Doing their bit

Why are our English forebears rarely credited for their influence on America’s foundational era? Why are so many people so very vociferous in disparaging England (including its present incarnation as the UK?)

Many Americans can only think of Britain, or even England, as our ‘enemy’ of old, as in the Revolutionary era, and the War of 1812. Others, notably Irish-Americans and German-Americans seem to have longstanding grudges against England. Nevertheless England was the country which shaped the development of our country, at least until the demographics changed drastically.

Now, sadly, as England is essentially under occupation, some ill-wishing Americans seem to lean towards Schadenfreude, gloating over the ‘weakness’ of our English cousins. Yet if we look at the whole picture, of more than 2000 years of history, our ancestors accomplished a great deal, and deserve credit. But as one author noted, the British did not gloat or boast over their accomplishments, and an individual who did something which inspired praise or honors, during wartime especially, would answer that he was only “doing his bit”, doing what was necessary for the sake of their nation. A heroic deed, so they implied, was no more than what any decent person would do.

It’s interesting, though, as the phrase ”doing my bit’‘ was mentioned in a news story about the young man who helped subdue a knife-wielding attacker in London yesterday. In that situation, those passersby deserve to be commended for actively helping to stop the attacker before others were hurt or killed, at the risk of their own lives and safety.

The critics who pronounce Britain or England to be weak and defeated have to admit that the English are showing some spirit, as several local people helped to capture the man, identified as Usman Khan. Compare with the attack in the Netherlands where it seems there was no such involvement of passersby in stopping the attack there, or helping to apprehend the perpetrator.

The young Englishman whose response to reporters’ questions, that he was just “doing his bit” is behaving true to form; he did what he saw as needing to be done, and he minimized his own role in capturing the attacker. It was just something that needed doing, and he declined to try to claim credit for his actions.

Are there more people like this man and the other passersby, and will they step forward in this time of their country’s need — “doing their bit”? Or will these kinds of attacks continue as a slow-motion war that no one wants to acknowledge as such?

"Our fathers were Englishmen…"

There was no established ‘Thanksgiving Day’ when the first Puritans colonists came here in 1620 — after many hardships, as alluded to below, but the ‘Pilgrims’, as these first Puritan settlers came to be called — realized that they had much to be thankful for, despite the bleakness of their situation in 1620. They succeeded in founding a lasting colony, as our presence here shows, but it might have turned out much differently. Below is an excerpt from William Bradford’s account of the beginning of what became ‘Plimoth Plantation:

“Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element. And no marvel if they were thus joyful, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on the coast of his own Italy, as he affirmed, that he had rather remain twenty years on his way by land than pass by sea to any place in a short time, so tedious and dreadful was the same unto him.

But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people’s present condition; and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which went before), they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less town to repair to, to seek for succour. It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appear) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, fall of wild beasts and wild men — and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succour them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the master and company? But that with speed they should look out a place (with their shallop) where they would be, at some near distance; for the season was such as he would not stir from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them, where they would be, and he might go without danger; and that victuals consumed apace but he must and would keep sufficient for themselves and their return. Yea, it was muttered by some that if they got not a place in time, they would turn them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply and succour they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them or themselves; and how the case stood between them and the merchants at their coming away hath already been declared.

What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: “Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity,” etc. “Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and His mercies endure forever.” “Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, shew how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord His loving kindness and His wonderful works before the sons of men.”

Quoted from ‘OF THEIR VOYAGE, AND HOW THEY PASSED THE SEA; AND OF THEIR SAFE ARRIVAL AT CAPE COD – – Chapter IX of William Bradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation

Grand Union Flag

The Thinking WASP

This is the first flag of the United States of America. It flew from 1775 to 1777.

It was conceived and flown during the American War of Independence and is called the Grand Union Flag. Sometimes it’s referred to as the Continental Colors, the Congress Flag, the Cambridge Flag or the First Navy Ensign.

By whatever name ….

