Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, in welcoming Stephen 
and Graham to the English Democrats said, “I am delighted that these two 
Councillors have decided to join us.  I urge all other disaffected 
Conservatives to take David Cameron at his word, because the English 
Democrats offer real change.  I expect other Councillors across the 
country to join us soon.”

Councillor Goldspink, former deputy leader of the Council and Member for 
East ward and Councillor Murphy, who represents Orton Longueville ward 
and has held several cabinet posts, said that the Conservative Party 
appeared to have abandoned England as a country and that locally, the 
new Conservative administration had shown that it was ready to spend 
money on bureaucracy and clamp down on any dissent, even where it was 
justified as a legitimate scrutiny function.

Graham said, “I believe in democracy, not a one party state for 
Peterborough, and the English Democrats offer a real alternative for 
this city and the country as a whole.  Their recent electoral successes 
are testament to this and they are the fastest growing political party 
in the country.  They are clear that those with power to affect our way 
of life must be answerable to the people – and that means locally as 
well as nationally.”

Stephen added, “I believe in Councillors properly and fairly 
representing their constituents and their views, so it has angered me to 
see huge additional costs being loaded on the people of Peterborough 
since May this year, against their will, with additional money being 
paid to some Councillors without any proper justification, and new posts 
and offices being created to support senior Councillors.  Many people 
see these payments, which amount to almost a quarter of a million 
pounds, as some sort of payback for supporting the new leader in the 
local Conservative Group annual elections.  Whatever the truth, it is 
clear that they have no place in a Council that has previously prided 
itself in maintaining lean administrative structures.  I do not believe 
any of these changes will improve local democracy.”

Graham said, “I think that a Council should be run democratically and 
openly and so I was deeply disappointed that no Councillors from the 
Peterborough Constituency were selected for Cabinet posts in May 2009 
and that all those chosen were from the North West Cambridgeshire 
constituency – which is where the new Council leader is from.

Graham said, “Our country is crying out for change from the tweedledee 
and tweedledum parties that have dominated politics in this country for 
so long.  They have all shown that, if given power, they know how to 
abuse it, with the Parliamentary expenses scandal at a national level 
and the recent extra monies awarded to Councillors by themselves at a 
local level being prime examples of this.

Does anyone really believe in their heart of hearts that David Cameron’s 
Conservatives will prove any better than John Major’s sleazy government 
or Gordon Brown’s opportunist public fund raiders?  Does anyone believe 
that the closer ties with Europe that will come if the Liberal Democrats 
achieve any influence in the next Parliament, will benefit England?  The 
English Democrats offer a unique opportunity to abandon the “left-right” 
see-saw and aim for pride in England, through real democracy.”

Stephen concluded, “I know that we will be joined by other local 
Peterborough Councillors in the next few months as they start to 
understand the true nature of the administration that now governs 
Peterborough.  I believe that the interests of some businesses will be 
promoted above those of residents, who can expect to be asked to open 
their wallets and purses to cough up at least an extra 4% Council tax 
next year to fund the burgeoning bureaucracy that is being created. 
Also, they will look at how the Mayor of Doncaster, an English Democrat, 
is making real changes in his area and will want to be part of this 
fresh start.  Let’s put England and Peterborough first, by voting for 
real change through the English Democrats!”

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/

The Peterborough Evening Telegraph is currently silent on this one.

hj wrote:
> [...]

Ah yes, the English Democrats.

Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
couple of thousand years or so of English history.)

Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
Test Census excludes White English ethnics"

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> hj wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
> 
> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
> 
> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"

Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?

Maria wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> hj wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>
>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>
>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
> 
> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?

For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> Maria wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> hj wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>
>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>
>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
> 
> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.

But Scots are just as 'multicultural' or 'multiracial' as the English. ?

Jon Green wrote:
> hj wrote:
>> Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, in welcoming Stephen and Graham to the English Democrats said, “I am delighted that these two Councillors have decided to join us.  I urge all other disaffected Conservatives to take David Cameron at his word, because the English Democrats offer real change.  I expect other Councillors across the country to join us soon.”

Councillor Goldspink, former deputy leader of the Council and Member for 
East ward and Councillor Murphy, who represents Orton Longueville ward 
and has held several cabinet posts, said that the Conservative Party 
appeared to have abandoned England as a country and that locally, the 
new Conservative administration had shown that it was ready to spend 
money on bureaucracy and clamp down on any dissent, even where it was 
justified as a legitimate scrutiny function.

Graham said, “I believe in democracy, not a one party state for 
Peterborough, and the English Democrats offer a real alternative for 
this city and the country as a whole.  Their recent electoral successes 
are testament to this and they are the fastest growing political party 
in the country.  They are clear that those with power to affect our way 
of life must be answerable to the people – and that means locally as 
well as nationally.”

