Midwinter traditions

Wassailing in Hertfordshire:

Wassailing as I am sure most of you know is an ancient English tradition associated with Twelfth Night festivities. Twelfth Night this year falls on January 5. The participants in this video take part in the traditional driving out of evil spirits, and quaffing the traditional Wassail, as well as Morris dancing and singing.

Self-loathing

Is it true that people in Western, that is, European-descent populations, really loathe themselves as media tropes have it? I’ve never been convinced, just based on the say-so of journos or psychologists pushing a politically correct agenda. Yet this idea persists and is the subject of a good article at the Cultural Action Party of Canada. The idea is being put forth by Conrad Black, a Canadian Historian who has been providing commentary in The Iconoclast as well as other Canadian media on the recent American election.

In a National Post article dated December 27th, 2020, Conrad Black has this to say:

To some extent the general Canadian ‘systemic racism’ self-flagellation in this country is our very own Canadian replication of American phenomena.”

Although the United States as a source for this social condition is not something we consider essential,  Mr. Black’s “systemic racism self-flagellation” component is.”

Brad Salzberg, Cultural Action Party of Canada

This ‘self-flagellation’ or self-hatred seems to be a phenomenon in all the Western countries, and it definitely coincides with the presence of so-called Critical Race Theory, which is everywhere it seems in our ‘educational’ system and in our culture.

There are in fact people who do hate themselves, or at least express hatred towards being white. I have talked to people, usually women, who have blurted out to me ”I hate being White.” When I’ve asked why they feel this way, and why they seem so emotional about it, they say ” because of what we did to other peoples.” These are people who have internalized the CRC and other propaganda without examining it dispassionately. The topic has become so highly charged over the years that people have become very emotional about it. It has grown over the years in intensity until it has become taken for granted that we are all somehow guilty.

The article at CAP asks, understandably, how ‘multiculturalism’ came to be the ‘essence’ of society in Canada, given the history of that country. Speaking for myself, I’ve noticed that the countries which have the most mild and ‘welcoming’ attitudes towards the masses of immigrants are often those, like Sweden, who seem to experience more difficulty with the newcomers. The spate of fires and car-bombings, etc., in that country do not seem to have been the result of harsh treatment by the Swedish people.

All of the West is being subjected to a sort of forcible conversion to the Religion of Antiracism. All of our media — the so-called ‘news’ media as well as movies and TV have gone into overdrive over the past couple of decades focusing on race and racial issues — all the while telling us that ‘race is a social construct’ which does not really exist except in the minds of ”racists”, whoever they are. Now our history is being rewritten to conform to the Narrative in which we are all guilty. It looks as though America is on track to pay a huge ”reparations” tab after which it will be declared inadequate. Maybe Canada will be spared that punishment or maybe not.

But how long will we be given any ‘permission’ to speak or write about this?

Some Europeans I’ve encountered blame America for this situation. But in fact European countries willingly chose to contrast their ‘broad-minded, tolerant’ attitudes with Americans ‘prejudice’ back in the 1960s and 70s. Sweden deliberately welcomed American black draft-dodgers as a thumb in our eye, making us look worse by comparison to their open attitudes. I wonder if they regret trying to one-up us with their ostentatious tolerance. And then we got into a virtue-signaling contest with them. Who won?

Multiculturalism leads to conflict, inevitably. Even countries which have been multicultural for centuries end in conflict as a rule.

Canada was for most of its history a peaceful, friendly place; most of the old-stock Canadian people I have known have been very good neighbors to us as a nation. I will repeat what I said in another post about the words on the Peace Arch which is at the Western Canadian border: “Children of a Common Mother.” Which we are — or were, until Canada was made into a polyglot globalized country.

Do Canadians and Americans hate themselves? Many do engage in self-flagellation of a sort. I don’t know if it is true ‘self-loathing;’ I hope not. I think that for many shallow people it is more of a ‘trendy’ pose to strike, a result of peer pressure. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes, and for many people just mouthing some kind of politically correct shibboleths, using the correct PC language, is a small tribute to pay to show one’s compliance. Up until recently just saying the right words was all that was demanded of us. But when one is pressured to ‘take a knee’ or even lick someone’s boots on command, suddenly it’s different.

