Tag Archives: English character

Manchester (UK) attack

It’s hard to say anything that has not already been said elsewhere, and said better. The whole scenario is getting so wearisome to think about, because it is so needless, so preventable, so predictable. And that goes double for the commentary and the speechifying by those in power, like the Manchester police spokesman and his Islamophilic posturing — and as for Theresa May, a picture is worth a thousand words.

theresa May headscarf

That picture speaks one word to me: submission.

As to the many articles that have been written about the latest attack, this one makes some very good points about how the now-familiar slogan ‘Keep Calm’ is being used now, as compared to its original usage during the troubled days of World War II.

‘There was a fighting mentality behind “keep calm and carry on.” It meant, keep calm and carry on fighting. Keep calm and defend freedom with all your might.

[…]Today, “keep calm and carry on”is deployed to disengage the British public from reality. Today, “keep calm and carry on” stems from apathy and complacency. It is used to dissuade people from contemplating the truth, from asking tough questions, and from putting in place meaningful solutions. The phrase that once meant keep calm and carry on fighting now means keep calm and carry on sleeping.

Its appeal makes it all the more deadly. It conjures images of wartime Britain. It makes the English who use it feel proud, brave and patriotic. Meanwhile, in their effort to keep calm and carry on, they ignore reality.’

I agree; it’s dishonest and almost criminal the way the submissive, traitorous ‘leaders’ of today are using that phrase ‘keep calm’ to keep the people of the UK passive and politically correct.

calm

A caveat: the article I link above is written for a media outlet sponsored by a denomination or church whose beliefs I don’t necessarily endorse. However I found it linked online and much of the article makes good sense. The writer mentions how many of today’s Christian, as well as secular leaders, in the UK and in the USA,  are failing in their job.

“The Prophet Isaiah also compares Britain’s and America’s leaders in the end time to lazy, slothful watchdogs. “His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isaiah 56:10). What an apt description of the leadership and mainstream media in Britain and America.”

And the writer notes how Americans as well as British people seem to want to hear ‘smooth things’, comforting, bland words, rather than hard truths. Maybe we are in fact getting the leadership that the majority want in our respective countries. Yet there are people who are awake to the cold, hard truths both in Britain and in our country. It’s just that the media, and their masters, the powers-that-be, do such an effective job of stifling truth and punishing those who dare to speak it or write it. That will have to change.

 

 

 

English and British?

A recurring subject on this blog has been the difference (and the inherent conflict) between the identities known as ‘British’ and ‘English’, respectively.

For many, if not most people in the Anglosphere, the identities and terms are interchangeable. I confess that for a good while I was prone to use the terms indiscriminately, though I understood that one can be ‘British’ but have no English blood. The two names describe something different. Even some of my readers in the UK on the old blog said that they often used the term ‘British’ when they really should have said ‘English.’

This post was prompted by a piece at the blog Christianity and Race, which in turn was inspired by a post by Mark Citadel at Citadel Foundations, titled ‘Little England’.  Good, thought-provoking pieces, both. I find little with which I can disagree in either post. I will say, with all due respect, that it may be a little unfair to attribute the ‘English vs. British’ problem to arrogance or hubris only on the part of the English. I know this is a common view of the English, as they were very much a dominant power in the world up until the early 20th century, when their empire began to break up/be broken up.

The original transformation of England into ‘Britain’ or ‘Great Britain’ began with the Act of Union in 1707. It was not by naked aggression or force on England’s part that this Union was effected, though I can certainly agree that, in retrospect, it set England on a course that was to be more damaging to the English than to any of the other ethnic groups who made up the state to be known as Great Britain, then the United Kingdom. Depending on which ethnic group your sympathies lie with, you may disagree. But it’s true that the other component ethnic groups within today’s UK can keep their ethnic identity, symbols, flags, customs, languages, and even their own parliaments, while England lacks those privileges. The English flag of St. George has been labeled ‘divisive’ and ‘hateful.’ England cannot decide its own fate without the input of the many other ethnic groups who now reside there. The English identity is labeled as ‘too exclusive’, because, let’s face it, one cannot be ‘English’ except by ancestry and by genetics. It is a blood kinship, just as is the Scottish or Welsh or Irish identity. Now, we read stories in the Irish media about the ‘new Irish’, with pictures of Africans or Asians smilingly holding their Irish citizenship papers. But no one is fooled by that; people know that Irishness is a matter of blood, as is ‘English.’ Papers and documents can’t confer Englishness  on anyone.

