Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

The BBC insists the debate about English identity is "deeply contentious." No, it isn't. There is no debate. Being English is a matter of ancestry. You can't self-identity as a different ethnic group, just as I can't magically become a woman by wearing a dress and calling myself Gertrude....

Con_Tomlinson's profile picture

Connor Tomlinson

123,848 subscribers

28,970 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Sectarian Gaza candidates are a natural result of mass immigration of strong cultures into a continent which had lost confidence in its own. Had Europe maintained a strong identity and a dominant culture, perhaps integration would have been possible, and imported minority cultures would not have been able to become dominant. Clearly, British students are in fact able to find meaning in identity, but they are unable to find it in being British because they have no sense of what that is. In many cases they now find their identity in the culture that, despite being a minority culture, is a strong and therefore meaningful one (to them). They find identity and meaning in being pro Palestine, anti Israel, pro mass immigration and, importantly, anti anyone who doesn’t conform to it. By making that demand for conformity very clear to others, there is a generation of young people, in particular young women, whose political stances are based on the pressure to conform to this identity. Their conformity is rewarded with the power of becoming an enforcer, making the identity even more appealing.
1:30

Sectarian Gaza candidates are a natural result of mass immigration of strong cultures into a continent which had lost confidence in its own. Had Europe maintained a strong identity and a dominant culture, perhaps integration would have been possible, and imported minority cultures would not have been able to become dominant. Clearly, British students are in fact able to find meaning in identity, but they are unable to find it in being British because they have no sense of what that is. In many cases they now find their identity in the culture that, despite being a minority culture, is a strong and therefore meaningful one (to them). They find identity and meaning in being pro Palestine, anti Israel, pro mass immigration and, importantly, anti anyone who doesn’t conform to it. By making that demand for conformity very clear to others, there is a generation of young people, in particular young women, whose political stances are based on the pressure to conform to this identity. Their conformity is rewarded with the power of becoming an enforcer, making the identity even more appealing.

Connie Shaw

16,456 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

We're circling the drain on the definition of being British now. When asked by podcaster Elliot Bewick what British identity means, Kemi Badenoch said it is a matter of abiding by cultural norms, standards, and laws. This is an incoherent, unsustainable definition. It precludes the possibility for people to be traitors — villains in our national story. It tries to make being British a normative category which is purely good things. And that just isn't true. Being British is a matter of having English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish ancestry. Reducing British identity to a matter of self-identification marginalises relevant questions of ancestry, loyalty, and how national identity becomes more salient when confronted with its opposites. The arguments have been made. The civic nationalist, values-based case for British identity falls apart under scrutiny. Culture and countries are the properties of the peoples who invent them and pass them on via inheritance to their descendants. I refuse to lie because some people feel excluded by their inability to be British, no matter how good a person they are.
54:16

We're circling the drain on the definition of being British now. When asked by podcaster Elliot Bewick what British identity means, Kemi Badenoch said it is a matter of abiding by cultural norms, standards, and laws. This is an incoherent, unsustainable definition. It precludes the possibility for people to be traitors — villains in our national story. It tries to make being British a normative category which is purely good things. And that just isn't true. Being British is a matter of having English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish ancestry. Reducing British identity to a matter of self-identification marginalises relevant questions of ancestry, loyalty, and how national identity becomes more salient when confronted with its opposites. The arguments have been made. The civic nationalist, values-based case for British identity falls apart under scrutiny. Culture and countries are the properties of the peoples who invent them and pass them on via inheritance to their descendants. I refuse to lie because some people feel excluded by their inability to be British, no matter how good a person they are.

Connor Tomlinson

25,189 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

White national identities are treated as purely civic by the same migrants who often harbour their own ethnic identity. Political scientist Eric Kaufmann describes this as asymmetrical multiculturalism, one side gets both ethnic and civic layers; the other is told their identity must be diluted into the civic container to make room. "Ethnic identity politics for me, but not for thee, whitey" Ethnic minorities are encouraged to maintain strong identities, enclaves, heritage pride, and group solidarity while the native White majority is pressured to treat their national identity as open to anyone who holds a passport/values as a set of abstract rules, and are forced legally and socially to downplay and pathologise any ethnic/cultural particularism of their own. But it wasn't always like this in Australia, older groups (Italians/Greeks) operated in a more symmetric rivalry, mutual othering ("skips vs wogs") that actually reinforced a clear Australian ethnic core through contrast and boundary maintenance. They were culturally and phenotypically closer (European, Christian background), arrived in smaller waves before official multiculturalism, and could engage in reciprocal ribbing without threatening the core identity. Greater similarity made the voluntary dissimilarity healthy and self-reinforcing rather than existential.
1:13

