The effect of diversity in Britain

At Cambrian Dissenters,  Daniel Thomas writes about the current conflicts over the vandalism to historic statues and the overall effects of ‘diversity’ in the UK.

I watched a little of a live feed of the Nationalists’ demo which attempted to defend the statues, while counter-demonstrators carried ”anti-racist’ signs, depicting the statues’ defenders as motivated by ”racism.” But that’s always the charge: anybody who is not in favor of the left’s destruction of Western civilization is a “racist.” Specifically if you are an individual of insufficient melanin.

What I saw of the demo amounted to nothing much other than the usual monotonous chants and the usual accusatory signs being carried and waved among the crowd. I did notice that the heavily-padded police looked as though many were young females, or maybe diminutive males, but they didn’t look very formidable. I suppose they are not meant to be big or intimidating; it might offend someone and besides women must be included in order to serve “equality”.

But to the content of the Cambrian Dissenters piece: the writer notes that while Britain is subjected to mandates of “diversity”, and the destruction of their honored heroes’ statues,  in India there are statues being erected of that country’s gods and great men. As always, the immigrants have one standard for themselves and one for their host country, Britain. If only England had the confidence they once had, and asserted their national identity. If only.

Apposite excerpts from HPL

“The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself.

Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience.” view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.
–  from The United Amateur, July 1919

 

Old England and the Hyphen

Of the various intentional fallacies exhaled like miasmic vapours from the rotting cosmopolitanism of vitiated American politics, and doubly rife during these days of European conflict, none is more disgusting than that contemptible subterfuge of certain foreign elements whereby the legitimate zeal of the genuine native stock for England’s cause is denounced and compared to the unpatriotic disaffection of those working in behalf of England’s enemies. The Prussian propagandists and Irish irresponsibles, failing in their clumsy efforts to use the United States as a tool of vengeance upon the Mistress of the Seas, have seized with ingenious and unexpected eagerness on a current slogan coined to counteract their own traitorous machinations, and have begun to fling the trite demand “America first” in the face of every American who is unable to share their puerile hatred of the British Empire.

In demanding that American citizens impartially withhold love and allegiance from any government save their own, thereby binding themselves to a policy of rigid coldness in considering the fortunes of their Mother Country, the Prusso-Hibernian herd have the sole apparent advantage of outward technical justification. If the United States were truly the radical, aloof, mongrelised nation into which they idealise it, their plea might possibly be more appropriate. But in comparing the lingering loyalty of a German-American for Germany, or of an Irish-American for Ireland, with that of a native American for England, these politicians make their fundamental psychological error.

England, despite the contentions of trifling theorists, is not and never will be a really foreign country; nor is a true love of America possible without a corresponding love for the British race and ideals that created America. The difficulties which caused the severance of the American Colonies from the rest of the Empire were essentially internal ones, and have no moral bearing on this country’s attitude toward the parent land in its relations with alien civilisations. Just as Robert Edward Lee chose to follow the government of Virginia rather than the Federal Union in 1861, so did the Anglo-American Revolutionary leaders choose local to central allegiance in 1775. Their rebellion was in itself a characteristically English act, and could in no manner annul the purely English origin and nature of the new republic.

American history before the conflict of 1775-1783 is English history, and we are lawful heirs of the unnumbered glories of the Saxon line. Shakespeare and Milton, Dryden and Pope, Young and Thomson, Johnson and Goldsmith, are our own poets; William the Conqueror, Edward the Black Prince, Elizabeth, and William of Nassau are our own royalty; Crecy, Poictiers, and Agincourt are our own victories; Lord Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Sir Robert Boyle, and Sir William Herschel are our own philosophers and scientists; what true American lives, who would wish, by rejecting an Englishman’s heritage, to despoil his country of such racial laurels?

Let those men be silent, who would, in envy, deny to the citizens of the United States the right to cherish and revere the ancestral honours that are theirs, and to remain faithful to the Anglo-Saxon ideals of their English forefathers! Since the establishment of a republic by the Englishmen of the American Colonies, millions of non- British persons have been admitted to share the liberty which English hands created. In many cases, these immigrants have proved valuable accessions, and when accepting fully the ideals of the Anglo-American culture, those of them who are of North European blood have become completely amalgamated with the American people. Germans, in particular, being of identical racial stock, are able to fuse quickly and wholly into the Colonial population. But as they become Americans, so must they also, in a sense, become Englishmen.

