Curing ‘ethnocentrism’: lessons for all of us

Before I get to the main subject matter here, I’ll just say I hope everyone out there is well and that you are staying away from the dread virus (which must not be called by an ethnic name).  Truly, readers, I hope you and yours are staying healthy.

A short while ago I wrote a piece about the state of ethnic consciousness in Sweden, after seeing a dismaying article in which some Swedish spokesman said that there was no Swedish identity, or words to that effect.

I just happened across a book published some 10 years ago by an American-born anthropologist or archaeologist in Sweden, Noel Broadbent. The book deals with the ethnic minority Sami or ‘Lapp’ people in Sweden, and the relations between the indigenous Sami and the Swedish people.

I have not gotten to the gist of the book yet, but parts of  the Foreword and Preface provoked some thoughts. My experiences from my reading, and from meeting people from Sweden left me with the impression that years ago, Sweden had years ago succumbed to a self-abnegating attitude towards their own ethnic identity and culture, as witnessed by the fact that they seem to have adopted a kind of ethnic/cultural suicide pact.  I know the average liberal/leftist or ‘progressive’ objects strongly to that kind of assessment of their policies and beliefs, protesting that they are simply “tolerant, open, and welcoming” or other such buzzwords signalling their multicult virtue.

Maybe this stems from their guilt about being the dominant group vs. the childlike indigenous population. The guilt is about having surpassed or outpaced the indigenous people. If ”equality” is your ever-elusive ideal, it makes you a little bit — or a lot — crazy, because equality can never be truly achieved. You cannot remake people and engineer a society of absolute equals — not in a world of disparate peoples and not without constant adjustment or coercion. Reality gets in the way. Mother Nature interferes.

The strange thing is that Sweden, according to the writer of the book’s foreword, was still too ”ethnocentric” according to the writer of the foreword, in 2010 — yet we know that Sweden was already compromised, and committed to a globalist, multicultural society long before that, as witness their demographic choices. I suppose it’s like in the old Soviet Union, where they won’t stop until the perfect socialist society exists.

But how can it be healthy for a people to reject their own culture and history, choosing self-criticism and condemnation where more positive assessments ought to prevail? After all, isn’t it the hardshell left the place of origin for the pop-psychology belief in the gospel of ”self-esteem”,”positive self-talk” and self-love? Where is the self-love amongst the left now? They marinate themselves in guilt and demand that the rest of us do likewise, wearing sackcloth for the sins of our ancestors, mainly their sin of being too successful, too strong, while the left fusses over the ‘victim’ groups, pitying them as helpless children who have to be spoon-fed and led by the hand and told what to think. The people who are in charge are overcome with paternalistic feelings towards the ‘wretched of the earth’ or, more accurately, maternalistic feeling, because most Western leftist countries are run, more or less, by Nice White Lady Leaders who want to coddle all those they see as victim-children.

Scandinavia as a whole is, I believe, dominated by young, unmarred women leaders who govern like overbearingly-nice kindergarten teachers with children in tow.

Be that as it may, the dominant liberal ideas developed decades ago, in the days of Swedish sociologist/economist Gunnar Myrdal, who became for some reason the best-known “race analyst”, mostly a critic of American racial attitudes, even though being Swedish-born he had little first-hand experience of the subject. His professional experience was mostly in Europe and in the U.N., which, though sited in the U.S., is hardly representative of American life and culture. Nevertheless he gained a name as the expert on racial attitudes and relations in America, writing a book called The American Dilemma: The Negro [sic] Problem in Modern Democracy, with Myrdal ultimately being awarded a Nobel Prize. The book had a considerable impact among the ‘intelligentsia’ obviously, and it was required reading for college students well into the 1970s, when it was required for my sociology class.

The effect on our country’s racial policies was noticeable; during the Cold War era, this country became obsessed with trying to outdo the Soviet Union in courting minorities; we’ve all heard of the Space Race in which the USSR and the U.S. vied to be the first into space, and the first to land on the moon, but then there was the Race Race, wherein the USSR ostentatiously courted African students, setting up a special university for them in Russia. That was the era of Lumumba University,named after a Congolese nationalist leader. The Communist bloc countries wanted to display that they were more ‘tolerant’ and unprejudiced than the Western countries and the U.S. seemed willing to enter into a propaganda competition with the Eastern bloc countries, thus leaning more and more to the left in order to win an improved image among the communist countries. This is in part what took the U.S. down the path of catering to the ‘victim’ groups, thus adopting more of the ”Culture of Critique”, Frankfurt School political correctness. Entering into the more-PC-than-thou competition was a fateful choice for this country.

