Ncuti Gatwa - Doctor Who - Scottish Not British - and Russell T Davies's Past Form...

So, Doctor Who, now led again by racist Welshman Russell T Davies (witness some of his insular Welsh anti-Englishness via the article here) is "Rwandan-Scottish", not Rwandan-British? Does not compute. 

The first black guy to play the Doctor and he comes from a country of five million, who enjoy the elitist Barnett Formula (reviled by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett), exercising the West Lothian Question, the fake, racist Celtic victimhood nonsense, and all the benefits of asymmetric national devolution. And Ncuti is the FOURTH actor from that country of five million souls (in a nation of over sixty million) to play the Doctor, and this is supposed to be celebrated?

Nope. If his family had come to England, he'd probably say he was British. He'd have it rammed down his throat, as we all do in England. As he's not and doesn't view himself as such, this is obviously not about inclusivity, it's about exclusivity, Russell T Davies's evil agenda against the largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) 'UK' country, England, would do the Toymaker he nicked from original Who in 'The Giggle' proud.

I think the show is now made in Wales - a country of three million souls - yet the vast majority of BBC licence fee payers don't live there, do they?

Did anybody else notice that Davies's Isaac Newton, a white Englishman, was race-swapped? But the Scots inventor John Logie-Baird, was left white? But surely the Scots were disproportionately involved in the British Empire? Why not do a little tweaking there, RTD? Don't they deserve a sanctimonious rewriting too? Nope. Scotland is part of RTD's fake fraternity of Celtic Nations and so, historically, MUST remain white.

When a Woke person claims they are all for inclusivity, do check if they're Scottish or Welsh. The vast majority of the time they'll probably be fine. But, while Tommy Robinson, etc, make the news, the racism of the smaller countries is far more rampant, infects our whole system of government, yet often slips under the radar.

Investigate. You might just discover that all is not what it seems.

The Irish Times On The Fake Celtic Culture Which Produces So Much Discrimination In The Modern UK

                                              

The man who launched the UK's poisonous Celtic myth in 1707 - Edward Lhuyd.

Yesterday, we were asked by an American plastic Celt why we negated the 'Celtic culture' of the UK? It was the same as negating the handed-down history of any tribe, she said. Actually not. The passing of time will blur things - and what has been handed down for generations will usually be slightly inaccurate at least - but still have a ring of truth. 

However, the UK 'Celts' were not a tribe. They didn't exist until 1707 and since then this horrible fake 'thing' has become an industry and a way of practising racism. Which is how England, the largest and most multi-ethnic country of the UK, suffers the Barnett Formula (reviled by its own creator, the late Lord Joel Barnett), the West Lothian Question and asymmetric national devolution.

By the way, the American plastic Celt began her conversation quite reasonably, she was, apparently, terribly excited about an American university study, but then ended up squawking that Scotland was a unified nation long before England, that the English did not exist until Medieval times, and so on.

These people often pose as academics, but if you demur a few times, their anti-English, racist nonsense comes billowing forth.

Somebody else in that thread, another apparent academic, ended up calling us a 'bitch'.

Fortunately, we're thick skinned.

We've found this brilliant article by Fintan O'Toole of the Irish Times. It's a few years old, and we hope he won't mind us reproducing it here - it covers the 'Celtic' industry fabulously. Our thanks to him:

Culture Shock 

Fintan O'Toole:

The first of a weekly column looks at a great Irish cultural secret: we aren't really Celtic and there never was a Celtic invasion 

There is a great secret in Irish culture. Like most Irish secrets, it is known to a lot of people. Most of them are archaeologists, and few of them like to utter it outside of their own circles. The reluctance is understandable - the secret undermines a thriving industrial conglomerate with branches in the arts, intellectual life, religion, sport, tourism, politics, popular entertainment and consumer marketing. The conglomerate's brand name is Celtic. From the Celtic Twilight to the Celtic Tiger, from Celtic spirituality to Celtic jewellery, from Glasgow Celtic to the Boston Celtics, from Celtic Woman to the Celtic Tenors, from Celtic Sheepskin (ugg boots a speciality) to Celtic castles (all built by the Normans), from Celtic Crest spring water to Celtic crosses, it covers a vast variety of images and products. It is so powerful that when Enda Kenny recently referred to Ireland as a "Celtic and Christian" society, the second part of the phrase raised far more hackles than the first. 

The secret of Celtic Ireland is that it is all bogus. There never was a Celtic invasion of Ireland or Britain. The Celtic identity of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany dates back, not to the mists of time, but to 1707. The Welsh scholar Edward Lhuyd, keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, published a book called The Antiquities of Nations, More particularly of the Celtae or Gauls, Taken to be Originally the same People as Our Ancient Britains (sic). Lhuyd, brilliantly, argued that Gaelic, Cornish, Breton and Welsh were related to the language spoken by the ancient Gauls. He called these languages "Celtic" (largely because the term Gallic then denoted the hated French) and suggested that they had spread to Britain and Ireland through migration. 

