Something worth saving

At Albion Awakening, Bruce Charlton offers some musings on Brexit Day in Britain, and considers why it seemed so important to the EU establishment to prevent Britain’s exit from that benighted union.

He says that the past nine months, that is, the time between the Brexit vote and the eventual beginning of the exit process, have shown the main reason for the EU’s reluctance to let Britain leave.

“It is what the Eurocrats call ‘the free movement of people’ but which in practice means that the UK is valued primarily as the major dumping-group for people that the rest of the EU does not want…”

Apparently the UK is the desired destination for a lot of the ‘refugees’ and immigrants, legal or otherwise, who enter the EU. Whether this is because of an organized effort to encourage these unwanteds to move on to the UK — by telling them that there are better benefits and handouts to be had there, or whether they learn from relatives or countrymen that Britain is a ‘soft touch’, many seem to end up there.

“We need to ask why it is so very important to the EU rulers that Britain specifically should get more unwanted people sent to us (passing through Europe, in preference to the rest of Europe) than anywhere else, year after year, decade after decade…”

Charlton concludes that the global powers-that-be consider the destruction of the British nation a high priority. I’ve long believed that, and this includes the Anglosphere in general, to a greater or lesser extent. Obviously all White countries, or countries with a dominant (or once-dominant) White majority are in the cross-hairs. But the Anglosphere has been especially besieged. Our country is in a way an easier target because of our tradition of the ‘melting pot’ and early mass immigration, which softened us up for the later onslaught.

I do agree with Bruce Charlton that a spiritual reawakening is the only thing that can truly save not only Britain but the West in general. However the term ‘spiritual’ has been so misused by many post-moderns; most ”progressive” people claim to be ‘spiritual’ but their spirituality is not the kind that is compatible with Western society/Christendom-as-was.  Given the composition of most Western populations these days, with ethnic/cultural/racial divides and major generational rifts, I don’t know how we might ever reach any agreement as to how to save  our societies.

I think Tiberge at GalliaWatch, writing about the situation in France, is on the right track. She cites Marion Maréchal Le Pen‘s recent article in Le Figaro on the need for cultural preservation and revival. This idea is important to all Western nations whose cultures and historic heritage are being undermined and outright destroyed through mass immigration and the damage done by the left’s loathing of our past and our traditions.

The realms of politics is important, but the political represents mainly the material aspect of life mostly; money, power. It is the material and physical side of our world, while culture and tradition and history are the non-material — I’ve thought a good deal about how the culture of a people is its spirit, its soul. That, too, is ‘spiritual’, and it’s essential to our retaining or restoring our essence as a people.

Men — or nations — do not live by ‘bread’ alone.

Advertisements

Brexit vs. the plan for a united Europe

From The Local:

“On the 60th anniversary of the start of the European Union, at least 3,500 demonstrators in Berlin joined an international protest to show their opposition to the UK leaving its member states behind.

As British Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to trigger Article 50 next week, setting into motion negotiations for an EU without the UK, thousands in Berlin and other major cities took to the streets on Saturday, marking 60 years since the Treaties of Rome laid the foundations for the modern-day Union.

Brexit has been largely viewed as unpopular in Germany even before the referendum vote last summer, with a poll in early June showing that nearly 80 percent of Germans wanted their British allies to remain in the Union.”

Well, the Germans have a right to their opinion, I suppose, but the will of the majority of British people should and does take precedence over that of Germans and of any other people within the EU who object to the British voluntarily leaving their Union.

The article notes there are British expatriates participating in the demonstration. It seems to me they, by expatriating themselves, have ‘voted with their feet’, and expressed their desires to choose their home according to ideology and not according to nature; evidently they have little attachment to their country of birth nor for the majority of the fellow native Britons who voted for Brexit. They prefer, like the Germans quoted in this piece, to remain under the control of a handful of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It seems they think that to be far preferable than for their country to be sovereign again — why? Because they ‘fear’ populism. In this case, ‘populism’ means the will of the majority of the people deciding the fate of Britain.

If only Brexit would actually return the UK to the native, indigenous people of that land, to the descendants of the people who have inhabited that land for many centuries. Sadly it is just a small step towards restoring the UK, but it’s a necessary step if Britain is ever to control its own fate again.

It is something of a cliche to refer to the EU ‘Presidents’ as ‘unelected bureaucrats’ as I’ve done, but it is a fact. This article gives some background on these oligarchs (or are they just front-men?) and on why the U.S. seems to have favored the idea of the EU since its inception — and before.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is quoted from two articles, one published in 2000 and another in 2007. 

“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s.”

The articles make for interesting reading. Evans-Pritchard mentions the leaders of the pan-European movement who were part of this initial plan, but he does not mention the name of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. Interestingly, amongst my ephemera collection is an old British magazine from the late 1940s or 1950 at the latest, if I recall correctly, that has a photo layout of various British and other European dignitaries at some sort of meeting to plan for this ‘united Europe.’ Coudenhove-Kalergi and his wife were pictured there.

