On the percentage of British settlers in America

Sinclair Kennedy, writing in 1914:

“A French student divides the American people into two groups: those whose ancestors were in the United States previous to 1880, and hence almost totally British, and those descended from persons immigrating since that time. The former, according to his computation, comprises more than one-half of the present population of the United States. And of the latter, one-third at least are likewise of British stock.

A total of two-thirds, or perhaps even of three-fourths, of the American people to-day are, he concludes, the descendants of Britishers.(1) The Irish he considers an important element. Of the result of the mingled immigrations of the Irish and other Celts with the Scandinavians and Germans, an American student says: ‘When we remember that it was the crossing of the Germanic and the Celtic stocks that produced the English race itself, we are obliged to assume that the future American people will be substantially the same human stuff that created the English common law, founded parliamentary institutions, established American self-government, and framed the Constitution of the United States.’

(1) Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, Les Etats-Unis au Vingtieme Siecle, Paris, 1904, pp. 25-26.

From the book The Pan-Angles: A Consideration of the Federation of the Seven English-speaking Nations, by Sinclair Kennedy, 1914.

The viewpoint expressed by the French scholar was the consensus then, a little over a century ago. But now there is much more confusion and dissension.

The question of what group made up the majority of the early colonists and settlers is perpetually being disputed here and there on the Internet. The conflict is usually about whether German-descended Americans are the majority or whether the Anglo-Saxon or British descendants are the majority. This seems never to be resolved, and in most of the arguments I’ve witnessed, the German descendants seem to win by sheer insistence on the truth of their claim, though no evidence is usually offered. I don’t suppose the question will ever be settled, as the pro-German side will not accept any evidence that throws doubt on their assertions.

However I thought this point, made by an English commenter, made an interesting point:

This comment got my attention and roused my curiosity. I searched for something related to genetic testing for the mitochondrial DNA, but I didn’t come up with anything verifying this.

The comment mentions that the founding female population in the colonies overall was predominantly British, mostly English. Yes, there were other colonies established by other European nationalities, but they were fewer in number and at some point blended together with the other colonists. The Dutch and the English were intermarrying at an earlier date; the two nationalities are genetically closer, the Dutch being closer kin to the English than any of the other nationalities who had colonized this continent.

It’s also true that the English colonists tended to take wives and families when they colonized North America, and not to arrive as single men as did many of the other Europeans, such as the Spanish, who intermarried with the native Indians in their colonies, or the Dutch, who did likewise in certain of their colonies later on. The French tended not to bring families with them, and intermarried with the Indians, hence the Métis people, who have become sort of a people unto themselves.

It does certainly seem plausible that British women were a larger percentage of the female population in the early colonies.

There are other factors in why the British genetic contribution to America is underestimated, some of which I’ve mentioned in other posts. The fact that so very many different ethnicities have since settled in America, and when counting the various ethnic groups the ‘pie’ is being split into so many pieces that of course the British percentage gets smaller, as we are not getting many new British immigrants.

And then, obviously with the mixed-European people who may not even know what their genetics are in detail — how much of their ancestry comes from what country, they may only pick an identity based on the nationality of their surname. And even that can give erroneous impressions. Some of my ill-informed relatives have been known to say that one of our family surnames is ‘Irish’ when it is in fact English. In that way, as well as in other ways, people get confused over their ethnic identity.

Unfortunately I don’t see any resolution to the question of which ethnicity is the majority of the White American population. It seems, though, that there is quite a collection of people who are determined to depose the English/British descendants as the acknowledged majority amongst White Americans.

 

 

King Alfred and the White Horse

Yesterday, 26 October, is commemorated as the death anniversary of King Alfred, usually known as Alfred the Great.