White national identities are treated as purely civic by the same migrants who often harbour their own ethnic identity. Political scientist Eric Kaufmann describes this as asymmetrical multiculturalism, one side gets both ethnic and civic layers; the other is told their identity must be diluted into the civic container to make room. "Ethnic identity politics for me, but not for thee, whitey" Ethnic minorities are encouraged to maintain strong identities, enclaves, heritage pride, and group solidarity while the native White majority is pressured to treat their national identity as open to anyone who holds a passport/values as a set of abstract rules, and are forced legally and socially to downplay and pathologise any ethnic/cultural particularism of their own. But it wasn't always like this in Australia, older groups (Italians/Greeks) operated in a more symmetric rivalry, mutual othering ("skips vs wogs") that actually reinforced a clear Australian ethnic core through contrast and boundary maintenance. They were culturally and phenotypically closer (European, Christian background), arrived in smaller waves before official multiculturalism, and could engage in reciprocal ribbing without threatening the core identity. Greater similarity made the voluntary dissimilarity healthy and self-reinforcing rather than existential.

auspill

35,268 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Auron MacIntyre's views on race are totally incoherent. Auron MacIntyre is a conservative opposed to White identity politics. Because his audience is more radical, he has to use pilpul to spread his message that White identity politics is evil. Here, he tells Tucker that thinking of people by race is a modern "vulgarisation" - not true, actually the modern innovation is the distinction between ethnicity and race that Auron insists on. Auron claims the real identities of Americans should be the hundreds of smaller ethnicities of the immigrants that arrived there. The Amish and Orthodox Jews are apparently good examples of what communities in America should look like. But then later in his interview, he says to be an American is to adopt an Anglo-Protestant culture, and any groups can be absorbed into it. So Auron is at once decrying Sicilians and Swedes dropping their ethnic identity to enter a more generic White category, while also complaining that the system has stopped attempting to absorb new groups into the foundational identity. Of course this is all stupid. What ethnic identity is Auron? The idea that the European groups that make up White America would keep their European identities through centuries without any ethnogenesis is ridiculous. Auron also scoffs at the naive idea that a country could be united simply by propositions and shared beliefs. Then, when asked what the "Anglo-Protestant" identity of "Heritage Americans" is, he proceeds to list a bunch of beliefs like free speech and individualism. Interestingly, one of Auron's most recent guests on his channel was Yoram Hazony (who still blacklists men like Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor), and here Auron is dutifully following Hazony's NatCon Op message that the ethnic identity of White Americans is illegitimate and thinking of White people as a race is evil. No explanation why though, something about it being "vulgar" and not trad. Auron is the last step of gatekeeping to stop White people taking their own side. Thankfully, this message is so stupid that only dullards and shills like Auron can maintain it now that it has to compete in the public square with real nationalism.
3:41

Auron MacIntyre's views on race are totally incoherent. Auron MacIntyre is a conservative opposed to White identity politics. Because his audience is more radical, he has to use pilpul to spread his message that White identity politics is evil. Here, he tells Tucker that thinking of people by race is a modern "vulgarisation" - not true, actually the modern innovation is the distinction between ethnicity and race that Auron insists on. Auron claims the real identities of Americans should be the hundreds of smaller ethnicities of the immigrants that arrived there. The Amish and Orthodox Jews are apparently good examples of what communities in America should look like. But then later in his interview, he says to be an American is to adopt an Anglo-Protestant culture, and any groups can be absorbed into it. So Auron is at once decrying Sicilians and Swedes dropping their ethnic identity to enter a more generic White category, while also complaining that the system has stopped attempting to absorb new groups into the foundational identity. Of course this is all stupid. What ethnic identity is Auron? The idea that the European groups that make up White America would keep their European identities through centuries without any ethnogenesis is ridiculous. Auron also scoffs at the naive idea that a country could be united simply by propositions and shared beliefs. Then, when asked what the "Anglo-Protestant" identity of "Heritage Americans" is, he proceeds to list a bunch of beliefs like free speech and individualism. Interestingly, one of Auron's most recent guests on his channel was Yoram Hazony (who still blacklists men like Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor), and here Auron is dutifully following Hazony's NatCon Op message that the ethnic identity of White Americans is illegitimate and thinking of White people as a race is evil. No explanation why though, something about it being "vulgar" and not trad. Auron is the last step of gatekeeping to stop White people taking their own side. Thankfully, this message is so stupid that only dullards and shills like Auron can maintain it now that it has to compete in the public square with real nationalism.

