Who founded London?

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

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

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

Temperateness of the Air.

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

And later in the same account:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

British genetics, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Barnes, English ‘lingual conservative’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnes on English lng changes_2017-09-11_031033

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Distressing

So much of the news coming out of the UK is distressing these days, as well as depressing.

Example: this story about a young girl, a Christian, being placed in foster care with a Moslem family, where she is being de-Christianized.

“Members of Parliament have demanded an urgent inquiry after it emerged a five-year-old Christian girl had been forced to live with strict Muslim foster carers.

The girl, who speaks English as her first language, has been cared for by two different Muslim families in the past six months. One family reportedly told her to remove her crucifix necklace and prevented her from eating carbonara because it contained bacon. She was also told to learn Arabic and was begging not to go back to the family because “they do not speak English”.

The story continues with the information that her natural family have spent the last six months pleading with the Tower Hamlets council to allow her to be placed with other blood relatives. So far it seems the appeals have been in vain.

I’ve heard that Tower Hamlets is Moslem-dominated, and this Wikipedia information confirms that:

‘Tower Hamlets has the highest proportion of Muslims in England outnumbering the Christians, and has more than 40 mosques and Islamic centres. The East London Mosque, one of the first mosques in Britain allowed to broadcast the adhan and is one of the biggest Islamic centres in Europe.”

Considering the demographics of the borough and the Council, as well as their majority political views (Labour), it would seem that a Christian family could not expect to be treated favorably.

It’s a cliche these days, when confronted with an outrage like this, to say ‘imagine if the situation were reversed!’ We know that non-Moslems, specifically White people of Christian backgrounds, lean over backwards to accommodate minorities, especially Moslems in the UK. I don’t think that the reverse situation, that is, a Moslem child placed in a very religious Christian home, would ever be allowed to happen. The authorities in the UK as in most Western, once-Christian countries, are too intimidated — or is it besotted by? — Moslems and other exotic peoples to ever do anything but appease them, at the expense of their own fellow native Britons.

This is baffling when we consider it, asking ourselves how things reached their present state — unless we consider the possibility, which I’ve raised before, that some kind of deal has already been struck. I mean that the political classes, corrupt as they are, might have in fact capitulated, ceded control of at least certain areas of the country, and the citizenry are just not being informed yet. Now they are seemingly learning to accept their new inferior status as a fait accompli.

Or, putting the most innocuous face possible on it, this absurd obsession with equality, this willful blindness towards real differences, causes these true-believer officials to pretend that religion, race, culture, and even sex, are all superficial things which must not be taken into account. We are all interchangeable. We are all one race, all God’s children, we all bleed red.

To think that up until maybe the mid-to-late 20th century, Britain was a very Christian country. I know that very few people identify as Christians in today’s Britain, and fewer attend Church or maintain any kind of Christian practices or traditions. I wonder if, given the sad state of the educational system (as in the United States as well) many young people know of the great men of the Christian faith who came from Britain, men like Richard Baxter, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

“When Charles Spurgeon died in January 1892, London went into mourning. Nearly 60,000 people came to pay homage during the three days his body lay in state at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Some 100,000 lined the streets as a funeral parade two miles long followed his hearse from the Tabernacle to the cemetery. Flags flew at half-staff and shops and pubs were closed.”

Imagine anything like that today.

We’ve become an amnesiac people, all of us in the West. The younger generations have no idea of their past, and are now prey to all the lies that underlie our decaying society.

And the little girl who is being sacrificed to ‘holy diversity’ or ‘sacred equality’ — she and others like her are the casualties.

 

 

‘How shall you forget…?’

In the 1920s, at a time when immigration levels to the United States were high, the U.S. government, intent on assimilating the various immigrant groups, published  a booklet called Gateway to Citizenship. Immigrants could submit poems about their country’s contributions to America, and among them was the following poem from an English immigrant.

