On what England means

Tony Linsell is an English writer; some of you may have read one or more of his books. He’s written books and essays on Anglo-Saxon mythology, but for me, his most interesting works are to do with England as a nation, that is, a people.

Those books by Linsell which focus on England and the indigenous, ethnic English have caused controversy. He was one of the founders of the Steadfast Trust, which the UK’s Charities Commission investigated, regarding questions of his dealings with the ‘Far Right’ or ‘Ultra-right.’ Linsell has since resigned from his position at Steadfast Trust, with the usual accusations of ‘racism’. If you read the linked article about the Steadfast Trust, you notice that the article puts the proper noun English in scare quotes, as if to imply that no such word as English exists and no such people as the English exist. And this is just what is being promoted by the people who now hold power in the UK; they are teaching that England has always been multicultural and multiracial. Therefore, according to their thinking, no charitable or cultural group for English, or Anglo-Saxon descendants should exist, any more than, say, a group supporting Hobbits, or Atlanteans.

Still, I recommend reading Linsell’s books. They are not ‘racist’ (a word which does deserve to be printed with scare quotes, or ironic quotation marks) unless one has the delusion that any ethnic integrity or pride is ‘racist’ and ‘vile’. If that were true then all our ancestors were guilty of it, because for untold centuries it was normal, and a good thing, to be mindful of our forebears, and normal for our loyalties to be centered on our closest kin, from our families, to extended families, then neighborhoods and ultimately our folk as a whole. But then we’ve let the people in power declare those feelings to be wrong, and even to be criminal in some benighted places.

Despite ethnic loyalty and consciousness of who we are being criminalized, it hasn’t been altogether expunged from our world, but the concept needs to be re-emphasized and even taught for the first time to some of the young who don’t remember the days of healthy nativism.

Here are a few excerpts from Tony Linsell’s writings:

By “the English” I mean the ethnic / indigenous English. They are members of a community that has a recorded history that goes back nearly 2000 years. That community – that nation – migrated from Jutland to Britain about 1500 years ago. People who have since then merged into the English population, and are indistinguishable from the English, and claim no identity other than English, and are accepted by the English as being one of their own, are English – and England is their homeland.

Tony Linsell, What England Means to Me

He writes of the different dimensions to England and the English people: the physical England, which in part shapes the people, and then the ‘communal imagination’ which he describes as a place “where no outsider can go.” I think that is understandable to most people, but we sort of take it for granted. Linsell puts it into words. Our customs, way of life, traditions, the perceptions we have which are unique to a people.

The current situation in England and elsewhere in the Western world fosters the general perception that ethnicity and ancestry mean nothing. Everyone is the same except for the paint job, as some put it. Those who are not native to the society they currently live in are adamant that living in a country, even for the briefest of time, means that anyone is somehow entitled to all the privileges as the indigenous people of the host country. Even more egregious is the way that many Americans will say ”We don’t have an ethnicity; we’re just Americans and everyone who comes here and stays is an American.” Or, “Americans are all mixed, and of no real ethnic group.” Or, ‘who cares’?

Tony Linsell’s thoughts about ancestry and nationality:

Hostile outsiders (and misguided or foolish insiders) often scoff and say, “I suppose you think you are Anglo-Saxon” or “Do you have a family tree that shows your ancestors where here a thousand years ago” or worst of all – and from the certifiable – “But we’re all Celts” . The answer is that I don’t have to prove my ancestry by means of formal records and bits of paper. It is enough that I am a member of the English community – its history is my history. As a member of the English community I am linked to the communal history and imagination of those who have for over a thousand years called themselves English and regarded England as their homeland

What England Means to Me

By all means, read the essay at the link.

A Southerner in Europe, ca. 1908

Clarence Hamilton Poe, a Southern writer and editor of The Progressive Farmer magazine, also wrote a book entitled A Southerner in Europe (1908) in which Poe gave his impressions of the people and the conditions in the European countries he visisted. Being of English descent, he compared conditions in England and Scotland with those in the American South and America generally.

