So much of the news coming out of the UK is distressing these days, as well as depressing.

Example: this story about a young girl, a Christian, being placed in foster care with a Moslem family, where she is being de-Christianized.

“Members of Parliament have demanded an urgent inquiry after it emerged a five-year-old Christian girl had been forced to live with strict Muslim foster carers.

The girl, who speaks English as her first language, has been cared for by two different Muslim families in the past six months. One family reportedly told her to remove her crucifix necklace and prevented her from eating carbonara because it contained bacon. She was also told to learn Arabic and was begging not to go back to the family because “they do not speak English”.

The story continues with the information that her natural family have spent the last six months pleading with the Tower Hamlets council to allow her to be placed with other blood relatives. So far it seems the appeals have been in vain.

I’ve heard that Tower Hamlets is Moslem-dominated, and this Wikipedia information confirms that:

‘Tower Hamlets has the highest proportion of Muslims in England outnumbering the Christians, and has more than 40 mosques and Islamic centres. The East London Mosque, one of the first mosques in Britain allowed to broadcast the adhan and is one of the biggest Islamic centres in Europe.”

Considering the demographics of the borough and the Council, as well as their majority political views (Labour), it would seem that a Christian family could not expect to be treated favorably.

It’s a cliche these days, when confronted with an outrage like this, to say ‘imagine if the situation were reversed!’ We know that non-Moslems, specifically White people of Christian backgrounds, lean over backwards to accommodate minorities, especially Moslems in the UK. I don’t think that the reverse situation, that is, a Moslem child placed in a very religious Christian home, would ever be allowed to happen. The authorities in the UK as in most Western, once-Christian countries, are too intimidated — or is it besotted by? — Moslems and other exotic peoples to ever do anything but appease them, at the expense of their own fellow native Britons.

This is baffling when we consider it, asking ourselves how things reached their present state — unless we consider the possibility, which I’ve raised before, that some kind of deal has already been struck. I mean that the political classes, corrupt as they are, might have in fact capitulated, ceded control of at least certain areas of the country, and the citizenry are just not being informed yet. Now they are seemingly learning to accept their new inferior status as a fait accompli.

Or, putting the most innocuous face possible on it, this absurd obsession with equality, this willful blindness towards real differences, causes these true-believer officials to pretend that religion, race, culture, and even sex, are all superficial things which must not be taken into account. We are all interchangeable. We are all one race, all God’s children, we all bleed red.

To think that up until maybe the mid-to-late 20th century, Britain was a very Christian country. I know that very few people identify as Christians in today’s Britain, and fewer attend Church or maintain any kind of Christian practices or traditions. I wonder if, given the sad state of the educational system (as in the United States as well) many young people know of the great men of the Christian faith who came from Britain, men like Richard Baxter, or Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

“When Charles Spurgeon died in January 1892, London went into mourning. Nearly 60,000 people came to pay homage during the three days his body lay in state at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Some 100,000 lined the streets as a funeral parade two miles long followed his hearse from the Tabernacle to the cemetery. Flags flew at half-staff and shops and pubs were closed.”

Imagine anything like that today.

We’ve become an amnesiac people, all of us in the West. The younger generations have no idea of their past, and are now prey to all the lies that underlie our decaying society.

And the little girl who is being sacrificed to ‘holy diversity’ or ‘sacred equality’ — she and others like her are the casualties.



‘How shall you forget…?’

In the 1920s, at a time when immigration levels to the United States were high, the U.S. government, intent on assimilating the various immigrant groups, published  a booklet called Gateway to Citizenship. Immigrants could submit poems about their country’s contributions to America, and among them was the following poem from an English immigrant.

I am the England
In this man, this woman —
A bright star in the morning sun
To the millions of mine who crossed an ocean
And a half continent westward.
And I am content —
Yet, lest a star grow too dim,
Being far away and the sun near,
These things I remind you —
I gave the nucleus of a race,
A language, and 800 years tradition
Into the keeping of an American wilderness —
And you speak my tongue still,
And you keep my traditions
And the strong stock of me:
Pilgrims, planters, freebooters
Is in the heart of you.
And the stout men that sired you
Were Englishmen:
Adams, Hancock, Hale, Williams.
How shall you forget them?
Your rivers, mountains, States,
And your proudest cities wear English names,
And the rock at the core
Of your beloved democracy
Is the unbending will of English yeomen to be free.
How shall you forget these things?

Almost a hundred years after the anonymous poet wrote those words, we have not forgotten these things. At least, those of us with some historical grounding and those who are the descendants of the English colonists and later immigrants are still mindful of our old inheritance. But it seems the rest of the country, those who are taught faulty or false history, or those who for whatever reason are unfavorable to the English roots of America, have forgotten, or choose to deny the history.

It seems ironic in the extreme that Americans with English or British roots have to assert our right to claim our heritage, in contrast with most other ethnic groups who are encouraged to flaunt theirs.

At the very least, within our family circles we can work to preserve that legacy and to foster a healthy kind of pride in our ancestry and in the heritage which is ours, passing that on to our children.


What makes a WASP?

