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.


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.



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.

Is There a European Personality Type?

Psychological research supports Spengler’s idea, elaborated by Duchesne, that Europeans have a uniquely Faustian personality.

Source: Is There a European Personality Type?

I’ve long been convinced each race, or even each ethnicity, tends to have a certain characteristic personality or personality type. Just simple observation over the years seems to make that obvious, though the people who deny the importance of heredity and those who deny that race is real would dispute the existence of certain distinctive traits for each race — or the various ethnicities within a race.

The Myers-Briggs personality typing system as referenced in the article seems to be a useful way of assessing people, and according to the linked article, Europeans and European-descended people are more likely to fall into certain types, with the ‘Intuitive Thinking’ preference being more common.

My own Myers-Briggs test results (I’ve tested several times over the years) shows me as an ‘Intuitive Thinking’ type, INTP to be exact.

The writer of the article says that the Intuitive Thinking type is most commonly associated with the ‘Faustian spirit’ which is most exemplified by people of European descent.

I wonder if there have been any studies done as to the patterns across the different European ethnicities. I would guess that certain types are more common amongst certain ethnic groups. For instance, it’s often been said that the English (specifically the English, not the ‘British’, which includes various ethnicities) tend more towards introversion, as contrasted to Americans’ extroversion.

Certainly not all Europeans are the same as to their characteristic personality types; if culture reflects the people, then European cultures certainly differ in various ways, though there is still a commonality.

But as a people, our unique qualities should be something we want to preserve, and that isn’t a matter of just passing on our ‘culture’ to whoever inhabits our country after we are gone. A ‘mixed multitude’ America (or Britain, or Canada, etc.) would not in any way be the same country; only we can preserve and pass on our culture because it is genetic to a great extent. Our genetic inheritance has to be preserved.

When people of European descent are juxtaposed to people of other races, their distinctive qualities are made more obvious. Maybe that is one of the few useful things about ‘diversity’ — it makes some of us more conscious of the fact that we have qualities that set us apart from others; we are obviously not ‘all the same under the skin’, though some, bizarrely, insist on claiming that we are.

Maybe the diversity-mongers have produced unintended consequences when they began this forced experiment in social/genetic meddling; they may unwittingly have fostered ‘nationalism’ and awareness of true human biodiversity.

‘New England and Old England’

If you have colonial ancestors who came to this continent from the British Isles, this book may be of interest to you. Towns of New England and Old England can be found on Archive.org.

Written by Allan Forbes, the book was published in 1921 on the occasion of the 300-year anniversary of the Pilgrims’ landing at the present site of Plymouth, Massachusetts.

The book was of personal interest to me because one of the towns which my forefathers helped to found is profiled in the book. Surnames that are part of my ancestral line are mentioned in the story of the town of Andover, Massachusetts. This history is familiar to me because our family lineages are well-documented and known to us, but there are tidbits about the town of Andover and its namesake in Andover, Hampshire back in England.

It’s well worth a look for those interested in the colonial history of this country. There is a Volume II also, which, though I haven’t checked yet, may also be found on Archive. org.


Lancaster plan: true or not?

The following appeared in a comment thread several months back; I don’t think I have posted it here previously, but if so, it’s worth posting again. The information that is presented in the following excerpt consists of ‘hearsay’ or allegations, purportedly from an informed ‘insider’ in the UK,. We can’t verify it but it has a certain plausibility about it. I leave it to my readers to judge for themselves.

Certainly the things that are going on in the UK, as well as in the United States and all Western countries seems so bizarre and perverse that it’s easy to imagine all sorts of possible explanations for what appears to be happening. How is it that ‘our’ governments, allegedly representative governments with the interests of their citizenry at heart, are seeming to openly side with aliens, even criminal outsiders as with the Rotherham, UK situation? There, we read of local law enforcement and judicial authorities actually arresting parents of the victims who complained about the unconscionable situation.

With that in mind, the following seems not impossible to believe — but it can’t be proven — as yet. If true — authorities may think they are controlling and defusing a threat but it looks suspiciously like appeasement and surrender.


