Andrew Fraser on English ethnocentrism

Apropos of the piece below this one, about ethnocentrism and ethnic identity among different peoples, the name of Andrew Fraser came up in a comment, and I happened to read this quote from his book The WASP Question:

“The defining characteristic of WASPs White Anglo-Saxon Protestants] is that they are much less ethnocentric than other peoples; indeed for all practical purposes Anglo-Saxon Protestants appear to be all but completely bereft of in-group solidarity. They are therefore open to exploitation by free-riders from other, more ethnocentric, groups. It seems unlikely that nominally Americanized Changs, Singhs, and Gonzales are as committed in a practical sense to the anti-discrimination principle as Anglo-Saxon individualists. There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that the Changs, the Gonzales and the Singhs (not to mention the Goldmans with their well-known animus toward WASPs) still practice forms of ethnic nepotism strictly forbidden to Anglo-Protestants. In these circumstances, an interesting question arises: are contemporary WASPs entitled to recognition as an historic people? If not, why not?”

That’s something to ponder. I would say “yes” to the question as I did in fact, in a post the other day, on this blog. But maybe that is a sentimental response rather than a ‘reasonable’ one. Obviously the naysayers out there say the English are down for the count. But maybe they are the ones doing the wishful thinking.

I am thinking of the Scripture, in Psalm 83, and the phrase, ”come, and let us cut them off from being a nation…” I think that’s what’s happening, really to all of us in the Anglosphere and in former Christendom. But according to Scripture, God ordained nations as a way of organizing humanity. One World just returns us to Babel. I suppose this makes sense only to Christians.

But are we cut off from being a nation? People can still be a nation without a state or a territory that is theirs — but we don’t have that, really, and we are weak on sticking together. And the social cohesion is at the heart of being a people or a nation.

4 thoughts on “Andrew Fraser on English ethnocentrism

  1. “”

    Myth of the 20th Century – Ep. 71 (The WASP Question – Evolution and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race)

    — Brought to you by —

    Nick Mason, Adam Smith, Alex Nicholson, Hans Lander and Hank Oslo with special guest Andrew Fraser

    This is the interview where I heard about you Bonnyblue.

    I tried to find the exact time but it’s two hours long so it a bit futile.

    I do want to buy and read his books on Anglo-Saxons. I have enough important books to read for a life time already however.

    Yeah I am glad that Fraser stood up to the great anti Anglo nonsense. I think he has some anti Puritan views however.


    1. Puritan – I am not sure where he stands on Puritanism or Puritans. I do have Drew Fraser’s book here. I’ll have to look for anything relating to Puritans to see.


  2. The last couple chapters of Fraser’s WASP Q are the best– where he discusses renewal among Anglo-Saxons and how such might happen. My only criticism of Fraser’s writings regarding ethnocentrism is too much leniency given to Kevin MacDonald and the pagano- nationalist camp. If we wish to restore ethnicity, then you need to be more jealous of English Christianity and Biblical authority, imo.

    What really caught my eye with this post was the last paragraph or so respecting low solidarity among whites and especially English. Huge problem, and it’s been compounded by new technology which tends to isolate. Not sure how to reverse this, but I think overall we need to be more proactive– considering home visits, keeping tabs on peoples’ lives, and when a need is expressed make sure to quickly supply it. Face to face needs to be emphasized as well as building trust, and with such comes a certain loyalty. But it’s an uphill battle, nothing extraordinary, and slow paced. Local networks then need to find relationships with similar congregations across regions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Charles, thanks as usual for your comment.
      I agree with your idea about being proactive, and sort of networking with our own folk in our home area, our neighborhoods, churches, etc.

      The trouble is there is so much geographical dislocation with people moving from one place to another frequently, at least where I live. My area has historically been very stable demographically but that isn’t acceptable to those who are masterminding all this change. So my area is now receiving large numbers of what I call domestic refugees. They are looking for something they lost, the stability and commonality and the bond between real community members.

      That still exists in some fortunate places and I hope it can somehow be preserved. But even if our neighborhoods are ‘in the sights’ of the PTB we can try to maintain some kind of social bond. Giving support in whatever form when needed, as our folk are never remembered when it comes to doing charitable works. ”Telescopic Philanthropy’ as Dickens called it is the order of the day; our own come last in the hierarchy. We do have people with needs; not just material but all kinds. If only more Christians thought of that.

      We do need to rebuild solidarity kindred feeling, and neighborliness,

      Liked by 1 person

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.