Anti-monarchists: what system then?

On another blog I read a thread discussing royalty and nearly everybody who expressed an opinion about the subject was vehement that they hated the very idea of a monarchy and disliked the Windsors intensely.

Yet on other dissident right blogs there are a lot of people who are now disenchanted with ”democracy” or a republican form of government.

I fall into that category. Equality is not within the realm of possibility. No two people are equal, or the same, not even identical twins.  And all around I see that ”democracy” has been corrupted everywhere into a kind of rule by the worst, and the most self-interested.

Thomas Jefferson did not intend to foster the idea that all men (and yes, women) are equal. The fact that his words are misunderstood and purposely twisted in many cases has enabled a lot of people to tell themselves that actual equality exists, that we are born equal, or that complete equality could exist if we try to force it, as is happening now.

So for those who loathe the idea of monarchy of any kind, what then is the best system, in such a case? And why is monarchy to be shunned and condemned as so many Americans (and others too) think? I’m curious as to how people think about this.

Plymouth Rock vandalized

Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, the spot where the Pilgrims landed in 1620, was vandalized by unknown persons on Monday. The rock where the Pilgrims were said to have first stepped when they disembarked, was covered in red graffiti as were other monuments there.

“Other waterfront sites at the park, including a seashell-shaped sign celebrating the upcoming 400th anniversary of the Mayflower landing, were also targeted with the red paint.

It’s unclear if the graffiti was linked to the town’s anniversary celebration, scheduled to begin in late April.

About a dozen “outraged” people gathered at the park after word got out about the vandalism, Lea Filson, executive director of See Plymouth, a local tourism organization, told the Boston Herald.”

This looks like yet another of those leftist/antifa efforts to trash our history, and to express their vindictive feelings towards the early colonists, who were guilty of being European and Christian, and who committed the unforgivable crime of being successful in creating a new society here on this continent. Now we are seeing the attempts (so far unopposed, for the most part) at dismantling all that our ancestors accomplished here.

They’ve almost succeeded in discrediting Christopher Columbus, and taking away Columbus Day observances and the former holiday; now the destructive agenda is being aimed at the early colonists, the forefathers of many of us. Some of us don’t have ancestors who arrived with William Bradford and the Plymouth colonists; my earliest forebears came to Jamestown ca. 1607 and the Massachusetts ancestors in 1630. But it seems as though this kind of malice is directed at all old-stock, colonist-descendant Americans, of English descent in particular, because despite what all those who deny our primacy here say, our ancestors were the first, the most numerous, and the most successful at establishing lasting settlements here. Those who would deny that can’t change history. Oh, they can try to efface the historical monuments and the left of course can re-write their ‘history’ books to suit their own false claims, but that does not change reality.

This vandalism will likely be written off as ”mindless” mischief done by youths, but it seems as if it’s part of the pattern of behavior of the left, done out of malice and envy and spite. Our very presence here affronts that sort of person; we are a reminder of realities they wish to deny and a reminder that they will never have their ”utopia” as long as we are here.

 

 

Can a people change or be changed?

Can a people, that is, a kindred nation, people born of the same stock with the same history and culture, change from their ways and habits and become something different? Or is it possible for them to be changed into another type of people altogether, under the influence of an influx of non-kindred peoples, or a different philosophy?

I am asking this in earnest; not just posing an idle question just for the sake of it.

My original blog was about the American nation — and now many of the gloom-and-doomers who say America was never a real nation have me almost convinced — not quite, though. I honestly doubt the motives of those who say that America was always a polyglot boarding house, as Theodore Roosevelt spoke of (and warned against). Usually there is an axe to grind there, covert or overt. Usually it’s pro-Germanism or pro-multicult.

Jim Goad at Taki-Mag wrote a piece in response to that silly Scandinavian Airlines brouhaha in which the (literally) cuckolded Scandinavians plead that they really have no culture or character whatsoever, and beg for mercy or something on the basis that they are a nation of ghosts or ciphers who have no cuisine or genetic heritage, just an empty name.  Pathetic.

In the context of England and the English people, naturally I am not going to buy the idea that the English, too, are as lost as the Scandinavians appear to be. But for years now, a family member and I have had a lot of conversations about the seeming change in the UK and in the actual people of England — not paper citizens; not even those who are children or grandchildren of immigrants, like the Polish descendants who consider themselves English or British. A lot of people are prepared to accept this people or that people as the same as English (or British) because the families have been there for a generation or two, and they sometimes look fairly indistinguishable from the actual English. Or British (Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Irish). But they are not English. Or British.

After all the generations of immigrants to the U.S., there are those who despite long occupancy here, still cling to a language their ancestors of last century spoke, instead of English. Or worse they have lived here for generations and still hate ‘the WASPs’ or the ‘Anglos’ despite the longer tenure here of those they resent and against whom they bear grudges and resentments.

