WASPs are ‘Wimps’?

“Of course I am critical of WASPs, but for a reason diametrically opposed to Massey’s; namely for being such wimps and for permitting themselves to be vilified without protest. Needless to say, American Jews or American blacks (taking two self-conscious ethnicities) would never allow themselves to be freely pummeled the way Massey goes after WASPs. They would be denouncing their slanderers through well-heeled organizations, with Main Stream Media support.”

The quote above is from an article by Paul Gottfried in VDare, from a few years ago.

Alana Massey, the ‘journalist’ to whom he alludes, wrote a piece for New Republic in 2015, entitled ‘The White Protestant Roots of American Racism.’

So now Protestants, specifically White Protestants are to blame?

Gottfried goes on:
”Certainly at the elite level, [W]hite Protestants behave differently from normal [sic] people. Like Elizabeth Warren, the descendant of New England settlers, WASP patricians may pretend their true ancestors were American Indians, or like Jeb Bush, rush to take over Hispanic trappings…”

[Emphasis mine, above]

Let me interrupt Gottfried’s statements here: first, Gottfried wrongly assumes that Elizabeth Warren is ”patrician’ and he states incorrectly that she is descended from New England colonists. If Gottfried wanted to be accurate he would try to find actual examples of ‘WASP patricians’. But Warren is from working-class roots, born in Oklahoma, to parents of Southern stock, not New England. Not even close.

And Jeb Bush is only partly of New England ancestry; he has other ancestry including, inter alia, Central European.

Paul Gottfried, like so many other people, doesn’t seem to know who is a ‘WASP’. Many Americans are unable to recognize an English surname when they see it, thus they end up wrongly naming people who are not of English ancestry at all. People tend to believe, for some odd reason, that ‘WASPs’ are all part of the ‘super-rich elites’ and are always in positions of power, and move in the most prestigious social circles. Actually high society, so-called, is no longer what it was; many nouveau riche, and all the elegant manners are fading, thanks to ”equality’.

But Gottfried says that he has no respect for Anglo-Saxon Americans because they are weaklings who let themselves be “pummeled” by the likes of Alana Massey and other such people, who, like Gottfried, view Anglo-Saxons and other Whites as easy prey; it seems no one wants to speak up when the Anglo-bashing begins, and then finding that they get no resistance, they attack more aggressively.

I asked, rhetorically, in a recent post, why English-Americans seem to stay silent when these lies and slanders and accusations start flying? On one blog post I read today, which was not explicity about WASPs, several people brought up the subject, and accused the blogger of attributing “superiority” to Anglo-Americans. The commenter insisted that we are all equal. Other commenters stated that WASPs were ‘servants to a (((certain ethnic group))).

Some obsessive anti-Anglo posters inevitably refer to an ”Anglo-Zionist’ collusion. There are all sorts of tropes like this on the internet.

But back to Gottfried’s statement that if Jews or American blacks were similarly slandered, they would instantly respond, backed by powerful “well-heeled organizations”, and supported by the media arm of the government (TV, newspapers, social justice advocates, etc.}

Well, of course they would; if Anglo-Americans or any other groups of European descent were likewise backed up by powerful ‘anti-defamation’ groups with lots of money and influence, plus the media — we, too, could participate in the victimhood game, and enact laws that silence anybody who dares criticise us.

It’s telling that we can’t speak freely about the obvious, increasingly open anti-Anglo, anti-European agenda. Unlike the groups to which Gottlieb compares Anglos unfavorably, we can’t respond in like terms in our own self-defense. That speaks volumes about our supposed ‘freedoms’.

Our laws are based on Biblical law and the idea of ‘Christian liberty’, along with Anglo-Saxon Common Law. Diversity has produced generations who, being of disparate orgins, did not and do not understand how our system should work.

So now, Anglo-Saxon Americans are regarded as conquered and defeated, and are treated accordingly. But is that our fault, as Gottfried and many other anglophobes insist? It looks, from here, as a premature triumphalism, and gloating over having defeated people who once had an Empire on which the sun never set.

Maybe that was the beginning of the end; too much contact with the multitudes outside our ancestral island made us too tolerant and too trusting of people who were not our friends, and who envied and resented the power and wealth of their conquerors.

One more thing: ‘Anglo-Saxons’ are now associated with what the media call ‘White supremacy’. The media deliberately twist the meanings of words and names, and it seems that they’ve succeeded in associating us with this alleged ‘supremacy.’ I don’t even know how they define that term, but they seem to think it’s criminal for us to even organize in any way or to express pride in the considerable accomplishments of our ancestors. Oddly this makes me all the more intent on doing what they are trying to prevent: to defend my ancestors and the culture of Britain: literature, music, all the arts, the English language itself, and the Christianity of my ancestors. Those who verbally assail us are just eaten up with envy and it has corroded their souls.