I know that this situation does not exist only in our countries. It seems that the Anglosphere countries have been especially targeted. And still a lot of these countries continue to vote for globalist, socialist politicians. That might be the real evidence of self-loathing.

On maintaining roots

H.P. Lovecraft, in his private writings, appears to have spent a good deal of mental energy pondering over how to maintain a connection to his English roots, which he believed to be genetically hard-wired into his soul and mind. This may seem a peculiar belief, from a more Americanized point of view, but let’s face it: Lovecraft would not have been Lovecraft, as we his readers know him, if he had been a more “typical” American.

Here he writes about this:

”Thus in the English world — America has suffered, so far, in only a limited degree; because the forces of ancestral culture have continued to function despite the severance of the political link. But we now have deteriorative agencies—mechanisation, foreigners, etc.—more hostile to continuity than anything which the disunited Hellenic world had to face; so that our ability to preserve a culture of satisfying significance depends greatly on the exact degree of closeness of our linkage to ancestral sources. Nowadays we need more than the mere fact of being English in heritage and speech in order to keep so.

We need the added and positive factors of being consciously and symbolically so, in order to offer the tangible resistance (a vigorous back pull, and not mere inertia) necessary to check decadence. When we fight the ideal of quantity and wealth, we must have the positive English ideal of quality and refinement to pit against it. We must have a rallying point of our emotional life in order to prevent the disorganising influences around us from recrystallising our milieu into definitely hostile and repulsive shapes.

It is useless to fight meaningless recrystallisation unless we have a strong hold on the meaningful order behind us, and a solid coordination with the other surviving parts—especially the recognised centre and nucleus—of that order. What little of our past we merely passively harbour, we can lose with tragic ease. We must get a firm and virile grip on it—must recognise and cherish it, and seek solidarity with those parts of the world where it is most strongly entrenched.

Possibly you may admit this, yet say that political union is not necessary in order to achieve it. To this one may not reply dogmatically—though one may say that political separation is at least a very evil sort of symbolism, and that in practice it has worked hellish tragedy with the life and standards of the ill-fated, power-and-money bloated, mongrelised United States….that is, the life and standards of such social or territorial parts as have really departed from their inheritance.

Of course, vast sections are still English—Vermont, South Carolina, Virginia, the old hill in Providence, and so on. […] I am a part of any region where English people live in an English manner…be it R.I., Charleston, Devonshire, Australia, Nova Scotia, or any where else. My own position in insisting on unpolluted Englishry is purely selfish and cynical. I want a good time—hence I work for the only environment which can give me a good time.

As for the intensity of my emotions about the matter in a cosmos where nothing really counts—I will merely remind you that emotion is not a matter connected with reason. I have the emotions I do, simply because accident has given me a certain sort of glandular systems and filled my subconscious mind with a certain set of images and impressions.

I hate the rebels of 1775 because they commenced a wreckage which is making their territory unfit for their descendants to live in. God Save the King!”

Lovecraft, from a letter written November 6, 1930

I can only guess that, could Lovecraft have foreseen what our country and culture would be in another century or two, he would have been appalled, what with Anglo-Saxons deposed from their original dominance, and most people so deracinated and so many ashamed of their origins — both here and in the other areas of the Anglosphere. Can this ever be reversed?

“Invisible…”

Yesterday I was a little disappointed that the Andrew Hamilton piece at Unz.com did not garner more responses. Today I find that I am disappointed in the responses that have accumulated since I first read the piece.

Sorry for the negative reaction on my part, but I’ve read the same old criticisms and outright slanders of the Anglo-Saxon for most of my adult life, and it provokes a real weariness in this reader.

If only we were actually invisible; better to be unnoticed than to be made the perpetual whipping boy.