The liberal Western European countries, especially Sweden, seemed to go all-in for this approach. Sweden became known by the 1960s as the most sexually permissive of countries, and by the mid-1960s was also known as a country which welcomed American draft-dodgers and deserters. Many of those who took advantage of  the Swedish welcome-mat for anti-war activists were soldiers or draftees ‘of color’. While there were laws against miscegeny in America until about 1967, Sweden had no such laws. This may also have encouraged liberal politicians in the U.S. to drop those laws against intermarriage, so that Sweden’s tolerance might not make us ”look bad” by comparison.

Sweden and the Soviet Union, among others, exerted a lot of influence on our social policies, especially those regarding race and ethnicity. Our country, being far too image-conscious, and wanting to present a more ‘tolerant’ image to the world, in comparison with the USSR, was willing to ‘cave’ too easily.

Gunnar Myrdal appears to have been one of those do-gooders who was sure he was on the ”side of the Angels”, believing that self-sacrifice and self-effacement constitutes the moral high ground, while wanting to preserve one’s heritage and traditions — and one’s genetics — is seen in today’s upside-down world as selfish and bigoted. People would rather go extinct than be ”bigoted” or (gasp!) “hateful.” But is it wrong or ”hateful” to want to have a country, a nation, a folk? If so, why?

Is today’s confused (and dangerous) Sweden the better for having chosen that path? Bizarrely, some still cling to their ideas despite the chaos and disorder in their country.

And what about the UK, which has (so far) tolerated ‘grooming gangs’ and sporadic terror attacks, rather than say ”no” to open borders and second-class citizenship in the UK?

Not to mention the U.S.: how are we doing, especially we of old-stock Anglo background?





































Is today’s Sweden better for having chosen the path it is obviously choosing?









Macron seizes medical supplies?

Breitbart and other sources report that France’s Macron has seized lorries carrying 130,000 masks on their way to UK medical workers, as well as having confiscated supplies of hand sanitizer for the UK.

The move followed hot on the heels of French border guards seizing another heavy goods vehicle carrying hand sanitiser to Britain the day before. The incidents triggered a diplomatic spat between the two countries as Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) struggles against the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.

I haven’t heard any response to this from Boris Johnson, but a “source from Whitehall” was mentioned as having dismissed the incident as something minor, and already dealt with.

But how can Macron do this and get away with it? Meanwhile Merkel is apparently making deals to allow more “refugees” into Europe — and eventually those will find their way to wherever in Europe (or the West generally) they want to go.

And as this pandemic continues to grow it seems no one is in charge.


Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Nationalism

Here’s an interesting piece from the Council of European Canadians. It’s by Dr. John K. Press, who has written a book entitled Up With Culturism, Down With Multiculturalism. I haven’t yet read the book, but judging by this piece about it, I would like to read it.

I must admit that, having read the piece at CEC, I stll don’t quite ‘get’ what Literary Darwinism means, but I certainly agree about the need for a healthy ‘Western Culturism’, and the need for reclaiming our identity. And by ‘our’ identity I mean all of us in the West, all people of European descent. This means old-stock Americans and old stock, colonial or settler stock Canadians and all our kindred folk around the world,

With a healthy sense of who we are and what we and our ancestors have accomplished, and ideally with a removal of the strong taboos against our natural confidence, we might once again build a society which reflects our strengths rather than lading us with guilt over a list of past supposed wrongs.

The picture at the link, with the English nationalist flags displayed and a smile on the face of the subject is very heartening; I believe the St. George’s flag is still considered taboo under the laws in benighted Britain. That needs to change, but it seems Britain is so far gone down the Marxist/multicult path that they will have a hard time finding their way back to themselves. And are the other Anglosphere countries any better off?

One more thing: I like that Dr. Press says we ought to embrace what I will term a more ‘muscular’ kind of Christianity, as in Chesterton’s terms. We hear so often that Christianity is a weakling’s religion, that it’s too passive and as I’ve said, it’s become a’cult of niceness’. And being honest, I think it’s necessary to admit that the counterfeit Christianity has played a big part in Open Borders, multiculturalism, and the transforming of our Western societies. The ‘Camp of the Saints’ scenario now playing out in the EU and elsewhere has been aided and abetted by the ‘Cult of Nice’ devotees.


