“In the following article Paul Austin Murphy argues that, even when minorities are racist, it is always wrong to respond in like fashion. He believes that race is irrelevant to the present analysis of Britain's problems, that what matters overwhelmingly is culture, specifically cultural clashes as exemplified by Islamic versus Western culture.
“What do you think? Would it bother you if your town became dominated by, say, people of Chinese or Bengali origin, as long as they spoke and behaved like native Brits – or is race impossible to ignore when the numbers become great? Is it 'racist' to want to live amongst people of similar ancestry – or is it natural? Is it 'racist' for someone to proclaim that they are proud of being black – or brown, or white? Is there such a thing as a multi-racial society free of racial conflict? Please tell us your views in the comments section.” - George Whale
The problem with that image above is that most of them wont "speak and behaved like native Brits" - as it says in the introduction.
Also, I say that race is unimportant; but that doesn't mean that I believe in mass immigration,as that image portrays. It is IMPOSSIBLE that all the immigrants of mass immigration will behave and speak just like Brits. That couldn't even happen in theory, never mind in reality. If immigrants spoke and behaved like Brits, they would possibly be quite successful in their own countries and therefore not need to emigrate.
I am a great admirer of Paul Austin Murphy's writings but I do see what seems to me a significant mistake here. The key racial issue at hand in Britain now is not one of skin color but rather of English, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity. If Britain's native population were replaced completely by Poles, for example, the population's skin color still would be white but the extinction of English, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity would be just as complete as if Britain's population were replaced by Chinese or Kenyans.
Yes, culture is hugely important, but there is much evidence that ethnicity plays a role in producing culture. And, aside from the historical evidence, consider how the breeding of dogs and horses produces a variety of substantive differences, including personality tendencies, average intelligence, susceptibility to diseases, energy levels, and much more. Why would the human species, in which different ethnic groups have been bred by nature over millennia, be different?
I am not arguing that ethnicity should trump human rights or that we should be rigid or exclusive at the individual level. I am only saying that until we can demonstrate by very solid scientific evidence that I am wrong in what I just said, we are somewhere between stupid and evil if we allow Europe (including Britain) as a cluster of ethnic homelands to be destroyed, which is what we are doing.
One hundred years from now, if things continue as they are, Africa, India, Pakistan, Iran, China, Japan, and much of the rest of the non-ethnically European world will be able to weigh the evidence then available and decide if they wish to modify their immigration policies. Europe will have long since ceased to exist as a group of closely-related ethnic homelands.”
“The key racial issue at hand in Britain now is not one of skin color but rather of English, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity. If Britain's native population were replaced completely by Poles, for example, the population's skin color still would be white but the extinction of English, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity would be just as complete as if Britain's population were replaced by Chinese or Kenyans.”
Firstly, ethnicity is not always about race, at least when scientifically discussed. The same ethnic group may include different racial groups. That is, some people fuse ethnicity and race and others don’t. Most genetic scientists separate the two.
Also, in order to make these points about race there needs to be a lot of racial science to back it up – a hell of a lot. First we need to establish the races and whether they are truly distinct and distinctive. Secondly, the long road from DNA to specific traits needs to be addressed. Saying that dogs are bred for speed is a long way for saying that races are ‘bred’ for civilisation or for higher mathematics.
If there is a necessary correlation between race and civilisation, then there were civilisations all over West and East Africa in the past. They ended. But the West was pretty uncivilized between the fall of the Roman Empire and the medieval period (though that can be disputed). There have been very large gaps. If race is necessarily tightly linked to civilisation or higher things, then those gaps would never have existed.
You mention the Welsh and Scottish – that simply begs the question about race. Many Anglo-Saxon racists don’t see themselves as belonging to the Celtic 'race' at all (or vice versa), as I said. Things have changed recently amongst racist literature because betting on only the Germanics or Anglo-Saxons is not going to take you far in a country that’s full of Irish, Scots and Welsh. That’s why the tune was changed about the Celts. But the Celts aren’t a race either. They too are made up of other ‘races’.
Incidentally, I’m not in favour of white skin being erased from England because that shouldn’t happen if whites carry on breeding and we aren’t deliberately flooded by immigrants precisely to get rid of whites. I am no more against white skin than I am for black skin.
