Olivia
Online
Rafe Heydel-Mankoo
@RafHM
Historian (BA Hons, LL.B, MA, FRCGS) & Broadcaster: Royalty, British Identity, Immigration; Fellow NewCultureForum; CoEditor: Burke's World Orders of Knighthood
London, UK
Joined November 2009
1K Following
74.2K Followers
8.8K Posts
Pinned Tweet
Today's #Census results reveal that 42% of the 10 million foreign-born residents in England arrived in last decade.
Foreign born population:
1851: 0.6%
1901: 1.5%
1951: 4.2%
2001: 8.3%
2011: 12.7%
2021: 16.6%
This cannot continue, as I explained in my @NewCultureForum lecture:
I should have added Trafalgar Day (21 October) as an option.
Like this comment ONLY if you want to vote for it.
England: Which bank holiday would you prefer?
1. Rename late August Summer Bank Holiday after King Athelstan, the first King of England in 927
2. Have a new bank holiday around 12 July, the date Athelstan became King
3. Make St. George's Day (23 April) a new bank holiday
Rubbish. Your bill is called the "English ETHNIC Identity Bill"
You criticised the flying of the English flag. Now you seek to deny the English their unique ethnicity, their ultimate & most intrinsic identity
Denying a group their ethnic heritage contributes to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide" according to the 1944 definition
Polling shows that ALMOST ALL ethnic minorities in England still understand that "English" is a fundamentally ethnic identity to which they do not belong
It is only certain parts of the White British community - and activists like yourself - who seek to engage in ethnic erasure
Such a large percentage of White British people disagree with you, that it is dangerous to go down this needless path
Acts like yours are the reason for the growth of ethno-nationalism, not to mention political extremism. Their rise is a direct reaction to needless provocation from leftist elites
If one is born and raised in England, a person may be culturally English -- but that is wholly distinct and separate from being ethnically English. The two should not be conflated.
The two identities - ethnically English and culturally English - have happily co-existed for generations - with the historically tiny culturally English understanding their status and preferring to identity as civically and legally "British" rather than English.
This was done partly out of respect for the ethnic English, who accounted for 92% of the population of England as recently as 1991. But it was also because they naturally identified with their own ethnic group.
This is the only correct view. By way of illustration:
An Englishman born and raised in Japan, who was brought up in Japanese culture and who speaks Japanese with a flawless Japanese accent is clearly culturally Japanese -- but he remains ethnically English. That is an immutable characteristic.
In contrast with England, however, an immigrant to Japan can also be legally Japanese. Japan is a sovereign country of which he is a passport-holding citizen.
So this Englishman is culturally and legally Japanese but he is clearly not ethnically Japanese. I'd wager that 99%+ of Japanese people would agree with this - they'd say it was blindingly obvious
There is such an Englishman in Japan, actually. His name is Joshua Thomson, and he is a sensation for precisely this reason. He identifies as culturally Japanese but acknowledges he is not ethnically Japanese
But Englishness is an even more exceptional case. Unlike Japan, England is not a sovereign nation. It has no citizenship or passports. There is no nationality law.
One may be culturally English - as, say, the footballer Ian Wright is. But Ian Wright can no more be ethnically English than he (or anyone) can be legally English.
So that begs the question: what is the point of doing this?
What is behind this dangerous, provocative and completely unnecessary desire to erase / undermine English ethnicity, by far the most historically significant and consequential identity for creating the England we know and love?
Ethnic minorities are not calling for it. Poling shows that a mere 10% identify as English. The rest identify either as British or of the ethnicity of their ancestral homeland.
If anyone still believes the myth that the Liberal Democrats are a "centrist" party of "moderates" - falling somewhere between the Tories and Labour - this reprehensible policy by one of their MPs must surely blast it to smithereens.
Economically they may be more centrist than Labour - but culturally they are every bit as reckless and dangerous.
Who to follow
Dr Philip Kiszely
@KiszelyPhilip
Cultural Historian. Academic, author & political commentator.
Senior Fellow: @newcultureforum
Kemi Badenoch
@KemiBadenoch
Leader of the Conservative Party. MP for North West Essex.
