Virginia Dare

I’m a little late in commemorating the birthday of Virginia Dare, who was the first English child born to English colonists on this continent. Her birthday was on the 18th of August, but better late than never.

When I first began blogging, I usually wrote a little piece about Virginia Dare, and the mystery of the Roanoke colonists, whose whereabouts and fate were unknown; they disappeared. Were they absorbed by the local Indian tribe, or were they killed? Did they starve, or lose their way, so that they could not re-unite with the other colonists?

“Making the strange story of the Roanoke Colony all the more mysterious were the eerie circumstances surrounding its disappearance. The baffling circumstances were compounded more by what was not found than any evidence left behind. The agonizing fact was, there was almost no indication at all of how or why these 107 people vanished. There was no sign of war with hostile natives, no burned houses left behind, and no bodies – just a crude abandoned fort. There was no evidence of struggle, warfare or battle. In fact, it seemed that what homes and buildings that had been built were methodically dismantled, indicating the colonists had moved on purpose, and not in a situation of duress.”

Totally History” website

We will likely never know the fate of the Roanoke colony.

I can’t help asking this question whenever I’ve written about Virginia Dare: will there be any evidence that we were ever here, or will we be the next ”lost colony”, replaced, and missing without a trace?

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.



“Our fathers were Englishmen…”

There was no established ‘Thanksgiving Day’ when the first Puritans colonists came here in 1620 — after many hardships, as alluded to below, but the ‘Pilgrims’, as these first Puritan settlers came to be called — realized that they had much to be thankful for, despite the bleakness of their situation in 1620. They succeeded in founding a lasting colony, as our presence here shows, but it might have turned out much differently. Below is an excerpt from William Bradford’s account of the beginning of what became ‘Plimoth Plantation:

“Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the firm and stable earth, their proper element. And no marvel if they were thus joyful, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on the coast of his own Italy, as he affirmed, that he had rather remain twenty years on his way by land than pass by sea to any place in a short time, so tedious and dreadful was the same unto him.

But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people’s present condition; and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which went before), they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less town to repair to, to seek for succour. It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appear) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, fall of wild beasts and wild men — and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succour them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the master and company? But that with speed they should look out a place (with their shallop) where they would be, at some near distance; for the season was such as he would not stir from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them, where they would be, and he might go without danger; and that victuals consumed apace but he must and would keep sufficient for themselves and their return. Yea, it was muttered by some that if they got not a place in time, they would turn them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply and succour they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them or themselves; and how the case stood between them and the merchants at their coming away hath already been declared.

What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: “Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity,” etc. “Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and His mercies endure forever.” “Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, shew how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord His loving kindness and His wonderful works before the sons of men.”

Quoted from ‘OF THEIR VOYAGE, AND HOW THEY PASSED THE SEA; AND OF THEIR SAFE ARRIVAL AT CAPE COD – – Chapter IX of William Bradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation

English-Americans: last of the Mohicans?

A little over a century ago, Mr. Delos R. Baker pronounced Anglo-Americans a ‘feeble, degenerate, dying breed…the last of the Mohicans’. Well, we’re still here: the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated — or are the Delos Bakers of the world right?

Baker wrote a 49-page booklet called ‘Anglo-American Reunion, and in it he made it clear that he opposed any attempt to unify English-descended Americans with our cousins back in Britain. In fact he said that we are not even blood relations to the English or the British. He says there is ‘no predominant community of blood: none ever has existed.

In 1787, when the United States was born, the population of our New-England [sic] section was part English, part French, part German, part Dutch, part Irish, part Indian, part African.

Mr. Barker forgot to mention every other nationality which might have had two members residing in the New England states. I’m sure he missed somebody; if his purpose was to mention every minuscule ”community” of non-Anglos. I mean, the population of ‘Africans’ living in New England was pretty small at that moment in history. Later on, in the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon colonist stock probably were a small proportion of the total New England population. Too bad Mr. Baker would not live another century to see the Anglo-Saxon population outnumbered or ‘ethnically cleansed,’ as he wished for.

But let’s see what else he had to say:
“Of the Anglo-Dutch-German-Irish-Indian-African population of New York, less than half was English.”

