Lovecraft on Anglo-Saxon roots

Some of the writings of H.P. Lovecraft have been making the rounds of the alt-right or ethnonationalist blogs, specifically some of his comments on America’s Anglo-Saxon origins. Lovecraft, of course, came of old colonial stock on both sides of his family, and he was very much an Anglo-Saxonist, which was not at all unusual in his time, at least for people of English colonial stock. Nowadays, of course, that attitude is viewed by a lot of people as archaic and out of touch with today’s diverse and inclusive America, the America wherein English heritage is scarcely acknowledged except to be disparaged. Lovecraft was also very racially conscious and held opinions which, though widespread among White people in his time, are taboo and forbidden in  polite discourse today. Hence, Lovecraft’s image was recently expunged from the World Fantasy Awards. Lovecraft is highly controversial in this politically correct world.

Lovecraft was a prolific writer, not only in the sense of writing short stories and the occasional novella, but he was also an avid letter-writer, often writing voluminous letters to his circle of correspondents. Many of his letters have been preserved and some published in book format. They make for fascinating reading, at least for Lovecraft fans or anyone who wishes a view into a very different world.

The Isegoria blog quotes from Lovecraft on the subject of ‘Americanism’, a topic which is of ongoing interest on ethnonationalist and alt-right blogs these days. Although it is often claimed that most White Americans do not have colonial roots, much less exclusively English colonial roots, a case can be made that yes, Americanism at its root is an Anglo-Saxon thing.

“It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm.”

Read more at the link.

Though Lovecraft’s words may seem ‘extreme’ to those who have been weaned on multiculturalism and the ‘Melting Pot’, Emma Lazarus school of ‘Americanism’, they were very much like what was taught in history and civics classes not that many decades ago, though the melting pot sentimentality began to grow especially during the years between the world wars. Now, the role of England and her unique concepts of liberty is downplayed to the point of nearly expunging England from our history.

The increase of ethnocentrism amongst other White ethnic groups who have historical grudges against England has contributed to this kind of disparaging attitude. For example the trendy ‘Celtic’ identity adopted by many Americans of at least partial Anglo-Saxon descent (I am referring primarily to Southern Americans) and then of course those of German descent. It is just not ”in” to be Anglo-Saxon or English these days — even in England, sad to say.

And it seems self-evident to me that the infusion of so many different types of people has not improved this country. Every immigrant-descended group wants to claim that America would not be America (or would not be great) if their ancestors had been excluded. But apart from English-descended Americans, no other group can plausibly claim to have formed the basis of the American culture and ethos, and no other group can claim to be the very core of this country at its inception.

7 thoughts on “Lovecraft on Anglo-Saxon roots

  1. Very timely post VA. I was thinking about this problem when I turned to your blog. I chanced on a comment about UPenn being under half White and check it out. It is true. UPenn under Diversity at Penn says they are 44% white. Hillel Penn says the undergrads are 25% percent Jewish. So that leaves 19% White and of those less than half are English, so we are under 10% there.

    Benjamin Franklin, notorious neo-Know Nothing, is still considered the founded of UPenn. I am surprised there is not a day of shame to contemplate this horror. It must make certain groups feel unwelcome to continue to list Franklin as the founder. The true founder is the Founder in Diversity and that will be an acceptable Diversity.

    PhDs in science and even economics type fields are likely mostly Asian. I seem to see that when I look at the candidates on the PhD job market. Graduate students are at 45% white and presumably the same subtraction arithmetic gets us to under 10% English Protestants. Future teachers will be suitably hostile to Wasps and Wasps will have ever less chance to be admitted to this university that Trump is always touting he went to.

    A bio of George H W Bush on PBS last night was touting that Bush never agreed with the Birchers or all those racists. The hatred directed at Whites who wanted to keep the White cities, schools and country clubs they built was at fever pitch with the Bushes disavowing any link to such people except using them to get elected of course. And then turning on them when it came to voting on Civil Rights or immigration.

    It is almost incomprehensible what has happened. Enough that many Whites simply blank it out. Old Whites like Bush who want to avoid admitting their betrayal and young Whites who don’t want to admit their inheritance was stolen and who stole it. The title of your blog is so fitting to our reality as the stats at UPenn drive home.

    There is no question that Wasps are hated with the hatred behind the numbers at UPenn, ie the hatred behind ethnic cleansing and genocide. Because even today, Whites in Pennsylvania are not under 20%. Google tells us the White percentage in Pennsylvania is 80% in the 2010 census. So at the elite school, they should be about 90% given the low performance of most diversity. Their actual stats are half this. They are dispossessed by half by this accounting. However, why they should diminish at all from what they made is the truer accounting. That would be at 99.9% for Whites.

    No wonder the dispossessing faction must screech hate at Whites and especially the Wasps who founded UPenn and the rest of our institutions. By the Waters of Babylon we sat down and wept. But that won’t get us back what has been taken, even at today’s steep discount to our remaining numbers.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comment, OA. Wow, those statistics you cite really tell the story. I have a niece who, despite academic excellence, was denied admission to the college she wanted. If she had claimed some kind of ‘diversity’ status she would likely have been accepted. I know there must be millions of similar stories.

      Incidentally, sorry your comment (for some reason) was held back by the spam filter when it shouldn’t have been, and I’ve been remiss in checking on my blogs.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Very nicely done with your blog.

    I have a question that is not specifically relevant to this post – but to the blog in general. How do you see the Normans that came to England in the 11th century… as a group that is distinct from the Anglo-Saxons, or as a group that was absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons (or, perhaps something else)?


    1. Thanks for your comment and the kind words.
      From all I understand of the genetic origins of Normans and the peoples who made up the ethnic English, they are very close kin. I know that the Normans are not in good repute these days because they were seen as oppressors and interlopers, but they have been an integral part of the development of the modern English nation (of course I mean the ethnic English, rather than the various peoples included under the ‘British’ label.) I know that many of those who are English nationalists today exclude Normans from their definition of English. English = Anglo-Saxon to most ethnic English activists in the UK.
      I personally think based on what I have read and learned that the Normans, because of class divisions, tended to intermarry amongst their own down through the centuries, and though class barriers have fallen in today’s egalitarian Britain they are still not fully blended into the populace at large. I don’t know if there is any DNA research to verify that. I have read a book or two that asserts that based on surnames and marriage patterns there is still a remnant Norman group in the UK that has remained distinct to some extent.

      Hope that answers your question; I realize it’s probably a very incomplete answer.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I think it’s as good an answer as any, and I haven’t found any definitive ancestral or DNA evidence that goes back that far either.

    One thing that’s curious to me, is how and when did Norman names (e.g. William, Robert, etc) became common in England. I can’t imagine people naming their sons after men they despise, so I wonder how that came to be.


    1. I have no ready explanation for that, though I suppose it could be found by going through old historical records (births, christenings, other records) which are available here and there, or old family tree records. In my family the records go pretty far back so I might go through and see where the names change over. It could be (just a guess) that the Norman aristocracy sort of set the tone and that over time the general population sort of adopted the naming habits of the Normans. Though even in more modern times some of the old Anglo-Saxon names persisted for a good while.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. If you old records that shed light on it, I’d definitely be interested in hearing about it. The oldest records I’ve found from my line are some baptism records from Kent and Middlesex counties from the 1600s.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.