Do Anglo-Americans reject their identity?

At least one online commenter asserts this is true. Below is the comment from a blog, (with the commenter’s name blocked out):

This kind of thing turns up on blogs here and there; it must be a somewhat widespread idea. Another allegation is that (Anglo or WASP) Americans “have no culture’.

I don’t know who this commenter has spoken to, or if he has even been to our country; I also wonder what kind of sample of ‘Old Stock’ English-Americans he’s met or talked to.

We’ve been sort of written out of the script in our own country, as it were. Many people whose families were here before the American Revolution identify as just ‘American.’ Many English-Americans from the South identify with their state; Texas used to be like that. Texas, after all, was an independent country in its early history, and it did seem as though it were a world of its own. The South in general is, or used to be, distinctive. That part of the country, especially the Southeastern states, was settled by English Cavaliers, as contrasted to the very middle class colonists of New England. So not all English- or British-Americans have the same origins, which in part explains their varying cultures.

The Ulster folk who settled parts of the Southeast, the Appalachian mountains, are also a culture to themselves.

Do English-Americans have no culture then, or are their original culture and folkways gone and forgotten? My answer would be ‘no’, because I don’t believe that the old ways are dead, but they may be on life support in some places.

Another issue is that America is a country that emphasizes individuality at the expense of group identity, and this may be a natural tendency of Anglo-Saxons. Scots-Americans, including the Ulster folk who settled here, have their cultural events and I think they are more likely to express their identity than Anglos.

But for WASPs or English-Americans, the fact that we’ve been declared people without a culture or identity is not conducive to maintaining our identity. Speaking for myself, though, I have no problem telling people about my ancestry. I certainly would not consider it an “insult”as the comment writer I quoted at the beginning. I don’t know anyone who would.

It’s true that some Americans have an obvious hostility towards the people of Britain — let me correct that: I should have said ‘the people of England; that’s more specific and accurate. Online commenters, bolstered by anonymity, feel free to spill their feelings, sometimes in very unpleasant ways. The English royals are especially targeted for harsh criticism, but then there are many American women who dote on royalty and all the glamorous trappings.

Some Americans of English descent, because of all the negativity towards the English, may downplay their ancestry. And many Americans don’t really know their ancestry except in the vaguest terms. Because of propaganda many White Americans, including some Anglo-Americans, would rather be something more exotic than “boring” “whitebread” WASPs, as the stereotypes portray them.

Many people seem surprised to be told that so much of American culture, things we take for granted, are English (or British) in origin. Maybe people think that these aspects of our culture original to America, and were ‘invented’ out of whole cloth right here in America. It’s as if people think that when we separated from England, we had to invent a new culture from scratch, just to distinguish ourselves as a nation, to be different from our Mother Country. (Actually, there was a touch of this attitude in Noah Webster’s changing the spelling of many English words; Noah Webster thought Americans

‘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.

‘Who controls the past…’

Recently I wrote of how the history of Britain was being re-written by the diversity-obsessed left, using the complicit media to propagate false information. As an example I cited the numerous movies and TV shows depicting blacks and Moslems showing up in the Robin Hood story, as well as a black or mulatto Guinevere in the ‘Merlin’ series of a few years ago.

Now the BBC is lying to children in its recent series about Roman Britain, in which the main purpose of the lessons seems to be to convince gullible children that Britain has always been heavily populated by blacks and other nonwhite races.

BBC lies-horzDo the propaganda merchants really believe that everyone will fall for these outlandish lies? Sadly, too many will simply accept these false representations, mostly the young, who have deliberately been maleducated and force-fed these contrived deceptions. The population across the generations have been so mind-conditioned over the last several decades that they too are slowly acquiescing and accepting what they, deep-down, must know is not true.

As of now, there are still many images of life in Britain before the onslaught of mass immigration, images showing a White Britain, with little ‘diversity’ to be seen anywhere, at least, not diversity in a racial sense. There are You Tube videos (as long as they are allowed to remain up, on politically correct You Tube) showing London, now heavily non-white, as a decidely White city. There are books with photos showing the true Britain of old, before ‘diversity’ set in.

But will such resources continue to be allowed, considering that they contradict the ‘false history’ cooked up by the UK propaganda-pushers and diversity Kommissars? I doubt it, sadly.

