DNA, Genes, Surnames

"The former Minister for Immigration recently described Britain as 'nation of immigrants'.  It is very hard to see what she meant. Since the Norman conquest (1066) there has been relatively little immigration into Britain, perhaps because we are an island nation. English population history is known better than almost any other in the world. And research into surnames and genes confirms that our population has been little affected by immigration for nearly a thousand years. ... Instead, Britain has been a country of considerable emigration since the 17th century" [source].

"The DNA studies of Britain and especially Ireland show that it is almost untouched significantly since neolithic times. The Irish and Basques have the oldest DNA in Europe with the Brits not far behind. These are truly ancient races - anything else is NWO spin" [comment at source].

"Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century" [US State Department, quoted at source].

Demographic History

"The Celts arrived in around 800-600BC, followed by the Romans, some of whom stayed and intermingled ... then you had the Anglo-Saxons from the 400sAD, followed by Danes and Norse, then Normans. Jews arrived in the early middle ages, and later still Irish, Flemish, Dutch, Frisians and Huguenot French. However all these people have eventually fitted into the fabric of Britain, and have a shared culture and identity today" [comment at source].

"Until the latter half of the [20th] century, Britain had almost negligible levels of immigration. Unlike America, for instance, Britain has never been a 'nation of immigrants'.  And although there was often a trickle of people moving in, the mass movement of people was almost unknown. In fact immigration was so unknown that when it did happen people talked about it for centuries" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.30].

Some Immigrants Integrate and Others Don't...

"It's a generalisation, but there are two sets I think...

• Those that seem to fit in, work hard, obey the law, are loyal to Britain and have social values and cultures that allow them to integrate are generally speaking as follows: Jews, Middle Eastern Christians, Chinese/Orientals, Hindu Indians and Sikhs, Greeks/Cypriots, Maltese, Italians, Poles and Czechs (in reasonable numbers!) and those Arabs and Iranians who came here in the 19650s and 60s;
• Since the 1950s peoples have come into the UK from totally alien cultures, peoples with Religions, Social Values, Beliefs, Political Ideals and National Characteristics that are simply incompatible with the UK. Those that do not integrate, do poorly in the job market and education, sponge off the state [EMcD: ie, the British taxpayer], commit more crime, are not loyal to the UK, and have cultures, religions and social values that are incompatible, are generally speaking as follows: Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Eritreans, Albanians, Romanians, Kosovans, East European Gypsies, Moroccans, Algerians, Kurds, a fair number of Afro-Caribbeans, and those Arabs that have come here [since 1997]" [comment at source].

Jewish Integration

"[The Jewish example] illustrates just how well, with the appropriate will, an immigrant minority with traditions and beliefs quite different from those of the majority of Britain's population can successfully integrate and become part of the British nation without having to forfeit anything that makes it distinctive and sets it apart from others. Consider the prayer on behalf of the British royal family that Britain's Jews recite weekly in their synagogues on their Sabbath in English. Over the centuries, Jews domiciled outside their national homeland have always included such a prayer on behalf of the head of whichever state they reside in. They have done so in accordance with the divine injunction contained in a letter to their exiled community in Babylon by the prophet Jeremiah: 'And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.' In their prayer for the royal family, British Jews exhort God to bless the reigning monarch and members of the royal family, before calling upon God to 'put a spirit of wisdom and understanding into the hearts of all [the ruling sovereign's] counsellors, that they may uphold the peace of the realm, [and] advance the welfare of the nation'.  The prayer ends with God being called on to 'spread the tabernacle of peace over all the dwellers on earth'." [source].