Is it just coincidence that Coudenhove-Kalergi’s vision for a unified Europe seems to be playing out with the EU and with the effort to obliterate national boundaries and in fact, genetic boundaries?

The English have traditionally been a commonsensical people, practical and no-nonsense — or they were, once upon a time. But I suppose no people in former
Christendom are what they once were, thanks to many decades of conditioning, manipulation, and enforced diversity. But the Brexit vote hinted at the people of England at least showing something of their old traits.

 

Is There a European Personality Type?

Psychological research supports Spengler’s idea, elaborated by Duchesne, that Europeans have a uniquely Faustian personality.

Source: Is There a European Personality Type?

I’ve long been convinced each race, or even each ethnicity, tends to have a certain characteristic personality or personality type. Just simple observation over the years seems to make that obvious, though the people who deny the importance of heredity and those who deny that race is real would dispute the existence of certain distinctive traits for each race — or the various ethnicities within a race.

The Myers-Briggs personality typing system as referenced in the article seems to be a useful way of assessing people, and according to the linked article, Europeans and European-descended people are more likely to fall into certain types, with the ‘Intuitive Thinking’ preference being more common.

My own Myers-Briggs test results (I’ve tested several times over the years) shows me as an ‘Intuitive Thinking’ type, INTP to be exact.

The writer of the article says that the Intuitive Thinking type is most commonly associated with the ‘Faustian spirit’ which is most exemplified by people of European descent.

I wonder if there have been any studies done as to the patterns across the different European ethnicities. I would guess that certain types are more common amongst certain ethnic groups. For instance, it’s often been said that the English (specifically the English, not the ‘British’, which includes various ethnicities) tend more towards introversion, as contrasted to Americans’ extroversion.

Certainly not all Europeans are the same as to their characteristic personality types; if culture reflects the people, then European cultures certainly differ in various ways, though there is still a commonality.

But as a people, our unique qualities should be something we want to preserve, and that isn’t a matter of just passing on our ‘culture’ to whoever inhabits our country after we are gone. A ‘mixed multitude’ America (or Britain, or Canada, etc.) would not in any way be the same country; only we can preserve and pass on our culture because it is genetic to a great extent. Our genetic inheritance has to be preserved.

When people of European descent are juxtaposed to people of other races, their distinctive qualities are made more obvious. Maybe that is one of the few useful things about ‘diversity’ — it makes some of us more conscious of the fact that we have qualities that set us apart from others; we are obviously not ‘all the same under the skin’, though some, bizarrely, insist on claiming that we are.

Maybe the diversity-mongers have produced unintended consequences when they began this forced experiment in social/genetic meddling; they may unwittingly have fostered ‘nationalism’ and awareness of true human biodiversity.

The picture says it all

dhimmi

Above is Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK, wearing an Islamic-style head-covering, apparently talking with ‘community leaders.’ The headscarf, as well as the conciliatory, supplicating body language, seems to tell the tale. This obvious weakness and spinelessness enabled what happened in London yesterday.

Theresa May represents the Conservative [sic] party of her country. That says something about what passes as conservative.

The tale told by the photo also illustrates that women do not make good heads of state as a rule. Yet most of the male political leaders are little better, and just as weak and feminized and submissive.

Some might argue with my statement about women as leaders, citing, in the British context, Margaret Thatcher or Elizabeth I. Thatcher was called ‘the Iron Lady’ but yet she also played her part in stepping up immigration, as, similarly her friend Ronald Reagan did in America, with his 1986 amnesty.

Even if we accept that there have been exceptional women in the past who made good, strong leaders, I would say that today’s supposedly ”strong” women are not made of the same stuff as those of past eras.

The problem is that our societies, both in the U.S. and the UK, have become feminized overall; the ‘feminine’ qualities such as operating on feelings rather than reason and common sense, the emphasis on self-sacrificing altruism (or at least an outward show of it) and the idea of ‘reaching out’ to others and achieving consensus.

It all fits hand in glove with the hyper-masculine Islamic culture which seeks to subjugate others, to compel submission (as the very word Islam means submission). They have a will to dominate and our societies lack an equal will to resist.

Again, as I watch this slow-motion destruction of Britain or of our country, I can’t help thinking, yet again, of the ‘Lancaster Plan’, about which I posted. Granted, it’s only an alleged plan, but if it were true would the British political class admit it? Honestly?

Since I posted about the Lancaster Plan, I came across a mention on another blog. Someone submitted a quote from a commenter at the counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna.

