The effect of diversity in Britain

At Cambrian Dissenters,  Daniel Thomas writes about the current conflicts over the vandalism to historic statues and the overall effects of ‘diversity’ in the UK.

I watched a little of a live feed of the Nationalists’ demo which attempted to defend the statues, while counter-demonstrators carried ”anti-racist’ signs, depicting the statues’ defenders as motivated by ”racism.” But that’s always the charge: anybody who is not in favor of the left’s destruction of Western civilization is a “racist.” Specifically if you are an individual of insufficient melanin.

What I saw of the demo amounted to nothing much other than the usual monotonous chants and the usual accusatory signs being carried and waved among the crowd. I did notice that the heavily-padded police looked as though many were young females, or maybe diminutive males, but they didn’t look very formidable. I suppose they are not meant to be big or intimidating; it might offend someone and besides women must be included in order to serve “equality”.

But to the content of the Cambrian Dissenters piece: the writer notes that while Britain is subjected to mandates of “diversity”, and the destruction of their honored heroes’ statues,  in India there are statues being erected of that country’s gods and great men. As always, the immigrants have one standard for themselves and one for their host country, Britain. If only England had the confidence they once had, and asserted their national identity. If only.

Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Nationalism

Here’s an interesting piece from the Council of European Canadians. It’s by Dr. John K. Press, who has written a book entitled Up With Culturism, Down With Multiculturalism. I haven’t yet read the book, but judging by this piece about it, I would like to read it.

I must admit that, having read the piece at CEC, I stll don’t quite ‘get’ what Literary Darwinism means, but I certainly agree about the need for a healthy ‘Western Culturism’, and the need for reclaiming our identity. And by ‘our’ identity I mean all of us in the West, all people of European descent. This means old-stock Americans and old stock, colonial or settler stock Canadians and all our kindred folk around the world,

With a healthy sense of who we are and what we and our ancestors have accomplished, and ideally with a removal of the strong taboos against our natural confidence, we might once again build a society which reflects our strengths rather than lading us with guilt over a list of past supposed wrongs.

The picture at the link, with the English nationalist flags displayed and a smile on the face of the subject is very heartening; I believe the St. George’s flag is still considered taboo under the laws in benighted Britain. That needs to change, but it seems Britain is so far gone down the Marxist/multicult path that they will have a hard time finding their way back to themselves. And are the other Anglosphere countries any better off?

One more thing: I like that Dr. Press says we ought to embrace what I will term a more ‘muscular’ kind of Christianity, as in Chesterton’s terms. We hear so often that Christianity is a weakling’s religion, that it’s too passive and as I’ve said, it’s become a’cult of niceness’. And being honest, I think it’s necessary to admit that the counterfeit Christianity has played a big part in Open Borders, multiculturalism, and the transforming of our Western societies. The ‘Camp of the Saints’ scenario now playing out in the EU and elsewhere has been aided and abetted by the ‘Cult of Nice’ devotees.

 

English America?

Under the blog title above, on the header, you see the phrase ‘English America.’ It’s a simple enough phrase, and it was once taken for granted, but today everything has to be argued all over again, and ‘proven’ to those who were not properly educated in our failing educational system, or who have been mind-conditioned by the media.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

There is some confusion, not just about ‘English America’, but also about the South and its place within America, amongst the younger generations. Many of them have somehow been taught that the South does not include Texas, whereas there was formerly no confusion about this: Texas considered itself part of the South; after all, Texas was part of the Confederacy. The school of thought which denies this makes Texas something of an orphan amongst the States, though the people who hold this view maintain that Texas is part of the Southwest.

Why does it matter? Well, history matters. Truth matters.

I think it is the same kind of crowd who like to rewrite history according to some political agenda they have; these people exist on the right as well as on the left.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

“Somewhere near or at the location of the present international boundary on the south, is the logical (geographic) line of demarcation betweeen English America and Latin America. A glance at a rainfall map, a plant map, a crop map, and a population map of North America shows clearly that Texas is in every respect a continuation of the South that lies east of the Sabine [River]. Geographically, Texas is peripheral to Mexico and continuous with America.” – from A.E. Parkins, The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, 1938

In the quote above, Parkins does not specifically mention the culture of the South, but I believe it applies culturally and ethnically too.

