A nation with no borders?

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

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

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

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

Another self-described ‘mixed’ person says

 

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

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

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

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

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

A response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second much of what this commenter says.

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Is there a place for our religious heritage…

In a restored West? If we are able to successfully stop the globalist juggernaut and if we can secure the continued existence of our people and a future for our children, is there a place for our Christian heritage and traditions?

There are a number of persistent voices which answer a vehement ‘no!’ to that question. As blogger “Hengest” at Faith and Heritage writes, Christianity is, according to some, a debilitating thing which has sapped our strength and our will.

In another thought-provoking post, Hengest answers those charges in his piece, titled Alfred Against the Vikings: Then and Now. 

Hengest quotes from G.K. Chesterton’s poem, Ballad of the White Horse, which Hengest describes as an allegory of the conflict between Christianity and nihilism, a conflict which he perceives as with us still today — on which I agree with him. Those on the right who oppose Christianity and the Christian heritage of Europe seem to want to jettison our heritage as being so much baggage, and as being a feminizing influence, a failed belief system. In its place they would put — what? Any number of post-modern belief systems, political ‘isms’, non-Christian religions-of-convenience, (seen as mere means to an end; some say we ‘need a new religion’ and they seem to believe we can cook one up to order, preferably one that is appropriately martial). But as I’ve written before, religion cannot be created out of whole cloth, to order. A religious tradition can’t be conjured up overnight. It took millennia to create the civilization that was Europe, or Christendom.

England was, up until the mid-20th century at least, still a country with a strong Christian heritage. The two World Wars, in which Christendom bore the brunt of the destruction, seem to have produced a loss of faith amongst many of the European people, including the English. It would not be impossible to revive the ‘faith of our fathers’ in Europe; it is not completely extinct, though it is obviously quiescent. But once that faith was at the heart of European civilization; now that it is all but gone, the heart seems to have gone out of Europe.

“We are told that if we Christians would just let go of our Savior and King, we could make our way unencumbered toward the New Right utopia of a race-conscious, agnostic white superman. This is a difference only in degree from the Christless, traditionless, monochromatic, mocha-skinned utopia promised to us by the globalists and liberals. If we would just let go of any meaningful attachment to our people and religion, we would have world peace. Both of these utopias are based on wholesome, but warped, values and flattery of different sorts of pride”

Hengest points out the importance of a living, intact culture to the health of a people:

“There are very few, if any, historical examples of one people resisting another without an intact culture, which always includes religion. The fork in the road appearing in America and the rest of the West is between an organic cultural revival for our various peoples, and an artificial utopian vision touted as a cure by cosmopolitans quite understandably disaffected with what our civilization has become.”

The ‘proposition nation’ for White people, championed by the secular right, seems just as unnatural as the ‘global community’ which is being forced upon us. Hengest points out that the secular right, many of whom have wholeheartedly embraced Nietzsche, have plenty of zeal for their cause, but lack a real connection to the people they claim to represent. This is something that is seldom addressed.

Not only is an organic, living culture necessary to the continued existence of a healthy folk but in order for this to exist, there has to be a core of people connected by a bond of kinship and loyalty. I don’t see much of this sense of loyalty. We often hear the phrase ‘no enemies to the right’ (which should be ‘no enemies to your right’, I think) meaning that there should be a willingness to tolerate differences in the name of loyalty to a cause or a political belief system — but what about loyalty to blood and to kin and kind? There’s not much of that out there.

Much of the division amongst us is based on political, religious, and generational animosity. If we could reclaim the faith and the outlook that sustained many generations of our fathers, this situation would not exist. If we were united by faith and once again regained a sense of brotherhood and loyalty amongst our own, and a common purpose and goal, we would not be easy prey as we are now.

Interestingly, there was also a recent piece at Faith and Heritage, written by Adi, in which he reports that there is an upsurge in ‘British nationalism’ which is tied to a ‘revival of Christianity’ in Britain. While that sounds like welcome news, I will take it with a grain of salt until there are more visible signs of it. Adi writes that it is supposedly the younger generation which is receptive to ‘British nationalism’ and Christianity. But which Christianity? The liberal, politically correct kind we have here in the U.S.? Or the real Christianity? And does British nationalism mean civic nationalism? It almost has to; the term ‘British’ includes not just English, but Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and Northern Irish (Ulster) folk. The Welsh, Scots, and Cornish have their own particularistic nationalisms whose interests are often in conflict with those of the English. Also there are probably millions of immigrants from many countries who hold British passports, as well as their children born in Britain, and they can legally claim to be ‘British’. England needs a true English nationalism. I am hoping for a day when the English can be a nation as  it once was, with its own identity. Christianity prescribes that a people choose their leaders from amongst their own people; Britain has had a succession of Scots and others as Prime Ministers, with few Englishmen in that role in recent years.