Paul Embery
@PaulEmbery
Firefighter | Trade Unionist | Writer | Broadcaster | “He will force you to think outside your usual political grooves” - Wall Street Journal | My website ⬇️
Rubbish. Your bill is called the "English ETHNIC Identity Bill"
You criticised the flying of the English flag. Now you seek to deny the English their unique ethnicity, their ultimate & most intrinsic identity
Denying a group their ethnic heritage contributes to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide" according to the 1944 definition
Polling shows that ALMOST ALL ethnic minorities in England still understand that "English" is a fundamentally ethnic identity to which they do not belong
It is only certain parts of the White British community - and activists like yourself - who seek to engage in ethnic erasure
Such a large percentage of White British people disagree with you, that it is dangerous to go down this needless path
Acts like yours are the reason for the growth of ethno-nationalism, not to mention political extremism. Their rise is a direct reaction to needless provocation from leftist elites
If one is born and raised in England, a person may be culturally English -- but that is wholly distinct and separate from being ethnically English. The two should not be conflated.
The two identities - ethnically English and culturally English - have happily co-existed for generations - with the historically tiny culturally English understanding their status and preferring to identity as civically and legally "British" rather than English.
This was done partly out of respect for the ethnic English, who accounted for 92% of the population of England as recently as 1991. But it was also because they naturally identified with their own ethnic group.
This is the only correct view. By way of illustration:
An Englishman born and raised in Japan, who was brought up in Japanese culture and who speaks Japanese with a flawless Japanese accent is clearly culturally Japanese -- but he remains ethnically English. That is an immutable characteristic.
In contrast with England, however, an immigrant to Japan can also be legally Japanese. Japan is a sovereign country of which he is a passport-holding citizen.
So this Englishman is culturally and legally Japanese but he is clearly not ethnically Japanese. I'd wager that 99%+ of Japanese people would agree with this - they'd say it was blindingly obvious
There is such an Englishman in Japan, actually. His name is Joshua Thomson, and he is a sensation for precisely this reason. He identifies as culturally Japanese but acknowledges he is not ethnically Japanese
But Englishness is an even more exceptional case. Unlike Japan, England is not a sovereign nation. It has no citizenship or passports. There is no nationality law.
One may be culturally English - as, say, the footballer Ian Wright is. But Ian Wright can no more be ethnically English than he (or anyone) can be legally English.
So that begs the question: what is the point of doing this?
What is behind this dangerous, provocative and completely unnecessary desire to erase / undermine English ethnicity, by far the most historically significant and consequential identity for creating the England we know and love?
Ethnic minorities are not calling for it. Poling shows that a mere 10% identify as English. The rest identify either as British or of the ethnicity of their ancestral homeland.
If anyone still believes the myth that the Liberal Democrats are a "centrist" party of "moderates" - falling somewhere between the Tories and Labour - this reprehensible policy by one of their MPs must surely blast it to smithereens.
Economically they may be more centrist than Labour - but culturally they are every bit as reckless and dangerous.
Ultimately this is a division / debate btw the High Tory, One Nation, Shire and other traditionalist / culturalist small "c' conservatives vs the economically focused Neo-Liberals & Neo-Cons
The former seek to conserve traditional Britain & all segments of society (the clue is in the name "CONSERVative"), the latter have no issue destroying for economic gain
In the case of Oxford & Cambridge, I suppose the Neo-Liberals & Neo-Cons will first need to convince themselves of the economic argument for an Expressway
Cambridge is famously a bicycling city but 2/3 of the residents of both Cambridge and Oxford own a car.
So, how many people travel in the average car journey from Cambridge to Oxford (and vice-versa)?
In both cases, if a single person makes that journey it is cheaper to take the train.
This is a problem because the MAJORITY of such journeys are estimated to be single person journeys (academics and B2B would be the main beneficiaries of such an Expressway)
I say it is cheaper because obviously one needs to factor in not only petrol costs, but other driving zone charges (i.e. Oxford's Zero Emission Zones & Traffic Filters) + car parking fees.
Total cost for 1 person:
Train: £35 – £55
Car: £67 – £73
Total cost for 2 people:
Train: £70 – £110
Car: £67 – £73 (I'd argue £18.50 p/p is not a huge difference)
Aside from cost, the additional incentive for these people to take the train is the ability to work / prepare on a train trip, which one can't do if driving. That is probably worth more to them than £18.50
Next are the issues of travel time & cost-benefit:
The Oxford-Cambridge Expressway was cancelled in 2021 because it was deemed to fail on these measures.
Travel Time: At the quieter times, when one could travel at max. speed without stop, a straight motorway would take just under an hour to travel between these two cities. But during peak hours, factoring in traffic/congestion, it would take around 90 minutes.
