On what England means

Tony Linsell is an English writer; some of you may have read one or more of his books. He’s written books and essays on Anglo-Saxon mythology, but for me, his most interesting works are to do with England as a nation, that is, a people.

Those books by Linsell which focus on England and the indigenous, ethnic English have caused controversy. He was one of the founders of the Steadfast Trust, which the UK’s Charities Commission investigated, regarding questions of his dealings with the ‘Far Right’ or ‘Ultra-right.’ Linsell has since resigned from his position at Steadfast Trust, with the usual accusations of ‘racism’. If you read the linked article about the Steadfast Trust, you notice that the article puts the proper noun English in scare quotes, as if to imply that no such word as English exists and no such people as the English exist. And this is just what is being promoted by the people who now hold power in the UK; they are teaching that England has always been multicultural and multiracial. Therefore, according to their thinking, no charitable or cultural group for English, or Anglo-Saxon descendants should exist, any more than, say, a group supporting Hobbits, or Atlanteans.

Still, I recommend reading Linsell’s books. They are not ‘racist’ (a word which does deserve to be printed with scare quotes, or ironic quotation marks) unless one has the delusion that any ethnic integrity or pride is ‘racist’ and ‘vile’. If that were true then all our ancestors were guilty of it, because for untold centuries it was normal, and a good thing, to be mindful of our forebears, and normal for our loyalties to be centered on our closest kin, from our families, to extended families, then neighborhoods and ultimately our folk as a whole. But then we’ve let the people in power declare those feelings to be wrong, and even to be criminal in some benighted places.

Despite ethnic loyalty and consciousness of who we are being criminalized, it hasn’t been altogether expunged from our world, but the concept needs to be re-emphasized and even taught for the first time to some of the young who don’t remember the days of healthy nativism.

Here are a few excerpts from Tony Linsell’s writings:

By “the English” I mean the ethnic / indigenous English. They are members of a community that has a recorded history that goes back nearly 2000 years. That community – that nation – migrated from Jutland to Britain about 1500 years ago. People who have since then merged into the English population, and are indistinguishable from the English, and claim no identity other than English, and are accepted by the English as being one of their own, are English – and England is their homeland.

Tony Linsell, What England Means to Me

He writes of the different dimensions to England and the English people: the physical England, which in part shapes the people, and then the ‘communal imagination’ which he describes as a place “where no outsider can go.” I think that is understandable to most people, but we sort of take it for granted. Linsell puts it into words. Our customs, way of life, traditions, the perceptions we have which are unique to a people.

The current situation in England and elsewhere in the Western world fosters the general perception that ethnicity and ancestry mean nothing. Everyone is the same except for the paint job, as some put it. Those who are not native to the society they currently live in are adamant that living in a country, even for the briefest of time, means that anyone is somehow entitled to all the privileges as the indigenous people of the host country. Even more egregious is the way that many Americans will say ”We don’t have an ethnicity; we’re just Americans and everyone who comes here and stays is an American.” Or, “Americans are all mixed, and of no real ethnic group.” Or, ‘who cares’?

Tony Linsell’s thoughts about ancestry and nationality:

Hostile outsiders (and misguided or foolish insiders) often scoff and say, “I suppose you think you are Anglo-Saxon” or “Do you have a family tree that shows your ancestors where here a thousand years ago” or worst of all – and from the certifiable – “But we’re all Celts” . The answer is that I don’t have to prove my ancestry by means of formal records and bits of paper. It is enough that I am a member of the English community – its history is my history. As a member of the English community I am linked to the communal history and imagination of those who have for over a thousand years called themselves English and regarded England as their homeland

What England Means to Me

By all means, read the essay at the link.

“An Anglo-American Patriot Agenda”

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.

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

Puritans Network website

The Puritans Network website has a lot of material on various related subjects, including, to my surprise, the idea of Anglo-American patriotism, or a form of ethnopatriotism.