Is it just a matter of ancestry, or is it a cultural thing, which anyone can adopt as their own? Articles like this one (and there are websites and blogs centered on this idea) seem to reduce WASP identity to styles of clothing, prestigious name brands, and manners.

“The hallmarks of the WASP — besides being white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant — are good taste and good manners, neither of which Trump possesses. When The Donald has nothing nice to say about someone, he says it loudly, proudly and repeatedly. When he has only nice things to say about someone, he is that someone.”

Actually the article seems to have been written as a vehicle for anti-Trump carping. It seems Trump is too brash, not modest and unassuming, which proper WASPs supposedly are.

First, it seems people are throwing the label ‘WASP’ around very carelessly, very imprecisely. I suppose it’s too late to correct this trend, but it seems most Americans, even those of Anglo-Saxon/British Isles ancestry, use the word ‘WASP’ to describe a cultural thing, namely, the Northeastern country-club set, the preppy-clad, socially connected upper class, of vaguely Anglo-Saxon origin.

However the people who describe Trump as a WASP are stretching the definition. As far as I am aware, his paternal ancestry was German, and his mother was actually an immigrant from Scotland. The Scots will tell you that they are not Anglo-Saxon/WASP, and Germans are, well, German. Though there is a region in Germany called Saxony, where the ancestors of the Saxons of England supposedly originated, the two peoples are not interchangeable.

Donald Trump is very much a New Yorker, culturally, and with that goes the brashness and the bluntness. I think all lifelong New Yorkers have some of those qualities, probably including whatever genteel upper class WASPs that may still exist there. Where are those legendary WASPs anyway? They seem to be pretty hard to find in New York City proper, or anywhere for that matter. And the English-descended families of the New York area, those of the old-stock upper classes, long since intermarried with the Dutch and other well-to-do colonial stock people. Many of the people described as WASP in the Northeast have mixed lineages, not all Anglo-Saxon by any means.

The linked article also refers to the Bush family, who are almost always held up as a (bad) example of WASP power in this country. However if you look at the genealogy of the Bush dynasty (which I have, being very into genealogy) you will find they are far from all English, having some central European ancestry among other things.  Yet people continue to refer to them as some sort of pur sang, quintessential WASPs. They are not. And as the article points out, Jeb Bush has Hispanicized his lineage, and opted out of being a supposed WASP.

This article, discussing the same article to which I link, is about how being a WASP is ‘bad politics’ in America these days, as White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are out of favor, passe, and just out of step with the times. WASPs, allegedly, are too gentlemanly, in an era which requires manliness — not a trait of Anglo-Saxons supposedly. But wait: wasn’t Trump being bashed in the other article for being too blunt and rough in his manner? Isn’t that part of what constitutes manliness, being forceful and direct, as opposed to being self-effacing and deferential? How, then, can Trump be called a WASP? It’s all too confusing to me.

On the ‘Ivy Style’ blog comments, some people ask about other WASP presidents, like Bill Clinton. Someone replies that he was not truly a WASP because he was allegedly poor. First, I don’t accept that his supposedly poor childhood disqualifies him; second, to be somewhat blunt, his ancestry is uncertain on his paternal side; his surname is that of his stepfather. His mother was of Irish descent.  But what about the many, many Southern people of strongly English (Anglo-Saxon) descent who are not rich? The fact that there was once a wealthy English-descended elite in the Northeast, families like the Lodges, the Cabots, the Lowells, and others, hardly means that wealth and power (long since passed from the old-stock English descendants) are essential to being ‘WASP.’ Most English-descended colonial stock Americans were neither wealthy or powerful; many more were middle class or lower, and lived their lives in quiet obscurity.

To define WASP as a cultural category, and wealth as a prerequisite, is to deny an ethnic identity to most English-descended Americans. Most other ethnic groups would object strongly if the name of their ethnic group began to be applied promiscuously to any White person who was of a certain social class, wore the ‘right clothes’, exhibited good taste and etiquette, and attended the right schools. Why is this supposed to be acceptable for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, then?

Most of the English-descended Southern people would not describe themselves as WASPs, I think, even though they are (of course) White, Anglo, and Protestant. Often they’ve been the types to describe themselves as American, or as Southern, or a citizen of their particular state. They were still aware of their roots in England, however, until the recent confusion over identity (The Celtic South vs. Anglo-Saxon South).

The White people of Utah, many of whom were Mormon settlers, are apparently a very English group of people, by descent. Maybe that is because most of their forefathers left New England or the Midwest when their lineage was still very unmixed with the immigrant groups that had begun to enter New England, and they then intermarried within their Mormon ranks, preserving their ethnic ties. So Utah as a state apparently has the greatest percentage of English-Americans.

But they would not be culturally ‘WASP’ enough to fit the current definition. And maybe they don’t dress according to the prescribed style code. But White Anglo-Saxon Protestants is a description of who they are nonetheless.

With so much talk about ‘cultural appropriation’ should it be acceptable to appropriate another group’s ethnicity and their culture, even if that culture is reduced to merely dressing a certain way and adopting certain manners and ‘taste’? Being a ‘WASP’ or an Anglo-Saxon American is a heritage which is much more than such surface things, and it should not be trivialized.

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.

BBC lies-horzDo 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.”