Stephen added, “I believe in Councillors properly and fairly 
representing their constituents and their views, so it has angered me to 
see huge additional costs being loaded on the people of Peterborough 
since May this year, against their will, with additional money being 
paid to some Councillors without any proper justification, and new posts 
and offices being created to support senior Councillors.  Many people 
see these payments, which amount to almost a quarter of a million 
pounds, as some sort of payback for supporting the new leader in the 
local Conservative Group annual elections.  Whatever the truth, it is 
clear that they have no place in a Council that has previously prided 
itself in maintaining lean administrative structures.  I do not believe 
any of these changes will improve local democracy.”

Graham said, “I think that a Council should be run democratically and 
openly and so I was deeply disappointed that no Councillors from the 
Peterborough Constituency were selected for Cabinet posts in May 2009 
and that all those chosen were from the North West Cambridgeshire 
constituency – which is where the new Council leader is from.

Graham said, “Our country is crying out for change from the tweedledee 
and tweedledum parties that have dominated politics in this country for 
so long.  They have all shown that, if given power, they know how to 
abuse it, with the Parliamentary expenses scandal at a national level 
and the recent extra monies awarded to Councillors by themselves at a 
local level being prime examples of this.

Does anyone really believe in their heart of hearts that David Cameron’s 
Conservatives will prove any better than John Major’s sleazy government 
or Gordon Brown’s opportunist public fund raiders?  Does anyone believe 
that the closer ties with Europe that will come if the Liberal Democrats 
achieve any influence in the next Parliament, will benefit England?  The 
English Democrats offer a unique opportunity to abandon the “left-right” 
see-saw and aim for pride in England, through real democracy.”

Stephen concluded, “I know that we will be joined by other local 
Peterborough Councillors in the next few months as they start to 
understand the true nature of the administration that now governs 
Peterborough.  I believe that the interests of some businesses will be 
promoted above those of residents, who can expect to be asked to open 
their wallets and purses to cough up at least an extra 4% Council tax 
next year to fund the burgeoning bureaucracy that is being created. 
Also, they will look at how the Mayor of Doncaster, an English Democrat, 
is making real changes in his area and will want to be part of this 
fresh start.  Let’s put England and Peterborough first, by voting for 
real change through the English Democrats!”

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/

The Peterborough Evening Telegraph is currently silent on this one.
> 
> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
> 
> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
They didn't have rolling news in those days. In fact they didn't have votes.
> 
> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
> 
> Jon

I don't think that ED are arguing for repatriation, just a fair crack of 
the whip. It's a possible vote-catcher for them.
I agree it's an odd choice, maybe for these two it's any port in a 
storm. Possibly this direction is what they picked up on from their 
constituents, on the doorstep.
In any case, who would you have them join? Maybe they should have become 
Independents. We need more Indies.

Jon Green wrote:
> Maria wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> hj wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>
>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>
>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
> 
> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.

Does that apply to "Irish" as well?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Maria wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Maria wrote:
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>> hj wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>>
>>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>>
>>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.
> 
> But Scots are just as 'multicultural' or 'multiracial' as the English. ?

The point I was making is that "English" isn't an ethnic group as such,
because the caucasian English (self included) are a mongrel race, with a
genetic mixture that encompasses the whole of Europe, plus Northern
Africa and as far East as the Urals, with smatterings of contributions
from further afield.  The caucasian English people are (after a fashion)
defined by geography and history, not genetics, a fact that confounds
and frustrates the likes of the BNP, who would dearly love to be able to
define "white English" in some canonical way.

I'll leave it to the Scots and (noting Dirk's question) Irish to
contribute for themselves.  Their nations' greater geographic isolations
from Northern Europe makes for a different genetic mix, both
historically and in terms of more recent immigrations.

Funny, no-one else has mentioned the Welsh!

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> Maria wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> Maria wrote:
>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>>> hj wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>>>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
>>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.
>> But Scots are just as 'multicultural' or 'multiracial' as the English. ?
> 
> The point I was making is that "English" isn't an ethnic group as such,
> because the caucasian English (self included) are a mongrel race, with a
> genetic mixture that encompasses the whole of Europe, plus Northern
> Africa and as far East as the Urals, with smatterings of contributions
> from further afield.  

Yes. And the Scots are gaels, celts, picts, vikings etc, not to mention 
the recent influx of Pakistani Scots, Italian Scots etc etc, so what 
exactly defines them as 'Scots', in a way that the English cannot be 
defined as 'English' (since they live in England)?

>The caucasian English people are (after a fashion)
> defined by geography and history, not genetics, a fact that confounds
> and frustrates the likes of the BNP, who would dearly love to be able to
> define "white English" in some canonical way.

Same applies to the Scots!
> 
> I'll leave it to the Scots and (noting Dirk's question) Irish to
> contribute for themselves.  Their nations' greater geographic isolations
> from Northern Europe makes for a different genetic mix, both
> historically and in terms of more recent immigrations.
> 
> Funny, no-one else has mentioned the Welsh!
> 

I don't know anything about the Welsh, but I know about the Scots 
because I am married to a Scotsman, and his type of Scot believes 
themselves to be completely genetically different to Lowland Scots and 
Western Scotland Scots (and actually they are). If you want tribalism, 
go to Scotland, even now!

hj wrote:
> I don't think that ED are arguing for repatriation, just a fair crack of 
> the whip.