The Last American


The picture above, which was passed on to me by a reader on my old blog I think, depicts the Life Magazine artist’s idea of a future (1976) wherein the ‘sole surviving Yankee’ is surrounded by strangers. I guess the artist was a little off on the timing of this but make of it what you will. Needless to say the subject matter is politically incorrect and might trigger some sensitive soul, but I don’t think the ‘Yankee’ New Englander is going to be allowed to disappear completely. He’s needed as a scapegoat and whipping boy.

But the fact remains that old-fashioned Yankees are pretty thin on the ground in the area they settled 400 years ago and they are hardly dominant in that area.

Some reading material

I apologize for being missing over this past week or so, and that there is not a regular post from me.

For those who are interested in colonial history and ancestry I have a few links that might be worth reading. If you haven’t come across them already; I think you (my readers, if you’re still there) are a well-read group of people.

Incidentally, on the first link, I actually found a colonial relative, who unexpectedly turns up in Connecticut though he was a resident of Massachusetts.

Anyway, here are the links.

Early Puritan Settlers of Connecticut

The Puritan Republic of Massachusetts Bay

On the Contributions of New England to America

The Puritan Remnant

A Family Quarrel — An Allegorical Study in American Origins and Principles

The Story of New England

Anglo-Saxon surnames

I hope there is something here of interest.

Anti-monarchists: what system then?

On another blog I read a thread discussing royalty and nearly everybody who expressed an opinion about the subject was vehement that they hated the very idea of a monarchy and disliked the Windsors intensely.

Yet on other dissident right blogs there are a lot of people who are now disenchanted with ”democracy” or a republican form of government.

I fall into that category. Equality is not within the realm of possibility. No two people are equal, or the same, not even identical twins.  And all around I see that ”democracy” has been corrupted everywhere into a kind of rule by the worst, and the most self-interested.

Thomas Jefferson did not intend to foster the idea that all men (and yes, women) are equal. The fact that his words are misunderstood and purposely twisted in many cases has enabled a lot of people to tell themselves that actual equality exists, that we are born equal, or that complete equality could exist if we try to force it, as is happening now.

So for those who loathe the idea of monarchy of any kind, what then is the best system, in such a case? And why is monarchy to be shunned and condemned as so many Americans (and others too) think? I’m curious as to how people think about this.

Plymouth Rock vandalized

Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, the spot where the Pilgrims landed in 1620, was vandalized by unknown persons on Monday. The rock where the Pilgrims were said to have first stepped when they disembarked, was covered in red graffiti as were other monuments there.

“Other waterfront sites at the park, including a seashell-shaped sign celebrating the upcoming 400th anniversary of the Mayflower landing, were also targeted with the red paint.

It’s unclear if the graffiti was linked to the town’s anniversary celebration, scheduled to begin in late April.

About a dozen “outraged” people gathered at the park after word got out about the vandalism, Lea Filson, executive director of See Plymouth, a local tourism organization, told the Boston Herald.”

This looks like yet another of those leftist/antifa efforts to trash our history, and to express their vindictive feelings towards the early colonists, who were guilty of being European and Christian, and who committed the unforgivable crime of being successful in creating a new society here on this continent. Now we are seeing the attempts (so far unopposed, for the most part) at dismantling all that our ancestors accomplished here.

They’ve almost succeeded in discrediting Christopher Columbus, and taking away Columbus Day observances and the former holiday; now the destructive agenda is being aimed at the early colonists, the forefathers of many of us. Some of us don’t have ancestors who arrived with William Bradford and the Plymouth colonists; my earliest forebears came to Jamestown ca. 1607 and the Massachusetts ancestors in 1630. But it seems as though this kind of malice is directed at all old-stock, colonist-descendant Americans, of English descent in particular, because despite what all those who deny our primacy here say, our ancestors were the first, the most numerous, and the most successful at establishing lasting settlements here. Those who would deny that can’t change history. Oh, they can try to efface the historical monuments and the left of course can re-write their ‘history’ books to suit their own false claims, but that does not change reality.

This vandalism will likely be written off as ”mindless” mischief done by youths, but it seems as if it’s part of the pattern of behavior of the left, done out of malice and envy and spite. Our very presence here affronts that sort of person; we are a reminder of realities they wish to deny and a reminder that they will never have their ”utopia” as long as we are here.



Can a people change or be changed?

Can a people, that is, a kindred nation, people born of the same stock with the same history and culture, change from their ways and habits and become something different? Or is it possible for them to be changed into another type of people altogether, under the influence of an influx of non-kindred peoples, or a different philosophy?

I am asking this in earnest; not just posing an idle question just for the sake of it.