The comparison of the inclusive ‘British’ identity with the ‘American’ identity is a valid one; both are strictly civic identities, and thus they are artificial and arbitrary. One cannot create a real nation by fiat or by documents, and a nation is not a nation if it is based on an ideology or a ‘proposition.’  Britain, or the United Kingdom, has mistakenly followed the American example and is attempting to create a polyglot, multiracial ‘proposition nation’, and the results are looking disastrous. The Empire, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for this. Much as I admire Rudyard Kipling and his work, he tended to romanticize the Raj to some extent, and to establish the idea that someone like his character ‘Gunga Din’ could be ‘British’ in spirit though he was a Hindu. As the empire dissolved, bizarrely, the same Hindus who clamored to expel the British from their homeland soon chased after their former ‘oppressors’, desiring to live amongst them.  The same pattern happened with the Irish, many of whom chose to live in England despite their resentment of the hated ‘Brits’ in their homeland.

So it is not British, or ‘English’ hubris or ambition alone that created the situation; the circumstances are too complicated to merit that charge.

I agree with both of the cited blog posts that England should rediscover its particularistic identity, rather than clinging to this polyglot, all-things-to-all-people ‘British’ identity. I am admittedly a partisan, though I wish all the indigenous people(s) of the UK well, but I think it was the English who were and are the core of what was once ‘Great’ Britain; it was they who made it great. England, ‘Little’ or otherwise, would still be a great country should they go their own way, and let the component countries of the UK go their way.

The future, I hope, will go in the direction of decentralization, of a return to ethnic particularism, and away from polyglot, mixed-multitude empires, which eventually must end in some kind of internal strife and inevitable totalitarianism. The best case scenario would be what I call the ‘blender’, the mixing together of distinct identities into some amorphous mass, not a desirable outcome if we want to preserve the real diversity that exists amongst the various rich cultures of Europe.

Cecil Sharp on Appalachian Americans

I may have referred here to Cecil Sharp, the English folklorist who visited Virginia just over a century ago. He, along with his American assistant,  wanted to collect any folk songs of English origin that may still have been extant in that part of the country, and he found a great many old English ballads that were still preserved amongst the people of the Appalachians. Keep in mind that this is the part of the South that is said to have been settled mostly by Celtic  ‘Scots-Irish’ or Irish people, so this would seem an odd place to go looking for English folk songs and lore. Still, Sharp and his assistant were not disappointed in their quest, and Sharp wrote of the similarities between the rural Appalachian folk and their counterparts back in England.

Sharp_onEnglishdescendantsInAppalachia

Sharp_OnEnglishDescendantsInAppalachia_0014.jpg

This blog points out that Sharp’s descriptions stand in stark contrast to the stereotypes of people from that region that are popularly believed today. Here’s another site which is a good source of information about the subject.

As I love traditional music and all sorts of folklore I am fascinated by the story of Cecil Sharp and his mission to collect and help preserve the musical traditions of Appalachia. His work led to a cooperative effort between traditional music scholars and musicians on both sides of the Atlantic, in order to keep these traditions alive.

The demographic changes that are being imposed on even the more remote areas of the Southern U.S. will no doubt contribute to a weakening and possible loss of the culture and heritage overall. It is just not true that a culture can be preserved by just anybody; a culture is the product of a specific people, an extended kin-group who are genetically from the same source.  If a culture is a disembodied thing that can be transferred to any random ‘recipient’ then it is a museum piece, no longer a living tradition.

I hate to make this political, but there’s just no way around it. A people must be preserved in order for their culture to survive and continue.

 

 

‘The Last of England’

Madox Brown - The Last of England_sm

The painting above is by English artist Ford Madox Brown, (b. 1821). Painted in 1855, and titled ‘The Last of England,’ it depicts an English emigrant couple as they leave their homeland. This could represent many of the English who left their country to come to America, though in fact it is based on friends of the artist who left in 1855 for Australia.

I like Madox Brown’s work; this painting is a favorite of mine, and not just because of the ‘story’ it depicts — the obviously sad couple departing England for an unfamiliar new home across the sea — but because it vividly portrays the emotions of the young couple as they leave.

Most of our English forebears left their homeland because they felt compelled to — they lacked freedom to worship, and were escaping persecution, or they lacked economic opportunity, as with many of the ‘second sons’ of the gentry who emigrated to the colonies. My Virginia ancestors fell into the latter category.

Whichever reason compelled many of the emigrants to leave, I am sure they didn’t leave with the intent of forgetting their homeland or their origins and heritage. I am sure they would want us, their descendants, to honor that as well.

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.