Events in England

I trust everyone has heard about the arrest and imprisonment of activist Tommy Robinson for ‘breach of the peace’. I’ve said before that I don’t agree with ‘civic nationalism’ because it is false — multicultural ‘nationalism’ is a contradiction in terms.

I was never a fan of Robinson because his ‘English Defence League’ made quite a show of being ‘diverse and inclusive’ in membership, and displaying Israeli flags and Zionist symbols. However, all that aside, the question of his right to free speech,  his right to legal representation, and a proper trial are real concerns. The UK appears to have become a de facto police state where citizens, especially native-born White citizens, have few, if any, rights.

So even though Tommy Robinson is not a real nationalist, or may be a ‘plant’, the fact that he is being dealt with so harshly is something that should concern us, those of us who care about the UK, or England (remember that place called England?).

When the story broke about Robinson, a lot of the comments online seemed to question why on earth the UK authorities appear to repress native-born citizens and to flagrantly side with aliens, even those accused (and convicted) of heinous crimes against young girls (and boys), native-born English/British children. This is unconscionable. What kind of government does this?

The answer may be in something called the Lancaster Plan, which I posted about a few times on this blog and my other one — and no one commented. I don’t know if that was because people disbelieved the idea of such a plan existing, but if true, it would certainly explain what is going on with the UK and its feckless, spineless ‘leadership.’ So I will offer this link wherein the writer again recounts the outlines of the Lancaster plan, and please note a comment near the bottom of the page, posted a few days ago, in which the writer offers a little more information and a link. Food for thought.




I hope there are still a few persistent souls who have checked in on this blog. To those who may still be interested in reading this blog, my apologies for the long absence.

I hope I will be posting regularly soon, though maybe not frequently.  Thanks for reading.

‘Germany should be German’=controversial?

Singer Morrissey is apparently creating ‘controversy’ (again) by simply saying:

“I want Germany to be German. I want France to be French. If you try to make everything multicultural, you will not have any culture in the end.

All European countries have fought for their identity for many, many years. And now they just throw it away. I think that’s sad.”

The Express newspaper labels Morrissey as ‘controversial Smiths frontman’ Morrissey. But since when is it controversial to say that a country should be populated by the people indigenous to that land for many, many generations? Up until very recently that was a given. It was something we all took for granted: Germany should be German, France should be French — and England should be English.

And speaking of the English, I see that Wikipedia labels Morrissey an ‘English singer’, yet it also states that he was born of two Irish parents. I will concede that he could be called ‘British’ because that term includes the various (indigenous) peoples of the UK, and apparently Morrissey was born in the UK, not Ireland, yet he is of Irish ancestry not English. I believe this is the dishonest media’s way of further undermining the idea of a distinctive English ethnicity. Up until now, it seems the term English was reserved for people of that descent rather than just anyone who happens to have been born in England proper — or now, in the UK. Am I splitting hairs? No. Ethnonationalism is about acknowledging the various ethnic groups as peoples with their own rightful territories, rather than identifying them only by their place of birth or their documents — ‘citizenship’ papers or passports. ‘Paper citizens’ are not the same as indigenous people who have a long history in a given piece of land.

Whether Morrissey is English or ‘British’ or Irish, at least he seems to be a realist as regards the idea of nations as peoples. And he is absolutely right in his statement about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism just results in an amorphous conglomeration of dissimilar peoples united only by geographic location and ultimately by no culture except for the ugly, crass ‘pop culture’ which currently infests all Western countries: celebrity worship, the desire for more ‘stuff’, gadgets, toys, smartphones, porn.

I can’t say I’ve followed Morrissey’s career or his various ‘controversial’ statements on current events. I doubt he is an ethnonationalist strictly speaking but he that isn’t against us is for us — or may be for us, at least.

As for Merkel and Germany, I’ve been appalled at her reckless and stupid actions in welcoming in hordes of hostile ‘refugees’ but is she the one calling the shots? It seems that most commentators blame her when in fact she is not that powerful in herself; she is doing somebody’s bidding. Her bosses are the ones who decided that Europe was to be obliterated via invasion and miscegeny, and this idea is not a recent thing; it dates back at least to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and others of like minds, including those who founded the European Union (under the guise of an innocuous ‘common market’) decades ago.