Huguenot Integration

"When discussing migration into the UK today one can expect someone to mention the Huguenots - those Protestants forced to flee persecution in France to whom Charles II offered sanctuary in 1681. The Huguenot example is more resonant than people realise. Firstly, because despite the proximity of culture and religion enjoyed by French and English Protestants of the time, it took centuries for the Huguenots to integrate into Britain, with many people still describing themselves as coming from Huguenot stock. But the other salient point about the Huguenots - and the reason people cite them so frequently - is the matter of scale. It is believed that up to 50,000 Huguenots arrived in Britain after 1681, which was undoubtedly a huge movement for the time. But this scale was in a wholly different league to the mass immigration Britain has seen in recent  years. From the period of the Blair government onwards Britain has seen an equal number of immigrants to that one-off number [50,000] of Huguenots arriving not once in the nation's history, but every couple of months. And this immigration was by no means composed of French Protestants" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), pp.30-31].

"Another example often given to defend the 'nation of immigrants' story is that of the 30,000 Ugandan Asians who were brought into Britain in the early 1970s after Idi Armin expelled them from Uganda. In the UK memories of this one-off influx are generally coloured with pride and good feeling, not just because it was a demonstrable and limited relief of a desperate people, but because those Ugandan Asians who arrived in Britain often made a palpable and grateful contribution to public life. In the post 1997 years of immigration the same number of people as that one-off 30,000 strong influx arrived into the country every six weeks" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.31].

Politically Correct Revisionist History

"It's difficult to wake Britain up when the younger generations know little or nothing of Britain how it used to be, and have been taught nothing about our own history in the context of world history. They are stuffed to the gills with [Hitler], the Nazis and the Holocaust and that's about it. ... they think history begins and ends in the first half of the 20th century with terrible wars. Children I know are unaware that our country used to be a white, Anglo-Saxon or Celtic, Christian, homogenous society. For them, the present mish-mash is the norm and they are educated at school to regard themselves as just another ethnic group. The children of indigenous people of these islands are slowly but surely being robbed of their heritage and birthright. If the present situation continues, future generations won't even know that these islands in the north west corner of Europe used to belong to their forebears. The worst of it is that no one is allowed to warn of the danger without being demonised by the liberal/left Common Purpose pro-multiculturalism establishment. Do you remember being consulted or being invited to vote on whether this country should become multicultural? No, of course not" [comment at source].

"'Nation of Immigrants' bears little relation to reality. It is a rhetorical device employed to silence those opposed to open immigration. If Britain was a nation of immigrants it would mean that we are all at some remove immigrants, therefore have no right to question further immigration. This would ultimately mean that we have no more right to live and work in these islands than anyone else who cares to turn up. Which is the standpoint of those who employ the term" [source].

"In short, the slogan that Britain is a 'nation of immigrants' is a lie, devised by the left, to destroy the indigenous heritage of Great Britain. They honestly think that if they can do it, they can have their accursed socialism" [source].

"They say it every time we mention mass immigration and they do it to brainwash the more gullible into thinking we have no right to call this our country. We have every right to call this our country. Our forefathers fought to keep it for us and succeeded admirably. Should we then just roll over and surrender it to the New World Order, the EU, the PC Idiots, New Labour, The Muslims ... those who continually try to cry us down and defeat our spirit?" [comment at source].

"One such [politically correct] claim is that even after a period of such extraordinary change as Britain has been through in recent decades, 'It's nothing new.'  This argument can be heard across Europe, but in Britain it now most often goes as follows: 'Britain has always been a melting pot of people of different races and backgrounds. Indeed we are a nation of immigrants.'  This was the claim, for instance, of a well-received book on immigration by Robert Winder that came out during the the Blair years and was often used to defend the government's policies. Among other things, the book argued that 'we are all immigrants: it simply depends how far back you go. '  The book also claimed that Britain has always been 'a mongrel nation'." [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.30].

"Here is Barbara Roche making the same claim in a talk in the East End of London in 2011: 'When we think of immigration or migration it's very tempting to think that it's something that happened in the 19th century ... there is a tendency to think that it's somehow quite recent - if it isn't 19th century than it's very much something that is a post-war phenomenon. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've always believed that Britain is a country of migrants.'  Of course Ms Roche is welcome to believe this. But that does not make it true" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.30].