The White Horse, or Uffington Horse, on the Berkshire Downs

 

G.K. Chesterton wrote a long poem, The Ballad of the White Horse, published in book form, (you can read it here), in which he describes a message King Alfred received in a vision of the Virgin Mary. He was at that time besieged by the Danes and he called for divine guidance or help to defeat the invasion. Now, I don’t share Chesterton’s Catholic faith but the poem is an inspiring one and it seems to foresee the events of our present day in a cryptic way.

Elisabeth G. Wolfe describes Chesterton’s poem as ‘Literature you should know,’ and offers much more detail here.:

“Civilization is under attack. An army masses to destroy Christians and their hated book learning, to plunder their wealth and ravish their women. Unless these savages are stopped, the lights may go out for good… but the Christian forces are few and scattered. Hope for victory seems dim.

This plot sounds like it’s ripped from the headlines, and it could have been—twelve centuries ago.”

The rest is at the link.

As to the horse, it and the other chalk figures similar to it are fascinating in themselves.

The Mystery of the White Horse of Uffington

Second chalk figure discovered near Uffington white horse

Against all odds, England’s massive chalk horse has survived 3,000 years

The odds may seem to be against England (that is, the people) surviving today’s invasion but let’s hope that like the Uffington white hose, England and the English people will defy the apparent odds.

‘Disarmed, before the foreigner…’

Recently, the news from the UK was that the regime government would imprison people for terms of up to 15 years for simply viewing what they call ”far-right propaganda” online.  I have to say my jaw dropped when I read that, though it should be no surprise.

Now, we read that the UK police arrested ‘at least 3,395 people’ — at least nine people a day — for ‘offensive comments’ online.

“Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016.

The true figure is likely to be significantly higher, as thirteen police forces refused to provide the requested information and two did not provide usable data.”

The fact that about half the charges were dropped before being prosecuted is considered an admission that the government is being overzealous and too heavy-handed, but that should not mitigate the disturbing nature of these arrests, and the criminalizing of what should be free speech.

News articles, the link above included, mention that a number of instances of nonwhite ‘hate speech’ against Whites were exempted, with no arrests made in even very high-profile cases of offensive anti-White comments. One recent example:

“Similarly, people who reported mixed race transgender model Munroe Bergdorf for saying “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth” in a segment produced and aired by the publicly-funded BBC — an apparent violation of the laws against ‘inciting racial hatred’ — were met with official indifference.”

The role played by social media, notably Facebook and Twitter, in sicking authorities on those who trespass against holy political correctness, should be noted here. Those platforms should be referred to as arms of the regime, not as benign and supposedly neutral ”social media.”

Political correctness, which is simply a code that is meant to shield nonwhites and non-Christians from criticism or ”offense”, and above all, it’s a way of disarming Whites; it takes away our right to voice our grievances or even to simply speak certain truths.

But it does illustrate plainly where exactly power resides, and it is not amongst White people, especially White males. In Britain it discriminates against indigenous English, Welsh, Scots, and Cornish people, in favor of strangers and invaders.

It is meant to emasculate and disarm Whites, as others have noted as well.

By the way, the source of the title of this post is from The Fox’s Prophecy, supposedly a prediction of England’s future, written in the 19th century:

“The footsteps of th’ invader,
Then England’s shore shall know,
While home-bred traitors give the hand
To England’s every foe.

“Disarmed, before the foreigner,
The knee shall humbly bend,
And yield the treasures that she lacked
The wisdom to defend.”

We in America are proud that we still, as of now, have the right to defend ourselves, and to bear arms; we are not disarmed in the literal sense — though our enemies are still trying — but political correctness has disarmed us to some extent, too. How long before our freedom to speak truth is under attack as it is in the UK?

 

Anglophobic Americans: why?

The question is not rhetorical; I am genuinely asking, but given the paucity of comments I may not get answers. So let’s just say I am musing to myself, trying to understand why there is an ugly Anglophobia that shows itself in this country more frequently these days.

