The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ should be dropped

So says Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is described in this Daily Mail article as an ‘independent scholar and author.’ She says the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used by so-called ‘[W]hite supremacists’ to refer to ‘White British’ people and it should therefore be banned. I don’t quite see how that conclusion follows. If the term is tainted or offensive simply because it describes ”white British people” or because it is allegedly used by White supremacists, then a great many more words will be banned on that flimsy basis.

It’s troubling to hear that one’s ethnicity is so objectionable that the very name ‘Anglo-Saxon‘ ought to be banned. This woman says that, instead of Anglo-Saxon, the term ”early English” should be the acceptable name.

Mary Rambaran-Olm also says, of these elusive ‘White supremacists’:

‘Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.’ …

She seems to imply that those she calls ‘supremacists’ have a false idea of their own heritage, connecting it somehow with ‘whiteness’ — but Whiteness and Anglo-Saxon or ‘early English’ heritage are connected. Anglo-Saxon=White. Why do these simple facts upset anyone?

As for the ‘warrior past’, that, too, is part of being an Anglo-Saxon, and what’s wrong with that?

This may seem trivial to some people, this toying with words, but it is symbolic of the ‘Great Replacement’ of the English and British peoples; even their name is to be effaced, so as to further nullify their identity and their rightful place in the UK.

Ms Rambaran-Olm, who is identified as Irish in the article, though she was brought up in Canada, is somehow designated to tell the people of the UK what words they may use to describe themselves. How does this happen?

In any case, her double-barreled surname doesn’t tell us much about her ethnicity, though she does not seem to be English. But there is more about her objections to the name ‘Anglo-Saxon’:

Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or ‘Englelond’ – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn’.

The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their ‘supposed origins’.

Hitler wrote of the ‘Anglo-Saxon determination’ to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term. 

John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard’s Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.

So I am getting the idea that if a word or phrase is used by the ‘wrong’ people, such as Rhodes or the ubiquitous Hitler, then that word is tainted just because it’s used by someone who is disliked or condemned. So the name must be changed.

And how is it that a curator of early books at Harvard is the arbiter of what must be banned? Who bestowed this power on him, ?

The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists voted to drop the name Anglo-Saxon from its name, as 60 per cent of its membership voted to ban the term. I can only assume these are the lockstep, group-mind academics.

When even a group calling themselves ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ are willing to bend the knee, it’s worse than I thought.

Look back on the glory days of England, and contrast that to today’s topsy-turvy world in which the English are being made to humble themselves, while others aggrandize themselves and wallow in schadenfreude at the apparent ‘fall’ of the once-great England.

But this is an unnatural situation, being created by those who are determined to erase England/Britain off their map and establish their regime of sacred ”Diversity” and pretend equality,none of which could exist without being engineered and imposed from above.

In the meantime, it’s vital that we don’t acquiesce in the destruction of our folk and our heritage. Let’s have neither art nor part in this.

The ‘return of the Anglo-Saxon’?

The Return of David Hackett Fischer ‘ might be more apt for this piece, a piece for which I had high hopes, considering its title and the name of its author, ‘Hengest.’ Not to be too hard on the writer, it’s just that I had hoped that the article would offer a fresh take on the issue of America and her British Isles origins. I suppose I can’t fault the writer for essentially following the predominant school of thought, which enshrines the work of Fischer, Woodward, and others who hold the work of the latter two in the highest regard.

Is it to be the fate of this blog perpetually to try, if not to refute, then at least to provoke healthy questioning of the work of Fischer, Colin Woodward, and of others like McWhiney who promote the Celtic South idea? I had hoped to go beyond that but it seems these popular writers are now considered unimpeachable sources. And who am I? I am a mere anonymous blogger. However I don’t claim authority on my own account (though I am credentialed in history and have considerable experience in genealogy), asking only that those with open minds at least consult older sources, and weigh those against the more recent popular writers of history. I personally believe that history as it is at present practiced is not as rigorous as it once was, and that political correctness, including post-modernism, taints much of what passes as history and ethnology nowadays.

Back to the linked piece by Hengest at Faith and Heritage. I am a regular reader of Faith and Heritage, and I find the articles there to be worthy for the most part, often well-written and thought-provoking. The writer, Hengest, seems to be using the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in a rather inclusive way, to describe British Isles people generally, a practice which I see is now becoming more widespread. However as I like to point out, most British people of Celtic origin (Welsh, Scots, and Irish), emphatically state they are not of English/Anglo-Saxon origin, so it seems dubious to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in such an inclusive way. There is such a thing as an English nationalist, and if you encountered one, he would also tell you that he is not ‘British’ by ethnicity, but English, or Anglo-Saxon. I like to use the terms precisely rather than as vaguely interchangeable.

