of this website up the garden path a little bit. It is unfair for you to be coming up with these half truths and yet presenting them as if it were the whole picture. I, on the other hand, am trying to tell the whole truth to the best of my ability. So it is to you sir that I urge to "play the game".
The section in which you touch upon the subject of slavery, is one I am particulary prepared to agree that it was totaly immoral and down right wrong. Again though, very rarely is the full truth often told about this dark chapter of history. Whites alone seem to be exclusively blamed for this practice and that is just not fair. It was black Africans who were enslaving each other, long before white Europeans got in on it. The slaves were later traded with white Europeans for manufactured goods such as metlewares and firearms for example, which the black, African negro hadn't the knowledge to make for himself. So it was the blacks who were selling their own people by the thousands for material goods. It was the British empire who in the early 1800's, saw the error of their ways and stamped out slavery in the British
empire. Under pressure from Britain (being then the most powerful country on earth), the rest of the white world erradicated the evil human trafficking not long after. The black or Asian people never did a
thing to stop it. In fact between many non white races, slavery still exists to this very day. Although the very thought of slavery is
completely discraceful to the white people of the world, the non white races seem to think that it's still perfectly fine to carry on with human trafficking. It isn't just a small problem either. It is a massive business. So I don't see why whites should have to be made to shoulder all the blame for this crime when in fact it was black Africans and other non whites who started it, but the white race ended it.
I would now like to adress the point about other races fighting in "Britains" wars. The one that seems to come up rather a lot from you people is "Oh what about India! They fought for Britain." Well did they fight for Britain, or were they fighting for themselves? Do you think that old Adolf (master race) Hitler would have been quite prepared to just let Indians live in peace? I put it to you that as much as I am glad these people were on our side, They had their own interests to fight for believe me. Anyway, there were also thousands of Indians that actually joined Hitlers side and fought in the SS. It may sound unbelievable but look it up my friend. As I am personally quite interested in this subject, I have had many conversations with world war two veterans and in every case when I have asked them about non
white troups on our side (with the exception of the Ghurka's), they say that Indian troups etc didn't do much of the actual fighting. They played their part but most of them were things like stretcher bearers
or dispatch riders etc. The main bulk of the actual combat was very much left to white troups because they were considered to be far superior to non white troups as disciplined fighting men. This can be judged by the numbers of actual dead of both countries at the end of world war two. At the end of the second world war, out of a poulation of about 40 million, Great Britain lost around 350,000 people to the horrors of world war 2. Out of a population of around about 500 million, India lost about 62,000. So the numbers lost are vastly disproportionate. Which means that India's overall war effort was miniscule in comparison to Britains. And considering India herself was at stake, I would have to say that if anything, Britain fought for India and not the other way round as some would have it.
Finally, I would like to say to the reader that if you think about it, you hear the same kind of stuff all the time from these multi-racialists. How many times have you heard the phrases "enriched our wonderful ethnically diverse society" or "these cultures should be embraced and celebrated" or "we are far richer for having such a wonderfully diverse society". You know the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Now, although these may be pretty little phrases, they mean absolutely nothing without any evidence to back them up. Don't be fooled by this liberal nonense my friends. These words mean nothing to me, as I am still waiting to see with my own eyes how these people have made this country better than it was 50 years ago. This gentleman asks me what is wrong with inter racial breeding and what difference does it make. Well, there are people out there who are tring to save all kinds of animal life who are nearing extinction. They say it would be a terrible thing if any of these animals became extinct and they devote their lives to trying to save these creatures. O.K. fair enough. But what about the white race? What about us? We have done far more for this world than any other species ever will. And due to suicidally low white birth rates coupled with mass third world immagration, we are going to become a minority in our own land by the year 2060. And then what? How long do we have left after that? Another few decades? Once we are gone it is impossible for us to ever return. The world will sink into the abyss of a new dark age.
Sincerely,
St George |
|
|