Maybe some of the younger or more naive readers are not aware that, once upon a time, Anglo-Saxons, (or ‘WASPs’, if you insist) were viewed in a more benign light, as simply the founding people of what became the U.S.A. More often than not, Anglo-Saxons were treated with respect in history books and in conversation. At some point, the same people suddenly received much more scrutiny and criticism, as a new stereotype of the wealthy, grasping, ‘Puritanical’ villains of the American story. I am not sure when the tide turned; the causes were probably several. One influential critic would be H.L.Mencken, who expressed disdain for many different peoples in this country, but most particularly, the founding stock, Anglo-Saxons. Here’s an example of his idea of the Anglo-Saxon:

‘He is “the least civilized of white men and the least capable of true civilization.” His blood is “running thin,” and “he fears ideas almost more cravenly than he fears men.”’

H.L. Mencken

Mencken inspired a lot of Americans, especially those of German descent, to express similar contempt towards Anglo-Saxons, the American-born variety and those native to England.

“The tradition of expressivist opposition to Anglo-Protestant ethnicity probably began with H.L. Mencken, a “muck-raking” social critic who assailed Puritanism as moralistic, aesthetically barren, and an impediment to American intellectual development. Mencken also took on the Anglo-Saxons, describing them as meddlers and moralizers with no culture. As Charles Alexander writes, “by the twenties Mencken’s diatribes against American conventions had made him virtually the high priest of the continuing revolt against the Genteel Tradition” (Alexander 1980: 34-35, 111).

Mencken’s anti-WASP sentiment had two sources: his German background and, probably more important, his sympathy with modernists such as James Huneker, whose M’lle New York was a formative influence on Mencken (Bender 1987: 221). Mencken’s line is easily identified in the writing of many Young Intellectuals like Floyd Dell, who in 1906 proclaimed that Puritanism (which he identified with Anglo-Saxonism) was stifling man’s inner nature: “Amusement is a law of life. We must accept or ignore it. If we ignore it, we must suffer the consequences” (Fishbein 1982: 34). Randolph Bourne, a central figure in American cosmopolitanism, was another pre-World War I Villager who heaped scorn on his ethnic tradition, equating “Anglo-Saxondom” with “masculine domination.”

Having read a lot of Mencken and his disciples who parrot his contempt, I can’t help reciprocating his feelings. I have a perennial question for those who apparently chose to live in a country they hate, amongst a people they hate wholeheartedly — why do they stay? Of course Mencken has long been six feet under, so the question is moot in his case — but why do his like-minded disciples not remove themselves to Germany rather than living in a country they see as odious? Why stay?

But Mencken notwithstanding, I can’t pinpoint a time or an incident which led to the change in attitudes toward Anglo-Saxons, at which time ‘WASPs’ (a name which denotes insects, and unpleasant ones at that) became so disliked by a lot of people in America. The detractors are most often those of German descent. Notice some of the comments reference Germans as being somehow the wronged victims of Anglo-Saxons: one commenter asks resentfully why Germans were not ‘included’ amongst the Anglo-Saxon people, those of the British Isles. Why were they not included, the writer asks. Why? Maybe because the Saxons in question stayed at home while another group removed to the British Isles. Nothing sinister there. Maybe the Saxons were homebodies while the Anglo-Saxons were the explorers.

But still the perennial refrain from the detractors who comment online is that the Germans are the victims of Anglo-Saxons, the Germans are somehow superior, much as Mencken seemed to believe, and so it is not fair that the Anglo-Saxons get the glory.

And how much credit or renown do today’s Anglo-Saxon descendants get? Very little.

I wonder, too, at what point the Anglo-Saxons somehow became inextricably associated in the popular imagination with Jews? It’s somehow to do with the stereotype of the ‘rich WASP’ of formerly Puritan New England. All WASPs are believed (by some) to be ”Boston Brahmins”, living in exclusive enclaves “Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots, And the Cabots talk only to God.” Another rendition of that line is ”and the Cabots speak Yiddish by God.” Yes, somehow most of the detractors of the legendary Boston Brahmins see them as in league with wealthy Jews. Yankees=Jews by another name, according to some people.

Most Anglo-Saxons, especially those in rural areas, had little or no contact with
Jews, and had no bond of connection to collude with them, as some imagine.