Here in America, some years ago (after the 2008 election) there was a story that showed up in some news outlets about some kind of government edict that all books, textbooks I believe, published before a certain year, were to be recalled from libraries, schools, and even second-hand booksellers. They were to be destroyed, and the reason given was that these old textbooks had some kind of toxic materials.(!)I’ve done internet searches to find these articles (which I blogged about back then) and come up empty. So is it being done, this destruction of old books? I suspect it is, though I can’t prove it. The local library where I live appears to have purged a lot of classic books, choosing to focus on more current popular tripe, stuff that will probably be of only passing interest, as well as buying lots of pop-culture materials like rap/hip-hop CDs and other such high culture. There is also a recent dearth of old books at the local thrift shop which used to be a real treasure-trove of old and rare books. Where are all these books going? To landfills, or to be burned, as one librarian tells on her blog. She justifies getting rid of old books because they are dated; they are too politically incorrect — for example, a book that recommends traditional female roles, or a book from long ago which states that the races have evolved unequally. Can’t have books like that around in case someone gets ideas, or starts to question the diversity dogma, and the egalitarian faith.

So the establishment, which is the left now, wants to remove the truth from the marketplace of ideas, and wants to prevent people from even dreaming of other ways of looking at things, ways that conflict with the coerced ‘diversity’ dogma that is force-fed to us and our children.

And not being satisfied with that, they want to erase the past and replace it with this grotesque parody, in which Britain was always multiracial, never a predominantly White country, never a Christian country, never homogeneous, never the home of a particular people with a distinct way of life, a way which is being destroyed relentlessly.

Do the ‘Mary Beards’ and all the other propaganda hacks really believe the lies they churn out and defend? To the left, there is no objective truth; it’s just whatever suits their purpose. It’s all relative, and the past is what they make it, in their eyes anyway.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.”

The same process is occuring in all Western, White majority countries. Thanks to the orchestrated ‘refugee’ invasion, these countries will not be majority White for long, as there is no end in sight to the invasion. Maybe this is why the powers-that-be, with their controlled media, are working so hard to condition the indigenous British to accept minority status and second-class (at best) citizenship in their rightful country.

An excerpt of a comment that appeared on Vox Day’s blog:

“It’s a direct, deliberate effort to extinguish all sense of European history as anything distinct or even European.

They are attempting to erase our own identity from us, to cut us loose and make us the descendants of foreigners.

They are scum, and this is a deliberate, profoundly evil, genocidally motivated attack on even the MEMORY of our existence. An effort to obliterate past whites as thoroughly as they want to obliterate the current ones.”

And (apologies for quoting myself), as I wrote on the King Arthur post:

“This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen.”

 

A nation with no borders?

“The White Nation has no borders. It is an international community. A “committee of the whole” the whole being the entire White race, worldwide.”

The above was a comment posted on a pro-White/White nationalist forum a couple of years ago; I saved some of the comments because they are very illustrative of the confusion many White people display when talking about their race and ethnicity.

The comments I quote were made anonymously; many of the commenters were British.  The original post seems to have been from an American of mixed European nationalities, namely Italian, Irish, and French-Canadian. She says that all Europeans are of the same race and that there is no reason not to mix ethnicities because she includes all of them as part of ‘her’ race, adding the cliche about there being ‘no pure races in the 21st century’; everyone, in her view is equally mixed, and strangely, she says that only one’s recent ancestry makes us who we are; our entire ancestral line is irrelevant, only recent ancestors count.

This person is somewhat typical of a lot of Americans of mixed heritage; they often adopt a very defensive attitude, or a chip on the shoulder about their ancestry, and seem to need to assert that ‘nobody is pure anything’; we are all just mixed and what does it matter anyway?

Another self-described ‘mixed’ person says

 

I think thats delusional, in our day and age, to say germans with germans, british with british, Swedes with Swedes etc…

Do you think there is abundant of pure breed Europeans left ? I don’t think so. We are lucky to have mixed race sub-european races left on earth. “

This commenter adds that Europeans seem to identify with their ethnicity more than their race — which is the natural thing, in my opinion — while Americans see themselves as White first, then as their ethnicity, which he seems to think is preferable.