#ancestry, #anglophobia, #english-character, #ethnopatriotism

‘No…nation was ever so free as the English’

Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz was the writer of the quote above. He wrote those words in 1789, in a work called ‘A Picture of England.’ In that book he said that he called a state free in which no more restraint was necessary than the minimum which was required for the preservation of the commonwealth.

Johann von Archenholz further praised England and its people in the above named work, saying “…the people of England still possess a felicity worthy to be envied, and of which perhaps other nations can scarce have a conception: so difficult it is, in living under the mildest yoke, to form just ideas of a national liberty grounded on the rights of humanity.”

Further: “Without mentioning the great number of franchises and immunities of every kind, which the Great Charter and many favourable revolutions have at different times procured to the nation, we may arrange the rights of the people under six classes, viz.:

The Liberty of the Press,
The Habeas Corpus Act,
Public Courts of Justice,
The Trial by Jury,
The Right of Being Represented in Parliament,
The Privilege of Public Remonstrances.

But how many of these ‘franchises and immunities’ remain intact in 2019? Reading the news out of the UK, it seems they exist mostly on paper, to the extent that they exist at all. (And I’m sorry to say that our American ‘rights’ exist mostly in theory, it seems).

But reading this particular news item online does illustrate the loss of the former English liberty. So now, a “rude joke” makes someone a hunted man, while people found guilty in courts of law for real crimes are set free, or receive a slap on the wrist?

And do the ‘bread-and-circuses’ distractions keep the populace lulled in the face of all this, as in our country?

Sad, how far both our ancestral country and our country of birth have slidden.

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.

‘London Bridge has fallen down’

Katie Hopkins tweet 2017-06-03_222323

Good for Katie Hopkins. She has been one of the few politically incorrect (read: truthful) voices to be heard in the UK media.

She is right; the ‘Mayor’ has disgracefully informed the citizens of London (and by extension, other English cities) after a recent terror attack that this is ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’. Since when? Since people like Khan have ensconced themselves in the countries of Christendom?

From the vantage point of this side of the Atlantic, I am always exasperated at how many of my fellow Americans use these occasions to carp and criticize and even condemn the people of the UK for being weaklings, ‘wusses’, cowards, and hopeless cases. Can we on this side of the Atlantic boast of having done any better? It seems to me we have a similar problem on our side of the pond, and not just with Moslems, but with our many other uninvited guests, who just do their work of destruction more slowly or gradually.

Manchester (UK) attack

It’s hard to say anything that has not already been said elsewhere, and said better. The whole scenario is getting so wearisome to think about, because it is so needless, so preventable, so predictable. And that goes double for the commentary and the speechifying by those in power, like the Manchester police spokesman and his Islamophilic posturing — and as for Theresa May, a picture is worth a thousand words.

theresa May headscarf

That picture speaks one word to me: submission.

As to the many articles that have been written about the latest attack, this one makes some very good points about how the now-familiar slogan ‘Keep Calm’ is being used now, as compared to its original usage during the troubled days of World War II.

‘There was a fighting mentality behind “keep calm and carry on.” It meant, keep calm and carry on fighting. Keep calm and defend freedom with all your might.

[…]Today, “keep calm and carry on”is deployed to disengage the British public from reality. Today, “keep calm and carry on” stems from apathy and complacency. It is used to dissuade people from contemplating the truth, from asking tough questions, and from putting in place meaningful solutions. The phrase that once meant keep calm and carry on fighting now means keep calm and carry on sleeping.

Its appeal makes it all the more deadly. It conjures images of wartime Britain. It makes the English who use it feel proud, brave and patriotic. Meanwhile, in their effort to keep calm and carry on, they ignore reality.’

I agree; it’s dishonest and almost criminal the way the submissive, traitorous ‘leaders’ of today are using that phrase ‘keep calm’ to keep the people of the UK passive and politically correct.

calm

A caveat: the article I link above is written for a media outlet sponsored by a denomination or church whose beliefs I don’t necessarily endorse. However I found it linked online and much of the article makes good sense. The writer mentions how many of today’s Christian, as well as secular leaders, in the UK and in the USA,  are failing in their job.

“The Prophet Isaiah also compares Britain’s and America’s leaders in the end time to lazy, slothful watchdogs. “His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isaiah 56:10). What an apt description of the leadership and mainstream media in Britain and America.”

And the writer notes how Americans as well as British people seem to want to hear ‘smooth things’, comforting, bland words, rather than hard truths. Maybe we are in fact getting the leadership that the majority want in our respective countries. Yet there are people who are awake to the cold, hard truths both in Britain and in our country. It’s just that the media, and their masters, the powers-that-be, do such an effective job of stifling truth and punishing those who dare to speak it or write it. That will have to change.

