‘Mixed’ ethnic makeup of Britain

The above phrase is from an Ancestry.com press release, here.

Needless to say, a grain of salt is necessary here, because from what I’ve observed, Ancestry.com seems to be grinding a multicultural ax, always stressing how ‘we‘ are this or that. I haven’t seen their TV series called ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ but from what people who have seen it tell me, and from this description, it seems the usual PC dogma on ethnicity and race is promoted.

I did find this part of the press release interesting:

“…[T]he average UK resident is 36.94% British (Anglo Saxon), 21.59% Irish (Celtic) and 19.91% Western European (the region covered today by France and Germany).

Following these top three regional ethnicities in the average UK resident are Scandinavia (9.20%), the Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) (3.05%), and Italy and Greece (1.98%)”

Actually several family members have had their DNA testing done, and similar results showed up on their reports, as well as mine. We have no recent Scandinavian ancestry, though we know of one Norwegian ancestor who came to New Amsterdam in the 17th century. So the Scandinavian must be via Britain in much earlier times, especially as it shows up on the ”average” UK resident. We also likewise had small percentages of Iberian Peninsula and Italy/Greece, though any such ancestry must have been quite distant. (Most of our family lines are accounted for in recent centuries.)

Still, I’m not sure what the rate of error is in DNA testing as it exists today. What I do know of family history does line up, for the most part, with family records and ‘word-of-mouth’, what older generations passed down to us.

The Germans and the English: closely related?

The common wisdom is that the English (or more broadly speaking, the British) are very closely related, genetically as well as linguistically.  EvolutionistX examines the relationships amongst the various European ethnicities, with some interesting findings. In response to a question he compares German and Polish genetics, specifically, and then compares the various European peoples.

“Obviously German is here referring to one of the Germanic peoples who occupy the modern nation of Germany and speak a Germanic language. But as noted before, just because people speak a common language doesn’t necessarily mean they have a common genetic origin. Germans and English both speak Germanic languages , but Germans could easily share more DNA with their Slavic-language speaking neighbors in Poland than with the English.

According to Wikipedia, the modern Germanic peoples include Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Norwegians, and Swedes.”

I’m no scholar on the subject of HBD, though I have a curiosity about it and an interest in it. But I admit I was surprised to read the last sentence in that first paragraph above — the statement that Germans might have closer genetic ties with the Polish people than with the English. This is because, just as I said, the popular belief is that the English and the Germans are very close cousins. I suppose we all tend to take that for granted, having heard it so often.

In discussions of history and politics on right-wing blogs, many people bitterly condemn the two world wars involving the English and the Germans, on the grounds that ‘it was cousin against cousin‘ or sometimes ‘brother against brother‘, with the implication that the two peoples should never have fought each other.

However history shows us that oftentimes more closely-related peoples are at odds with each other, rather than allies and good neighbors.

There’s a great deal more information in the article about the various European peoples, including some useful genetic maps. Of one of the maps, EvolutionistX says:

“Note, though, that this map has some amusing results; clearly it’s a more Nordic distribution than specifically German, with “Celtic” Ireland just as Nordic as much of England and Germany.”

That last point, about ‘Celtic’ Ireland being just as Nordic as much of England and Germany, is also counter to the popular beliefs, especially those of Americans of Scots or Irish descent, who remain adamant that their ancestors were Celts, not Nordic or Germanic. So much of the inter-group squabbling and grievance-nursing could be eliminated if only ethnic partisans would accept this information as true. Unfortunately people will often believe what they choose to believe and reject any information that challenges their belief system. Politics too often colors people’s openness to new information.

“In 2003 a paper was published by Christian Capelli and colleagues which supported, but modified, the conclusions of Weale and colleagues.^[14] This paper, which sampled Great Britain and Ireland on a grid, found a smaller difference between Welsh and English samples, with a gradual decrease in Haplogroup I frequency moving westwards in southern Great Britain. The results suggested to the authors that Norwegian Vikings invaders had heavily influenced the northern area of the British Isles, but that both English and mainland Scottish samples all have German/Danish influence.”

Maybe, as I think I mentioned in an earlier post on this subject, there is a closer kinship amongst the various peoples of the British Isles than between the supposedly close kindred, the English and the Germans. And that seems only common sense, to me.