In the United States, however, the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or just ‘Anglo’, is often used rather carelessly to mean anybody whose first language is English, who has (maybe) an English surname or who is otherwise a sort of nondescript, generic White American. The sloppy usage of the term ‘Anglo’ in America is akin to the usage of the semi-slur term ‘WASP’, meaning ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.’ Many people of mixed Northwest European ancestry think of themselves as more or less WASP as they grew up English-speaking and Protestant, and maybe even grew up in the older American culture which was heavily English-derived. Still, such people may not really be English-Americans, nor identify much with English history and culture, or most importantly, the English people who now live in England. So the terms are very imprecisely used. In that respect, ‘Hengest’ is only following imprecise American practice, I suppose, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, the term ‘WASP’ was apparently originated as a kind of slur, and here in a piece from way back in 1988, Edward Hoagland defends WASPs. Now when was the last time you read any kind of defense of WASPs in a major newspaper, especially the New York Times? You likely won’t see it anytime soon, and there are even precious few blogs which advocate for Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxons, or English nationalism. (By the way, if anyone knows of any such blogs, please send me links. There are too few people taking up this cause.)

As to whether those who follow Fischer, Woodward, et al are right and I am wrong, as I’ve said, I am merely asking that people who sincerely want to know the truth read as many older sources as possible. Confining our sources of knowledge only to those of our own generation and time is the worst possible temporal provincialism and narrowness. Hear all sides of the issue, including voices of other times — and consider that the people who lived farther back in time may have been closer to having the truth than those of us who are removed from it by many generations.


Anglo-Saxon origins

From West Coast Reactionaries, a piece called On the Anglo-Saxon. This is Part 1, entitled His Origins. A Brief Overview of the Early History of Albion.

I recommend it. It covers the time period up to the tenth century, just before the Norman invasion.

Too many of us, those of English descent, have not had the benefit, as did earlier generations of learning about our ancestral history as part of our normal curriculum in school. Educating ourselves, via good sources, is a necessary pre-requisite to re-discovering, or discovering for the first time, who we are. It’s been said that a people without a knowledge of their own history are not really a people at all, being like amnesiacs, who have lost the memories that constitute their sense of self, and of personal context.


‘British American identity’ — an urgent cause?


Amen to the above comment.

I think this is along the same lines as my main message here. Too few Americans of English or British descent are willing to identify as such, and the common terms to describe this group (‘WASPs,’ or ‘Anglos’, for example) are used in such varied ways that the names seem to have different definitions depending on who is using them.

For some people, for example here, the term ‘WASP’ is applied more broadly, seeming to include anyone of Northern/Western European ancestry and Protestant origins. I’ve seen or heard the term used in this way here and there. My problem with it is that in applying it to include people not of English or British (Anglo-Saxon) origin, it leaves that specific group of peoples (those of British Isles origin) without their own distinctive identifier.

The way it is used in the blog piece linked in the previous paragraph also would include some ethnicities who often show animus towards actual people of Anglo-Saxon or English/British descent. This includes not only many German-Americans, some of whom still bear grudges over past grievances but also Scottish people, for example, a certain number of whom will emphatically tell us that they are not British but Scots, and most definitely not English.

Having a definite name which is unique to people of English or Anglo-Saxon descent would certainly be a good start in addressing the ‘identity crisis’ that faces us. The constant confusion regarding the real distinction between ‘British’ and ‘English’ has already clouded things, even for those who live in the UK.

Is Britain a ‘mongrel’ nation?

The phrase ‘mongrel nation’ is often bandied about in describing Britain, and/ or England, especially by the multiculturalists, who seem to delight in saying that there are no ‘races’ but the human race, and that we are all a mixture of many different peoples.

For example, today this comment was posted on a “conservative” forum in regard to an article about the discovery of Anglo-Saxon ruins in Scotland.

“England has to be about the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth.

The source of dozens of cultural conquests, reconquests, genocide, and subjugation over it’s documented 2500 year history. That might also be why it’s culture and society is one of the best in the world – if not the best.”

Obviously this ‘conservative’ is nevertheless a big fan of the idea that ‘bastardization’ as he calls it is a good thing, a desirable thing. He probably also says similar things about the U.S.: “our diversity is our strength”, in other words.

But is it factually true that England is ‘the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth’, or that it is a ‘mongrel island’ as the BBC/Guardian crowd like to say?

Biologist T.H. Huxley said:

“The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk any more of Celts and Saxons, for they are all one. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races”. – from Racial Origins

Freeman, in Origin of the English Nation:

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

British archeologist David Miles asserts that there is little change in the genetic makeup of British people for the last 12,000 years, based on recent genetic and archeological evidence.

“In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

[…]”There’s been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it’s now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons’ genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age,” Miles said.

[…]Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain’s population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.

Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.

The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

“The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model,” James writes in an article for the website BBC History.”

One of the worst things about the Internet is the way in which some of these careless statements (about ‘mongrel England, for example) and outright lies can spread so quickly. So many unfounded assertions are thrown around in the average Internet discussion that they become accepted ‘knowledge’ by a great many people who don’t bother to question what they read, let alone consult valid sources to verify anything. I’ve often said that we live in the Age of the Lie, and the Internet acts as a source of infection in communicating false ‘facts’ to people.

Maybe the forum comment I quoted at the beginning of this post was made in good faith by someone who actually believed what he wrote, or maybe he is someone who knowingly spreads false information in order to push the multicult point of view. Whether or not the latter is true, the result is the same. The comment will be quoted by others somewhere, or paraphrased, and the idea spreads. Anglophobics (and they are legion, on the Internet) will seize on it as a justification for mass immigration to Britain , because after all the English are all mongrels anyway — so why not flood the island with ever more exotic ‘diversity’?

And we here, in the States, see that line used frequently when our immigration crisis is under discussion: ‘this is a nation of immigrants. America was always multiracial and multicultural.’ And that is not even true of this country, despite the fact that there were European colonists who were not British or English. But Britain is even less deserving of having this ‘mongrel island’ label used to destroy the ethnic and cultural integrity of that country.

Brexit: Who was it who ‘defied their jailers’?

St. George's flag_01

The Brexit referendum, on whether the UK or ‘Great Britain’ is to stay in the EU, passed, and by a respectable margin.

The headline of this article, from the UK Daily Mail, says ‘This was the day the British people defied their jailers.’ Was it? The Scots vote indicates that they strongly favor staying in the EU. The Welsh seem to lean in that direction. London itself, being demographically very un-English, and even un-British, voted to stay in the EU.

So it was primarily the English, that is the people who are of ethnic English (Anglo-Saxon) origin, who ‘defied their jailers.’ Not the British; the term ”British”, though used very loosely and incorrectly as a synonym for ‘English’, includes the Scots, the Welsh, the Ulstermen, and the Cornish. It’s a civic term, ”British”, and in terms of this election, we see that the term ”British” does not describe a homogeneous or monolithic group of voters.  Just as the term ‘American’ can encompass people as disparate as Alaskans and Manhattanites, the term ”British” is not an ethnic descriptive; there is kinship between the various UK nationalities, but they are not the same folk. The Scots, the Welsh, and anyone who identifies as Celtic will assertively tell you they are not English; some will claim the term British but many disown even that.

In any case, the fact that Brexit passed is to be credited to the English, whether they thought of it in those terms or not. Sadly, many ethnic English have come to think  of themselves only as their civic identity, ‘British’  or perhaps they use the two terms interchangeably, not really thinking about it.

The English who think of themselves by their civic identity, ironically, resemble many Anglo-Saxon descended Americans, who identify primarily, or only, as ‘Americans’, which is another civic identity, like the umbrella term ‘British.’

To be ‘British’, or ‘just American’, implies nothing about one’s ancestry, especially in this day of mass immigration, ethnic cleansing, racial displacement/replacement, and loss of identity.

The term ‘British’ and the careless way in which it is used when the ethnic term ‘English’ is really meant, is another method of identity erasure, just as the ‘American’ identity has now become stripped of real meaning.

In any case, I hope this vote today, if nothing else, becomes a turning point, and a re-awakening of a sense of heritage and specifically Anglo-Saxon roots in the UK. The ‘Celts’ in the UK have their own aggressive nationalisms, which seem these days to be based mostly in hostility towards the English, but the ethnic English have yet to awake.

Here’s to an awakening of the sleeping English. Sent from a kinswoman across the Atlantic.

English-Americans: Still English?


The above is from a pro-English Facebook group.

I know some would not agree with the idea expressed in it, but there’s no denying that one can only be English by ancestry, not simply by transplanting oneself to England. To be British is another matter; though I would not agree with the silly idea that the third-world transplants to the UK can be ”British”, still, British is undoubtedly a civic identity. After all, it encompasses the other nationalities who have long lived in Great Britain, nationalities who are considered British though they identify as Scottish, Welsh, or Ulster folk.

The very reason that the English identity is ”controversial” or politically incorrect in today’s multicultural, multiracial UK is that it is an exclusive rather than inclusive identity. I have heard that there are immigrants from the Moslem world or elsewhere who claim to be ”English” by virtue of residence in England, but to claim that is to deny the existence of a nation or ethnicity called ”English.”

Why do I emphasize this ‘British vs. English’ question? Because it’s important. Many Americans (excluding my readers, of course) are unaware that there is any distinction between ”British” and “English”. In the past I’ve been guilty of using the terms interchangeably, without thinking. Even one of my English readers (on the old blog) said he had done so. It’s unconscious, because the labels are not used precisely or accurately these days. And there is a difference. Just ask a Scot or a Welshman; they will likely tell you that they are Scots or Welsh first, though their civic identity is British. In few cases will they want to say they are English. The English, after all, were the oppressors in the minds of many, and past lost battles are kept in memory for many generations.

So there’s yet another reason why the English identity is destined for consignment to the memory hole, if the globalist fanatics have their way. But as long as I can, I plan not to comply with the politically correct edicts. The truth has to be kept alive.

And yes, though some of us have ancestors who left England 400+ years ago, our English genes are intact, and though culture plays a part, we are who we are in part because of those genes.

St. George’s Day

St. George's Day
Found on a Tumblr blog

It’s a little late to commemorate St. George’s Day, as it’s just passed. But it is a day which brings into relief the ‘demotion’ of England within the ‘United Kingdom’. The St. George’s flag, being a symbol of England and the English, is now in disrepute, in somewhat the same way as our Confederate battle flag is under attack, and for the same reason: it is being called a “racist” symbol.

How can the St. George’s flag be a ”racist” flag, while the familiar Union Jack, known to most Americans as the British symbol, is not? Surely it was a symbol of a monoracial, White, Christian country as is the now-censured St. George’s flag? Well, because the Union Jack was the symbol of an empire, as it were, a multinational kingdom at first, which contained not just the core people, the English, but the Scots, the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Ulster people. Then as the British Empire became world-spanning, containing people of all races, the very term British has become stretched to include all races who either were part of the old Commonwealth, and now to include anyone, virtually anyone, who has managed to get to Britain and establish himself there, by legal or illegal means. There are Moslems who claim to be ”British” and Hindus, Pakistanis, Chinese, Fijians, Caribbeans, Nepalese, the list could go on. The media obliges by describing even convicted foreign terrorists as ”British men” because they had a British address and spoke English.

Thus does a national identity become stripped of any real meaning. British means everything and thus nothing. However, were I to go to England, despite my English ancestry, I would forever be a Yank, and would have to jump through many hoops to establish residency there. I can document my ancestry for many generations and my family names are names known in England, but I have less claim there than any third-worlder.

Similarly in this country, anyone and everyone can be an ‘American’, and though that is wrong, it is still less wrong than in the case of England or any European country, because those countries were always monoracial states, and not “nations of immigrants” as America is now declared to be and to always have been.

Now the Confederate battle flag is under attack and it will someday have to be hidden if the owner doesn’t wish to be arrested and prosecuted for possessing a ”hate symbol” or some such odious nonsense. It may be the same with the St. George’s flag in England, because it’s clear that the English people are to be consigned to the memory hole, just as it’s hoped in this country that the Southron people will be sucked into the multicult blender and written out of history.

The Anglosphere countries are all under the same attack, and we must learn to make common cause with our Anglosphere cousins. This is not the time to bear silly grudges based on past (sometimes contrived) grievances.

Southrons, we should feel more sympathy with our English cousins because we are, like it or not, of the same stock for the most part, and because it’s not the Scots who are being made second-class citizens as Southrons here are; it’s the English. The Scots St. Andrew’s cross can still fly. The Scots have their own parliament. They are also, for the most part, devoted leftists who have a socialist ”national party’, while the English are the last somewhat conservative nationality in Britain. Personally, though most English have been taught to revere their ‘Union’ as Americans have been taught to worship our ‘Union’, I would like to see all the constituent nations go their own way. Let the Scots have their socialist multiculturalist nation, likewise the Welsh, and let the English go their way, and be free to reclaim their national symbols and heritage without condemnation from their multinational ‘countrymen.’

On American origins

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?” – John Dickinson, Delaware delegate to the Philadelphia constitutional convention

“Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.” – Calvin Coolidge, “Whose Country Is This?” Good Housekeeping, February 1921

“Thicker than water in one rill,
Through centuries of story,
Our Saxon blood has flowed, and still
We share with you the good and ill,
The shadow and the glory.”
– John Greenleaf Whittier, 1874

“…Hengist and Horsa…the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we assumed.” – Thomas Jefferson