A new PM for the UK

He’s an improvement over Theresa May, though not everyone is enthusiastic over Boris Johnson as the new Prime Minister. The Cambrian Dissenters blog titles their piece ‘PM Johnson and a Conservative Civil War.

Is that exaggeration? I defer to the people of the UK as being better judges of the ramifications, but there do seem to be some warning signs as to Johnson’s leanings. For instance, his cabinet appointments so far seem not to have the best interests of the indigenous people of the UK. Sajid David, Priti Patel? Then there is Amber Rudd. I can see how this list might be disconcerting to many people.

There is no perfect situation, I suppose, but as the Cambrian Dissenters piece puts it, Theresa May’s behavior was ‘duplicitious’, bordering on ‘treason.’ At least perhaps the people of the UK, who voted in the majority to leave the EU, will see their political will carried out. So we can hope.

Wisdom From C. Chauncey Burr, dated 1863

In the following quote, Chauncey Burr, in his book A History of the Union and the Constitution, addresses the question of the Saxon and the Norman forms of government, a question which was disputed in the South during that time, just at the onset of the War Between the States.

Burr said:

“The man that does not love his country, turns his back upon himself.

Our country is ourselves; for we are all parts of the public system which constitutes the grand edifice of our social and political lives.

The man who even dies for his country, dies for himself, for his children, and for the honor of his forefathers.

It is a family interest that connects him with the glory of his country.

What are a few days added to a man’s life, compared to the progressive perpetuity of those institutions which are to be the abode of all the descending generations of his offspring? Only as a minute compared to a thousand years.

It is of little moment whether you and I go hence to-day or to-morrow. Every act of ours that bears upon our country’s weal or woe is something infinitely greater than our life.

When we come to investigate the origin of the principles of our Government, we must go a great ways back of our colonial period. […]

Principles which hold up the weight of states and kingdoms are not inventions. They are growths, good or bad, out of time and circumstances.

We who live now stand upon the topmost layer; but remove the one beneath us, and we must go down. Remove the lowest strata of all, and the whole pile would tumble in ruins.

One layer of time has Providence piled upon another for immemorial ages, every one of which is essential to the integrity of the whole system.

Had Greece been different from what it is, Rome would not have been what she was. Had Rome been different, Saxony and Normandy would not have been what they were. Had these been different, England would not be what she is.

Had England been different, we should not be what we are-we should not be here to-night. We are all parts of one stupendous whole, and are making future generations, just as past generations have made us.

Our fathers transmitted a priceless boon of government to us; and, by an eternal law of Providence, we must send it down to our posterity, a boon or a bane. As we act to-day, must our children curse or bless our memories. As we act to-day, shall we transmit to the generations of our offspring the sacred principles of self-government and liberty, or those of anarchy and despotism. The blood of our fathers was poured out like rain in defense of those principles.

And not only of our fathers, but of hundreds of thousands of Saxons in England, even before the time of feudalism. For old England, under her Saxon kings, was a kingly confederacy. That was the old Saxon idea of liberty, that the people should somehow rule.

In their institutions the name of “PEOPLE” was never lost, whether in their furtherest antiquity among the forests of Germany, or on the ancient plains of Britainy. [sic]

Our fathers, when they began the business of governing themselves, but expanded what the Saxons commenced more than a thousand years ago; before, indeed, the races of the North of Europe had a history of their own, or a place in the history of the more civilized Southern nations. […]

More than a thousand years ago this battle between the ideas of local self-government and of centralized despotism crimsoned every field in Britainy. The principle of local independence was the Saxon idea. That of centralization, or of all power proceeding from a great and irresponsible center, was the Norman idea.

Hence, “when the Saxons conquered Britain, its comparatively small territory was divided into several petty kingdoms or loosely-compacted commonwealths. And again, each of these was parceled out into various other divisions, such as counties, shires, tithings, and other partitions, the origin of which puzzles the antiquarian.”

This old Saxon spirit of state independence animated the local institutions and all the small divisions with an energy and general prosperity that never could have been developed under a strongly-controlling central power. Under the Saxon principle, the masses of the people flourish. They are free, and, therefore, the arbiters of their own destiny. Their very freedom imparts an ambition and an enterprise, which are never seen where the Norman principle of centralized power prevails.”

The UK and the US estranged?

My previous post addressed Pat Buchanan’s column on the growing rift between Britain and the United States. In my blog piece I noted that there is a very obvious animus that has grown up between the two kindred peoples on either side of the Atlantic.

Now, as if to make my point for me, on the Unz.com blog, Buchanan’s piece was posted, with comments from readers — and it seems the Anglophobia I noted was very much on display in the comments from Americans. Am I surprised? No, but I seem to have underestimated just how much resentment and contempt some Americans feel towards the British.

Some of the condemnations were obviously intended for the rulers of the UK, whoever they may be. By that, I mean, just as with much of the world nowadays, the official heads of state seem to be simply fronting for unseen people, the people who actually run things.