The other point I stressed is that the ethnic or racial arguments are not always the same. Racial science literature includes many mutually contradictory versions and numerous contradictory classifications of the races. I said that some stress the fact of being white. But here you are offering an argument that it’s not colour but ‘ethnicity’ that matters (as you say, Poles are white but not of the same ethnic group as Scots and Welsh). So what do I go for? Being white or shared ethnicity? So what about an ordinary Welshman who has a black or Russian background but is still ethnically Welsh – unless 'ethnically Welsh' means racially Welsh. And if it did mean that, then we are back to saying that being white does matter.
Paul, I suggest reading the writings of British scientist Richard Lynn. In the US, the link between race, behavior, and culture is obvious. No matter the social class, Blacks and Whites, and Asians are different genetically and behave differently. The past civilizations of North Africa were not composed of Black Africans, for example, Egypt was not black.
An article by Richard Lynn:
He has written several books, and you can find his speeches on Youtube.”
One scientist? Sure, I'll check him out. No doubt there are others but science is generally a communal activity with a lot of consensus. Nonetheless, some lone scientists do strike out - but not usually for political reasons.
I didn't mention North Africa, I said east and west Africa, such as the civilizations in Ethiopia, Mali (the area), the Senegal (area), the Niger (area), Nubians, etc.
I don't which group now to focus on. Some have focused on Poles and now blacks. Let's take that the racial science shows that blacks are racially inferior, that would mean that Liberty GB should cease to concentrate on the threat of Islamic supremacism, and concentrate instead on the threat of racial defiling by blacks, and, perhaps browns too. Is that why the BNP under-stresses Islam and Islamism and instead focuses on the colour of Muslims instead? If the racial science arguments were true, Liberty GB might as well make way for the BNP or a Nazi group.
My point about race is very simple. Which race? Anglo-Saxon? There is not Anglo-Saxon race but there was an Anglo-Saxon group of tribes. The Anglo-Saxon tribes might have shared DNA, but being an Anglo-Saxon, or a member of that group of tribes, is not itself a racial definition because in terms of race, the tribes would have been made up of other 'races', some of whom wouldn't have been 'Germanic'. And the reason for that was that Anglo-Saxon tribes, or their leaders, would never have thought in terms of race in the first place so if another tribe member had darker or lighter skin, it wouldn't have been noted as being important in terms of membership.(Racism might not have been an invention of the 19th century, as many say it is, but 'racial science' certainly was.)
If we stress race, then the leader of the ENGLISH Defence League is not English - he's Irish. (Incidentally, the Irish are not a race either - a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, vikings, Normans, even a few Jews, etc.)...In fact, English Nazis have pointed that fact out about Tommy Robinson. It followed to them, that because he has a Irish heritage, he was also IRA and more loyal to Ireland than England; just as all English Jews are more loyal to Israel (in their eyes) than to England - either that or more loyal to Marxism. Blacks are seen as being loyal to Africa or whatever!...
This is strange because many anti-Irish Nazis I've argued with have had Irish surnames but they didn't even realise that! Because of this realisation that very many English people have Irish 'blood', some Nazis - only some! - have suddenly (in the last twenty years) started to include 'Celts' into the Aryan mix. Yet Celts weren't a race either - it was an ethic cultural group not defined by DNA. (The English of Irish heritage or background were hated, with a vehemence, by English Nazis - and others - until the 1980s and some Nazis still do.)
Incidentally, I have an Irish surname yet I probably have less 'Irish blood' than many English Nazis and racists. The thing is, because people inherit their father's name, that means that English Nazis or racists who have a mother of non-English heritage or background, then no one can immediately know that. In other words, you can be called John Smith and have a Irish or even Russian mother.
The Seven Camels:
We are -not- a mongrel race. This myth has been propagated by the 'divide and conquer' crowd who wish to see our national cohesion destroyed by talking about how we were invaded by France once, and some Vikings attacked our coasts at another point. This obviously justifies mass immigration, right?
We are not a mongrel race because we have always shared traditions, cultures and histories. Mass immigration would destroy that. I don't argue that we have constantly been victims of mass immigration because that's not true. There were hundreds of years when hardly anyone invaded or tried to invade. Any invasions there were by fellow Christians or by fellow Europeans (who once belonged to similar tribes), not Muslims or, for that matter, by Communist revolutionaries.
Mass immigration is not like past invasions anyway. Mass immigration is the design of British politicians, not foreign invaders. The immigrants may be foreign, but those who are controlling mass immigration are not. It is a political attempt to wipe out, yes, the 'white' population but also the right-wing population and, in the Labour Party's mass experiment case, wipe out all non-Labour voters or at least substantially diminish their importance.
