‘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.

Advertisements

#english-character, #english-liberty, #freedom, #history, #justice, #legal-system, #rights

‘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.

#american-history, #britain, #british-identity, #colonies, #history, #normans, #northern-ireland, #settler-peoples, #ulster

‘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.

#demographics, #english-culture, #immigration, #united-kingdom

LOTR quote

I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

  • J.R.R. Tolkien

#quotes, #tolkien

A new PM for the UK

He’s an improvement over Theresa May, though not everyone is enthusiastic over Boris Johnson as the new Prime Minister. The Cambrian Dissenters blog titles their piece ‘PM Johnson and a Conservative Civil War.

Is that exaggeration? I defer to the people of the UK as being better judges of the ramifications, but there do seem to be some warning signs as to Johnson’s leanings. For instance, his cabinet appointments so far seem not to have the best interests of the indigenous people of the UK. Sajid David, Priti Patel? Then there is Amber Rudd. I can see how this list might be disconcerting to many people.

There is no perfect situation, I suppose, but as the Cambrian Dissenters piece puts it, Theresa May’s behavior was ‘duplicitious’, bordering on ‘treason.’ At least perhaps the people of the UK, who voted in the majority to leave the EU, will see their political will carried out. So we can hope.

#brexit, #european-union, #politics, #united-kingdom

Wisdom From C. Chauncey Burr, dated 1863

In the following quote, Chauncey Burr, in his book A History of the Union and the Constitution, addresses the question of the Saxon and the Norman forms of government, a question which was disputed in the South during that time, just at the onset of the War Between the States.

Burr said:

“The man that does not love his country, turns his back upon himself.

Our country is ourselves; for we are all parts of the public system which constitutes the grand edifice of our social and political lives.

The man who even dies for his country, dies for himself, for his children, and for the honor of his forefathers.

It is a family interest that connects him with the glory of his country.

What are a few days added to a man’s life, compared to the progressive perpetuity of those institutions which are to be the abode of all the descending generations of his offspring? Only as a minute compared to a thousand years.

It is of little moment whether you and I go hence to-day or to-morrow. Every act of ours that bears upon our country’s weal or woe is something infinitely greater than our life.

When we come to investigate the origin of the principles of our Government, we must go a great ways back of our colonial period. […]

Principles which hold up the weight of states and kingdoms are not inventions. They are growths, good or bad, out of time and circumstances.

We who live now stand upon the topmost layer; but remove the one beneath us, and we must go down. Remove the lowest strata of all, and the whole pile would tumble in ruins.

One layer of time has Providence piled upon another for immemorial ages, every one of which is essential to the integrity of the whole system.

Had Greece been different from what it is, Rome would not have been what she was. Had Rome been different, Saxony and Normandy would not have been what they were. Had these been different, England would not be what she is.

Had England been different, we should not be what we are-we should not be here to-night. We are all parts of one stupendous whole, and are making future generations, just as past generations have made us.

Our fathers transmitted a priceless boon of government to us; and, by an eternal law of Providence, we must send it down to our posterity, a boon or a bane. As we act to-day, must our children curse or bless our memories. As we act to-day, shall we transmit to the generations of our offspring the sacred principles of self-government and liberty, or those of anarchy and despotism. The blood of our fathers was poured out like rain in defense of those principles.

And not only of our fathers, but of hundreds of thousands of Saxons in England, even before the time of feudalism. For old England, under her Saxon kings, was a kingly confederacy. That was the old Saxon idea of liberty, that the people should somehow rule.

In their institutions the name of “PEOPLE” was never lost, whether in their furtherest antiquity among the forests of Germany, or on the ancient plains of Britainy. [sic]

Our fathers, when they began the business of governing themselves, but expanded what the Saxons commenced more than a thousand years ago; before, indeed, the races of the North of Europe had a history of their own, or a place in the history of the more civilized Southern nations. […]

More than a thousand years ago this battle between the ideas of local self-government and of centralized despotism crimsoned every field in Britainy. The principle of local independence was the Saxon idea. That of centralization, or of all power proceeding from a great and irresponsible center, was the Norman idea.

Hence, “when the Saxons conquered Britain, its comparatively small territory was divided into several petty kingdoms or loosely-compacted commonwealths. And again, each of these was parceled out into various other divisions, such as counties, shires, tithings, and other partitions, the origin of which puzzles the antiquarian.”

This old Saxon spirit of state independence animated the local institutions and all the small divisions with an energy and general prosperity that never could have been developed under a strongly-controlling central power. Under the Saxon principle, the masses of the people flourish. They are free, and, therefore, the arbiters of their own destiny. Their very freedom imparts an ambition and an enterprise, which are never seen where the Norman principle of centralized power prevails.”

#amnat, #ancestry, #anglo-saxon, #government, #normans, #saxons

The UK and the US estranged?

My previous post addressed Pat Buchanan’s column on the growing rift between Britain and the United States. In my blog piece I noted that there is a very obvious animus that has grown up between the two kindred peoples on either side of the Atlantic.

Now, as if to make my point for me, on the Unz.com blog, Buchanan’s piece was posted, with comments from readers — and it seems the Anglophobia I noted was very much on display in the comments from Americans. Am I surprised? No, but I seem to have underestimated just how much resentment and contempt some Americans feel towards the British.

Some of the condemnations were obviously intended for the rulers of the UK, whoever they may be. By that, I mean, just as with much of the world nowadays, the official heads of state seem to be simply fronting for unseen people, the people who actually run things.

Many Americans seem to think that Queen Elizabeth et al actually rule over the UK; and/or they think that the so-called ‘titled’ aristocrats are in charge. I suppose these critics are not aware of today’s frivolous and politically correct awarding of titles to non-British, and to some UK natives whose only ‘achievement’ is being a pop singer or prominent ‘social justice warrior’.

Britain, truly, is a shadow of her former self, and it was meant to be this way; it did not happen by accident.

And we can say the same of our country, and of the rest of the Anglosphere, as well as most of Europe.

So then, it takes considerable gall, in my opinion, to single out Britain and her people as being to blame for the loss of their country and heritage. If they are guilty then are we Americans to blame for the state of our country today? If we are honest and consistent, we would have to say so.

I wonder, too, about the harsh critics of Britain and her people; who are those who resent and loathe Britain? What is their origin? Either they are among the many ‘mixed Europeans’ who don’t have a particular ethnic identity, or people with misplaced historic grudges. Sometimes those of German descent are the most bitter and scathing about Britain, because of the bad feeling over the two world wars. To them, it is never over with; on and on it goes.

If I felt that kind of bitterness and alienation towards the country in which I was born, and the people of that country, I think I would pull up stakes and move to some country that suited me better, and a place where I might actually like my neighbors. That would show some integrity.

The old formula ‘divide et impera‘ comes to mind. Divided as we are, we are easy pickings.

#england, #english, #kinship, #roots, #united-kingdom