The latest example that provoked my question was an internet post that I’ve quoted a portion of. It was directed at an (apparently) British commenter who merely said he liked the British health care system. The following rant (excuse the foul language; it’s the anglophobe’s, not mine) appeared as a response:

“…Your ability to manufacture is for shit. You can’t even make a decent automobile. I mean, what the fuck do you folks even do that carries any global impact. Last time I was in an electronics store, most of your stuff sucked ass. Going to an average grocery store, or electronics store is like a 1950′s version of an American one. The packaging of your grocery items is old fashioned and stupid. You can’t even make a milkshake. It’s like a special item, if you can find it.

Stop trying to brag about anything contemporary and British. Your political system sucks ass. You finally got your wits about you with Brexit, but it’s too little, too late. You’re a cultural and demographic dead man walking. The first thing any successful entertainer does when they hit pay dirt is to get the hell out of your country.

By the way, the mean little fat fuck you’re so proud of, Winston Churchill, tricked us into getting involved in a stupid civil war he helped to orchestrate, and for what? What did all the Americans die for? On those fucking beaches Hitler ran your silly asses off of at the get-go? So you could establish a Muslim Caliphate that used to be London? And who pays to defend your country now, when push comes to shove?

WE do. If you had to pay for a military that wasn’t a joke, your “free” health benefits would not be free.

And speaking of your great insurance that you’re taxed up the ass for, many of your inhabitants teeth are still atrocious. Out in your hinterlands, Brits can still be found with giant misshapen heads, under serviced jawlines, and every other manifestation of concentrated inbreeding, even after all these years.

In short, you’ve been a bunch of fucking two-faced assholes since 1770′s, and your shit hasn’t changed.

So… quit trying to feed our sociopath liberals blank ammunition by bragging about your stupid insurance plans. Your country is on welfare. We’re carrying your fat brit asses.

Shut up, and show some respect.”

I think it’s a shame that nobody told this foul-mouthed misanthrope to ‘shut up and show some respect‘, or at least some civility and manners. But I keep forgetting, those things are considered strictly optional in this mean and cynical age, in fact, foul language and ugliness seem to be de rigueur online.

People are entitled to their opinions about anything and anyone; individuals or groups of people included. But it’s possible to express criticisms without resorting to adolescent personal insults and without bringing in irrelevant points — the discussion was supposed to be about immigration and environmentalism, by the way. Obviously this person who wrote the rant was seething with animus towards English/British people. Why are British people’s ‘bad teeth’ (a popular insult these days) and alleged unattractiveness brought up?  Or their lack of ability to make a milkshake (!)? Who develops grudges over such things? What kind of person writes online rants about such trifling irrelevancies? Apparently the kind with an unhealthy obsession with a certain country and people. Anyway what are the chances that this man has ever set foot in Britain?

He says in the full text of his post that Britain is a ‘dead’ country because of demographics, but  factually we here in the United States have a greater percentage of ”diversity”, and more immigrants and ‘refugees’ streaming in. Pot, meet kettle. We are likewise in trouble. Why do Americans gloat about the impending doom of Europe, especially Britain? As if we don’t face the same crisis. Many Americans are in denial: reminds me of Carl Sandburg’s poem with the lines ”We are the greatest city, the greatest nation; nothing like us ever was.”

If you read much online, on blogs or forums or social media you find lots of personal animus, often directed at random targets. Everybody is bold and brave online, because you don’t have to see your “enemy” or your target face to face and risk getting an equally hostile response. The Internet, unfortunately, has done a lot to destroy civility and to escalate divisions within our country as well as in the world at large. I can see some of the anger over ideological divisions, especially with the increasingly unhinged and psychotic left pushing conflict. But since when did Americans dislike British or English people just because of who they are? Just since the days of the Internet?

I’d bet the Anglophobia which is so rife now is mainly coming from people whose ancestors had some grievance against England, people whose countries were conquered or defeated by England, or under English rule. There is a lot of resentment resulting from that, many generations after the fact. Shades of the ‘legacy of slavery and discrimination.’ It’s the same kind of complaints heard from blacks or Mexicans about things that happened long ago.