And are the ‘young’ in Britain (which age group?) more receptive to ethnonationalism? The only true English nationalists I’m aware of are men of middle age or so, people who remember a time before the madness set in. I am not aware of many young people who are so inclined; they have no experience of it. However I would be more than glad to be proven wrong on that score.

Jefferson on immigration

From the Identity Dixie blog, a nice piece on the immigration views of one of our English-descended forefathers, Thomas Jefferson.

These days it seems a rare thing to find, on a right-wing or alt-right blog, any favorable mentions of Thomas Jefferson. One blog in particular (which will be nameless) has a few commenters who accuse Jefferson of everything from the old canard about his siring children by a slave, to having ‘thrown open the gates to immigrants‘.

From the Identity Dixie post, we read Jefferson’s own arguments against mass importation of foreigners, and the possible deleterious effects of doing that — which is, of course, just what our derelict rulers are doing right now. Too bad none of them seem to have read Jefferson’s wise words, from Notes on the State of Virginia.

“But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The writer of the blog piece, Lpantera, points out the important fact, often forgotten in this era of the ‘proposition nation’ dogma, that nations (that is, peoples) produce governments, not the other way around, as often implied by the ignorant. The people make the place; a country (including its government) is its people.

And just what kind of people produced our original system of government? Yes, I have repeated it often here, and I will say it as long as other people continue to make opposing claims about who the original American people were, and who the ‘posterity’ of the founders are:

What nation produced the American government, this unique entity in the world? The English nation – the Anglo-Saxon people upheld as the racial basis for the whole of the South by every vocal defender of the South from Calhoun to Davis right up to Governor Wallace and Sam Dickson. What happens if this people is displaced? What is the result of importing en masse a foreign horde from a part of the world in which despotism is the only experienced reality they have? Precisely what history has demonstrated, precisely the result Jefferson predicts: a nation that has been warped, rendered into a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass”.

And yes, it’s good to remember that historically, this was the majority view, taken for granted by most Southron people: the fact of the Anglo-Saxon South.

It matters. Truth always matters.

 

 

 

 

Anglophobia

The comment example below, from another blog, may be somewhat extreme but this kind of anti-English/anti-Anglo sentiment does exist, and it seems more noticeable than ever on the Internet. Speaking from my own experience it seems that it’s much more common now. Just why that is, I can’t say with any certainty. There is a lot of smug disdain towards the English (or as most Americans think of them, the British or ‘the Brits’, because of what many Americans see as weakness on the part of the indigenous White people of the UK.

However there has always been a certain amount of anti-English sentiment, notably on the part of the peoples who have traditionally seen the English as their oppressors. Somehow it seems more common amongst Irish-Americans or Irish-Australians than amongst the Irish in their own country.

There is, in the following comment, some hint that the writer has some sort of ethnic grudge against Anglo-Saxons or Anglo-Americans.

I think some of those who have anti-Anglo sentiments are emboldened by the lack of ethnic consciousness or a healthy identity amongst English-Americans. Many Anglo-Saxon Americans passively accept this kind of invective that is directed towards them. Why, I wonder?

 

anglophobia 2016-10-29_075339

Really, this kind of rhetoric sort of mirrors the anti-White rhetoric employed by nonwhites towards Whites everywhere. And for exactly the same reasons, I think.

It would seem that ethnic divisions can only grow when people are harboring this level of bitter feeling; maybe the different people going their different ways is the only solution, but for some strange reason the designated ‘victims’ who are ramping up their rhetoric don’t want to go their own way; they prefer to remain in close proximity to their ‘oppressors.’ Do they want to be free of those they deem their ‘tormentors’ or do they want revenge?

Balkanizing and separation would be preferable to this endless litany of accusations and recriminations. The ‘melting pot’ has not worked its wonders, despite the idealizing of America’s ‘proposition nation.’

Who speaks for England?

Robert Henderson at England Calling wrote an informative piece back in 2015, asking the question ‘Who will speak for England?‘ The obvious answer to that question should logically be ‘the English, of course’. But as I’ve written here before, the English identity, versus the inclusive ‘British’ identity, is being discouraged from being expressed.

The piece goes into some detail as to just how England’s interests are being neglected in favor of the interests of the ‘minority’ groups in the UK — and yes, the Scottish people are counted as an ‘ethnic minority’ in the UK.