Their Blueprint Towards an Anglo-American Nation has a good many points with which I can agree; they would probably be accepted by many on the right. However I get the impression they are very much against many of the things I would wish for. They explicitly condemn Kinism, which has been branded with the ‘r-word’, so is anathema to many mainstream Christians.

I am not a Kinist officially, although I’ve said I’m a “small-k” kinist, because I believe that the ties of kinship and ethnic roots are God-given. What with certain Christians condemning even the idea of nations as an evil, things are getting very strange. The Bible itself speaks repeatedly of nations and tribes. I suppose this would be news to some. Maybe the new translations of the Bible have substituted some other word or idea for ‘nations’ so as to confuse people.

However the Bible says that God sets the bounds of nations, meaning he creates a separation among the different and distinct nations. The mention of ‘nations’ is frequent enough that it can’t be missed. How these Bible ‘experts’ or Christian ‘leaders’ denouncing ‘ethnonationalism’ managed to be unaware of the words of Jesus, I don’t know. But they are, by condemning nationalism and ethnopatriotism, in effect, damning generations of our ancestors to hell, if it is a grave “sin” to be an ethnonationalist or patriot. All our generations of ancestors were in effect ‘ethnonationalists’ or ‘ethnopatriots’, though they may not have known those words. Loving one’s homeland has always been considered a virtue, up until this insane time, when everything is turned on its head. Loving one’s folk, one’s kinsmen, is even more important than devotion to our countr(ies).

It’s funny, how for certain peoples, loving their own folk is considered a good thing, a healthy thing, a desirable and admirable thing. But for people of European descent, it’s a ”sin.” Will it be a crime next?

We, all of us in the Western world in former Christendom desperately need to re-discover pietas. I encounter too many people who say that they ‘hate themselves’ for being White, and that they wish they were something other than White; they’ve been led to hate themselves — and yet this society officially preaches a ‘gospel’ of ”Self-Esteem” — what a mockery. Only certain people are constantly shamed and disparaged in the media and in schools and in the workplace. What’s wrong with this picture?

As to the Puritans Network, I plan to read their materials, though I can see that I am not exactly on the same page. I think their website is worth visiting and perusing if you are interested in Puritanism and/or Anglo-American roots. Really those of us who are English-descended should be on the same page, at least on the important issues. It’s a shame that our cultural Marxist orhtodoxy puts us at odds with one another in some ways, even within families.

Ironic, because on one side of my family most of my ancestors were English Puritans, and I have read and profited by Puritans such as Richard Baxter and William Gurnall. Gurnall wrote The Christian in Complete Armour, a book from which I’ve found inspiration.

English-Americans: last of the Mohicans?

A little over a century ago, Mr. Delos R. Baker pronounced Anglo-Americans a ‘feeble, degenerate, dying breed…the last of the Mohicans’. Well, we’re still here: the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated — or are the Delos Bakers of the world right?

Baker wrote a 49-page booklet called ‘Anglo-American Reunion, and in it he made it clear that he opposed any attempt to unify English-descended Americans with our cousins back in Britain. In fact he said that we are not even blood relations to the English or the British. He says there is ‘no predominant community of blood: none ever has existed.

In 1787, when the United States was born, the population of our New-England [sic] section was part English, part French, part German, part Dutch, part Irish, part Indian, part African.

Mr. Barker forgot to mention every other nationality which might have had two members residing in the New England states. I’m sure he missed somebody; if his purpose was to mention every minuscule ”community” of non-Anglos. I mean, the population of ‘Africans’ living in New England was pretty small at that moment in history. Later on, in the 19th century, the Anglo-Saxon colonist stock probably were a small proportion of the total New England population. Too bad Mr. Baker would not live another century to see the Anglo-Saxon population outnumbered or ‘ethnically cleansed,’ as he wished for.

But let’s see what else he had to say:
“Of the Anglo-Dutch-German-Irish-Indian-African population of New York, less than half was English.”