Though there were many Scots-Irish and ‘Celtic Irish’ from Southern Ireland who came to Texas as settlers and colonists, I see no reason to believe that the demographics of the original colonists who were invited to settle Texas were any different from those of the South overall.  Until the late 20th century (that is, very recently) few people questioned the general belief that the South was Anglo-Saxon. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon South’ persistently recurs. It was accepted as true by the older generations who were closer to their roots and who knew who they were. That in itself is more convincing than the word of a few writers and ‘activists’ with an agenda of their own.

If the culture of the original Southern states, since their inception as colonies, was Anglo-Saxon in origin, then this is also true of Texas, as it shares, for the most part, the broader Southern culture: a shared history, shared culinary habits, political leanings.  And then, for another example, the speech and dialect of Texas was very much Southern; not surprising since most of the original Texas colonists came from Southern states. As I mentioned, Texas was part of the Confederacy, and has, until the reign of ‘political correctness’, been very proud of our Confederate forefathers.

Another feature which makes Texas a part of the South culturally is that it is part of the Bible Belt, so-called, and most of the population is Protestant. This is a big factor which distinguishes the South from the other regions, and also the kinds of Protestantism which historically dominated in the South differ from the Northern varieties of Protestantism in style if not in substance.

But isn’t Texas heavily Hispanic, and wasn’t it always populated by lots of Mexicans? The answer is yes, thanks to uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal, Texas is now much more Hispanic than it was in the colonial days, or even into the latter part of the last century. There were once, believe it or not, areas of Texas where few Hispanics lived. But when the original colonies of White Americans began in Texas, there were few Mexicans; the Spanish had been unable to subdue the fractious Comanches and the Anglo colonists, known for having dealt with Indian aggressions successfully were brought in to help get this under control.

Texas in recent years has been much more open to Hispanic influence on the local culture, thanks in part to political correctness and the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to their Hispanic neighbors. But that does not nullify the fact that Texas was part of English America — though whether it remains so, and will remain so, is up in the air.

Do present-day demographics, though, make Texas ‘Hispanic’ more than Anglo? Maybe in those areas where Mexicans are the majority, and the White population has either moved away or adapted themselves to Mexican ways.

But if we say Texas is no longer ‘part of the South’ or part of Anglo-America because of demographics, could the same argument be used to say Louisiana is not part of the South? After all, it has a very large black/Creole population, and also many Cajuns in South Louisiana, people with a distinct culture who until fairly recently were French speakers — as well as being mostly Catholic, unlike the rest of the South. However I don’t think that is even a persuasive argument; the Cajuns have maintained their culture to a great degree (though they have been ‘enriched’ with illegal immigrants in Cajun country, to some extent) but they are also very Southern, and have not rejected the larger American society, or adopted the ‘victimhood’ mentality so popular amongst most ethnic minorities everywhere. My experience is that they see themselves as American (and Southron) as well as Cajun. Louisiana, though demographically different, is part of the South. And even Louisiana has a large Anglo population in the Northern part of the State.

The people make the place, however, and if the demographics of all the Southern states keep changing, with fewer White old-stock people represented, then these states will lose their original identity in proportion to the demographic changes. Nonetheless the past can’t be changed; these states were part of English America, and the original Anglo-Celtic culture of the South is still there as long as there are enough of the people who created that culture.

 

 

‘Who controls the past…’

Recently I wrote of how the history of Britain was being re-written by the diversity-obsessed left, using the complicit media to propagate false information. As an example I cited the numerous movies and TV shows depicting blacks and Moslems showing up in the Robin Hood story, as well as a black or mulatto Guinevere in the ‘Merlin’ series of a few years ago.

Now the BBC is lying to children in its recent series about Roman Britain, in which the main purpose of the lessons seems to be to convince gullible children that Britain has always been heavily populated by blacks and other nonwhite races.

Do the propaganda merchants really believe that everyone will fall for these outlandish lies? Sadly, too many will simply accept these false representations, mostly the young, who have deliberately been maleducated and force-fed these contrived deceptions. The population across the generations have been so mind-conditioned over the last several decades that they too are slowly acquiescing and accepting what they, deep-down, must know is not true.

As of now, there are still many images of life in Britain before the onslaught of mass immigration, images showing a White Britain, with little ‘diversity’ to be seen anywhere, at least, not diversity in a racial sense. There are You Tube videos (as long as they are allowed to remain up, on politically correct You Tube) showing London, now heavily non-white, as a decidely White city. There are books with photos showing the true Britain of old, before ‘diversity’ set in.

But will such resources continue to be allowed, considering that they contradict the ‘false history’ cooked up by the UK propaganda-pushers and diversity Kommissars? I doubt it, sadly.

Here in America, some years ago (after the 2008 election) there was a story that showed up in some news outlets about some kind of government edict that all books, textbooks I believe, published before a certain year, were to be recalled from libraries, schools, and even second-hand booksellers. They were to be destroyed, and the reason given was that these old textbooks had some kind of toxic materials.(!)I’ve done internet searches to find these articles (which I blogged about back then) and come up empty. So is it being done, this destruction of old books? I suspect it is, though I can’t prove it. The local library where I live appears to have purged a lot of classic books, choosing to focus on more current popular tripe, stuff that will probably be of only passing interest, as well as buying lots of pop-culture materials like rap/hip-hop CDs and other such high culture. There is also a recent dearth of old books at the local thrift shop which used to be a real treasure-trove of old and rare books. Where are all these books going? To landfills, or to be burned, as one librarian tells on her blog. She justifies getting rid of old books because they are dated; they are too politically incorrect — for example, a book that recommends traditional female roles, or a book from long ago which states that the races have evolved unequally. Can’t have books like that around in case someone gets ideas, or starts to question the diversity dogma, and the egalitarian faith.

So the establishment, which is the left now, wants to remove the truth from the marketplace of ideas, and wants to prevent people from even dreaming of other ways of looking at things, ways that conflict with the coerced ‘diversity’ dogma that is force-fed to us and our children.

And not being satisfied with that, they want to erase the past and replace it with this grotesque parody, in which Britain was always multiracial, never a predominantly White country, never a Christian country, never homogeneous, never the home of a particular people with a distinct way of life, a way which is being destroyed relentlessly.

Do the ‘Mary Beards’ and all the other propaganda hacks really believe the lies they churn out and defend? To the left, there is no objective truth; it’s just whatever suits their purpose. It’s all relative, and the past is what they make it, in their eyes anyway.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.”

The same process is occuring in all Western, White majority countries. Thanks to the orchestrated ‘refugee’ invasion, these countries will not be majority White for long, as there is no end in sight to the invasion. Maybe this is why the powers-that-be, with their controlled media, are working so hard to condition the indigenous British to accept minority status and second-class (at best) citizenship in their rightful country.

An excerpt of a comment that appeared on Vox Day’s blog:

“It’s a direct, deliberate effort to extinguish all sense of European history as anything distinct or even European.

They are attempting to erase our own identity from us, to cut us loose and make us the descendants of foreigners.

They are scum, and this is a deliberate, profoundly evil, genocidally motivated attack on even the MEMORY of our existence. An effort to obliterate past whites as thoroughly as they want to obliterate the current ones.”

And (apologies for quoting myself), as I wrote on the King Arthur post:

“This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen.”

 

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.

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.

Defacing the past

The King Arthur lore is part of our culture even in America — although all such ‘Eurocentric’ materials are probably going to be casualties of political correctness if they haven’t already been banished from our school curricula. However there’s more than one way to ‘kill’ our European heritage, and just exiling it to the outer darkness, excluding it from our culture, is perhaps a less satisfying method for the left. It seems they would prefer to deface and distort our heritage, our folklore and legends and heroes, and the “entertainment” media have been busily doing that for some decades now.

Back in 2008 or so, there was a British TV series about King Arthur and Queen Guinevere — and Merlin; I think the series was titled ‘Merlin’, and it gave us a multicultural, multiracial Camelot, with Queen Guinevere played by a mixed-race (black/White?) actress. Recently, Guy Ritchie, the former Mr. Madonna, concocted yet another of these politically corrected travesties, with a ‘diverse and inclusive’ Round Table. Sir Bedivere is played by a black actor with an apparently African name. I suppose when the Norse god Thor has already been Africanized, why not Sir Bedivere too? Soon Arthur himself will be played by a black actor. Why not? Verisimilitude and accuracy are irrelevant to this crowd of vandals who make movies and TV series, and Ritchie is decidedly on the side of those who want to rewrite the past — even though in this case it may be a semi-legendary world being depicted.

One reviewer, at Forbes.com, writes of the Ritchie film:

“Let’s start by talking about the out of place and anachronistic things that repeatedly take us out of the film, which caused me so much eye-rolling I was getting dizzy. This story is set around the 5th Century, and yet Arthur grows up watching mixed martial artists with a highly diverse and multicultural Fight Club in his neighborhood (this isn’t a complaint about diversity, it’s just the fact literally nobody even remarks upon it at all or notices, and there’s no attempt to really even offer a passing explanation for this, when explanations would’ve added greater backstory and characterization and flavor to those proceedings). Arthur also wears red-brown leather pants and hip stylized jackets that look like he raided Jim Morrison’s wardrobe, has a slick hipster haircut and goatee, and uses casual modern slang (when asked several questions about himself, he replies, “Why, you writing a book?”).”

The same sort of treatment was given to a BBC series  The Tudors about 10 years ago; the ‘modern’ hipster look, haircuts that belong more to our time period than to the days of Henry VII and Elizabeth I. But the anachronisms of outward style grate far less than this crazy, arbitrary imposition of ”diversity” on medieval Britain. And the writer above questions the lack of explanation for it; it needs no explanation; diversity just is, or it must be imposed and shoehorned in, regardless of how implausible and just plain surreal it is. But the BBC, being a crowd of lefty ideologues, have no regard for fact or truth; ideology, their ideology must be served, first and foremost, and the truth be damned.

And the whole apparatus of the ‘British’ government and media are brought to bear to convince at least the up-and-coming generations that ‘‘Britain has always been diverse. England was always multicultural and multiracial. There was a black soldier in Queen Victoria’s army, didn’t you know that?”

Sadly the younger generations will grow up knowing no better, and believing that Britain has always been the home of all races, and from that they will conclude that everybody in Britain probably has mixed ancestry; they will believe, as the powers-that-be want them to, that they likely have some distant African or Middle Eastern or even South Asian genetics.

This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen. Telling people that they are ‘citizens of the world’ or ‘just a mongrel nation’ leaves them bereft of any real ethnic and racial identity.

All the media and government deception is meant to weaken the cohesion and the viability of the English (and other British) people, that is, the rightful inhabitants of Britain. And for what? So that the globalist megalomaniacs can have a deracinated, blended, passive group of people over whom they can rule.

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?

 

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.’

‘London Bridge has fallen down’

Good for Katie Hopkins. She has been one of the few politically incorrect (read: truthful) voices to be heard in the UK media.

She is right; the ‘Mayor’ has disgracefully informed the citizens of London (and by extension, other English cities) after a recent terror attack that this is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’. Since when? Since people like Khan have ensconced themselves in the countries of Christendom?

From the vantage point of this side of the Atlantic, I am always exasperated at how many of my fellow Americans use these occasions to carp and criticize and even condemn the people of the UK for being weaklings, ‘wusses’, cowards, and hopeless cases. Can we on this side of the Atlantic boast of having done any better? It seems to me we have a similar problem on our side of the pond, and not just with Moslems, but with our many other uninvited guests, who just do their work of destruction more slowly or gradually.