I wasn't under-stressing the Anglo-Saxons as a cultural or ethic group. I was just saying that it does not constitute a racial group as such. It didn't at the time of the tribes, and it is even less likely to do so today. Racial groups are very specific phenomena, and no scientist has ever deemed the Anglo-Saxons to be a single racial group; though they have been included within larger Germanic or other racial groups.
Whether we call the Anglo-Saxons a race, an ethny, a tribe or something else is a matter of semantics - taxonomists have always argued about what exactly these terms mean, where one ends and another begins, and that's partly because genetic attributes are clinal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... However, none of those arguments negates the close genetic kinship within the Anglo-Saxon group and to other, neighbouring European groups.
Paul, your assertion that "Anglo-Saxon tribes, or their leaders, would never have thought in terms of race in the first place so if another tribe member had darker or lighter skin, it wouldn't have been noted as being important in terms of membership" is completely unfounded. You really think the Anglo-Saxons were diversity-embracing hippies? There's not a tribe in history that hasn't treated unusual-looking outsiders with fear, suspicion or aggression. Most likely they never saw anyone who looked much different from themselves (that's right, there weren't any black or brown people in England back then), and if they did they probably would have clubbed them to death.
It is absurd to say that because the racial identity of the British isn't easily defined it can be cast aside or denied. That is exactly what the Left has been saying for decades, and I'm disappointed that your fear of the 'r' word has driven you into this trap. Would you deny the British a cultural identity, simply because our culture is difficult to define? Of course not!
The fact is that most of us can easily distinguish between the world's cultures, just as we can easily distinguish between the main racial groups. Moreover, scientists are able to make very clear distinctions between populations at the statistical level, and to enumerate defining characteristics.
The issue here is historical continuity, connection with our ancestors, those who forged these islands in their own image. Every single culture in the world (except ours, evidently) places immense value on historical connections of kinship. John Lundquist expressed it well in his earlier comment: "If Britain's native population were replaced completely by Poles, for example, the population's skin color still would be white but the extinction of English, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity would be just as complete as if Britain's population were replaced by Chinese or Kenyans."
I don't care how beautifully they speak English, or how much they love fish and chips, I do not want to be surrounded - in England - by Slavs, Chinese, Pakistanis, Africans, Arabs and Indians. Neither do I want to see the English as an identifiable racial group obliterated from the earth. Race is an important part of everyone's identity - just ask any black person living in the West - and there is nothing wrong in racial diversity!
Unfortunately, race has also been a major driver of division and conflict, and there is nothing to suggest that it will be any different in Britain.
I believe it is damaging to propagate the leftist lie that if we all pretend race doesn't exist then Britain will become a beaming rainbow nirvana. It won't.
"Paul, your assertion that "Anglo-Saxon tribes, or their leaders, would never have thought in terms of race in the first place so if another tribe member had darker or lighter skin, it wouldn't have been noted as being important in terms of membership" is completely unfounded."
No, the tribes weren't hippies because they weren't anti-racists. The were a-racists. You can't 'embrace' people of different races if you don't think in racial terms in the first place. The interest in racial groups began in the 19th century. There were differences before, but they were seen in terms of how people behaved and spoke. We see things through the lenses of what was said and studied in the 19th century and after.
I don't think English culture is hard to define and never said that. I never even came close to saying that. In fact I never once used the word culture in that way - quite the opposite. I said that there is no racial science that can define a specific English 'race' as well as all the things which are supposed to follow from DNA.
"It is absurd to say that because the racial identity of the British isn't easily defined it can be cast aside or denied."
The Left say that English identity doesn't exist, not British RACIAL identity doesn't exist. The Left's argument that not all Englishmen read Shakespeare or eat fish and chips is not a racial argument. They take it to be an argument against racists who think that race accounts for our eating fish and chips and reading Shakespeare. But if you are not a racist, you don't need to make a racial argument. I am not falling into the trap set by the left, those who stress race are.
"The issue here is historical continuity, connection with our ancestors, those who forged these islands in their own image. Every single culture in the world (except ours, evidently) places immense value on historical connections of kinship."
I agree with all that and I'm surprised, after all the stuff I've written on this website, you think I don't. The only point I am making is that none of this fits into the box the Nazis fit such thinking into and who the left, in exactly the same way, do. The Nazis and the Left have exactly the same views on race. One thinks race is everything in a good way and the other thinks that race is everything but in a bad way.
I can't respond to the rest of what you say because I agree with it. So I mustn't have made myself clear in the article.