 

 

 

English and British?

A recurring subject on this blog has been the difference (and the inherent conflict) between the identities known as ‘British’ and ‘English’, respectively.

For many, if not most people in the Anglosphere, the identities and terms are interchangeable. I confess that for a good while I was prone to use the terms indiscriminately, though I understood that one can be ‘British’ but have no English blood. The two names describe something different. Even some of my readers in the UK on the old blog said that they often used the term ‘British’ when they really should have said ‘English.’

This post was prompted by a piece at the blog Christianity and Race, which in turn was inspired by a post by Mark Citadel at Citadel Foundations, titled ‘Little England’.  Good, thought-provoking pieces, both. I find little with which I can disagree in either post. I will say, with all due respect, that it may be a little unfair to attribute the ‘English vs. British’ problem to arrogance or hubris only on the part of the English. I know this is a common view of the English, as they were very much a dominant power in the world up until the early 20th century, when their empire began to break up/be broken up.

The original transformation of England into ‘Britain’ or ‘Great Britain’ began with the Act of Union in 1707. It was not by naked aggression or force on England’s part that this Union was effected, though I can certainly agree that, in retrospect, it set England on a course that was to be more damaging to the English than to any of the other ethnic groups who made up the state to be known as Great Britain, then the United Kingdom. Depending on which ethnic group your sympathies lie with, you may disagree. But it’s true that the other component ethnic groups within today’s UK can keep their ethnic identity, symbols, flags, customs, languages, and even their own parliaments, while England lacks those privileges. The English flag of St. George has been labeled ‘divisive’ and ‘hateful.’ England cannot decide its own fate without the input of the many other ethnic groups who now reside there. The English identity is labeled as ‘too exclusive’, because, let’s face it, one cannot be ‘English’ except by ancestry and by genetics. It is a blood kinship, just as is the Scottish or Welsh or Irish identity. Now, we read stories in the Irish media about the ‘new Irish’, with pictures of Africans or Asians smilingly holding their Irish citizenship papers. But no one is fooled by that; people know that Irishness is a matter of blood, as is ‘English.’ Papers and documents can’t confer Englishness  on anyone.

The comparison of the inclusive ‘British’ identity with the ‘American’ identity is a valid one; both are strictly civic identities, and thus they are artificial and arbitrary. One cannot create a real nation by fiat or by documents, and a nation is not a nation if it is based on an ideology or a ‘proposition.’  Britain, or the United Kingdom, has mistakenly followed the American example and is attempting to create a polyglot, multiracial ‘proposition nation’, and the results are looking disastrous. The Empire, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for this. Much as I admire Rudyard Kipling and his work, he tended to romanticize the Raj to some extent, and to establish the idea that someone like his character ‘Gunga Din’ could be ‘British’ in spirit though he was a Hindu. As the empire dissolved, bizarrely, the same Hindus who clamored to expel the British from their homeland soon chased after their former ‘oppressors’, desiring to live amongst them.  The same pattern happened with the Irish, many of whom chose to live in England despite their resentment of the hated ‘Brits’ in their homeland.

So it is not British, or ‘English’ hubris or ambition alone that created the situation; the circumstances are too complicated to merit that charge.

I agree with both of the cited blog posts that England should rediscover its particularistic identity, rather than clinging to this polyglot, all-things-to-all-people ‘British’ identity. I am admittedly a partisan, though I wish all the indigenous people(s) of the UK well, but I think it was the English who were and are the core of what was once ‘Great’ Britain; it was they who made it great. England, ‘Little’ or otherwise, would still be a great country should they go their own way, and let the component countries of the UK go their way.

The future, I hope, will go in the direction of decentralization, of a return to ethnic particularism, and away from polyglot, mixed-multitude empires, which eventually must end in some kind of internal strife and inevitable totalitarianism. The best case scenario would be what I call the ‘blender’, the mixing together of distinct identities into some amorphous mass, not a desirable outcome if we want to preserve the real diversity that exists amongst the various rich cultures of Europe.

Cecil Sharp on Appalachian Americans

I may have referred here to Cecil Sharp, the English folklorist who visited Virginia just over a century ago. He, along with his American assistant,  wanted to collect any folk songs of English origin that may still have been extant in that part of the country, and he found a great many old English ballads that were still preserved amongst the people of the Appalachians. Keep in mind that this is the part of the South that is said to have been settled mostly by Celtic  ‘Scots-Irish’ or Irish people, so this would seem an odd place to go looking for English folk songs and lore. Still, Sharp and his assistant were not disappointed in their quest, and Sharp wrote of the similarities between the rural Appalachian folk and their counterparts back in England.