That's not what it says in their Manifesto!  They seem to be all in
favour of deporting anyone with an immigrant background who has got into
trouble with the law (s.3.15.11.6, Manifesto).  To where they plan to
deport them is something they don't mention, but apparently nicking a
Sherbet Dab from the newsagent would qualify.

To say, outright, "We don't believe in multiculturalism" speaks volumes.

Mind you, given that they can't spell "principles" (s.1.3 heading,
Manifesto), nor proof-read their sentences ("Furthermore, immigrants
and/or their employers should make payment a capital sum to reflect a
full contribution to the existing capital wealth of the nation, such as
schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc." - s.3.15.6), perhaps they
should put more emphasis on education.

> I agree it's an odd choice, maybe for these two it's any port in a 
> storm. Possibly this direction is what they picked up on from their 
> constituents, on the doorstep.
> In any case, who would you have them join? Maybe they should have become 
> Independents. We need more Indies.

It's up to them who they join, of course.  I sympathise with desperation
over the current Con/Lab divvy-up in politics, but if that's all they're
concerned about, joining a rather right-wing nationalist party is a
strange position to take, and most probably electoral suicide.

I'd recommend their Manifesto to anyone as an interesting read.  It's at
http://212.78.80.14/~admin85/pdf/Manifesto%20and%20Constitution.pdf

It starts off with some good sense, then by the middle of s.3. it
spirals down and down into (what reads to me as) Mosleyan politics.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.
> 
> Does that apply to "Irish" as well?

Well, a certain proportion of Northern Irish seems to regard orange as a
primary colour... ;)

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> Maria wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> Maria wrote:
>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>>> hj wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>>>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
>>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.
>> But Scots are just as 'multicultural' or 'multiracial' as the English. ?
> 
> The point I was making is that "English" isn't an ethnic group as such,
> because the caucasian English (self included) are a mongrel race, with a
> genetic mixture that encompasses the whole of Europe, plus Northern
> Africa and as far East as the Urals, with smatterings of contributions
> from further afield.  The caucasian English people are (after a fashion)
> defined by geography and history, not genetics, a fact that confounds
> and frustrates the likes of the BNP, who would dearly love to be able to
> define "white English" in some canonical way.

I define "English" as the ethnic group whose genetic makeup is almost 
entirely Germanic, with a secondary Celtic contribution.
The amount of "elsewhere" is negligible.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Maria wrote:

> Yes. And the Scots are gaels, celts, picts, vikings etc, not to mention 
> the recent influx of Pakistani Scots, Italian Scots etc etc, so what 
> exactly defines them as 'Scots', in a way that the English cannot be 
> defined as 'English' (since they live in England)?

Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.

It's why the EDs are bound to fail -- they want to represent a
demographic group that can't accurately be defined, even by them.  The
moment they apply a specific definition of "English", they stand to lose
votes from those they exclude.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> I define "English" as the ethnic group whose genetic makeup is almost 
> entirely Germanic, with a secondary Celtic contribution.
> The amount of "elsewhere" is negligible.

Good for you.  Of course, that rather disregards the French (Norman and
otherwise), Scandinavian, Dutch and Jewish contributions -- to name a
few -- to the gene pool.

Presumably you also don't consider to be English those whose lineage in
this country pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon incursions.  *chuckle*

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

"Jon Green"  wrote in message 
news:WsOdnTN0zZ_DiFPXnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> Good for you.  Of course, that rather disregards the French (Norman and
> otherwise), Scandinavian, Dutch and Jewish contributions -- to name a
> few -- to the gene pool.

Which is why (when there isn't a "refuse to say" option) I classify myself 
as "white other".

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Jon Green wrote:

> It's why the EDs are bound to fail -- they want to represent a
> demographic group that can't accurately be defined, even by them.  The
> moment they apply a specific definition of "English", they stand to lose
> votes from those they exclude.
> 

The EDs won't necessarily fail. They can rely on the fact that 80% of 
people would rather believe a blatant lie, than an uncomfortable truth.

Jon Green wrote:
> Maria wrote:
> 
>> Yes. And the Scots are gaels, celts, picts, vikings etc, not to mention 
>> the recent influx of Pakistani Scots, Italian Scots etc etc, so what 
>> exactly defines them as 'Scots', in a way that the English cannot be 
>> defined as 'English' (since they live in England)?
> 
> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.

Ok, we agree on that!