However the majority of descendants of the unpopular Puritan/Yankees are not ‘Boston Brahmins’, and the enclaves I would say are mostly gone from Boston and other Yankee (former) strongholds. Most Anglo-Saxon Americans are ordinary people who earn their way and who are indistinguishable by sight from any other Anglo-Americans.

I know both ‘sides’ of the Anglo-American story, as one of my parents was of New England old-stock origins, while the other side was of the ‘First Families’ of Virginia, of ‘Cavalier’ stock — another group who are harshly judged because of Political Correctness. A newly popular idea, that the two groups of Anglo-Saxons are ”two different races” is absurd. No such division is detectable, apparently, in DNA testing. Cultural divisions? Of course, but that does not make the groups ”two different peoples.” This talk may have come from one of the popular writers like Fischer or Woodard, but it is not scientifically verified by any means. Fischer for one is too facile in saying that the Puritans came from East Anglia — but Puritanism was not some isolated phenomenon that occurred only in that one region or any other one region. My Puritan ancestors came from varied parts of England. The Puritan family of my maternal kin name came from Hampshire, in the South of England, not East Anglia.

Broad generalizations often don’t apply, but the trope about Yankees being some alien people who lived in East Anglia, as a separate people from the Cavalier classes (who held to the Church of England)is just inaccurate. My Cavalier ancestors, some of them, also came from the South of England as did some of my Puritan forebears.

The Cavaliers and the Puritans who came here spoke the same language, looked similar, held to the same traditions and culture. They were not two separate peoples. They were descended from the same stock. You can say that the Normans remained separate as a people, but both the Cavaliers and the Puritans might also have had Norman ancestry which bound them together genetically, rather than making them different peoples.

Popular histories are not to be taken on blind faith; ‘experts’ have their own biases, and history is hardly an exact science, just as ‘science’ is now compromised. Science today is sometimes carried along by trends in pop culture and is affected by Political Correctness. Witness the ‘climate catastrophe’ cult, or the admixture of ‘New Age’ with quantum physics, etc.

Just now, as you no doubt have noticed, the Anglo-Saxon, having once been at the pinnacle (our English kin, with their erstwhile Empire on which the sun never set) is now a villain in Western history. Read the comments on the Unz.com article; the Anglo is the bad guy. The enemies of Western civilization, those who’ve been pulling down statues everywhere, are pulling down mostly statues of Anglo-Saxon heroes. The Anglo-Saxon is targeted to be humbled and condemned, as punishment for once having been at the top of the pyramid. That fact appears to have galled H.L. Mencken and his present-day counterparts, those of German extraction who believe they are slighted or robbed of their rightful place of honor — as they see it. There is lots of envy and resentment.

Most often those who write scholarly or quasi-scholarly books on this subject are prone to blame Anglo-Saxons for losing their grasp on this country — while at the same time harboring resentments towards the Anglo-Saxons because they were for a long time the dominant group. Their attitudes are ambivalent: first, how dare those snobbish Anglo-Saxons dominate this country? After all ‘it was not really theirs; it was stolen from the Native Americans. Haven’t we all heard that? Then in the next breath the critic will blame the Anglo for ‘giving the country away.’ They ‘became weak’ — but wait; they were domineering and oppressive. The critics are often incoherent.

Still there is no denying the facts, try as they might, there is just no getting around the fact that it was English colonists, in 1607 and 1620, who founded the colonies that endured, against all odds. The English colonies formed the core of what was to be the U.S. If others want to resent and envy that, or to pretend that their ancestors were first or best — I can’t help them. Their resentment is on a par with the usual complaints from the legions of the aggrieved. Victimhood is enjoying a real heyday now. Maybe they should get reparations along with their oppressed brothers.

The ‘Invisible race’

Who are the ‘Invisible Race‘, the people Andrew Hamilton refers to in his article at Unz.com? Somehow when I saw those words, I surmised it was the Anglo-Saxons.

“The defining characteristic of WASPs 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.”