Then there are the maleducated Americans who somehow think that the English were some kind of foreign invaders during the Revolutionary War. There are some Americans who don’t seem to get the fact that the colonists were, for the most part, English by ancestry, and saw themselves as English, though born in the colonies. Maybe this is because the educational propaganda teaches students that America was diverse from day one, and that all sorts of people took part in the making of America; that the English colonists were just one group amongst many multi-ethnic colonists — so naturally they don’t see why the British felt they had any claim here.

And I’ve encountered quite a few Americans who are primarily German by descent who are resentful that they did not possess America (“did you know that this country almost chose German as the official language?”) and angry that German-Americans were ‘persecuted’ during the two world wars. I think the commenter’s bitter reference to the world wars indicates German ancestry, though that mindset is rife among many Americans now.

Between the various ethnic immigrant descendants, and the partisans of the ‘Celtic South’ who equate Anglo-Saxons with ‘Puritan Yankees’: the Enemy — Anglo-Saxons can’t get any good PR these days. There seem to be few real friends of Anglo-Saxons in the U.S. nowadays, or those in our mother country, England.

Part of the motivation for this blog was to offer some historical background, and to speak up for the old-stock English-descended Americans — but it seems a fruitless effort, with so few kindred souls out there. Or is it that there are just too few willing to stand up and be counted?

Personally I’m ashamed of fellow Americans like the commenter who wrote the diatribe I quoted above. The Ugly American of the 1950s lives on, if the numbers of similar comments are any indication. And is there any solution, or must it just get worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Britain ‘always multilingual’?

Well, of course England has always been ‘multilingual’ if it was ‘always multiracial’ as the true-believing multicultist academics assert.

In fact the blogger who wrote the article quoted at the link claims that all of the British Isles were ‘multilingual’, always. And the blogger, who is a British academic, boasts of how many re-tweets she got when she tweeted this assertion (to rebut the contrary claims of a Brexit supporter). She says she got over 600 retweets and ‘1,500 likes’. How many of those likes and re-tweets  were from immigrants? Probably a majority, and the rest were true-believing multicultis, many of them probably fellow academics, maybe colleagues of hers.

The blogger (whom I will not link) also disparages Richard Spenser, calling him a ‘White supremacist’ and alludes to others of like mind, and presumably Spencer himself, as a ‘racist’. I am certain she would include me in that category as well; anybody who actually believes England and the British Isles to have been historically White is called a “racist” by the left. Stating that simple fact is prima facie evidence of ”racism” in their (bigoted) book. Spencer’s tweet:

The blogger claims it isn’t clear which ‘invasion of the British Isles’ Spencer is talking about. Actually, Ms Academic, he says his ancestors ‘conquered England’ not ‘invaded the British Isles.‘ Rather an important distinction there. I thought precision and accuracy were important to scholars, but apparently not these days, or not when scoring points against vile racists. Sloppy use of language there, Madame Professor.

England is not identical with Britain, nor is England interchangeable with ‘the British Isles’. Invading is not conquering. Apparently Spenser is implying he is a descendant of the Normans who conquered England in 1066. His surname would imply that anyway; the name Spencer is from the Norman ‘De Spencer’ or ‘Le Despenser’, surnames which figure prominently at certain points in English history. Lots of descendants of that Norman family live here in the U.S., at least judging from the commonness of that surname.

So Richard Spencer is saying that he is a descendant of Normans and that people like him belong more truly to England than the current tide of immigrants and ‘refugees’ who are making Britain (not just England) a multiracial, multilingual, true Tower of Babel.

