Anglophobic Americans: why?

The question is not rhetorical; I am genuinely asking, but given the paucity of comments I may not get answers. So let’s just say I am musing to myself, trying to understand why there is an ugly Anglophobia that shows itself in this country more frequently these days.

The latest example that provoked my question was an internet post that I’ve quoted a portion of. It was directed at an (apparently) British commenter who merely said he liked the British health care system. The following rant (excuse the foul language; it’s the anglophobe’s, not mine) appeared as a response:

“…Your ability to manufacture is for shit. You can’t even make a decent automobile. I mean, what the fuck do you folks even do that carries any global impact. Last time I was in an electronics store, most of your stuff sucked ass. Going to an average grocery store, or electronics store is like a 1950′s version of an American one. The packaging of your grocery items is old fashioned and stupid. You can’t even make a milkshake. It’s like a special item, if you can find it.

Stop trying to brag about anything contemporary and British. Your political system sucks ass. You finally got your wits about you with Brexit, but it’s too little, too late. You’re a cultural and demographic dead man walking. The first thing any successful entertainer does when they hit pay dirt is to get the hell out of your country.

By the way, the mean little fat fuck you’re so proud of, Winston Churchill, tricked us into getting involved in a stupid civil war he helped to orchestrate, and for what? What did all the Americans die for? On those fucking beaches Hitler ran your silly asses off of at the get-go? So you could establish a Muslim Caliphate that used to be London? And who pays to defend your country now, when push comes to shove?

WE do. If you had to pay for a military that wasn’t a joke, your “free” health benefits would not be free.

And speaking of your great insurance that you’re taxed up the ass for, many of your inhabitants teeth are still atrocious. Out in your hinterlands, Brits can still be found with giant misshapen heads, under serviced jawlines, and every other manifestation of concentrated inbreeding, even after all these years.

In short, you’ve been a bunch of fucking two-faced assholes since 1770′s, and your shit hasn’t changed.

So… quit trying to feed our sociopath liberals blank ammunition by bragging about your stupid insurance plans. Your country is on welfare. We’re carrying your fat brit asses.

Shut up, and show some respect.”

I think it’s a shame that nobody told this foul-mouthed misanthrope to ‘shut up and show some respect‘, or at least some civility and manners. But I keep forgetting, those things are considered strictly optional in this mean and cynical age, in fact, foul language and ugliness seem to be de rigueur online.

People are entitled to their opinions about anything and anyone; individuals or groups of people included. But it’s possible to express criticisms without resorting to adolescent personal insults and without bringing in irrelevant points — the discussion was supposed to be about immigration and environmentalism, by the way. Obviously this person who wrote the rant was seething with animus towards English/British people. Why are British people’s ‘bad teeth’ (a popular insult these days) and alleged unattractiveness brought up?  Or their lack of ability to make a milkshake (!)? Who develops grudges over such things? What kind of person writes online rants about such trifling irrelevancies? Apparently the kind with an unhealthy obsession with a certain country and people. Anyway what are the chances that this man has ever set foot in Britain?

He says in the full text of his post that Britain is a ‘dead’ country because of demographics, but  factually we here in the United States have a greater percentage of ”diversity”, and more immigrants and ‘refugees’ streaming in. Pot, meet kettle. We are likewise in trouble. Why do Americans gloat about the impending doom of Europe, especially Britain? As if we don’t face the same crisis. Many Americans are in denial: reminds me of Carl Sandburg’s poem with the lines ”We are the greatest city, the greatest nation; nothing like us ever was.”

If you read much online, on blogs or forums or social media you find lots of personal animus, often directed at random targets. Everybody is bold and brave online, because you don’t have to see your “enemy” or your target face to face and risk getting an equally hostile response. The Internet, unfortunately, has done a lot to destroy civility and to escalate divisions within our country as well as in the world at large. I can see some of the anger over ideological divisions, especially with the increasingly unhinged and psychotic left pushing conflict. But since when did Americans dislike British or English people just because of who they are? Just since the days of the Internet?

I’d bet the Anglophobia which is so rife now is mainly coming from people whose ancestors had some grievance against England, people whose countries were conquered or defeated by England, or under English rule. There is a lot of resentment resulting from that, many generations after the fact. Shades of the ‘legacy of slavery and discrimination.’ It’s the same kind of complaints heard from blacks or Mexicans about things that happened long ago.

