Seen on another blog

The following interesting exchange was found in the comments section at the Vox Popoli blog.

Joshua_D July 27, 2016 12:19 PM

Is there even anyone left in America who is 100% English colonist on both sides?

WATYF

Yes.

What’s weird is that the whole notion of “whites” is a pure quill invention of the SJW left. … In that sense the “white nation” is every bit as much a proposition as the idea of a Christian or a Constitutional one. The only difference is whether it’s a “better” one.

No it’s not. The notion of white existed long before SJWs did. You’ve heard of the concept of ethnogenesis before, right? Just because “white” once upon a time didn’t mean anything specific doesn’t mean that it doesn’t now, especially in an American context. You keep talking about French and Germans and Poles and stuff. What does that have to do with white Americans?

WATYF hit the nail on the head—my ancestry is almost entirely of British provenance, going back to the 1600s. But the almost is meaningful. What we’ve seen over the last few centuries was the ethnogenesis of a new people, white American, and before the ethnogenesis was even complete, it was threatened by mass immigration from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe.

Which is exactly why the immigration acts of 1875, 1882, 1917, 1921 and 1924 were passed, including the very sensible Asiatic Barred Zone and the National Origins formula. Even as far back as the 1790 Naturalization Act recognized the ethnogenesis of the white American.”

Joshua_D wrote:

26. WATYF July 27, 2016 12:05 PM Is there even anyone left in America who is 100% English colonist on both sides?

WATYF Yes.

OK. So those are the only “Americans”? How many are we talking? Tens or hundreds of thousands?”

Chris Mallory

@26 Yes, I am. There is still a large group of us here in Greater Appalachia. We are the only group that still calls ourselves Americans instead of some hybrid bastardization. ”

Bobby Farr July 27, 2016 12:47 PM

Old stock whites. That is as precise of a definition as you need. You wouldn’t reject the existence of the English because the [sic] couldn’t define themselves exactly as x% Anglo, y% Saxon, z% Celt, etc. If you read pre-1930 nativist lit, you see that the definition has been widely studied and understood for a long time.”

Chris Mallory

Johnny wrote: The country was also to small to defend itself against the predatory European powers of the day. To fix that problem they opened the immigration gates to more or less anybody who was white and Northern European . The main outcome was that the area west of the Appalachian Mountains filled full of Central European types, along with lesser numbers of other groups. So far that has turned out well enough.’

This is all false. We had no hordes of immigrants until the 1840’s when the scum of Ireland and Germany invaded our shores. The area west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi was settled by Northern English, Lowland Scots and Ulster Scots, not “Central Europeans”. The Central Europeans who came later did not understand the rights passed down by the Founders and have worked ever since to destroy them.”

The above is an example of the kinds of debates that take place whenever White Americans discuss the question of national identity, the ‘proposition nation’, and the question of White America’s ethnic/national origins.

Read any pre-politically correct history book, or any History/Civics textbook from before the mid-20th century, and you will read a much simpler version of our origins: America was settled primarily by English colonists, though there were smaller numbers of other European colonists. It was, however, the English colonies which formed the basis of the American States and the Union of those states, which, independent of England, became the country we know, the U.S.A.

It was the English colonies and their culture and traditions, based solidly in the British Isles (Ireland being a lesser component), that formed the traditional American culture and folkways. The Spanish colony at St. Augustine, notwithstanding its earlier provenance, made a negligible contribution to this country and its culture  — as well as to the common gene pool. Likewise the Spanish colonies in the Southwest. Likewise for the Swedish colony or the New Amsterdam colony — the latter two being more or less absorbed by the English colonists ultimately.

When the wave of Ellis Island immigrants began in earnest America had a longtime established culture and way of life.

All in all, America would still be America as we know it despite the minor contributions of the other-than-English groups. It’s shocking to hear this said in this day and age of immigrant veneration and diversitolatry, but it’s true, nonetheless.

In our drive to be ‘inclusive’ and to make the latecomers feel ‘welcome’, along with the recent obsession with ”fairness” we have romanticized and sentimentalized immigration and the immigrants themselves, at the expense of facts, and to the detriment of the original stock Americans, without whose ancestors this country would not exist as we know it, or perhaps would not exist at all.

Am I biased? Certainly, but no more so than the immigration enthusiasts and the ethnic advocates who relentlessly promote their group(s) at the expense of the interests of colonial stock Anglo-Americans.