Keith Woods

560,010 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Pause and really let this sink in. The United Kingdom’s Home Secretary just went on live national television and declared that English people do not exist. She described “English” not as a nationality or people, but as some kind of feeling or identity that anyone, from anywhere in the world, can simply adopt. This is not a slip of the tongue. This is the active erasure of an entire native people and their identity—on public record, in their own country. The British are being erased.
1:36

Pause and really let this sink in. The United Kingdom’s Home Secretary just went on live national television and declared that English people do not exist. She described “English” not as a nationality or people, but as some kind of feeling or identity that anyone, from anywhere in the world, can simply adopt. This is not a slip of the tongue. This is the active erasure of an entire native people and their identity—on public record, in their own country. The British are being erased.

Ian Miles Cheong

199,363 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

On Being English: 1) England is a *country* - which confers a nationality to those who belong to that country. 2) English is also used colloquially as a synonym to mean the ethnicity of *Anglo-Saxon. People are talking across each other. Nationality and ethnicity are distinct. I have been using the word English to mean my country of England since my LBC days until today. We will not give up our country to the restrictive linguistic rigidity of ethno-nationalists. Maajid Nawaz: "Perhaps where we may disagree is where I'd like to now move this to on the issue of Englishness and Britishness is: do you think that Englishness is just an ethnicity or can it also be a country? And what I mean by that is there is something called English ethnicity. I may perhaps for the purposes of avoiding confusion, and I've done so on LBC, somebody called up once and had this conversation with me, for the purposes of avoiding confusion and making sure everyone understands what's being discussed, I may refer to it as a white Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. Just to be very precise as to what we're speaking about, speaking about white people who have either a Celtic or an Anglo-Saxon or a Norman background who live in the British Isles. So there is such a thing as a lineage and ethnicity, and a culture, that emanates from that grouping. Is there a second category in your mind? And I'm posing this as a question because I'm not trying to force my view on you. I want to hear your view. So is there a second category in your mind that if you look at England as a country and Scotland as a country and Wales as a country and Ireland as a country, say, putting aside the North Ireland versus Republic of Ireland debate for a minute, if these are countries, and as countries that have a polity, and they have an administrative state that defines their boundaries, is there a civic notion of being English? And if you want, we can use a different word for that. Perhaps, I don't know, English versus Englander, or whatever word you want to use, or perhaps even The opposite, white Anglo-Saxon English people versus just English citizens. Is there room, in your view, for a civic identity that sits on top of that lineage-based identity?" Connor Tomlinson: "I wouldn't say it's a civic identity. The way that I've described it before is you can describe adopted family members or national friends who have other heritage as an Anglophile. We can make special dispensations for people that have a genuinely positive relationship with the majority. But if you just have self-governing communities who self-identify as English because they say, well, there is a civic identity that doesn't require me to have any of that lineage, then what you get is you have to face the proposition of it's well, you could say it's an absurd hypothetical, but demographically we're trending in that direction. If there were no English people left in England, nobody of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or even earlier Brittonic, you know, ethnic heritage, which plenty of us have. And it was here before the ice sheets, and they would still define themselves as English, if you had England of 100% Somalians, but they call themselves English, would it be England? And most people, you would say no, I would say no. And that means that even if you have a reverence for the place, even if you fulfilled what you would say that the civic criteria of Englishness is, there's still this essential component that if it isn't present would cause the destruction of the country, the dispossession of the people from their land. And those people are the, the nation is the people, and that is the beating heart of the nation state. You can learn to love the country, you might even be accepted as an adopted family member, but just as you can't write yourself into my family's will and entitle yourself to my parents' home, you also can't say, I am English, and entitle yourself to the country. Maajid Nawaz: "So, again, this is important, and I think where we're going to end up disagreeing is probably on terms, actually, semantic, in the sense that I see that you're, probably for understandable reasons, territorial over the word English to describe the ethnicity, and I'm saying the ethnicity is important, but perhaps the word is a synonym, and that's probably where our disagreement would be."
3:59