My original blog was about the American nation — and now many of the gloom-and-doomers who say America was never a real nation have me almost convinced — not quite, though. I honestly doubt the motives of those who say that America was always a polyglot boarding house, as Theodore Roosevelt spoke of (and warned against). Usually there is an axe to grind there, covert or overt. Usually it’s pro-Germanism or pro-multicult.

Jim Goad at Taki-Mag wrote a piece in response to that silly Scandinavian Airlines brouhaha in which the (literally) cuckolded Scandinavians plead that they really have no culture or character whatsoever, and beg for mercy or something on the basis that they are a nation of ghosts or ciphers who have no cuisine or genetic heritage, just an empty name.  Pathetic.

In the context of England and the English people, naturally I am not going to buy the idea that the English, too, are as lost as the Scandinavians appear to be. But for years now, a family member and I have had a lot of conversations about the seeming change in the UK and in the actual people of England — not paper citizens; not even those who are children or grandchildren of immigrants, like the Polish descendants who consider themselves English or British. A lot of people are prepared to accept this people or that people as the same as English (or British) because the families have been there for a generation or two, and they sometimes look fairly indistinguishable from the actual English. Or British (Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Irish). But they are not English. Or British.

After all the generations of immigrants to the U.S., there are those who despite long occupancy here, still cling to a language their ancestors of last century spoke, instead of English. Or worse they have lived here for generations and still hate ‘the WASPs’ or the ‘Anglos’ despite the longer tenure here of those they resent and against whom they bear grudges and resentments.

So even long residency doesn’t mean someone has assimilated or become a ‘real American.’ And just now there are lots of Americans who think exotic ancestry is worth more culturally, genetically, and in other ways than plain old Northwest European ancestry –especially if it’s Anglo-Saxon ancestry — which should be known as ”Oppressor-American” origins, according to some.

To return to the topic at hand, though, it seems to me, judging not just by the media coming out of the UK (movies, TV, music, etc.) but by individual peoples’ behavior, that the English have become sadly more like today’s Americans — which makes sense because we all take part in this same ugly pop culture, lowest-common-denominator. There was a time some decades ago when Britain (or England) appeared to be more ‘sophisticated’ and more ‘tolerant’ than America; America was ridiculed yet again for being Puritanical because many Americans were church-goers and liked their entertainment more wholesome. Europe was held up to us as an example of what we should be — Europeans were blase about sex,  saw nothing wrong with nudity and ”adult” entertainment. We were told that the French Prime Minister (which one, I’ve forgotten) openly kept a mistress, and the public didn’t mind this. Why couldn’t we be more like those open-minded, sophisticated French people? And the British, by comparison, were told they were too inhibited. Even the ‘reserved’ Scandinavians were famous, or notorious, for their sexual openness and kinkiness. In Scandinavia, we were told, sex crimes were all but unknown because the people had no inhibitions or ”hang-ups” in sixties’ parlance, about sex, hence nobody ‘needed‘ to commit sex crimes.

Long story short: fast-forward to U.S. (or what’s left of it) in 2020. Our ‘entertainment’ is rife with every kind of vulgarity and degradation and this is the new normal, both in the UK and in once-Puritanical America.

The English were once known as a reserved people, confident, intelligent, articulate, running a well-ordered society. Good educational system; hierarchical rather than egalitarian (which is good in my book) low crime, high trust, high level of honesty according to studies done, and so on.

Now it seems that the UK and its people are more similar to the American stereotype, with all that implies. Both our peoples have been subjected to the media mind-conditioning, and our countries both apparently being merged into this ‘New World Disorder’ which becomes an ever-more-burdensome yoke to be worn.

I can’t speak for other countries, whether or not they have experienced such changes to the character of the people. I know that the Scandinavians in the United States, most of whom have been here for generations, are apparently as passive as their cousins who stayed behind in the old country. Just look at the strange assortment of people they elect to ”represent” them. If they aren’t a people, as the spokescreatures at Scandinavian Airlines plead, then they should not be represented in Congress, should they? Do ghost-descendants of dead Vikings have rights?

Actually two fairly close relatives of mine have married Norwegians — people actually born in that country, not hyphenates, not ‘Norwegian-Americans’ whose Scandinavian-ness has been PC-whipped out of them. And they are likeable people, intelligent people. Maybe they are here because they didn’t fit in with their zombie countrymen back home.

All the same I like them. I would like to see everybody who has had their ethnic nature and their love for their heritage drained out of them, re-infused with that pietas and healthy pride.  That goes for fellow Americans, especially our Anglo-Saxon cousins, not just in the UK itself but in Canada, the old-stock Canadians, the Aussies (for whom I’ve also had a soft spot) and New Zealanders, even though they may be the farthest-left of all.