Among the British commenters, someone brings up the subject of Eastern European immigration to Britain. Polish is now the second-most-spoken language in Britain, a fact that many Americans are surprised to hear — though they think the mass immigration is fine — as do some British people, but not all. This exchange occurs between some British commenters:

“I’m really not bothered by fellow European immigration, at least to a degree. If it wasn’t for the Poles coming to Britain, it’d be a damn sight less white. I wish them great success anyway, I’d love to join them. Oh, that’s good for you. I wish Poles in Poland all the luck in the world.”

A response:

“You do realize that Poles in Britain are not British? All Europeans are not the same sorry. I am sorry we don’t live in some utopian world where everyone is accepted, oh crap I forgot, we do live in a jew world where every “immigrant” is accepted. BTW, I would also like to add that the English are different from all the other British peoples as well. There is no shame in real diversity. ”

The above comment makes an important point: the English are a distinct people, and they are, ironically, some of the most marginalized in their own country.

On White (Eastern Europeans) coming to Britain, this sarcastic response:

“Yes but at least they’re White and they’re all uber ultra mega super White Nationalists who are all coming over here to offset the White minority[…] and help us reclaim our nations! They’re all better White Nationalists than us anyway doncha know? Heck when they were born their first words were the 14 words! Geez come on its White Pride World Wide!

Doncha know its against the rules to criticise other White groups […]

I mean yeah if it was non Whites coming over to do the exact same thing then yeah our indignation would be justified but these guys are White and therefore its alright!

Just remember the 28 words. “we must sacrifice our own childrens futures in our own nations for the benefit of every parasite and economic mercenary who lands here as long as they’re White.”

There does seem to be some division amongst British people as to the presence of colonies of Polish immigrants. If nothing else, this kind of immigration divides the native-born people, as it has in America as well; White Americans are divided, with those who argue fiercely in favor of the immigrants vs. the ‘nativists’. Mass immigration can often be a divisive and polarizing thing  for the host societies. Maybe that is one ‘feature’ that the elites like about introducing strangers by the millions into White majority countries.

In response to a comment calling for more Eastern Europeans (instead of non-whites) to immigrate to the U.S., a Southern  American poster responds:

“I’m so sick of this idiotic reasoning. No one should have to choose which group of immigrants pours into his country. Dixie does not need or want immigrants. Period. The idea that one group of immigrants is better than another is absurd because it accepts the internationalist position that there must be immigrants at all. Mississippians, like Southerners in general, are an Anglo-Saxon people. Large-scale immigration from eastern Europe will replace Mississippians and end our civilisation. The blacks are not half as much a worry as people here make them out to be. Southerners have always known how to deal with blacks. We could do so again if we were not ruled by outsiders. It is white outsiders who have always caused us problems. The most certain way to end Dixie’s racialism is to fill Dixie with non-Southern whites. Look to the liberal bastions of Maryland, northern Virginia, Delaware, and southern Florida to see what a South populated by white outsiders looks like. It is pure fantasy to think that a white melting pot white turn into fertile ground for a racialist uprising. Your fantasy is effectively promoting Southern genocide and declaring that the Southern people – who have always been leaders of racialism on this continent – are too incompetent to do anything without the help of mass immigration.”

I second much of what this commenter says.

I especially like that he emphasizes the fact that most Southern Americans are an Anglo-Saxon people. That needs to be emphasized for the sake of the truth.

Too many people, as he says, have accepted the idea that immigration is inevitable; it’s a given, and we are lucky if we can only choose which kind of immigration we want; which group of strangers we want introduced en masse into our stable communities.

Why is immigration a given, a must? Why do so few of us question its inevitability, even as our communities and neighborhoods are changed beyond recognition?

My concern is that our people will slowly acclimate to this constant flow of outsiders and strangers, and the slow transformation of our world into something we hardly recognize. I see signs of it happening, and the more intermarriage and social fraternizing (part of the ‘integration’ that our political classes insist on) the more enmeshed will we become with the others, so that we are no longer a people.

The ‘White nation’ with no borders described in the opening paragraph of this post cannot be a nation if it has no borders and no fences.

Is there a place for our religious heritage…

In a restored West? If we are able to successfully stop the globalist juggernaut and if we can secure the continued existence of our people and a future for our children, is there a place for our Christian heritage and traditions?