When the Elector of Hanover, a thorough German, acceded to the English throne, it was his duty to become an English monarch; and in a similar way it is an obligation of all other non-English individuals, princes or peasants, to adopt Anglo-Saxon ideals when they come to reap the advantages of an Anglo-Saxon nation. That millions of virile Germans have done so, is a gratifying fact to consider. But since alien immigration has far exceeded normal proportions, it is but natural that we have among us an alarmingly vast body of foreigners from various countries who are totally unable to appreciate Anglo-American traditions. If not still attached to their respective nations, they are at least prone to regard the United States as a sort of spontaneously evolved territory without previous history or ancestry.

Forgetting the Saxon inheritance that gave us language, laws, and liberty, they speak of America as a composite nation whose civilisation is a compound of all existing cultures; a melting pot of mongrelism wherein it is a crime for a man to know his own grandfather’s name. They prate of Americanism as something of autochthonous growth, neglecting or unwilling to assign England the credit for its origin; and presuming to blame any citizen who is more just than they in his appreciation of the Mother Land. More guileful immigrants use their “Americanism” as a blind for treason. Leaving their own countries in dissatisfaction, they assume the cloak of American citizenship; organize and finance conspiracies with American money; and finally, with an audacity almost ironical, call upon the United States for help when overtaken by justice!

Half the detestable violence of the Irish “Fenians” and “Sinn Fein” ruffians was hatched in America by those who dare drivel about such a thing as “neutrality”! Others continue to serve their own countries under the all-enveloping American mantle. Prussian-American patriots deep in the sanctimonious circles of “Americanism” and pacifism are at the same time secretly destroying American property for the benefit of the Prussian cause. And these are the sort of worthies who compare their treacherous anti-American acts with the traditional affection of a real American of the land which gave birth to the American nation!

The very small surviving flock of native Fourth-of-July England-haters must not be charged with that moral delinquency which attaches to the foreign agitators. These belated Revolutionists mean well, and are to be tolerated with kindness. They head that amusing element which applauds every Englishman who becomes naturalised in the United States, but which denounces with unmerciful inconsistency every American who, like the late Henry James, renews ancestral ties with Great Britain.

Summing up, we may well declare it folly to taunt the American lover of Old England with the cry of “Hyphenate!” His passion is not, like that of the Prussian or Irish “hyphenate”, based exclusively on personal ancestry; in his affection for the parent Kingdom he is but reiterating his devotion to the ideals of the daughter Republic; he is giving to his country a double loyalty!”

– from The Conservative, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1916

Macron seizes medical supplies?

Breitbart and other sources report that France’s Macron has seized lorries carrying 130,000 masks on their way to UK medical workers, as well as having confiscated supplies of hand sanitizer for the UK.

The move followed hot on the heels of French border guards seizing another heavy goods vehicle carrying hand sanitiser to Britain the day before. The incidents triggered a diplomatic spat between the two countries as Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) struggles against the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.

I haven’t heard any response to this from Boris Johnson, but a “source from Whitehall” was mentioned as having dismissed the incident as something minor, and already dealt with.

But how can Macron do this and get away with it? Meanwhile Merkel is apparently making deals to allow more “refugees” into Europe — and eventually those will find their way to wherever in Europe (or the West generally) they want to go.

And as this pandemic continues to grow it seems no one is in charge.

 

Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Nationalism

Here’s an interesting piece from the Council of European Canadians. It’s by Dr. John K. Press, who has written a book entitled Up With Culturism, Down With Multiculturalism. I haven’t yet read the book, but judging by this piece about it, I would like to read it.