And? So? This is not news; New York (formerly New Amsterdam) was not colonized by English people; it was a Dutch colony as most Americans know, and there were other ethnicities present when the Dutch were there, usually French (Huguenot refugees) and Belgians, both groups having intermarried with the Dutch. I doubt that many Irish or Germans or American Indians lived there; the Dutch had been under frequent attack by various Indian tribes in their colonies, even up until the time Baker mentions. These groups were not all living in happy harmony amongst one another then, as any schoolchild should be aware.

And, like most modern-day commentators, Baker (probably deliberately) exaggerates the presence of other non-Anglo colonists. They existed, but there is no reason to believe they outnumbered the English colonial stock Americans.

Then there’s this obvious fact: New York has from an early times had a more mixed population than the rest of the colonies; it’s even more multiracial, multicultural, and polyglot today than ever, but it was never an English colony. It’s a country to itself, almost. Maybe it should be an independent country.

Baker, in trying to use New York as an example of how mixed and mixed-up we are, is cherry-picking. He also cites the example of Pennsylvania, which was, again, an exception among the colonies as to its ethnic makeup. He cites Thomas Paine’s claim that as of 1775, less than one-third of Pennsylvania was English. He says that in Virginia, the African, Indian, French, and Irish outnumbered the English.

There was never a census of the Indian population, as I’ve said, in those times; rough guesstimates won’t do. And the French? Again, some Huguenots came to the South, including Virginia, but I’ve seen no evidence to indicate they were that numerous, and I’ve looked at many census records and other public documents in the course of doing genealogies. Maybe Baker is taking all those ethnic groups in the aggregate to make them outnumber the English settlers. Those early English settlers, including the rich families, had lots of children. Their natural increase was a big part of the population growth.

Baker again:
“The Anglo-Saxon blood was not conspicuous, and was much intermingled with the African.”

He cites no sources for this; it’s just his opinion, but unfortunately this kind of unfounded assertion is all too common even today. Just go to Steve Sailer’s blog, where commenters say similar things and no one counters these un-sourced claims.

As far as admixture between Whites in general and blacks, the rate of White ancestry amongst American blacks has been said to be 17-18 percent.

However different percentages are cited here. Still, the blogger at Occam’s Razor says that the average White American is 98.6 European, according to genetic ancestry surveys.

So much for Baker’s claims of widespread admixture. It should also be remembered that miscegeny between black and White was illegal in all the states, with some states having stricter laws regarding marriages with other ethnicities as well. And the practice was socially taboo; that was the way of the world then, much as some people deplore it. The past is another country, as we’ve heard.

Baker goes on and recites a long list of every ethnicity he can think of, and says we are all hybridized, mixed with every possible nationality and tribe and tongue.

We are become the most hybrid people on the face of the earth; and are generously and hospitably proud of the fact.”

But then he starts to get insulting towards the South:

“Only among the Appallachian [sic] highlands — the last retreat among us of illiteracy, feudism [?]. and moonshining — are Anglo-Saxons conspicuous in the population.”

I’ll leave aside his spelling mistakes in the above, though he should not have mentioned others’ illiteracy; people who live in glass houses, etc.

Then he goes on to the usual assertions about how Irish and German descent is far more prevalent than Anglo-Saxon. I’ve been over all that before, but it bears repeating for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it.
Just because more White Americans self-report as ‘German’ or ‘Irish’, that does not mean they actually are of that ethnicity exclusively or even predominantly; some people who have just one German or Irish or Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent report as one of those ethnicities, even with only one-fourth or less of that ethnicity. I read an article about a woman who identifies as Dutch though she has something like 1/32 Dutch ancestry. Why? Just because she ‘feels’ Dutch or likes the image of the Dutch.

And then there are those seeming millions of White Americans who, like Elizabeth Warren, will swear their great-grandmother was an Indian, even an Indian Princess, in some cases. Why? Because there’s a family legend that it’s so, and because the family has high cheekbones. Yes, some people, just like Fauxcahontas, think ‘high cheekbones’ are absolute proof of Indian ancestry. No other ethnicity has high cheekbones.