As Henderson writes, the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh were favored, according to the 2015 formula for treasury disbursements, over the English. There has been a lot of hand-wringing in the media about what would happen to the UK if the Scots, for example, decided to become independent. Of course they have a financial incentive to remain in the UK, and that in part explains their reluctance to opt for independence in the past referendum.

It’s hard to fathom how the English became the red-headed stepchildren in their own country, lacking a Parliament of their own, and financially disadvantaged by the UK treasury.

I can’t help seeing parallels (although not exact) with the status of Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are now made to take a back seat to just about everybody else, though we are the core people of this country. I wonder if our English cousins share our chagrin at what has happened.

The English would do well to begin to assert their primacy in the UK as Anglo-Americans would in this country. But it is an uphill struggle to overcome the prevailing idea that we are ‘non-people’ in our own country.

Teddy Roosevelt’s view of America’s founding stock

Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reality, quotes Teddy Roosevelt on America’s founding stock.

“[O]n the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already become an Anglo-Briton . . . It must always be kept in mind that the Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the great English race, which both before and after their separation have assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples. . .

I agree with much of what Roosevelt says above, but the last sentence is something I have reservations about. I’ve bolded the pertinent part.  Obviously Roosevelt was more of a ‘civic nationalist’ and judging by what he says about the Americans and British ‘making Englishmen of many other  peoples‘ he believed in the melting pot, and in the limitless possibility of assimilating many disparate peoples. He may just have been using a little hyperbole when he says many other peoples were ‘made Englishmen‘ by assimilation. But whether or not he meant that phrase metaphorically, it’s been treated as truth by many people in the years since those words were written.

Oftentimes the civic nationalists in both the United States and in Britain have expressed the belief that if only, say, Moslems ‘assimilated’, learned good English, and ‘moderated’ their religious beliefs and cultures, they will be full members of their host countries. Is everyone assimilable, given the right instructions in how to be a ‘good citizen’ of America or of any Western country? It’s an article of faith in the religion that is civic nationalism, but there seems to be little evidence that it’s true.

One more thing I noticed about the quote from Roosevelt about what makes an ‘Anglo-American’: it seems that his views have become widely accepted in America now; everybody who is of northwestern European stock and who speaks English as their native language is now, for a lot of people, an ‘Anglo’ or ‘Anglo-American.’ Well, that’s very inclusive and all, but doesn’t that deprive those who are actually of English or British descent of their ethnic identity?

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

‘The Britannic race’

From a few months ago, here’s an interesting piece on ‘The Britannic Race and its Predicament, from the British Observer UK blog. It’s pertinent to the ongoing argument about ‘Celts vs. Anglo-Saxons’ which seems to pop up everywhere on ethnonationalist or HBD blogs, as illustrated in my post from the other day.

I could quibble just a little about the preference of the writer of the piece to prefer the ‘British’ identity rather than differentiating between ‘British’ — a civic identity, inclusive of all the peoples of the British Isles — and the English. But I will let that go because many of the points the writer makes are valid. From the article:

“One issue that is particularly important to explain is this myth of ‘Celtic’ Britons and Anglo-Saxon Britons – the common statement is that the English are predominantly of Anglo-Saxon descent and the Welsh, Scots and Irish (and possibly Cornish) are more Celtic in origin. The truth of the matter is that the Britannic race is ‘Anglo-Celtic’, if we are to use such terms. In this instance ‘Anglo’ can be taken as a reference to all tribes of Germanic origin that settled in ancient and post-Roman Britain, for example the Belgae, Cantii and then the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, whilst Celtic refers to exactly that, the tribes we refer to as ‘Celtic’ such as the Brigantes, Cornovii etc… It is true, however, that there is a divide between the people of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Highland Scots and the English & Lowland Scots, but this is more a cultural divide than an ethnic or genetic difference, with Celtic culture more prominent in the former. The genetic differences between these groups are there, but they are reasonably subtle and only really noticeable in Ireland.”

Taking a good look at the Y DNA Haplogroup map in the article is helpful, and it relates to a point I made in my post the other day, about the apparent inability to distinguish, via DNA testing, between the various peoples of the British Isles. The map shows the similarities between the Haplogroup types amongst the various peoples of Britain and Ireland. To my eye, it looks as though there is a closer similarity between the Irish and the Welsh, based on this map, and likewise between the Scots and the English.

