Monthly Archives: February 2017

Enoch Powell on the English nation

Read Enoch Powell’s speech, given at a Royal Society of St. George dinner, on St. George’s Day, 1961:

“There was a saying, not heard today so often as formerly . .

What do they know of England who only England know?”

It is a saying which dates. It has a period aroma, like Kipling’s “Recessional” or the state rooms at Osborne. That phase is ended, so plainly ended, that even the generation born at its zenith, for whom the realisation is the hardest, no longer deceive themselves as to the fact. That power and that glory have vanished, as surely, if not as tracelessly, as the imperial fleet from the waters of Spithead.

And yet England is not as Nineveh and Tyre, nor as Rome, nor as Spain. Herodotus relates how the Athenians, returning to their city after it had been sacked and burnt by Xerxes and the Persian army, were astonished to find, alive and flourishing in the blackened ruins, the sacred olive tree, the native symbol of their country.

So we today, at the heart of a vanished empire, amid the fragments of demolished glory, seem to find, like one of her own oak trees, standing and growing, the sap still rising from her ancient roots to meet the spring, England herself.

 

Perhaps, after all, we know most of England “who only England know”.

Read the rest at the link. It’s very pertinent today, maybe more so than it was in 1961.

Lancaster plan: true or not?

The following appeared in a comment thread several months back; I don’t think I have posted it here previously, but if so, it’s worth posting again. The information that is presented in the following excerpt consists of ‘hearsay’ or allegations, purportedly from an informed ‘insider’ in the UK,. We can’t verify it but it has a certain plausibility about it. I leave it to my readers to judge for themselves.

Certainly the things that are going on in the UK, as well as in the United States and all Western countries seems so bizarre and perverse that it’s easy to imagine all sorts of possible explanations for what appears to be happening. How is it that ‘our’ governments, allegedly representative governments with the interests of their citizenry at heart, are seeming to openly side with aliens, even criminal outsiders as with the Rotherham, UK situation? There, we read of local law enforcement and judicial authorities actually arresting parents of the victims who complained about the unconscionable situation.

With that in mind, the following seems not impossible to believe — but it can’t be proven — as yet. If true — authorities may think they are controlling and defusing a threat but it looks suspiciously like appeasement and surrender.

lancaster-plan_2016-08-14_234918

More on American identity

The recent article by Eunjung Han in Nature on the subject of American ethnic identity continues to generate discussion here and there on the Internet. I don’t think the article will end the little controversies surrounding the question, however, because mere facts don’t always settle political/ethnic disagreements these days.

This piece at the Assistant Village Idiot blog points out some things that verify what I’ve believed and asserted. The writer tends to agree with both David Hackett Fischer’s and Colin Woodward’s assertions though as I’ve stated, I don’t hold those works as Holy Writ as some readers do. For instance the belief that broadly speaking the Northern colonies in early America represented distinct ethnicities in contrast to the Southern colonies. That’s an oversimplification, I know, but it is interpreted much that way by some who find it politically expedient to claim that the North and South represented disparate and incompatible peoples — both originally from Britain but irreconcilably different. There are also those who, following Fischer and/or Woodward, insist that the ‘Cavalier class’ in the South or the ‘Planter’ class represented a different people than Appalachia, or the Tidewater area, or the Midlands South, etc.

I think the differences, insofar as they exist or did exist are exaggerated, especially as they were scarcely mentioned as existing in earlier histories and commentaries from the literate classes in the pre-War South. They seem to have been discovered and emphasized only in recent times.

From the linked blog piece:

“Some things to note: Woodard’s Tidewater culture is not visibly distinct here, and the further distinctions of  Upland South, Midlands, and Greater Appalachia are visible, but not quite the same as any of the three authors have claimed.”

That much, at least, indicates at least a tiny chink  in the armor, but those partisans who see Fischer’s and Woodward’s works  as gospel won’t concur.