It’s also popular to claim German ancestry these days, maybe because of the backlash against anti-German sentiments that had their roots in the last two world wars. Lots of people with a fraction of German blood say they are German, but it’s true that the German settlers in the Plains states and Midwest held to their German ways and language even into the WWII era; they still had German language newspapers and magazines, and often, still spoke German at home. So there is the strong ethnocentrism of German-Americans, but that does not mean Germans are or ever were the majority in this country.

I would have to see DNA proof from a majority of Americans before I accept that ‘most Americans’ are German predominantly.

I wonder if, given his animus towards Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Baker is at least partly German; he says ”we” are proud of being a hybrid race (including himself in that ‘we’) but yet he goes on to say that ‘we Anglo-Saxons’ are a dying breed, like the last of the Mohicans. He says ‘we’ Anglo-Saxons are a ”feeble, degenerate, disappearing strain of blood.”

He seems to relish this kind of talk.

Now, if he were just some nobody from a century ago, venting his loathing of English people, I could dismiss it. But there are so many White Americans who say very similar things today. It’s just another dimension to the animus that has become a barrage in the media, directed towards White people in general. It’s White people hating other Whites, and nobody speaks up against it, except a very few who are conspicuous by their rarity.

Why are so few people of English descent speaking up? Do some bloggers censor replies from Anglo-Saxon Americans? I know that some of the comments I’ve left on certain blogs haven’t shown up. That’s one of the reasons I began this blog: because it seems there is no voice for people of our ethnicity. Who knows, if the trend towards censoring more and more speech continues, will there be any place where we can be heard?

Mr. Baker who wrote this screed against Anglo-Saxons (and also against plain White-bread Americans) is long since in his grave, or in the happy hunting ground where all good Hybrid-Americans go, but there are numbers of White people still promoting and believing his half-truths and propaganda.

#american-history, #dna, #english-descent, #ethnicity, #ethnocentrism, #ethnopatriotism

Puritans vs. Cavaliers, 1868

R.W. Thompson, himself a descendant of Cavalier ancestors in the South, gave an address in 1868 on the merits of the Puritans. It seems in those days the rancor was not at today’s levels, and each side could find admirable qualities in the other side. Thompson said, of the controversy:

This is no time for disturbing the dust in the graves of our fathers: — let them sleep, until he who will call the nations before his bar shall re-form and re-animate it. The work which lies before is is enough to demand our united energies. The labor of our fathers must not be lost by neglect, at our hands. We must see that there be no chilling frost to wither the fruit of the Great Protestant Reformation. We must take care that liberty is preserved, in all its variety of forms. There must be no hesitancy or halting in the contest between truth and error — right and wrong; –between Protestantism and all the forms of antagonism by which it may be assailed. We must not forget the responsibilities resting upon us, and growing out of our position.
[…]We are the inheritors of a richer legacy than was ever bequeathed to any other people.

‘Occupied’ Northern Ireland?

Something of a furor has apparently erupted around the BBC referring to Kashmir as being ‘Indian-occupied.’ The brouhaha resulted when a Hindu film director Shekhar Kapur, quoted in a RT article, posed an irate question to the BBC asking why, if they call Kashmir ‘Indian-occupied’, they don’t also refer to Northern Ireland, or Ulster, as ‘British-occupied.’

First of all, Mr. Kapur is simply trying to score a rhetorical point against the BBC or Britain itself, calling “hypocrisy”, because Kapur himself is a Hindu loyalist, though he is described in the RT article as a ‘British-Indian.’ There is no such thing; he is British or he is Indian. Choose one.

According to Kapur’s biographies (there are several online, with differing information) he was definitely born in India, and educated there, then went to London. Some sources say he lives in New York. Or he is reported to live, or have lived in the Philippines, or to be back in India. It appears to me he is one of those ‘world citizens’ who jets back and forth between various countries. Where are his allegiances? Judging by this controversy he identifies with is birthplace, India, as he is defending that country vs. Kashmir.