Sharp_onEnglishdescendantsInAppalachia

Sharp_OnEnglishDescendantsInAppalachia_0014.jpg

This blog points out that Sharp’s descriptions stand in stark contrast to the stereotypes of people from that region that are popularly believed today. Here’s another site which is a good source of information about the subject.

As I love traditional music and all sorts of folklore I am fascinated by the story of Cecil Sharp and his mission to collect and help preserve the musical traditions of Appalachia. His work led to a cooperative effort between traditional music scholars and musicians on both sides of the Atlantic, in order to keep these traditions alive.

The demographic changes that are being imposed on even the more remote areas of the Southern U.S. will no doubt contribute to a weakening and possible loss of the culture and heritage overall. It is just not true that a culture can be preserved by just anybody; a culture is the product of a specific people, an extended kin-group who are genetically from the same source.  If a culture is a disembodied thing that can be transferred to any random ‘recipient’ then it is a museum piece, no longer a living tradition.

I hate to make this political, but there’s just no way around it. A people must be preserved in order for their culture to survive and continue.

 

 

‘The Last of England’

Madox Brown - The Last of England_sm

The painting above is by English artist Ford Madox Brown, (b. 1821). Painted in 1855, and titled ‘The Last of England,’ it depicts an English emigrant couple as they leave their homeland. This could represent many of the English who left their country to come to America, though in fact it is based on friends of the artist who left in 1855 for Australia.

I like Madox Brown’s work; this painting is a favorite of mine, and not just because of the ‘story’ it depicts — the obviously sad couple departing England for an unfamiliar new home across the sea — but because it vividly portrays the emotions of the young couple as they leave.

Most of our English forebears left their homeland because they felt compelled to — they lacked freedom to worship, and were escaping persecution, or they lacked economic opportunity, as with many of the ‘second sons’ of the gentry who emigrated to the colonies. My Virginia ancestors fell into the latter category.

Whichever reason compelled many of the emigrants to leave, I am sure they didn’t leave with the intent of forgetting their homeland or their origins and heritage. I am sure they would want us, their descendants, to honor that as well.

Something worth saving

At Albion Awakening, Bruce Charlton offers some musings on Brexit Day in Britain, and considers why it seemed so important to the EU establishment to prevent Britain’s exit from that benighted union.

He says that the past nine months, that is, the time between the Brexit vote and the eventual beginning of the exit process, have shown the main reason for the EU’s reluctance to let Britain leave.

“It is what the Eurocrats call ‘the free movement of people’ but which in practice means that the UK is valued primarily as the major dumping-group for people that the rest of the EU does not want…”

Apparently the UK is the desired destination for a lot of the ‘refugees’ and immigrants, legal or otherwise, who enter the EU. Whether this is because of an organized effort to encourage these unwanteds to move on to the UK — by telling them that there are better benefits and handouts to be had there, or whether they learn from relatives or countrymen that Britain is a ‘soft touch’, many seem to end up there.

“We need to ask why it is so very important to the EU rulers that Britain specifically should get more unwanted people sent to us (passing through Europe, in preference to the rest of Europe) than anywhere else, year after year, decade after decade…”

Charlton concludes that the global powers-that-be consider the destruction of the British nation a high priority. I’ve long believed that, and this includes the Anglosphere in general, to a greater or lesser extent. Obviously all White countries, or countries with a dominant (or once-dominant) White majority are in the cross-hairs. But the Anglosphere has been especially besieged. Our country is in a way an easier target because of our tradition of the ‘melting pot’ and early mass immigration, which softened us up for the later onslaught.

I do agree with Bruce Charlton that a spiritual reawakening is the only thing that can truly save not only Britain but the West in general. However the term ‘spiritual’ has been so misused by many post-moderns; most ”progressive” people claim to be ‘spiritual’ but their spirituality is not the kind that is compatible with Western society/Christendom-as-was.  Given the composition of most Western populations these days, with ethnic/cultural/racial divides and major generational rifts, I don’t know how we might ever reach any agreement as to how to save  our societies.

I think Tiberge at GalliaWatch, writing about the situation in France, is on the right track. She cites Marion Maréchal Le Pen‘s recent article in Le Figaro on the need for cultural preservation and revival. This idea is important to all Western nations whose cultures and historic heritage are being undermined and outright destroyed through mass immigration and the damage done by the left’s loathing of our past and our traditions.

The realms of politics is important, but the political represents mainly the material aspect of life mostly; money, power. It is the material and physical side of our world, while culture and tradition and history are the non-material — I’ve thought a good deal about how the culture of a people is its spirit, its soul. That, too, is ‘spiritual’, and it’s essential to our retaining or restoring our essence as a people.

Men — or nations — do not live by ‘bread’ alone.