From a comment by someone at GoV called “Bishop Cardinal Guy Leven-Torres TOCC UK”

“Europe will be Islamic by 2023 if no rebellion ensues. The British Police are already receiving training to that effect. Local informant. This is the whole point of Sharia compliant hate law and diversity training and the ridiculous respect given to Moslems and their religious feelings.

In UK it is called the Lancaster (House) Plan. Yes it does exist but is being applied to all of Europe. I have been warning of these events for years but summarily dismissed a “loony”, even by fellows in the supposed “Counter Jihad”….

“Lancaster House” is used by British Government and FO to implement Lancaster House Plans in cases like Rhodesia and Mugabe, but also more recent events. The handover to India in 1947 was such a “Lancaster Plan (John of Gaunt), as was Northern Ireland and the devolution of independence to Scotland. Nobody wants to believe me despite 23 years researching the subject and ancient Medieval history (MA Hons) and Islam and holding an Honorary Doctorate in Divinity etc.”

As events unfold, I see this allegation as being more and more believable. I wish I felt it was just more ‘conspiracy’ looniness but the fact is, so many of the conspiracy theories have proven to be conspiracy fact.

Whether it is literally true, this Lancaster Plan, whether it is something which is planned, already a fait accompli, or whether it’s just a big coincidence that reality is lining up with ‘conspiracy theory’, it seems to be happening.

 

 

 

On the English migration westward

“With few exceptions, the most distinguished families in the Colonial history of Virginia were founded in the Seventeenth century. It was in this century that there emigrated from England the Armisteads, Banisters, Bassetts, Blands, Bollings, Beverleys, Burwells, Byrds, Carys, Corbins, Carters, Claibornes, Custises, Fauntleroys, Fitzhughs, Harrisons, Lees, Lightfoots, Ludwells, Masons, Pages, Peytons, Randolphs, Robinsons, Scarboroughs, Spencers, Thoroughgoods, Washingtons and Wormleys — families that represented the nearest approach to an organized aristocracy which North America has seen, and which constituted in their association with the eighteenth, if not with the seventeenth century, the stateliest social body known so far in American history.

The fundamental influence leading the founders of these families and families of equal social standing in the Colony to emigrate from England to Virginia was the active and enterprising spirit which has pre-eminently distinguished the English race immemorially.

[…] The history of no other nation furnishes a movement of population comparable in magnitude and duration with that which led to the settlement of the whole Atlantic seaboard from Maine to Georgia. Vast as it was, it was only the beginning of the English colonization. When the Revolution tore the American communities from the side of the Mother Country, the flood of English emigration westward slackened and practically died away, but before another hundred years had passed it had spread itself far into the Australasian seas; new English cities, crowned with all the triumphs of the modern arts, and teeming with a happy and prosperous population, had arisen under the Southern cross; from Table Mountain far beyond the Zambesi, English dominion had broadened out in South Africa; England’s commissioned Viceroy was enthroned at Calcutta, her uncommissioned at Cairo; while in the West, in spite of Saratoga and Yorktown, she still owned half a continent and counted her loyal subjects by the millions. These were the achievements of her sons who had inherited that spirit of enterprise and adventure, not to be daunted by fear of a deadly climate or an Indian foe, which had sustained the souls of men who, before the close of the seventeenth century had hewn down the forests in Eastern Virginia; had brought the land under cultivation; had established homes; had founded a carefully ordered social and political system, and thrown over all the aegis of English Law.”

From Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, by Phillip Alexander Bruce, 1907

‘Patronymica Britannica’

For those with British Isles ancestry, or for anyone who is interested in surnames and their origins, here’s a pretty good resource, Patronymica Britannica, by Mark Antony Lower, published in 1860.

It seems to be fairly comprehensive; lost of interesting history is to be found here and there in the book.

Forgetting

Robert Knox on Anglo-Americans_Races of Man1850

The above is from a book by Robert Knox, Races of Man, from 1850. The ‘Mr. Cooper’ referred to by Knox is author James Fenimore Cooper.

It’s interesting that as of 1850, Knox says that the English who had recently immigrated to America had forgotten their country and race.

On a blog thread I was reading earlier, one commenter said that for English-descended Americans to claim special status as the original colonists was ‘pedantic’; that these days no one cares about that. Sadly it does seem to be true that most people don’t care, even those who have considerable English ancestry. Obviously the people with anti-English sentiments ”care” a lot, or there would not be so much animosity aroused by any mention of the English roots of this country or of the presence of English-Americans.

If any kind of consciousness of our English roots, as individuals or as a nation, is ‘pedantic’ then I suppose this blog is ‘pedantry’,  and of no interest to any but a handful who haven’t ”forgotten”. Time will tell; if that critic is right, then this blog will languish and nothing will be accomplished by it.