 In an intellectual culture saturated with classical learning, the link with the "Keltoi" who had invaded ancient Greece, and with the Gauls whom Caesar slaughtered and described, was flattering, not least in Ireland. Instead of being marginal people, we were the remnants of an ancient and once all-powerful European civilisation. With the rise of 19th-century cultural nationalism, this ready-made genealogy, with its neat racial distinction between Celts and Saxons, was far too useful to be refused. In an era obsessed with so-called scientific racism, it provided a seemingly natural case for Irish independence. The Celtic Twilight (or as that rare sceptic James Joyce called it, the Cultic Twalette) added a rich layer of modern cultural prestige. The bandwagon was rolling and new forces - New Age mysticism, the American search for roots, pan-European sentiment - keep giving it a push. 

Even the archaeologists who know the truth have a certain interest in not stating it too bluntly: putting the word Celtic in your title gets you a lot more sales beyond academe, even when what you're actually saying is that the Celts never got here.

But they all know about the great absence. There is an Iron Age material culture that is evident in findings from northern Europe between Paris and Prague. It is named after a site in Switzerland called La Tène and is associated with what we call the Celts (there is no evidence that these people ever used the term or even identified themselves as a single ethnic group). 

And none of the things you would find if these people invaded or migrated to Ireland - their pots, their houses, their burial-sites, their coins, their horse-fittings - exist here. There are high-end La Tène-style objects, but virtually all of them are of recognisably local manufacture. As Barry Raftery, one of the leading authorities on Iron Age Ireland, puts it of the presumed Celtic invasion, "It seems strange that a warrior aristocracy supposedly responsible for imposing so many aspects of its culture on the indigenous population . . . should have had almost no impact on the archaeological record." 

In fact, what both archaeology and genetic studies show is continuity - broadly the same people who built Newgrange continuing to inhabit the island, speaking a version of the language of the Atlantic seaboard from which they had originated. What did happen in the Iron Age is that an emergent aristocracy began to adopt the international style they knew from trade and other contacts. Local craft-workers produced their own versions of Celtic chic - a bit like us copying Gucci or Prada. It was a way for the knobs to distinguish themselves from the yobs. As the archaeologist Simon Jones puts it, "'Celtic art' . . . is not a marker of ethnic identity but of status, wealth, and power". If we are Celts today because our elites developed a taste for continental bling, then half the denizens of Foxrock and Montenotte are Italians. 

The survival, and indeed thriving, of bogus Celticism owes something to the relative timidity of the archaeological establishment and a lot more to the sheer utility of the term. Baggy, mystical, touched with the glamour of oppression, a useful way of alluding to white ethnicity without sounding overtly racist, it sprinkles a dust of profundity on much that is mediocre and meaningless. It is greatly to the credit of Irish artists that, after the first flush of the Cultic Twalette, most of them kept well away from it. This has given "Celtic" one useful artistic connotation - as a synonym for "bad".

The Highly Inclusive 'Anglo Saxons' and 'Ancient Britons' of England & The Highly Exclusive 'Scots' of Scotland...

'One Scotland' - but you have to be a Scot - not British, or English, or Bulgarian or...

I remember at school in the 1970s being told by my history teacher that the Anglo Saxons invaded what is now England, chased out the Ancient Brits, and took it for themselves. All the Ancient Brits (a retrospective naming - they didn't call themselves that - they were not a unified nation) ran off to Scotland and Wales.

'But how were they driven out?' I frowned. 'There was no technology to practise warfare on that scale - or genocide. The Anglo Saxons' boats would have been pretty small. They were not arriving here in their thousands, wave upon wave, all at the same time.'

My history teacher sighed. 'Well, that's what the historians say...' he said. And that was it.

Of course, I wasn't satisfied. Were historians all asses? I wondered.

As it happened, some historians shared my logic, even back then...

Flip forward to the 21st Century, and DNA evidence proves that the Ancient Brits didn't decamp in any large numbers at all. They actually married Anglo Saxons, and remained by far the majority DNA provider (Anglo Saxons markers in traditional English bloodlines are 10 to 40% - depending on the part of England). The Anglo Saxons were a minority. The mix of Ancient Brits, Angles and Saxons produced part of the rich brew that was the early English - and is the basis for England, the country.

Now, if the Anglo Saxons ruled the Ancient Brits with rods of iron and imposed their culture on them, why were they marrying them within a century? The arrival of the Anglo Saxons marked a great sea change here, but they would not have eradicated all other forms of culture already existing.