The WASP Question, by Andrew Fraser

The article by Andrew Hamilton is that rarity, an essay that is not a hit piece on WASPs. It is refreshing to read something in which the WASP is not a villain. The article does not avoid discussing the weaknesses of WASPs or Anglo-Saxon Protestants; the writer does offer a defense of Anglo-Saxon ‘Yankees’, and echoes Dr. Fraser’s assessment that WASPs are very weak on ethnic consciousness and ethnocentrism.

Naturally I can’t pretend to be neutral or purely objective on this subject; as a descendant of Massachusetts Bay colonists who arrived mostly during the early 1630s I can say that it does vex me at times to hear my ancestors vilified and blamed for much of what is wrong with this country. I’ve never really understood what is behind this animus (noted by Hamilton here in this piece) on the part of the later immigrant stock people towards Anglo-Saxons. I can only conclude that they feel slighted for their ‘Johnny-come-lately’ provenance in this country, and I notice that many of the later arrivals claim their ancestors were here first. Envy seems to be a motivation. There is also the stereotype that all ‘New England Yankees’ were rich and grasping, which is an inaccurate depiction of WASPs.

I’m glad to see that Andrew Hamilton speaks out against the false stereotypes — unfortunately people cling stubbornly to their negative views of Yankees/WASPs, and probably will never change their minds.

In my small way I’ve tried to argue against popular beliefs which aren’t true or valid but to little avail. Those who have more visibility and who have an audience are better positioned to change attitudes; people would likely recognize my ancestors’ names but I am just an obscure blogger with little influence.

Hamilton certainly covers a lot of ground in his piece. He covers some little-known facts about the surprising hardiness of the Yankee stock, who seemed to thrive in the harsh climate of New England, and he also mentions their fecundity — which I know to be true of my own ancestors — they did have many children. People insist on thinking of those Puritans as inhibited and averse to sexuality, when in fact they had large families. Their fertility meant that they represented a rapidly growing population. Natural increase, thanks to their large families, meant that they had a thriving society without resorting to mass immigration.

And speaking of immigration, the piece informs us that mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe began to change the New England of the early Puritan colonists. I’ve blogged about that fact, and yet people still believe that the Yankees still inhabit and control New England — when in fact they had long since moved West, leaving much of New England to the throngs of newcomers. I’ve called it an early case of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in America. I have had a hard time convincing people that it happened that way, and that parts of New England have a small percentage of residents of English stock — something like 11 percent in some areas. New England is very multicultural in certain places. And the old-stock people are scattered from the places they settled and named.

Please read the whole article at Unz.com. It should be of interest to all of us who are of old-stock English Puritan descent — but also to anyone interested in the history of this land.

Brexit delays

Nigel Farage, in recent comments on the Brexit situation, expressed some skepticism about the outcome of the extended discussion on the issue. That’s understandable; the Brexit process was approved in 2016, and here we all are, near the end of 2020, with Britain still in the EU.

The never-ending discussion could appear to be just a stalling tactic, to delay any Brexit, and to weary the public, until eventually the plan will fail to be implemented.

It appears some of the people are disillusioned with the whole thing, and few have a heart to continue. Farage, in a recent video, expresses some guarded optimism about the possibility of a good Brexit deal, but acknowledges that it may not have an ideal outcome.

Personally I don’t put a lot of faith in Boris Johnson when it comes to getting the best possible Brexit conditions. But we’ll see, as the deadline approaches. But with the still-ongoing negotiations (and is the EU negotiating in good faith, BTW?) the situation is a little cloudy.

But is there a conscious plan to drag these negotiations out, so as to dull the desire of the pro-Brexit people to leave the EU? It was noticeable at the time of the original Brexit vote that the younger generations (Millennials and so-called Gen Z) were vehemently against exiting the EU. They were interviewed, sometimes in tears, over the prospect of leaving the EU, and this upset them. “We won’t be Europeans anymore” — “I don’t want to lose my European identity” and words to that effect.

Leaving aside the fact that nobody’s nationality is actually ‘European’ — a broad category — it struck me as a silly reaction on the part of the anti-Brexit youth. I do remember also that these same ‘Remainers’ said that the old people were ”racist” for wanting Brexit. Whatever.

