[Dux_Helvetica]

(Original post by frankieboy)
See this is where I have a bit of an issue. This use of the word "indigenous" that the BNP and their followers have started bandying about to represent - let's not mince words - the daily mail/sun/star reading white van man (referring to the colour of the van more than the person) , in effect. Also, use of the term "working class".

These terms, especially "indigenous" are then blindly repeated by these people in an attempt to try and represent this group of people as some kind of opressed minority. Very clever. Almost.

I don't think that the "white working class" actually qualify for the word "indigenous". It's used to refer to ethnic minorities who have been colonized strictly speaking, which the "whtie working class" is not.

Also, on a lesser note, this thing about being "working class". Most of this "white working class" that we refer to is strictly speaking upper working to lower middle class. They only refer to themselves as working class due to a massive amount of inverse snobbery based around the fact that somehow they think being working class is honourable and to be respected. In other words, it's cool to be working class all of a sudden.

These people woudln't know true working class if it hit them in the face. If you want to know about working class, try having one bath a week and sharing the bathwater with the rest of your family for starters. Then try not knowing where your next meal is coming from. Then try working for the factory down the road for nothing just to build experience. Then, turn the heating off in your house in the middle of winter. I doubt any of this applies to your average white van man taking home 60 grand a year with his plumbing/woodworking/building buisiness. Those guys according to class definition are middle class, due to their income.

"Indigenous white working class" - what a load of old tosh. Designed to psychologically tug at the heart strings, but in actual fact, complete nonsense.

I don't think 'indigenous' is necessarily an inappropriate term to use. There is nothing in its definition that suggests oppression or colonisation. It is commonly used to describe plants and animals that are native to one particular area. However, the Griffin has referred to the whites as something along the lines of 'Britain's aboriginal people', which fits your description much better. That is a much more charged word that would evoke a psychological response by 'pulling at the heart strings' as you put it.

The question is how we define what exactly the working class is in the 21st century - you make some interesting points. Does it even exist any more, according to your definition? Basically, no. But is 'working-class' relative? Does it mean the bottom X% of people by income? Is one country's working class another country's bourgeoisie?

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by frankieboy)
See this is where I have a bit of an issue. This use of the word "indigenous" that the BNP and their followers have started bandying about to represent - let's not mince words - the daily mail/sun/star reading white van man (referring to the colour of the van more than the person) , in effect. Also, use of the term "working class".

It's obviously not an issue. Would you go to Australia and question or deny that the Australian Aborigines are indigenous? The answer is obviously no. So why is there an issue Britain has an indigenous population? Those that the goverment classify as ''White British'' on the census, are the indigenous British, and are the ethnic stock that have been here since the Ice Age. To put things in perspective note that the Maori of New Zealand are accepted as indigenous, but they have only been settled since about 1280 CE. The indigenous British in contrast have been in these isles for over 10,000 years more, but cranks and far left loons deny we are indigenous. These people have never taken a basic history class.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
I don't think 'indigenous' is necessarily an inappropriate term to use. There is nothing in its definition that suggests oppression or colonisation. It is commonly used to describe plants and animals that are native to one particular area. However, the Griffin has referred to the whites as something along the lines of 'Britain's aboriginal people', which fits your description much better. That is a much more charged word that would evoke a psychological response by 'pulling at the heart strings' as you put it.

The question is how we define what exactly the working class is in the 21st century - you make some interesting points. Does it even exist any more, according to your definition? Basically, no. But is 'working-class' relative? Does it mean the bottom X% of people by income? Is one country's working class another country's bourgeoisie?

Interesting points, of which I will have to give some thought before replying properly.

One thing I will say is that I think I agree with the people who say "The sooner we abolish the class system in this Country, the better". I think the class system is in itself massively outdated, and is causing seperatism and conflict within a population that ought to be pulling together. I think the likes of the Conservative government, certainly, are not going to be interested in abolishing this stupid system at all. It's in their interests to maintain it, in order to keep the have's from the have-not's.
I suspect the BNP doesn't want to do away with it either, otherwise they couldn't keep bleating on about the "working class".