Is it just my perception, or have intra-European grudges and animosities increased somewhat in the last few decades? In the face of the common threat to all the European peoples, these kinds of rivalries and grievances should diminish. At the same time, though, I don’t think any kind of amalgamation of the various peoples should be the goal; each people is unique; all have their strengths and their weaknesses. Europeans are not all the same. And good fences make good neighbors.

Alliances, yes, but no forced unions, whether EU-style or other such pan-European schemes.

 

 

 

 

Something worth saving

At Albion Awakening, Bruce Charlton offers some musings on Brexit Day in Britain, and considers why it seemed so important to the EU establishment to prevent Britain’s exit from that benighted union.

He says that the past nine months, that is, the time between the Brexit vote and the eventual beginning of the exit process, have shown the main reason for the EU’s reluctance to let Britain leave.

“It is what the Eurocrats call ‘the free movement of people’ but which in practice means that the UK is valued primarily as the major dumping-group for people that the rest of the EU does not want…”

Apparently the UK is the desired destination for a lot of the ‘refugees’ and immigrants, legal or otherwise, who enter the EU. Whether this is because of an organized effort to encourage these unwanteds to move on to the UK — by telling them that there are better benefits and handouts to be had there, or whether they learn from relatives or countrymen that Britain is a ‘soft touch’, many seem to end up there.

“We need to ask why it is so very important to the EU rulers that Britain specifically should get more unwanted people sent to us (passing through Europe, in preference to the rest of Europe) than anywhere else, year after year, decade after decade…”

Charlton concludes that the global powers-that-be consider the destruction of the British nation a high priority. I’ve long believed that, and this includes the Anglosphere in general, to a greater or lesser extent. Obviously all White countries, or countries with a dominant (or once-dominant) White majority are in the cross-hairs. But the Anglosphere has been especially besieged. Our country is in a way an easier target because of our tradition of the ‘melting pot’ and early mass immigration, which softened us up for the later onslaught.

I do agree with Bruce Charlton that a spiritual reawakening is the only thing that can truly save not only Britain but the West in general. However the term ‘spiritual’ has been so misused by many post-moderns; most ”progressive” people claim to be ‘spiritual’ but their spirituality is not the kind that is compatible with Western society/Christendom-as-was.  Given the composition of most Western populations these days, with ethnic/cultural/racial divides and major generational rifts, I don’t know how we might ever reach any agreement as to how to save  our societies.

I think Tiberge at GalliaWatch, writing about the situation in France, is on the right track. She cites Marion Maréchal Le Pen‘s recent article in Le Figaro on the need for cultural preservation and revival. This idea is important to all Western nations whose cultures and historic heritage are being undermined and outright destroyed through mass immigration and the damage done by the left’s loathing of our past and our traditions.

The realms of politics is important, but the political represents mainly the material aspect of life mostly; money, power. It is the material and physical side of our world, while culture and tradition and history are the non-material — I’ve thought a good deal about how the culture of a people is its spirit, its soul. That, too, is ‘spiritual’, and it’s essential to our retaining or restoring our essence as a people.

Men — or nations — do not live by ‘bread’ alone.

Brexit vs. the plan for a united Europe

From The Local:

“On the 60th anniversary of the start of the European Union, at least 3,500 demonstrators in Berlin joined an international protest to show their opposition to the UK leaving its member states behind.

As British Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to trigger Article 50 next week, setting into motion negotiations for an EU without the UK, thousands in Berlin and other major cities took to the streets on Saturday, marking 60 years since the Treaties of Rome laid the foundations for the modern-day Union.

Brexit has been largely viewed as unpopular in Germany even before the referendum vote last summer, with a poll in early June showing that nearly 80 percent of Germans wanted their British allies to remain in the Union.”

Well, the Germans have a right to their opinion, I suppose, but the will of the majority of British people should and does take precedence over that of Germans and of any other people within the EU who object to the British voluntarily leaving their Union.

The article notes there are British expatriates participating in the demonstration. It seems to me they, by expatriating themselves, have ‘voted with their feet’, and expressed their desires to choose their home according to ideology and not according to nature; evidently they have little attachment to their country of birth nor for the majority of the fellow native Britons who voted for Brexit. They prefer, like the Germans quoted in this piece, to remain under the control of a handful of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It seems they think that to be far preferable than for their country to be sovereign again — why? Because they ‘fear’ populism. In this case, ‘populism’ means the will of the majority of the people deciding the fate of Britain.