How does one classify brainwashing and mental programming? Manipulating people’s minds and emotions, tampering with the nature and essence of what makes people who they are? It should be a crime. It probably is, though it’s gone on, on a mass scale for a few generations now, unrecognized for what it is. If someone de-racinates you, takes away your sense of who you are, where you come from, what makes you a unique person as you are, or makes your folk and family and kin unique amongst the peoples of this world — that person, or those people who are doing this en masse to people are doing something heinous. It’s a theft, or even tantamount to a murder of a big part of who we are as individuals. Or as nations of people, distinct people who each carry the image of God in a unique way.

That’s being stolen from us and from whatever future generations may exist. Why is this so little acknowledged?

Realizing that many of our English cousins have learned not to like us, to view us as ‘ugly Americans’ who are gun-obsessed, dumbed-down, and crass (the Stereotype) they should know that we, too, are encouraged to dislike them for all sorts of reasons. The Powers want to set the kindred peoples against each other; they especially fear the Anglosphere peoples and don’t want us to cooperate or to work together or even sympathize with one another. This should not be.

But as to my original question: is it possible for us to change our very natures as it seems? Do genetics really count for nothing, and mental programming count for so much? Or have we really changed, we here in America, or the English, the Scandinavians? Can we recover who we once were? Is it dormant in our genetic memory, coded into our DNA? Answers, anyone?


Men of England

Men of England

Men of England! who inherit
Rights that cost your sires their blood!
Men whose undegenerate spirit
Has been proved on land and flood: —

By the foes ye’ve fought uncounted,
By the glorious deeds ye’ve done,
Trophies captured — breaches mounted,
Navies conquered — kingdoms won!

Yet, remember, England gathers
Hence but fruitless wreaths of fame,
If the patriotism of your fathers
Glow not in your hearts the same.

What are monuments of bravery,
Where no public virtues bloom?
What avail in lands of slavery,
Trophied temples, arch, and tomb?

Pageants! — Let the world revere us
For our people’s rights and laws,
And the breasts of civic heroes
Bared in Freedom’s holy cause.

Yours are Hampden’s, Russell’s glory,
Sydney’s matchless shade is yours,–
Martyrs in heroic story,
Worth a hundred Agincourts!

We’re the sons of sires that baffled
Crowned and mitred tyranny;–
They defied the field and scaffold
For their birthrights — so will we!

Thomas Campbell

Rediscovering the past

According to reports, archaeologists think theymay have found a ‘lost’ monastery where England’s first King, Edgar the Peaceful, was crowned. The story was linked on the Amerika blog where I first saw it.

It seems that archaaeologists were surprised to find this significant site next to the famous Bath Abbey. They noted that the location had what appeared to be Anglo-Saxon architecture in these two structures. As Bath was built by Romans during the time of their dominance in Britain, apparently most of the structures there are Roman in origin, so the presence of Anglo-Saxon style architecture got the attention of the archaeologists.

“After finding the Anglo-Saxon stone structures, archaeologists used a method called radiocarbon dating on charcoal found in some of the plaster of one of these apses. Since scientists know the rate of decay of radioactive carbon, they can use that to infer how long an object has been in the ground.

The charcoal dated to 780-970 and 670-770, Wessex Archaeology found. This time window suggests that the abbey was once part of the Anglo-Saxon monastery where Edgar was coronated, in 973.
He added that “this, together with the late Saxon stonework and burials found at the Abbey, provides increasingly strong evidence that we have, indeed, found part of Bath’s lost Anglo-Saxon monastery,” where Edgar the Peaceful was coronated.”

The Wessex Archaeology website has more historical information and clarifies some of the information in the other article.

If you go to the Wessex Archaeology page, you can scroll down to the pictures of two stone crosses, or fragments, as it appears. The article describes them as ‘late Saxon crosses’, but if you look at them you will see a familiar style of carving on them. The carving is like the typical ‘Celtic’ interlace style of decoration. I think most of us have been habituated to think this design is indicative of ‘Celtic’ culture when in fact it was found on many artifacts from Scandinavia as well as England. I am not trying to deny credit to the Celtic people for that style; it just seems evident to me that there was a widespread culture which pervaded much of Northern and Northwestern Europe. England was also part of that culture.

Articles like this do remind us that there is still a lot to be discovered from Britain’s past. We are far from knowing everything about that time and place. But it seems ironic to be finding these remains of a distant past when the culture of Britain is now in danger of dissolving.