And? So? This is not news; New York (formerly New Amsterdam) was not colonized by English people; it was a Dutch colony as most Americans know, and there were other ethnicities present when the Dutch were there, usually French (Huguenot refugees) and Belgians, both groups having intermarried with the Dutch. I doubt that many Irish or Germans or American Indians lived there; the Dutch had been under frequent attack by various Indian tribes in their colonies, even up until the time Baker mentions. These groups were not all living in happy harmony amongst one another then, as any schoolchild should be aware.

And, like most modern-day commentators, Baker (probably deliberately) exaggerates the presence of other non-Anglo colonists. They existed, but there is no reason to believe they outnumbered the English colonial stock Americans.

Then there’s this obvious fact: New York has from an early times had a more mixed population than the rest of the colonies; it’s even more multiracial, multicultural, and polyglot today than ever, but it was never an English colony. It’s a country to itself, almost. Maybe it should be an independent country.

Baker, in trying to use New York as an example of how mixed and mixed-up we are, is cherry-picking. He also cites the example of Pennsylvania, which was, again, an exception among the colonies as to its ethnic makeup. He cites Thomas Paine’s claim that as of 1775, less than one-third of Pennsylvania was English. He says that in Virginia, the African, Indian, French, and Irish outnumbered the English.

There was never a census of the Indian population, as I’ve said, in those times; rough guesstimates won’t do. And the French? Again, some Huguenots came to the South, including Virginia, but I’ve seen no evidence to indicate they were that numerous, and I’ve looked at many census records and other public documents in the course of doing genealogies. Maybe Baker is taking all those ethnic groups in the aggregate to make them outnumber the English settlers. Those early English settlers, including the rich families, had lots of children. Their natural increase was a big part of the population growth.

Baker again:
“The Anglo-Saxon blood was not conspicuous, and was much intermingled with the African.”

He cites no sources for this; it’s just his opinion, but unfortunately this kind of unfounded assertion is all too common even today. Just go to Steve Sailer’s blog, where commenters say similar things and no one counters these un-sourced claims.

As far as admixture between Whites in general and blacks, the rate of White ancestry amongst American blacks has been said to be 17-18 percent.

However different percentages are cited here. Still, the blogger at Occam’s Razor says that the average White American is 98.6 European, according to genetic ancestry surveys.

So much for Baker’s claims of widespread admixture. It should also be remembered that miscegeny between black and White was illegal in all the states, with some states having stricter laws regarding marriages with other ethnicities as well. And the practice was socially taboo; that was the way of the world then, much as some people deplore it. The past is another country, as we’ve heard.

Baker goes on and recites a long list of every ethnicity he can think of, and says we are all hybridized, mixed with every possible nationality and tribe and tongue.

We are become the most hybrid people on the face of the earth; and are generously and hospitably proud of the fact.”

But then he starts to get insulting towards the South:

“Only among the Appallachian [sic] highlands — the last retreat among us of illiteracy, feudism [?]. and moonshining — are Anglo-Saxons conspicuous in the population.”

I’ll leave aside his spelling mistakes in the above, though he should not have mentioned others’ illiteracy; people who live in glass houses, etc.

Then he goes on to the usual assertions about how Irish and German descent is far more prevalent than Anglo-Saxon. I’ve been over all that before, but it bears repeating for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it.
Just because more White Americans self-report as ‘German’ or ‘Irish’, that does not mean they actually are of that ethnicity exclusively or even predominantly; some people who have just one German or Irish or Swedish grandparent or great-grandparent report as one of those ethnicities, even with only one-fourth or less of that ethnicity. I read an article about a woman who identifies as Dutch though she has something like 1/32 Dutch ancestry. Why? Just because she ‘feels’ Dutch or likes the image of the Dutch.

And then there are those seeming millions of White Americans who, like Elizabeth Warren, will swear their great-grandmother was an Indian, even an Indian Princess, in some cases. Why? Because there’s a family legend that it’s so, and because the family has high cheekbones. Yes, some people, just like Fauxcahontas, think ‘high cheekbones’ are absolute proof of Indian ancestry. No other ethnicity has high cheekbones.