[frankieboy]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
been here since the Ice Age.

So assuming I give you the benefit of the doubt and go along with what you're saying, how can we tell who is "indigenous" then?

Surely it's pretty difficult to trace one's ancestory back to the Ice ages to check that one qualifies? Is what you're saying that everyone who's white and British is "indigenous"? How do we know that they aren't in fact German? Or Swedish? etc.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
That's something called freedom of speech. By the way, since i see you have mentioned Barking, Margaret Hodge of Labour stood with the British National Party on the same platform when the constituency results were declared. In fact she delivered a speech while Nick Griffin was on the same stage. So by your logic are the Labour party now the same as the BNP? Sharing a platform with someone doesn't mean you endorse their view.

There's a difference between the stage where candidates are lined up before having the election results announced, and sharing a stage where you've been invited to talk at an event called 'American friends of the BNP'.

Ironically, this is what Hodge used her time on stage to say:

Racial separatism does not equate to racism. It appears you are just wildly throwing the r word around without even knowing what it means.

Yes it does. I'm not making any comment on multiculturalism, but in a liberal society, racial separatism is on par with racism.

Any form of separatism is just freedom of association. If people don't want to mix with other races, ethnicities, cultures, religions etc, they don't have to.

I have no desire to 'force' anyone to hang out with anyone else they do not want to in their spare time, but we're talking about political forces here, and racial separatism doesn't deserve any space or leeway in institutions or political discourse.

[Dux_Helvetica]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Interesting points, of which I will have to give some thought before replying properly.

One thing I will say is that I think I agree with the people who say "The sooner we abolish the class system in this Country, the better". I think the class system is in itself massively outdated, and is causing seperatism and conflict within a population that ought to be pulling together. I think the likes of the Conservative government, certainly, are not going to be interested in abolishing this stupid system at all. It's in their interests to maintain it, in order to keep the have's from the have-not's.
I suspect the BNP doesn't want to do away with it either, otherwise they couldn't keep bleating on about the "working class".

As a Canadian, I have never encountered such impassioned debates and discussions over class until I mingled with British people. The concept of class is stronger in Britain than it is in the rest of the western world and all of Europe. It probably stems from the fact that Britain was the finest example on an aristocracy (by definition, a country run by aristocrats) for a few hundred years. The problem is that the class system can't be abolished overnight because there is no legal definition of class. It is people's mindsets that need to change.

I'm not sure if it actually is in the interest of the Conservatives to maintain the concept of the class system, because if so then they will forever be portrayed as the uncaring toffs who piss on factory workers for fun after glugging a bottle of champagne. If people stopped thinking along class lines they wouldn't get as much slack for being 'upper class ****holes', they would just be dismissed as 'rich ****holes', which is arguably slightly better in terms of PR

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by frankieboy)
So assuming I give you the benefit of the doubt and go along with what you're saying, how can we tell who is "indigenous" then?

Surely it's pretty difficult to trace one's ancestory back to the Ice ages to check that one qualifies? Is what you're saying that everyone who's white and British is "indigenous"? How do we know that they aren't in fact German? Or Swedish? etc.

We don't need to justify our existence, we exist. You wouldn't dare go to Australia and start asking the aborigines ''how do you know you are indigenous'', and asking them for tests to prove so, its just plain stupid.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
It is people's mindsets that need to change.

Yes. Exactly. That includes upper class ivory tower toffs, and it also includes reverse-snobbish working class.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
We don't need to justify our existence, we exist. You wouldn't dare go to Australia and start asking the aborigines ''how do you know you are indigenous'', and asking them for tests to prove so, its just plain stupid.

I'm not sure that's really a valid answer. The difference is that the Aborigines are proclaimed indigenous by outside sources. I question heavily whether half the people in this country, the "self-proclaimed" indigenous are as a matter of fact as indigenous as they think they are. Put it to the test, and I think there's a few people out there that would be in for a shock.

Also, I suspect that if you did ask the Aborigines how they knew they were indigenous, you would receive a logical answer. Try asking a typical proletariat British guy how he knows, and he'll just hark on about being white and British without really giving you an answer that's culturally founded. And, to boot, without really understanding what "British" means.