But Kapur is drawing parallels between the India-Kashmir question and the Northern Ireland/Ulster situation. Some online commenters say that Ulster is ‘under British occupation.’ Well, if that is so, then the United States is under European occupation, with its ‘Native American’ inhabitants lacking their rightful sovereignty. After all, the ancestors of the Ulster folk, (who are mainly descended from Scots and English border-county settlers), have been in Ulster for about 400 years — as long as those of us with early colonist ancestry have had a presence on this continent. So if Ulster is ‘under British occupation’ then so is this country ‘under occupation’. That’s a much closer parallel than the Kashmir-India situation.

I’ve often wondered why the Irish so insistently claim that the ‘Brits’ must get off their island because the Irish were there first. The American Indians could make the same claim, and some do. Are we prepared to renounce our claims and go back to Europe? Do you think Europe wants us all back?

The way of the world has always been that those who can hold and keep a place are the rightful owners, not just those whose ancestors were there first. Maybe an ideal world would not be thus, but this world has never been perfect and — news flash — it never can be.

The English, or more properly the Anglo-Normans have been in Ireland since the 12th century. The Twelfth Century. That’s what, nine centuries ago? Nearly a millennium. Nine hundred years.

And if four centuries is not enough to consider the Ulster folk as natives, then just how many centuries, or millennia, does it take? Stubbornness is one thing, but this goes beyond stubbornness.

There is an Irish Republic only because the British got tired of being harried by Irish uprisings and agreed to give them a Republic — which the Irish are now, ironically, willingly ceding to Third Worlders. Ironic in the extreme, and exasperating. How are the present colonizers of Ireland preferable to the Anglo-Normans or their English successors? Apparently their presence is more agreeable to the Irish, so I can’t waste many tears on the fate of Ireland since they are willing to be colonized and overwhelmed numerically, eventually.

The fact is, I happen to like the Irish as people but I fail to understand the mindset at work there.

In my opinion the Ulster folk have a long-established right to be in Ireland. Where would they go? They are much like the Boers; what country would take them in? Not the USA because we give preference to third worlders, as does Canada, and the rest of the Western World. The Ulster folk have a right to exist and Northern Ireland has been their home as long as this continent has been the home of my lineage out of Britain.

Americans for some reason — perhaps because of the very vocal presence of so many Irish-Americans — tend to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of the Irish, with no regard for the actual history of the conflict there, with little awareness of what the issues are.

One more postscript:with all due respect, to me it’s almost as strange that so many English or British harbor a hatred for Normans and anyone of known Norman descent (which includes many Americans, if they only knew it). I say the same thing here: 1066 was a long, long, time ago, long enough to count the Normans and their descendants as belonging in Britain as much as anyone else. If people of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, can be included, why not those of Norman descent? The Normans, after all, were close kindred genetically, and apparently there is no easy way to distinguish those of Norman descent based on DNA.

When one’s country is being inundated with very disparate peoples it would seem an inopportune time to ‘Other’ the people who have been part of the population for a thousand years.

If it’s still acceptable to hate the Normans for whatever reason, then I guess the Irish can go on hating Strongbow and those who followed him, after all these centuries. How long can these hatreds be kept going? Wouldn’t burying the hatchet be a good move in this troubled time?

I suppose, if millennia-long grudges are the thing, then the American Indians have a right to hate Whites and to demand the whole North American continent back because — it isn’t fair that the other guys won.

Meanwhile, Mr. Kapur, the ‘British-Indian’ director, in trying to make a point in favor of his actual countrymen in India has made a historical faux pas; if only people could learn some historical lessons by this silly controversy.

English America?

Under the blog title above, on the header, you see the phrase ‘English America.’ It’s a simple enough phrase, and it was once taken for granted, but today everything has to be argued all over again, and ‘proven’ to those who were not properly educated in our failing educational system, or who have been mind-conditioned by the media.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

There is some confusion, not just about ‘English America’, but also about the South and its place within America, amongst the younger generations. Many of them have somehow been taught that the South does not include Texas, whereas there was formerly no confusion about this: Texas considered itself part of the South; after all, Texas was part of the Confederacy. The school of thought which denies this makes Texas something of an orphan amongst the States, though the people who hold this view maintain that Texas is part of the Southwest.