On Being English: 1) England is a *country* - which confers a nationality to those who belong to that country. 2) English is also used colloquially as a synonym to mean the ethnicity of *Anglo-Saxon. People are talking across each other. Nationality and ethnicity are distinct. I have been using the word English to mean my country of England since my LBC days until today. We will not give up our country to the restrictive linguistic rigidity of ethno-nationalists. Maajid Nawaz: "Perhaps where we may disagree is where I'd like to now move this to on the issue of Englishness and Britishness is: do you think that Englishness is just an ethnicity or can it also be a country? And what I mean by that is there is something called English ethnicity. I may perhaps for the purposes of avoiding confusion, and I've done so on LBC, somebody called up once and had this conversation with me, for the purposes of avoiding confusion and making sure everyone understands what's being discussed, I may refer to it as a white Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. Just to be very precise as to what we're speaking about, speaking about white people who have either a Celtic or an Anglo-Saxon or a Norman background who live in the British Isles. So there is such a thing as a lineage and ethnicity, and a culture, that emanates from that grouping. Is there a second category in your mind? And I'm posing this as a question because I'm not trying to force my view on you. I want to hear your view. So is there a second category in your mind that if you look at England as a country and Scotland as a country and Wales as a country and Ireland as a country, say, putting aside the North Ireland versus Republic of Ireland debate for a minute, if these are countries, and as countries that have a polity, and they have an administrative state that defines their boundaries, is there a civic notion of being English? And if you want, we can use a different word for that. Perhaps, I don't know, English versus Englander, or whatever word you want to use, or perhaps even The opposite, white Anglo-Saxon English people versus just English citizens. Is there room, in your view, for a civic identity that sits on top of that lineage-based identity?" Connor Tomlinson: "I wouldn't say it's a civic identity. The way that I've described it before is you can describe adopted family members or national friends who have other heritage as an Anglophile. We can make special dispensations for people that have a genuinely positive relationship with the majority. But if you just have self-governing communities who self-identify as English because they say, well, there is a civic identity that doesn't require me to have any of that lineage, then what you get is you have to face the proposition of it's well, you could say it's an absurd hypothetical, but demographically we're trending in that direction. If there were no English people left in England, nobody of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or even earlier Brittonic, you know, ethnic heritage, which plenty of us have. And it was here before the ice sheets, and they would still define themselves as English, if you had England of 100% Somalians, but they call themselves English, would it be England? And most people, you would say no, I would say no. And that means that even if you have a reverence for the place, even if you fulfilled what you would say that the civic criteria of Englishness is, there's still this essential component that if it isn't present would cause the destruction of the country, the dispossession of the people from their land. And those people are the, the nation is the people, and that is the beating heart of the nation state. You can learn to love the country, you might even be accepted as an adopted family member, but just as you can't write yourself into my family's will and entitle yourself to my parents' home, you also can't say, I am English, and entitle yourself to the country. Maajid Nawaz: "So, again, this is important, and I think where we're going to end up disagreeing is probably on terms, actually, semantic, in the sense that I see that you're, probably for understandable reasons, territorial over the word English to describe the ethnicity, and I'm saying the ethnicity is important, but perhaps the word is a synonym, and that's probably where our disagreement would be."

أبو عمّار

119,785 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

If your flag becomes a symbol of resistance in your own country, then you are being occupied. Self-hating white woman, Emily Spurrell, soon-to-be-ex-chairwoman of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, has said Operation: Raise the Colours is "used to provoke fear or assert dominance", and that it "is not free expression – that is intimidation." Yes, the English should be dominant in their own country. Yes, the English flag is the exclusive property of the English people, and their identity divides them from others. No, we should not deny our history and heritage to accommodate uninvited newcomers who hate us.
7:43

If your flag becomes a symbol of resistance in your own country, then you are being occupied. Self-hating white woman, Emily Spurrell, soon-to-be-ex-chairwoman of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, has said Operation: Raise the Colours is "used to provoke fear or assert dominance", and that it "is not free expression – that is intimidation." Yes, the English should be dominant in their own country. Yes, the English flag is the exclusive property of the English people, and their identity divides them from others. No, we should not deny our history and heritage to accommodate uninvited newcomers who hate us.

Connor Tomlinson

44,406 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Yesterday, I was overwhelmed by the support I received for my speech in Parliament. Many of you shared it widely, I had not posted it myself. I am now sharing the full speech again so those who missed it can watch how this government is excluding and targeting some of the most marginalised sections of our society. The fight will continue. We will not allow the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and transgender persons to be diluted, and we will ensure that their dignity, identity, and constitutional protections remain intact. This Bill is a double assault on the transgender community’s dignity and rights: • While every MP in Parliament self declares their gender without scrutiny, transgender citizens are being forced to prove their identity before a medical board and the District Magistrate • From childhood, we are boxed into blue for boys and pink for girls, but identity is deeply personal and constitutionally protected • At a time when the LGBTQIA+ community is still fighting for recognition of same sex marriage, this government is taking us backwards by removing even the right to self identification • No meaningful consultation with the transgender community or stakeholders, despite Supreme Court led processes • The Bill invades privacy, enables discrimination, and opens the door to criminalisation This is not reform, this is regression. Not protection, but policing of identity. As Mahatma Gandhi reminded us, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
23:09

Yesterday, I was overwhelmed by the support I received for my speech in Parliament. Many of you shared it widely, I had not posted it myself. I am now sharing the full speech again so those who missed it can watch how this government is excluding and targeting some of the most marginalised sections of our society. The fight will continue. We will not allow the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and transgender persons to be diluted, and we will ensure that their dignity, identity, and constitutional protections remain intact. This Bill is a double assault on the transgender community’s dignity and rights: • While every MP in Parliament self declares their gender without scrutiny, transgender citizens are being forced to prove their identity before a medical board and the District Magistrate • From childhood, we are boxed into blue for boys and pink for girls, but identity is deeply personal and constitutionally protected • At a time when the LGBTQIA+ community is still fighting for recognition of same sex marriage, this government is taking us backwards by removing even the right to self identification • No meaningful consultation with the transgender community or stakeholders, despite Supreme Court led processes • The Bill invades privacy, enables discrimination, and opens the door to criminalisation This is not reform, this is regression. Not protection, but policing of identity. As Mahatma Gandhi reminded us, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

Renuka Chowdhury

56,348 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:
3:45

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:

KanekoaTheGreat

543,051 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

A generational challenge for the young people of Rwanda 1. Acknowledge the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi was wrong, should never have happened, no justification for it is acceptable civil discourse 2. Nurture a collective consciousness around the genocide, as a means of preventing recurrence. This consciousness should not be in words only; it should be in actions too 3. Understand that genocide happened because Rwandans were divided; as a result, unity is the anti-dote against recurrence. The pursuit of unity is not for its own sake; it has a practical objective 4. Building a country never ends, it’s eternal. We build it better and faster only when united. We destroy it faster than we can build it when divided. 5. You can choose the identity you want; but if the goal is unity (the requirement for building the country) then the identity of unity that we have is the Rwandan identity. We know the destruction that came from the identities of Hutu and Tutsi. 6. Good thing is that identity is what you choose to be. I have a story. A Burundian researcher asked families of Rwandan and Burundians who were alive during colonial rule. He asked the husband “what is your identity?” The husband responded “we are of the Gisaka identity,” referring to one of the regions in pre colonial society; others said they are Abagesera, Abanyenduga, and so on. He asked “what is the identity of your children?” The father said, “they are Hutus.” The perplexed researcher then asked, “how is it possible that you do not have the same identity as your children?” The father said, “those ones were born during the colonial period!” 7. So young people don’t have to use the excuse of taking their parents’ identity that meant destruction when they can choose an alternative that can lead them to the future they want. 8. The choice is there for young people to make; but the right choice will not happen on its own by accident. It must be a deliberate pursuit. Young people must exercise their agency and let their youthfulness come to bear in actively creating that country of their dreams!
3:00

A generational challenge for the young people of Rwanda 1. Acknowledge the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi was wrong, should never have happened, no justification for it is acceptable civil discourse 2. Nurture a collective consciousness around the genocide, as a means of preventing recurrence. This consciousness should not be in words only; it should be in actions too 3. Understand that genocide happened because Rwandans were divided; as a result, unity is the anti-dote against recurrence. The pursuit of unity is not for its own sake; it has a practical objective 4. Building a country never ends, it’s eternal. We build it better and faster only when united. We destroy it faster than we can build it when divided. 5. You can choose the identity you want; but if the goal is unity (the requirement for building the country) then the identity of unity that we have is the Rwandan identity. We know the destruction that came from the identities of Hutu and Tutsi. 6. Good thing is that identity is what you choose to be. I have a story. A Burundian researcher asked families of Rwandan and Burundians who were alive during colonial rule. He asked the husband “what is your identity?” The husband responded “we are of the Gisaka identity,” referring to one of the regions in pre colonial society; others said they are Abagesera, Abanyenduga, and so on. He asked “what is the identity of your children?” The father said, “they are Hutus.” The perplexed researcher then asked, “how is it possible that you do not have the same identity as your children?” The father said, “those ones were born during the colonial period!” 7. So young people don’t have to use the excuse of taking their parents’ identity that meant destruction when they can choose an alternative that can lead them to the future they want. 8. The choice is there for young people to make; but the right choice will not happen on its own by accident. It must be a deliberate pursuit. Young people must exercise their agency and let their youthfulness come to bear in actively creating that country of their dreams!

Lonzen Rugira

22,219 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Melanie Phillips thinks Jewish identity is "the unique fusion of a people, a faith and a land", which is why "the Jewish people, as *a* people, is entitled to live in its ancestral homeland." But British identity, she says, "is civic and not ethnic", and therefore has no comparable collective claim to possess the British Isles as their homeland. This double standard is unsustainable. "British" describes the distinct ethnic groups of the British Isles, whose lineage can be traced back thousands of years, and whose Christian faith shaped their nuclearised family units, small farm holdings, manners, morals, culture, and customs. They are a people, with a territory, faith, and distinct identity. And while Melanie says "the suggestion that Jews want to deny to the British the self-determination that the Jews have fulfilled in the State of Israel is false and disgraceful", she also thinks British people excluding anyone of foreign ancestry from being considered as British as they are is racist. It would be inconceivable for me to tell Melanie what being Jewish actually means, or that Jews shouldn't be alarmed if they were set to become demographic minorities in Israel. Melanie believes Jews are entitled to this in Israel, and that it guarantees their demographic security, but that the same consideration is not given to the British people in Britain. And I just won’t accept that. I don’t have to. It would be disadvantageous to my nation, and dishonourable to my children, if I did. If Israel is the only way to prevent Jews from becoming a persecuted minority in foreign lands, then I want the same for my own people, to prevent us from becoming a hated minority in our own country. That is a reasonable demand. If you expect me to support that for you but not for myself, at the expense of my children's future, then I won't take you seriously, no matter what names you call me.
34:02

Melanie Phillips thinks Jewish identity is "the unique fusion of a people, a faith and a land", which is why "the Jewish people, as *a* people, is entitled to live in its ancestral homeland." But British identity, she says, "is civic and not ethnic", and therefore has no comparable collective claim to possess the British Isles as their homeland. This double standard is unsustainable. "British" describes the distinct ethnic groups of the British Isles, whose lineage can be traced back thousands of years, and whose Christian faith shaped their nuclearised family units, small farm holdings, manners, morals, culture, and customs. They are a people, with a territory, faith, and distinct identity. And while Melanie says "the suggestion that Jews want to deny to the British the self-determination that the Jews have fulfilled in the State of Israel is false and disgraceful", she also thinks British people excluding anyone of foreign ancestry from being considered as British as they are is racist. It would be inconceivable for me to tell Melanie what being Jewish actually means, or that Jews shouldn't be alarmed if they were set to become demographic minorities in Israel. Melanie believes Jews are entitled to this in Israel, and that it guarantees their demographic security, but that the same consideration is not given to the British people in Britain. And I just won’t accept that. I don’t have to. It would be disadvantageous to my nation, and dishonourable to my children, if I did. If Israel is the only way to prevent Jews from becoming a persecuted minority in foreign lands, then I want the same for my own people, to prevent us from becoming a hated minority in our own country. That is a reasonable demand. If you expect me to support that for you but not for myself, at the expense of my children's future, then I won't take you seriously, no matter what names you call me.

Connor Tomlinson

30,499 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jacob Rees-Mogg called the English “a mongrel race”, but still expects them to "do their duty" and die for Ukraine. I refuse to take lessons on duty and patriotism from the traitors who delivered the Boriswave. Mogg says those who think DNA determines national identity are racists who "don't know what they're talking about," and insists "anyone is as English or British" as him as long as they have a passport. He has fully bought into Tony Blair's "British values" version of identity — but he wouldn't dare speak this way about other ethnic groups. At the same time, Mogg expects young men to dutifully enlist in the army, to fight a war with Russia on behalf of a country he says doesn't belong to them. He concurred when a Fabian socialist said anyone refusing to fight should be imprisoned, on his GB News show. Why should I die to a drone strike in a ditch in the Donbas to defend Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, when the government Rees-Mogg was a part of facilitated our invasion by the small boats and Boriswave — who he now insists are as English as I am? The Conservatives have only ever consolidated the demographic, cultural, and legislative revolutions of their ostensible Labour opponents. They are the pressure release valve for public discontent; the locking mechanism on the ratchet effect. Mogg is wrong. Being English is about ancestry. British meant the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, until politicians like him imposed millions of unwanted third-world migrants on us. Denying that the English exist as a distinct ethnic group is tantamount to cheering on our extinction. I am not fighting the Russians to the death to defend the Britain that Jacob Rees-Mogg and his treacherous Tory colleagues built.
1:01:22