Coincidentally, 90 minutes is the projected time it would take the new direct (but very windy) train route currently under construction between Oxford and Cambridge.
Cost-Benefit analysis:
A straight motorway would cut straight through the centre of Milton Keynes (not necessarily a great loss, I grant you...) but also major parts of Bedford. This would necessitate the demolition of thousands of businesses & homes as well as major infrastructure. That is undeniably a high cost.
Then, of course, there is the cultural cost: the destruction of dozens of beautiful historic villages, ancient parishes, communities and farmland.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Given the above, I would assume that even Neo-Liberals might think twice. I would certainly hope they wouldn't call the lack of a motorway an "insane" decision, Tom! ;)
Not only is this vile man denying the English their ethnicity, he seeks to strip them of their last - & most intrinsic - identity
Denying a group their ethnic heritage contributes to "cultural genocide" or "ethnocide" according to the 1944 definition
His mother is White British (presumably English) so he can rightly lay claim to being half English - despite previously claiming to be Nigerian and relishing in his African identity
My mother is Polish, but I would NEVER DREAM of attempting to strip Poles of their cherished identity. Such an idea is grotesque and abominable. My father is Sikh but secular and entirely Westernized (i.e. no turban or outward trappings of his ancestral religion) - and as I was raised Catholic in a culturally British / Western household speaking only English, I have minimal / negligible connection to Sikhism. Consequently, irrespective of my father's heritage, I would be rightly ridiculed and scorned if I deigned to deny this group their heritage
If one is born and raised in England, a person may be culturally English -- but that is wholly distinct and separate from being ethnically English. The two identities have happily co-existed for generations - with the culturally English understanding their status and preferring to identity as civically / legally "British" rather than English. This was done partly out of respect for the ethnically English.
Polling shows that ALMOST ALL ethnic minorities in England still understand that "English" is a fundamentally ethnic identity. It is only nihilistic parts of the White British community - and activists like this odious MP - who seek to engage in ethnic erasure.
What is behind this sinister desire to erase English ethnicity, by far the most historically significant and consequential identity?
If anyone still believes the myth that the Liberal Democrats are a "centrist" party of "moderates" - falling somewhere between the Tories and Labour, this reprehensible policy by one of their MPs must surely blast it to smithereens. Economically they may be more centrist than Labour - but culturally they are every bit as dangerous.
🏴 I am English
@SuellaBraverman, you said “people don’t want to talk about this.”
I do.
I’ve tabled the St. George’s Bill (aka English Ethnicity Bill) in Parliament on Tuesday to settle this.
Will you come and debate me?
@timothy_stanley @CamillaTominey @DailyTPodcast @TomSwarbrick1 @OliDugmore
On today's show:
* MAGA Turns on Trump? US elections: what does the right do now?
* Polish political crisis: Is this an EU-backed coup?
* Labour's Boriswave Betrayal
WATCH: https://t.co/JD9GM7Vq1C
With @Rafhm, @PCBarnes123, @tonygilland & James Bogle
Another one bites the dust!
Claudia Webbe yesterday, Michael Rosen today
Leftists are such cowards
When corrected, rather than debate or admit they are wrong, they block / cancel
Michael Rosen should stick to children's books and let the adults discuss the big topics
Such ignorance, @MichaelRosenYes
Caribbean sugar did not generate vast wealth for Britain nor did it drive industrialisation
As I had to explain to KehindeAndrews, sugar amounted to 2.5% of net British national income
Coal, sheep farming, the woolen industry, and iron were far more valuable
In 1770, the peak year for sugar, sugar only accounted for 3% of capital formation. If sugar was such a hot commodity it would have accounted for a FAR higher %.
In fact, Scottish & Irish flax and linen were much more of a revenue generator for the British economy than sugar
The reality is that the contribution of sugar to the British economy was the same as for barley and hops - and I don't recall anyone saying that beer was fundamental for the Industrial Revolution.
My debate on @triggerpod
Such ignorance, @MichaelRosenYes
Caribbean sugar did not generate vast wealth for Britain nor did it drive industrialisation
As I had to explain to KehindeAndrews, sugar amounted to 2.5% of net British national income
Coal, sheep farming, the woolen industry, and iron were far more valuable
In 1770, the peak year for sugar, sugar only accounted for 3% of capital formation. If sugar was such a hot commodity it would have accounted for a FAR higher %.