"The movement of people in recent years - even before the European migration crisis - was of an entirely different quantity, quality and consistency from anything that had gone before. Yet despite this fact, it remains one of the most popular ways to cover over the vast changes of recent years to pretend that history was similar to what is happening now. Not the least advantages of this suggestion is that any current problems arising from migration are nothing we haven't dealt with - and triumphed over - before. It falsely presents any current challenges as normal" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.31].

"But revising the past is just one attempt at a staging-post argument. After this comes a whole a range of implicit and explicit claims which respond to mass immigration by pretending either that the country of arrival does not have a culture, or that its culture and identity are so especially weak, worn out or bad that if it did disappear then it could hardly be mourned. Here is Bonnie Greer ... on Newsnight: 'There's always this failsafe, spoken or unspoken, that there is a British identity. That's always interesting to me. I think one of the geniuses of the British - of being British - is that there isn't this sort of rock-solid definition of identity that an American has.'  It is hard to think of another part of the world where such a claim would be acceptable, let alone from the mouth of an immigrant: your culture has always been like this - it never really existed. If one even said anything similar in Greer's native Chicago - let alone on the main television network - it would be unlikely to receive such a polite reception as it was accorded on Newsnight" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), pp.31-32].

The End Result of Mass Unrestrained Immigration

"Perhaps instead of simply celebrating such levels of immigration it would make matters easier of the proponents of mass immigration revealed what levels of 'diversity' they would like to get to and what they see as their optimal target figure? Is a ceiling of 25% white Britons in London - or the country at large - a target?  Or should it be 10%?  Or none at all?" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), p.p.34-35].

"Perhaps at some point the 'just lying-down and taking it' period will stop, with repercussions quite as unforeseeable as all those to date. But in the meantime, if any politician wanted to try to pre-empt that eventuality and felt like indulging in an act of humility, he or she could do worse than ... compare the statements derided as clichés that have come from so many working- and middle-class white voters in recent years and set them alongside the statements of the leaders of each of the mainstream political parties. All these years on, despite the name-calling and the insults and the ignoring of their concerns, were your derided average white voters not correct when they said that they were losing their country? Irrespective of whether you think they should have thought this, let alone whether they should have said this, said it differently or accepted the change more readily, it should at some stage cause people to pause and reflect that the voices almost everybody wanted to demonise and dismiss were in the final analysis the voices whose predictions were nearest to being right" [Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, (2017), pp.35-36].

"Those for whom this country has always been a model of tolerance and freedom cannot but have cause for deep concern about the seemingly reckless pace and scale on which immigration has recently been allowed to proceed, if not actively encouraged. As a result of it, the country may possibly have already reached a tipping point beyond which it can no longer be said to contain a single nation. Should that point have been reached, then, ironically in the course of Britain having become a nation of immigrants, it would have ceased to be a nation. Once such a point is reached, political disintegration may be predicted to be not long in following" [source].

"Some will welcome Britain's demise as a nation-state ... Others will be of a different opinion. They will believe that, apart from within the context of nations, political cooperation and mutual civility between strangers cannot for long be maintained" [source].

"In the cause of preserving the union ... the first duty of all true patriots must be to acknowledge that, just as Britain would never have achieved all that it has done without having a country of immigration, so too it would never have been able to achieve all this, unless its immigrants become a part of what never has been a nation of immigrants, nor ever could become one without destroying itself in the process" [source].

Identity Politics

The following extended extract is from the article: The Origin of 'Identity Politics' & 'Political Correctness'

"Identity politics (sometimes dubbed 'political correctness') is the result of a political-Left major backlash against the mass of ordinary people (in Europe and 'the West'), beginning in the 1920s/30s, in the wake of the persistent failure of Marxist theory to be realised in European 'revolution' or any real change through democracy. In shifting the blame away from Marxist theory and those gullible enough to adhere to it, and on to those the theory had prescribed and predicted would have been the beneficiaries, if only they had responded accordingly ('the [white, male] workers'); then the cognitive-dissonance within the political-left mindset caused by this crisis to an extent was salved"

"As with any fervent ideology, a hallmark of the political-Left is interpreting anything and everything in its own ideological terms to claim as a manifestation of the ideology and its prophecy - jumping on a bandwagon, so to speak; though here only to hijack it. The bandwagon here was, of course, the American civil rights movement, which though enjoying ubiquitous support within black communities - to the point often of various forms of extremism - featured virtually nil endorsement of socialism ... It is from the time of this co-option that 'identity politics' dates; many considering that the movement was incorporated into the Left in the wake of King's assassination in 1968 - the major turning-point year in political-Left politics generally"

"'Civil rights', as the first great 'single-issue' campaign, served not least to provide an acceptable cloak for the Left to avoid provoking a resurgence of McCarthysim. The major social upheaval of 'civil rights' with its large-scale and widespread rioting was easily the nearest thing in then recent US history to look like the promised Marxist 'revolution', and obviously was just the practical application the 'theory' was seeking. Moreover, the protagonists (black Americans) were eminently separable form the now despised 'workers' per se, in being presentable as a new 'group; from outside of the former fray of 'boss' versus 'worker'.

"This accident of history served to add 'black' to 'woman' as 'the new oppressed' ... 'The worker' in effect was retrospectively stereotyped as both 'man' and 'white'. With the inverse of this stereotype of 'white' being not just 'black American' but 'black' - that is, ethnic-minority generically ... so it was that the new 'agents of social change' / 'disadvantaged' / 'oppressed' were extended from women to also include all ethnic minorities"

"It is only with the knowledge of how this developed that sense can be made of why ethnicity is held above the myriad other possible differences that could be utilised as in-group markers, when in fact there is nothing inherent in ethnicity as an in-group marker to produce inter-group prejudice that is particularly more pernicious"

"Indeed, the worst inter-communal conflicts nominally between different ethnicities usually are between different cultural heritages with no discernible 'racial' differences of any kind - and what (non-ethnic) differences there are can be minimal; the lack of contrast actually fuelling the intensity of conflict, such is the need for groups to feel distinguished from each other"

"Furthermore, ethnic prejudice is anything but restricted to or even predominantly 'white' on 'black': inter-ethnic (eg, 'black' on Asian) and ethnic-on-'white' 'racism' can be, often is and may usually be the greater problem; and a negative attitude to a certain ethnicity does not imply a similar attitude to other ethnicities"

"The specific US experience, given the highly divisive politics in the wake of the American Civil War over the basis of the Southern US economy in African slavery, does not translate to elsewhere; notably not to Europe - as was starkly evidenced in the experience of World War II 'black' American GIs stationed in England in how they were favourably received by locals, who sided with them when discriminated against"

"'Racial divides' in European 'white' host countries are the result not of mutual antipathy but affiliative forces, principally within migrant enclaves and secondarily within the 'host' community; in both cases being through in-group 'love', not out-group 'hate'" [EMcD: though the latter part of this observation is indeed true in normal circumstances, this does not, of course, take account of the Islamic/Koranic doctrines of Al-Hijra (Immigration), Taqiyya (Lying and Deceit), and Razzia/Ghazwa (Rape and Slavery), Dawa (Cultural and Stealth Jihad), and Terrorist and Violent Jihad, carried out by fundamentalist Muslims as they settle in increasing numbers in Western countries with the sole and deliberate purpose of making every remaining Dar al-Harb ('House of War': i.e. any non-Muslim country) into a Dar al-Islam ('House of Submission': i.e all Muslim countries) until Islam finally achieves its longed-for global Caliphate.]

[End of Extract]

The Frankfurt School

"The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the 'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School recommended (among other things):

(1) the creation of racism offences,
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy identity,
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of churches,
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime,
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
(10) control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

(a) attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."

Programmes of Treason

"There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state:

• Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people;

• Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live;

• Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;

• Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;

• Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income);

• Education - Take control of that people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school;

• Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools;

• Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

© Elizabeth McDonald     https://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk