Brexit: defeatism?

The U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressing doubt about the prospects of Brexit, speaks of British ‘defeatism’ on their prospects of escaping from the EU:

This is not the first time Trump’s man in London has encouraged Brits to be courageous in dealing with Brexit. Speaking in June, Ambassador Johnson said the UK should abandon its “defeatist attitude” and take inspiration from President Trump, remarking: “The thing I want to get out more than anything else is an attitude that I feel I don’t see enough in this country and that is a confidence for where you are heading – light at the end of the tunnel with Brexit.”

He said: “The British have always been experts and great business people, great business minds, so to see this defeatist attitude towards Brexit is a bit startling to me.’

Ambassador Johnson’s harsher remarks were directed more at the EU:

“Accusing the European Union of merely paying lip service to the notion of free trade before stacking the deck in favour of their own companies “with taxes and barriers that make it almost impossible for foreign companies to compete,” Ambassador Johnson said, “The United States has let this go on for too long.”

If we are to take Ambassador Johnson at his word, it sounds as though the U.S. will take a more active role in siding with the Brexit proponents, rather than attempting to be neutral. I also notice that Johnson’s words about the UK and the U.S. cooperating towards a favorable trade deal refers to the old ”special relationship’ between our two countries. In recent years that relationship has been treated as ‘in the past’, dismissed as a relic of a different time. It’s true that the major demographic changes in both our countries have made for more estrangement than mutual warmth; sad to say, many in the UK have an active dislike or resentment of Americans, and that’s understandable. Many British people base their knowledge of us on what they see in our corrupt media, just as Americans, at least those who have never visited the UK, see our cousins in the UK through that same distorting lens.

We might almost think that there’s been a longstanding effort to cause hostility between our nations.

In order for this prospective trade deal to work, there has to be a renewal of trust between our nations, despite the hostile media on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the more important message in the Ambassador’s speech is the exhortation to be confident, avoiding ‘defeatism’, and to recall our former achievements. He seems to say that our countries and peoples could assert their former pre-eminence, given determination, cooperation, and the right attitude.

If Britain takes back control of its trade policy, you will be at the head of the line. America and Britain are two of the most advanced economies in the world. Together we could agree the most sophisticated and ambitious free trade deal ever done — a heavyweight deal that gets the whole world to sit up and take notice. Together, we can show the rest of the world how it’s done.

However it’s obvious that the powers-that-be within Britain and in the EU, with their globalist aims, will not give up easily, so it won’t be a walk in the park. Still, what’s the alternative?


#brexit, #eu, #europe, #trade

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.

#anglo-saxon, #brexit, #english, #english-character, #english-culture, #ethnicity, #ethnonationalism, #eu, #globalism, #kinship, #mass-immigration, #multiculturalism

Un-diplomatic remarks

Nick Gutteridge at the Express (UK) reports on the controversy over some odd remarks from Jean-Claude Juncker.

“Nigel Farage this afternoon branded Jean-Claude Juncker a “fool” after the EU boss extraordinarily threatened to promote the break-up of the US in retaliation for Donald Trump’s support for Brexit.”

Gutteridge describes Juncker’s remarks as part of an ”angry speech”, and says that the words were not ”in jest.”

“Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

Now, assuming Juncker’s impolitic remarks weren’t ”in jest”, I don’t know just how he believes he could go about inciting division or secession within the US. There are already secession movements in several parts of the US. Some of us actually believe, as did our forebears, that our system allows for secession; that it cannot compel or force a state to remain part of the Union — though that was the point of the North’s invading the South back in 1863.

It may be that foreign powers have encouraged divisions in our country, and likely Mr. Juncker’s superiors, whoever they are, are busy inciting dissension in order to work toward their globalist vision.

That aside, the question is, why do men like Juncker think centralization and eventually a monolithic global government is a desirable thing? Could it be because they don’t see people as anything more than objects to be manipulated, controlled, or exploited?

And if those in power see us as people at all, it’s as individual units, isolated and atomized, not recognizing the importance of our connections to kin, clan, nation.

The EU is an arbitrary collection of differing groups of people, speaking different languages, with disparate cultures. It is not a natural state, growing from a kindred group of people. It is artificial and it can only be a ‘civic’ creation, not a natural one. Obviously Nigel Farage recognizes this, and attempts to school Mr. Juncker:

“Juncker has made a complete fool of himself.

“He clearly does not understand the difference between the EU and the United States of America. One was formed by consent while the other is being imposed.

“The US is an organically formed nation with a single language and similar culture while the cultural and linguistic differences in the EU are immense.

“If this is what Juncker calls diplomacy, he needs to take a long hard look at himself.”

Bless Nigel Farage. I know he is viewed with suspicion even by some English nationalists but he clearly “gets it,” when it comes to what makes a nation.

And that ‘single language and similar culture’ on which this country was formed would be the English language and the English culture.

#american-history, #brexit, #ethnonationalism, #eu, #kinship

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.


#brexit, #british-identity, #english, #english-character, #ethnonationalism, #eu, #multiculturalism

The ‘Brexit’ issue

What does the question of Britain possibly leaving the European Union have to do with the theme of this blog? Of course it’s an internal matter, but to anybody in the United States who has Anglophile leanings, or English roots, it’s certainly a matter of interest.

Having followed the news on the upcoming ‘Brexit’ vote somewhat casually, I am afraid that it looks as though the status quo will win out. And I don’t see that as a desirable outcome; I can’t say why the people of the UK seem to fear leaving the EU; maybe it’s a case of the old ‘better the devil you know’ reasoning.

I read here that those who fear Britain leaving the UK are thinking of expatriating themselves, in some cases, to Germany. My first thought, of course, is that who on earth would want to go from the frying pan (Britain) to the fire (Germany)? Have these people not read of the recent chaos involving all the ”refugees” flooding Germany at Frau Merkel’s invitation? Or of the announced decision to let the supposedly temporary ”refuge-seekers” stay permanently after only three years? Some of the British people considering becoming German citizens fear their applications may not be approved — yet the ”refugees” are being fast-tracked. I wondered just who would find Germany a desirable destination compared to the UK. One interviewee, married to a German man, says of Germany:

“A country that’s shown leadership in the refugee crisis and that’s shown itself to be inclusive and welcoming – not like the prevailing atmosphere in the UK right now, she says. ‘Europe should be celebrated – not feared’

I don’t like the politics of Brexit and the nationalism and intolerance that goes with it.”

[Emphasis above is  mine].

So this woman is a far-leftist, who finds ‘diverse and inclusive’ Britain not ‘inclusive and welcoming’ enough for her. She wants more diversity and more inclusion. She is, in my opinion, doing a service to her home country by expatriating herself.

On a different note, we have this piece from the Texas Nationalist Movement blog, expressing solidarity with those in the UK who wish to break free of the EU, and comparing the situation of Britain in the EU with the status of Texas within the Federal Union. It’s worth remembering that Texas was, following its break from Mexico, a free and sovereign nation, a nation which chose (after some consideration) to join the United States. I don’t know how my Texas colonist ancestors felt about that decision but it has proved to be a bad thing in light of the recent decay of the United States into a tower of Babel.

A comment on the piece suggests that Britain’s exit from the EU could inspire the Scots to achieve their own independence, but the fact is, the Scottish voters declined that choice not so very long ago. So it appears that the Scots aren’t interested in being free from Britain; the financial benefits of staying within the UK were apparently a factor.

However it’s natural for someone who is an Anglophile to wish that England might win her independence. Since Scotland refused to leave the nest when offered the chance, England might go her own way. The English, like English-descended Americans in this country, are the ignored and undervalued ethnic group, though they are the core, original people.

#brexit, #english, #ethnonationalism, #eu, #united-kingdom