I am the England
In this man, this woman —
A bright star in the morning sun
To the millions of mine who crossed an ocean
And a half continent westward.
And I am content —
Yet, lest a star grow too dim,
Being far away and the sun near,
These things I remind you —
I gave the nucleus of a race,
A language, and 800 years tradition
Into the keeping of an American wilderness —
And you speak my tongue still,
And you keep my traditions
And the strong stock of me:
Pilgrims, planters, freebooters
Is in the heart of you.
And the stout men that sired you
Were Englishmen:
Adams, Hancock, Hale, Williams.
How shall you forget them?
Your rivers, mountains, States,
And your proudest cities wear English names,
And the rock at the core
Of your beloved democracy
Is the unbending will of English yeomen to be free.
How shall you forget these things?

Almost a hundred years after the anonymous poet wrote those words, we have not forgotten these things. At least, those of us with some historical grounding and those who are the descendants of the English colonists and later immigrants are still mindful of our old inheritance. But it seems the rest of the country, those who are taught faulty or false history, or those who for whatever reason are unfavorable to the English roots of America, have forgotten, or choose to deny the history.

It seems ironic in the extreme that Americans with English or British roots have to assert our right to claim our heritage, in contrast with most other ethnic groups who are encouraged to flaunt theirs.

At the very least, within our family circles we can work to preserve that legacy and to foster a healthy kind of pride in our ancestry and in the heritage which is ours, passing that on to our children.

 

What makes a WASP?

Is it just a matter of ancestry, or is it a cultural thing, which anyone can adopt as their own? Articles like this one (and there are websites and blogs centered on this idea) seem to reduce WASP identity to styles of clothing, prestigious name brands, and manners.

“The hallmarks of the WASP — besides being white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant — are good taste and good manners, neither of which Trump possesses. When The Donald has nothing nice to say about someone, he says it loudly, proudly and repeatedly. When he has only nice things to say about someone, he is that someone.”

Actually the article seems to have been written as a vehicle for anti-Trump carping. It seems Trump is too brash, not modest and unassuming, which proper WASPs supposedly are.

First, it seems people are throwing the label ‘WASP’ around very carelessly, very imprecisely. I suppose it’s too late to correct this trend, but it seems most Americans, even those of Anglo-Saxon/British Isles ancestry, use the word ‘WASP’ to describe a cultural thing, namely, the Northeastern country-club set, the preppy-clad, socially connected upper class, of vaguely Anglo-Saxon origin.

However the people who describe Trump as a WASP are stretching the definition. As far as I am aware, his paternal ancestry was German, and his mother was actually an immigrant from Scotland. The Scots will tell you that they are not Anglo-Saxon/WASP, and Germans are, well, German. Though there is a region in Germany called Saxony, where the ancestors of the Saxons of England supposedly originated, the two peoples are not interchangeable.

Donald Trump is very much a New Yorker, culturally, and with that goes the brashness and the bluntness. I think all lifelong New Yorkers have some of those qualities, probably including whatever genteel upper class WASPs that may still exist there. Where are those legendary WASPs anyway? They seem to be pretty hard to find in New York City proper, or anywhere for that matter. And the English-descended families of the New York area, those of the old-stock upper classes, long since intermarried with the Dutch and other well-to-do colonial stock people. Many of the people described as WASP in the Northeast have mixed lineages, not all Anglo-Saxon by any means.

The linked article also refers to the Bush family, who are almost always held up as a (bad) example of WASP power in this country. However if you look at the genealogy of the Bush dynasty (which I have, being very into genealogy) you will find they are far from all English, having some central European ancestry among other things.  Yet people continue to refer to them as some sort of pur sang, quintessential WASPs. They are not. And as the article points out, Jeb Bush has Hispanicized his lineage, and opted out of being a supposed WASP.

This article, discussing the same article to which I link, is about how being a WASP is ‘bad politics’ in America these days, as White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are out of favor, passe, and just out of step with the times. WASPs, allegedly, are too gentlemanly, in an era which requires manliness — not a trait of Anglo-Saxons supposedly. But wait: wasn’t Trump being bashed in the other article for being too blunt and rough in his manner? Isn’t that part of what constitutes manliness, being forceful and direct, as opposed to being self-effacing and deferential? How, then, can Trump be called a WASP? It’s all too confusing to me.