Then there are the maleducated Americans who somehow think that the English were some kind of foreign invaders during the Revolutionary War. There are some Americans who don’t seem to get the fact that the colonists were, for the most part, English by ancestry, and saw themselves as English, though born in the colonies. Maybe this is because the educational propaganda teaches students that America was diverse from day one, and that all sorts of people took part in the making of America; that the English colonists were just one group amongst many multi-ethnic colonists — so naturally they don’t see why the British felt they had any claim here.

And I’ve encountered quite a few Americans who are primarily German by descent who are resentful that they did not possess America (“did you know that this country almost chose German as the official language?”) and angry that German-Americans were ‘persecuted’ during the two world wars. I think the commenter’s bitter reference to the world wars indicates German ancestry, though that mindset is rife among many Americans now.

Between the various ethnic immigrant descendants, and the partisans of the ‘Celtic South’ who equate Anglo-Saxons with ‘Puritan Yankees’: the Enemy — Anglo-Saxons can’t get any good PR these days. There seem to be few real friends of Anglo-Saxons in the U.S. nowadays, or those in our mother country, England.

Part of the motivation for this blog was to offer some historical background, and to speak up for the old-stock English-descended Americans — but it seems a fruitless effort, with so few kindred souls out there. Or is it that there are just too few willing to stand up and be counted?

Personally I’m ashamed of fellow Americans like the commenter who wrote the diatribe I quoted above. The Ugly American of the 1950s lives on, if the numbers of similar comments are any indication. And is there any solution, or must it just get worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Britain ‘always multilingual’?

Well, of course England has always been ‘multilingual’ if it was ‘always multiracial’ as the true-believing multicultist academics assert.

In fact the blogger who wrote the article quoted at the link claims that all of the British Isles were ‘multilingual’, always. And the blogger, who is a British academic, boasts of how many re-tweets she got when she tweeted this assertion (to rebut the contrary claims of a Brexit supporter). She says she got over 600 retweets and ‘1,500 likes’. How many of those likes and re-tweets  were from immigrants? Probably a majority, and the rest were true-believing multicultis, many of them probably fellow academics, maybe colleagues of hers.

The blogger (whom I will not link) also disparages Richard Spenser, calling him a ‘White supremacist’ and alludes to others of like mind, and presumably Spencer himself, as a ‘racist’. I am certain she would include me in that category as well; anybody who actually believes England and the British Isles to have been historically White is called a “racist” by the left. Stating that simple fact is prima facie evidence of ”racism” in their (bigoted) book. Spencer’s tweet:

spencer tweet_2017-10-10_232822

The blogger claims it isn’t clear which ‘invasion of the British Isles’ Spencer is talking about. Actually, Ms Academic, he says his ancestors ‘conquered England’ not ‘invaded the British Isles.‘ Rather an important distinction there. I thought precision and accuracy were important to scholars, but apparently not these days, or not when scoring points against vile racists. Sloppy use of language there, Madame Professor.

England is not identical with Britain, nor is England interchangeable with ‘the British Isles’. Invading is not conquering. Apparently Spenser is implying he is a descendant of the Normans who conquered England in 1066. His surname would imply that anyway; the name Spencer is from the Norman ‘De Spencer’ or ‘Le Despenser’, surnames which figure prominently at certain points in English history. Lots of descendants of that Norman family live here in the U.S., at least judging from the commonness of that surname.

So Richard Spencer is saying that he is a descendant of Normans and that people like him belong more truly to England than the current tide of immigrants and ‘refugees’ who are making Britain (not just England) a multiracial, multilingual, true Tower of Babel.

As for Richard Spencer himself, I’m ambivalent about him. Is he, as some say, an ‘operative’, a plant, or otherwise not to be trusted? A self-promoter? I don’t know. However, this universal leftist practice of calling anyone who is not an anti-White leftist a ”white supremacist” and ”racist” is wrong. I would think that a professor, an academic and ”scholar” should use language with precision, and use words accurately. This rhetoric of calling ideological enemies ‘racists’ and ‘supremacists’ is either carelessness with words, or it is malicious misuse of words, using them as weapons. But then the word ‘racist’ was invented by leftists in the late 1930s for precisely that purpose: to discredit people who held traditional attitudes about their race and people, to criminalize or ”demonize” normal bonds between kinsmen.