Enoch Powell on Britain in the EU

Powell is speaking below about Britain joining, in 1973, what was then called the European Economic Community, or EEC. Sounds benign enough, doesn’t it? But he saw it for what it was: ultimately a surrender of sovereignty.  (The EEC as such is no more; it is the EU.)

“I was born a Tory, am a Tory and shall die a Tory. I never yet heard that it was any part of the faith of a Tory to take the institutions and liberties, the laws and customs which this country has evolved over centuries and merge them with those of eight other nations into a new-made artificial state, and what is more to do so without the willing approbation and consent of the nation.”

As usual he was more far-sighted and perceptive than most of his contemporaries and his warnings weren’t heeded.


‘Demonisation’ of the older generations

I’ve written on this before on the other blog, and have found few who will agree with my point of view. But it’s worth taking less than half an hour to watch this video which deals with what I call the (rather one-sided) generation warfare which seems to have started here on this side of the Atlantic but is now apparently going strong in the UK, mainly centered on the Brexit issue. It seems that the young (or middle-aged) are blaming the older generations for the Brexit approval, calling their elders ‘xenophobes’, among other things.

Wait: in this country, young(er) people — mainly from age 50 on down, that is, Gen X’ers and millennials, are blaming elders for the opposite reasons, because ”They” let in all the immigrants and were too liberal. In other words older people are being attacked from both left and right. Make sense?

It’s funny, I mean funny in an odd way, that the young right in America agrees with leftists like Oprah Winfrey who famously said that Old White People needed to die:

“…there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”

In one quick, thoughtless breath, Oprah added another tenet to Libthink: Not only are all racists white, but they also need to “just die,” every last one of them.

Once all those old, white racists “who were born and bred and marinated in it” have died, then America will be forever purged of racism.”

The video clip of her comments is here for those who need to see and hear her say it. Compare that with the clip from British TV, and the attitudes of the anti-Brexit, Pro-EU left, the younger generations. The same kind of rhetoric is heard there.

By the way, if you watch the British video you will hear the terms ‘Remoaners’ or ‘Remainiacs’ for those who opposed Brexit. Just to let you know, if you’re unfamiliar with those terms.

I really don’t care what rationalizations people come up with, left or right, about why they have such contempt for their elders; the latter could just as easily find plenty of fault in the younger generations — who, statistically speaking are most far left, and bear more than their share of blame for the situation in the UK and in all Western countries.

I’d like to see an end to this ‘generational blame game’; it betrays an adolescent mindset which seeks to put the blame on someone, anyone else. And it appears that much of it is based not on politics but on economics: ”it isn’t fair that they grew up in a more prosperous country and had an easy time!”

And more than that, I think this whole generational blame thing is a meme that was seeded by those who want to divide us further, Lord knows we are already divided enough. This is true on both sides of the Atlantic, apparently.




Our ‘American’ customs

It’s just about over for another year, but Hallowe’en is an example of British culture which traversed the Atlantic with our forefathers. There are still people who insist that our country was multicultural if not multiracial from the beginning, and that it has no particular connection, ethnically or culturally, to Britain. But when you look at our traditions and customs and even the games that children play, you see many evidences of our British/English origins.

If you’re interested, read here about how children in Victorian Britain celebrated Hallowe’en, such as carving faces on turnips to make ‘turnip lanterns’. In the U.S., pumpkins were substituted for turnips, to make Jack-o-Lanterns, though in some localities in earlier times, children carved lanterns from turnips or other root vegetables.

“Trick-or-treating” seems to have been an American introduction, and according to some sources it didn’t become widespread until mid-20th century, while other sources say it was a custom much earlier, a century or more ago. The origins of it are uncertain but according to this article, it may have been inspired by an Irish custom, with old Celtic Samhain celebrations. However, the British Guy Fawkes customs may have played a part in the development of some American Hallowe’en customs:

“Still another potential trick-or-treating predecessor is the British custom for children to wear masks and carry effigies while begging for pennies on Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night), which commemorates the foiling of the so-called Gunpowder Plot in 1605. On November 5, 1606, Fawkes was executed for his role in the Catholic-led conspiracy to blow up England’s parliament building and remove King James I, a Protestant, from power. On the original Guy Fawkes Day, celebrated immediately after the famous plotter’s execution, communal bonfires, or “bone fires,” were lit to burn effigies and the symbolic “bones” of the Catholic pope. By the early 19th century, children bearing effigies of Fawkes were roaming the streets on the evening of November 5, asking for “a penny for the Guy.” ‘

The Northern Irish seem to be very big on Hallowe’en celebrations. According to this article, the city of Derry is now the ‘best Hallowe’en destination in the world.’