On the ‘Ivy Style’ blog comments, some people ask about other WASP presidents, like Bill Clinton. Someone replies that he was not truly a WASP because he was allegedly poor. First, I don’t accept that his supposedly poor childhood disqualifies him; second, to be somewhat blunt, his ancestry is uncertain on his paternal side; his surname is that of his stepfather. His mother was of Irish descent.  But what about the many, many Southern people of strongly English (Anglo-Saxon) descent who are not rich? The fact that there was once a wealthy English-descended elite in the Northeast, families like the Lodges, the Cabots, the Lowells, and others, hardly means that wealth and power (long since passed from the old-stock English descendants) are essential to being ‘WASP.’ Most English-descended colonial stock Americans were neither wealthy or powerful; many more were middle class or lower, and lived their lives in quiet obscurity.

To define WASP as a cultural category, and wealth as a prerequisite, is to deny an ethnic identity to most English-descended Americans. Most other ethnic groups would object strongly if the name of their ethnic group began to be applied promiscuously to any White person who was of a certain social class, wore the ‘right clothes’, exhibited good taste and etiquette, and attended the right schools. Why is this supposed to be acceptable for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, then?

Most of the English-descended Southern people would not describe themselves as WASPs, I think, even though they are (of course) White, Anglo, and Protestant. Often they’ve been the types to describe themselves as American, or as Southern, or a citizen of their particular state. They were still aware of their roots in England, however, until the recent confusion over identity (The Celtic South vs. Anglo-Saxon South).

The White people of Utah, many of whom were Mormon settlers, are apparently a very English group of people, by descent. Maybe that is because most of their forefathers left New England or the Midwest when their lineage was still very unmixed with the immigrant groups that had begun to enter New England, and they then intermarried within their Mormon ranks, preserving their ethnic ties. So Utah as a state apparently has the greatest percentage of English-Americans.

But they would not be culturally ‘WASP’ enough to fit the current definition. And maybe they don’t dress according to the prescribed style code. But White Anglo-Saxon Protestants is a description of who they are nonetheless.

With so much talk about ‘cultural appropriation’ should it be acceptable to appropriate another group’s ethnicity and their culture, even if that culture is reduced to merely dressing a certain way and adopting certain manners and ‘taste’? Being a ‘WASP’ or an Anglo-Saxon American is a heritage which is much more than such surface things, and it should not be trivialized.

English America?

Under the blog title above, on the header, you see the phrase ‘English America.’ It’s a simple enough phrase, and it was once taken for granted, but today everything has to be argued all over again, and ‘proven’ to those who were not properly educated in our failing educational system, or who have been mind-conditioned by the media.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

There is some confusion, not just about ‘English America’, but also about the South and its place within America, amongst the younger generations. Many of them have somehow been taught that the South does not include Texas, whereas there was formerly no confusion about this: Texas considered itself part of the South; after all, Texas was part of the Confederacy. The school of thought which denies this makes Texas something of an orphan amongst the States, though the people who hold this view maintain that Texas is part of the Southwest.

Why does it matter? Well, history matters. Truth matters.

I think it is the same kind of crowd who like to rewrite history according to some political agenda they have; these people exist on the right as well as on the left.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

“Somewhere near or at the location of the present international boundary on the south, is the logical (geographic) line of demarcation betweeen English America and Latin America. A glance at a rainfall map, a plant map, a crop map, and a population map of North America shows clearly that Texas is in every respect a continuation of the South that lies east of the Sabine [River]. Geographically, Texas is peripheral to Mexico and continuous with America.” – from A.E. Parkins, The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, 1938

In the quote above, Parkins does not specifically mention the culture of the South, but I believe it applies culturally and ethnically too.

Though there were many Scots-Irish and ‘Celtic Irish’ from Southern Ireland who came to Texas as settlers and colonists, I see no reason to believe that the demographics of the original colonists who were invited to settle Texas were any different from those of the South overall.  Until the late 20th century (that is, very recently) few people questioned the general belief that the South was Anglo-Saxon. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon South’ persistently recurs. It was accepted as true by the older generations who were closer to their roots and who knew who they were. That in itself is more convincing than the word of a few writers and ‘activists’ with an agenda of their own.