Being patriotic and loyal to one’s own folk or race is not ‘supremacist’; if so, most of the world’s normal people are ‘supremacists’ of their own race, and ”racists” to boot. There should be a term for people who want ‘people of color’ to dominate the planet; what should they be called? Because make no mistake, the left wants to ensure that White people dwindle in numbers to the point of insignificance, or to see that they become mixed  to the point of disappearing into the ‘rising tide of color’ as Lothrop Stoddard, I think, termed the growing numbers of nonwhites.

The blogger and her kind are people ”without natural affections”, to use a phrase from the Bible, without normal emotional ties to their own kind, and especially without loyalties to their living folk and their ancestors. Their progeny will, if they have their way, will either be absorbed into the nonwhite population, and probably have no knowledge of their White ancestry, or they will live as miserable outcastes in a majority-nonwhite world.

As for the rest of the blogger’s piece, it’s the usual academic twaddle meant to promote the globalist/leftist agenda and narrative, and to discredit anyone who is a ‘linguistic nationalist’, because being a nationalist in any way may indicate that the target is guilty of being an ethnopatriot.

The rights of Englishmen and ‘gun culture’

I see that there is an interesting piece at Identity Dixie, titled ‘Colonial American Gun Culture and the Rights of Englishmen.’ The writer notes the difference between the laws on firearm possession in the original colonies. The background and history of this makes for interesting reading.

And as the piece indicates, the right to bear arms stems from the notion of the obligation to bear arms.  Read the rest at Identity Dixie.

As I implied in my recent piece touching on this subject, it’s more than ironic that our kinsmen in Britain no longer have what we considered the ‘rights of Englishmen’, including the right to bear arms.

More bans of UK nationalist parties

As reported on the Heritage and Destiny blog, the British ‘Terrorism Act’ has been framed in such a way that it is being used against nationalist parties and political groups in the UK.  The former leader of the National Action party, Jack Renshaw, is now in prison:

 Former NA activist Jack Renshaw is in Preston prison on remand, awaiting charges for alleged membership of a ‘terrorist’ group; several serving British soldiers were arrested for alleged NA membership a few weeks ago in a still mysterious case; and this week several individuals seen as the former leaders of NA were similarly arrested, though not yet charged.

British media coverage, such as the linked stories above, are very biased and make the accused men out to be dangerous, not to mention loathsome. Imagine the inflammatory language they used in describing the accused being used to describe the people arrested in connection with actual terrorism. I’m inclining towards believing You Tube blogger BritGirl’s assertion that the EU signed a pact, creating a Euro-Mediterranean Project, which  guaranteed mass immigration from Islamic countries, and implicitly gave some kind of privileged status to the immigrants in Europe. How else can we explain the servile behavior of our political classes toward Islam and their apparent animus towards their own people, the people they supposedly represent? It can’t all be incompetence and fecklessness.

The article in Heritage and Destiny indicates that there is some kind of impending crackdown on Islamic extremist groups and that for the sake of ‘even-handedness’ some home-grown nationalists will be targeted as well.

In our country I see no such crackdown, but it does seem as though even the mildest action that might be construed as anti-Moslem (such as Trump’s proposed temporary travel ban involving a few Moslem nations) was thwarted by leftist judges. The Islamic lobby in the U.S., exemplified by CAIR, is very vocal in denouncing ‘Islamophobia’. Our political leaders have all ritually denounced the ‘alt-right’ and ‘White supremacists’ but would they dare denounce Islamic extremists, or even our home-grown antifas and extremist leftists?

Whether these actions in Britain against nationalist groups are an ominous sign of less freedom of thought and speech, or whether they are just an effort to avoid accusations of Islamophobia, remains to be seen.

It does seem as though freedoms throughout former Christendom are shrinking.

 

Misunderstanding between cousins

One of the issues which brings out a stark contrast in opinions between Americans and our cousins in Britain is the issue of the American ‘right to bear arms,’, per our Second Amendment.