Many Americans seem to think that Queen Elizabeth et al actually rule over the UK; and/or they think that the so-called ‘titled’ aristocrats are in charge. I suppose these critics are not aware of today’s frivolous and politically correct awarding of titles to non-British, and to some UK natives whose only ‘achievement’ is being a pop singer or prominent ‘social justice warrior’.

Britain, truly, is a shadow of her former self, and it was meant to be this way; it did not happen by accident.

And we can say the same of our country, and of the rest of the Anglosphere, as well as most of Europe.

So then, it takes considerable gall, in my opinion, to single out Britain and her people as being to blame for the loss of their country and heritage. If they are guilty then are we Americans to blame for the state of our country today? If we are honest and consistent, we would have to say so.

I wonder, too, about the harsh critics of Britain and her people; who are those who resent and loathe Britain? What is their origin? Either they are among the many ‘mixed Europeans’ who don’t have a particular ethnic identity, or people with misplaced historic grudges. Sometimes those of German descent are the most bitter and scathing about Britain, because of the bad feeling over the two world wars. To them, it is never over with; on and on it goes.

If I felt that kind of bitterness and alienation towards the country in which I was born, and the people of that country, I think I would pull up stakes and move to some country that suited me better, and a place where I might actually like my neighbors. That would show some integrity.

The old formula ‘divide et impera‘ comes to mind. Divided as we are, we are easy pickings.

The (once) Special Relationship

Pat Buchanan has a column this week which asks whether America and Britain are growing apart. I recommend you read it; he asks a legitimate question. Current news reports tell us how the UK Ambassador (now ex-Ambassador) Kim Darroch has been feuding with President Trump, calling him ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘unpredictable’, among other things. This is all to be expected as the left universally loathes Donald Trump, on both sides of the Atlantic.

However there has always, probably since colonial times, been distrust and dislike between Americans and our British kinsmen. It does seem to be worsening in recent years, at least judging by Americans’ comments on blogs and social media. The most popular criticism of the English/British is that ‘they don’t have the right to bear arms; they’re weak.’ Or, these knee-jerk Anglophobes jeer at ‘undemocratic’ Britain, with its class system, however weakened it is. This kind of American takes pride in saying that ‘we [Americans] don’t bow down to kings’. Oftentimes it’s said that ”we fought a war to keep royalty out of our country, to get rid of kings.’

Judging by the words of the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers clearly objected to George III:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Nevertheless, our country never expressly repudiated the idea of a monarchy, though some uninformed Americans repeatedly say that.

Certain Americans (I won’t say all) seem to feel superior to the British people in the sense that our political system is better and more ‘enlightened’ — we are ‘freer’ supposedly. But it seems we are all in the same boat.

In the above-referenced Pat Buchanan piece, he concludes that Britain is our most natural ally, though we are currently at odds. This attitude used to be the most commonly-held one in the U.S, at least until the mid-19th century wave of immigration. That influx brought a great many immigrants who either had no ties to England (or Britain) or who held animosity towards the English because of historical grievances. I wonder if we could trace a direct line between the anti-English feeling of later immigrants to today’s resentments on the part of some Americans?

Reading many internet comments and blog pieces, I often come across denunciations of English/British people (past and present), as well as the British government and the Royals. There are those who hold an everlasting grudge against the Puritans who arrived in the 1630s and their descendants, the ‘New England Yankees’ and the favored whipping-boys, the ‘WASP elites’. Some people are still under the misapprehension that those ‘WASP elites’ still run this country. Nothing can convince them otherwise.

All in all, it’s getting harder for Americans of English descent to feel appropriate pride in our ancestors. Hardly anyone seems to want to claim their English (or British) heredity, having internalized the scathing criticism of the English-descended American.

I won’t attempt to speak for the English, but it’s my impression that their heritage (which is in part the same as ours) is under constant attack, and their ancestors are decried as perpetual villains. Why? Because of their successes and their strengths. This is upside-down, but then so is our world now.

Despite the fact that apparently, most Americans have no significant English (or British) roots — at least, by their account — they still must face the fact that much of our culture — our folkways, our children’s games, our proverbs and sayings, our folklore, and even many of our idioms come from our English heritage. That’s not insignificant.

‘UK’s largest slavery ring’

When I read the headline about a slavery ring (“the UK’s largest”) I surmised that the ring was not the work of indigenous British/English people. Of course I was supposedly guilty of wrongthink in guessing that the slavery ringleaders were from outside the UK, even though the perpetrators are Eastern European,  but the important thing is, my instincts were correct.

I’ve earned some displeasure in criticizing Eastern European immigration to the UK (as well as to Ireland and elsewhere), and especially by my mentioning specific crimes perpetrated by Eastern Europeans in the UK. But even if Eastern Europeans in the UK committed zero crimes, as some seem to wish to believe, the sheer numbers are worrying, for a small island. And granted, immigration from third-world countries is much greater in numbers, but that’s another story. Perhaps the people of the UK see Europeans as more likely to assimilate, but that is not at all certain, given their large numbers, to wit:  as of 2017, there were 1.4 million Eastern Europeans in the UK. 916,000 of the 1.4 million were Poles — incidentally, the nationality of both the slavery ring-leaders and their victims.