Why does it matter? Well, history matters. Truth matters.

I think it is the same kind of crowd who like to rewrite history according to some political agenda they have; these people exist on the right as well as on the left.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

“Somewhere near or at the location of the present international boundary on the south, is the logical (geographic) line of demarcation betweeen English America and Latin America. A glance at a rainfall map, a plant map, a crop map, and a population map of North America shows clearly that Texas is in every respect a continuation of the South that lies east of the Sabine [River]. Geographically, Texas is peripheral to Mexico and continuous with America.” – from A.E. Parkins, The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, 1938

In the quote above, Parkins does not specifically mention the culture of the South, but I believe it applies culturally and ethnically too.

Though there were many Scots-Irish and ‘Celtic Irish’ from Southern Ireland who came to Texas as settlers and colonists, I see no reason to believe that the demographics of the original colonists who were invited to settle Texas were any different from those of the South overall.  Until the late 20th century (that is, very recently) few people questioned the general belief that the South was Anglo-Saxon. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon South’ persistently recurs. It was accepted as true by the older generations who were closer to their roots and who knew who they were. That in itself is more convincing than the word of a few writers and ‘activists’ with an agenda of their own.

If the culture of the original Southern states, since their inception as colonies, was Anglo-Saxon in origin, then this is also true of Texas, as it shares, for the most part, the broader Southern culture: a shared history, shared culinary habits, political leanings.  And then, for another example, the speech and dialect of Texas was very much Southern; not surprising since most of the original Texas colonists came from Southern states. As I mentioned, Texas was part of the Confederacy, and has, until the reign of ‘political correctness’, been very proud of our Confederate forefathers.

Another feature which makes Texas a part of the South culturally is that it is part of the Bible Belt, so-called, and most of the population is Protestant. This is a big factor which distinguishes the South from the other regions, and also the kinds of Protestantism which historically dominated in the South differ from the Northern varieties of Protestantism in style if not in substance.

But isn’t Texas heavily Hispanic, and wasn’t it always populated by lots of Mexicans? The answer is yes, thanks to uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal, Texas is now much more Hispanic than it was in the colonial days, or even into the latter part of the last century. There were once, believe it or not, areas of Texas where few Hispanics lived. But when the original colonies of White Americans began in Texas, there were few Mexicans; the Spanish had been unable to subdue the fractious Comanches and the Anglo colonists, known for having dealt with Indian aggressions successfully were brought in to help get this under control.

Texas in recent years has been much more open to Hispanic influence on the local culture, thanks in part to political correctness and the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to their Hispanic neighbors. But that does not nullify the fact that Texas was part of English America — though whether it remains so, and will remain so, is up in the air.

Do present-day demographics, though, make Texas ‘Hispanic’ more than Anglo? Maybe in those areas where Mexicans are the majority, and the White population has either moved away or adapted themselves to Mexican ways.

But if we say Texas is no longer ‘part of the South’ or part of Anglo-America because of demographics, could the same argument be used to say Louisiana is not part of the South? After all, it has a very large black/Creole population, and also many Cajuns in South Louisiana, people with a distinct culture who until fairly recently were French speakers — as well as being mostly Catholic, unlike the rest of the South. However I don’t think that is even a persuasive argument; the Cajuns have maintained their culture to a great degree (though they have been ‘enriched’ with illegal immigrants in Cajun country, to some extent) but they are also very Southern, and have not rejected the larger American society, or adopted the ‘victimhood’ mentality so popular amongst most ethnic minorities everywhere. My experience is that they see themselves as American (and Southron) as well as Cajun. Louisiana, though demographically different, is part of the South. And even Louisiana has a large Anglo population in the Northern part of the State.

The people make the place, however, and if the demographics of all the Southern states keep changing, with fewer White old-stock people represented, then these states will lose their original identity in proportion to the demographic changes. Nonetheless the past can’t be changed; these states were part of English America, and the original Anglo-Celtic culture of the South is still there as long as there are enough of the people who created that culture.



Jefferson on immigration

From the Identity Dixie blog, a nice piece on the immigration views of one of our English-descended forefathers, Thomas Jefferson.

These days it seems a rare thing to find, on a right-wing or alt-right blog, any favorable mentions of Thomas Jefferson. One blog in particular (which will be nameless) has a few commenters who accuse Jefferson of everything from the old canard about his siring children by a slave, to having ‘thrown open the gates to immigrants‘.

From the Identity Dixie post, we read Jefferson’s own arguments against mass importation of foreigners, and the possible deleterious effects of doing that — which is, of course, just what our derelict rulers are doing right now. Too bad none of them seem to have read Jefferson’s wise words, from Notes on the State of Virginia.

“But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The writer of the blog piece, Lpantera, points out the important fact, often forgotten in this era of the ‘proposition nation’ dogma, that nations (that is, peoples) produce governments, not the other way around, as often implied by the ignorant. The people make the place; a country (including its government) is its people.

And just what kind of people produced our original system of government? Yes, I have repeated it often here, and I will say it as long as other people continue to make opposing claims about who the original American people were, and who the ‘posterity’ of the founders are:

What nation produced the American government, this unique entity in the world? The English nation – the Anglo-Saxon people upheld as the racial basis for the whole of the South by every vocal defender of the South from Calhoun to Davis right up to Governor Wallace and Sam Dickson. What happens if this people is displaced? What is the result of importing en masse a foreign horde from a part of the world in which despotism is the only experienced reality they have? Precisely what history has demonstrated, precisely the result Jefferson predicts: a nation that has been warped, rendered into a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass”.

And yes, it’s good to remember that historically, this was the majority view, taken for granted by most Southron people: the fact of the Anglo-Saxon South.

It matters. Truth always matters.





On an ‘Anglo-American Union’

W.T. Stead wrote, in the preface to his ‘Anglo-American Union’:

“The advent of the United States of America as the greatest of world-Powers is the greatest political, social, and commercial phenomenon of our times. For some years past we have all been more or less dimly conscious of its significance. It is only when we look at the manifold manifestations of the exuberant energy of the United States, and the world-wide influence which they are exerting upon the world in general and the British Empire in particular, that we realise how comparatively insignificant are all the other events of our time.

This survey is intensely interesting to all men, but it is of transcendant [sic] importance for my own countrymen. For we are confronted by the necessity of taking one of those momentous decisions which decide the destiny of our country. Unless I am altogether mistaken, we have an opportunity — probably the last which is to be offered us — of retaining our place as the first of world-Powers. If we neglect it, we shall descend slowly but irresistibly to the position of Holland and of Belgium. No one who contemplates with an impartial mind the array of facts now submitted to his attention, will deny that I have at least made out a very strong prima facie case in support of my contention that, unless we can succeed in merging the British Empire in the English-speaking United States of the World, the disintegration of our Empire, and our definite displacement from the position of commercial and financial primacy is only a matter of time, and probably a very short time. If, on the other hand, we substitute for the insular patriotism of our nation the broader patriotism of the race, and frankly throw in our lot with the Americans to realise the great ideal of Race Union, we shall enter upon a new era of power and prosperity the like of which the race has never realised since the world began. But ‘if before our duty we, with listless spirit, stand,’ the die will be cast, and we must reconcile ourselves as best we can to accept a secondary position in a world in which we have hitherto played a leading role.

If, on the contrary, we are resolute and courageous, we have it in our power to occupy a position of vantage, in which we need fear no foe and dread no rival. We shall continue on a wider scale to carry out the providential mission which has been entrusted to the English-speaking Race, whose United States will be able to secure the peace of the World.

It is, therefore, in no spirit of despair, but rather with joyful confidence and great hope that I commend this book to my fellow countrymen.

December, 1901,
W.T. Stead”

Obviously, Stead’s proposal of an Anglo-American Union was not to be, and Stead probably had little inkling of the coming two disastrous World Wars which would be so costly, in both lives and treasure,  to England and the British Empire overall. He probably couldn’t have envisioned the loss of the Empire with the decolonialization following the wars, and the ill-considered move to open Britain to the multiracial, polyglot peoples of the ‘Commonwealth’. This got under way in earnest in 1948, with the arrival of the Windrush, with its human cargo presaging the ‘diversity imperative’ of the post-war years.