[chefdave]

(Original post by frankieboy)
I don't think that the "white working class" actually qualify for the word "indigenous". It's used to refer to ethnic minorities who have been colonized strictly speaking, which the "whtie working class" is not.

It's an important term because it indicates that the people in question have a legitimate homeland, by denying white working class Brits 'indigenous' status it's akin to saying that they have no right to a safe and secure territory of their own. If liberal-left ideology disseminates the view that 'ethnics' are entitled to an enhanced set of human rights it's fair to describe it as inherently racist and anti-white. The fact that it's not overt racism doesn't make it any less so.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by chefdave)
It's an important term because it indicates that the people in question have a legitimate homeland, by denying white working class Brits 'indigenous' status it's akin to saying that they have no right to a safe and secure territory of their own.

I could argue this country is overrun with white working class. They have no need to be "safe" and "secure". They are not threatened.

(Original post by chefdave)
If liberal-left ideology disseminates the view that 'ethnics' are entitled to an enhanced set of human rights then it's fair to describe it as inherently racist and anti-white.

They are not entitled to an "enhanced" set of human rights, just "equal" human rights. Big difference. "Equal" negates any anti white racism.

[chefdave]

(Original post by frankieboy)
I could argue this country is overrun with white working class. They have no need to be "safe" and "secure". They are not threatened.

You could argue that, but if you replaced the term "this country" with Africa and "white working class" with blacks you'd immediately see why some people may find your statement offensive. I personally don't get offended by such statements as I believe in freedom of speech, but we're living in times where the merest hint of concern for whites will see you branded a 'white supremacist', 'nazi', 'xenophobe' etc etc so I understand why patriots are keen to turn the tables on liberal-lefties.

They are not entitled to an "enhanced" set of human rights, just "equal" human rights. Big difference. "Equal" negates any anti white racism.

How does this square with your claim that only ethnics are deserving of indigenous status?

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by frankieboy)
I'm not sure that's really a valid answer. The difference is that the Aborigines are proclaimed indigenous by outside sources. I question heavily whether half the people in this country, the "self-proclaimed" indigenous are as a matter of fact as indigenous as they think they are. Put it to the test, and I think there's a few people out there that would be in for a shock.

Also, I suspect that if you did ask the Aborigines how they knew they were indigenous, you would receive a logical answer. Try asking a typical proletariat British guy how he knows, and he'll just hark on about being white and British without really giving you an answer that's culturally founded. And, to boot, without really understanding what "British" means.

The historical and genetic evidence supports the fact that there is a native population of Britain, for example the vast majority of who the goverment classifies as ''White British'' have ancestors going back to Ice Age settlement (see for example British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says, National Geographic. 2005). In contrast immigrants don't have this Mesolithic ancestry. Non-indigenous immigration here is something that has only occurred at a large scale in the last century under Lib-Lab-Con's ''open border'' immigration policy.

[Dux_Helvetica]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
The historical and genetic evidence supports the fact that there is a native population of Britain, for example the vast majority of who the goverment classifies as ''White British'' have ancestors going back to Ice Age settlement (see for example British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says, National Geographic. 2005). In contrast immigrants don't have this Mesolithic ancestry. Non-indigenous immigration here is something that has only occurred at a large scale in the last century under Lib-Lab-Con's ''open border'' immigration policy.

This is true. The arrival of Anglo-Saxons, and especially Normans, was more a replacement of whatever the ruling class/most powerful faction was rather than a demographic and genetic overhaul. Britons are genetically akin to the Basques if I'm not mistaken.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by chefdave)
You could argue that, but if you replaced the term "this country" with Africa and "white working class" with blacks you'd immediately see why some people may find your statement offensive. I personally don't get offended by such statements as I believe in freedom of speech, but we're living in times where the merest hint of concern for whites will see you branded a 'white supremacist', 'nazi', 'xenophobe' etc etc so I understand why patriots are keen to turn the tables on liberal-lefties.