It seems that Hallowe’en as we know it is a product of our British Isles heritage. Apparently other European countries now have some kind of observances of that evening but they seem to have been following American customs, since the media make our culture known just about everywhere. And much of our traditional culture, whether some like to admit it or not, was at its inception an inheritance from the British Isles. Now as we live in this ‘global culture’ via mass media and casual mass migration from one hemisphere to another, we will no doubt see our customs and traditions mutated further, unless we consciously preserve our distinct ways.




On the percentage of British settlers in America

Sinclair Kennedy, writing in 1914:

“A French student divides the American people into two groups: those whose ancestors were in the United States previous to 1880, and hence almost totally British, and those descended from persons immigrating since that time. The former, according to his computation, comprises more than one-half of the present population of the United States. And of the latter, one-third at least are likewise of British stock.

A total of two-thirds, or perhaps even of three-fourths, of the American people to-day are, he concludes, the descendants of Britishers.(1) The Irish he considers an important element. Of the result of the mingled immigrations of the Irish and other Celts with the Scandinavians and Germans, an American student says: ‘When we remember that it was the crossing of the Germanic and the Celtic stocks that produced the English race itself, we are obliged to assume that the future American people will be substantially the same human stuff that created the English common law, founded parliamentary institutions, established American self-government, and framed the Constitution of the United States.’

(1) Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, Les Etats-Unis au Vingtieme Siecle, Paris, 1904, pp. 25-26.

From the book The Pan-Angles: A Consideration of the Federation of the Seven English-speaking Nations, by Sinclair Kennedy, 1914.

The viewpoint expressed by the French scholar was the consensus then, a little over a century ago. But now there is much more confusion and dissension.

The question of what group made up the majority of the early colonists and settlers is perpetually being disputed here and there on the Internet. The conflict is usually about whether German-descended Americans are the majority or whether the Anglo-Saxon or British descendants are the majority. This seems never to be resolved, and in most of the arguments I’ve witnessed, the German descendants seem to win by sheer insistence on the truth of their claim, though no evidence is usually offered. I don’t suppose the question will ever be settled, as the pro-German side will not accept any evidence that throws doubt on their assertions.

However I thought this point, made by an English commenter, made an interesting point:

American mitochondrial DNA_ed

This comment got my attention and roused my curiosity. I searched for something related to genetic testing for the mitochondrial DNA, but I didn’t come up with anything verifying this.

The comment mentions that the founding female population in the colonies overall was predominantly British, mostly English. Yes, there were other colonies established by other European nationalities, but they were fewer in number and at some point blended together with the other colonists. The Dutch and the English were intermarrying at an earlier date; the two nationalities are genetically closer, the Dutch being closer kin to the English than any of the other nationalities who had colonized this continent.

It’s also true that the English colonists tended to take wives and families when they colonized North America, and not to arrive as single men as did many of the other Europeans, such as the Spanish, who intermarried with the native Indians in their colonies, or the Dutch, who did likewise in certain of their colonies later on. The French tended not to bring families with them, and intermarried with the Indians, hence the Métis people, who have become sort of a people unto themselves.

It does certainly seem plausible that British women were a larger percentage of the female population in the early colonies.

There are other factors in why the British genetic contribution to America is underestimated, some of which I’ve mentioned in other posts. The fact that so very many different ethnicities have since settled in America, and when counting the various ethnic groups the ‘pie’ is being split into so many pieces that of course the British percentage gets smaller, as we are not getting many new British immigrants.

And then, obviously with the mixed-European people who may not even know what their genetics are in detail — how much of their ancestry comes from what country, they may only pick an identity based on the nationality of their surname. And even that can give erroneous impressions. Some of my ill-informed relatives have been known to say that one of our family surnames is ‘Irish’ when it is in fact English. In that way, as well as in other ways, people get confused over their ethnic identity.

Unfortunately I don’t see any resolution to the question of which ethnicity is the majority of the White American population. It seems, though, that there is quite a collection of people who are determined to depose the English/British descendants as the acknowledged majority amongst White Americans.