Another point of mine is that the ‘New England Yankee’ stock long ago migrated West en masse, though some did stay behind in isolated areas, and many ‘Yankees’  settled the Western mountain states, notably Utah, where many Mormon converts went in the 19th century. I know this in part because it’s documented in a couple of history books, but also from my own family genealogy researches.

Incidentally once settled in that area most of these emigrants held to conservative politics — except lately as they have become newish converts to multiculturalism and open borders universalism. The popular belief among many pro-South people is that the New England Yankees still hold sway in their original Northeastern stronghold, or that they mysteriously control the whole system, though I’ve repeatedly offered evidence that this is not so; New England is multicultural and the towns founded by my ancestors are mostly populated by upper-middle-class ethnic refugees from New York City, Boston and other urban towers of Babel. Most of my New England cousins, however, are probably in Utah or the Far West and they are hardly ruling America.

The blogger in the linked piece says this:

“That Utah was ultimately settled by people who were Yankees rather than one of the other American coastal nations has been noted before – first by their own extensive genealogies. Joseph Smith was a northeastern Yankee. Make of that what you will.”

Yes, there are stubborn misconceptions about the various branches of ‘Albion’s Seed’ and their interrelationships. Why are these canards still rife, and growing more stubborn, given the data that is available?

I don’t know the full answer; it seems America is becoming more balkanized ethnically, and I know that it doesn’t benefit us in this time of crisis for the house to be divided against itself. We rubbed along for a good while without these new internecine squabbles. Those of us who are of British Isles ancestry should be able to make common cause without exacerbating existing divisions or inventing new ones in the name of ethnic pride or revanchism.

Do I advocate for a particularistic cause myself?  Certainly I would like to see the English people, who are after all the core people of Britain regain a sense of identity that has been lost, suppressed by the globalist leaders of the UK. I’d like to see a resurgence of a healthy, non-divisive sense of pride in English achievements, rather than the English subsumed in the umbrella identity ‘British’. After all, can’t the Welsh be both British and claim their particularistic identity as Welsh? Don’t the Scottish claim their identity, and the Cornish? Why not the English?

‘British’ is a civic more than an ethnic category. Every immigrant in the UK claims to be ‘British.’

Regarding ethnic identity in America, the lines have been blurred even more, though the South retained more ethnic integrity until fairly recently because fewer immigrants settled in the South historically.

English colonial-stock Americans have more in common ethnically and culturally than today’s partisans want to admit.

People on the right often complain (justly) that those on the left are impervious to facts and that facts and data are immaterial to the leftist ideologues. There are such on the right as well. Too many postmoderns on both sides ignore facts in favor of ideology or politics.

 

 

‘The Britannic race’

From a few months ago, here’s an interesting piece on ‘The Britannic Race and its Predicament, from the British Observer UK blog. It’s pertinent to the ongoing argument about ‘Celts vs. Anglo-Saxons’ which seems to pop up everywhere on ethnonationalist or HBD blogs, as illustrated in my post from the other day.

I could quibble just a little about the preference of the writer of the piece to prefer the ‘British’ identity rather than differentiating between ‘British’ — a civic identity, inclusive of all the peoples of the British Isles — and the English. But I will let that go because many of the points the writer makes are valid. From the article:

“One issue that is particularly important to explain is this myth of ‘Celtic’ Britons and Anglo-Saxon Britons – the common statement is that the English are predominantly of Anglo-Saxon descent and the Welsh, Scots and Irish (and possibly Cornish) are more Celtic in origin. The truth of the matter is that the Britannic race is ‘Anglo-Celtic’, if we are to use such terms. In this instance ‘Anglo’ can be taken as a reference to all tribes of Germanic origin that settled in ancient and post-Roman Britain, for example the Belgae, Cantii and then the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, whilst Celtic refers to exactly that, the tribes we refer to as ‘Celtic’ such as the Brigantes, Cornovii etc… It is true, however, that there is a divide between the people of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Highland Scots and the English & Lowland Scots, but this is more a cultural divide than an ethnic or genetic difference, with Celtic culture more prominent in the former. The genetic differences between these groups are there, but they are reasonably subtle and only really noticeable in Ireland.”

Taking a good look at the Y DNA Haplogroup map in the article is helpful, and it relates to a point I made in my post the other day, about the apparent inability to distinguish, via DNA testing, between the various peoples of the British Isles. The map shows the similarities between the Haplogroup types amongst the various peoples of Britain and Ireland. To my eye, it looks as though there is a closer similarity between the Irish and the Welsh, based on this map, and likewise between the Scots and the English.

“But, the general theme is still the same – our genetic map spreads across all of the British Isles, the only difference being some tribal roots are more prevalent in one part of Britain or another. This is why delving back into particulars and separating ourselves between Celtic and Anglo is counterproductive, as it is fair to say we are a reasonably homogeneous ‘Anglo-Celtic’ ethnic group.

You may be asking why all this matters? Well, the particulars such as who’s got more of which Y DNA strand or who is more Frisian than Celtic really doesn’t matter – what does matter is the fact that an ethnic group is the sum of its parts, and the nation is the sum of its people, therefore the bedrock of a nation is its dominant ethnic group, all the more so if the ethnic make up of a nation is fairly homogeneous which was the case with Great Britain until circa 1948.”

The writer then goes on to elaborate on the modern era of mass immigration from former Commonwealth countries, which started in earnest with the arrival of the Windrush in 1948. And yes, contrary to what the modern multicultist propagandists assert, the old-stock people of the British Isles are a very homogeneous group, or were until recent decades as the cult aggressively pushes miscegeny in an overt attempt to change forever the genetics of the population of Britain. Britain was not, as is often said by the lying media and intelligentsia, a ‘nation of mongrels’, but there is a flagrant plan to make it just that.

“The genetic stock of Britain is being altered beyond recognition – natives make up 80% of the overall population (as of the 2011 census), which may not sound too alarming, but when one compares that with the 92.12% of 2001, just 10 years prior to the last census, the future looks bleak. Immigration is running at record levels, with approximately 600,000 people arriving here each year from all over the world, whilst around 300,000 people (mainly natives) are seeking pastures new as they see their own land decline like never before.”

It isn’t mentioned in this article, but it is apparent that the people behind this globalist agenda are particularly trying to suppress the English as an ethnic group, as contrasted to their allowing the Celtic nationalists (although they are not true nationalists, as with the Scottish Nationalist Party, embracing multiculturalism and ‘diversity’, likewise much of existing Irish nationalism) their political parties and movements, their parliaments and flags, whereas the St. George’s flag, the symbol of England is declared divisive and ‘hateful.’ I had an ongoing argument with a reader who identified as Scots-American who flatly denied that the English were being singled out for suppression. It’s amazing how much denial there is on this subject.

I see parallels in this country; there is an incredible amount of anti-Anglo, or anti-WASP rhetoric amongst Americans, and it gets a pass for the most part. Few Anglo-Americans feel compelled to say a word in response. Why? Is this just, in microcosm, the typical ‘cucked’ White response, to be silent and self-effacing if not self-hating?

I am all in favor of each ethnic group/nation having their own ethnopatriotism; I am not in favor of amalgamating the various European ethnicities, even those who are close kin, as shown by genetic evidence. Much of the inter-group quarreling amongst close kindred is motivated by past historical grudges (some groups have preternaturally long memories of battles lost, and perceived humiliations), and this really should change, considering that all Europeans are under the same threat.

 

‘Albion’s Gene’

At the Unz Review, on the iSteve blog, a post containing links and excerpts from a study on ‘IBD’, or ‘Identity-By-Descent’ connections in America, based on data from 770,000 genotyped individuals. Interesting, if you have the background and the savvy to decipher the data presented, as it is apparently not written for the layman.