However if it’s true, as some have said, that the original colonists are irrelevant, because their few descendants are far outnumbered by German-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc., then the potential Hispanic majority  of the future (the ‘Reconquista’ crowd) can just as fairly say, in another generation or so, that the old European-American majority was irrelevant and ‘no one cares‘ anymore, because they will have been replaced or outnumbered.

It’s fine to cheer on the ‘forgetting’ of the old English America, but wait until the later immigrant descendants are those ‘forgetting’ and being forgotten. What goes around…

Not a matter of blood?

From a thread on an HBD blog:

There have been no genetic Anglo-Saxons for 1000 years. The term is gibberish invoked to express some social and political attitudes.

A useful genetic marker is R1a haplotype on the Y chromosome. This started out south of the Urals and spread east (Uighurs), south to the subcontinent (high fives Razib) and west across Northern Europe and Scandinavia. It entered Albion with the Anglo-Saxon invasion and Scotland and the coasts via Scandinavia. Before those invasions, the population was almost all R1b (original hunter-gatherers plus Celts entering in first millenium BCE). R1a is about 10% of the present population, so even if it was 50% of the Germanic tribes, the gene pool is only 20% “Anglo-Saxon”.

Unfortunately, the content of most of the comments on the thread is similar to the ideas expressed in the above.

It seems terribly important to some people, many people, to deny that Anglo-Saxon or English people exist, even in England or Britain as a whole. Why is that?

The blogger himself denies that Anglo-Saxon identity is a matter of blood.  In support of his belief, he mentions the National Geographic article which I linked to here, and which Patrick Cleburne at VDare linked, and says the information isn’t valid, supposedly being outdated. Supposedly more recent information refutes the content of the article. However there certainly have been other sources which cited that study and added their own information to it. Given the amount of disagreement here, we might get the impression that genetics isn’t a ‘hard science’ at all.

I have seen genetic maps that show that the peoples of the British Isles have more in common with each other than with continental ‘cousins.’ The blogger asserts that Anglo-Saxons and Germans are more closely related than is now believed, though the maps I’ve seen don’t show that to be the case. From a purely subjective point of view, I’ve never thought that English and Germans resemble each other that much. I’ve never mistaken one for the other just by their outward appearance. Having learned something of German and French, I found French easier to learn; the structure and syntax of German are radically different and some German words are not easy to guess as with unfamiliar French words. And yes, I know that is the legacy of the Normans, in part.

The one part of the linked blog piece that I agree with is this:

The number of people who identify as English has crashed since 1980. Why? The winds of cultural change. If you are of German and English heritage, you will usually say you are German American. If Irish and English, again, Irish (not to mention “Americans” who are actually English).”

Yes. I’ve said this as have others, and it’s true. Those who say ‘Germans are the majority White ethnic group in America’ are disingenuous as surely they know that the  ‘pie’ is divided amongst so many White ethnic groups in America that the Germans  will appear to be the most numerous. For that reason, and for the reason that people tend to pick the more recent immigrant group as their ethnicity, if they are a European mix, Germans may appear to be at the top, but if the truth were known it might look very different. Most Americans have not been DNA-tested, and many, like Elizabeth Warren, believe fairy tales about their ancestry because it’s in style to do so.

As for England being multicultural for centuries, having taken in immigrants from various European and later, non-European nations, we could make the same argument about many European countries. The Netherlands, for example, took in many French Huguenots, Sephardic Jews (Baruch Spinoza being one), some English Puritans, and Flemish people. In recent times, many ethnic Dutch whose ancestors had lived in the Dutch East Indies were ‘repatriated’ to Holland — bringing many mixed descendants (called ‘Indos’) back with them. The Dutch, unlike the English, were more willing to intermarry with the native people in their colonies. So can we say there is ‘no Dutch bloodline’, or that Dutch people are just a mixed multitude? I would not say that.

In our day politics and social change have damaged the objectivity of many ‘scientists’ and even more so, non-scientists.

‘Nation of immigrants’?

It’s a longstanding claim in America that this country is a ‘nation of immigrants’, a claim without much validity in my opinion. But there is even less validity to the now-frequent claim that Britain is, and has always been, a ‘nation of immigrants’ or a ‘multicultural nation.’

Patrick Cleburne has a piece about this at VDare, linking to a National Geographic article which refutes that claim nicely, supported by new genetic information that has come to light in the last decade or so.

The information cited in the article (which I linked to on this blog, in an earlier post) has been available long enough that you’d think the ‘nation of immigrants’ or ‘multiracial Britain’ canards would be discredited by now. But no, these brazen assertions live on. Why? Because of the globalists’ determination to do away with nations as we have known them, and to destroy the concept of race or ethnos. ‘We are all one race: the human race.’ The shameless big lie, as always.

Can reality be denied forever? It would seem not; I’d like to think not, but the globalist/Kalergists are determined to keep on trying to efface reality altogether.