I must admit that, having read the piece at CEC, I stll don’t quite ‘get’ what Literary Darwinism means, but I certainly agree about the need for a healthy ‘Western Culturism’, and the need for reclaiming our identity. And by ‘our’ identity I mean all of us in the West, all people of European descent. This means old-stock Americans and old stock, colonial or settler stock Canadians and all our kindred folk around the world,

With a healthy sense of who we are and what we and our ancestors have accomplished, and ideally with a removal of the strong taboos against our natural confidence, we might once again build a society which reflects our strengths rather than lading us with guilt over a list of past supposed wrongs.

The picture at the link, with the English nationalist flags displayed and a smile on the face of the subject is very heartening; I believe the St. George’s flag is still considered taboo under the laws in benighted Britain. That needs to change, but it seems Britain is so far gone down the Marxist/multicult path that they will have a hard time finding their way back to themselves. And are the other Anglosphere countries any better off?

One more thing: I like that Dr. Press says we ought to embrace what I will term a more ‘muscular’ kind of Christianity, as in Chesterton’s terms. We hear so often that Christianity is a weakling’s religion, that it’s too passive and as I’ve said, it’s become a’cult of niceness’. And being honest, I think it’s necessary to admit that the counterfeit Christianity has played a big part in Open Borders, multiculturalism, and the transforming of our Western societies. The ‘Camp of the Saints’ scenario now playing out in the EU and elsewhere has been aided and abetted by the ‘Cult of Nice’ devotees.

 

Can a people change or be changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Rediscovering the past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit betrayal?

It looks as though some talk about a ‘betrayal’ of Brexit, on the eve of the actual event, may have been right after all.

As this news article indicates, the MEPs, the people who sit unelected in the European Parliament, rather than looking at the exit of Britain as a portent of change for the EU, look at it as an occasion to clamp down on any potential freedoms of ‘member’ countries.

Per Guy Verhofstadt, MEP:

The former Belgian prime minister said: “This lesson, dear colleagues, is not to undo the union, as some are arguing. The lesson is to deeply reform the union. To make a real union in the coming years.

“That means a union without opt-ins, opt-outs, rebates, exceptions, and above all without unanimity rules and veto rights.”

So: you can get into the EU but never get out. Who in their right mind thinks this situation would be desirable? Evidently somebody did, or does, though Heaven knows why.

I thought totalitarians generally had enough discretion, or sneakiness, to conceal their power-hungry aims in advance, and only show their hand when the people were safely in the trap. But now they are advertising their intentions to potential members. But who is trying to get into the EU now? Are there any gullible enough?

Actually it seems much of Scotland wants to remain in the EU, and I am guessing this is just for the sake of the ‘economy’ or for the sake of ‘trade’ but any advantages to remaining don’t seem worth it to me.

This, too, looks a little troubling. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer , a German defense minister, says the UK needs to obtain ‘defense privileges’, and continue to work as a sort of subordinate power in conjunction with the EU. Why did Boris Johnson et al not address this before there was a done deal? Why would anyone accept this halfway-house ‘independence’ or sovereignty that is no sovereignty in lieu of the real thing? It sounded all right until the fine print hinted at somebody reneging on the deal.

 

The talking points for the one-world types

In searching for some other topic, I came across a blog post which sets out to discredit the belief that Anglo-Saxons have a common origin. The writer asserts, very early in his essay, that there is no common origin; ‘Anglo-Saxons’ or English folk are descended from a very mixed conglomeration of various peoples who wandered onto the island and became part of this congeries of peoples who blended into the group  now called ‘British’ (or ‘English’, if you want to be more accurate.)

Before I continue with this piece, I think that this kind of blog post is one that I am inclined to write. Why? First, because it has to do with our origins and our identity and who we are, biologically, culturally, and even spiritually. And we live in a strange time in which everybody gets to identify as part of an ethnicity or people or tribe or nation. This is, despite all the overdone rhetoric about how ‘we’re all one race: the Human Race.’ That statement is the stock response to the issue of the place of peoples and nations, or of nations vs. ‘One-worldism’, also known by some as ‘Babelism’.