In fact, Scottish & Irish flax and linen were much more of a revenue generator for the British economy than sugar
The reality is that the contribution of sugar to the British economy was the same as for barley and hops - and I don't recall anyone saying that beer was fundamental for the Industrial Revolution.
My debate on @triggerpod
Oh dear. Claudia Webbe didn't take kindly to being corrected and has blocked me.
Mind you, given her criminal history, I suppose I got off lightly...
I know you're a convicted criminal but must you also commit crimes against scholarship?
1. Your last line shows your post is AI generated
2. Tax payers did NOT pay enslavers' bill for 180 yrs*
3. UK did NOT drain $45 trillion**
You are as ridiculous as ever
* The £20 million payment to free the slaves was paid off long before 2015 (it may have been paid off as early as the 19th century but was almost certainly paid off during the 20th century). You are basing your claim on a poorly phrased Treasury tweet which has since been clarified.
** The ludicrous claim that Britain stole $45 trillion from India comes from Marxist Utsa Patnaik's biased calculation, which compounds estimated colonial transfers at 5% interest over generations, producing this ridiculous nonsensical sum rather than the actual amount Britain received.
Do your own research and writing next time instead of relying on AI. This is utterly embarrassing.
Come and see me at the @Togetherdec 5th anniv event this Sat 7 Nov: https://t.co/Givv3kFUKF
I'll be speaking along with Mike Graham, Winston Marshall, Bev Turner, Katherine Birbalsingh, Alan Miller & many others
It'll be a huge gathering of around 1,500 people who care about freedom, free speech and the future of our country.
I know you're a convicted criminal but must you also commit crimes against scholarship?
1. Your last line shows your post is AI generated
2. Tax payers did NOT pay enslavers' bill for 180 yrs*
3. UK did NOT drain $45 trillion**
You are as ridiculous as ever
* The £20 million payment to free the slaves was paid off long before 2015 (it may have been paid off as early as the 19th century but was almost certainly paid off during the 20th century). You are basing your claim on a poorly phrased Treasury tweet which has since been clarified.
** The ludicrous claim that Britain stole $45 trillion from India comes from Marxist Utsa Patnaik's biased calculation, which compounds estimated colonial transfers at 5% interest over generations, producing this ridiculous nonsensical sum rather than the actual amount Britain received.
Do your own research and writing next time instead of relying on AI. This is utterly embarrassing.
I know you're a convicted criminal but must you also commit crimes against scholarship?
1. Your last line shows your post is AI generated
2. Tax payers did NOT pay enslavers' bill for 180 yrs*
3. UK did NOT drain $45 trillion**
You are as ridiculous as ever
* The £20 million payment to free the slaves was paid off long before 2015 (it may have been paid off as early as the 19th century but was almost certainly paid off during the 20th century). You are basing your claim on a poorly phrased Treasury tweet which has since been clarified.
** The ludicrous claim that Britain stole $45 trillion from India comes from Marxist Utsa Patnaik's biased calculation, which compounds estimated colonial transfers at 5% interest over generations, producing this ridiculous nonsensical sum rather than the actual amount Britain received.
Do your own research and writing next time instead of relying on AI. This is utterly embarrassing.
This isn't about slavery at all
If it was, these campaigners would be fighting for the millions of Africans in MODERN slavery
This is a cash grab by the Caribbean and an attack on Britain & The West by activists
No one today is a victim of Britain's slave trade
Academia is ROTTEN to the core. Our CORRUPT universities are dangerous for young minds and are destroying Britain
So says @ProfNFenton, author of "The Capture of Academia"
A leading academic for 47 years, Prof. Fenton reveals the sinister truth
WATCH: https://t.co/9Kz3gIZcCN
No to reparations.
@RafHM
Mikhail Gorbachev in his final days as Communist Secretary General
Margaret Thatcher a few times
Mother Teresa
Oscar Peterson shortly before his death
Prince Philip
Charles III
Diana
Mary Soames, daughter of Sir Winston Churchill (I was her occasional chaperone and was captivated by her stories of spending Christmas with the Roosevelts in the White House, meeting Joseph Stalin etc.)
Who’s the most famous person you’ve ever spoken to?
Not “seen from far away” — actually talked to, even for a minute.
A quick hello, a handshake, a normal conversation… and you still remember it.
Who was it?
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.4M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers