Brexit and prorogation

As everyone probably knows, there’s a lot of controversy over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue the British Parliament. The Left in the UK, meaning primarily the Labour Party, are having fits, and launching into their overheated rhetoric, just like our ‘homegrown’ left does at every opportunity. There has been talk, like ‘Boris Johnson wasn’t legitimately elected’ so he has no authority to take this action. And when the Queen duly issued the necessary document declaring that the Parliament was to be prorogued, of course this made the ‘Remainers’ (also known as ‘Remoaners’) even more agitated.

The UK media has some good articles on the prorogue issue, and the larger question of Brexit here and a surprisingly sane take from the Guardian.

The arcane business of the UK government and its workings in the UK is a little beyond me, but I believe Boris Johnson’s action was necessary. I think the UK must leave the EU, without a Brexit ‘deal’. It remains to be seen, though, whether this will happen as promised, because of the machinations of the Remainer faction as well as the potential actions of the EU; they technically still have a right to come back with some kind of ‘deal’ offer.

Also, another piece from David Collins at Brexit Central.

Puritans Network website

The Puritans Network website has a lot of material on various related subjects, including, to my surprise, the idea of Anglo-American patriotism, or a form of ethnopatriotism.

Their Blueprint Towards an Anglo-American Nation has a good many points with which I can agree; they would probably be accepted by many on the right. However I get the impression they are very much against many of the things I would wish for. They explicitly condemn Kinism, which has been branded with the ‘r-word’, so is anathema to many mainstream Christians.

I am not a Kinist officially, although I’ve said I’m a “small-k” kinist, because I believe that the ties of kinship and ethnic roots are God-given. What with certain Christians condemning even the idea of nations as an evil, things are getting very strange. The Bible itself speaks repeatedly of nations and tribes. I suppose this would be news to some. Maybe the new translations of the Bible have substituted some other word or idea for ‘nations’ so as to confuse people.

However the Bible says that God sets the bounds of nations, meaning he creates a separation among the different and distinct nations. The mention of ‘nations’ is frequent enough that it can’t be missed. How these Bible ‘experts’ or Christian ‘leaders’ denouncing ‘ethnonationalism’ managed to be unaware of the words of Jesus, I don’t know. But they are, by condemning nationalism and ethnopatriotism, in effect, damning generations of our ancestors to hell, if it is a grave “sin” to be an ethnonationalist or patriot. All our generations of ancestors were in effect ‘ethnonationalists’ or ‘ethnopatriots’, though they may not have known those words. Loving one’s homeland has always been considered a virtue, up until this insane time, when everything is turned on its head. Loving one’s folk, one’s kinsmen, is even more important than devotion to our countr(ies).

It’s funny, how for certain peoples, loving their own folk is considered a good thing, a healthy thing, a desirable and admirable thing. But for people of European descent, it’s a ”sin.” Will it be a crime next?

We, all of us in the Western world in former Christendom desperately need to re-discover pietas. I encounter too many people who say that they ‘hate themselves’ for being White, and that they wish they were something other than White; they’ve been led to hate themselves — and yet this society officially preaches a ‘gospel’ of ”Self-Esteem” — what a mockery. Only certain people are constantly shamed and disparaged in the media and in schools and in the workplace. What’s wrong with this picture?

As to the Puritans Network, I plan to read their materials, though I can see that I am not exactly on the same page. I think their website is worth visiting and perusing if you are interested in Puritanism and/or Anglo-American roots. Really those of us who are English-descended should be on the same page, at least on the important issues. It’s a shame that our cultural Marxist orhtodoxy puts us at odds with one another in some ways, even within families.

Ironic, because on one side of my family most of my ancestors were English Puritans, and I have read and profited by Puritans such as Richard Baxter and William Gurnall. Gurnall wrote The Christian in Complete Armour, a book from which I’ve found inspiration.

English-Americans: last of the Mohicans?

A little over a century ago, Mr. Delos R. Baker pronounced Anglo-Americans a ‘feeble, degenerate, dying breed…the last of the Mohicans’. Well, we’re still here: the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated — or are the Delos Bakers of the world right?

Baker wrote a 49-page booklet called ‘Anglo-American Reunion, and in it he made it clear that he opposed any attempt to unify English-descended Americans with our cousins back in Britain. In fact he said that we are not even blood relations to the English or the British. He says there is ‘no predominant community of blood: none ever has existed.

In 1787, when the United States was born, the population of our New-England [sic] section was part English, part French, part German, part Dutch, part Irish, part Indian, part African.

Mr. Barker forgot to mention every other nationality which might have had two members residing in the New England states. I’m sure he missed somebody; if his purpose was to mention every minuscule ”community” of non-Anglos. I mean, the population of ‘Africans’ living in New England was pretty small at that moment in history. Later on, in the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon colonist stock probably were a small proportion of the total New England population. Too bad Mr. Baker would not live another century to see the Anglo-Saxon population outnumbered or ‘ethnically cleansed,’ as he wished for.

But let’s see what else he had to say:
“Of the Anglo-Dutch-German-Irish-Indian-African population of New York, less than half was English.”

And? So? This is not news; New York (formerly New Amsterdam) was not colonized by English people; it was a Dutch colony as most Americans know, and there were other ethnicities present when the Dutch were there, usually French (Huguenot refugees) and Belgians, both groups having intermarried with the Dutch. I doubt that many Irish or Germans or American Indians lived there; the Dutch had been under frequent attack by various Indian tribes in their colonies, even up until the time Baker mentions. These groups were not all living in happy harmony amongst one another then, as any schoolchild should be aware.

And, like most modern-day commentators, Baker (probably deliberately) exaggerates the presence of other non-Anglo colonists. They existed, but there is no reason to believe they outnumbered the English colonial stock Americans.

Then there’s this obvious fact: New York has from an early times had a more mixed population than the rest of the colonies; it’s even more multiracial, multicultural, and polyglot today than ever, but it was never an English colony. It’s a country to itself, almost. Maybe it should be an independent country.

Baker, in trying to use New York as an example of how mixed and mixed-up we are, is cherry-picking. He also cites the example of Pennsylvania, which was, again, an exception among the colonies as to its ethnic makeup. He cites Thomas Paine’s claim that as of 1775, less than one-third of Pennsylvania was English. He says that in Virginia, the African, Indian, French, and Irish outnumbered the English.

There was never a census of the Indian population, as I’ve said, in those times; rough guesstimates won’t do. And the French? Again, some Huguenots came to the South, including Virginia, but I’ve seen no evidence to indicate they were that numerous, and I’ve looked at many census records and other public documents in the course of doing genealogies. Maybe Baker is taking all those ethnic groups in the aggregate to make them outnumber the English settlers. Those early English settlers, including the rich families, had lots of children. Their natural increase was a big part of the population growth.

Baker again:
“The Anglo-Saxon blood was not conspicuous, and was much intermingled with the African.”

He cites no sources for this; it’s just his opinion, but unfortunately this kind of unfounded assertion is all too common even today. Just go to Steve Sailer’s blog, where commenters say similar things and no one counters these un-sourced claims.

As far as admixture between Whites in general and blacks, the rate of White ancestry amongst American blacks has been said to be 17-18 percent.

However different percentages are cited here. Still, the blogger at Occam’s Razor says that the average White American is 98.6 European, according to genetic ancestry surveys.

So much for Baker’s claims of widespread admixture. It should also be remembered that miscegeny between black and White was illegal in all the states, with some states having stricter laws regarding marriages with other ethnicities as well. And the practice was socially taboo; that was the way of the world then, much as some people deplore it. The past is another country, as we’ve heard.

Baker goes on and recites a long list of every ethnicity he can think of, and says we are all hybridized, mixed with every possible nationality and tribe and tongue.

We are become the most hybrid people on the face of the earth; and are generously and hospitably proud of the fact.”

But then he starts to get insulting towards the South:

“Only among the Appallachian [sic] highlands — the last retreat among us of illiteracy, feudism [?]. and moonshining — are Anglo-Saxons conspicuous in the population.”

I’ll leave aside his spelling mistakes in the above, though he should not have mentioned others’ illiteracy; people who live in glass houses, etc.

Then he goes on to the usual assertions about how Irish and German descent is far more prevalent than Anglo-Saxon. I’ve been over all that before, but it bears repeating for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it.
Just because more White Americans self-report as ‘German’ or ‘Irish’, that does not mean they actually are of that ethnicity exclusively or even predominantly; some people who have just one German or Irish or Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent report as one of those ethnicities, even with only one-fourth or less of that ethnicity. I read an article about a woman who identifies as Dutch though she has something like 1/32 Dutch ancestry. Why? Just because she ‘feels’ Dutch or likes the image of the Dutch.

And then there are those seeming millions of White Americans who, like Elizabeth Warren, will swear their great-grandmother was an Indian, even an Indian Princess, in some cases. Why? Because there’s a family legend that it’s so, and because the family has high cheekbones. Yes, some people, just like Fauxcahontas, think ‘high cheekbones’ are absolute proof of Indian ancestry. No other ethnicity has high cheekbones.

It’s also popular to claim German ancestry these days, maybe because of the backlash against anti-German sentiments that had their roots in the last two world wars. Lots of people with a fraction of German blood say they are German, but it’s true that the German settlers in the Plains states and Midwest held to their German ways and language even into the WWII era; they still had German language newspapers and magazines, and often, still spoke German at home. So there is the strong ethnocentrism of German-Americans, but that does not mean Germans are or ever were the majority in this country.

I would have to see DNA proof from a majority of Americans before I accept that ‘most Americans’ are German predominantly.

I wonder if, given his animus towards Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Baker is at least partly German; he says ”we” are proud of being a hybrid race (including himself in that ‘we’) but yet he goes on to say that ‘we Anglo-Saxons’ are a dying breed, like the last of the Mohicans. He says ‘we’ Anglo-Saxons are a ”feeble, degenerate, disappearing strain of blood.”

He seems to relish this kind of talk.

Now, if he were just some nobody from a century ago, venting his loathing of English people, I could dismiss it. But there are so many White Americans who say very similar things today. It’s just another dimension to the animus that has become a barrage in the media, directed towards White people in general. It’s White people hating other Whites, and nobody speaks up against it, except a very few who are conspicuous by their rarity.

Why are so few people of English descent speaking up? Do some bloggers censor replies from Anglo-Saxon Americans? I know that some of the comments I’ve left on certain blogs haven’t shown up. That’s one of the reasons I began this blog: because it seems there is no voice for people of our ethnicity. Who knows, if the trend towards censoring more and more speech continues, will there be any place where we can be heard?

Mr. Baker who wrote this screed against Anglo-Saxons (and also against plain White-bread Americans) is long since in his grave, or in the happy hunting ground where all good Hybrid-Americans go, but there are numbers of White people still promoting and believing his half-truths and propaganda.

#american-history, #dna, #english-descent, #ethnicity, #ethnocentrism, #ethnopatriotism

Puritans vs. Cavaliers, 1868

R.W. Thompson, himself a descendant of Cavalier ancestors in the South, gave an address in 1868 on the merits of the Puritans. It seems in those days the rancor was not at today’s levels, and each side could find admirable qualities in the other side. Thompson said, of the controversy:

This is no time for disturbing the dust in the graves of our fathers: — let them sleep, until he who will call the nations before his bar shall re-form and re-animate it. The work which lies before is is enough to demand our united energies. The labor of our fathers must not be lost by neglect, at our hands. We must see that there be no chilling frost to wither the fruit of the Great Protestant Reformation. We must take care that liberty is preserved, in all its variety of forms. There must be no hesitancy or halting in the contest between truth and error — right and wrong; –between Protestantism and all the forms of antagonism by which it may be assailed. We must not forget the responsibilities resting upon us, and growing out of our position.
[…]We are the inheritors of a richer legacy than was ever bequeathed to any other people.

Are today’s progressives really Puritans?

I happened across a recent post of Bruce Charlton’s, in which he addresses this idea, and I was gratified to see that he emphatically disagrees with it, calling it “a stupid meme”.

Bruce Charlton’s opinions on most things seem sound, and he seems unafraid to go against the popular ideas.

I see elsewhere a lot of conformity and unquestioning support for whatever the majority or the herd are saying or doing, and it’s frowned upon for anybody to object to the popular memes that float around the internet, because going against the seeming consensus is seen as ”being negative”. Nobody wants to be “negative” and so ideas that are incorrect often go unchallenged. This is not a good thing; thank goodness somebody of Dr. Charlton’s calibre has spoken out.

Apparently, it was Mencius Moldbug, (the nom-de-blog of Curtis Yarvin) who started this Puritan/progressive idea. I read Moldbug’s blog a time or two some years ago, but was never a regular there. But he was very influential it seems with much of the right, mostly the neoreactionaries. I did object to his popularizing the term ‘The Cathedral’ to signify the media and academia (as best I could understand his and his followers’ usage). It seemed to imply that Christianity, or rather his idea of it, in was more influential than it actually is. And as Yarvin/Moldbug is not a Christian I don’t think he is an authority on the Christian religion or the history of the Christian faith.

It’s not surprising that the book ‘Albion’s Seed’ was mentioned in the comment thread; anyone who has read my previous posts on that book knows that I’ve objected, sometimes strongly, to the ideas promoted by that book; it does oversimplify facts, and to make the current inhabitants of New England descendants of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans is absurd. Much of New England has been , to put it plainly, ethnically cleansed of the WASP descendants of the English Puritan colonists; my maternal ancestors were colonists and Puritans, and before the mid-19th century they were moving West, as many colonist descendants did. By that time many Irish, Italians, Portuguese, and others were coming to New England. Remote rural areas were the places where any remaining Anglo Puritan descendants lived.

As far as those Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants morphing into today’s progressives/leftists, it seems to have been more of the intellectuals who, influenced by the popular trends of the day — such as Transcendentalism which came from rather exotic roots — left their Puritan religion behind and became enamored of ‘social justice’ causes. But these people were by no means the majority.

So why has this meme about Puritans and progressives/SJWs become so widespread and so readily accepted?

I read many blogs and many comments from various people and for some reason there is considerable resentment towards the colonial era, old-stock Anglo-Saxons. From my point of view, it’s undeserved; I see it as having roots in a general resentment towards anybody who is perceived as in a superior or influential position. People often envy or resent those who seem to have any sort of prestige or position. As the Anglo-Saxons were the longest-established and dominant group when many later immigrants arrived, the WASPs were seen as being at the top of the pyramid.

Oddly the long-standing resentment crosses political lines. Many people on the right resent WASPs (even though they don’t know many people who identify as such; few claim that identity) and guess what? The left shares that same attitude.

It’s unsurprising that so few people of mostly English descent openly assert their ancestry, or show any healthy pride in it. Those of English descent, whose ancestors were the first to colonize Virginia and much of the South, or who settled New England, have a right to feel proud of our ancestors and what they accomplished, rather than feeling uneasy because so many people openly blame us and our ancestors for the present troubles in our country. Those of us with Puritan/colonial ancestors have the right to speak up whenever someone is slandering Anglo-Saxons/WASPs/Puritans online or in the ‘real world’.

I hope to post a piece pointing out the absurd stereotypes and caricatures of Puritans especially; they are a much misunderstood group of people, and in our very irreligious or anti-religious society it’s no wonder they are misunderstood. They were not the caricatured ‘killjoys’ as the cartoonish description has it. I think the misanthropic H.L. Mencken has a great deal to do with this animus towards Puritans. I’ve always disliked his sneering line about Puritans being afraid ‘that somebody, somewhere is enjoying themselves.’ Forgive me for not knowing the line by heart, and I just can’t be bothered to look it up. Mencken had a sort of talent for writing mordant, sarcastic lines and though I suppose it is a talent, his words were usually barbed. I don’t like cruel humor, though our age seems to nurture it.

C.S. Lewis wrote in The Screwtape Letters about how each age is put on guard against the wrong things:

“Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism.”

If the shoe fits..

I think it’s time somebody answers this ”stupid meme”; we need some exonerating evidence that the Puritans were not the people of the popular imagination. Both sides should be heard; I’ve heard for years about the negative image people have. There is another side to this story.

And I am glad Dr. Charlton wrote about this subject and broke the ice.

‘No…nation was ever so free as the English’

Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz was the writer of the quote above. He wrote those words in 1789, in a work called ‘A Picture of England.’ In that book he said that he called a state free in which no more restraint was necessary than the minimum which was required for the preservation of the commonwealth.

Johann von Archenholz further praised England and its people in the above named work, saying “…the people of England still possess a felicity worthy to be envied, and of which perhaps other nations can scarce have a conception: so difficult it is, in living under the mildest yoke, to form just ideas of a national liberty grounded on the rights of humanity.”

Further: “Without mentioning the great number of franchises and immunities of every kind, which the Great Charter and many favourable revolutions have at different times procured to the nation, we may arrange the rights of the people under six classes, viz.:

The Liberty of the Press,
The Habeas Corpus Act,
Public Courts of Justice,
The Trial by Jury,
The Right of Being Represented in Parliament,
The Privilege of Public Remonstrances.

But how many of these ‘franchises and immunities’ remain intact in 2019? Reading the news out of the UK, it seems they exist mostly on paper, to the extent that they exist at all. (And I’m sorry to say that our American ‘rights’ exist mostly in theory, it seems).

But reading this particular news item online does illustrate the loss of the former English liberty. So now, a “rude joke” makes someone a hunted man, while people found guilty in courts of law for real crimes are set free, or receive a slap on the wrist?

And do the ‘bread-and-circuses’ distractions keep the populace lulled in the face of all this, as in our country?

Sad, how far both our ancestral country and our country of birth have slidden.

‘Occupied’ Northern Ireland?

Something of a furor has apparently erupted around the BBC referring to Kashmir as being ‘Indian-occupied.’ The brouhaha resulted when a Hindu film director Shekhar Kapur, quoted in a RT article, posed an irate question to the BBC asking why, if they call Kashmir ‘Indian-occupied’, they don’t also refer to Northern Ireland, or Ulster, as ‘British-occupied.’

First of all, Mr. Kapur is simply trying to score a rhetorical point against the BBC or Britain itself, calling “hypocrisy”, because Kapur himself is a Hindu loyalist, though he is described in the RT article as a ‘British-Indian.’ There is no such thing; he is British or he is Indian. Choose one.

According to Kapur’s biographies (there are several online, with differing information) he was definitely born in India, and educated there, then went to London. Some sources say he lives in New York. Or he is reported to live, or have lived in the Philippines, or to be back in India. It appears to me he is one of those ‘world citizens’ who jets back and forth between various countries. Where are his allegiances? Judging by this controversy he identifies with is birthplace, India, as he is defending that country vs. Kashmir.

But Kapur is drawing parallels between the India-Kashmir question and the Northern Ireland/Ulster situation. Some online commenters say that Ulster is ‘under British occupation.’ Well, if that is so, then the United States is under European occupation, with its ‘Native American’ inhabitants lacking their rightful sovereignty. After all, the ancestors of the Ulster folk, (who are mainly descended from Scots and English border-county settlers), have been in Ulster for about 400 years — as long as those of us with early colonist ancestry have had a presence on this continent. So if Ulster is ‘under British occupation’ then so is this country ‘under occupation’. That’s a much closer parallel than the Kashmir-India situation.

I’ve often wondered why the Irish so insistently claim that the ‘Brits’ must get off their island because the Irish were there first. The American Indians could make the same claim, and some do. Are we prepared to renounce our claims and go back to Europe? Do you think Europe wants us all back?

The way of the world has always been that those who can hold and keep a place are the rightful owners, not just those whose ancestors were there first. Maybe an ideal world would not be thus, but this world has never been perfect and — news flash — it never can be.

The English, or more properly the Anglo-Normans have been in Ireland since the 12th century. The Twelfth Century. That’s what, nine centuries ago? Nearly a millennium. Nine hundred years.

And if four centuries is not enough to consider the Ulster folk as natives, then just how many centuries, or millennia, does it take? Stubbornness is one thing, but this goes beyond stubbornness.

There is an Irish Republic only because the British got tired of being harried by Irish uprisings and agreed to give them a Republic — which the Irish are now, ironically, willingly ceding to Third Worlders. Ironic in the extreme, and exasperating. How are the present colonizers of Ireland preferable to the Anglo-Normans or their English successors? Apparently their presence is more agreeable to the Irish, so I can’t waste many tears on the fate of Ireland since they are willing to be colonized and overwhelmed numerically, eventually.

The fact is, I happen to like the Irish as people but I fail to understand the mindset at work there.

In my opinion the Ulster folk have a long-established right to be in Ireland. Where would they go? They are much like the Boers; what country would take them in? Not the USA because we give preference to third worlders, as does Canada, and the rest of the Western World. The Ulster folk have a right to exist and Northern Ireland has been their home as long as this continent has been the home of my lineage out of Britain.

Americans for some reason — perhaps because of the very vocal presence of so many Irish-Americans — tend to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of the Irish, with no regard for the actual history of the conflict there, with little awareness of what the issues are.

One more postscript:with all due respect, to me it’s almost as strange that so many English or British harbor a hatred for Normans and anyone of known Norman descent (which includes many Americans, if they only knew it). I say the same thing here: 1066 was a long, long, time ago, long enough to count the Normans and their descendants as belonging in Britain as much as anyone else. If people of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, can be included, why not those of Norman descent? The Normans, after all, were close kindred genetically, and apparently there is no easy way to distinguish those of Norman descent based on DNA.

When one’s country is being inundated with very disparate peoples it would seem an inopportune time to ‘Other’ the people who have been part of the population for a thousand years.

If it’s still acceptable to hate the Normans for whatever reason, then I guess the Irish can go on hating Strongbow and those who followed him, after all these centuries. How long can these hatreds be kept going? Wouldn’t burying the hatchet be a good move in this troubled time?

I suppose, if millennia-long grudges are the thing, then the American Indians have a right to hate Whites and to demand the whole North American continent back because — it isn’t fair that the other guys won.

Meanwhile, Mr. Kapur, the ‘British-Indian’ director, in trying to make a point in favor of his actual countrymen in India has made a historical faux pas; if only people could learn some historical lessons by this silly controversy.

‘Britons Rediscovering themselves’

Though I haven’t had the time to put together a real post — sorry, I had hoped to — here’s a link to some commentary from the inactive Sarah, Maid of Albion blog. (Via Elliot Lake News & Views).

There are also a couple of videos worth watching at the link.

I waver between cautious optimism about England/the UK and discouragement, especially considering the less-than-ideal political situation there. As I’ve watched the unfolding situation with the new PM, Boris Johnson and his cabinet, things don’t look quite as promising as they might have. But still, if Brexit happens, that’s at least something.