He wrote of the prevalence of “familiar” surnames in England and Scotland. As he said, he didn’t feel like a ‘foreigner’ in those countries; he felt as though Europe was an American’s second home, his ancestral home; Britain did not feel alien to him.

His thoughts on the familiar surnames:

“There is one thing about these Scotch and English towns that cannot fail to impress itself upon any thoughtful visitor, and that is the similarity of the surnames to those common throughout our Southern country. It is the most striking illustration I have yet found of the oft-repeated statement that the South is now the most thoroughly Anglo-Saxon part of America. Walk down any business street in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Chester, or any other English or Scotch town that I have seen, and on the signs you will see in most cases names so common in your own town or county that you can hardly believe yourself in a foreign country, while the surnames you would find displayed in Boston or New York are strangely foreign and unfamiliar to a Southern traveler. I venture the prediction that any Southerner can walk down the main streets of Glasgow or Liverpool and find five times as many familiar names as he would find in a similar area on Broadway, New York.

And it’s a good stock of folk with which to claim kin — these English and Scotch. It’s very foolish and very harmful for jingoes to try to stir up bad feeling between England and America. We belong to the same great family, our ideals are mainly the same, and the two nations should work together in furthering those ideas throughout the wide world.”

A Southerner in Europe, Raleigh, N.C., Mutual Publishing, 1908
pp 28-29

Do Anglo-Americans reject their identity?

At least one online commenter asserts this is true. Below is the comment from a blog, (with the commenter’s name blocked out):

This kind of thing turns up on blogs here and there; it must be a somewhat widespread idea. Another allegation is that (Anglo or WASP) Americans “have no culture’.

I don’t know who this commenter has spoken to, or if he has even been to our country; I also wonder what kind of sample of ‘Old Stock’ English-Americans he’s met or talked to.

We’ve been sort of written out of the script in our own country, as it were. Many people whose families were here before the American Revolution identify as just ‘American.’ Many English-Americans from the South identify with their state; Texas used to be like that. Texas, after all, was an independent country in its early history, and it did seem as though it were a world of its own. The South in general is, or used to be, distinctive. That part of the country, especially the Southeastern states, was settled by English Cavaliers, as contrasted to the very middle class colonists of New England. So not all English- or British-Americans have the same origins, which in part explains their varying cultures.

The Ulster folk who settled parts of the Southeast, the Appalachian mountains, are also a culture to themselves.

Do English-Americans have no culture then, or are their original culture and folkways gone and forgotten? My answer would be ‘no’, because I don’t believe that the old ways are dead, but they may be on life support in some places.

Another issue is that America is a country that emphasizes individuality at the expense of group identity, and this may be a natural tendency of Anglo-Saxons. Scots-Americans, including the Ulster folk who settled here, have their cultural events and I think they are more likely to express their identity than Anglos.

But for WASPs or English-Americans, the fact that we’ve been declared people without a culture or identity is not conducive to maintaining our identity. Speaking for myself, though, I have no problem telling people about my ancestry. I certainly would not consider it an “insult”as the comment writer I quoted at the beginning. I don’t know anyone who would.

It’s true that some Americans have an obvious hostility towards the people of Britain — let me correct that: I should have said ‘the people of England; that’s more specific and accurate. Online commenters, bolstered by anonymity, feel free to spill their feelings, sometimes in very unpleasant ways. The English royals are especially targeted for harsh criticism, but then there are many American women who dote on royalty and all the glamorous trappings.

Some Americans of English descent, because of all the negativity towards the English, may downplay their ancestry. And many Americans don’t really know their ancestry except in the vaguest terms. Because of propaganda many White Americans, including some Anglo-Americans, would rather be something more exotic than “boring” “whitebread” WASPs, as the stereotypes portray them.