It wasn’t until years later that the Labour government had decided (according to the words of Jack Straw) to ‘rub the nose of the [British] Right in diversity’. As we can see, though, this push to ‘multiculturalize’ Britain was already well under way by the 1990s. Britain and the indigenous English had already been somewhat conditioned, gradually, to accept this change. Just as in the United States, we had long been conditioned to believe that our country was a ‘melting pot’ of first, Europe’s peoples, and then the peoples of the entire planet, as the decades went by.

Various justifications were, and have been, offered as to why we ‘have to’ open our countries up to an array of peoples from every corner of the globe, and why this must be accelerated, regardless of its effect on us and on our children’s future prospects. Most often we are told that the ‘world is growing smaller, and we have to function as a ”global community”; that we can’t be independent and self-sufficient any longer in a ‘global society’. We can no longer have the luxury of freedom of assocation as invididuals nor can we, as nations, associate only with those we choose; we must be utterly indiscriminate.

Yet if this world still made sense, it would be most sensible to have closest ties with those who are of common origin with us, who speak the same language and share, to some degree, a similar culture and customs. Why then did Britain and the United States, despite the long (but now weakened) ‘special relationship’ between our countries, choose to go in the opposite direction? Why did both our countries choose to welcome utter strangers, with whom we have little to nothing in common (except 46 chromosomes, it seems) rather than to have sought, long ago, to enter into some kind of reciprocal relationship? Why did both countries (as well as the other countries of the Anglosphere) coincidentally go for the ‘diversity, one-world’ option? Of course my question is mostly rhetorical.

W.T. Stead’s idea of an Anglo-American United States may have been a misguided notion; it might not have been workable. There are many reasons why; in part, it may be that because both our nations, being stiff-necked and proud, regarded one another as rivals or competitors, and each of our nations’ governments felt the need to ‘prove’ something to the other. Americans have long been taught, implicitly if not explicitly, that our ‘democratic republic’ was far superior to the outdated system of the mother country; we were more committed to ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ than our poor British cousins, who were mere ‘subjects’ , while we are ‘citizens of a free republic.’

Pride, and petty rivalry.

I am not sure that a “United States of the World’ will ever exist; if so, it will not be the nation most of us were born into. I am an ethnonationalist and not a pan-Europeanist. But it does seem baffling and counter-intuitive that we choose to join with strangers rather than kinsmen.

Teddy Roosevelt’s view of America’s founding stock

Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reality, quotes Teddy Roosevelt on America’s founding stock.

“[O]n the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already become an Anglo-Briton . . . It must always be kept in mind that the Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the great English race, which both before and after their separation have assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples. . .

I agree with much of what Roosevelt says above, but the last sentence is something I have reservations about. I’ve bolded the pertinent part.  Obviously Roosevelt was more of a ‘civic nationalist’ and judging by what he says about the Americans and British ‘making Englishmen of many other  peoples‘ he believed in the melting pot, and in the limitless possibility of assimilating many disparate peoples. He may just have been using a little hyperbole when he says many other peoples were ‘made Englishmen‘ by assimilation. But whether or not he meant that phrase metaphorically, it’s been treated as truth by many people in the years since those words were written.

Oftentimes the civic nationalists in both the United States and in Britain have expressed the belief that if only, say, Moslems ‘assimilated’, learned good English, and ‘moderated’ their religious beliefs and cultures, they will be full members of their host countries. Is everyone assimilable, given the right instructions in how to be a ‘good citizen’ of America or of any Western country? It’s an article of faith in the religion that is civic nationalism, but there seems to be little evidence that it’s true.

One more thing I noticed about the quote from Roosevelt about what makes an ‘Anglo-American’: it seems that his views have become widely accepted in America now; everybody who is of northwestern European stock and who speaks English as their native language is now, for a lot of people, an ‘Anglo’ or ‘Anglo-American.’ Well, that’s very inclusive and all, but doesn’t that deprive those who are actually of English or British descent of their ethnic identity?