Jacob Rees-Mogg called the English “a mongrel race”, but still expects them to "do their duty" and die for Ukraine. I refuse to take lessons on duty and patriotism from the traitors who delivered the Boriswave. Mogg says those who think DNA determines national identity are racists who "don't know what they're talking about," and insists "anyone is as English or British" as him as long as they have a passport. He has fully bought into Tony Blair's "British values" version of identity — but he wouldn't dare speak this way about other ethnic groups. At the same time, Mogg expects young men to dutifully enlist in the army, to fight a war with Russia on behalf of a country he says doesn't belong to them. He concurred when a Fabian socialist said anyone refusing to fight should be imprisoned, on his GB News show. Why should I die to a drone strike in a ditch in the Donbas to defend Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, when the government Rees-Mogg was a part of facilitated our invasion by the small boats and Boriswave — who he now insists are as English as I am? The Conservatives have only ever consolidated the demographic, cultural, and legislative revolutions of their ostensible Labour opponents. They are the pressure release valve for public discontent; the locking mechanism on the ratchet effect. Mogg is wrong. Being English is about ancestry. British meant the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, until politicians like him imposed millions of unwanted third-world migrants on us. Denying that the English exist as a distinct ethnic group is tantamount to cheering on our extinction. I am not fighting the Russians to the death to defend the Britain that Jacob Rees-Mogg and his treacherous Tory colleagues built.

Connor Tomlinson

39,906 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

Zimbabwe? No, this is London, England. The indigenous White British population, historically the overwhelming majority, has fallen to just 36.8% of the population there and they are now a minority in their own capital. London is no longer an English city.
0:23

Zimbabwe? No, this is London, England. The indigenous White British population, historically the overwhelming majority, has fallen to just 36.8% of the population there and they are now a minority in their own capital. London is no longer an English city.

Britain First

992,732 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Obviously, there is a racial aspect to Britishness. This criticism of the document is entirely valid. An Australian born in Australia is British, despite not being English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh. An indian man born in Australian isn’t. However, the concept of ‘The British Race’ has been verboten for decades. We are not going from “this Somalian in social housing is just as british as you” to full on Cecil Rhodes “I contend we are the first race in the world” overnight. I think the Identity document captures current right wing public sentiment pretty well. If you spoke to most ‘right wing normies’, they would understand that this is our home, that English people should never become a minority in England etc, but they also would feel uncomfortable stripping the citizenship of and deporting foreign families who have been here for 2-3 generations. If we continue on current demographic trends I believe the Overton window will get to this point, and this document does lay the foundations for this. I have said previously that I believe Restore Britain is the vehicle that the British public will take on the journey to mine and the majority of my followers position. That hasn’t changed. Once you recognise our right to this land this can only go in one direction. If you think Restores position on our identity is going to get softer with “Charlie Downes sitting in the wings waiting to take over the party” and the rate at which public sentiment is turning against liberalism and immigration, then you are on crack. Overall I think the document is good. It clarified Restores position well, even if I don’t agree with it entirely. The citizenship only through marriage policy is a fantastic development. The parts I do agree with are great and it is essential we rally around them, even if you want total Remigration and a holy race war of revenge against Pakistan: This is our country and Restore Britain will never let White British people become a minority.
0:38

Obviously, there is a racial aspect to Britishness. This criticism of the document is entirely valid. An Australian born in Australia is British, despite not being English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh. An indian man born in Australian isn’t. However, the concept of ‘The British Race’ has been verboten for decades. We are not going from “this Somalian in social housing is just as british as you” to full on Cecil Rhodes “I contend we are the first race in the world” overnight. I think the Identity document captures current right wing public sentiment pretty well. If you spoke to most ‘right wing normies’, they would understand that this is our home, that English people should never become a minority in England etc, but they also would feel uncomfortable stripping the citizenship of and deporting foreign families who have been here for 2-3 generations. If we continue on current demographic trends I believe the Overton window will get to this point, and this document does lay the foundations for this. I have said previously that I believe Restore Britain is the vehicle that the British public will take on the journey to mine and the majority of my followers position. That hasn’t changed. Once you recognise our right to this land this can only go in one direction. If you think Restores position on our identity is going to get softer with “Charlie Downes sitting in the wings waiting to take over the party” and the rate at which public sentiment is turning against liberalism and immigration, then you are on crack. Overall I think the document is good. It clarified Restores position well, even if I don’t agree with it entirely. The citizenship only through marriage policy is a fantastic development. The parts I do agree with are great and it is essential we rally around them, even if you want total Remigration and a holy race war of revenge against Pakistan: This is our country and Restore Britain will never let White British people become a minority.