Many people seem surprised to be told that so much of American culture, things we take for granted, are English (or British) in origin. Maybe people think that these aspects of our culture original to America, and were ‘invented’ out of whole cloth right here in America. It’s as if people think that when we separated from England, we had to invent a new culture from scratch, just to distinguish ourselves as a nation, to be different from our Mother Country. (Actually, there was a touch of this attitude in Noah Webster’s changing the spelling of many English words; Noah Webster thought Americans

Doing their bit

Why are our English forebears rarely credited for their influence on America’s foundational era? Why are so many people so very vociferous in disparaging England (including its present incarnation as the UK?)

Many Americans can only think of Britain, or even England, as our ‘enemy’ of old, as in the Revolutionary era, and the War of 1812. Others, notably Irish-Americans and German-Americans seem to have longstanding grudges against England. Nevertheless England was the country which shaped the development of our country, at least until the demographics changed drastically.

Now, sadly, as England is essentially under occupation, some ill-wishing Americans seem to lean towards Schadenfreude, gloating over the ‘weakness’ of our English cousins. Yet if we look at the whole picture, of more than 2000 years of history, our ancestors accomplished a great deal, and deserve credit. But as one author noted, the British did not gloat or boast over their accomplishments, and an individual who did something which inspired praise or honors, during wartime especially, would answer that he was only “doing his bit”, doing what was necessary for the sake of their nation. A heroic deed, so they implied, was no more than what any decent person would do.

It’s interesting, though, as the phrase ”doing my bit’‘ was mentioned in a news story about the young man who helped subdue a knife-wielding attacker in London yesterday. In that situation, those passersby deserve to be commended for actively helping to stop the attacker before others were hurt or killed, at the risk of their own lives and safety.

The critics who pronounce Britain or England to be weak and defeated have to admit that the English are showing some spirit, as several local people helped to capture the man, identified as Usman Khan. Compare with the attack in the Netherlands where it seems there was no such involvement of passersby in stopping the attack there, or helping to apprehend the perpetrator.

The young Englishman whose response to reporters’ questions, that he was just “doing his bit” is behaving true to form; he did what he saw as needing to be done, and he minimized his own role in capturing the attacker. It was just something that needed doing, and he declined to try to claim credit for his actions.

Are there more people like this man and the other passersby, and will they step forward in this time of their country’s need — “doing their bit”? Or will these kinds of attacks continue as a slow-motion war that no one wants to acknowledge as such?

"Our fathers were Englishmen…"

There was no established ‘Thanksgiving Day’ when the first Puritans colonists came here in 1620 — after many hardships, as alluded to below, but the ‘Pilgrims’, as these first Puritan settlers came to be called — realized that they had much to be thankful for, despite the bleakness of their situation in 1620. They succeeded in founding a lasting colony, as our presence here shows, but it might have turned out much differently. Below is an excerpt from William Bradford’s account of the beginning of what became ‘Plimoth Plantation:

“Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element. And no marvel if they were thus joyful, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on the coast of his own Italy, as he affirmed, that he had rather remain twenty years on his way by land than pass by sea to any place in a short time, so tedious and dreadful was the same unto him.

But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people’s present condition; and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which went before), they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less town to repair to, to seek for succour. It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appear) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, fall of wild beasts and wild men — and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succour them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the master and company? But that with speed they should look out a place (with their shallop) where they would be, at some near distance; for the season was such as he would not stir from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them, where they would be, and he might go without danger; and that victuals consumed apace but he must and would keep sufficient for themselves and their return. Yea, it was muttered by some that if they got not a place in time, they would turn them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply and succour they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them or themselves; and how the case stood between them and the merchants at their coming away hath already been declared.

What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: “Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity,” etc. “Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and His mercies endure forever.” “Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, shew how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord His loving kindness and His wonderful works before the sons of men.”