As for Richard Spencer himself, I’m ambivalent about him. Is he, as some say, an ‘operative’, a plant, or otherwise not to be trusted? A self-promoter? I don’t know. However, this universal leftist practice of calling anyone who is not an anti-White leftist a ”white supremacist” and ”racist” is wrong. I would think that a professor, an academic and ”scholar” should use language with precision, and use words accurately. This rhetoric of calling ideological enemies ‘racists’ and ‘supremacists’ is either carelessness with words, or it is malicious misuse of words, using them as weapons. But then the word ‘racist’ was invented by leftists in the late 1930s for precisely that purpose: to discredit people who held traditional attitudes about their race and people, to criminalize or ”demonize” normal bonds between kinsmen.

Being patriotic and loyal to one’s own folk or race is not ‘supremacist’; if so, most of the world’s normal people are ‘supremacists’ of their own race, and ”racists” to boot. There should be a term for people who want ‘people of color’ to dominate the planet; what should they be called? Because make no mistake, the left wants to ensure that White people dwindle in numbers to the point of insignificance, or to see that they become mixed  to the point of disappearing into the ‘rising tide of color’ as Lothrop Stoddard, I think, termed the growing numbers of nonwhites.

The blogger and her kind are people ”without natural affections”, to use a phrase from the Bible, without normal emotional ties to their own kind, and especially without loyalties to their living folk and their ancestors. Their progeny will, if they have their way, will either be absorbed into the nonwhite population, and probably have no knowledge of their White ancestry, or they will live as miserable outcastes in a majority-nonwhite world.

As for the rest of the blogger’s piece, it’s the usual academic twaddle meant to promote the globalist/leftist agenda and narrative, and to discredit anyone who is a ‘linguistic nationalist’, because being a nationalist in any way may indicate that the target is guilty of being an ethnopatriot.

The rights of Englishmen and ‘gun culture’

I see that there is an interesting piece at Identity Dixie, titled ‘Colonial American Gun Culture and the Rights of Englishmen.’ The writer notes the difference between the laws on firearm possession in the original colonies. The background and history of this makes for interesting reading.

And as the piece indicates, the right to bear arms stems from the notion of the obligation to bear arms.  Read the rest at Identity Dixie.

As I implied in my recent piece touching on this subject, it’s more than ironic that our kinsmen in Britain no longer have what we considered the ‘rights of Englishmen’, including the right to bear arms.

More bans of UK nationalist parties

As reported on the Heritage and Destiny blog, the British ‘Terrorism Act’ has been framed in such a way that it is being used against nationalist parties and political groups in the UK.  The former leader of the National Action party, Jack Renshaw, is now in prison:

 Former NA activist Jack Renshaw is in Preston prison on remand, awaiting charges for alleged membership of a ‘terrorist’ group; several serving British soldiers were arrested for alleged NA membership a few weeks ago in a still mysterious case; and this week several individuals seen as the former leaders of NA were similarly arrested, though not yet charged.

British media coverage, such as the linked stories above, are very biased and make the accused men out to be dangerous, not to mention loathsome. Imagine the inflammatory language they used in describing the accused being used to describe the people arrested in connection with actual terrorism. I’m inclining towards believing You Tube blogger BritGirl’s assertion that the EU signed a pact, creating a Euro-Mediterranean Project, which  guaranteed mass immigration from Islamic countries, and implicitly gave some kind of privileged status to the immigrants in Europe. How else can we explain the servile behavior of our political classes toward Islam and their apparent animus towards their own people, the people they supposedly represent? It can’t all be incompetence and fecklessness.

The article in Heritage and Destiny indicates that there is some kind of impending crackdown on Islamic extremist groups and that for the sake of ‘even-handedness’ some home-grown nationalists will be targeted as well.

In our country I see no such crackdown, but it does seem as though even the mildest action that might be construed as anti-Moslem (such as Trump’s proposed temporary travel ban involving a few Moslem nations) was thwarted by leftist judges. The Islamic lobby in the U.S., exemplified by CAIR, is very vocal in denouncing ‘Islamophobia’. Our political leaders have all ritually denounced the ‘alt-right’ and ‘White supremacists’ but would they dare denounce Islamic extremists, or even our home-grown antifas and extremist leftists?

