Old Scandinavian influence on the English

The writer of the following piece, from a 1908 issue of Mentor Magazine, believes the old Scandinavians had more influence on the English spirit or character than is generally thought.

ScandinavianInfluenceOnEnglishRace_MentorMagazine1908

The writer appears to have a less-than-admiring attitude towards the Anglo-Saxons, who are now popularly thought to be the most significant element of the English folk and their character. The article’s writer believes the Danes and Norwegians are the source of the characteristics we associate with the English.

But we have to wonder what happened to the “bold, independent character” of the Scandinavians, as they seem to have developed in recent years into a passive, docile people unwilling to oppose the invasion of their countries and the imposition of what appears to be second-class status on the native Scandinavians. But then again, this kind of condition seems to be almost universal across Europe, and for that matter in all countries which were originally made up of European-descended people.

I often wonder about this question: is the character or the spirit of a people genetic, and if so, is it passed down through generations — or can it be subverted by means of propaganda, dysgenics, and what amounts to psychological/spiritual warfare? Could the original character of these peoples re-assert itself, or can it be restored by conscious effort? Can decades, even centuries or manipulation be reversed?

Questions.

I would like to think that the original spirit of a people is dormant, not extinguished forever, and that given the right conditions it can be resurgent. But it remains to be seen.

Advertisements

L.A. Waddell on origins of Britons

L.A. Waddell, in a 1914 book, The Phoenician Origins of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons, offers another view on the question of where the peoples of Britain originated. Needless to say, the theories held back in Waddell’s day are not politically correct, but I think books like his, with their refreshingly different way of viewing the past, are worth reading, if only to remind ourselves that the current dogmas are not proven fact. There are different ways to look at the evidence available, and doing so requires opening the mind to alternative ideas, outside the accepted ‘BBC’/PC version of Britain’s past.

In any case, here’s the link to the Archive.org version of the book, for anyone interested.

Who founded London?

I’ve been reading an old book called The Antiquary’s Portfolio. It’s about literary and historical curiosities in Great Britain “during the Middle and Latter Ages.” I haven’t had a chance to read the entire book, but it is mostly concerned with ‘manners, morals and customs’ though it does touch on government as well.

The descriptions of London from past eras is interesting to read, and it brings a wistful feeling to think about the London of recent years vs. the London of the past. There’s a description of the city and its people in the time of Henry II, as seen by a monk called William Fitz-Stephen:

Among the noble cities of the world, honoured by fame, the city of London is the one principal seat of the kingdom of England, whose renown is spread abroad very far; but she transporteth her wares and commodities much farther, and advanceth her head so much the higher. Happy she is in the wholesomeness of the air, in the Christian religion, her munition also and strength, the nature of her situation, the honour of her citizens, the chastity of her matrons. Very pleasant also in her sports and pastimes, and replenished with honourable personages, all which I think meet proper severally to consider.

Temperateness of the Air.

In this place the calmness of the air doth mollify men’s minds, not corrupting them with venereal lusts, but preserving them from savage and rude behaviour, and seasoning their inclinations with a more kind and free temper.”

And later in the same account:

“According to the reports of the chronicles, London is more ancient than the city of Rome; both being descended from the same Trojan stock; Brute builded this, before Remus and Romulus did the other. Whence still it uses the same ancient laws and common institutions. “The city is honoured with her men, graced with her arms, and peopled with a multitude of inhabitants.

[…]The citizens of London are known in all places, and respected above all other citizens for their civil demeanor, their good apparel, their table, and their discourse.”

[…] “The only plagues of London are immoderate drinking of idle fellows, and frequent fires.”

I’ve heard the stories before about Brutus of Troy being the founder of London and that the British people derive their name from this same man, who is described in some accounts as the “first King of Britain.” Is it true? It’s interesting to contemplate.

Some of this lore is considered less than credible because it has a ‘fringe element’ reputation, based on the way it is presented by some of its proponents. But what if there is at least a grain of truth in it? There are those who believe, too that Rome itself had Trojan origins.

It’s easy to dismiss this kind of speculation but simply observing how most branches of science have become so politicized and driven by political correctness, (the dishonesty and denial around HBD, the claims that ‘race does not exist’, the media lies about ‘diversity’ being part of Britain from the beginning — none of this inspires confidence in the pronouncements of the scientific establishment.

And then there’s the manipulation of data and the collusion among climate scientists regarding ‘Anthropogenic global warming’, climate change, or whatever they are calling it.