If only Brexit would actually return the UK to the native, indigenous people of that land, to the descendants of the people who have inhabited that land for many centuries. Sadly it is just a small step towards restoring the UK, but it’s a necessary step if Britain is ever to control its own fate again.

It is something of a cliche to refer to the EU ‘Presidents’ as ‘unelected bureaucrats’ as I’ve done, but it is a fact. This article gives some background on these oligarchs (or are they just front-men?) and on why the U.S. seems to have favored the idea of the EU since its inception — and before.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is quoted from two articles, one published in 2000 and another in 2007. 

“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s.”

The articles make for interesting reading. Evans-Pritchard mentions the leaders of the pan-European movement who were part of this initial plan, but he does not mention the name of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. Interestingly, amongst my ephemera collection is an old British magazine from the late 1940s or 1950 at the latest, if I recall correctly, that has a photo layout of various British and other European dignitaries at some sort of meeting to plan for this ‘united Europe.’ Coudenhove-Kalergi and his wife were pictured there.

Is it just coincidence that Coudenhove-Kalergi’s vision for a unified Europe seems to be playing out with the EU and with the effort to obliterate national boundaries and in fact, genetic boundaries?

The English have traditionally been a commonsensical people, practical and no-nonsense — or they were, once upon a time. But I suppose no people in former
Christendom are what they once were, thanks to many decades of conditioning, manipulation, and enforced diversity. But the Brexit vote hinted at the people of England at least showing something of their old traits.

 

Not a matter of blood?

From a thread on an HBD blog:

There have been no genetic Anglo-Saxons for 1000 years. The term is gibberish invoked to express some social and political attitudes.

A useful genetic marker is R1a haplotype on the Y chromosome. This started out south of the Urals and spread east (Uighurs), south to the subcontinent (high fives Razib) and west across Northern Europe and Scandinavia. It entered Albion with the Anglo-Saxon invasion and Scotland and the coasts via Scandinavia. Before those invasions, the population was almost all R1b (original hunter-gatherers plus Celts entering in first millenium BCE). R1a is about 10% of the present population, so even if it was 50% of the Germanic tribes, the gene pool is only 20% “Anglo-Saxon”.

Unfortunately, the content of most of the comments on the thread is similar to the ideas expressed in the above.

It seems terribly important to some people, many people, to deny that Anglo-Saxon or English people exist, even in England or Britain as a whole. Why is that?

The blogger himself denies that Anglo-Saxon identity is a matter of blood.  In support of his belief, he mentions the National Geographic article which I linked to here, and which Patrick Cleburne at VDare linked, and says the information isn’t valid, supposedly being outdated. Supposedly more recent information refutes the content of the article. However there certainly have been other sources which cited that study and added their own information to it. Given the amount of disagreement here, we might get the impression that genetics isn’t a ‘hard science’ at all.

I have seen genetic maps that show that the peoples of the British Isles have more in common with each other than with continental ‘cousins.’ The blogger asserts that Anglo-Saxons and Germans are more closely related than is now believed, though the maps I’ve seen don’t show that to be the case. From a purely subjective point of view, I’ve never thought that English and Germans resemble each other that much. I’ve never mistaken one for the other just by their outward appearance. Having learned something of German and French, I found French easier to learn; the structure and syntax of German are radically different and some German words are not easy to guess as with unfamiliar French words. And yes, I know that is the legacy of the Normans, in part.

The one part of the linked blog piece that I agree with is this:

The number of people who identify as English has crashed since 1980. Why? The winds of cultural change. If you are of German and English heritage, you will usually say you are German American. If Irish and English, again, Irish (not to mention “Americans” who are actually English).”

Yes. I’ve said this as have others, and it’s true. Those who say ‘Germans are the majority White ethnic group in America’ are disingenuous as surely they know that the  ‘pie’ is divided amongst so many White ethnic groups in America that the Germans  will appear to be the most numerous. For that reason, and for the reason that people tend to pick the more recent immigrant group as their ethnicity, if they are a European mix, Germans may appear to be at the top, but if the truth were known it might look very different. Most Americans have not been DNA-tested, and many, like Elizabeth Warren, believe fairy tales about their ancestry because it’s in style to do so.