More on American identity

The recent article by Eunjung Han in Nature on the subject of American ethnic identity continues to generate discussion here and there on the Internet. I don’t think the article will end the little controversies surrounding the question, however, because mere facts don’t always settle political/ethnic disagreements these days.

This piece at the Assistant Village Idiot blog points out some things that verify what I’ve believed and asserted. The writer tends to agree with both David Hackett Fischer’s and Colin Woodward’s assertions though as I’ve stated, I don’t hold those works as Holy Writ as some readers do. For instance the belief that broadly speaking the Northern colonies in early America represented distinct ethnicities in contrast to the Southern colonies. That’s an oversimplification, I know, but it is interpreted much that way by some who find it politically expedient to claim that the North and South represented disparate and incompatible peoples — both originally from Britain but irreconcilably different. There are also those who, following Fischer and/or Woodward, insist that the ‘Cavalier class’ in the South or the ‘Planter’ class represented a different people than Appalachia, or the Tidewater area, or the Midlands South, etc.

I think the differences, insofar as they exist or did exist are exaggerated, especially as they were scarcely mentioned as existing in earlier histories and commentaries from the literate classes in the pre-War South. They seem to have been discovered and emphasized only in recent times.

From the linked blog piece:

“Some things to note: Woodard’s Tidewater culture is not visibly distinct here, and the further distinctions of  Upland South, Midlands, and Greater Appalachia are visible, but not quite the same as any of the three authors have claimed.”

That much, at least, indicates at least a tiny chink  in the armor, but those partisans who see Fischer’s and Woodward’s works  as gospel won’t concur.

Another point of mine is that the ‘New England Yankee’ stock long ago migrated West en masse, though some did stay behind in isolated areas, and many ‘Yankees’  settled the Western mountain states, notably Utah, where many Mormon converts went in the 19th century. I know this in part because it’s documented in a couple of history books, but also from my own family genealogy researches.

Incidentally once settled in that area most of these emigrants held to conservative politics — except lately as they have become newish converts to multiculturalism and open borders universalism. The popular belief among many pro-South people is that the New England Yankees still hold sway in their original Northeastern stronghold, or that they mysteriously control the whole system, though I’ve repeatedly offered evidence that this is not so; New England is multicultural and the towns founded by my ancestors are mostly populated by upper-middle-class ethnic refugees from New York City, Boston and other urban towers of Babel. Most of my New England cousins, however, are probably in Utah or the Far West and they are hardly ruling America.

The blogger in the linked piece says this:

“That Utah was ultimately settled by people who were Yankees rather than one of the other American coastal nations has been noted before – first by their own extensive genealogies. Joseph Smith was a northeastern Yankee. Make of that what you will.”

Yes, there are stubborn misconceptions about the various branches of ‘Albion’s Seed’ and their interrelationships. Why are these canards still rife, and growing more stubborn, given the data that is available?

I don’t know the full answer; it seems America is becoming more balkanized ethnically, and I know that it doesn’t benefit us in this time of crisis for the house to be divided against itself. We rubbed along for a good while without these new internecine squabbles. Those of us who are of British Isles ancestry should be able to make common cause without exacerbating existing divisions or inventing new ones in the name of ethnic pride or revanchism.

Do I advocate for a particularistic cause myself?  Certainly I would like to see the English people, who are after all the core people of Britain regain a sense of identity that has been lost, suppressed by the globalist leaders of the UK. I’d like to see a resurgence of a healthy, non-divisive sense of pride in English achievements, rather than the English subsumed in the umbrella identity ‘British’. After all, can’t the Welsh be both British and claim their particularistic identity as Welsh? Don’t the Scottish claim their identity, and the Cornish? Why not the English?

‘British’ is a civic more than an ethnic category. Every immigrant in the UK claims to be ‘British.’

Regarding ethnic identity in America, the lines have been blurred even more, though the South retained more ethnic integrity until fairly recently because fewer immigrants settled in the South historically.

English colonial-stock Americans have more in common ethnically and culturally than today’s partisans want to admit.

People on the right often complain (justly) that those on the left are impervious to facts and that facts and data are immaterial to the leftist ideologues. There are such on the right as well. Too many postmoderns on both sides ignore facts in favor of ideology or politics.