“But, the general theme is still the same – our genetic map spreads across all of the British Isles, the only difference being some tribal roots are more prevalent in one part of Britain or another. This is why delving back into particulars and separating ourselves between Celtic and Anglo is counterproductive, as it is fair to say we are a reasonably homogeneous ‘Anglo-Celtic’ ethnic group.

You may be asking why all this matters? Well, the particulars such as who’s got more of which Y DNA strand or who is more Frisian than Celtic really doesn’t matter – what does matter is the fact that an ethnic group is the sum of its parts, and the nation is the sum of its people, therefore the bedrock of a nation is its dominant ethnic group, all the more so if the ethnic make up of a nation is fairly homogeneous which was the case with Great Britain until circa 1948.”

The writer then goes on to elaborate on the modern era of mass immigration from former Commonwealth countries, which started in earnest with the arrival of the Windrush in 1948. And yes, contrary to what the modern multicultist propagandists assert, the old-stock people of the British Isles are a very homogeneous group, or were until recent decades as the cult aggressively pushes miscegeny in an overt attempt to change forever the genetics of the population of Britain. Britain was not, as is often said by the lying media and intelligentsia, a ‘nation of mongrels’, but there is a flagrant plan to make it just that.

“The genetic stock of Britain is being altered beyond recognition – natives make up 80% of the overall population (as of the 2011 census), which may not sound too alarming, but when one compares that with the 92.12% of 2001, just 10 years prior to the last census, the future looks bleak. Immigration is running at record levels, with approximately 600,000 people arriving here each year from all over the world, whilst around 300,000 people (mainly natives) are seeking pastures new as they see their own land decline like never before.”

It isn’t mentioned in this article, but it is apparent that the people behind this globalist agenda are particularly trying to suppress the English as an ethnic group, as contrasted to their allowing the Celtic nationalists (although they are not true nationalists, as with the Scottish Nationalist Party, embracing multiculturalism and ‘diversity’, likewise much of existing Irish nationalism) their political parties and movements, their parliaments and flags, whereas the St. George’s flag, the symbol of England is declared divisive and ‘hateful.’ I had an ongoing argument with a reader who identified as Scots-American who flatly denied that the English were being singled out for suppression. It’s amazing how much denial there is on this subject.

I see parallels in this country; there is an incredible amount of anti-Anglo, or anti-WASP rhetoric amongst Americans, and it gets a pass for the most part. Few Anglo-Americans feel compelled to say a word in response. Why? Is this just, in microcosm, the typical ‘cucked’ White response, to be silent and self-effacing if not self-hating?

I am all in favor of each ethnic group/nation having their own ethnopatriotism; I am not in favor of amalgamating the various European ethnicities, even those who are close kin, as shown by genetic evidence. Much of the inter-group quarreling amongst close kindred is motivated by past historical grudges (some groups have preternaturally long memories of battles lost, and perceived humiliations), and this really should change, considering that all Europeans are under the same threat.

 

English-Americans: Still English?

English_sm.jpg

The above is from a pro-English Facebook group.

I know some would not agree with the idea expressed in it, but there’s no denying that one can only be English by ancestry, not simply by transplanting oneself to England. To be British is another matter; though I would not agree with the silly idea that the third-world transplants to the UK can be ”British”, still, British is undoubtedly a civic identity. After all, it encompasses the other nationalities who have long lived in Great Britain, nationalities who are considered British though they identify as Scottish, Welsh, or Ulster folk.

The very reason that the English identity is ”controversial” or politically incorrect in today’s multicultural, multiracial UK is that it is an exclusive rather than inclusive identity. I have heard that there are immigrants from the Moslem world or elsewhere who claim to be ”English” by virtue of residence in England, but to claim that is to deny the existence of a nation or ethnicity called ”English.”

Why do I emphasize this ‘British vs. English’ question? Because it’s important. Many Americans (excluding my readers, of course) are unaware that there is any distinction between ”British” and “English”. In the past I’ve been guilty of using the terms interchangeably, without thinking. Even one of my English readers (on the old blog) said he had done so. It’s unconscious, because the labels are not used precisely or accurately these days. And there is a difference. Just ask a Scot or a Welshman; they will likely tell you that they are Scots or Welsh first, though their civic identity is British. In few cases will they want to say they are English. The English, after all, were the oppressors in the minds of many, and past lost battles are kept in memory for many generations.

So there’s yet another reason why the English identity is destined for consignment to the memory hole, if the globalist fanatics have their way. But as long as I can, I plan not to comply with the politically correct edicts. The truth has to be kept alive.

And yes, though some of us have ancestors who left England 400+ years ago, our English genes are intact, and though culture plays a part, we are who we are in part because of those genes.