I am not ‘picking on’ Polish people; I’ve known a few here in the U.S. and I have no animosity towards them as people. But the fact is Poland is not a war-torn country, not experiencing a famine, and not under totalitarian rule — so why the need to colonize Western Europe or Northern Europe? The statistics I’ve looked at all seem to say that about 20 million Poles are living outside their homeland. They seem to live anywhere from Azerbaijan to Australia, and some even in the Middle East and Africa. The story is that the economy of Poland will not support them, but  the headline here says that immigration to Poland is necessary — so why not bring the ‘exiles’ home? Is it just that Western Europe, for example, provides a better living standard, more social programs, and so on, the usual lures for immigrants?

While it’s natually ethnocentric to assert ‘Poland for the Poles’, as many Polish demonstrators reportedly chanted in a recent flag-waving demonstration (which, oddly, I cannot find any article remaining of those which reported it a year or two ago) it is inconsistent to say that Poland is for Poles — but the UK is not just for the English, Welsh, Scots, or Northern Irish.

As all the immigrants to the US proclaim now, ‘America is for everybody’ . That means that millions of Americans have no homeland that is for us —  and for our posterity — as we once had. I know that some British, especially English people, feel displaced and alienated in the same way.

I find it hard to respect people who claim ‘a homeland for me, but not for thee’. I have little sympathy for immigrants who claim their homeland is exclusively for them and their kin, while simultaneously laying claim to the right to someone else’s country. It seems that virtually all immigrants now display this attitude, and sadly Eastern Europeans are no exception to the rule.

And the issue of crimes committed by immigrants is not an insignificant one. While the ‘slavery ring’ involved Polish people only, and did not directly affect the native people of Britain, there is a certain amount of crime committed by Eastern Europeans in the UK; I’ve blogged about that before. When immigrants commit crimes here in the U.S., their sympathizers inevitably say, ”well, native born/White people commit crimes too”, the answer is, yes they do, so why do we benefit by inviting others to add to those crimes? Immigrant crime is avoidable.

And an Irish ‘Garda whistleblower’,  John Wilson, made some pretty strong assertions about Eastern European crime in the Republic of Ireland — Ireland also has quite a large contingent of East Europeans:

He says that in 2004 , Ireland became a dumping ground for Eastern European Criminals. Today Russian and Eastern European Mafia operate in Ireland without any fear of being caught by the Gardai .

I am sure Mr. John Wilson gained some enemies by saying it, but I believe that in the case of many countries, immigration is being used as a kind of pressure valve, a way of offloading ‘problem’ people, including those with criminal records. We know it happened in the case of the infamous Cuban ‘Mariel Boatlift’ which Jimmy Carter was willingly duped into accepting. Can that be the only instance of such a thing in history?

Even if there was no element of crime to consider, as I said, it is best for every people to have a homeland which is the place where a distinct people with a common heritage and history and culture can thrive and feel relatively safe. And there is no doubt that the UK in the days when it was populated by the indigenous people(s) was a much more tranquil and safe than today. And that is reason enough to hope that the present situation change for the better. Would Brexit — if it ever really happens — change things? That’s a question for another post.





‘Who the English are’

The young English lady who made this video gives a very accurate definition of just who is English — though the powers-that-be in the UK seem to be trying to confuse the issue of
English ethnicity: the Guardian article I link to above boasts that ’90 percent’ of England thinks that Englishness is “not about color”. I’m somewhat skeptical about that claim, but I don’t underestimate the power of 24/7/365 propaganda.

The young woman whose video I link to above (sorry I can’t embed the video) tells us that she has been told by various people that ‘English is not an ethnicity‘ or the English people do not exist. As she says, such nonsense denies her an ethnic identity. And this is the attitude  that seems to be official policy in the UK: make un-persons of the English, who, after all, are the core people of the United Kingdom.

Something similar is  happening to ‘heritage Americans’, specifically Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are often told that they don’t exist, having become so completely absorbed into the ”melting pot”, the mixum-gatherum that the United States has supposedly become. And it seems that many Americans have unilaterally declared that anybody who is a native-born, English-speaking American, of Northern European descent, qualifies as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. I maintain that this, too, robs the actual “Anglo-Saxon Americans” of their identity and ethnicity. Why is it that this seems to be an important part of ‘the Agenda”?

The Guardian article linked above makes it clear that the goal in the UK is to make the English identity ‘more inclusive’, in other words, to strip the term English of its actual meaning, so that it can be applied to anybody on English soil.  Ironically, though, Anglo-Saxon Americans (or Canadians, or Australians) would not be considered English, their ancestry notwithstanding,  if they were not born in England or naturalized.

Our ancestors are spinning in their graves, I am sure.

A people who have lost the power to even identify themselves, and who are defined by others with an agenda of their own, risk becoming ‘un-persons.’ But then that’s the way this process is designed to work: replace a population, and write them out of history.