Sure, if you replaced this country for Africa, and white for black, sure. But we're not talking about Africa and we're not talking about black people. We're talking about white people in Britain. Also, why do people put these things in terms of either "patriots" or "liberal lefties" as if it's two football teams against one another? I am neither a right wing patriot or a liberal lefty. I am fairly neutral in this respect. Persoanlly I just call it like I see it.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
for example the vast majority of who the goverment classifies as ''White British'' have ancestors going back to Ice Age settlement

Again - sure. "The vast majority". But what about those that aren't? What, if for example Nick Griffin was to find out that he was not in fact a descendant of the indigenous people, what then? Is he going to deport himself?
The point I'm making is not so much arguing about whether an indigenous white population exists, rather than to say that white people better be careful before pronouncing themselves "indigenous" without actually knowing this for a fact, or they could be in for a shock.
I for example am white and British, but I have no idea whether I'm truly "indignenous" or not. How would I find out?
In other words, just the fact that someone is white and British is not a sure indicator of whether they are in fact indigenous. We ought to think more carefully about this before getting on our soap boxes and hammering on about the "poor white indigenous population of Britain". Otherwise we may find ourselves caught out by our own theories.

[chefdave]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Sure, if you replaced this country for Africa, and white for black, sure. But we're not talking about Africa and we're not talking about black people. We're talking about white people in Britain. Also, why do people put these things in terms of either "patriots" or "liberal lefties" as if it's two football teams against one another? I am neither a right wing patriot or a liberal lefty. I am fairly neutral in this respect. Persoanlly I just call it like I see it.

But how do you know the way you see it hasn't been tainted by left-liberal ideology? Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively. The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England just as the natural homeland of Black Kenyans is Kenya. We don't need to subject individuals to invasive genetic testing to find out whether they qualify for indigenous status or not, everyone is indigenous to somewhere. The fact that I feel the need to spell such things out indicates (to me) just how far the leftist rot has set.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by chefdave)
But how do you know the way you see it hasn't been tainted by left-liberal ideology? Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively. The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England just as the natural homeland of Black Kenyans is Kenya. We don't need to subject individuals to invasive genetic testing to find out whether they qualify for indigenous status or not, everyone is indigenous to somewhere. The fact that I feel the need to spell such things out indicates (to me) just how far the leftist rot has set.

Part bolded is an incorrect train of thought.

Likewise, though I live in a black majority country, I feel it of no importance as to whether or not a person is "indigenous" or not, no matter if they're white, black, indian, or any other race or ethnicity.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by chefdave)
Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively.

Hold the phone a minute.Let's just get it straight - I have said neither of those things. I've never said there's "too many" white people here, neither have I outright refuted the existence of an indigenous population. Questioned it, maybe, but refuted, no. All I'm doing is questioning who's actually part of that indigenous population, and how we would go about establishing that?

(Original post by chefdave)
The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England

So a German fellow comes over here in the 60's, has a kid who's first language is English - so that kid is now an English speaking white person who lives here. Is that kid indigenous? His heritage certainly doesn't fit in with your definition of "indigenous", seeing as he actually is one generation removed from German?
Or are we counting white European second generation immigrants as indigenous?

It may surprise you to know that I am not altogether against the tightening of immigration etc. - but by the same token I find parties like the BNP take it too far. I'm neither a "liberal lefty" or a "facist right winger". I think one thing we could do is stop seperating people into these two categories, like I say, similar to two football teams or soemthing similar.

[frankieboy]

I say again a point I made earlier - what if Nick Griffin was to find out he is descended from French/German/Italian etc. ancestors that immigrated here in say the late 19th century or early 20th century? Not exactly the Ice Age is it? Would he then deport himself back to Germany/France etc. ?

[M4LLY]

(Original post by djj)
This may seem a strange thing to say but I hope the BNP and Nick Griffin keep going. The BNP is pretty pathetic & they have a pathetic leader if they collapse there will be something to replace it. A lot of people are going through tough times and are angry therefore a replacement new far right party could be very appealing to them.

This.

[barnetlad]

I wish but I'm not so sure, and it could always come back in another guise.