As for England being multicultural for centuries, having taken in immigrants from various European and later, non-European nations, we could make the same argument about many European countries. The Netherlands, for example, took in many French Huguenots, Sephardic Jews (Baruch Spinoza being one), some English Puritans, and Flemish people. In recent times, many ethnic Dutch whose ancestors had lived in the Dutch East Indies were ‘repatriated’ to Holland — bringing many mixed descendants (called ‘Indos’) back with them. The Dutch, unlike the English, were more willing to intermarry with the native people in their colonies. So can we say there is ‘no Dutch bloodline’, or that Dutch people are just a mixed multitude? I would not say that.

In our day politics and social change have damaged the objectivity of many ‘scientists’ and even more so, non-scientists.

‘Nation of immigrants’?

It’s a longstanding claim in America that this country is a ‘nation of immigrants’, a claim without much validity in my opinion. But there is even less validity to the now-frequent claim that Britain is, and has always been, a ‘nation of immigrants’ or a ‘multicultural nation.’

Patrick Cleburne has a piece about this at VDare, linking to a National Geographic article which refutes that claim nicely, supported by new genetic information that has come to light in the last decade or so.

The information cited in the article (which I linked to on this blog, in an earlier post) has been available long enough that you’d think the ‘nation of immigrants’ or ‘multiracial Britain’ canards would be discredited by now. But no, these brazen assertions live on. Why? Because of the globalists’ determination to do away with nations as we have known them, and to destroy the concept of race or ethnos. ‘We are all one race: the human race.’ The shameless big lie, as always.

Can reality be denied forever? It would seem not; I’d like to think not, but the globalist/Kalergists are determined to keep on trying to efface reality altogether.

 

 

Our ancestors: victims and villains

In searching the Internet for the source of some apparently derisive remarks by Disraeli about the Anglo-Saxons, I came across this piece from 2002, which proves to be informative. It touches on the questions addressed on this blog, and on the issue of race and nation, which is very much a hot topic these days.

Granted, the piece is from the Guardian, so it can be taken with the usual generous helping of salt, but nonetheless it has some interest.

I’ve wondered at times about the source of the now-standard disparaging of the Normans and the elevation of the Saxons in the popular imagination. It seems that the Romantic era in Europe brought a new fascination with primitive tribes and national/racial origins.

“In the late 18th century, Britain joined every other European country in a Romantic quest to uncover its racial heritage. The Enlightenment belief in the universal rationalism of man was replaced by histories of primitive tribes, national languages and racial genealogies. As the French rediscovered the Gauls, the Victorian public became bewitched by Britain’s Saxon heritage. Archaeological societies mushroomed, Beowulf was translated, and mewling Aelfreds and Aelfrics were dragged to church fonts. The Saxon spirit of manly independence, gruff manners, and no-nonsense militarism quietly merged into what were taken to be uniquely British characteristics. In Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South, the northern factory owner Mr Thornton proudly declares his Saxon roots. “I belong to Teutonic blood; it is little mingled in this part of England to what it is in others; we retain much of their language; we retain more of their spirit.

As the Saxons rose in historical favour, so the Normans necessarily fell. The early Victorians regarded William the Conqueror and his henchmen as little better than illegal usurpers who had attempted to crush the free Saxon spirit. Under Norman rule, the Saxons had been stripped of their land, hounded from office, and ground under the boot of military occupation. The Norman temperament was one of arbitrary rule, tyrannical Catholicism, and underhand continental ways. But luckily, according to a popular history book of the 1820s, “as the Saxons continued in the country after the Conquest, and were much more numerous than the Norman settlers, we are still almost all of us of chiefly Saxon descent; and our language, and many of our habits and customs, sufficiently declare our origin.”

Sir Walter Scott absorbed these ideas and his work Ivanhoe reflected these popular stereotypes. I noticed this some years ago: the Normans in Ivanhoe were, especially in the Hollywood movie treatment of that work, sort of like a medieval biker gang, although with more suave manners. The Hollywood movie Normans went around clad all in black, looking rather modern, from what I recall, and were very much the villains. Conversely the Jewish characters received more sympathetic treatment.