It’s also popular to claim German ancestry these days, maybe because of the backlash against anti-German sentiments that had their roots in the last two world wars. Lots of people with a fraction of German blood say they are German, but it’s true that the German settlers in the Plains states and Midwest held to their German ways and language even into the WWII era; they still had German language newspapers and magazines, and often, still spoke German at home. So there is the strong ethnocentrism of German-Americans, but that does not mean Germans are or ever were the majority in this country.

I would have to see DNA proof from a majority of Americans before I accept that ‘most Americans’ are German predominantly.

I wonder if, given his animus towards Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Baker is at least partly German; he says ”we” are proud of being a hybrid race (including himself in that ‘we’) but yet he goes on to say that ‘we Anglo-Saxons’ are a dying breed, like the last of the Mohicans. He says ‘we’ Anglo-Saxons are a ”feeble, degenerate, disappearing strain of blood.”

He seems to relish this kind of talk.

Now, if he were just some nobody from a century ago, venting his loathing of English people, I could dismiss it. But there are so many White Americans who say very similar things today. It’s just another dimension to the animus that has become a barrage in the media, directed towards White people in general. It’s White people hating other Whites, and nobody speaks up against it, except a very few who are conspicuous by their rarity.

Why are so few people of English descent speaking up? Do some bloggers censor replies from Anglo-Saxon Americans? I know that some of the comments I’ve left on certain blogs haven’t shown up. That’s one of the reasons I began this blog: because it seems there is no voice for people of our ethnicity. Who knows, if the trend towards censoring more and more speech continues, will there be any place where we can be heard?

Mr. Baker who wrote this screed against Anglo-Saxons (and also against plain White-bread Americans) is long since in his grave, or in the happy hunting ground where all good Hybrid-Americans go, but there are numbers of White people still promoting and believing his half-truths and propaganda.

#american-history, #dna, #english-descent, #ethnicity, #ethnocentrism, #ethnopatriotism

Dixon on ‘cosmopolitanism’

“I am in a sense narrow and provincial, I love mine own people. Their past is mine, their present mine, their future is a divine trust. I hate the dishwater of modern world citizenship. A shallow cosmopolitanism is the mask of death for the individual. It is the froth of civilization, as crime is it dregs. The true citizen of the world loves his country.”Thomas Dixon

Enoch Powell on the English nation

Read Enoch Powell’s speech, given at a Royal Society of St. George dinner, on St. George’s Day, 1961:

“There was a saying, not heard today so often as formerly . .

What do they know of England who only England know?”

It is a saying which dates. It has a period aroma, like Kipling’s “Recessional” or the state rooms at Osborne. That phase is ended, so plainly ended, that even the generation born at its zenith, for whom the realisation is the hardest, no longer deceive themselves as to the fact. That power and that glory have vanished, as surely, if not as tracelessly, as the imperial fleet from the waters of Spithead.

And yet England is not as Nineveh and Tyre, nor as Rome, nor as Spain. Herodotus relates how the Athenians, returning to their city after it had been sacked and burnt by Xerxes and the Persian army, were astonished to find, alive and flourishing in the blackened ruins, the sacred olive tree, the native symbol of their country.

So we today, at the heart of a vanished empire, amid the fragments of demolished glory, seem to find, like one of her own oak trees, standing and growing, the sap still rising from her ancient roots to meet the spring, England herself.

 

Perhaps, after all, we know most of England “who only England know”.

Read the rest at the link. It’s very pertinent today, maybe more so than it was in 1961.

‘The Fox’s Prophecy’

I thought it was time to re-post this. Regardless of whether you think the message has validity, it’s hard to deny that elements of the “prophecy” required some prescience, so much so that it is uncanny, in my opinion. I’ve bolded some parts that are so relevant today.

Tom Hill was in the saddle,
One bright November morn,
The echoing glades of Guiting Wood
Were ringing with his horn.

The diamonds of the hoar-frost
Were sparkling in the sun.
Upon the falling leaves the drops
Were shining one by one.

The hare lay on the fallow,
The robin caroled free;
The linnet and yellow finch
Twittered from tree to tree.