This throws up many interesting questions about the origins of English culture, which historians will be slow to grasp (don't rattle their settled view/offend any 'Celtic' sensibilities) but will, no doubt become a subject of more and more interest.

But the 'Celtic' thing has only been in motion since the 1700s and DNA studies show it to be a fallacy - an invention. 

It's the fusion of the Ancient Brits and the Anglo Saxons which formed the original English. And since them, the inclusive nature of the nation has seen many other people of different origins joining the 'family'.

The 'Celtic' cross is NOT a 'Celtic' Cross. It is an ancient British cross which has been appropriated by various racist/nationalist groups in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland. These countries/regions were never even remotely related to any 'Celtic' concept before the 1700s. These racist/nationalist groups have been trying to appropriate a lot of the traditional folklore and ancient artefacts of this island to feed their 'White Celtic' myth. None of it is true. It is not healthy. And it is not ON.

Scots Nats and Celtic myth followers are constantly showing their insecurity, insularity and racism by trying to rewrite history.

But it doesn't work.

They really just show themselves up.

Wikipedia's pages on these 'Celtic nations', and things relating to them, are becoming embarrassing to read. Works of complete fiction.

For instance, an 'article' on 'Scottish' inventions, note not British, includes the caveat that it covers all inventions invented in Scotland, whatever the origins of the inventor, even if they're 'non-Scot'  (sorry, if I invent something in Scotland it is my invention, not the country's, and I will have the patent), and all inventions of those of any 'Scottish descent ' - regardless of whatever else they are descended from - elsewhere in the world. So, they have it both ways. Be Russian and invent in Scotland and it's a 'Scottish invention', and have a Scottish great-grandfather and invent in Russia and it's a 'Scottish invention'. Now, let's say you are of English/Welsh descent but born in Scotland. That's a 'Scottish invention'. That is not inclusive. It is appropriating for fake glory.

It's all highly creepy and yet, at the same time, hilarious.

The 'Celtic' Cross has recently appeared in Stormfront literature.

Well, it's Ancient British, it belongs to anybody here to study and research, and its history does not belong to a couple of tiny groups of elitists - Scots and Welsh nationalists/White Celtic myth adherents - who have a severe chip on their shoulders - and a horribly inaccurate and exclusive view of our history.

'Scots' - Not A Language And Not 'National' Either...

According to the Scottish Government, 'Scots' - a dialect spoken in parts of Lowland Scotland - is now a language. And all the nationalistic Little Scotlanders have 'corrected' Wikipedia. They can't bear England and Wales to have something they don't. It's like spoilt children. When you took a look at Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, above. you can see the angry, bumptious, intimidating attitude which prevails all too clearly.

Small attitude. Small country. Not a good advertisement for Scotland - and not one endorsed by many Scots.

Of course, Scots Nats and some plastic Scots born abroad - desperate for lovely, rosy coloured myths of their 'homeland' (Braveheart - ahem!) - love it. The 'Woke' also flock to it. Dear little oppressed Scotland! Higher funding, far better democratic representation, a vote on whether to stay in the UK, then the right to continue swaggering and belly-aching when the vote is 'Yes'... But oppressed.

Gaelic was the language of Scotland - and is a fascinating language indeed. "Scots" is an English dialect really - like Yorkshire. Or could we jiggle it?

For a start, if 'Scots' is a language, it cannot be called 'Scots' - because it's not spread across the whole of Scotland. English is, of course, spread across the whole of England. This pricks the 'Scots' nationalistic, jingoistic bubble a little, but 'Scots' could be called 'Southern Lowlands language' perhaps - with the Highlands having a 'Northern Highlands language'?

The links of 'Scots' to England and historic Northumberland in particular? Forget it! 'Wee' is middle English and is a colloquialism for the act of urinating in some parts of England, but the Scots must have their way - logic out the window!

Of course, the UK has many dialects. But if you're going to claim 'Scots' is a language ('Aye' is an English word, by the way. Ever been to the North of England? It's even used down south!) then it cannot be a national language, because it's not used nationally. A lot of it is English, or derived from English, and it cannot be called 'Scots' because most Scots don't use it. 

It's not national.

Hope that's clear...

Scotland shows its insecurity and pettiness with this kind of illogical nonsense, nothing else.

Brick by brick, Scotland is becoming a madhouse - bursting with 'woke' mentality (England and Wales are the same on that score), fake victimhood (Wales has a dose of that too), jingoism (they were, of course, disproportionately active in colonising during the British Empire), historic revisionism, anti-English rhetoric, jealousy, and exclusivity - while pretending to love the world. But not their nearest neighbours - a far more multi-ethnic country than theirs.

And the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question and asymmetric national devolution...

A country of five million - an ever more jingoistic and deranged elite amongst its numbers - in a UK nation of how many?