Quoted from ‘OF THEIR VOYAGE, AND HOW THEY PASSED THE SEA; AND OF THEIR SAFE ARRIVAL AT CAPE COD – – Chapter IX of William Bradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation

Grand Union Flag

The Thinking WASP

This is the first flag of the United States of America. It flew from 1775 to 1777.

It was conceived and flown during the American War of Independence and is called the Grand Union Flag. Sometimes it’s referred to as the Continental Colors, the Congress Flag, the Cambridge Flag or the First Navy Ensign.

By whatever name ….

Grand Union Flag 1

…. it’s striking, don’t you agree?

What was the inspiration for the design?

Let’s begin with the Union Jack.

In 1775 as the war broke out but before the Declaration of Independence, George Washington wrote to his brother explaining that large sections of the newly formed Continental Congress were working towards reconciliation with Britain.

So, the Union Jack was retained.

The ports of the British American colonies were bustling places of trade. Each merchant ship from the Mother Country flew the Red Ensign.

Here’s the Red Ensign as it was in 1775…

View original post 240 more words

The UK and the EU — two pro-Britain views

William Wildblood has a very good piece on the subject of Britain and the EU. Bruce Charlton has also posted his own thoughts about it, and about the Brexit issue and the upcoming elections. Both these pieces are worthwhile reads.

While I may have differing religious views than these two gentlemen, I agree with most of what they say about the UK-EU question, and Brexit.

I’ve also come to think that politics and voting are not the most important piece of this puzzle. Much of what has gone wrong, and is now becoming alarmingly worse, has happened on the cultural level, the social level. And of course many of the solutions, if not all, can really only be dealt with at the spiritual level. But as many people have lost, or deliberately jettisoned their religion (it’s old-fashioned; it’s obsolete, or we hear those who object to going back to the Faith of our fathers saying “we need to get a new religion; Christianity made us weak”) Christianity as our forefathers knew it is all but extinct. And what good would a new religion — or even an old religion do us if we see it only as a means to an end? If a faith is not heartfelt, and only an expediency does it have any value?

Somehow it seems that our folk have lost their confidence and have become passive and focused only on self and individual needs and wants. Of course this is not universally true, but true of a great many. We are fragmented as a people, and that problem is getting worse.

Voting, as things are now, cannot solve our problems — either here in the US or in the UK — or anywhere in the Western world. But that’s not to say that the answer is to wash our hands of the problem; just that our system is no longer responsive to the peoples of our countries. The plain evidence of that is in the drawn-out story of the ‘Brexit’ effort.

The ‘leaders’, those in politically high places, along with their lackeys in the lugenpresse, seem to have done everything possible to thwart the effort, hoping that the ‘leavers’ might fall prey to fatalism and resignation.

The system is not ‘democratic’ in the sense of placing any power in the hands of the citizenry. Voting appears to be futile, as it has not prevented the present situation. In a country like the U.S., our checks and balances, supposedly guaranteeing too much concentration of power in one or another of the branches of government, the system seems to have been made null and void by apparently seating many politically appointed judges and justices, who are serving some end other than ‘justice.’ The judicial system seems to freely override the President himself, as well as the elected representatives of the people. The legislative branch appears to have been hijacked too; our reprresentatives don’t represent ordinary citizens; they instead seem to be there to do the will of some special interests with an agenda counter to the expressed will of the people.

And democracy, with its misguided emphasis on ”equality”, an unrealizable goal, has not worked. Most of the classical philosophers considered democracy the least desirable form of government. It certainly looks that way. Both the UK with its professed democratic or ‘representative’ government appears not to have attained the stated goals, or to have preserved ”freedom” or ”liberty”, which is sad, considering that for hundreds of years Britain has been seen as standing for those principles; English liberty (as it once was) seems to exist only on paper — and we are in the same situation here.