Grand Union Flag 1

…. it’s striking, don’t you agree?

What was the inspiration for the design?

Let’s begin with the Union Jack.

In 1775 as the war broke out but before the Declaration of Independence, George Washington wrote to his brother explaining that large sections of the newly formed Continental Congress were working towards reconciliation with Britain.

So, the Union Jack was retained.

The ports of the British American colonies were bustling places of trade. Each merchant ship from the Mother Country flew the Red Ensign.

Here’s the Red Ensign as it was in 1775…

View original post 240 more words

The UK and the EU — two pro-Britain views

William Wildblood has a very good piece on the subject of Britain and the EU. Bruce Charlton has also posted his own thoughts about it, and about the Brexit issue and the upcoming elections. Both these pieces are worthwhile reads.

While I may have differing religious views than these two gentlemen, I agree with most of what they say about the UK-EU question, and Brexit.

I’ve also come to think that politics and voting are not the most important piece of this puzzle. Much of what has gone wrong, and is now becoming alarmingly worse, has happened on the cultural level, the social level. And of course many of the solutions, if not all, can really only be dealt with at the spiritual level. But as many people have lost, or deliberately jettisoned their religion (it’s old-fashioned; it’s obsolete, or we hear those who object to going back to the Faith of our fathers saying “we need to get a new religion; Christianity made us weak”) Christianity as our forefathers knew it is all but extinct. And what good would a new religion — or even an old religion do us if we see it only as a means to an end? If a faith is not heartfelt, and only an expediency does it have any value?

Somehow it seems that our folk have lost their confidence and have become passive and focused only on self and individual needs and wants. Of course this is not universally true, but true of a great many. We are fragmented as a people, and that problem is getting worse.

Voting, as things are now, cannot solve our problems — either here in the US or in the UK — or anywhere in the Western world. But that’s not to say that the answer is to wash our hands of the problem; just that our system is no longer responsive to the peoples of our countries. The plain evidence of that is in the drawn-out story of the ‘Brexit’ effort.

The ‘leaders’, those in politically high places, along with their lackeys in the lugenpresse, seem to have done everything possible to thwart the effort, hoping that the ‘leavers’ might fall prey to fatalism and resignation.

The system is not ‘democratic’ in the sense of placing any power in the hands of the citizenry. Voting appears to be futile, as it has not prevented the present situation. In a country like the U.S., our checks and balances, supposedly guaranteeing too much concentration of power in one or another of the branches of government, the system seems to have been made null and void by apparently seating many politically appointed judges and justices, who are serving some end other than ‘justice.’ The judicial system seems to freely override the President himself, as well as the elected representatives of the people. The legislative branch appears to have been hijacked too; our reprresentatives don’t represent ordinary citizens; they instead seem to be there to do the will of some special interests with an agenda counter to the expressed will of the people.

And democracy, with its misguided emphasis on ”equality”, an unrealizable goal, has not worked. Most of the classical philosophers considered democracy the least desirable form of government. It certainly looks that way. Both the UK with its professed democratic or ‘representative’ government appears not to have attained the stated goals, or to have preserved ”freedom” or ”liberty”, which is sad, considering that for hundreds of years Britain has been seen as standing for those principles; English liberty (as it once was) seems to exist only on paper — and we are in the same situation here.

Wiliam Wildblood says:

“The EU is a modern Tower of Babel, an attempt to build a utopia without reference to the transcendent, but if you try to build a single structure of that size from such disparate elements as countries with hundreds of years of their own traditions it will fragment because there is no inner connection to the centre. Everything must have a centre. What is the centre of the EU? There is none. People point to the ideal of a body that enables cooperation and prevents local wars but nobody loves the EU, however convenient they may find it, and in practice it is just a federal superstate run by a technocratic elite, a liberal organisation that seeks to impose liberal dogma and stifle real freedom in the name of an atheistic humanism which, by definition, is fundamentally nihilistic.”

I recommend reading the whole piece, as well as Bruce Charlton’s piece.