Whether these actions in Britain against nationalist groups are an ominous sign of less freedom of thought and speech, or whether they are just an effort to avoid accusations of Islamophobia, remains to be seen.

It does seem as though freedoms throughout former Christendom are shrinking.

 

Misunderstanding between cousins

One of the issues which brings out a stark contrast in opinions between Americans and our cousins in Britain is the issue of the American ‘right to bear arms,’, per our Second Amendment.

I see that Theresa May, British Prime Minister, is now lecturing Americans, attempting to shame or browbeat us into adopting restrictions on firearms, along the lines of the British laws. With all due respect, she should keep her opinions to herself. Britain itself is not the safe country it once was, and the allegedly ‘conservative’ Ms May should clean up her own backyard before meddling in the affairs of other countries. Didn’t the pakistani Mayor of London recently tell his constituents that violence/terror attacks were ”part and parcel of life in a big city” in the current year?

I don’t agree with Khan’s cavalier attitude about violence, or his blasé acceptance of danger as normal. In a civilized society that kind of violence — or the kind of violence we have here in the U.S., should not be acceptable.

It’s well-known by most people, at least most people who are not deluded leftists, that countries which have gun control (Canada and Britain for example) are not peaceful utopias as the gun control advocates want us to believe.

“Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].

Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There’s no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]”

I have found in discussing this issue with British people that many of them are vehement about gun control; they believe their country is better and more civilized by having such restrictions, and conversely that Americans are backward and barbaric because in general, most of us strongly support our right to bear arms and to act in self-defense should the need arise. Many of our British kinsmen can’t or won’t understand our point of view, and get visibly irate at our insistence on our right to bear arms. To be fair there are English people (and people in the rest of Britain) who are dissident rightists, English nationalists (yes, they do exist) and others. They would like to see their right to bear arms reinstated and their right to self-defense recognized, not punished, as in the case of Tony Martin, a British farmer imprisoned for shooting a burglar in his house.

But Britain was not always a pacifistic, gun-phobic country. In times past gun ownership, if only for sport, gun ownership was widespread.

The piece linked above gives us a good summary of how Britain was disarmed.

“In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England”. However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever “gun control” law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.”

It was done gradually, incrementally, over the space of decades, starting around the turn of the 20th century and continuing unto the present day. We can learn a lesson from what happened in Britain: beware of these little restrictions that too often lead towards a complete ban. The leftists always work this way, although in recent times it seems that they are impatient and are speeding up their efforts to eliminate our freedoms. It seems they are feeling emboldened and are ready to stop soft-pedaling their agenda and to drop any pretense of being ‘moderate’ or reasonable.

Sadly it seems that decades of socialist/leftist programming has changed the traditional attitudes of the English/British people so that they actively oppose their time-honored  freedoms in many cases, and they truly don’t understand why we Americans want to retain ours.

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

The English love of liberty is often alluded to by many idealistic writers; I once thought that we are our father’s progeny and that the love of liberty was part of our genetic inheritance. Our American Founding Fathers, aware of their English ancestry, spoke of the ‘rights of Englishmen’ as part of their birthright. Now if only the English could shake off the leftist programming and determine to reclaim their rights as Englishmen.

But our English cousins, like us, lack good leadership. There seems to be no political party that represents the rightful people of England or Britain, just as White Americans have no political party that truly represents us and defends our interests. We have no leadership worthy of the name; no charismatic statesmen or orators, no ‘Grey Champions.’

Just as with Americans, I think what is needed for the British is to reclaim their history and their identity as a people; as the rightful heirs of Britain and not as second-class subjects in a multicultural, polyglot globalist province.

Disarming a people does something to their spirit and psyche, I think. The following quote is from a British republican tract, Political Disquisitions, published in 1774:

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”

And Joel Barlow said this, of disarming the citizenry, that it

“…has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. ”  from Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93