“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.

6 thoughts on ““An Anglo-American Patriot Agenda”

  1. In order to organize ethnic kin, you have to live among them. Where I live there’s very much a mixture with “Old Americans” being far and few between. The whites are ‘diverse’ in the sense of being a wide range of European, many older Italian and newer Russian. So, it’s like picking a needle from a hay-stack. From what I’ve gotten from this blog is the concentration of Anglo-Saxon Americans are in ‘greater Utah’. Should we be intentionally moving there?

    Meanwhile, agendas on the dissident Right sooner or later split between Revolution vs. Reform. Not sure if Puritan Patriot prefers one over the other, but have a feeling he leans a bit closer to a final militant solution. The revolution or reform argument reached crescendo within the altright 2016-17 as a derivative of ‘optics’. But I tend to think it a more fundamental question how to engage our own history.

    Many on the dissident Right want to relegate Old Protestant America to the dustbin of history. In part, this is due to the bias of Roman Catholic intellectuals. But it’s also due to the fact Anglo-Saxons created a global and universal order be it under white supremacy or not. Consequently, the opposition to globalism clumsily becomes an opposition to America. I think this a roughshod treatment of history, but it’s also a knee jerk that is hard to dispel. Yet, if true, how to answer the new global order (which Anglos did jumpstart) without Anglo-Americans providing the solution to their own history? In other words, the dissident Right cannot avoid the Anglo-Protestant question, nor afford to be sloppy about it. And, it seems to me, it won’t be answered until we supply it, jumping into the midst of the fray.

    Whether militant Right or not, revolution v. reform discourses all insist there needs to be an interim strategy. The list at Puritan.net is great, but how to achieve such where political power lacks? The current problem is we have no reliable institutional representation. So, how to make it? This is where I fall back on the history of these institutions.

    When pioneers planted their communities, there were two voluntary associations that were the first to be established– the fraternal order and church. Often times, these two institutions were blended. The Protestant congregations might use the fraternal house for worship (or vice versa) depending on which was erected first. Often the membership was the same. Often the denominations federated together for a time until sufficiently built up to differentiate. Usually all avowed brothers were Masons, so whether Golden Circle or Woodsman, you could start in the Masonic meetings. As ethnic patriots, we might want to learn more about how our forefathers built their communities, using their examples as rough blue-prints. More particularly, we might want to learn more about the frontier and colonial churches and brotherhoods.

    The main problem today toward reforming such intentional communities is the high-use of internet or social media as a substitute for such. There’s two things that have to happen in order to reform these older institutions. First, internet must be used with ‘purpose’ and we should watch ourselves when merely or slipping into ‘entertaining’. Audiences have no commitment. The ultimate goal of social media should be creating an IRL or face-to-face relationship (not on skype). This means we need to be prepared to travel far and do such periodically. Such trips should be ‘missionary’ in focus, teaching and encouraging others to build. Second, in between long-distance visits, we need to be focused locally. That means, where all other factors lack, we should be using hospitality to create almost neighborhood networks which aim is to create something more formal (either churchly or fraternal) that performs mutual aid.

    Mutual aid is very simple but often ignored due to inconvenience. It means keeping track of peoples’ needs, and when someone is sick, given to child-birth, or financially pressured, etc., timely intervention and visits are key. In fact, if Anglican, a lot of this is in our prayer book (which in my mind is a blueprint for ethnopatriotism). Additionally, there’s also the events of birthdays, funerals, anniversaries, graduations, etc., that mark our lives where we host others. The frequency of such, makes for neighborliness and the beginnings of the Kingdom of God.

    As such becomes systematized (answering each others needs), the mutual aid society (church or fraternal order) can spill into other areas of life, say, municipal or ward politics. Much like the Left does today, it can begin to flex itself by advocating or reforming laws. I believe this was one of the results of the Great Awakening– a legal moral reform movement. There’s also the example of methodists and others (say, mormons) who built entire welfare nets via hospitals, schools, even banks and libraries. How did these begin? Anyway, these are examples of the entirely local becoming more general.

    In other cases, we may be posed to renew or ‘enter’ an existing institution. But in most cases I’ve experienced these institutions are usually ‘taken’, and unless you join with a like-minded group behind you, a lone individual can’t make a dent. They often guard the levers of decision-making (quite rabidly) yet have no generational vision for themselves. Entering is often a fight you’re designed to loose. So, it’s better to start your own, imo.

    But, again, the biggest obstacle will be getting commitment from self-professed ethno-patriots. Many either dislike globalism so much they throw out anything remotely anglo-prot, or they enjoy receiving sweet goodies but have no intention on giving back. So, in the beginning, it seems, you’ll circulate through a lot of nominally motivated individuals. Steam picks up once the semblance of a community forms and something more tangible is there for others to plug into. But that’s the catch-22.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Let me add a model I can agree with and have great interest in is how the Texas republic was formed. California even attempted to imitate that model in both 1836 and ten years later in 1846. I think it should be studied as an ethnic fillibuster, but you’ll also see the role these institutions of fraternal order and church played for the Anglo-Saxons there. Before the Gold Rush, Anglo-California had some interesting connections to Oregon, so these are all contemporary to one another and related events, deserving study and a degree of imitation for sake of renewal.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. oops. I bring up Texas not only due to relevancy, but it’s the same model Purtian.net is working upon (so I’ve been told) and where we might wish to discuss things in order to find more common ground. A big part of the discussion should be nut-and-bolt. Besides listing all the political reform we’d like to see happen, we need how to get from A to B. Voluntary associations aiming to mutual aid is the pathway. Some folks talk about this, but almost no one is doing it. I’ve tried, and found ‘commitment’ (perhaps social media addiction), as well as prejudice against Anglo-Prot incarnations, to be the main stumbling blocks. Anyway, it’s a multi-faceted problem.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Most activists are strong on the big picture but very poor on the minutiae of making movement. This is why religion is important. The Kingdom of God begins with the ministry in our own hearts. It extends to family, and then neighbors, and then beyond. So, shall we pay more attention to minutiae since I fear we’ll never concretely get to the ‘big stuff’? In fact, I suspect the big stuff is really all this little stuff, begging to get rightly ordered. This is a message that often less popular or appreciated than anything political.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.