Being of Anglo-Saxon, (or not, according to the author of the article) origin is a doubleplusungood thing, because our ancestors were explorers, enterprising people who ended up controlling much of the world, and in today’s convoluted thinking, that means that such a people must be punished and cut down to size. The reason? Being successful and dominant means there must have been oppression toward the subjects of colonial or imperial rule. The ancestors of many European people are automatically judged as bad and dangeroua, the sort who probably would return to oppressing the world if given a chance. It seems the one-worlders want to render those of English/Anglo-Saxon lineage weak and ineffectual. There is so much propaganda aimed at just this, and it operates among all people of European descent as well, but it seems as if the Anglosphere countries are a special target.

Hence you find these articles that tend to demean and dismiss the English and Anglo-Saxon in particular. There is a great deal of denigration of our folk online and in the real world to a lesser degree. I wonder if that Anglophobia is ‘grassroots’ or if it’s shills and operatives promoting this  kind of thing online.

But to give an idea of what kind of approach the writer takes to the subject at hand, he eventually comes to declare that actual genetic origins, (though he says the English have no common origins of any consequence), are in fact irrelevant; the peoples of Britain would consider anyone that lived in proximity to be part of their people, as one of them.

“…[T]hese ancient people did not distinguish biological heritage from cultural association. In other words, someone who lived and died in the fifth or sixth century Anglo-Saxon village of Oakington could have been biologically related to an earlier inhabitant of England, a recent migrant from continental Europe or a descendant of either or both – they were all treated the same in death.”

The writer then says that the Anglo-Saxons were ‘written into history’, as if to suggest a fiction was created; no such people existed in any real sense of the word:

“Biologically then these people were a mixed group who shared what we consider Anglo-Saxon culture. But they did not think of themselves as Anglo-Saxons.

The idea of the Anglo-Saxon is a romanticised and heavily politicised notion.”

Surely the writer should be aware that many groups originated in another part of the world, and that over time they encountered, associated with, and melded to some extent with other peoples. But does this mean that the resulting admixture was not considered part of a nation with considerable homogeneity? A factor that is usually downplayed if not denied is the fact that the peoples of the British Isles are not drastically different peoples, despite some ethnic conflicts that have persisted and been rekindled by the political agitators and the media. The writer mentions the Dutch and Danish as being genetically close to the English; that is factual. The Dutch seem to have been a very open and welcoming country, as witness how the Pilgrims, looking to escape persecution in their home country, went to Leyden, Holland for refuge, living for some years there.

The Dutch welcomed Huguenots fleeing France, and there was considerable intermarriage between those peoples. Does all of the above mean that the Dutch ceased being a people because they had intermingled with other peoples? No one seems to say that  — yet. But it seems there is a drive to deracinate the English, and to a lesser degree, other Europeans. And the word ‘deracinate’ reminds me that the etymology of the word has to do with ‘roots’. Today’s upside-down world expects us to disconnect from our roots, to become rootless, without the thing that sustains us and keeps ups grounded.

As I finish this post, I know that some people are not comfortable with my writing about these kinds of things; some people prefer more superficial and upbeat subjects. But this is the sort of subject I feel a certain urgency about on behalf of people on both sides the Atlantic.

Still I am open to writing about less weighty subjects if that’s preferable at times.

But since I seem to have a polemical tendency, this is primarily what I do, but not exclusively. I enjoy writing about cultural and historical subjects, the arts, the English language, biography, and so on. I’m open to hearing what interests you out there.

 

 

Does anyone know

I’m curious as to what’s happened with a particular website and forum that was for English patriots/nationalists. I believe the main website was Anglo-Saxon Foundation or something like that. The forum was Up England.

It seems the website was hacked, or taken down for political reasons, then the forum owner put up a temporary site, but that’s gone and a web search turned up no hits for the names I mentioned above.

So is it possible someone here might know of the website/forum or if they are up and running again, possibly with a different name? I’d very much appreciate knowing. It seems that site and forum were one of a kind; it seems strange that there would be so few like it. I see that Twitter has some kind of English/Anglophile group (I don’t do Twitter, and certainly won’t start now, as they are so anti-Free Speech.)

Are there are other pro-English and/or pro-British internet groups or sites that anyone here knows of? Links would be very much appreciated.