I see that Theresa May, British Prime Minister, is now lecturing Americans, attempting to shame or browbeat us into adopting restrictions on firearms, along the lines of the British laws. With all due respect, she should keep her opinions to herself. Britain itself is not the safe country it once was, and the allegedly ‘conservative’ Ms May should clean up her own backyard before meddling in the affairs of other countries. Didn’t the pakistani Mayor of London recently tell his constituents that violence/terror attacks were ”part and parcel of life in a big city” in the current year?

I don’t agree with Khan’s cavalier attitude about violence, or his blasé acceptance of danger as normal. In a civilized society that kind of violence — or the kind of violence we have here in the U.S., should not be acceptable.

It’s well-known by most people, at least most people who are not deluded leftists, that countries which have gun control (Canada and Britain for example) are not peaceful utopias as the gun control advocates want us to believe.

“Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].

Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There’s no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]”

I have found in discussing this issue with British people that many of them are vehement about gun control; they believe their country is better and more civilized by having such restrictions, and conversely that Americans are backward and barbaric because in general, most of us strongly support our right to bear arms and to act in self-defense should the need arise. Many of our British kinsmen can’t or won’t understand our point of view, and get visibly irate at our insistence on our right to bear arms. To be fair there are English people (and people in the rest of Britain) who are dissident rightists, English nationalists (yes, they do exist) and others. They would like to see their right to bear arms reinstated and their right to self-defense recognized, not punished, as in the case of Tony Martin, a British farmer imprisoned for shooting a burglar in his house.

But Britain was not always a pacifistic, gun-phobic country. In times past gun ownership, if only for sport, gun ownership was widespread.

The piece linked above gives us a good summary of how Britain was disarmed.

“In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England”. However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever “gun control” law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.”

It was done gradually, incrementally, over the space of decades, starting around the turn of the 20th century and continuing unto the present day. We can learn a lesson from what happened in Britain: beware of these little restrictions that too often lead towards a complete ban. The leftists always work this way, although in recent times it seems that they are impatient and are speeding up their efforts to eliminate our freedoms. It seems they are feeling emboldened and are ready to stop soft-pedaling their agenda and to drop any pretense of being ‘moderate’ or reasonable.

Sadly it seems that decades of socialist/leftist programming has changed the traditional attitudes of the English/British people so that they actively oppose their time-honored  freedoms in many cases, and they truly don’t understand why we Americans want to retain ours.

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

The English love of liberty is often alluded to by many idealistic writers; I once thought that we are our father’s progeny and that the love of liberty was part of our genetic inheritance. Our American Founding Fathers, aware of their English ancestry, spoke of the ‘rights of Englishmen’ as part of their birthright. Now if only the English could shake off the leftist programming and determine to reclaim their rights as Englishmen.

But our English cousins, like us, lack good leadership. There seems to be no political party that represents the rightful people of England or Britain, just as White Americans have no political party that truly represents us and defends our interests. We have no leadership worthy of the name; no charismatic statesmen or orators, no ‘Grey Champions.’

Just as with Americans, I think what is needed for the British is to reclaim their history and their identity as a people; as the rightful heirs of Britain and not as second-class subjects in a multicultural, polyglot globalist province.

Disarming a people does something to their spirit and psyche, I think. The following quote is from a British republican tract, Political Disquisitions, published in 1774:

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”

And Joel Barlow said this, of disarming the citizenry, that it

“…has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. ”  from Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93

 

Old Scandinavian influence on the English

The writer of the following piece, from a 1908 issue of Mentor Magazine, believes the old Scandinavians had more influence on the English spirit or character than is generally thought.

ScandinavianInfluenceOnEnglishRace_MentorMagazine1908

The writer appears to have a less-than-admiring attitude towards the Anglo-Saxons, who are now popularly thought to be the most significant element of the English folk and their character. The article’s writer believes the Danes and Norwegians are the source of the characteristics we associate with the English.

But we have to wonder what happened to the “bold, independent character” of the Scandinavians, as they seem to have developed in recent years into a passive, docile people unwilling to oppose the invasion of their countries and the imposition of what appears to be second-class status on the native Scandinavians. But then again, this kind of condition seems to be almost universal across Europe, and for that matter in all countries which were originally made up of European-descended people.

