An Englishman honors Southern heroes, 1862

At the blog Circa1865, there is a piece about the visit to Virginia, by English PM Lloyd George, during the War Between the States.

Ironically, so many outside the South were conditioned to regard the Southron military leaders like General Lee and Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson as ‘traitors’, while in the South they both had the reputation of being true Christian gentlemen as well as outstanding military men.

The thought of Lloyd George visiting those memorials, laying wreaths upon them in honor of Lee and Jackson, and then the thought of “our own” present-day rabble tearing down the monuments and statues of our great men — how did we get from there to here?

There was considerable sympathy toward the Southern cause on the part of the English. Some of that sympathy is credited to the fact that the South exported a lot of cotton and other goods to England, so the need for the cotton, especially, meant keeping the goodwill of the South. But it was not only economic factors that influenced England.

Here, at the Sons of the South website you will find articles from Harper’s Weekly magazines from the 1860s, dealing with the South and its relationship with England and the English people. And after all, most of the White population of the South had English roots. Despite some false claims about General Robert E. Lee’s ancestry, he was of English blood, and descended from a distinguished family there. General Jackson was, at least on one side, descended from English stock.

The early settlers of New England

From the book Makers of the American Republic, by David Gregg:

“For one hundred and fifty years after the Puritan exodus, from 1640 to 1790, New England received very few by means of immigration. Its increase came from its own families; it enjoyed a remarkable seclusion. There were only three exceptions to this. In 1652, after his victory at Dunbar and Worcester, Cromwell sent two hundred and seventy Scotch [sic] prisoners to Boston as a punishment. They grandly bore the punishment; they rather liked it, I imagine, for their descendants are there to this day. In 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, one hundred and fifty families of the Huguenots came to Massachusetts; their names are perpetuated in Bowdoin College and Faneuil Hall. In 1719 several Presbyterian families from the north of Ireland settled in New Hampshire; their descendants are still in that state. Londonderry, N.H., marks their settlement. These were the three exceptions, and they were very small. When the hour of Revolution struck, there was no county in old England itself that had a purer English blood than New England. The homogeneity of population accounts for the oneness of belief and action in New England in the matter of the American Revolution. The people of New England were one people, and they struck like a trip-hammer when they struck. It was this unity and homogeneity which made them the power they were in the formation of the American Republic, and which helped New England to stamp itself upon the whole country for the country’s good.

It was only after the American Revolution that New Englanders began to move into the Western part of our land and there form new States; but this they did so effectively that there is a Portland to-day on the Pacific as well as a Portland on the Atlantic. They now number one fourth of the entire population of our sixty millions, and are a beneficial force in every state in the Union.

While the Puritans were diligent in building up New England, let no one suppose that they were indifferent to what was going forward in the motherland; they were one with the progressives there. it has been said that the English Revolution virtually began in Boston, where Sir Edmund Andros, King James’s representative, was arrested and put in prison. New England was the first to hail the enthronement of William, Prince of Orange. During the Cromwellian conflict Cromwell’s strongest friends were in New England. The pen of New England, fertilized by freedom, became marvelously prolific. Cromwell, Hampden, Sidney, Milton, Owen, were scholars of teachers mostly on this side of the Atlantic.”

David Gregg, Makers of the American Republic, ‘The Puritans’, 1896. pp. 90-91.

Gregg’s account of the ethnic makeup of the early New Englanders contradicts today’s popular assertions that the early colonies were already ‘very diverse’. Gregg asserts, too, that the early colony was in touch with events back in the home country, and that they especially had close ties with the Puritans in England. So often some of the simplistic textbooks emphasize the supposed rift between the New England colonists as a whole, as though they were not of the same blood and descent, as if the colonists felt as though they were a separate people long before the Revolution.

“An Anglo-American Patriot Agenda”

From the Puritans’ Network, an interesting list of proposals for solving the seemingly insurmountable problems facing us in the (once) United States of America.

Everywhere on the Internet where traditional Americans gather, there seems to be lot of resignation about our predicament, and cynicism about our past and a sort of fatalism about the possibility of salvaging anything from the wreckage of our society.