There are a number of persistent voices which answer a vehement ‘no!’ to that question. As blogger “Hengest” at Faith and Heritage writes, Christianity is, according to some, a debilitating thing which has sapped our strength and our will.

In another thought-provoking post, Hengest answers those charges in his piece, titled Alfred Against the Vikings: Then and Now. 

Hengest quotes from G.K. Chesterton’s poem, Ballad of the White Horse, which Hengest describes as an allegory of the conflict between Christianity and nihilism, a conflict which he perceives as with us still today — on which I agree with him. Those on the right who oppose Christianity and the Christian heritage of Europe seem to want to jettison our heritage as being so much baggage, and as being a feminizing influence, a failed belief system. In its place they would put — what? Any number of post-modern belief systems, political ‘isms’, non-Christian religions-of-convenience, (seen as mere means to an end; some say we ‘need a new religion’ and they seem to believe we can cook one up to order, preferably one that is appropriately martial). But as I’ve written before, religion cannot be created out of whole cloth, to order. A religious tradition can’t be conjured up overnight. It took millennia to create the civilization that was Europe, or Christendom.

England was, up until the mid-20th century at least, still a country with a strong Christian heritage. The two World Wars, in which Christendom bore the brunt of the destruction, seem to have produced a loss of faith amongst many of the European people, including the English. It would not be impossible to revive the ‘faith of our fathers’ in Europe; it is not completely extinct, though it is obviously quiescent. But once that faith was at the heart of European civilization; now that it is all but gone, the heart seems to have gone out of Europe.

“We are told that if we Christians would just let go of our Savior and King, we could make our way unencumbered toward the New Right utopia of a race-conscious, agnostic white superman. This is a difference only in degree from the Christless, traditionless, monochromatic, mocha-skinned utopia promised to us by the globalists and liberals. If we would just let go of any meaningful attachment to our people and religion, we would have world peace. Both of these utopias are based on wholesome, but warped, values and flattery of different sorts of pride”

Hengest points out the importance of a living, intact culture to the health of a people:

“There are very few, if any, historical examples of one people resisting another without an intact culture, which always includes religion. The fork in the road appearing in America and the rest of the West is between an organic cultural revival for our various peoples, and an artificial utopian vision touted as a cure by cosmopolitans quite understandably disaffected with what our civilization has become.”

The ‘proposition nation’ for White people, championed by the secular right, seems just as unnatural as the ‘global community’ which is being forced upon us. Hengest points out that the secular right, many of whom have wholeheartedly embraced Nietzsche, have plenty of zeal for their cause, but lack a real connection to the people they claim to represent. This is something that is seldom addressed.

Not only is an organic, living culture necessary to the continued existence of a healthy folk but in order for this to exist, there has to be a core of people connected by a bond of kinship and loyalty. I don’t see much of this sense of loyalty. We often hear the phrase ‘no enemies to the right’ (which should be ‘no enemies to your right’, I think) meaning that there should be a willingness to tolerate differences in the name of loyalty to a cause or a political belief system — but what about loyalty to blood and to kin and kind? There’s not much of that out there.

Much of the division amongst us is based on political, religious, and generational animosity. If we could reclaim the faith and the outlook that sustained many generations of our fathers, this situation would not exist. If we were united by faith and once again regained a sense of brotherhood and loyalty amongst our own, and a common purpose and goal, we would not be easy prey as we are now.

Interestingly, there was also a recent piece at Faith and Heritage, written by Adi, in which he reports that there is an upsurge in ‘British nationalism’ which is tied to a ‘revival of Christianity’ in Britain. While that sounds like welcome news, I will take it with a grain of salt until there are more visible signs of it. Adi writes that it is supposedly the younger generation which is receptive to ‘British nationalism’ and Christianity. But which Christianity? The liberal, politically correct kind we have here in the U.S.? Or the real Christianity? And does British nationalism mean civic nationalism? It almost has to; the term ‘British’ includes not just English, but Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and Northern Irish (Ulster) folk. The Welsh, Scots, and Cornish have their own particularistic nationalisms whose interests are often in conflict with those of the English. Also there are probably millions of immigrants from many countries who hold British passports, as well as their children born in Britain, and they can legally claim to be ‘British’. England needs a true English nationalism. I am hoping for a day when the English can be a nation as  it once was, with its own identity. Christianity prescribes that a people choose their leaders from amongst their own people; Britain has had a succession of Scots and others as Prime Ministers, with few Englishmen in that role in recent years.