We have heard from all the ethnic groups ad nausaeum for some time now, with hardly a voice speaking up for English-descended (or British-Isles descended) Americans. Is it not only fair that our side be heard, too?

It seems, unfortunately, that even right-wing, semi-nationalist Americans have bought into the multicultural America propaganda. The fact that they believe America is, was, or should be a Euro-multicult society is not much comfort.

Still, this is the reality of our very mixed America in the 21st century.

Advertisements

‘We so take them for granted…’

From a comment by ‘guest’ at Steve Sailer’s blog:

“I’ve noticed that they talk incessantly about minority cultures: their music, their food, and so forth, and how we “appropriate” it. But they act as if there’s no such thing as culture amongst white people. Unless they’re part of specific groups, like Italians or the Irish. The dominant American ethnic group in U.S. culture were and are the English. But we so take them for granted it’s as if their influence isn’t there, even though blacks, for instance, have “appropriated” more of it than we could ever hope to appropriate of theirs should we try.

A similar fate befell German culture. I guess the Irish survived because they were oppressed, or whatever. But there’s a whimsical quality to Irish-American culture, which I find artificial. Anyway, the point is that mainstream American culture is there, while people brought up in its slain yet undying influence pretend it isn’t.”

A later comment by ‘anonas’ adds:

The dominant American ethnic group in U.S. culture were and are the English. But we so take them for granted it’s as if their influence isn’t there….

My people thank you for the shout out, as we have our achievements blotted out.”

Very true. Yet it seems that this is all too often not mentioned or noticed even by people who are ‘WASPs’ or English-descended Americans. It may be that most English-Americans take themselves and their (very real) culture for granted.

 

Is Britain a ‘mongrel’ nation?

The phrase ‘mongrel nation’ is often bandied about in describing Britain, and/ or England, especially by the multiculturalists, who seem to delight in saying that there are no ‘races’ but the human race, and that we are all a mixture of many different peoples.

For example, today this comment was posted on a “conservative” forum in regard to an article about the discovery of Anglo-Saxon ruins in Scotland.

“England has to be about the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth.

The source of dozens of cultural conquests, reconquests, genocide, and subjugation over it’s documented 2500 year history. That might also be why it’s culture and society is one of the best in the world – if not the best.”

Obviously this ‘conservative’ is nevertheless a big fan of the idea that ‘bastardization’ as he calls it is a good thing, a desirable thing. He probably also says similar things about the U.S.: “our diversity is our strength”, in other words.

But is it factually true that England is ‘the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth’, or that it is a ‘mongrel island’ as the BBC/Guardian crowd like to say?

Biologist T.H. Huxley said:

“The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk any more of Celts and Saxons, for they are all one. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races”. – from Racial Origins

Freeman, in Origin of the English Nation:

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

British archeologist David Miles asserts that there is little change in the genetic makeup of British people for the last 12,000 years, based on recent genetic and archeological evidence.

“In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

[…]”There’s been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it’s now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons’ genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age,” Miles said.

[…]Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain’s population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.

Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.

The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

“The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model,” James writes in an article for the website BBC History.”

One of the worst things about the Internet is the way in which some of these careless statements (about ‘mongrel England, for example) and outright lies can spread so quickly. So many unfounded assertions are thrown around in the average Internet discussion that they become accepted ‘knowledge’ by a great many people who don’t bother to question what they read, let alone consult valid sources to verify anything. I’ve often said that we live in the Age of the Lie, and the Internet acts as a source of infection in communicating false ‘facts’ to people.

Maybe the forum comment I quoted at the beginning of this post was made in good faith by someone who actually believed what he wrote, or maybe he is someone who knowingly spreads false information in order to push the multicult point of view. Whether or not the latter is true, the result is the same. The comment will be quoted by others somewhere, or paraphrased, and the idea spreads. Anglophobics (and they are legion, on the Internet) will seize on it as a justification for mass immigration to Britain , because after all the English are all mongrels anyway — so why not flood the island with ever more exotic ‘diversity’?

And we here, in the States, see that line used frequently when our immigration crisis is under discussion: ‘this is a nation of immigrants. America was always multiracial and multicultural.’ And that is not even true of this country, despite the fact that there were European colonists who were not British or English. But Britain is even less deserving of having this ‘mongrel island’ label used to destroy the ethnic and cultural integrity of that country.

WASPs’ declining power

It’s often implied,  or explicitly claimed, that some kind of cabal of ‘WASP elites’ run America (if not the world) from behind the scenes. It seems futile to try to combat this myth, though I try in my small way.