“The free-willed Saxon is hounded by the vicious Norman in a country lost without the consensual hand of Richard the Lionheart. Only the brave Ivanhoe can unite these warring classes. Scott envisioned the Saxons and Normans as two distinct races: “the vanquished distinguished by their plain, homely, blunt manners, and the free spirit infused by their ancient spirit and laws; the victors, by the high spirit of military fame, personal adventure, and whatever could distinguish them as the flower of chivalry.” Font-de-Boeuf and de Bracy fitted the historical icon of the rapacious Norman, while Rowena and Ivanhoe played the parts of virtuous Saxons with equal appropriateness.”

These contrasts could be seen as prefiguring the now-popular idea that the original English settlers of North America represented ‘two distinct races,’ the stern, rigid Puritan New England colonists and the more urbane Cavaliers of the Jamestown colony.
Then, throw in (per David Hackett Fischer) other groups like Quakers (many of Irish as well as English blood) and the rough-and-ready, ”born fighting” Celts, the Scots-Irish to further complicate matters.

There is some validity to the idea that the Normans were a distinct people from the Saxons, though it is also true that both groups are of Germanic/Nordic origin and that they are close kin genetically; this fact is denied by being ignored.

To return to Benjamin Disraeli, he apparently took these ideas of ‘two nations’ to heart.
In his work Coningsby, apparently the story of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the character Sidonia, (said to represent Disraeli himself), says “All is race; there is no other truth.”

“The future Conservative prime minister’s personal preoccupation with race was often reflected in his fiction. His own Jewish heritage and interest in the racial divisions of the Orient were tortuously explored in Tancred, or the New Crusade.
[…]

Sybil, too, is a tale of race. It’s a story of how the 19th-century descendants of an arrogant Norman aristocracy continued to live off the plundered wealth of dispossessed Saxons. The Normans are the rich and the miserable Saxons now reduced to the state of factory hands in grimy cities the poor. Egremont is a Norman and Gerard is a Saxon; they are “formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food”. The divisions of the two nations are historic and racial.”

All this has a depressingly familiar sound to it; the dispossessed and downtrodden minorities, wronged by an interloper race who conquered and dominated them. It mirrors the current belief system about the colonization of the Americas and much of the Third World by Whites. The more successful and stronger race is condemned as immoral and oppressive, and the conquered peoples held up as blameless victims. It set the pattern for the current paradigm that has Whites being condemned for ‘hegemony’ and ‘White privilege.’ All this could be said to be the heritage of the Romantic worldview of the Victorian era and earlier.

The role of Disraeli, a Sephardi Jew who became Prime Minister of Britain, is an interesting feature in this story. His own biases and preconceptions, as a member of an ‘oppressed and victimized group’, colored the views he succeeded in promoting amongst Western peoples, and we are living with the legacy of that.

As of now, the stereotypes created as part of this warped mindset are crippling to us, plagued as many of us are with guilt over the fact that our ancestors were just too successful and competent. How long will we have to expiate that guilt, and what will be the cost, before we recover from this guilt-binge?

On the decline of London

“In the five decades since I first came to London, so much has changed. I remember enough of the past to regret the passing of that age when power and influence made London throb and hum and count for much more in the affairs of the world.

Five decades ago, London was a grimy, sooty, bomb-scarred city, with less food, fewer cars, and deprived of the conveniences of the consumer society. But the people, then homogeneous, white, and Christians, were admirable, self-confident and courteous.

From that well-mannered Britain to the yobs and football hooligans of the 1990s took only 40 years. I learned that civilised living does not come about naturally. There are other significant changes. Britain is now multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Churches are nearly empty on Sundays with many deconsecrated and converted into places of entertainment while some 500 mosques are filled to capacity on Fridays, the Muslim Sabbath.”

– Lee Kuan Yew, “The Post-war Breaking of the British Civic Spirit”

Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, was a very perceptive man, and had quite a bit to say in his time about multiculturalism; though he himself was of a very different world he did appreciate the British tradition and its contribution to his part of the world.

So many commenters online blame Britain (and also our own country or any Anglosphere country) for the sad state in which we find ourselves. I keep reading comments saying that Anglo-descended peoples in particular are somehow the architects of this globalist nightmare, or that we/’they’ are especially stupid, passive, or corrupt, thus bringing about the decline into multicult chaos and squalor.