A disappointment

Did Boris Johnson mean it when he made reference to getting immigration under control? It seems he didn’t mean it, as his recent statements contradicted what he was saying during all the Brexit confusion.

Even as he spoke about ‘getting the numbers down’ he made a deal with the EU that, for the foreseeable future, there will still be ‘Free Movement” between the UK and the EU, a policy which has guaranteed the entry of large numbers of immigrants.

The Labour Party has even more radical policy changes in mind:

The opposition Labour Party, for example, has voted at its most recent party conference to not just to allow Free Movement immigration from the European Union to continue, regardless of Brexit, but to extend Free Movement to other countries around the world, shut down all detention centres, and — perhaps not for unrelated reasons — extend the vote to all non-citizens resident in the country; moves Home Secretary Priti Patel believes could increase annual net immigration to an astonishing 840,000 a year.

Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 26, 2019

Imagine that many new arrivals in a small island nation like the UK. It seems that there is a housing shortage as it is. It seems as though there is some kind of mania compelling this obsession with importing immigrants en masse. And it’s the same in all parts of former Christendom. What will it take to bring some kind of common sense back before the situation is beyond repair?

The people make the place as I’ve said so often, and soon if the indigenous peoples of Britain and Northern Ireland are outnumbered and with their low birthrate, they may be headed for oblivion. This saddens me immensely; I think that the English or British have been people of high accomplishment, and they created a country that rightfully drew admiration for their achievements.

The one-world agenda has little to offer on the positive side, and it will mean a much less “diverse” world when everyone is thrown into the one-world ‘blender’, making for far less varied world than then one into which we were born.

And then the leaders of the leftist Welsh political party Plaid Cymru are saying they want to make their whole country, small as it is (population 3 million) into a ”sanctuary country” for the world. If that happens, Wales will slowly or quickly see the loss of their unique people and culture — and their country will be another overcrowded, overstressed country. But will there even be ”countries” in the former Christendom, or will we all be ”world citizens”, of no fixed character?

Or can a people preserve their ethnic identity in spite of no longer having a geographical territory to be themselves, and continue their culture, and their religion and folkways?

In considering that situation, which seems to be in the cards for so much of the Western world, I think of our Cajun people in Louisiana, who, having been colonists in Nova Scotia back in the 18th century, found themselves displaced, removed, and scattered. That event was in 1755, and it is still referred to as the ‘Grand Derangement‘. A good many of the displaced Acadian French people settled in Louisiana, as most Americans know. So many of the Acadians or ‘Cajuns’ maintain a strong sense of being who they are despite being a definite minority. But they and the local Anglo-American population of Louisiana are not at odds; they are not hopelessly disparate peoples. Most Cajuns are very loyal to America; there is not the sense of alienation, and no chips on shoulders or grievance mentality. For the most part there is little friction if any.

If only it would always work out that way. If.

Could this situation be replicated in Europe, or this country, as we head towards being minorities in our own native lands?

I ponder about this, and I have my own sense of what the future may hold.

I was just reading news commentary about the decline and ‘Grand Remplacement’ of ‘Old Stock Canadians’, which includes the French Canadian population, the Anglo-Celtic Canadians, and others (Ukrainians, Russsians, et al.) It seems as if we are all in the same boat, despite any ethnic or cultural differences among the European descendants. But can a culture and a sense of peoplehood survive in a “polyglot boarding house” as someone termed it?

It’s disappointing to witness Boris Johnson in his self-identified role as a ‘pro-immigration politician.’ But then I think few people expected anything different from him, with Brexit being the more pressing issue for many UK voters.

The Pentney hoard

No doubt some of you have read about, or seen, the Pentney hoard. It was found in 1977 in Norfolk (the UK Norfolk, of course) in 1978. It was quite a find, at least from an aesthetic viewpoint, but it also is of interest to the archaeology scholars. Read more about it on the ‘Daily Timewaster’ blog, at the link in the first line. I think it’s hardl a waste of time to take a look at the article and the photos.