So even long residency doesn’t mean someone has assimilated or become a ‘real American.’ And just now there are lots of Americans who think exotic ancestry is worth more culturally, genetically, and in other ways than plain old Northwest European ancestry –especially if it’s Anglo-Saxon ancestry — which should be known as ”Oppressor-American” origins, according to some.

To return to the topic at hand, though, it seems to me, judging not just by the media coming out of the UK (movies, TV, music, etc.) but by individual peoples’ behavior, that the English have become sadly more like today’s Americans — which makes sense because we all take part in this same ugly pop culture, lowest-common-denominator. There was a time some decades ago when Britain (or England) appeared to be more ‘sophisticated’ and more ‘tolerant’ than America; America was ridiculed yet again for being Puritanical because many Americans were church-goers and liked their entertainment more wholesome. Europe was held up to us as an example of what we should be — Europeans were blase about sex,  saw nothing wrong with nudity and ”adult” entertainment. We were told that the French Prime Minister (which one, I’ve forgotten) openly kept a mistress, and the public didn’t mind this. Why couldn’t we be more like those open-minded, sophisticated French people? And the British, by comparison, were told they were too inhibited. Even the ‘reserved’ Scandinavians were famous, or notorious, for their sexual openness and kinkiness. In Scandinavia, we were told, sex crimes were all but unknown because the people had no inhibitions or ”hang-ups” in sixties’ parlance, about sex, hence nobody ‘needed‘ to commit sex crimes.

Long story short: fast-forward to U.S. (or what’s left of it) in 2020. Our ‘entertainment’ is rife with every kind of vulgarity and degradation and this is the new normal, both in the UK and in once-Puritanical America.

The English were once known as a reserved people, confident, intelligent, articulate, running a well-ordered society. Good educational system; hierarchical rather than egalitarian (which is good in my book) low crime, high trust, high level of honesty according to studies done, and so on.

Now it seems that the UK and its people are more similar to the American stereotype, with all that implies. Both our peoples have been subjected to the media mind-conditioning, and our countries both apparently being merged into this ‘New World Disorder’ which becomes an ever-more-burdensome yoke to be worn.

I can’t speak for other countries, whether or not they have experienced such changes to the character of the people. I know that the Scandinavians in the United States, most of whom have been here for generations, are apparently as passive as their cousins who stayed behind in the old country. Just look at the strange assortment of people they elect to ”represent” them. If they aren’t a people, as the spokescreatures at Scandinavian Airlines plead, then they should not be represented in Congress, should they? Do ghost-descendants of dead Vikings have rights?

Actually two fairly close relatives of mine have married Norwegians — people actually born in that country, not hyphenates, not ‘Norwegian-Americans’ whose Scandinavian-ness has been PC-whipped out of them. And they are likeable people, intelligent people. Maybe they are here because they didn’t fit in with their zombie countrymen back home.

All the same I like them. I would like to see everybody who has had their ethnic nature and their love for their heritage drained out of them, re-infused with that pietas and healthy pride.  That goes for fellow Americans, especially our Anglo-Saxon cousins, not just in the UK itself but in Canada, the old-stock Canadians, the Aussies (for whom I’ve also had a soft spot) and New Zealanders, even though they may be the farthest-left of all.

How does one classify brainwashing and mental programming? Manipulating people’s minds and emotions, tampering with the nature and essence of what makes people who they are? It should be a crime. It probably is, though it’s gone on, on a mass scale for a few generations now, unrecognized for what it is. If someone de-racinates you, takes away your sense of who you are, where you come from, what makes you a unique person as you are, or makes your folk and family and kin unique amongst the peoples of this world — that person, or those people who are doing this en masse to people are doing something heinous. It’s a theft, or even tantamount to a murder of a big part of who we are as individuals. Or as nations of people, distinct people who each carry the image of God in a unique way.

That’s being stolen from us and from whatever future generations may exist. Why is this so little acknowledged?

Realizing that many of our English cousins have learned not to like us, to view us as ‘ugly Americans’ who are gun-obsessed, dumbed-down, and crass (the Stereotype) they should know that we, too, are encouraged to dislike them for all sorts of reasons. The Powers want to set the kindred peoples against each other; they especially fear the Anglosphere peoples and don’t want us to cooperate or to work together or even sympathize with one another. This should not be.

But as to my original question: is it possible for us to change our very natures as it seems? Do genetics really count for nothing, and mental programming count for so much? Or have we really changed, we here in America, or the English, the Scandinavians? Can we recover who we once were? Is it dormant in our genetic memory, coded into our DNA? Answers, anyone?

 

Men of England

Men of England

Men of England! who inherit
Rights that cost your sires their blood!
Men whose undegenerate spirit
Has been proved on land and flood: —

By the foes ye’ve fought uncounted,
By the glorious deeds ye’ve done,
Trophies captured — breaches mounted,
Navies conquered — kingdoms won!