Wiliam Wildblood says:

“The EU is a modern Tower of Babel, an attempt to build a utopia without reference to the transcendent, but if you try to build a single structure of that size from such disparate elements as countries with hundreds of years of their own traditions it will fragment because there is no inner connection to the centre. Everything must have a centre. What is the centre of the EU? There is none. People point to the ideal of a body that enables cooperation and prevents local wars but nobody loves the EU, however convenient they may find it, and in practice it is just a federal superstate run by a technocratic elite, a liberal organisation that seeks to impose liberal dogma and stifle real freedom in the name of an atheistic humanism which, by definition, is fundamentally nihilistic.”

I recommend reading the whole piece, as well as Bruce Charlton’s piece.

A disappointment

Did Boris Johnson mean it when he made reference to getting immigration under control? It seems he didn’t mean it, as his recent statements contradicted what he was saying during all the Brexit confusion.

Even as he spoke about ‘getting the numbers down’ he made a deal with the EU that, for the foreseeable future, there will still be ‘Free Movement” between the UK and the EU, a policy which has guaranteed the entry of large numbers of immigrants.

The Labour Party has even more radical policy changes in mind:

The opposition Labour Party, for example, has voted at its most recent party conference to not just to allow Free Movement immigration from the European Union to continue, regardless of Brexit, but to extend Free Movement to other countries around the world, shut down all detention centres, and — perhaps not for unrelated reasons — extend the vote to all non-citizens resident in the country; moves Home Secretary Priti Patel believes could increase annual net immigration to an astonishing 840,000 a year.

Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 26, 2019

Imagine that many new arrivals in a small island nation like the UK. It seems that there is a housing shortage as it is. It seems as though there is some kind of mania compelling this obsession with importing immigrants en masse. And it’s the same in all parts of former Christendom. What will it take to bring some kind of common sense back before the situation is beyond repair?

The people make the place as I’ve said so often, and soon if the indigenous peoples of Britain and Northern Ireland are outnumbered and with their low birthrate, they may be headed for oblivion. This saddens me immensely; I think that the English or British have been people of high accomplishment, and they created a country that rightfully drew admiration for their achievements.

The one-world agenda has little to offer on the positive side, and it will mean a much less “diverse” world when everyone is thrown into the one-world ‘blender’, making for far less varied world than then one into which we were born.

And then the leaders of the leftist Welsh political party Plaid Cymru are saying they want to make their whole country, small as it is (population 3 million) into a ”sanctuary country” for the world. If that happens, Wales will slowly or quickly see the loss of their unique people and culture — and their country will be another overcrowded, overstressed country. But will there even be ”countries” in the former Christendom, or will we all be ”world citizens”, of no fixed character?

Or can a people preserve their ethnic identity in spite of no longer having a geographical territory to be themselves, and continue their culture, and their religion and folkways?

In considering that situation, which seems to be in the cards for so much of the Western world, I think of our Cajun people in Louisiana, who, having been colonists in Nova Scotia back in the 18th century, found themselves displaced, removed, and scattered. That event was in 1755, and it is still referred to as the ‘Grand Derangement‘. A good many of the displaced Acadian French people settled in Louisiana, as most Americans know. So many of the Acadians or ‘Cajuns’ maintain a strong sense of being who they are despite being a definite minority. But they and the local Anglo-American population of Louisiana are not at odds; they are not hopelessly disparate peoples. Most Cajuns are very loyal to America; there is not the sense of alienation, and no chips on shoulders or grievance mentality. For the most part there is little friction if any.

If only it would always work out that way. If.

Could this situation be replicated in Europe, or this country, as we head towards being minorities in our own native lands?

I ponder about this, and I have my own sense of what the future may hold.

I was just reading news commentary about the decline and ‘Grand Remplacement’ of ‘Old Stock Canadians’, which includes the French Canadian population, the Anglo-Celtic Canadians, and others (Ukrainians, Russsians, et al.) It seems as if we are all in the same boat, despite any ethnic or cultural differences among the European descendants. But can a culture and a sense of peoplehood survive in a “polyglot boarding house” as someone termed it?