> 
> It's why the EDs are bound to fail -- they want to represent a
> demographic group that can't accurately be defined, even by them.  The
> moment they apply a specific definition of "English", they stand to lose
> votes from those they exclude.
> 

But the impression I got was that the ED's are simply fighting for the 
right for England to have specific government and policy - anyone who 
lives in England would be represented by them, not just white people. 
They seem to be referring to a geographic area, not a demographic one. 
Have I got it wrong? Is there some specific part of the ED's manifesto 
that refers to ethnicity, as the BNP does (or did)?

Francis Turton wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
> 
>> It's why the EDs are bound to fail -- they want to represent a
>> demographic group that can't accurately be defined, even by them.  The
>> moment they apply a specific definition of "English", they stand to lose
>> votes from those they exclude.
>>
> 
> The EDs won't necessarily fail. They can rely on the fact that 80% of 
> people would rather believe a blatant lie, than an uncomfortable truth.

They may simply believe that the interests of England as a geographic 
area have been lost - which they have IMHO. No different to voting for 
the SNP or Plaid.

Jon Green wrote:
> hj wrote:
>> I don't think that ED are arguing for repatriation, just a fair crack of 
>> the whip.
> 
> That's not what it says in their Manifesto!  They seem to be all in
> favour of deporting anyone with an immigrant background who has got into
> trouble with the law (s.3.15.11.6, Manifesto).  To where they plan to
> deport them is something they don't mention, but apparently nicking a
> Sherbet Dab from the newsagent would qualify.
> 
> To say, outright, "We don't believe in multiculturalism" speaks volumes.
> 
> Mind you, given that they can't spell "principles" (s.1.3 heading,
> Manifesto), nor proof-read their sentences ("Furthermore, immigrants
> and/or their employers should make payment a capital sum to reflect a
> full contribution to the existing capital wealth of the nation, such as
> schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc." - s.3.15.6), perhaps they
> should put more emphasis on education.
> 
>> I agree it's an odd choice, maybe for these two it's any port in a 
>> storm. Possibly this direction is what they picked up on from their 
>> constituents, on the doorstep.
>> In any case, who would you have them join? Maybe they should have become 
>> Independents. We need more Indies.
> 
> It's up to them who they join, of course.  I sympathise with desperation
> over the current Con/Lab divvy-up in politics, but if that's all they're
> concerned about, joining a rather right-wing nationalist party is a
> strange position to take, and most probably electoral suicide.
> 
> I'd recommend their Manifesto to anyone as an interesting read.  It's at
> http://212.78.80.14/~admin85/pdf/Manifesto%20and%20Constitution.pdf
> 
> It starts off with some good sense, then by the middle of s.3. it
> spirals down and down into (what reads to me as) Mosleyan politics.
> 
> Jon


It would be a tedious business going through the Manifesto line by line. 
Having had a quick whip-through, as I think you did, up to and including 
Section 3, I think they are trying to knock up something that will 
appeal to voters  who don't have quite the stomach to support the BNP 
but who feel aggrieved at the way things are going generally. I hope 
that's vague enough to include most cases.
I cannot agree with you on the spellchecking. I still don't know to this 
day whether the absence of errors is any indicator of integrity, or 
whether the presence of errors indicates a lack of the same.
Obviously it is ridiculous to object to any individual on the basis of 
their point of origin. But this is politics talking and whether they do 
well or do badly will depend on their spokespersons' performance in 
whatever airtime they manage to get.
And of course they will receive the blessing of Lib/Lab/Con/BBC to go 
out and collect as many votes as they can from Mr Griffin's supporters.

Jon Green wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> I define "English" as the ethnic group whose genetic makeup is almost 
>> entirely Germanic, with a secondary Celtic contribution.
>> The amount of "elsewhere" is negligible.
> 
> Good for you.  Of course, that rather disregards the French (Norman and
> otherwise), Scandinavian, Dutch and Jewish contributions -- to name a
> few -- to the gene pool.

Normans, Dutch and Scandinavians *are* Germanic, as are a lot of the 
French (esp Huguenots).

> Presumably you also don't consider to be English those whose lineage in
> this country pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon incursions.  *chuckle*

That's why I included Celtic.
The rest of the genetic contribution is tiny  - even the Jewish one.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

"hj"  wrote in message 
news:4ace2832$0$2478$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> I think they are trying to knock up something that will appeal to voters 
> who don't have quite the stomach to support the BNP but who feel aggrieved 
> at the way things are going generally

Sounds like the Tories to me, particularly as they appeal to Daily Wail 
readers.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Maria wrote:
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>> Maria wrote:
>>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>>>> hj wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>>>>>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>>>>>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>>>>>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>>>>> Why isn't English considered to be an ethnic group?
>>>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary 
>>>> colour.
>>> But Scots are just as 'multicultural' or 'multiracial' as the English. ?
>>
>> The point I was making is that "English" isn't an ethnic group as such,
>> because the caucasian English (self included) are a mongrel race, with a
>> genetic mixture that encompasses the whole of Europe, plus Northern
>> Africa and as far East as the Urals, with smatterings of contributions
>> from further afield.  The caucasian English people are (after a fashion)
>> defined by geography and history, not genetics, a fact that confounds
>> and frustrates the likes of the BNP, who would dearly love to be able to
>> define "white English" in some canonical way.
> 
> I define "English" as the ethnic group whose genetic makeup is almost 
> entirely Germanic, with a secondary Celtic contribution.
> The amount of "elsewhere" is negligible.
> 
Bollocks to that then.