And are the ‘young’ in Britain (which age group?) more receptive to ethnonationalism? The only true English nationalists I’m aware of are men of middle age or so, people who remember a time before the madness set in. I am not aware of many young people who are so inclined; they have no experience of it. However I would be more than glad to be proven wrong on that score.

Ulster and Dixie

Every year on this day, July 12th, the people of Ulster — or at least the Unionists, celebrate the Battle of the Boyne, which was a victory for King William of Orange, and a defeat for King James II.

“The Battle marked a turning point in Protestant history in the country. Over the years the day has also been marked by sectarian violence between pro-Unionist groups and pro-Republican forces.[…]

Why is there often trouble surrounding Orange Day?

Ulster’s population is split roughly in half between those from the Protestant and Catholic communities.

For Orangemen, this almost a sacred day has been associated with violent scenes almost since the beginning. Starting before the Twelfth, the Orange Order and other Ulster loyalist marching bands hold large parades along routes decorated with British flags. Huge bonfires are lit. Many Protestants argue the marches are a cultural event.”

This history is not taught much in American schools, so the many Americans of Ulster ancestry are often not conversant with it. It should be better-known so that people here in the States might understand the history of the conflicts there through the centuries. Most Americans have simply heard that it’s Irishman-against-Irishman, with the only differences being over religious doctrine. That isn’t strictly true, because the conflict, though having a religious component, is more about ethnic and historical differences. Put most simply, the ‘Celtic’ Irish see the Ulster Protestants as interlopers, being descendants of those who came to Ireland as part of the Ulster Plantation, which placed Protestants from Scotland and the border counties of England in Ireland as colonists.

Many people in the Southern states claim mostly Ulster ancestry, or at least partially, and it is good to see that there is increasing awareness about the South’s links to Ulster. As I’ve tried to demonstrate on this blog, the Ulster folk were not all Scots, nor were they mainly Irish as we understand Irish; they were in many cases English, that is, of Anglo-Saxon descent, though few Americans seem to know this.

It seems as though there is an increasing awareness of these roots on the part of many people from Dixie, and it’s gratifying to see this. At the Ulster Awake blog, there’s a nice piece about the bond between Southron Americans of Ulster descent and the Ulster folk. It’s encouraging to see the photos of the murals and other tributes to their common roots.

It’s good to see that the Confederate Battle Flag is being displayed there by some Ulster folk as a mark of their solidarity with their Southron cousins, and I hope they continue to stand up against the propaganda onslaught, which apparently is taking place on that side of the Atlantic as well as on the American side.

Solidarity amongst all the Anglosphere peoples is a good thing; I hope it increases, but in order for that to happen, more of us have to become aware of our roots and our commonalities.

Defacing the past

The King Arthur lore is part of our culture even in America — although all such ‘Eurocentric’ materials are probably going to be casualties of political correctness if they haven’t already been banished from our school curricula. However there’s more than one way to ‘kill’ our European heritage, and just exiling it to the outer darkness, excluding it from our culture, is perhaps a less satisfying method for the left. It seems they would prefer to deface and distort our heritage, our folklore and legends and heroes, and the “entertainment” media have been busily doing that for some decades now.

Back in 2008 or so, there was a British TV series about King Arthur and Queen Guinevere — and Merlin; I think the series was titled ‘Merlin’, and it gave us a multicultural, multiracial Camelot, with Queen Guinevere played by a mixed-race (black/White?) actress. Recently, Guy Ritchie, the former Mr. Madonna, concocted yet another of these politically corrected travesties, with a ‘diverse and inclusive’ Round Table. Sir Bedivere is played by a black actor with an apparently African name. I suppose when the Norse god Thor has already been Africanized, why not Sir Bedivere too? Soon Arthur himself will be played by a black actor. Why not? Verisimilitude and accuracy are irrelevant to this crowd of vandals who make movies and TV series, and Ritchie is decidedly on the side of those who want to rewrite the past — even though in this case it may be a semi-legendary world being depicted.

