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.
Apropos of the piece below this one, about ethnocentrism and ethnic identity among different peoples, the name of Andrew Fraser came up in a comment, and I happened to read this quote from his book The WASP Question:
“The defining characteristic of WASPs White Anglo-Saxon Protestants] is that they are much less ethnocentric than other peoples; indeed for all practical purposes Anglo-Saxon Protestants appear to be all but completely bereft of in-group solidarity. They are therefore open to exploitation by free-riders from other, more ethnocentric, groups. It seems unlikely that nominally Americanized Changs, Singhs, and Gonzales are as committed in a practical sense to the anti-discrimination principle as Anglo-Saxon individualists. There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that the Changs, the Gonzales and the Singhs (not to mention the Goldmans with their well-known animus toward WASPs) still practice forms of ethnic nepotism strictly forbidden to Anglo-Protestants. In these circumstances, an interesting question arises: are contemporary WASPs entitled to recognition as an historic people? If not, why not?”
That’s something to ponder. I would say “yes” to the question as I did in fact, in a post the other day, on this blog. But maybe that is a sentimental response rather than a ‘reasonable’ one. Obviously the naysayers out there say the English are down for the count. But maybe they are the ones doing the wishful thinking.
I am thinking of the Scripture, in Psalm 83, and the phrase, ”come, and let us cut them off from being a nation…” I think that’s what’s happening, really to all of us in the Anglosphere and in former Christendom. But according to Scripture, God ordained nations as a way of organizing humanity. One World just returns us to Babel. I suppose this makes sense only to Christians.
But are we cut off from being a nation? People can still be a nation without a state or a territory that is theirs — but we don’t have that, really, and we are weak on sticking together. And the social cohesion is at the heart of being a people or a nation.
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.
From the Puritans’ Network, an interesting list of proposals for solving the seemingly insurmountable problems facing us in the (once) United States of America.
Everywhere on the Internet where traditional Americans gather, there seems to be lot of resignation about our predicament, and cynicism about our past and a sort of fatalism about the possibility of salvaging anything from the wreckage of our society.
Whatever your opinion about the situation we’re in, at least the Puritan Network has some specific proposals. I find I can agree with most of them, at least in theory. But it seems hardly possible that any measures with a patriotic intent, especially when they are from an Anglo-American advocacy group, would have a chance.
The proposed agenda focuses on our own folk, but oddly acknowleding those of us who have been here since this continent was a wilderness, is now taboo. Everyone else has their own ethnicity, of which they can openly proclaim their ‘pride’ — all except the people who made this place habitable for the many millions who have since arrived and left their stamp on the country. But we’re the invisible ones, the ones who are often ignored, or pointedly excluded, our accomplishments rarely mentioned anymore,except for purposes of assigning guilt.
But it shouldn’t be this way, with Legacy Americans singled out as being ‘haters’ just for being patriotic towards our folk. The people make the place, as I always said; the people make the place. In a sense we could say the people are the place; the character of each region bears their image.
Maybe the younger Americans feel no kinship towards their fellow ‘Americans’; the words ‘patriot’ and ‘American’ are scorned. How is it possible to be an ethnopatriot (which I call myself) without loving, or just liking one’s kin? That has to come first before we can work together and try to provide moral support in this hostile, fractured society.
It may be that balkanization is inescapable, and it need not be chaotic if done right. There have been peaceful partitions in history. Some Americans oppose any breakup, but we may not have a choice. Some Americans who have recent (within a couple of generations) provenance in this country have an ancestral country they might return to, but Legacy Americans, “Old Americans” have only this country, as our ancestors came here, four or more centuries ago. This is it for us, and many of us would not willingly emigrate, our own forebears having sacrificed so much to make this country, but now that the apparent new ‘owners’ are already moving in, we face an uncertain future.
In the deeper sense, those of us who are Christian aren’t troubled about the future that waits for us in a time to come, and that’s a comfort, but for the time being we are in this world to ‘occupy’ for now, and go on with our lives as best we can.
Some are going to say that the Agenda is impossible in the world we now live in, but I’m not going to be that negative. We can wish and hope, and pray, and it may be that our now-precarious situation could, in time, change for the better. We can at least try to work together with our kinsmen, putting aside the petty things that divide, otherwise we face the fate of the ‘house divided against itself.’ We have to start somewhere.
I would be interested in hearing some opinions about the Agenda that Puritans’ Network has put together.
And thanks to the Puritans’ Network for showing us their ideas and proposals.
My previous post addressed Pat Buchanan’s column on the growing rift between Britain and the United States. In my blog piece I noted that there is a very obvious animus that has grown up between the two kindred peoples on either side of the Atlantic.
Now, as if to make my point for me, on the Unz.com blog, Buchanan’s piece was posted, with comments from readers — and it seems the Anglophobia I noted was very much on display in the comments from Americans. Am I surprised? No, but I seem to have underestimated just how much resentment and contempt some Americans feel towards the British.
Some of the condemnations were obviously intended for the rulers of the UK, whoever they may be. By that, I mean, just as with much of the world nowadays, the official heads of state seem to be simply fronting for unseen people, the people who actually run things.
Many Americans seem to think that Queen Elizabeth et al actually rule over the UK; and/or they think that the so-called ‘titled’ aristocrats are in charge. I suppose these critics are not aware of today’s frivolous and politically correct awarding of titles to non-British, and to some UK natives whose only ‘achievement’ is being a pop singer or prominent ‘social justice warrior’.
Britain, truly, is a shadow of her former self, and it was meant to be this way; it did not happen by accident.
And we can say the same of our country, and of the rest of the Anglosphere, as well as most of Europe.
So then, it takes considerable gall, in my opinion, to single out Britain and her people as being to blame for the loss of their country and heritage. If they are guilty then are we Americans to blame for the state of our country today? If we are honest and consistent, we would have to say so.
I wonder, too, about the harsh critics of Britain and her people; who are those who resent and loathe Britain? What is their origin? Either they are among the many ‘mixed Europeans’ who don’t have a particular ethnic identity, or people with misplaced historic grudges. Sometimes those of German descent are the most bitter and scathing about Britain, because of the bad feeling over the two world wars. To them, it is never over with; on and on it goes.
If I felt that kind of bitterness and alienation towards the country in which I was born, and the people of that country, I think I would pull up stakes and move to some country that suited me better, and a place where I might actually like my neighbors. That would show some integrity.
The old formula ‘divide et impera‘ comes to mind. Divided as we are, we are easy pickings.
At the link, an informative video on the origins of the English people: Celts, as some insist? Or Anglo-Saxon? Worth watching for some perspective.
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.
Do 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.”
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.
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.