The older England and the newer

The blog post title doesn’t refer to the current situation in which England (or the UK) is being morphed, unwillingly for the most part, into something else, while we here in the erstwhile U.S.A. are likewise being changed. No, the reference in the title is to a lecture given by English historian Edward A. Freeman, wherein he described his country and ours respectively as the older and newer Englands.

Back in the late 19th century when he was speaking and writing in America, there was a larger percentage of people who acknowledged English blood, or who were in fact mostly or entirely of English descent. He probably reached much wider audiences who identified with his themes than would be the case in 2019. He would have found fewer Anglophobes and more who considered themselves Anglophiles, even those with little or no blood ties to England.

He insisted that English-Americans were not foreigners to him and to the people of England, but kinsmen, and that idea meets with much more skepticism now; our respective countries have, paradoxically become more alike in our language (via transatlantic pop culture) but farther apart, much more so,  in recent decades in political matters, at least, and as England has become more multicultural and polyglot even than the U.S. I think this is by design; the whole Anglosphere is being divided socially and culturally and religiously.

But back in 1882, Edward Freeman wrote some rather inspiring words for Americans of English blood, reminding us of our heritage and our right to consider ourselves part of a great tradition.

“Here on your soil I am not indeed in mine own home but I am none the less among mine own folk. I am among men of my own blood and own tongue, sharers in all that a man of either England deems it his pride and happiness to share in. How can we be strangers and foreigners to one another, how can we be other than kinsfolk and brethren of the same hearth, when we think that your forefathers and mine may have sailed together from the oldest England of all in the keels of Hengest or Cerdic — that they may have lurked together with Aelfred in the marshes of Athelney — that they may have stood side by side in the thick shield-wall on the hill of Senlac — that they may have marched together as brethren to live and die for English freedom alike on the field of overthrow at Evesham and on the field of victory at Naseby?

I surely need not remind you that the whole heritage of the past, the history, the memories, the illustrious names, which belong to the earlier days of the English folk in Britain, are yours as well as ours. They are in the stricter sense your own. The men who piled up the mighty fabric of English law and English freedom were your fathers, your brethren, no less than ours. In the long line of hero-kings who built up the kingdom of England you have as full a share as we have; in building up the kingdom of England they were building up the commonwealth of America. If yours is the king who lurked in Athelney, yours too is the king who won the fight of Brunanburh. Yours are the king who waged the year of battles with the Dane and the king who waged the day of battle with the Norman. And if the kings are yours as well as ours, so are the men who curbed the powers of kings. Yours are the men who wrung the Great Charter from the kingly rebel; yours are the men who dictated the Provisions of Oxford and the men who gathered round the victor of Poitiers on the nobler field of the Good Parliament. Your share is alike with ours in every blow struck on behalf of freedom, from the day of Lewes to the day of Marston. And if we boast that we won to ourselves the men of other lands, if we changed the Dane and the Norman into Englishmen as true as if their forefathers had first seen the shores of Britain from the keels of Hengest, the work was yours as well as ours. The strangers whom we made especially our own, they whose names we read alongside the nobles of our native worthies, the men who came from the beech-clad isles of Denmark, from the deep Alpine valley of Aosta, from the Strong Mount that guarded the land of France against the Norman, to become Englishmen on English soil, Cnut the King, Anselm the Bishop, Simon the Earl — they are yours by the same law of adoption that makes them ours. And when the course of our history parts asunder, when the English people become two nations instead of one, if the history which you have wrought in Britain is no longer yours, in the same sense as is the common history which we wrought together in earlier times, still, we have a common interest, a common fellow-feeling, the feeling which follows the deeds of friends and kinsfolk with a different eye from that which it follows the deeds of strangers, in all that men of English blood have done on American soil since the older and the newer England parted asunder. And you too, I trust, have not ceased to look with the like feeling on all that men of English blood have done on British soil since the day when the newer England bade farewell to its political connexion with the elder, but did not, I trust, bid farewell to the far higher tie of a common blood, a common speech, the long glories of a common history.”

  • Edward Augustus Freeman, Lectures to American Audiences I: The English People in its Three Homes, 1882
Advertisements

Is Brexit effectively dead now?

Bruce Charlton’s take on the latest dismaying Brexit developments is a rather pessimistic one, and yet it’s hard to disagree with what he says. I don’t pretend to be as knowledgeable as he is on this issue; after all, I’m an American, viewing the ongoing story from a vantage point far away, culturally as well as geographically. But it seems he is right in his general assessment of the situation.

He laments the inaction and seeming apathy of the British population, and I think, sad to say, that he’s right in saying that no Western country is in any better shape spiritually, and that the problem is essentially a spiritual one, that must be addressed by spiritual means.

“All of the West are the same godless materialistic hedonists; all ruled by the exact same Global Establishment with the same anti-Christian agenda.

And such spiritless people as mass modern atheistic Leftist Western Men will never (they physically cannot) motivate-themselves to do anything better than consume and be consumed-by the plans of the mass media and state propaganda.

We can only be saved by a Christian awakening – that has not changed.”