It’s disappointing to witness Boris Johnson in his self-identified role as a ‘pro-immigration politician.’ But then I think few people expected anything different from him, with Brexit being the more pressing issue for many UK voters.

The Pentney hoard

No doubt some of you have read about, or seen, the Pentney hoard. It was found in 1977 in Norfolk (the UK Norfolk, of course) in 1978. It was quite a find, at least from an aesthetic viewpoint, but it also is of interest to the archaeology scholars. Read more about it on the ‘Daily Timewaster’ blog, at the link in the first line. I think it’s hardl a waste of time to take a look at the article and the photos.

The hoard consists of seven intricately-crafted brooches, mostly of silver, and they’re said to be a good example of 9th century Anglo-Saxon style silver craftsmanship.

Early 9th century Anglo-Saxon silver brooches, found at Pentney, Norfolk, in 1977. On display at the British Museum, London.

[This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Amitchell125 at English Wikipedia. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
Amitchell125 grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.]

The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ should be dropped

So says Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is described in this Daily Mail article as an ‘independent scholar and author.’ She says the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used by so-called ‘[W]hite supremacists’ to refer to ‘White British’ people and it should therefore be banned. I don’t quite see how that conclusion follows. If the term is tainted or offensive simply because it describes ”white British people” or because it is allegedly used by White supremacists, then a great many more words will be banned on that flimsy basis.

It’s troubling to hear that one’s ethnicity is so objectionable that the very name ‘Anglo-Saxon‘ ought to be banned. This woman says that, instead of Anglo-Saxon, the term ”early English” should be the acceptable name.

Mary Rambaran-Olm also says, of these elusive ‘White supremacists’:

‘Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.’ …

She seems to imply that those she calls ‘supremacists’ have a false idea of their own heritage, connecting it somehow with ‘whiteness’ — but Whiteness and Anglo-Saxon or ‘early English’ heritage are connected. Anglo-Saxon=White. Why do these simple facts upset anyone?

As for the ‘warrior past’, that, too, is part of being an Anglo-Saxon, and what’s wrong with that?

This may seem trivial to some people, this toying with words, but it is symbolic of the ‘Great Replacement’ of the English and British peoples; even their name is to be effaced, so as to further nullify their identity and their rightful place in the UK.

Ms Rambaran-Olm, who is identified as Irish in the article, though she was brought up in Canada, is somehow designated to tell the people of the UK what words they may use to describe themselves. How does this happen?

In any case, her double-barreled surname doesn’t tell us much about her ethnicity, though she does not seem to be English. But there is more about her objections to the name ‘Anglo-Saxon’:

Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or ‘Englelond’ – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn’.

The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their ‘supposed origins’.

Hitler wrote of the ‘Anglo-Saxon determination’ to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term. 

John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard’s Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.

So I am getting the idea that if a word or phrase is used by the ‘wrong’ people, such as Rhodes or the ubiquitous Hitler, then that word is tainted just because it’s used by someone who is disliked or condemned. So the name must be changed.

And how is it that a curator of early books at Harvard is the arbiter of what must be banned? Who bestowed this power on him, ?

The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists voted to drop the name Anglo-Saxon from its name, as 60 per cent of its membership voted to ban the term. I can only assume these are the lockstep, group-mind academics.

When even a group calling themselves ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ are willing to bend the knee, it’s worse than I thought.

Look back on the glory days of England, and contrast that to today’s topsy-turvy world in which the English are being made to humble themselves, while others aggrandize themselves and wallow in schadenfreude at the apparent ‘fall’ of the once-great England.

But this is an unnatural situation, being created by those who are determined to erase England/Britain off their map and establish their regime of sacred ”Diversity” and pretend equality,none of which could exist without being engineered and imposed from above.

In the meantime, it’s vital that we don’t acquiesce in the destruction of our folk and our heritage. Let’s have neither art nor part in this.