Maybe the EU, being aware of the age divide on the issue, is hoping that if they delay Brexit longer, the ‘racist old people’ will be gone to their final reward, and that the younger voters attitudes will make a pro-EU decision much more likely. Minus the ‘problem’ older voters, maybe the plan for a Brexit will simply be dropped for lack of interest. I hope not. I would like to see Britain remain Britain, and I would like to see England once again recognized as its own country, and as a nationality, an ethnicity, not just an archaic name on a map.

The Scots talk independence, though they voted it down when given a chance; Wales is free to be nationalistic, but so far England has not been allowed that choice. Not even an English Parliament as of now.

The people of the UK made a choice for Brexit; I hope the will of the people is not disregarded or quietly pushed aside.

No place to be spared, it seems

The Test Valley in Hampshire, UK is a beautiful area, and it’s said to be unscathed by the endless waves of immigration. The Test Valley was the home of many of my English ancestors who came to Massachusetts in the 1600s. So the current controversy over the possibility of a migrant camp being built in a small town there has a personal meaning for me. I am sure there are similar stories from all over the UK about towns being transformed due to the ever-increasing flow of immigrants. Even reading such stories about places to which I have no connection (as far as I know) it does have a personal meaning for me somehow. I have ancestors from various places in England and I do feel for the people whose lives may be affected by another such migrant wave.

The Borough Council leader, Phil North, is quoted in the linked article as saying that such a facility would be like an “open prison”, which seems to me a strong statement, or maybe it’s just that we’ve all been conditioned to hearing the usual Politically Correct pabulum from a lot of local “leaders’ here in the U.S. And the admission from local leaders that a rise in criminality would be likely, is surprisingly frank. But in fact anyone who follows events in Europe and here as well knows that the migration tsunami of recent years has in fact caused quite an increase in criminal behavior in the affected countries. I am concerned that the subject will soon be added to the lengthening list of taboo subjects which we, the people, will not be allowed to mention. (The social media and the MSM so-called, are accomplishing it by degrees; just watch.) But for people who are being adversely affected by this open borders policy, and not to be able to examine it as citizens, or to have a choice in the matter makes for a lot of discontent, which may or may not be expressed openly. And to get the implicit message that we are no longer allowed a say in matters that affect us and our families is hard for those who’ve grown up in a free country, where we had a say in our future — even if not as fully as we should.

I sincerely hope that the plans for the migrant center may somehow be changed, so that another location will be chosen — but who then would be chosen to ‘host’ the uninvited guests? I suppose thanks to EU edicts or U N policy these things are mandatory. Will Brexit (if it ever occurs!) change all this mandatory migration?

Has it ever occurred to anyone in high places in the UK that they might just say ‘no’ to the swamping of their homeland, or to the Replacement?

Maybe I am too much of a sentimentalist or a ‘romantic’ when it comes to family and roots. But I always remember that most of my ancestors’ bones lie in English soil, and it is sad to think that England may one day belong to strangers who will have no respect for our deceased ancestors and all the relics and remains, the churches, the hallowed places, the historic sites. It can only have meaning for us. It’s sad, and it’s shameful that some are willing to sell out the English people and their beautiful homeland.

Politics and sports – do they mix?

Nowadays just about everything is politicized, and it’s a minefield because Political Correctness insists that we all conform; we can’t keep our political ideas to ourselves. Remember that phrase ‘silence is violence’? To not express a stance is to confess to being on the Wrong Side of History, a place which we want to avoid in the age of compulsory conformity.

British fans of Millwall booed the (now obligatory?) ritual of ‘Taking The Knee’, and as it happened, similar scenes occurred at other football matches around England. There must be a growing resentment of this politicizing of football, just as in some places in the U.S.

Interestingly a Cabinet Minister also spoke up for the booing fans. However he insisted on adding politically correct remarks to his defense of the fans, with some boilerplate remarks about equality and the usual cant. But I suppose that’s to be expected, and at least there is some sign of life.