Where’s the evidence for this group of powerful ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestants’ who secretly wield power? Names? Positions?

Nobody ever has details on just who these people are. The idea is firmly lodged in many (usually other-than-WASP) Americans’ minds, though they don’t know exactly who, where, and how these people supposedly dominate America. Sometimes someone will mention the likes of the Rockefellers or even the Vanderbilts as part of this WASP elite. Never mind that the name ‘Rockefeller’ is not exactly the typical Anglo-Saxon surname, and that it’s identified as being a Palatine German name; many people think that White+rich+powerful=WASP. Likewise the Vanderbilt family; here’s a clue (which was once common knowledge in this country): any name beginning with ‘Van’ or ‘Vander-” is generally Dutch or perhaps Belgian. ‘Van’-somethings are not WASPs.

Every election year there are these ridiculous fluff stories about how this or that Presidential candidate is of ‘Royal lineage’, especially that they are kin to the Windsors. Even the current White House occupant, despite his ‘exotic and diverse’ origin, is claimed to be descended from the British royal houses, and kin to various contemporary British royals. However the modern use of these unconvincing Genealogy fables is to establish the idea that race is inconsequential; we are all kin to each other, six degrees of separation and all that.

On some blog or forum I read today, someone commented that if any of the proposed Republican Vice-Presidential possibilities, there were no candidates of British Isles origin. I would offer a link to that comment but I’m unable to find it. In any case I doubt whether the GOP vice-presidential hopefuls are all of non-British Isles origin. Newt Gingrich, for instance, is reportedly at least partly Scots and Irish, but mostly German, according to some sources. He apparently is not of English ancestry, at least, and that is what is relevant to this blog. Likewise, Mike Pence is said to be of German and Irish ancestry. Again, there is apparently no known or very little English ancestry.

Is this something unprecedented, this noticeable lack of WASP ancestry amongst the various candidates? Is this by design or simply chance? It does seem that the favored candidates will emphasize their (comparatively) recent immigrant ancestry, like Joe Biden and his Irish roots, similarly, Paul Ryan, though the latter is claimed to have some English ancestry. Still, it isn’t politically advantageous to claim such ancestry; no doubt it’s a liability in these strange days of diversity-worship.

Although the official party line in post-American America is that race does not exist, and that ethnicity doesn’t matter because ‘we’re all one race, all of us are Americans’, there is a glaring emphasis on being ‘diverse’. The best White candidates can do is to assert some ethnic European ancestry:  Irish, Italian, Eastern European (like Kasich), or Latino. Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Pale,  male, and stale.

If present trends continue, it will soon be de rigueur to be at least mixed-race, if not nonwhite altogether. Look how race (mixed) figured so strongly in the last couple of elections.

Bill Clinton was half-jokingly referred to as ‘the first black president’ (and the title was conferred on him by a black woman, flatteringly), but there may have been some truth behind that title. He himself claimed that ‘we are all mixed race’ because evolution, because ‘out-of-Africa’, and so on. In doing genealogical research some years ago I came across an assertion from a genealogist who worked in Southern genealogies that Clinton’s mother, a Cassidy, had black forebears who were listed on census records as colored. I found those records, and they do exist. I find it plausible, and I am sure the Clintons should be happy to claim that ancestry, given their belief system.

In any case, Clinton’s actual ancestry is very much open to conjecture. The media, of course, will continue to make unfounded assertions about Clinton’s royal paternal ancestry, when in fact it’s all a big question mark. The lapdog media also, for some reason, take on faith the ancestry of the current occupant of the White House, despite lack of proof of anything.  Amazing how much faith they have.

It does seem that Anglo-Saxon Americans are becoming scarcer in the halls of  power; there is what? One Anglo-Saxon Protestant on the Supreme Court,  along with the mandatory affirmative action diversity?

As for the presidential candidates, there is nobody there who really represents the founding stock of this country; though Hillary Clinton’s maiden name, Rodham, is English, she is not of colonial stock; her Rodham ancestry is of fairly recent immigrant provenance. Trump is of course Scottish on one side, and of at least some German ancestry, though at least he is not hostile to the old-stock WASP America as many politicians today are, implicitly or explicitly. Whenever these pandering politicians start to tell hard-luck stories of how their immigrant ancestors were ‘discriminated against’ by those horrible nativists, it’s an attack, direct or indirect, on the original stock Anglo- Americans. If only they had been such hard-line nativists, we would not be in the multicult dystopia that we find ourselves in today.