I don’t think this is fair; it’s pretty clear that Anglosphere countries have been special targets of the globalists/Kalergists, bombarding us with propaganda and going all-out with the social engineering schemes. To paraphrase what Jesus said in the Gospels, one has to ‘bind the strong man’ in order to ‘spoil his house.’ The Anglosphere is the area where Christianity and the traditions of personal liberty have persisted, while much of Europe capitulated to humanism and the post-Christian worldview. Therefore most of the efforts to mind-condition the population have been focused on the Anglosphere — Britain in particular, and now our country. And if we are honest, we have no room for Schadenfreude about the decline of Britain, looking at our own cities. Our descent has taken somewhat longer, for cultural reasons as well as because we are blessed with enough space to try to keep one step ahead of the forced multiculturalizing of our country. Our British cousins lack that luxury, living on a small island.

[The Lee Kuan Yew passage was quoted by commenter ‘Aristobulus’ on the Social Matter blog. A YouTube video of Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks is here.]

America’s heritage and ‘ancestral stocks’

Clinton Stoddard Burr wrote a book, published in 1922, which is very pertinent today. In the foreword, he indicates just how important he believed the subject he wrote on would be in the near, and more distant future. It seems he was prescient:

“The author of the following discourse is an average citizen of this Republic who perceives that the American People are on the threshold of the greatest crisis in their history. This volume, then, is intended primarily as a study of the significant facts respecting the population of the nation. The time is ripe to co-ordinate the essential data derived from a multitudinous variety of national records, for the edification of the present generation and those to come.

[…]A wide vista of fascinating fields of historical, anthropological and statistical research is open to those of us who would gain a deeper insight of the problem that faces the American people today and in the future. The writer feels that in imparting these views his motive is wholly a patriotic one, and he can only invoke the reader to peruse these lines in the same spirit. We all know how futile are learned discourses in appealing to the preoccupied business, professional, trades or agricultural men of the nation. Yet it is just these influential elements that can bring pressure to bear on our lawmakers to save the United States in its great crisis.

[…]In fact it is high time that we should comprehend the primary cause of the loathsome plague of anarchy and Bolshevism. It is time that we should be alive to the fact that most of the hordes of immigrants who have been pouring into the United States from countries of Southern and Eastern Europe, from lands inhabited by races impregnated with radicalism, Bolshevism and anarchy, belong for the most part to the lower strata of humanity from those regions, who prove to be most susceptible to the wiles of the radical agitator. Surely this view, in itself, is a logical plea in advocating restriction of a certain class of immigration.

[…] All thinking people are awakened to the realization that we must choose our future entrants to this country from such as show assimilable qualities of mind as well as favorable physical attributes. The callous exploiters of cheap labor and the incurable sentimentalists stand alone in their misplaced loyalty to our fatuous boast in the past that America was the haven of the down-and-out, the dependent, the oppressed, the pauper, the foreign agitator, the unassimilable and what not.”

In our day, the ‘callous exploiters of cheap labor and the incurable sentimentalists’ are legion, and their voices are drowning out those of the thinking citizens of this country. However there is at least now a chance for the concerns of native-born citizens of this country, especially the posterity of the founders, to be heard. The State of the Union address, and the discussion around possible curbs on immigration, however, has brought a new onslaught from the Open Borders zealots and their immigrant or would-be immigrant clients. There is a new chorus of importunate voices asserting the ‘right’ of everyone to claim a piece of America. Brazen Hispanic spokesmen insist that this country is theirs by rights, and that we, the progeny of the original colonists and Founders, have no right to object. I wonder if Burr could have imagined such gall.

But back in 1922, as Clinton Stoddard Burr was writing his book, he describes how the recent (1920) celebrations of the Pilgrims’ Tercentenary jogged the memory of America, reminding Americans that this country was, in fact, settled by a particular group of people, and that the country bore the stamp of that group genetically and culturally.

“The [Pilgrim Tercentenary] celebrations commemorated…above all, our three hundred years of expansion over a vast continent; in the main an Anglo-Saxon conquest over savagery and natural forces. […] It must not be forgotten that English thought, laws and government permeated the land from the arrival of the Mayflower up to the present day. Anglo-Saxon civilization actually gained a new stimulus by the defiance of a weak and unscrupulous monarch in 1776, and today the Englishman and the American are approaching the goal of perfect mutual and reciprocal relations tending to the welfare not alone of Anglo-Saxon communities, but also of the whole world.