Whatever your opinion about the situation we’re in, at least the Puritan Network has some specific proposals. I find I can agree with most of them, at least in theory. But it seems hardly possible that any measures with a patriotic intent, especially when they are from an Anglo-American advocacy group, would have a chance.

The proposed agenda focuses on our own folk, but oddly acknowleding those of us who have been here since this continent was a wilderness, is now taboo. Everyone else has their own ethnicity, of which they can openly proclaim their ‘pride’ — all except the people who made this place habitable for the many millions who have since arrived and left their stamp on the country. But we’re the invisible ones, the ones who are often ignored, or pointedly excluded, our accomplishments rarely mentioned anymore,except for purposes of assigning guilt.

But it shouldn’t be this way, with Legacy Americans singled out as being ‘haters’ just for being patriotic towards our folk. The people make the place, as I always said; the people make the place. In a sense we could say the people are the place; the character of each region bears their image.

Maybe the younger Americans feel no kinship towards their fellow ‘Americans’; the words ‘patriot’ and ‘American’ are scorned. How is it possible to be an ethnopatriot (which I call myself) without loving, or just liking one’s kin? That has to come first before we can work together and try to provide moral support in this hostile, fractured society.

It may be that balkanization is inescapable, and it need not be chaotic if done right. There have been peaceful partitions in history. Some Americans oppose any breakup, but we may not have a choice. Some Americans who have recent (within a couple of generations) provenance in this country have an ancestral country they might return to, but Legacy Americans, “Old Americans” have only this country, as our ancestors came here, four or more centuries ago. This is it for us, and many of us would not willingly emigrate, our own forebears having sacrificed so much to make this country, but now that the apparent new ‘owners’ are already moving in, we face an uncertain future.

In the deeper sense, those of us who are Christian aren’t troubled about the future that waits for us in a time to come, and that’s a comfort, but for the time being we are in this world to ‘occupy’ for now, and go on with our lives as best we can.

Some are going to say that the Agenda is impossible in the world we now live in, but I’m not going to be that negative. We can wish and hope, and pray, and it may be that our now-precarious situation could, in time, change for the better. We can at least try to work together with our kinsmen, putting aside the petty things that divide, otherwise we face the fate of the ‘house divided against itself.’ We have to start somewhere.

I would be interested in hearing some opinions about the Agenda that Puritans’ Network has put together.

And thanks to the Puritans’ Network for showing us their ideas and proposals.

WASPs are ‘Wimps’?

“Of course I am critical of WASPs, but for a reason diametrically opposed to Massey’s; namely for being such wimps and for permitting themselves to be vilified without protest. Needless to say, American Jews or American blacks (taking two self-conscious ethnicities) would never allow themselves to be freely pummeled the way Massey goes after WASPs. They would be denouncing their slanderers through well-heeled organizations, with Main Stream Media support.”

The quote above is from an article by Paul Gottfried in VDare, from a few years ago.

Alana Massey, the ‘journalist’ to whom he alludes, wrote a piece for New Republic in 2015, entitled ‘The White Protestant Roots of American Racism.’

So now Protestants, specifically White Protestants are to blame?

Gottfried goes on:
”Certainly at the elite level, [W]hite Protestants behave differently from normal [sic] people. Like Elizabeth Warren, the descendant of New England settlers, WASP patricians may pretend their true ancestors were American Indians, or like Jeb Bush, rush to take over Hispanic trappings…”

[Emphasis mine, above]

Let me interrupt Gottfried’s statements here: first, Gottfried wrongly assumes that Elizabeth Warren is ”patrician’ and he states incorrectly that she is descended from New England colonists. If Gottfried wanted to be accurate he would try to find actual examples of ‘WASP patricians’. But Warren is from working-class roots, born in Oklahoma, to parents of Southern stock, not New England. Not even close.

And Jeb Bush is only partly of New England ancestry; he has other ancestry including, inter alia, Central European.