Obviously this will not be a popular idea in the secular, materialistic West but as time goes on and the situation in our respective countries deteriorates, a solution by political methods seems less and less possible every day. I would qualify that to say that we can’t look to human means to save the day.

In any case, the piece by Bruce Charlton, and the linked piece by William Wildblood are both worth reading.

Will Theresa May step down?

First, my apologies to anyone who is still checking in on this blog; I had hoped to be posting more regularly by now, but circumstances haven’t allowed it.

It’s been nearly impossible to keep up with the twists and turns in the Brexit saga; according to some sources, Theresa May is being asked to step down. Will this mean that Brexit will finally happen, after all this time? Or will it require the “jaws of life” to extract May from office? Can she just refuse to comply with her cabinet’s requests?

I’ve come to believe that all the Western leaders are answerable to someone else beside their electorate(s) and that they merely do someone else’s bidding; the real power-holders are behind the scenes. Or is that a ”conspiracy theory” and am I guilty of wrongthink?

As the majority of the British electorate chose to vote for Brexit, by rights it should be a ‘done deal’; it should have taken place long ago. If this whole scenario drags on for an indeterminate period of time, it would seem to prove that the will of the people of the UK is being flouted and defied. If there is to be any semblance of honesty or respect for the laws of the land, it would seem that those who have been impeding the process of exiting the EU will reveal themselves for what they are, and I would hope that the majority who voted for Brexit will not be quite so patient with the obstructionists who refuse to accept the results of the Brexit vote.

 

 

Monarchical system is ‘racist’

Peter Tatchell of the Guardian, the year 2009:

The current monarchical system of determining our head of state is premised on the assumption that the most ignorant, stupid, immoral white Windsor first-born is more entitled to be our head of state than the best-informed, wisest and most moral black or Asian Briton. This is a truly repulsive racist assumption.

I remember a few articles like this appearing back in 2009, full of faux-outrage about the fact that Britain had never had a non-white head of state. What? And why, we might ask, has Japan never had a Hungarian emperor, or vice versa? The whole issue seemed (and seems) so absurd and trumped-up. Obviously the outcome of the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. prompted the multicultists to come up with this inane idea that a head of state could  or should be of a different racial stock than the majority, the historic population of the country he governs.

Now, after nine more years of increasingly bizarre cultural Marxist social engineering, it’s evident that this was always to be part of the agenda; even the institution of the monarchy is not to be spared the demands of ‘racial equality’, affirmative action (everybody must get a turn at being head of state, regardless of origin or qualifications). Eventually it will be ‘no native-born people need apply’, or more likely ‘no Whites need apply.’

And I suppose the left’s relentless efforts to overturn every tradition, the ‘long march through the institutions’ has almost achieved what they planned.

Not long before Prince Harry announced his wedding plans, he had been featured in many photo spreads in the UK media (Sky News in particular, it seemed) showing him seated with groups of black people, or with black TV hosts, apparently having the time of his life. I wondered whether he was ‘assigned’ to represent some kind of “outreach” to the ”black community”. So the engagement announcement, when it came, was not surprising, in some ways — but still, it represents a jarring break with tradition. Is this too part of the globalist, multicult agenda? I think there is at least one other European prince in an interracial union.

Even if these marriages were real ‘love matches’, it could be said that the royals, too, are subject to the same conditioning as the rest of Western society. Americans, or more accurately a certain percentage of Americans loathe the very idea of royalty or aristocracy; that egalitarian streak runs very deep in America. Sometimes it borders on Jacobinism with some Americans, but in all fairness many in the U.S. have been brought up to see monarchy as an evil in itself, an ‘unfair’ system of government. It also seems that there is an element of dislike of the Royals in the UK as well, and a desire for a republic or a so-called ‘democracy.’ The propaganda on both sides of the Atlantic has warped the thinking of many people, and considering how pervasive the conditioning is, it’s understandable.

America’s system, though, has done little more to protect citizenry from being displaced and replaced than has the monarchical system, at least in the current social climate. In recent years, the phrase ”hideously [W]hite” has been applied to such British institutions as the BBC and the theatre. Being White is a definite liability today, but if the monarchy is made somewhat less ”hideously White”, will the anti-monarchy left begin to embrace it? Probably not, unless ‘diversity’ is enforced in selecting — or electing, as the Guardian would prefer, who is eligible.

 

 

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.

 

 

#american-history, #ancestry, #anglo-saxon, #english-culture, #ethnicity, #ethnonationalism, #kinship, #mass-immigration, #multiculturalism, #southern-states

English genetics – the truth

What does it mean to be English?

At the link, an informative video on the origins of the English people: Celts, as some insist? Or Anglo-Saxon? Worth watching for some perspective.

#ancestry, #anglo-saxon, #british-identity, #english, #ethnicity, #genetics, #hbd, #kinship

‘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.”

 

#ancestry, #anglo-saxon, #bbc, #british-identity, #english, #english-culture, #ethnicity, #ethnonationalism, #genetics, #images, #kinship, #lying-media, #mass-immigration, #multiculturalism, #political-correctness, #quotes