As to the origins of Europeans, we’re to believe that we all came “out of Africa” but that theory is obviously following the politically correct dogma, and seems intended to foster the idea that ‘we are all the same’.  This article casting doubt on the official story appeared seven years ago, and yet the scientific establishment clings to their script, ignoring any contradictory evidence.

So for me, the idea that the original ‘Britons’ may have come from Troy is not implausible.

The traditions in Britain about Brutus of Troy, ‘Gog and Magog’, the giants, and the rest of the ‘legends’ go to make up part of a rich folklore, and it serves a function in a culture. I would rather believe the supposed myths, especially those involving the heroes like King Arthur, who lies sleeping until the hour of England’s need.

Rather that, than the BBC’s fantasy about an always-multiracial Britain, and a black Robert de Beaumont arriving with William the Conqueror. It doesn’t get more absurd than that.

British genetics, again

This issue of the genetic makeup of the people(s) of Britain is never settled, what with the Cultural Marxists constantly producing bogus scientific reports about the genetics of Britain. Recently it was the absurd BBC series depicting Africans and other non-European people in Roman Britain, and the defense of those falsehoods by lady academic Mary Beard.

(Incidentally, has anyone noticed how biased the search engines are? Since Goolag Google has the search engine market cornered, and all the alternative search engines use Google’s results (minus the spying and data collection, supposedly) it is hard to find anything that strays off the PC reservation. The hits I got searching the Mary Beard/BBC story are all very much pro-BBC, pro-PC, and anti-reality. Truth is getting scarce.)

And thus, given the lack of regard for the truth, especially where race and genetics are concerned, this battle goes on.

Reading some Internet discussions it’s discouraging to see that so many people buy the falsehoods — because the people who control the media, academia, and even much of the Internet want the truth to be extinguished and the lies to prevail. They are ethnocidal towards people of European descent; if they could, they would efface even the memory of our folk, and that explains, in part, the pulling down of monuments and the re-writing of history to wildly exaggerate both the presence and the importance of everybody but European-descended people. In some cases, the exaggeration becomes outright lying, and this seems to happen more and more now.

But as a counter to those lies, here’s a useful piece from the West Hunter blog.

“Some archaeologists apparently think that there was a lot of diversity in Roman Britain, which means black people. There’s zero hard evidence of a single one. Which doesn’t prove that some Nubian with a serious case of wanderlust didn’t end up in Londinium, but it can’t have been common, and possibly it never happened at all. Ancient DNA could settle the question once and for all.”

The writer addresses the source of some of the misinformation, a craniometric analysis program called FORDISC. The writer concludes it is not that reliable, which is consistent with the evaluation at the link. So those who claim they have ‘proof’ of African ancestry in Britain do not have such proof, as of now.

This link also cites other studies done in the past which refute the idea of ancient ‘diversity’ in the British gene pool, some of which studies I’ve cited in the past here on this blog.

There has been a persistent trope that ‘the British are a mongrel nation’ or a ‘mixed nation’, and that story just won’t die. I have to put some of it down to Anglophobia, based in part on envy of the British successes and accomplishments in the world. Envy is a powerful emotion and resentments don’t abate quickly. I don’t know if these stories can be finally defeated in the struggle for the ”narrative”; maybe if the anti-White, antifa faction finally is shut down, their distortions of history and reality itself will be seen for what they are, or so we can only hope. Meantime we have to do what we can to answer the lies. It’s the least we can do.

William Barnes, English ‘lingual conservative’

English scholar William Barnes on his reasons for seeking to ‘purify’ the English language:

“I am a lingual conservative’, and it is therefore that I wish to see a purer, and more self-enriched tongue, instead of being a jargon of four or five others.” – from Gentleman’s Quarterly, ‘Formation of the English Language’, 1833

I suppose you might call Barnes a ‘lingual nationalist’, in that he believed that English people should speak the English language, and that their language was unique, and deserved preservation in its original form, as much as possible.

He campaigned against the tendency, especially among the learned, to use Latinate words or other foreign words, where a good straightforward English word would do. He immersed himself in the various folk-dialects of England, mainly that of Dorset, which he thought was one of the purest, that is, most truly folk-English, dialects, freest from the foreign influences. Though many educated people thought of regional and especially rural dialects as being simply corrupted or ignorant forms of the standard speech, Barnes and others like him recognized that they were a sort of language of their own, and that they were just as valid forms of speech as the language taught in schools, maybe even more so, given the artificial, foreign-influenced modern English.