Paul Gottfried, like so many other people, doesn’t seem to know who is a ‘WASP’. Many Americans are unable to recognize an English surname when they see it, thus they end up wrongly naming people who are not of English ancestry at all. People tend to believe, for some odd reason, that ‘WASPs’ are all part of the ‘super-rich elites’ and are always in positions of power, and move in the most prestigious social circles. Actually high society, so-called, is no longer what it was; many nouveau riche, and all the elegant manners are fading, thanks to ”equality’.

But Gottfried says that he has no respect for Anglo-Saxon Americans because they are weaklings who let themselves be “pummeled” by the likes of Alana Massey and other such people, who, like Gottfried, view Anglo-Saxons and other Whites as easy prey; it seems no one wants to speak up when the Anglo-bashing begins, and then finding that they get no resistance, they attack more aggressively.

I asked, rhetorically, in a recent post, why English-Americans seem to stay silent when these lies and slanders and accusations start flying? On one blog post I read today, which was not explicity about WASPs, several people brought up the subject, and accused the blogger of attributing “superiority” to Anglo-Americans. The commenter insisted that we are all equal. Other commenters stated that WASPs were ‘servants to a (((certain ethnic group))).

Some obsessive anti-Anglo posters inevitably refer to an ”Anglo-Zionist’ collusion. There are all sorts of tropes like this on the internet.

But back to Gottfried’s statement that if Jews or American blacks were similarly slandered, they would instantly respond, backed by powerful “well-heeled organizations”, and supported by the media arm of the government (TV, newspapers, social justice advocates, etc.}

Well, of course they would; if Anglo-Americans or any other groups of European descent were likewise backed up by powerful ‘anti-defamation’ groups with lots of money and influence, plus the media — we, too, could participate in the victimhood game, and enact laws that silence anybody who dares criticise us.

It’s telling that we can’t speak freely about the obvious, increasingly open anti-Anglo, anti-European agenda. Unlike the groups to which Gottlieb compares Anglos unfavorably, we can’t respond in like terms in our own self-defense. That speaks volumes about our supposed ‘freedoms’.

Our laws are based on Biblical law and the idea of ‘Christian liberty’, along with Anglo-Saxon Common Law. Diversity has produced generations who, being of disparate orgins, did not and do not understand how our system should work.

So now, Anglo-Saxon Americans are regarded as conquered and defeated, and are treated accordingly. But is that our fault, as Gottfried and many other anglophobes insist? It looks, from here, as a premature triumphalism, and gloating over having defeated people who once had an Empire on which the sun never set.

Maybe that was the beginning of the end; too much contact with the multitudes outside our ancestral island made us too tolerant and too trusting of people who were not our friends, and who envied and resented the power and wealth of their conquerors.

One more thing: ‘Anglo-Saxons’ are now associated with what the media call ‘White supremacy’. The media deliberately twist the meanings of words and names, and it seems that they’ve succeeded in associating us with this alleged ‘supremacy.’ I don’t even know how they define that term, but they seem to think it’s criminal for us to even organize in any way or to express pride in the considerable accomplishments of our ancestors. Oddly this makes me all the more intent on doing what they are trying to prevent: to defend my ancestors and the culture of Britain: literature, music, all the arts, the English language itself, and the Christianity of my ancestors. Those who verbally assail us are just eaten up with envy and it has corroded their souls.

#ancestry, #anglophobia, #english-character, #ethnopatriotism

Brexit deal ruled out

The path to Brexit has become so convoluted in recent weeks that it’s hard to know what comes next. But some people who closely follow this process seem very confident that the Remainer faction will be defeated.

James Delingpole, for one, in an article with the title, “Hurrah for Chancellor Merkel — Saviour of Brexit”.

The sub-headline says that Merkel has — however unwittingly — given the UK a gift: a no-deal Brexit. She has said that a deal is ”overwhelmingly unlikely,” which gives the UK every incentive to leave without a deal, rather than to compromise, accepting the terms which are apparently to be forced on the UK, if Merkel and the EU globalists get their wishes.

I hope this is true; this situation has taken so many twists and turns over the last couple of years; it’s hard not to wonder what new twist will suddenly pop up as the UK is about to cross the finish line.