I often wonder about this question: is the character or the spirit of a people genetic, and if so, is it passed down through generations — or can it be subverted by means of propaganda, dysgenics, and what amounts to psychological/spiritual warfare? Could the original character of these peoples re-assert itself, or can it be restored by conscious effort? Can decades, even centuries or manipulation be reversed?

Questions.

I would like to think that the original spirit of a people is dormant, not extinguished forever, and that given the right conditions it can be resurgent. But it remains to be seen.

L.A. Waddell on origins of Britons

L.A. Waddell, in a 1914 book, The Phoenician Origins of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons, offers another view on the question of where the peoples of Britain originated. Needless to say, the theories held back in Waddell’s day are not politically correct, but I think books like his, with their refreshingly different way of viewing the past, are worth reading, if only to remind ourselves that the current dogmas are not proven fact. There are different ways to look at the evidence available, and doing so requires opening the mind to alternative ideas, outside the accepted ‘BBC’/PC version of Britain’s past.

In any case, here’s the link to the Archive.org version of the book, for anyone interested.

Who founded London?

I’ve been reading an old book called The Antiquary’s Portfolio. It’s about literary and historical curiosities in Great Britain “during the Middle and Latter Ages.” I haven’t had a chance to read the entire book, but it is mostly concerned with ‘manners, morals and customs’ though it does touch on government as well.

The descriptions of London from past eras is interesting to read, and it brings a wistful feeling to think about the London of recent years vs. the London of the past. There’s a description of the city and its people in the time of Henry II, as seen by a monk called William Fitz-Stephen:

Among the noble cities of the world, honoured by fame, the city of London is the one principal seat of the kingdom of England, whose renown is spread abroad very far; but she transporteth her wares and commodities much farther, and advanceth her head so much the higher. Happy she is in the wholesomeness of the air, in the Christian religion, her munition also and strength, the nature of her situation, the honour of her citizens, the chastity of her matrons. Very pleasant also in her sports and pastimes, and replenished with honourable personages, all which I think meet proper severally to consider.

Temperateness of the Air.

In this place the calmness of the air doth mollify men’s minds, not corrupting them with venereal lusts, but preserving them from savage and rude behaviour, and seasoning their inclinations with a more kind and free temper.”

And later in the same account:

“According to the reports of the chronicles, London is more ancient than the city of Rome; both being descended from the same Trojan stock; Brute builded this, before Remus and Romulus did the other. Whence still it uses the same ancient laws and common institutions. “The city is honoured with her men, graced with her arms, and peopled with a multitude of inhabitants.

[…]The citizens of London are known in all places, and respected above all other citizens for their civil demeanor, their good apparel, their table, and their discourse.”

[…] “The only plagues of London are immoderate drinking of idle fellows, and frequent fires.”

I’ve heard the stories before about Brutus of Troy being the founder of London and that the British people derive their name from this same man, who is described in some accounts as the “first King of Britain.” Is it true? It’s interesting to contemplate.

Some of this lore is considered less than credible because it has a ‘fringe element’ reputation, based on the way it is presented by some of its proponents. But what if there is at least a grain of truth in it? There are those who believe, too that Rome itself had Trojan origins.

It’s easy to dismiss this kind of speculation but simply observing how most branches of science have become so politicized and driven by political correctness, (the dishonesty and denial around HBD, the claims that ‘race does not exist’, the media lies about ‘diversity’ being part of Britain from the beginning — none of this inspires confidence in the pronouncements of the scientific establishment.

And then there’s the manipulation of data and the collusion among climate scientists regarding ‘Anthropogenic global warming’, climate change, or whatever they are calling it.

As to the origins of Europeans, we’re to believe that we all came “out of Africa” but that theory is obviously following the politically correct dogma, and seems intended to foster the idea that ‘we are all the same’.  This article casting doubt on the official story appeared seven years ago, and yet the scientific establishment clings to their script, ignoring any contradictory evidence.

So for me, the idea that the original ‘Britons’ may have come from Troy is not implausible.

The traditions in Britain about Brutus of Troy, ‘Gog and Magog’, the giants, and the rest of the ‘legends’ go to make up part of a rich folklore, and it serves a function in a culture. I would rather believe the supposed myths, especially those involving the heroes like King Arthur, who lies sleeping until the hour of England’s need.