One reviewer, at Forbes.com, writes of the Ritchie film:

“Let’s start by talking about the out of place and anachronistic things that repeatedly take us out of the film, which caused me so much eye-rolling I was getting dizzy. This story is set around the 5th Century, and yet Arthur grows up watching mixed martial artists with a highly diverse and multicultural Fight Club in his neighborhood (this isn’t a complaint about diversity, it’s just the fact literally nobody even remarks upon it at all or notices, and there’s no attempt to really even offer a passing explanation for this, when explanations would’ve added greater backstory and characterization and flavor to those proceedings). Arthur also wears red-brown leather pants and hip stylized jackets that look like he raided Jim Morrison’s wardrobe, has a slick hipster haircut and goatee, and uses casual modern slang (when asked several questions about himself, he replies, “Why, you writing a book?”).”

The same sort of treatment was given to a BBC series  The Tudors about 10 years ago; the ‘modern’ hipster look, haircuts that belong more to our time period than to the days of Henry VII and Elizabeth I. But the anachronisms of outward style grate far less than this crazy, arbitrary imposition of ”diversity” on medieval Britain. And the writer above questions the lack of explanation for it; it needs no explanation; diversity just is, or it must be imposed and shoehorned in, regardless of how implausible and just plain surreal it is. But the BBC, being a crowd of lefty ideologues, have no regard for fact or truth; ideology, their ideology must be served, first and foremost, and the truth be damned.

And the whole apparatus of the ‘British’ government and media are brought to bear to convince at least the up-and-coming generations that ‘‘Britain has always been diverse. England was always multicultural and multiracial. There was a black soldier in Queen Victoria’s army, didn’t you know that?

Sadly the younger generations will grow up knowing no better, and believing that Britain has always been the home of all races, and from that they will conclude that everybody in Britain probably has mixed ancestry; they will believe, as the powers-that-be want them to, that they likely have some distant African or Middle Eastern or even South Asian genetics.

This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen. Telling people that they are ‘citizens of the world’ or ‘just a mongrel nation’ leaves them bereft of any real ethnic and racial identity.

All the media and government deception is meant to weaken the cohesion and the viability of the English (and other British) people, that is, the rightful inhabitants of Britain. And for what? So that the globalist megalomaniacs can have a deracinated, blended, passive group of people over whom they can rule.

Who speaks for England?

Robert Henderson at England Calling wrote an informative piece back in 2015, asking the question ‘Who will speak for England?‘ The obvious answer to that question should logically be ‘the English, of course’. But as I’ve written here before, the English identity, versus the inclusive ‘British’ identity, is being discouraged from being expressed.

The piece goes into some detail as to just how England’s interests are being neglected in favor of the interests of the ‘minority’ groups in the UK — and yes, the Scottish people are counted as an ‘ethnic minority’ in the UK.

As Henderson writes, the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh were favored, according to the 2015 formula for treasury disbursements, over the English. There has been a lot of hand-wringing in the media about what would happen to the UK if the Scots, for example, decided to become independent. Of course they have a financial incentive to remain in the UK, and that in part explains their reluctance to opt for independence in the past referendum.

It’s hard to fathom how the English became the red-headed stepchildren in their own country, lacking a Parliament of their own, and financially disadvantaged by the UK treasury.

I can’t help seeing parallels (although not exact) with the status of Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are now made to take a back seat to just about everybody else, though we are the core people of this country. I wonder if our English cousins share our chagrin at what has happened.

The English would do well to begin to assert their primacy in the UK as Anglo-Americans would in this country. But it is an uphill struggle to overcome the prevailing idea that we are ‘non-people’ in our own country.

Place names in the British Isles

wordsplaces00tayl_0028sm

The map shows the pattern of settlements by Celts, Saxons, Danes, and Norwegians in the British Isles, as reflected in the place names common to those areas. It’s informative when considering the popular beliefs as to the ethnic makeup of the various regions in Britain and Ireland.

For example, it looks as though the Saxon settlement extended up into the Northeast part of Britain, and those northern regions near Scotland provided a good many of the ‘Ulster plantation’ settlers in Northern Ireland. Obviously (as is already known) those settlers were usually not ‘Celtic’ in origin, as is popularly assumed by many Americans who claim ‘Scots-Irish’ origin.

It also looks as if there was more Danish settlement in Eastern England, which was the place of origin for many New England colonists.

The map is from Isaac Taylor’s ‘Words and Places, or Etymological Illustrations of History, Etymology, and Geography’, London, 1865