But as to the main reason why the UK and the EU are at an impasse over an agreement on Brexit, it’s apparently the question of some conditions being imposed regarding Northern Ireland: Merkel et al have said now that NI must stay permanently tied to the EU, remaining in the EU Customs Union. Merkel says that NI cannot leave. It seems that the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland, the 26 counties) agrees with the EU’s idea of separating Northern Ireland from the UK. And it’s apparently a case of ‘no Brexit without acquiescing to the deal’.

Arlene Foster, of the Democrat Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, said that no such deal was acceptable. I hope the UK and Northern Ireland stay steadfast. Any ‘union’ which tells members, after the fact, that no exit is possible — ever — should make one uneasy, to say the least. That sort of ultimatum is not the kind of thing that isn’t compatible with ‘freedom.’

#brexit, #northern-ireland, #republic-of-ireland, #united-kingdom

“And we then, what are we?”

Matthew Arnold asked that question in his Celtic Literature. “And we then, what are we? What is England?”

Leslie Stephen, in a lecture given in 1915, repeated Arnold’s question, and then went on to examining the English national character, as manifested in English poetry. His observations are very pertinent to this present time, as the majority of the people of Britain attempt to re-establish their sovereignty, to go their own way rather than remain a part of the European Union.

Stephen says:

“The governing characteristics of the Englishman are not greatly in dispute. His sturdy nationalism, for example, has all along and everywhere been acknowledged. The earliest proof of it lies in the ‘withdrawal,’ to use Bishop Creighton’s word, the ‘withdrawal’ of England from that marvellous fraternity of the Middle Ages, feudal and Catholic Europe. By the fourteenth century she had become a separate nation, committed to the voyage of her own destiny. At a price the Englishman purchased his freedom. Deliberately he stood aloof from the centre, from the main stream of ideas, from the light and warmth of European civility. He remained, as it were, the country cousin of the family, preferring, one might say, the rough, free out-of-doors life to the elegance and refinements with the accompanying restraints of the town.

He declined the advantages of the best Latin society. Unattracted by the mediaeval vision of a united Christendom, of races held together by common acceptance of the same laws, the same religious creeds and observances, the same chivalric ideals, he set over against the abstract perfections of this dazzling scheme his own liberty, his own habits, his own interests. He had no eye for the beauty of a universal, an ideal order. His talent has ever been for life rather than logic. Of general principles because they tend to imprison the individual he is suspicious. “My case is always a special case. Why should I be treated as one of a number, I, who am unlike all the rest? ” ‘

It would seem that Britain, specifically England, had long felt that he was separate from the continent of Europe, and not so very long ago this feeling still existed; Britain may in some senses be a part of Europe, though it was an island, disconnected by natural barriers from the Continent. Yet the people who stubbornly cling to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’, particularly those younger generations, seem very emotionally attached to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’. Some of the media interviews with the younger ‘Remainers’ found them tearful about the idea of leaving the EU. Yet traditionally Britain preferred to be separate and distinct, not a part of the European continent and its political systems.

Again, from Stephen’s lecture:

“He preferred, too, the old “laws of St Edward” to any legislative novelties, his own priests and bishops to foreigners, his own language to Norman French. He knew his mind and achieved his ends, not indeed so much by way of argument as by patient indifference to argument, and the gradual development of national consciousness only stiffened his original prejudices. His country satisfied him as the best, his race as manifestly the bravest and the handsomest in the world. To go his own way, think his own thoughts, conduct his own undertakings is all an Englishman asks, or used to ask, and if he interferes in the affairs of others, it is only that he may not be interfered with. By this early withdrawal from the comity of European nations, England led the van in liberty….”

Where did this independent spirit, this ‘national consciousness’ go? Is it only dormant, or will it die with the older generations, the last remnant of the England or Britain that used to be? We can ask similar questions in the U.S. now.

Reading Leslie Stephens’ words, it is evident that much of what we Americans traditionally thought of as quintessentially American (the desire to be ‘left alone’, the preference for less government, etc.) is also part of our ‘old inheritance’, the legacy of our English ancestors.