The hoard consists of seven intricately-crafted brooches, mostly of silver, and they’re said to be a good example of 9th century Anglo-Saxon style silver craftsmanship.

Early 9th century Anglo-Saxon silver brooches, found at Pentney, Norfolk, in 1977. On display at the British Museum, London.

[This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Amitchell125 at English Wikipedia. This applies worldwide.
In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
Amitchell125 grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.]

The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ should be dropped

So says Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is described in this Daily Mail article as an ‘independent scholar and author.’ She says the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used by so-called ‘[W]hite supremacists’ to refer to ‘White British’ people and it should therefore be banned. I don’t quite see how that conclusion follows. If the term is tainted or offensive simply because it describes ”white British people” or because it is allegedly used by White supremacists, then a great many more words will be banned on that flimsy basis.

It’s troubling to hear that one’s ethnicity is so objectionable that the very name ‘Anglo-Saxon‘ ought to be banned. This woman says that, instead of Anglo-Saxon, the term ”early English” should be the acceptable name.

Mary Rambaran-Olm also says, of these elusive ‘White supremacists’:

‘Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.’ …

She seems to imply that those she calls ‘supremacists’ have a false idea of their own heritage, connecting it somehow with ‘whiteness’ — but Whiteness and Anglo-Saxon or ‘early English’ heritage are connected. Anglo-Saxon=White. Why do these simple facts upset anyone?

As for the ‘warrior past’, that, too, is part of being an Anglo-Saxon, and what’s wrong with that?

This may seem trivial to some people, this toying with words, but it is symbolic of the ‘Great Replacement’ of the English and British peoples; even their name is to be effaced, so as to further nullify their identity and their rightful place in the UK.

Ms Rambaran-Olm, who is identified as Irish in the article, though she was brought up in Canada, is somehow designated to tell the people of the UK what words they may use to describe themselves. How does this happen?

In any case, her double-barreled surname doesn’t tell us much about her ethnicity, though she does not seem to be English. But there is more about her objections to the name ‘Anglo-Saxon’:

Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or ‘Englelond’ – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn’.

The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their ‘supposed origins’.

Hitler wrote of the ‘Anglo-Saxon determination’ to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term. 

John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard’s Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.

So I am getting the idea that if a word or phrase is used by the ‘wrong’ people, such as Rhodes or the ubiquitous Hitler, then that word is tainted just because it’s used by someone who is disliked or condemned. So the name must be changed.

And how is it that a curator of early books at Harvard is the arbiter of what must be banned? Who bestowed this power on him, ?

The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists voted to drop the name Anglo-Saxon from its name, as 60 per cent of its membership voted to ban the term. I can only assume these are the lockstep, group-mind academics.

When even a group calling themselves ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ are willing to bend the knee, it’s worse than I thought.

Look back on the glory days of England, and contrast that to today’s topsy-turvy world in which the English are being made to humble themselves, while others aggrandize themselves and wallow in schadenfreude at the apparent ‘fall’ of the once-great England.

But this is an unnatural situation, being created by those who are determined to erase England/Britain off their map and establish their regime of sacred ”Diversity” and pretend equality,none of which could exist without being engineered and imposed from above.

In the meantime, it’s vital that we don’t acquiesce in the destruction of our folk and our heritage. Let’s have neither art nor part in this.

Brexit and other matters of interest

It’s become very difficult to follow just what is happening with Brexit. Things seem to change from day to day. As of now the elusive exit is supposed to happen on January 31.

John Derbyshire writes about Brexit, Trump, and the ‘two Anglo-Saxon cousin’ nations, that is, the U.S. and the UK, experiencing parallel political crises, and offers his thoughts about the situation. Both our nation and our cousins in the UK voted for change, and it seems that our systems have not worked to achieve the changes we voted for.

As so many people in this country have been saying, we can’t ”vote out way out” of the present predicament. The trouble is, what is the alternative, then? That’s the question. John Derbyshire goes into some detail in explaining the situation in the UK. It’s worth reading.

I like that Derbyshire refers to our nations, the USA and the UK as ‘Anglo-Saxon cousin nations.’ That’s what we are, despite the fact that some Americans don’t like the English or the British, and vice-versa. We are kin; there was a time when we all knew that, and that fact should be acknowledged. It’s odd that the ‘system’ would have us regard people who are very distant from us as our brothers while we downplay our kinship to the Anglosphere peoples.

Also The Thinking WASP blog has a piece about Guy Fawkes Night, which has just passed, and about the relevance for today. The post concludes with this:

“Remember your history. Savor and celebrate your way of life.”

I second that. I’m very much in favor of doing just that.

More myths and misconceptions

I’ve been reading a long thread on a popular blog; among the subjects that came up during the discussion, it seems that certain myths and misconceptions pop up, as so often happens. Will some of these myths never die?

For example: the idea that ‘Germanic’ and ‘German’ are synonymous terms. What I mean is that people insist that peoples broadly described as ‘Germanic’ (that would include the Germans, of course, but also Dutch, Flemish, Austrian, and also the Scandinavians and some — and I emphasize some — of the peoples of the British Isles.

Other myths that make their appearance on the thread: that the English are ‘Germans‘ because they are Anglo-Saxon, and both the Angles and Saxons were from an area that is now part of the (fairly recently formed — in 1815) country called Germany, then the English or British are Germans. And other people insist that because the Windsor royalty who now occupy the throne of Britain were originally part of the House of Hanover or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha families, they themselves are German, even if they concede the British or English people in general are not.

The English people, in that recent DNA testing seems to show a larger percentage of Anglo-Saxon genetics than previously thought, are apparently more Germanic in descent than they are, say, Celtic, though there are those who persist in believing that the English or the ‘British’ are ‘Celtic.’ Why is this so? My guess is that being Celtic is just “in”; people admire the image that popular culture and popular ‘history’ books have presented of Celtic peoples.

The ‘Celts’ in the British Isles are, of course the Irish, the Scots (who, however, have a larger percentage of Scandinavian/Norwegian ancestry,) and the Welsh, who are considered to be descended from the native Britons who were there before the Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans arrived. Some of the Britons, after being supplanted to some extent by the Germanic arrivals (Angles, Saxons, et al) went to what is now Brittany, in France; their Breton language is closely related to Welsh.

British people aren’t ‘Germans’, though they are Germanic. As to the British royalty, it’s true that they are not ‘typical’ British people, but neither are they ‘Germans’, though the Windsors are descendants of the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This article goes into more detail.

In any case, is there any hope of people letting go of their notion that the British royals are ”Germans” just because the House of Hanover was of German origin?

The fact is that European royalty, considering that the various royal houses of Europe generally choose their spouses from within that group, constitutes a sort of ethnicity to itself, being mixtures of various ‘nationalities’ within the smallish circle of European royalty.

And then we come to the popular assertions that marrying within the European royal lines spells ‘I-N-B-R-E-D’, which most Americans consider synonymous with defective, mentally challenged, and “ugly”, as many Americans say. I don’t see that this follows; I think Americans’ obsession with ‘inbred royalty’ is just an excuse to ridicule European royalty. We Americans, with this knee-jerk obsession with ”equality”, somehow find it necessary to ridicule and denounce royalty at every turn. This is something I don’t share with most Americans. I don’t see that our vaunted ”democracy” has served us very well; how could a monarchy be any worse than being represented (in theory, at least) by a lot of duplicitous crypto-globalist politicians? There’s not much to convince us that this is any better than a bad monarchy.

As far as ‘inbreeding’, I don’t know what degree of relationship is considered ‘inbreeding’; I’ve read that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were something like 6th cousins. This source says they were 5th cousins.

Whichever is true, the media don’t seem to consider the case of the Roosevelts as unhealthy inbreeding, though some royals are related no more closely than that.

I have noticed that the media seem to be pushing the theme of ‘inbreeding’ and trying to sell us on the idea of outmarrying, supposedly because it’s healthier, ”hybrid vigor” and all, new blood added to the stale bloodlines, etc. However ‘hybrid vigor’ does not seem to come into play with most human outmarriages/matings. I suspect the media is trying to push the Kalergist agenda, and they use that theme as a way of inducing people to comply. After all, we have to be equal opportunity spouse-seekers.

But as to the other genetic myths: there’s also the old urban legend about how the ”black Irish”, meaning those Irish-born people with dark hair and dark eyes, are descended from those men who were shipwrecked when the Spanish Armada was defeated by the English in 1588. This article casts doubt on that legend.

Most other sources seem to say the same; the story of Spaniards washing up on the shore of the West of Ireland and somehow fathering progeny there, enough to leave many dark-haired, dark-eyed descendants, just appeals to people who like a ‘romantic’ or spicy story. And the fact is, there are many dark-haired (and some dark-eyed) Irish people in the Western counties, and elsewhere. This seems to be from the predominant Celtic ancestry there, as in Wales, where there are more dark-haired people than fair.

But people do like these ‘colorful’ and fanciful stories. Maybe this is because people weaned on movies, TV, and fiction novels prefer stories to boring old facts.

Not that facts need be boring; I find reality interesting enough, and I read mostly non-fiction, though some think that preference is odd.

Another belief: those in the British Isles or America who have ‘Scandinavian’ origins as shown in DNA tests are descended from ‘Vikings.’ True, or not?

The fact is that the term ‘Viking’ is not an ethnic description as many Americans use it. Often the term is used interchangeably with ‘Norsemen’ or ‘Scandinavians’, at least those who lived in a certain era. ‘Viking’ was a term describing what these people did, not their ethnic origin or identity. Not every Scandinavian in the 8th-12th centuries was a ‘Viking’, though that seems to be assumed today. Still, the Scandinavians or Norsemen who became ancestors of people in the British Isles were probably seafarers/explorers/pirates, (Vikings) though this isn’t necessarily a given.

It’s tempting to think of our ancestors as ‘warriors’, adventurous, impressive people, and this may also explain the sudden popularity of the idea of Scottish or Celtic ancestry following the success of the Braveheart movie. It’s bad history, but apparently the image was something that people liked to identify with.

Again, this reminds me, too, of the sudden popularity of the ‘Celtic South’, the insistence, thanks to several popular books and a TV documentary, that the South was settled by, and mostly made up of, Scots-Irish people. Up until a couple of decades ago, Anglo-Saxons were considered to be the original colonists of the South, and the people who left their stamp on that region. But suddenly it was the Celts who made the South; they were the ‘real’ South, while the English settlers were downplayed. But some of our greatest heroes were of English descent: General Lee for example. General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was half-English but is claimed by the Celtic South promoters as ‘Scots-Irish.’

But even the name ‘Scots-Irish’ is based on a misconception. The people described by that term are not ‘Irish’ as in Celtic Irish, usually Catholic Irish, but Protestants with no actual Irish origins; they came from Scotland, or England, usually the border counties — to the six county province of Ulster, Northern Ireland. These are the people who for so long were in conflict with the Catholic (Celtic) Irish in Northern Ireland. They are ‘Ulster folk’ and they are also called ‘borderers’.

Still the misunderstanding of ‘Scots-Irish’ persists.

There are so many of these myths and misconceptions, and they seem impervious to being debunked or corrected. They seem to be passed around the Internet by word-of-mouth, or maybe people are all getting these ideas from certain sources. In this respect the Internet has seemed to be a very efficient way of passing along many misconceptions and falsehoods. And that’s in addition to being the most efficient source of propaganda ever.

#britain, #england, #ethnicity, #genetics, #hbd, #royalty, #vikings