Rather that, than the BBC’s fantasy about an always-multiracial Britain, and a black Robert de Beaumont arriving with William the Conqueror. It doesn’t get more absurd than that.

British genetics, again

This issue of the genetic makeup of the people(s) of Britain is never settled, what with the Cultural Marxists constantly producing bogus scientific reports about the genetics of Britain. Recently it was the absurd BBC series depicting Africans and other non-European people in Roman Britain, and the defense of those falsehoods by lady academic Mary Beard.

(Incidentally, has anyone noticed how biased the search engines are? Since Goolag Google has the search engine market cornered, and all the alternative search engines use Google’s results (minus the spying and data collection, supposedly) it is hard to find anything that strays off the PC reservation. The hits I got searching the Mary Beard/BBC story are all very much pro-BBC, pro-PC, and anti-reality. Truth is getting scarce.)

And thus, given the lack of regard for the truth, especially where race and genetics are concerned, this battle goes on.

Reading some Internet discussions it’s discouraging to see that so many people buy the falsehoods — because the people who control the media, academia, and even much of the Internet want the truth to be extinguished and the lies to prevail. They are ethnocidal towards people of European descent; if they could, they would efface even the memory of our folk, and that explains, in part, the pulling down of monuments and the re-writing of history to wildly exaggerate both the presence and the importance of everybody but European-descended people. In some cases, the exaggeration becomes outright lying, and this seems to happen more and more now.

But as a counter to those lies, here’s a useful piece from the West Hunter blog.

“Some archaeologists apparently think that there was a lot of diversity in Roman Britain, which means black people. There’s zero hard evidence of a single one. Which doesn’t prove that some Nubian with a serious case of wanderlust didn’t end up in Londinium, but it can’t have been common, and possibly it never happened at all. Ancient DNA could settle the question once and for all.”

The writer addresses the source of some of the misinformation, a craniometric analysis program called FORDISC. The writer concludes it is not that reliable, which is consistent with the evaluation at the link. So those who claim they have ‘proof’ of African ancestry in Britain do not have such proof, as of now.

This link also cites other studies done in the past which refute the idea of ancient ‘diversity’ in the British gene pool, some of which studies I’ve cited in the past here on this blog.

There has been a persistent trope that ‘the British are a mongrel nation’ or a ‘mixed nation’, and that story just won’t die. I have to put some of it down to Anglophobia, based in part on envy of the British successes and accomplishments in the world. Envy is a powerful emotion and resentments don’t abate quickly. I don’t know if these stories can be finally defeated in the struggle for the ”narrative”; maybe if the anti-White, antifa faction finally is shut down, their distortions of history and reality itself will be seen for what they are, or so we can only hope. Meantime we have to do what we can to answer the lies. It’s the least we can do.

William Barnes, English ‘lingual conservative’

English scholar William Barnes on his reasons for seeking to ‘purify’ the English language:

“I am a lingual conservative’, and it is therefore that I wish to see a purer, and more self-enriched tongue, instead of being a jargon of four or five others.” – from Gentleman’s Quarterly, ‘Formation of the English Language’, 1833

I suppose you might call Barnes a ‘lingual nationalist’, in that he believed that English people should speak the English language, and that their language was unique, and deserved preservation in its original form, as much as possible.

He campaigned against the tendency, especially among the learned, to use Latinate words or other foreign words, where a good straightforward English word would do. He immersed himself in the various folk-dialects of England, mainly that of Dorset, which he thought was one of the purest, that is, most truly folk-English, dialects, freest from the foreign influences. Though many educated people thought of regional and especially rural dialects as being simply corrupted or ignorant forms of the standard speech, Barnes and others like him recognized that they were a sort of language of their own, and that they were just as valid forms of speech as the language taught in schools, maybe even more so, given the artificial, foreign-influenced modern English.

Interestingly for Americans, some of the older, Anglo-Saxon words and phrases were brought to this country by the first colonists, and persisted here whereas they were replaced in the mother country by Latinate words. The most widely-known example is our word ‘fall‘, for the season of the year we are now entering. Of course standard British English uses the Latin-derived ‘autumn’. The French word is ‘automne‘, so maybe this word entered the English language via Norman French.