[…]The significance of three centuries of American growth was briefly, but aptly, described by the British Ambassador, Sir Auckland Geddes, in the following words: ‘We have, in fact, to maintain the heritage of freedom against assault from within and without, the priceless heritage of a great idea conceived by the Nordic people and slowly and painfully brought into practice in workable form in England, then brought here and developed and strengthened, then passed to British Dominions, then transplanted into countries that never have understood it. It is now in danger from its popularity. Even its enemies try to conceal their actions behind its phrases.’

[…]When one member of a household contracts a terrible disease, are not the other members of the household liable to contagion? Then why do we still allow the dregs of Southern and Eastern European nations to swarm into our community by the thousands every day, when we know that there are hundreds of potential Bolshevists among them who may not be discovered under our hurried and superficial mental and literacy tests?”

The book can be found here at Archive.org, where it may be downloaded or read. I recommend it to all who have an interest in America’s racial heritage. I may not agree 100 percent with Burr’s opinions — he’s perhaps too ‘civic nationalist’ and inclusive for me, but nonetheless the book is a refreshing change, a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere laden with lies about these crucial issues.

 

The ‘return of the Anglo-Saxon’?

‘The Return of David Hackett Fischer ‘ might be more apt for this piece, a piece for which I had high hopes, considering its title and the name of its author, ‘Hengest.’ Not to be too hard on the writer, it’s just that I had hoped that the article would offer a fresh take on the issue of America and her British Isles origins. I suppose I can’t fault the writer for essentially following the predominant school of thought, which enshrines the work of Fischer, Woodward, and others who hold the work of the latter two in the highest regard.

Is it to be the fate of this blog perpetually to try, if not to refute, then at least to provoke healthy questioning of the work of Fischer, Colin Woodward, and of others like McWhiney who promote the Celtic South idea? I had hoped to go beyond that but it seems these popular writers are now considered unimpeachable sources. And who am I? I am a mere anonymous blogger. However I don’t claim authority on my own account (though I am credentialed in history and have considerable experience in genealogy), asking only that those with open minds at least consult older sources, and weigh those against the more recent popular writers of history. I personally believe that history as it is at present practiced is not as rigorous as it once was, and that political correctness, including post-modernism, taints much of what passes as history and ethnology nowadays.

Back to the linked piece by Hengest at Faith and Heritage. I am a regular reader of Faith and Heritage, and I find the articles there to be worthy for the most part, often well-written and thought-provoking. The writer, Hengest, seems to be using the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in a rather inclusive way, to describe British Isles people generally, a practice which I see is now becoming more widespread. However as I like to point out, most British people of Celtic origin (Welsh, Scots, and Irish), emphatically state they are not of English/Anglo-Saxon origin, so it seems dubious to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in such an inclusive way. There is such a thing as an English nationalist, and if you encountered one, he would also tell you that he is not ‘British’ by ethnicity, but English, or Anglo-Saxon. I like to use the terms precisely rather than as vaguely interchangeable.

In the United States, however, the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or just ‘Anglo’, is often used rather carelessly to mean anybody whose first language is English, who has (maybe) an English surname or who is otherwise a sort of nondescript, generic White American. The sloppy usage of the term ‘Anglo’ in America is akin to the usage of the semi-slur term ‘WASP’, meaning ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.’ Many people of mixed Northwest European ancestry think of themselves as more or less WASP as they grew up English-speaking and Protestant, and maybe even grew up in the older American culture which was heavily English-derived. Still, such people may not really be English-Americans, nor identify much with English history and culture, or most importantly, the English people who now live in England. So the terms are very imprecisely used. In that respect, ‘Hengest’ is only following imprecise American practice, I suppose, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, the term ‘WASP’ was apparently originated as a kind of slur, and here in a piece from way back in 1988, Edward Hoagland defends WASPs. Now when was the last time you read any kind of defense of WASPs in a major newspaper, especially the New York Times? You likely won’t see it anytime soon, and there are even precious few blogs which advocate for Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxons, or English nationalism. (By the way, if anyone knows of any such blogs, please send me links. There are too few people taking up this cause.)

As to whether those who follow Fischer, Woodward, et al are right and I am wrong, as I’ve said, I am merely asking that people who sincerely want to know the truth read as many older sources as possible. Confining our sources of knowledge only to those of our own generation and time is the worst possible temporal provincialism and narrowness. Hear all sides of the issue, including voices of other times — and consider that the people who lived farther back in time may have been closer to having the truth than those of us who are removed from it by many generations.