Yet, remember, England gathers
Hence but fruitless wreaths of fame,
If the patriotism of your fathers
Glow not in your hearts the same.

What are monuments of bravery,
Where no public virtues bloom?
What avail in lands of slavery,
Trophied temples, arch, and tomb?

Pageants! — Let the world revere us
For our people’s rights and laws,
And the breasts of civic heroes
Bared in Freedom’s holy cause.

Yours are Hampden’s, Russell’s glory,
Sydney’s matchless shade is yours,–
Martyrs in heroic story,
Worth a hundred Agincourts!

We’re the sons of sires that baffled
Crowned and mitred tyranny;–
They defied the field and scaffold
For their birthrights — so will we!

Thomas Campbell

Rediscovering the past

According to reports, archaeologists think theymay have found a ‘lost’ monastery where England’s first King, Edgar the Peaceful, was crowned. The story was linked on the Amerika blog where I first saw it.

It seems that archaaeologists were surprised to find this significant site next to the famous Bath Abbey. They noted that the location had what appeared to be Anglo-Saxon architecture in these two structures. As Bath was built by Romans during the time of their dominance in Britain, apparently most of the structures there are Roman in origin, so the presence of Anglo-Saxon style architecture got the attention of the archaeologists.

“After finding the Anglo-Saxon stone structures, archaeologists used a method called radiocarbon dating on charcoal found in some of the plaster of one of these apses. Since scientists know the rate of decay of radioactive carbon, they can use that to infer how long an object has been in the ground.

The charcoal dated to 780-970 and 670-770, Wessex Archaeology found. This time window suggests that the abbey was once part of the Anglo-Saxon monastery where Edgar was coronated, in 973.
[…]
He added that “this, together with the late Saxon stonework and burials found at the Abbey, provides increasingly strong evidence that we have, indeed, found part of Bath’s lost Anglo-Saxon monastery,” where Edgar the Peaceful was coronated.”

The Wessex Archaeology website has more historical information and clarifies some of the information in the other article.

If you go to the Wessex Archaeology page, you can scroll down to the pictures of two stone crosses, or fragments, as it appears. The article describes them as ‘late Saxon crosses’, but if you look at them you will see a familiar style of carving on them. The carving is like the typical ‘Celtic’ interlace style of decoration. I think most of us have been habituated to think this design is indicative of ‘Celtic’ culture when in fact it was found on many artifacts from Scandinavia as well as England. I am not trying to deny credit to the Celtic people for that style; it just seems evident to me that there was a widespread culture which pervaded much of Northern and Northwestern Europe. England was also part of that culture.

Articles like this do remind us that there is still a lot to be discovered from Britain’s past. We are far from knowing everything about that time and place. But it seems ironic to be finding these remains of a distant past when the culture of Britain is now in danger of dissolving.

Scotland and Brexit

I made a statement in my previous post that many people in Scotland preferred to remain in the EU.  However here’s a post at the Iconoclast indicating that the majority in Scotland may not be so pro-EU as we’ve been told over here in the States. It seems there is a faction of ‘remainers’ who are aggressively opposing the peaceful break-up.

If it’s true that a majority are in favor of leaving, though they are not bound to leave just because England and Wales are leaving, then that shows a healthier instinct.

From the many news stories on the subject we’ve heard that there is an age gap; the younger people are somehow emotionally attached to the EU, feeling that it’s their rightful ‘home’.  I remember reading at the time of the initial Brexit referendum that some of the young voters were distraught about the result, moaning and wailing that they would no longer be ”European” or able to come and go to Europe, by which I mean The Continent. If that is an accurate picture of some of the younger voters’ viewpoint and fear of leaving ‘mother Europa’ then they have been thoroughly conditioned and gaslighted to think that way. It’s almost laughably absurd. There is no ‘European’ ethnicity; only the various ethnic groups who have populated that region for millennia.

Maybe only the more mature members of the public remember a time when Europe was considered separate from England or Great Britain. Europe was The Continent, separate from the UK. It still is, as far as I’m concerned. Despite having an unelected group of elitists in Brussels who are de facto rulers of the European Union, there is no real organic culture which includes all the countries which are within the walls of the EU. The EU remains a polyglot (yes, I know they all speak English in some form or other) cobbled-together ‘union’ which is at odds within itself.

The younger generations seem more attached to the idea of the EU and are bound and determined to make the issue all about ”racism” or bigotry. I suspect if given a chance, the young would have another vote to re-join the EU, so determined are they. It seems they have also contracted the anti-‘boomer’ antipathy which is so popular this side the Atlantic; the old folk are just bigots, and the world will be so much better when the old are gone, so say the young in all their wisdom.