If the culture of the original Southern states, since their inception as colonies, was Anglo-Saxon in origin, then this is also true of Texas, as it shares, for the most part, the broader Southern culture: a shared history, shared culinary habits, political leanings.  And then, for another example, the speech and dialect of Texas was very much Southern; not surprising since most of the original Texas colonists came from Southern states. As I mentioned, Texas was part of the Confederacy, and has, until the reign of ‘political correctness’, been very proud of our Confederate forefathers.

Another feature which makes Texas a part of the South culturally is that it is part of the Bible Belt, so-called, and most of the population is Protestant. This is a big factor which distinguishes the South from the other regions, and also the kinds of Protestantism which historically dominated in the South differ from the Northern varieties of Protestantism in style if not in substance.

But isn’t Texas heavily Hispanic, and wasn’t it always populated by lots of Mexicans? The answer is yes, thanks to uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal, Texas is now much more Hispanic than it was in the colonial days, or even into the latter part of the last century. There were once, believe it or not, areas of Texas where few Hispanics lived. But when the original colonies of White Americans began in Texas, there were few Mexicans; the Spanish had been unable to subdue the fractious Comanches and the Anglo colonists, known for having dealt with Indian aggressions successfully were brought in to help get this under control.

Texas in recent years has been much more open to Hispanic influence on the local culture, thanks in part to political correctness and the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to their Hispanic neighbors. But that does not nullify the fact that Texas was part of English America — though whether it remains so, and will remain so, is up in the air.

Do present-day demographics, though, make Texas ‘Hispanic’ more than Anglo? Maybe in those areas where Mexicans are the majority, and the White population has either moved away or adapted themselves to Mexican ways.

But if we say Texas is no longer ‘part of the South’ or part of Anglo-America because of demographics, could the same argument be used to say Louisiana is not part of the South? After all, it has a very large black/Creole population, and also many Cajuns in South Louisiana, people with a distinct culture who until fairly recently were French speakers — as well as being mostly Catholic, unlike the rest of the South. However I don’t think that is even a persuasive argument; the Cajuns have maintained their culture to a great degree (though they have been ‘enriched’ with illegal immigrants in Cajun country, to some extent) but they are also very Southern, and have not rejected the larger American society, or adopted the ‘victimhood’ mentality so popular amongst most ethnic minorities everywhere. My experience is that they see themselves as American (and Southron) as well as Cajun. Louisiana, though demographically different, is part of the South. And even Louisiana has a large Anglo population in the Northern part of the State.

The people make the place, however, and if the demographics of all the Southern states keep changing, with fewer White old-stock people represented, then these states will lose their original identity in proportion to the demographic changes. Nonetheless the past can’t be changed; these states were part of English America, and the original Anglo-Celtic culture of the South is still there as long as there are enough of the people who created that culture.

 

 

‘Who controls the past…’

Recently I wrote of how the history of Britain was being re-written by the diversity-obsessed left, using the complicit media to propagate false information. As an example I cited the numerous movies and TV shows depicting blacks and Moslems showing up in the Robin Hood story, as well as a black or mulatto Guinevere in the ‘Merlin’ series of a few years ago.

Now the BBC is lying to children in its recent series about Roman Britain, in which the main purpose of the lessons seems to be to convince gullible children that Britain has always been heavily populated by blacks and other nonwhite races.

BBC lies-horzDo the propaganda merchants really believe that everyone will fall for these outlandish lies? Sadly, too many will simply accept these false representations, mostly the young, who have deliberately been maleducated and force-fed these contrived deceptions. The population across the generations have been so mind-conditioned over the last several decades that they too are slowly acquiescing and accepting what they, deep-down, must know is not true.

As of now, there are still many images of life in Britain before the onslaught of mass immigration, images showing a White Britain, with little ‘diversity’ to be seen anywhere, at least, not diversity in a racial sense. There are You Tube videos (as long as they are allowed to remain up, on politically correct You Tube) showing London, now heavily non-white, as a decidely White city. There are books with photos showing the true Britain of old, before ‘diversity’ set in.

But will such resources continue to be allowed, considering that they contradict the ‘false history’ cooked up by the UK propaganda-pushers and diversity Kommissars? I doubt it, sadly.