In Barnes’ own words, quoted in the book, William Barnes, Linguist, by Willis D. Jacobs

Barnes on English lng changes_2017-09-11_031033

I can agree to a great extent with Barnes. Maybe it’s a romantic notion, not easy to prove in a ‘scientific’ way, but it seems that the language of a folk is a reflection of the soul or spirit of that people, or at least of their collective mind. I don’t know that Barnes promoted any such theory, so I’m not attributing that belief to him, but it seems he thought that the folk-speech of the people should be preserved; maybe because it is distinct and peculiar to that people and their way of life.

I think of the English language as being a very rich language, in part because of the Latin/Norman French contribution to the vocabulary, so I am not as inclined to try to ‘cleanse’ those influences from the English language, and from a strictly practical point of view, it would be very hard to do that, and I don’t think our current cultural Marxist educational system would wish to make the English language more ‘exclusive’ and less inclusive. If anything, the educational establishment wants to ‘globalize’ and ‘enrich’ our language with more ‘diverse’ elements.

Still, there’s nothing stopping ethnopatriots and ethnonationalists from consciously reviving some of our ancestors’ (or, as Barnes would have us call them, our ‘fore-elders‘) words. In fact a good many of those old English phrases or terms, surviving in various dialects, are still in usage, at least in the United States. For example: “outskirts”, for ‘environs’ or outlying areas, “neighbourhood” for ‘vicinity’, or “upshot” for conclusion. Those examples are from a list of his, quoted in ‘William Barnes, Linguist.’

Many of the words that Barnes recommends are compound words, made from two single-syllable English words, and are therefore easy to understand, even if we haven’t heard them used before. For instance, ‘Forewit’ for caution or prudence.  ‘Hindersome‘ means obstructive. ‘Earth-tillage‘ is self-explanatory.

The King James Bible seems to use a lot of simple English terms, as in this verse:

“The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.” Ps. 121:8

I think the word ‘preserve‘ may be the only non-English derived word there.

George Watson writes here on the ‘dual origins’ of English, that is, its Germanic origins and its later ‘Romance’ influence. He mentions the issue that Barnes was concerned with in his time: that the less-educated classes, the ordinary folk, do not usually speak the more literary kind of English, and even educated people fall back on the Germanic English words when in a more informal setting.

“The British filter their language, both in speaking and writing, using Germanic words for popular or childish conversation and admitting Romance words for learned and technical usage—or for ironic effect. If that amounts to a mild national difference between Britain and the United States, that is because Americans often have a fainter sense of the double derivation of English and are in consequence more polysyllabic.

[…] Since Romance terms often reflect a higher rank, or education, or state of sophistication, they can boast a higher prestige than Germanic; though there are exceptions, and in the days of the U and non-U controversy it was diverting to be reminded that Germanic “napkin” is of higher standing than Romance “serviette.” Another is a difference of length. There are rather few Romance monosyllables in English; and exceptions like the verb “to pant” are somehow surprising to learn. (The word is ultimately related to Greek “phantasia.”) Much of our Germanic vocabulary, by contrast, has been left as words of one syllable, as a consequence of the collapse of English terminal inflections in the later Middle Ages.”

This is what strikes me about many of the memorable passages in the King James Bible, like the psalm I quoted above: the plain, one-syllable words, with their simplicity.

I confess I like the richness of the full English vocabulary, which may extend to over 400,000 words.  But how many people make use of this array of words?

The February 14, 2000, issue of Time magazine reported some disturbing news: in 1950 the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words. By 1999, the average 14-year-old’s vocabulary had dropped to only 10,000 words, less than half. This is disturbing because a person’s vocabulary reflects his or her overall general knowledge.

It seems few people really use the full treasury of words that is the English language. Is this in part because, as Barnes said, the ‘educated’ form of our language is inaccessible to a good many people? Would ‘reforming’ our language amount to dumbing it down even further, or would it remove some of the communication problems between the more educated and intelligent, and the less gifted? But wait; we’re all supposed to be equal in capacity for learning, and equally able to achieve.

Any attempt to reform our language would be out of the question for the cultural Marxists who are in charge; it’s too loaded with sociological implications. Still, Barnes’ ideas were interesting and he did a great service to English speakers by recording and preserving these old words and dialects, and offering new coinages.