Interestingly for Americans, some of the older, Anglo-Saxon words and phrases were brought to this country by the first colonists, and persisted here whereas they were replaced in the mother country by Latinate words. The most widely-known example is our word ‘fall‘, for the season of the year we are now entering. Of course standard British English uses the Latin-derived ‘autumn’. The French word is ‘automne‘, so maybe this word entered the English language via Norman French.

In Barnes’ own words, quoted in the book, William Barnes, Linguist, by Willis D. Jacobs

Barnes on English lng changes_2017-09-11_031033

I can agree to a great extent with Barnes. Maybe it’s a romantic notion, not easy to prove in a ‘scientific’ way, but it seems that the language of a folk is a reflection of the soul or spirit of that people, or at least of their collective mind. I don’t know that Barnes promoted any such theory, so I’m not attributing that belief to him, but it seems he thought that the folk-speech of the people should be preserved; maybe because it is distinct and peculiar to that people and their way of life.

I think of the English language as being a very rich language, in part because of the Latin/Norman French contribution to the vocabulary, so I am not as inclined to try to ‘cleanse’ those influences from the English language, and from a strictly practical point of view, it would be very hard to do that, and I don’t think our current cultural Marxist educational system would wish to make the English language more ‘exclusive’ and less inclusive. If anything, the educational establishment wants to ‘globalize’ and ‘enrich’ our language with more ‘diverse’ elements.

Still, there’s nothing stopping ethnopatriots and ethnonationalists from consciously reviving some of our ancestors’ (or, as Barnes would have us call them, our ‘fore-elders‘) words. In fact a good many of those old English phrases or terms, surviving in various dialects, are still in usage, at least in the United States. For example: “outskirts”, for ‘environs’ or outlying areas, “neighbourhood” for ‘vicinity’, or “upshot” for conclusion. Those examples are from a list of his, quoted in ‘William Barnes, Linguist.’

Many of the words that Barnes recommends are compound words, made from two single-syllable English words, and are therefore easy to understand, even if we haven’t heard them used before. For instance, ‘Forewit’ for caution or prudence.  ‘Hindersome‘ means obstructive. ‘Earth-tillage‘ is self-explanatory.

The King James Bible seems to use a lot of simple English terms, as in this verse:

“The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.” Ps. 121:8

I think the word ‘preserve‘ may be the only non-English derived word there.

George Watson writes here on the ‘dual origins’ of English, that is, its Germanic origins and its later ‘Romance’ influence. He mentions the issue that Barnes was concerned with in his time: that the less-educated classes, the ordinary folk, do not usually speak the more literary kind of English, and even educated people fall back on the Germanic English words when in a more informal setting.

“The British filter their language, both in speaking and writing, using Germanic words for popular or childish conversation and admitting Romance words for learned and technical usage—or for ironic effect. If that amounts to a mild national difference between Britain and the United States, that is because Americans often have a fainter sense of the double derivation of English and are in consequence more polysyllabic.

[…] Since Romance terms often reflect a higher rank, or education, or state of sophistication, they can boast a higher prestige than Germanic; though there are exceptions, and in the days of the U and non-U controversy it was diverting to be reminded that Germanic “napkin” is of higher standing than Romance “serviette.” Another is a difference of length. There are rather few Romance monosyllables in English; and exceptions like the verb “to pant” are somehow surprising to learn. (The word is ultimately related to Greek “phantasia.”) Much of our Germanic vocabulary, by contrast, has been left as words of one syllable, as a consequence of the collapse of English terminal inflections in the later Middle Ages.”

This is what strikes me about many of the memorable passages in the King James Bible, like the psalm I quoted above: the plain, one-syllable words, with their simplicity.

I confess I like the richness of the full English vocabulary, which may extend to over 400,000 words.  But how many people make use of this array of words?

The February 14, 2000, issue of Time magazine reported some disturbing news: in 1950 the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words. By 1999, the average 14-year-old’s vocabulary had dropped to only 10,000 words, less than half. This is disturbing because a person’s vocabulary reflects his or her overall general knowledge.

It seems few people really use the full treasury of words that is the English language. Is this in part because, as Barnes said, the ‘educated’ form of our language is inaccessible to a good many people? Would ‘reforming’ our language amount to dumbing it down even further, or would it remove some of the communication problems between the more educated and intelligent, and the less gifted? But wait; we’re all supposed to be equal in capacity for learning, and equally able to achieve.

Any attempt to reform our language would be out of the question for the cultural Marxists who are in charge; it’s too loaded with sociological implications. Still, Barnes’ ideas were interesting and he did a great service to English speakers by recording and preserving these old words and dialects, and offering new coinages.