I have a longstanding layman’s interest in genetics and HBD but I admit to finding the information hard to follow.

On blog posts such as this ‘Albion’s Gene’ example, invariably the book Albion’s Seed, by David Hackett Fischer, is invoked.  And as usual it is invoked in the same spirit as a quote from the Holy Bible is cited by a believing Christians.  I’ve made my views of the book known, at some length, on the subject of Fischer’s book. It certainly is impressive in its (physical) weight and size, but I don’t consider it Holy Writ as do many who follow the subjects of HBD or American History and demography. Too often there are political axes being ground, especially amongst those who want to champion their own ethnic group (usually Celtic or German or both) at the expense of the original majority, the English colonists of this country.

Refreshingly, though, commenter ‘Halvorson’ says what I myself feel:

I’m apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion’s Seed and so it’s my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer’s sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

The chart he links to above is interesting. It appears that some of the ‘evidence’ in favor of a Scots-Irish majority in certain places is nothing more than assessing the national or ethnic origin of surnames, which can be tricky. Some surnames are obviously used in various parts of the British Isles (Jones, Jackson, Johnson, and many others) and are often claimed as ‘Welsh’ or ‘Scots’ when they are not originally Celtic but English. So if that’s the best the proponents of the Celtic majority have, it isn’t exactly solid proof.

Now, if only most people in America were DNA-tested, that would at least provide some evidence beyond unreliable family lore or ‘oral history’ [as an example, see: the Cherokee princess myth] as to people’s actual origins. But even DNA testing is apparently not precise enough to distinguish amongst the various strains of ‘British Isles’ ancestry, which again says something: the Celt cult says that there is a world of difference between ‘fiery, passionate Celts’ and phlegmatic, cold-blooded Sassenachs. I don’t dispute the evidence showing close connections between the groups. Differences are real but not as stark as some would make them.

I notice that a couple of other comments to the article second what Halvorson says and also that commenter ‘FKA Max’ links to this blog. I appreciate the link.

Will we ever really know which side is correct in this ongoing dispute between those of English/Anglo-Saxon origin and the ‘Celtic’ proponents? Does it even matter? Well, yes it matters because the truth matters. Presumably only the left subscribes to the nonsense which asserts that ‘there is no truth, only competing narratives.’

And it does matter to me, personally, because it seems a crying shame that the people who founded the colonies which became the United States of America should be denied pride of place, or be forced into the background of history while later groups usurp their place of honor. If that happens and the English ethnicity is slowly expunged from the history of this land, it will just be a foreshadowing of the later erasing of White people generally from their rightful place in our national story.

 

Anglo-Saxonism in Texas history

On the Occidental Dissent blog, I came across this excerpt from a book called Race and Manifest Destiny, by Reginald Horsman:

 “The Texas Revolution was from its beginnings interpreted in the United States and among Americans in Texas as a racial clash, not simply a revolt against unjust government or tyranny. Thomas Hart Benton said that the Texas revolt “has illustrated the Anglo-Saxon character, and given it new titles to the respect and admiration of the world. It shows that liberty, justice, valour – moral, physical, and intellectual power – discriminate that race wherever it goes.” Benton asked “old England” to rejoice that distant Texas streams had seen the exploits of “a people sprung from their loins, and carrying their language, laws and customs, their magna charta [sic]and all its glorious privileges, into new regions and far distant climes.”

In his two terms as president of Texas, Sam Houston consistently thought of the struggle in his region as one between a glorious Anglo-Saxon race and an inferior Mexican rabble. Victory for the Texans and the Americans in the Southwest would mean that large areas of the world were to be brought under the rule of a race that could make best use of them. Houston was less imbued with the harsh scientific racial theories that carried most Americans before them in the 1840s than with the romantic exaltation of the Saxons given by Sir Walter Scott and his followers.

Houston’s inaugural address in 1836 contrasted the harsh, uncivilized warfare of the Mexicans with the more human conduct of the Texans. He conjured up a vision of the civilized world proudly contemplating “conduct which reflected so much glory on the Anglo-Saxon race.” The idea of the Anglo-Saxons as the living embodiment of the chivalric ideal always fascinated Houston; the Mexicans were “the base invader” fleeing from “Anglo-Saxon chivalry.” In fighting Mexico the Texans were struggling to disarm tyranny, to overthrow oppression, and create representative government: “With these principles we will march across the Rio Grande, and … ere the banner of Mexico shall triumphantly float upon the banks of the Sabine, the Texian standard of the single star, borne by the Anglo-Saxon race, shall display its bright folds in Liberty’s triumph, on the isthmus of Darien.”

While conceiving of the Texas Revolution as that of a freedom-loving Anglo-Saxon race rising up to throw off the bonds of tyranny imposed by a foreign despot, Houston was also fully convinced of the inevitability of the general American Anglo-Saxon expansion. To him “the genius as well as the excitability” of the American people impelled them to war. “Their love of dominion,” he said, “and the extension of their territorial limits, also, is equal to that of Rome in the last ages of the Commonwealth and the first of the Caesars.” The people of the United States, he argued, were convinced that the North American continent had been bestowed on them, and if necessary they would take it by force. He told one correspondent in 1844 that there was no need to be concerned about the population said to occupy the vast area from the 29th to the 46th latitude on the Pacific: “They will, like the Indian race yield to the advance of the North American population …”

I haven’t read the book; it isn’t available for reading online, apparently, but I get the impression that Horsman believes that the growing racial consciousness amongst Anglo-Saxonist Americans was not a good or valid thing.

For liberals and blank-slate egalitarians, of course it is a bad thing in their minds, because in their absolutist dogma, everyone is basically the same, ‘diversity’ notwithstanding, and everyone does have — must have — equal potential in every area of life. Any idea that conflicts with this dogma is “malevolent”, as this reviewer of the book says.

The writer of this summary of Horsman’s book seems to share that opinion.

Horsman portrays the growth of a racial ideology in terms of justifying the expansion of the United States and its tremendous exploitation and suffering it cased other people.”

Evidently Horsman is another blank-slate egalitarian rather than an objective scholar.

Those biased views notwithstanding,  my point in posting the excerpt is to illustrate the fact that yes, Anglo-Saxon-descended settlers were the predominant group in Texas in the early days of the American colonies there, as in the rest of the South with some rare exceptions. And if I belabor this point, it’s because conflicting ideas have become more popular, so that the plain facts are being denied. Truth matters. There is no valid reason for the continual re-writing of history with the aim of diminishing or outright denying the role played by Anglo-Saxon settlers.

 

Good news on Brexit

The attempt to thwart Britain’s exit from the European Union appears to have been defeated in a vote by the House of Commons.  From the Daily Mail:

Britain passed the point of no return in its historic battle to cut ties with Brussels tonight as MPs backed the Brexit Bill.

The Commons endorsed the legislation by 498 votes to 114 after the government saw off a desperate bid by more than 100 Remoaners to block it.

In the first of a crucial set of votes in the Commons, a ‘wrecking’ amendment that would have effectively killed the law was defeated by 336 to 100.

The House then gave the Bill its second reading by another huge margin, despite the opposition from Labour MPs, the SNP and most Liberal Democrats.”

According to the linked article, British PM Theresa May has established a ‘target date’ of March 9 for  beginning the formal process of Britain’s exiting the EU.

Obviously this can all be very abstruse for those of us that are not familiar with all the ins and outs of the workings of the UK government. Apparently the House of Lords could, in theory, slow things down by sending the bill back to the House of Commons.

As of now, though, it seems things look good for finally making Brexit a reality.

Well done, our British kinsmen.