Orm

14,131 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"I am English" 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Who are the English? This has recently been reported by the BBC as a ' deeply contentious debate', as if there is nowhere the people of England can tie themselves to, that we have no land of our own, or that we are not a race or indigenous people. Who are the English? The English are the native ethnic group of England and the largest ethnic group in the United Kingdom. We share a common history, language (English), culture, and identity, developed over 1000s of years. The English are a fusion of Celts, Britons, Anglo-Saxons, with some Romano and Norse influence. Modern genetic studies show the English as a mix: Anglo-Saxon/continental northern European (Angles & Saxons) who dominate the East, Central and Northern regions of England, and the indigenous Briton/Celtic populations (pre-Anglo-Saxon) who dominate the South and West of England. The name England means, 'Land of the Angles'. What is in a name? The etymology of my surname 'Denslow' originates from the words, 'Denu' meaning the valleys of South West England, and 'Sloh' meaning marsh, swamp or bog, so my surname translates to, man from the marshes of the valleys of South West England, and is over 1500 years old. I am literally a swamp creature. Are you English, what does your surname mean and which part of England does it originate from? Please let me know in the comments, I would love to hear from you. "I am English" The World Is Ours, not theirs.
7:00

"I am English" 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Who are the English? This has recently been reported by the BBC as a ' deeply contentious debate', as if there is nowhere the people of England can tie themselves to, that we have no land of our own, or that we are not a race or indigenous people. Who are the English? The English are the native ethnic group of England and the largest ethnic group in the United Kingdom. We share a common history, language (English), culture, and identity, developed over 1000s of years. The English are a fusion of Celts, Britons, Anglo-Saxons, with some Romano and Norse influence. Modern genetic studies show the English as a mix: Anglo-Saxon/continental northern European (Angles & Saxons) who dominate the East, Central and Northern regions of England, and the indigenous Briton/Celtic populations (pre-Anglo-Saxon) who dominate the South and West of England. The name England means, 'Land of the Angles'. What is in a name? The etymology of my surname 'Denslow' originates from the words, 'Denu' meaning the valleys of South West England, and 'Sloh' meaning marsh, swamp or bog, so my surname translates to, man from the marshes of the valleys of South West England, and is over 1500 years old. I am literally a swamp creature. Are you English, what does your surname mean and which part of England does it originate from? Please let me know in the comments, I would love to hear from you. "I am English" The World Is Ours, not theirs.

Darren of Plymouth

20,321 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

They just can’t talk about demographics. Charlie from Restore Britain went on TalkTV and said the quiet part out loud: White British people are becoming a minority in their own country. Only 54% of live births in 2024 were to white British mothers. This is an existential threat. Julia Hartley-Brewer’s response? “Why is that a problem?” Because this is our homeland. Because the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish have been here for over a thousand years. Because no other people on earth are expected to accept becoming a minority in their own lands without complaint. They will talk endlessly about every other group’s rights and identity. The moment you mention the native British, they freeze, deflect, or call it racism. Demographic security is not hate. It is survival. My England for the English. England. True Grit. Restore. No apologies. No surrender.
25:17

They just can’t talk about demographics. Charlie from Restore Britain went on TalkTV and said the quiet part out loud: White British people are becoming a minority in their own country. Only 54% of live births in 2024 were to white British mothers. This is an existential threat. Julia Hartley-Brewer’s response? “Why is that a problem?” Because this is our homeland. Because the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish have been here for over a thousand years. Because no other people on earth are expected to accept becoming a minority in their own lands without complaint. They will talk endlessly about every other group’s rights and identity. The moment you mention the native British, they freeze, deflect, or call it racism. Demographic security is not hate. It is survival. My England for the English. England. True Grit. Restore. No apologies. No surrender.

𝕸𝖆𝖉 𝕯𝖔𝖌𝖘 & 𝕰𝖓𝖌𝖑𝖎𝖘𝖍𝖒𝖊𝖓, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

12,425 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten