[throwawaypath]

>If you think white Brits are the only native Brits then you are also an ethnonationalist.

There's no "thinking" White Brits are the only Brits native to Britain, they are. It's not ethnonationalist, it is an indisputable fact.

>the data point makes no sense

If you bothered to read his blog post, not just Bluesky/Mastodon comments, the data point makes a lot of sense.

>I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native.

Here is where you're wrong. You would not be native, you would still be a foreigner. Finns are not White Brits. Russians, Austrians, etc. may all be White, but they are not White Brits, and are therefore not native Brits, even if they move and gain citizenship.

>So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.

Neither racist nor stupid, just wrongthink.

>Native means you're born somewhere.

White Brits are the only indigenous Brits.

>Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism.

Glad that's not what I nor DHH did.

>So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.

So I guess congrats, you're a genocidal Maoist-Leninist-Marxist.

[tovej]

You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits. And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere. Native is the word DHH uses.

The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain. And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous. The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.

Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way) "White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.

That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.

I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.

[marrs]

What's your definition of ethnonationalist? It surely can't be as simple as identifying with your tribe, otherwise just about every nation except America would be ethnonationalist.

For me the term has specific far-right connotations; specifically the persecution, or desire to persecute, non-nationals or non-indigenous (or whatever term you'd like to use for the most ancient and rooted culture of a nation).

Your definition is apparently different: what is it?

Btw, the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English; they were ultimately assimilated into the tribes they conquered. Many (most?) English can trace their genes back to the earliest settlers.

[tovej]

Ethnonationalists believe that a nationality is defined by ethnicity. That's it. It's a fundamentally confused way to look at the world.

The persecution and vilification of other groups is a natural consequence of being an ethnonationalist. DHH also does this, of course, as he paints a false narrative in his blog text that brown people are dangerous.

Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.

If you believe a cultural identity should be tied to the political state, that's called civic nationalism. Most countries were founded on some form of nationalism during the 1800s, so you're onto something there. These were ideas that grew out of the German idealist philosophy, and it's no coincidence that nationalism in Germany eventually developed into the ethnonationalist Völkisch movement, which was the precursor to the Nazi party.

---

The English culture _is_ the Anglo-Saxon cultrue, so the Anglo-Saxons couldn't have replaced them yes, but only because no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

"the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English" is a ridiculous statement on multiple levels. You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.

[marrs]

> DHH also does this, of course, as he paints a false narrative in his blog text that brown people are dangerous.

I've never seen him even imply this; and I'm afraid I simply presume accusations of racism on the internet to be false and malicious unless they come with hard evidence.

> Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.

Fine, I can go with that. Does that mean that people from other cultures are not of this nation?

> no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

Who built Stonehenge? If you're just being pedantic (and your next reply is likely to be something like "the word English is derived from Angle"), then let's instead refer to them as the peoples who already inhabited the British Isles.

> You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.

I honestly don't know what this sentence means.

[tovej]

Re racism: Read the "As I remember London" post, it's full of language and selective facts painting brown people as criminal.

Re nation: a nation is the socially constructed identity I was talking about. It can be mono- or multicultural, and people from other cultures may be integrated, it's all vibes-based depending on the nation. But one thing is clear, if you're born into a culture you are part of the culture, and so through a civic nationalist logic you are automatically part of that nation. Also note that nation does not equal state or country.

RE stone henge: that was ~6-4000 years ago, many thousand years before the Anglo-Saxons, so all we have to go on there is material culture, because it's prehistoric. As far as I can tell from a quick wikipedia read, a first part was built by neolithic farmers from a material culture associated with Anatolia, modern day Turkey. A second part may have been constructed by the Bell Beaker people (referring to material culture again) who arrived later. There was also an existing hunter-gatherer substrate before these other groups arrived. That substrate was mostly replaced by the neolithic farmer culture, which was in turn mostly replaced by the Bell Beaker culture. This replacement was a fairly long process, and the gene pool was also largely replaced during both of these transitions.

Both of these transitions are long before the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, etc., the labels we currently associate with Britain.

And the last point is my mistake, I thought you were the same guy as before, but your statement's premise was contradictory. You can't replace yourself, can you.

[marrs]

> Re racism: Read the "As I remember London" post, it's full of language and selective facts painting brown people as criminal.

I didn't read it that way at all. I certainly didn't see him "painting brown people as criminal". I read it predominantly as the musings of a man afraid to lose his culture in the same way the Cockneys lost theirs. Now it's my experience that most fears are exaggerated - and perhaps his fears are exaggerated - but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. At the very least, they need to be heeded, because - as no one famous ever said - feelings don't care about your facts.

> a nation is the socially constructed identity I was talking about. It can be mono- or multicultural, and people from other cultures may be integrated

...or they may not be...

> But one thing is clear, if you're born into a culture you are part of the culture, and so through a civic nationalist logic you are automatically part of that nation.

All that is true, but as you just pointed out, there is not only one culture, so which culture are you born into, and is it compatible with the other cultures you have to live with? A nation also has to function; and for a democratic nation to function, it has to be united on the fundamentals. Regardless of the cause, it is quite clear to me that a good deal of trust has now broken down between different communities in my country. That needs to be addressed, not lazily dismissed as mere racism.

And leftists in particular have no business dismissing it as mere racism; because, if we want to get into causes, I'd just like to remind everyone reading this that the idea that we can and should divide and categorise people by their race has been aggressively and exclusively pushed for the last decade or more - and successfully mainstreamed - by the left. Now we all have to reap what they've sewn.

[throwawaypath]

>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits.

Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere.

>And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere.

I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born in the US, yet they are not native there.

>The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain.

No it wouldn't, Celtics displaced Neolithic Iberians before them. Not that it matters, the only extant indigenous group to London are English people, which descend in part from Celtic Britons.

>And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous.

They're a mix, and definitely indigenous.

>The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.

But English people are. English people are "are an ethnic group and nation native to England." [0]

And what group do English people fall under? The "native Brits" DHH mentions. White Brits being "the White population identifying as English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or British." [1]

Native Brits, more specifically English people, are the only native people indigenous to London.

QED.

>Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way)

I never equated nationality with skin color, only ethnic groups. Russians share the same skin color as White Brits, yet are not White Brits, and are not native to London.

>White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.

This is what happens when you get political commentary from Bluesky and Mastodon. You had no clue that White British were an ethnicity grouping, nor did you understand the fact that English people are natives.

>That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.

Only of you don't understand the meaning of words, which is clearly the case here.

>I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.

I don't get it. You clearly hold Anglophobic views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are a Marxist Anglophobe. Be honest about it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

[tovej]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native

Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times.

If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.

If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.

But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.

[throwawaypath]

>Native quite literally means associated with birth.

Yes, and the only current ethnic group birthed in England are the English. British Asians derive their ancestry from Asia, the ethnic group is not native to, nor born from England. They're non-indigenous to the UK/Europe. You inadvertantly proved my point.

QED.

>If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.

Not at all, the non-native ethnic groups are not native to the UK. Notice how only English people are listed as native to England.

>If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native.

As are their descendants which are the English.

>Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.

Their descendants, the native ethnic group known as English people, are native to the UK.

>But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.

Wrong, this is the only interpretation: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common ancestry, history, and culture."

[tovej]

The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).

You're just wrong on the basic facts now. But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

[throwawaypath]

>The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles.

Yes they are, sourced above.

>And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).

Immigrant ethnic groups are not birthed in England, which is why they're not considered English nor "native." Their ancestry is foreign. Foreign ethnic groups are non-indigenous to England.

>You're just wrong on the basic facts now.

"Your facts are wrong!" the Marxist chortled just moments after unironically claiming men can be pregnant. All of the basic facts agree with DHH and my comments.

I provided sources, you have not. The facts are: only the English are native to London.

>But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.

But that's no surprise, you're a marxist.