Here in America, some years ago (after the 2008 election) there was a story that showed up in some news outlets about some kind of government edict that all books, textbooks I believe, published before a certain year, were to be recalled from libraries, schools, and even second-hand booksellers. They were to be destroyed, and the reason given was that these old textbooks had some kind of toxic materials.(!)I’ve done internet searches to find these articles (which I blogged about back then) and come up empty. So is it being done, this destruction of old books? I suspect it is, though I can’t prove it. The local library where I live appears to have purged a lot of classic books, choosing to focus on more current popular tripe, stuff that will probably be of only passing interest, as well as buying lots of pop-culture materials like rap/hip-hop CDs and other such high culture. There is also a recent dearth of old books at the local thrift shop which used to be a real treasure-trove of old and rare books. Where are all these books going? To landfills, or to be burned, as one librarian tells on her blog. She justifies getting rid of old books because they are dated; they are too politically incorrect — for example, a book that recommends traditional female roles, or a book from long ago which states that the races have evolved unequally. Can’t have books like that around in case someone gets ideas, or starts to question the diversity dogma, and the egalitarian faith.

So the establishment, which is the left now, wants to remove the truth from the marketplace of ideas, and wants to prevent people from even dreaming of other ways of looking at things, ways that conflict with the coerced ‘diversity’ dogma that is force-fed to us and our children.

And not being satisfied with that, they want to erase the past and replace it with this grotesque parody, in which Britain was always multiracial, never a predominantly White country, never a Christian country, never homogeneous, never the home of a particular people with a distinct way of life, a way which is being destroyed relentlessly.

Do the ‘Mary Beards’ and all the other propaganda hacks really believe the lies they churn out and defend? To the left, there is no objective truth; it’s just whatever suits their purpose. It’s all relative, and the past is what they make it, in their eyes anyway.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.”

The same process is occuring in all Western, White majority countries. Thanks to the orchestrated ‘refugee’ invasion, these countries will not be majority White for long, as there is no end in sight to the invasion. Maybe this is why the powers-that-be, with their controlled media, are working so hard to condition the indigenous British to accept minority status and second-class (at best) citizenship in their rightful country.

An excerpt of a comment that appeared on Vox Day’s blog:

“It’s a direct, deliberate effort to extinguish all sense of European history as anything distinct or even European.

They are attempting to erase our own identity from us, to cut us loose and make us the descendants of foreigners.

They are scum, and this is a deliberate, profoundly evil, genocidally motivated attack on even the MEMORY of our existence. An effort to obliterate past whites as thoroughly as they want to obliterate the current ones.”

And (apologies for quoting myself), as I wrote on the King Arthur post:

“This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen.”

 

A nation with no borders?

“The White Nation has no borders. It is an international community. A “committee of the whole” the whole being the entire White race, worldwide.”

The above was a comment posted on a pro-White/White nationalist forum a couple of years ago; I saved some of the comments because they are very illustrative of the confusion many White people display when talking about their race and ethnicity.

The comments I quote were made anonymously; many of the commenters were British.  The original post seems to have been from an American of mixed European nationalities, namely Italian, Irish, and French-Canadian. She says that all Europeans are of the same race and that there is no reason not to mix ethnicities because she includes all of them as part of ‘her’ race, adding the cliche about there being ‘no pure races in the 21st century’; everyone, in her view is equally mixed, and strangely, she says that only one’s recent ancestry makes us who we are; our entire ancestral line is irrelevant, only recent ancestors count.

This person is somewhat typical of a lot of Americans of mixed heritage; they often adopt a very defensive attitude, or a chip on the shoulder about their ancestry, and seem to need to assert that ‘nobody is pure anything’; we are all just mixed and what does it matter anyway?

Another self-described ‘mixed’ person says

 

I think thats delusional, in our day and age, to say germans with germans, british with british, Swedes with Swedes etc…

Do you think there is abundant of pure breed Europeans left ? I don’t think so. We are lucky to have mixed race sub-european races left on earth. “

This commenter adds that Europeans seem to identify with their ethnicity more than their race — which is the natural thing, in my opinion — while Americans see themselves as White first, then as their ethnicity, which he seems to think is preferable.

Among the British commenters, someone brings up the subject of Eastern European immigration to Britain. Polish is now the second-most-spoken language in Britain, a fact that many Americans are surprised to hear — though they think the mass immigration is fine — as do some British people, but not all. This exchange occurs between some British commenters:

“I’m really not bothered by fellow European immigration, at least to a degree. If it wasn’t for the Poles coming to Britain, it’d be a damn sight less white. I wish them great success anyway, I’d love to join them. Oh, that’s good for you. I wish Poles in Poland all the luck in the world.”

A response:

“You do realize that Poles in Britain are not British? All Europeans are not the same sorry. I am sorry we don’t live in some utopian world where everyone is accepted, oh crap I forgot, we do live in a jew world where every “immigrant” is accepted. BTW, I would also like to add that the English are different from all the other British peoples as well. There is no shame in real diversity. ”

The above comment makes an important point: the English are a distinct people, and they are, ironically, some of the most marginalized in their own country.

On White (Eastern Europeans) coming to Britain, this sarcastic response:

“Yes but at least they’re White and they’re all uber ultra mega super White Nationalists who are all coming over here to offset the White minority[…] and help us reclaim our nations! They’re all better White Nationalists than us anyway doncha know? Heck when they were born their first words were the 14 words! Geez come on its White Pride World Wide!

Doncha know its against the rules to criticise other White groups […]

I mean yeah if it was non Whites coming over to do the exact same thing then yeah our indignation would be justified but these guys are White and therefore its alright!

Just remember the 28 words. “we must sacrifice our own childrens futures in our own nations for the benefit of every parasite and economic mercenary who lands here as long as they’re White.”

There does seem to be some division amongst British people as to the presence of colonies of Polish immigrants. If nothing else, this kind of immigration divides the native-born people, as it has in America as well; White Americans are divided, with those who argue fiercely in favor of the immigrants vs. the ‘nativists’. Mass immigration can often be a divisive and polarizing thing  for the host societies. Maybe that is one ‘feature’ that the elites like about introducing strangers by the millions into White majority countries.

In response to a comment calling for more Eastern Europeans (instead of non-whites) to immigrate to the U.S., a Southern  American poster responds:

“I’m so sick of this idiotic reasoning. No one should have to choose which group of immigrants pours into his country. Dixie does not need or want immigrants. Period. The idea that one group of immigrants is better than another is absurd because it accepts the internationalist position that there must be immigrants at all. Mississippians, like Southerners in general, are an Anglo-Saxon people. Large-scale immigration from eastern Europe will replace Mississippians and end our civilisation. The blacks are not half as much a worry as people here make them out to be. Southerners have always known how to deal with blacks. We could do so again if we were not ruled by outsiders. It is white outsiders who have always caused us problems. The most certain way to end Dixie’s racialism is to fill Dixie with non-Southern whites. Look to the liberal bastions of Maryland, northern Virginia, Delaware, and southern Florida to see what a South populated by white outsiders looks like. It is pure fantasy to think that a white melting pot white turn into fertile ground for a racialist uprising. Your fantasy is effectively promoting Southern genocide and declaring that the Southern people – who have always been leaders of racialism on this continent – are too incompetent to do anything without the help of mass immigration.”

I second much of what this commenter says.

I especially like that he emphasizes the fact that most Southern Americans are an Anglo-Saxon people. That needs to be emphasized for the sake of the truth.

Too many people, as he says, have accepted the idea that immigration is inevitable; it’s a given, and we are lucky if we can only choose which kind of immigration we want; which group of strangers we want introduced en masse into our stable communities.

Why is immigration a given, a must? Why do so few of us question its inevitability, even as our communities and neighborhoods are changed beyond recognition?

My concern is that our people will slowly acclimate to this constant flow of outsiders and strangers, and the slow transformation of our world into something we hardly recognize. I see signs of it happening, and the more intermarriage and social fraternizing (part of the ‘integration’ that our political classes insist on) the more enmeshed will we become with the others, so that we are no longer a people.

The ‘White nation’ with no borders described in the opening paragraph of this post cannot be a nation if it has no borders and no fences.