Got celtic welsh, saxon, angle, italian..and that's just the bits I KNOW 
about BOUND to be some norse, Roman, and some Jewish in there somewhere.

Mongrel, and proud of it!

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> I define "English" as the ethnic group whose genetic makeup is almost 
>>> entirely Germanic, with a secondary Celtic contribution.
>>> The amount of "elsewhere" is negligible.
>>
>> Good for you.  Of course, that rather disregards the French (Norman and
>> otherwise), Scandinavian, Dutch and Jewish contributions -- to name a
>> few -- to the gene pool.
> 
> Normans, Dutch and Scandinavians *are* Germanic, as are a lot of the 
> French (esp Huguenots).
> 
>> Presumably you also don't consider to be English those whose lineage in
>> this country pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon incursions.  *chuckle*
> 
> That's why I included Celtic.
> The rest of the genetic contribution is tiny  - even the Jewish one.
> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

"Y chromosome analysis of men from Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, 
Norway, Friesland and the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South 
Western France has revealed that the Germanic (Danish/North 
German/Frisian) component in the male line of descent is higher in some 
areas of England than others.[23] It is highest in York and Norfolk, 
where the Germanic Y chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, while 
indigenous Y chromosomes comprise about 40%, and lowest in the west of 
the country.[23] The research cannot distinguish between Danish (the 
presumed source of Danish-Viking settlers to East and Northern England), 
North German (Schleswig-Holstein, modern era) and Frisian (Anglo-Saxon) 
Y chromosomes. It concludes "these data are consistent with the presence 
of some indigenous component in all British regions""

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On 8 Oct, 19:01, "Tim Ward"  wrote:
> "hj"  wrote in message
>
> news:4ace2832$0$2478$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > I think they are trying to knock up something that will appeal to voters
> > who don't have quite the stomach to support the BNP but who feel aggrieved
> > at the way things are going generally
>
> Sounds like the Tories to me, particularly as they appeal to Daily Wail
> readers.
>
> --
> Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
> Brett Ward Limited -www.brettward.co.uk
> Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board -www.brettward.co.uk/ca

What a load of rubbish, You obviously have NOT done any homework. And
what is that YOU are doing that is so significant, except pay nearly
six thousand pounds a year to shore up devolved parliaments and
Europe, that is, if you are an English taxpayer. I do detest when
people make comments without having first researched the facts. Your
comments are an OPINION based on hearsay.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:47:04 +0100, Jon Green 
wrote:

>hj wrote:
>> [...]
>
>Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>
>Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>couple of thousand years or so of English history.)

Exactly.

There is no English culture nor any ethnic English because everyone in
England is an immigrant or descended from an immigrant. The whole of
England is built up from waves of immigrants arriving over the
centuries. The Pashtun tribesman who immigrated from Pakistan to
Blackburn in 1980 is as thoroughly English as William Shakespeare and
Lord Nelson and his culture is thoroughly English too, since there is
nothing that could be called an English culture, just a mish mash of
the cultures of all the diverse immigrants who have wandered to these
shores.

In fact it would be possible to remove the entire present population
of England and replace it with a mixture of Tibetans, Mongolians,
Chinese and  tribesmen from the Punjab and Waziristan and there would
be no noticable difference since it would simply be replacing one set
of  immigrants collected in the same geographical area with another. 

Svenne

"EnglishLady"  wrote in message 
news:ab717df8-064a-4b3b-b31c-4bc9b87095b6@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> What a load of rubbish, You obviously have NOT done any homework.

I've knocked on plenty of doors and talked to plenty of voters.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb

Svenne wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:47:04 +0100, Jon Green 
> wrote:
> 
>> hj wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>
>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> There is no English culture nor any ethnic English because everyone in
> England is an immigrant or descended from an immigrant. The whole of
> England is built up from waves of immigrants arriving over the
> centuries. The Pashtun tribesman who immigrated from Pakistan to
> Blackburn in 1980 is as thoroughly English as William Shakespeare and
> Lord Nelson and his culture is thoroughly English too, since there is
> nothing that could be called an English culture, just a mish mash of
> the cultures of all the diverse immigrants who have wandered to these
> shores.
> 
> In fact it would be possible to remove the entire present population
> of England and replace it with a mixture of Tibetans, Mongolians,
> Chinese and  tribesmen from the Punjab and Waziristan and there would
> be no noticable difference since it would simply be replacing one set
> of  immigrants collected in the same geographical area with another. 

Not quite, since all these people bring their own distinct cultures with 
them. But since they are actually replacing nothing, it makes no difference.


-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:41:12 +0100, Maria 
wrote:

>Jon Green wrote:

>> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
>> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
>> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.

>Ok, we agree on that!

I would add "someone who identifies with the cultural/historical
continuity of England."

Svenne

On 8 Oct, 13:47, Jon Green  wrote:
> hj wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>
> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>
> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>
> Jon
> --
> SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
>   with 'green-lines'.

The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are
defined.  To be English is to be part of a community.  We English
share a communal history, language and culture.  We have a communal
identity and memory.  We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging.
These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist.  Our
community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist
and we have the will to continue to exist.
English Democrats Not Right Not Left Just English and that is a great
place to be.

On 8 Oct, 17:27, Jon Green  wrote:
> Maria wrote:
> > Yes. And the Scots are gaels, celts, picts, vikings etc, not to mention
> > the recent influx of Pakistani Scots, Italian Scots etc etc, so what
> > exactly defines them as 'Scots', in a way that the English cannot be
> > defined as 'English' (since they live in England)?
>
> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.
>
> It's why the EDs are bound to fail -- they want to represent a
> demographic group that can't accurately be defined, even by them.  The
> moment they apply a specific definition of "English", they stand to lose
> votes from those they exclude.
>
> Jon
> --
> SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
>   with 'green-lines'.

The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are
defined.  To be English is to be part of a community.  We English
share a communal history, language and culture.  We have a communal
identity and memory.  We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging.
These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist.  Our
community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist
and we have the will to continue to exist.
English Democrats Not Right Not Left Just English and that is a great
place to be

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:21:45 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:

>> There is no English culture nor any ethnic English because everyone in
>> England is an immigrant or descended from an immigrant. The whole of
>> England is built up from waves of immigrants arriving over the
>> centuries. The Pashtun tribesman who immigrated from Pakistan to
>> Blackburn in 1980 is as thoroughly English as William Shakespeare and
>> Lord Nelson and his culture is thoroughly English too, since there is
>> nothing that could be called an English culture, just a mish mash of
>> the cultures of all the diverse immigrants who have wandered to these
>> shores.
>> 
>> In fact it would be possible to remove the entire present population
>> of England and replace it with a mixture of Tibetans, Mongolians,
>> Chinese and  tribesmen from the Punjab and Waziristan and there would
>> be no noticable difference since it would simply be replacing one set
>> of  immigrants collected in the same geographical area with another. 

>Not quite, since all these people bring their own distinct cultures with 
>them. But since they are actually replacing nothing, it makes no difference.

Since there is no such thing as English or an English
cultural/historical continuity they would be filling a vacuum. The
nondescript Island off the coast of Europe, let's call it Airstrip One
since "England" seems a bit pretentious, would be better off for it.

Svenne

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Englander1
 wrote:

>The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are
>defined.  To be English is to be part of a community.  We English
>share a communal history, language and culture.  We have a communal
>identity and memory.  We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging.
>These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist.  Our
>community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist
>and we have the will to continue to exist.
>English Democrats Not Right Not Left Just English and that is a great
>place to be.

Ha ha <snigger>

What a dumbo. There is no English cultural/historical identity, just a
collection of people on a nondescript island where over the ages
immigrants wander in and out of that is as neutral and anonymous as
the waiting lounge of an international airport.

In fact I think the pretentious name "England" should be dropped in
favour of "Airstrip One" in order to to reflect its meaningless
anonymity.

Svenne

Englander1 wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 13:47, Jon Green  wrote:
>> hj wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Ah yes, the English Democrats.
>>
>> Who say, in their Policies, no less, "We want English freedoms and
>> values, not multiculturalism."  (Maybe they missed out on the last
>> couple of thousand years or so of English history.)
>>
>> Whose "Latest" headline, on their web site's front page, reads: "2009
>> Test Census excludes White English ethnics"
>>
>> Jon
>> --
>> SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
>>   with 'green-lines'.
> 
> The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are
> defined.  To be English is to be part of a community.  We English
> share a communal history, language and culture.  We have a communal

Come now, surely the "English language" is merely a mishmash of German, 
French, Latin and some Indian words etc. It has no identity of its own, 
and hence does not exist. To suggest otherwise means you are a racist 
and probably a Nazi.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

The entity calling itself EnglishLady wrote:
>
> And what is that YOU are doing that is so significant, except pay
> nearly six thousand pounds a year to shore up devolved parliaments and
> Europe, that is, if you are an English taxpayer.

Oh, don't they pay tax in the rest of the UK, then?

> I do detest when people make comments without having first researched
> the facts. Your comments are an OPINION based on hearsay.

Indeed.

-- 
living on dreams and custard creams

Svenne wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:41:12 +0100, Maria 
> wrote:
> 
>> Jon Green wrote:
> 
>>> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
>>> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
>>> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.
> 
>> Ok, we agree on that!
> 
> I would add "someone who identifies with the cultural/historical
> continuity of England."
> 
> Svenne

That is a nice definition.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:57:30 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
 wrote:

>Svenne wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:41:12 +0100, Maria 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>> 
>>>> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
>>>> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
>>>> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.
>> 
>>> Ok, we agree on that!
>> 
>> I would add "someone who identifies with the cultural/historical
>> continuity of England."

>That is a nice definition.

But hard to accept for someone who denies there is such a thing as an
English identity and strangely enough a lot of people do that. Wierd.

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:57:30 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:41:12 +0100, Maria 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>>> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
>>>>> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
>>>>> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.
>>>> Ok, we agree on that!
>>> I would add "someone who identifies with the cultural/historical
>>> continuity of England."
> 
>> That is a nice definition.
> 
> But hard to accept for someone who denies there is such a thing as an
> English identity and strangely enough a lot of people do that. Wierd.
> 

Well of course there isn't. I might identify with greek culture, 
cricket, rugby, not beer, dont like tea, or football..Im not CofE, or 
anything at all, most near a sort of neo pagan..I mean what IS this 
elusive english culture?


> Svenne
>

Svenne wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:57:30 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
>  wrote:
> 
>> Svenne wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:41:12 +0100, Maria 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>>> Maria, I think we're actually agreeing furiously!  The only particularly
>>>>> valid definition of English is "lives in England, and considers
>>>>> him/herself English".  Likewise Scots, likewise Irish, likewise Welsh.
>>>> Ok, we agree on that!
>>> I would add "someone who identifies with the cultural/historical
>>> continuity of England."
> 
>> That is a nice definition.
> 
> But hard to accept for someone who denies there is such a thing as an
> English identity and strangely enough a lot of people do that. Wierd.
> 
> Svenne
> 

Personally, I favor honor killings, book burnings, vote rigging, 
nepotism, the subjugation of women, stoning of homosexuals and death to 
apostates. Am I English?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Jon Green  considered Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:02:43
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> For the same reason that orange isn't considered to be a primary colour.
>> 
>> Does that apply to "Irish" as well?
>
>Well, a certain proportion of Northern Irish seems to regard orange as a
>primary colour... ;)
>
And the rest of them think green is :)

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Presumably you also don't consider to be English those whose lineage in
>>> this country pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon incursions.  *chuckle*
>> That's why I included Celtic.
>> The rest of the genetic contribution is tiny  - even the Jewish one.
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
> 
> "Y chromosome analysis of men from Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, > Norway, Friesland and the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South 
> Western France has revealed that the Germanic (Danish/North 
> German/Frisian) component in the male line of descent is higher in some 
> areas of England than others.[23] It is highest in York and Norfolk, 
> where the Germanic Y chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, while 
> indigenous Y chromosomes comprise about 40%, and lowest in the west of > the country.[23] 

Setting aside the fact that Wikipedia is hardly an academic journal,
you've just undermined your own statement.  But let's assume that it is
accurate, for the sake of discussion.

Firstly, you're looking at a Y chromosome study.  Until very recently
(arguably, even today), men were far more migrant than women: do you
think that the Viking or Anglo/Saxon men brought an equal quantity of
their womenfolk with them on their plundering trips or invasions?  So
the data you quote are deeply skewed in the first place, and are not
representative of the population as a whole, as their authors acknowledge.

Secondly, did you not read the point about the "indigenous Y
chromosomes"?  If you'd the rest of the article, instead of selectively
quoting, you'd have found that the indigenous chromosomes are a distinct
haplotype that is Basque in origin.  Calling that 40% contribution
"tiny" is laughable.

And since we're in selective quotation territory here, here are a few,
from the same article, that profoundly disagree with your premise:

"The Oxford archaeologist David Miles, in The Tribes of Britain, states
that 80% of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from
"just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at
the end of the Ice Age. This suggests that later waves of immigration
may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic
homogeneity of the existing population."

"Stephen Oppenheimer has recently argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor
Celts may have had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the
British Isles, and that British ancestry can mostly be traced back to
ancient peoples similar to the modern-day Basques instead."

"In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375
and 378):

    By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive
from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham,
Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea,
Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from
north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west
European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory …    … 75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia …
Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost
entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the
non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates.
England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked
heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples …"


All of which, I think, thoroughly dismisses your original premise.


Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> 
> Come now, surely the "English language" is merely a mishmash of German, 
> French, Latin and some Indian words etc. It has no identity of its own, 
> and hence does not exist. To suggest otherwise means you are a racist 
> and probably a Nazi.

And thus, by Godwin's Law, you have _lost_.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
  with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>> Presumably you also don't consider to be English those whose lineage in
>>>> this country pre-dates the Anglo-Saxon incursions.  *chuckle*
>>> That's why I included Celtic.
>>> The rest of the genetic contribution is tiny  - even the Jewish one.
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
>>
>> "Y chromosome analysis of men from Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, 
>> Norway, Friesland and the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South 
>> Western France has revealed that the Germanic (Danish/North 
>> German/Frisian) component in the male line of descent is higher in some 
>> areas of England than others.[23] It is highest in York and Norfolk, 
>> where the Germanic Y chromosome occurs in about 60% of men, while 
>> indigenous Y chromosomes comprise about 40%, and lowest in the west of 
>> the country.[23] 
> 
> Setting aside the fact that Wikipedia is hardly an academic journal,
> you've just undermined your own statement.  But let's assume that it is
> accurate, for the sake of discussion.
> 
> Firstly, you're looking at a Y chromosome study.  Until very recently
> (arguably, even today), men were far more migrant than women: do you
> think that the Viking or Anglo/Saxon men brought an equal quantity of
> their womenfolk with them on their plundering trips or invasions?  So
> the data you quote are deeply skewed in the first place, and are not
> representative of the population as a whole, as their authors acknowledge.
> 
> Secondly, did you not read the point about the "indigenous Y
> chromosomes"?  If you'd the rest of the article, instead of selectively
> quoting, you'd have found that the indigenous chromosomes are a distinct
> haplotype that is Basque in origin.  Calling that 40% contribution
> "tiny" is laughable.

It is not "Basque" in origin.
The "Basque" did not exist at that time. It was the jumping off point 
geographically for what was to become the indigenous population of England.

> And since we're in selective quotation territory here, here are a few,
> from the same article, that profoundly disagree with your premise:
> 
> "The Oxford archaeologist David Miles, in The Tribes of Britain, states
> that 80% of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from
> "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at
> the end of the Ice Age. This suggests that later waves of immigration
> may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic
> homogeneity of the existing population."

Well, there you have it then.
A genetic definition of "English" to complement the cultural and 
geographical.

QED

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Jon Green wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Come now, surely the "English language" is merely a mishmash of German, 
>> French, Latin and some Indian words etc. It has no identity of its own, 
>> and hence does not exist. To suggest otherwise means you are a racist 
>> and probably a Nazi.
> 
> And thus, by Godwin's Law, you have _lost_.

Godwin's law is dead.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
> It is not "Basque" in origin.
> The "Basque" did not exist at that time. It was the jumping off point 
> geographically for what was to become the indigenous population of England.

It's not Germanic, either.  But it's a very common haplotype amongst 
present-day Basque citizens, hence the tag.

> Well, there you have it then.
> A genetic definition of "English" to complement the cultural and 
> geographical.

Eh?  Did you not read the full quotes I cited?  Look, I know you've got 
an agenda here (I've read the Consensus web site: "We are nationalists 
in that we believe that every major cultural group should have its own 
homeland"), but you'll see roughly the same genetic content either side 
of the Channel, and almost exactly the same either side of the Welsh or 
Scottish borders.  It's not definition of anything; it's not even much 
of a useful generalisation.

You know what?  I'm going to stop discussing this with you.  Not because 
you've made much in the way of valid points -- I think I've demolished 
them well enough, using the same sources you rather selectively snipped 
-- but because you seem impervious to logic, and trying to have an 
enlightened exchange of ideas with you feels like trying to wrestle an 
eel in axle grease, except less fun.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

 > .,,`'*.,'.',.'','.`.,*'.,'

Damn Usenet static again.  Must retune this newsreader.

Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
   with 'green-lines'.

Jon Green wrote:

> You know what?  I'm going to stop discussing this with you.  Not because 
> you've made much in the way of valid points -- I think I've demolished 
> them well enough, using the same sources you rather selectively snipped 
> -- but because you seem impervious to logic, and trying to have an 
> enlightened exchange of ideas with you feels like trying to wrestle an 
> eel in axle grease, except less fun.
> 
> Jon

The only real definition of an Englishman is his denial of Engishness as 
a valid concept, and his intolerance of intolerance.

Jon Green wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>> It is not "Basque" in origin.
>> The "Basque" did not exist at that time. It was the jumping off point 
>> geographically for what was to become the indigenous population of 
>> England.
> 
> It's not Germanic, either.  But it's a very common haplotype amongst 
> present-day Basque citizens, hence the tag.
> 
>> Well, there you have it then.
>> A genetic definition of "English" to complement the cultural and 
>> geographical.
> 
> Eh?  Did you not read the full quotes I cited?  Look, I know you've got 
> an agenda here (I've read the Consensus web site: "We are nationalists 
> in that we believe that every major cultural group should have its own 
> homeland"), but you'll see roughly the same genetic content either side 
> of the Channel, and almost exactly the same either side of the Welsh or 
> Scottish borders.  It's not definition of anything; it's not even much 
> of a useful generalisation.

On the contrary.
I never said that the genetics were the totality of the definition, but 
it is an essential component. In science-speak, necessary but not 
sufficient.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Jon Green wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> 
>  > .,,`'*.,'.',.'','.`.,*'.,'
> 
> Damn Usenet static again.  Must retune this newsreader.
> 
> Jon

Feel free to do so:-)

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show