In stately march the sable rook
Followed the clanking plough;
Apart their watchful sentinel
Cawed from the topmost bough.

Peeped from her hole the field-mouse
Amid the fallen leaves.
From twig to twig the spider
Her filmy cable weaves.

The wavings of the pine boughs
The squirrel’s form disclose;
And through the purple beech-tops
The whirring pheasant rose.

The startled rabbit scuttered
Across the grassy ride;
High in mid-air the hovering hawk
Wheeled round in circles wide.

The freshest wind was blowing
O’er groves of beech and oak
And through the boughs of larch and pine
The struggling sunbeam broke.

The varied tints of autumn
Still lingered on the wood,
And on the leaves the morning sun
Poured out a golden flood.

Soft, fleecy clouds were sailing
Across the vault of blue.
A fairer hunting morning
No huntsman ever knew.

All nature seemed rejoicing
That glorious morn to see;
All seemed to breathe a fresher life –
Beast, insect, bird and tree.

But sound and sight of beauty
Fell dull on eye and ear;
The huntsman’s heart was heavy
His brow oppressed with care.

High in his stirrups raised he stood,
And long he gazed around;
And breathlessly and anxiously
His listened for a sound.

But nought he heard save the song bird
Or jay’s discordant cry;
Or when among the the tree-tops
The wind went murmuring by.

No voice of hound, no sound of horn
The woods around were mute,
As though the earth had swallowed up
His comrades – man and brute.

He thought, “I must essay to find
My hounds at any cost;
A huntsman who has lost his hounds
Is but a huntsman lost”.

Then round he turned his horse’s head
And shook his bridle free,
When he was struck by an aged fox
That sat beneath a tree.

He raised his eye in glad surprise,
That huntsman keen and bold;
But there was in that fox’s look
That made his blood run cold.

He raised his hand to touch his horn,
And shout a “Tally-ho”
But mastered by that fox’s eye,
His lips refused to blow.

For he was grim and gaunt of limb,
With age all silvered o’er;
He might have been an arctic fox
Escaped from Greenland’s shore.

But age his vigour had not tamed,
Nor dimm’d his sparkling eye,
Which shone with an unearthly fire –
Fire that could never die.

And thus the huntsman he addressed,
In tones distinct and clear,
Who heard as they who in a dream
The fairies’ music hear.

“Huntsman” he said – a sudden thrill
Through all the listeners ran,
To hear a creature of the wood
Speak like a Christian man –

“Last of my race, to me’ tis given
The future to unfold,
To speak the words which never yet
Spake fox of mortal mould.

“Then print my words upon your heart
And stamp them on your brain,
That you to others may impart
My prophecy again.

“Strong life is yours in manhood’s prime,
Your cheek with heat is red;
Time has not laid his finger yet
In earnest on your head.

“But ere your limbs are bent with age,
And ere yours locks are grey,
The sport that you have loved so well
Shall long have passed away.

“In vain shall generous Colmore,
Your hunt consent to keep;
In vain the Rendcomb baronet
With gold your stores shall heap.

“In vain Sir Alexander,
And Watson Keen in vain,
O’er the pleasant Cotswold hills
The joyous sport maintain.

“Vain all their efforts: spite of all,
Draws nigh the fatal morn,
When the last Cotswold fox shall hear
The latest huntsman’s horn.

“Yet think not, huntsman, I rejoice
To see the end so near;
Nor think the sound of horn and hound
To me a sound of fear.

“In my strong youth, which numbers now
Full many a winter back,
How scornfully I shook my brush
Before the Berkeley pack.

“How oft from Painswick hill I’ve seen
The morning mist uncurl,
When Harry Airis blew the horn
Before the wrathful Earl.

“How oft I’ve heard the Cotswolds’ cry
As Turner cheered the pack,
And laughed to see his baffled hounds
Hang vainly on my track.

“Too well I know, by wisdom taught
The existence of my race
O’er all wide England’s green domain
Is bound up with the Chase.

“Better in early youth and strength
The race for life to run,
Than poisoned like the noxious rat,
Or slain by felon gun.

“Better by wily sleight and turn
The eager hound to foil,
Than slaughtered by each baser churl
Who yet shall till the soil.

“For not upon these hills alone
The doom of sport shall fall;
O’er the broad face of England creeps
The shadow on the wall.

“The years roll on: old manners change,
Old customs lose their sway;
New fashions rule; the grandsire’s garb
Moves ridicule to-day.

“The woodlands where my race has bred
Unto the axe shall yield;
Hedgerow and copse shall cease to shade
The ever widening field.

“The manly sports of England
Shall vanish one by one;
The manly blood of England
In weaker veins shall run.

“The furzy down, the moorland heath,
The steam plough shall invade;
Nor park nor manor shall escape –
Common, nor forest glade.

“Degenerate sons of manlier sires
To lower joys shall fall;
The faithless lore of Germany,
The gilded vice of Gaul.

“The sports of their forefathers
To baser tastes shall yield;
The vices of the town displace
The pleasures of the field.

“For swiftly o’er the level shore
The waves of progress ride;
The ancient landmarks one by one
Shall sink beneath the tide.

“Time honoured creeds and ancient faith,
The Altar and the Crown,
Lordship’s hereditary right,
Before that tide go down.

“Base churls shall mock the mighty names
Writ on the roll of time;
Religion shall be held a jest,
And loyalty a crime.

“No word of prayer, no hymn of praise
Sound in the village school;
The people’s education
Utilitarians rule.

“In England’s ancient pulpits
Lay orators shall preach
New creeds, and free religions
Self made apostles teach.

“The peasants to their daily tasks
In surly silence fall;
No kindly hospitalities
In farmhouse nor in hall.

“Nor harvest feast nor Christmas tide
Shall farm or manor hold;
Science alone can plenty give,
The only God is gold.

“The homes where love and peace should dwell
Fierce politics shall vex,
And unsexed woman strive to prove
Herself the coarser sex.

“Mechanics in their workshops
Affairs of state decide;
Honour and truth – old fashioned words –
The noisy mob deride.

“The statesman that should rule the realm
Coarse demagogues displace;
The glory of a thousand years
Shall end in foul disgrace.

The honour of old England,
Cotton shall buy and sell,
And hardware manufacturers
Cry “Peace – lo, all is well”.

Trade shall be held the only good
And gain the sole device;
The statesman’s maxim shall be peace,
and peace at any price.

“Her army and her navy
Britain shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride.

“The German and the Muscovite
Shall rule the narrow seas;
Old England’s flag shall cease to float
In triumph on the breeze.

“The footsteps of th’ invader,
Then England’s shore shall know,
While home-bred traitors give the hand
To England’s every foe.

“Disarmed, before the foreigner,
The knee shall humbly bend,
And yield the treasures that she lacked
The wisdom to defend.

“But not for aye – yet once again,
When purged by fire and sword,
The land her freedom shall regain,
To manlier thoughts restored.

“Taught wisdom by disaster,
England shall learn to know,
That trade is not the only gain
Heaven gives to man below.

“The greed for gold departed
The golden calf cast down,
Old England’s sons shall raise again
The Altar and the Crown.

“Rejoicing seas shall welcome
Their mistress once again;
Once more the banner of St George
Shall rule upon the main.

“The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on her fields
For monuments to endure.

“Again in hall and homestead,
Shall joy and peace be seen,
And smiling children raise again
The maypole on the green.

“Again the hospitable board
Shall groan with Christmas cheer,
And mutual service bind again
The peasant and the peer.

“Again the smiling hedgerow
Shall field from field divide;
Again among the woodlands
The scarlet troop shall ride.”

Again it seemed that aged fox,
More prophecies would say,
When sudden came upon the wind,
“Hark forrard, gone away”.

The listener started from his trance –
He sat there all alone;
That well-known cry had burst the spell,
The aged fox was gone.

The huntsman turned,
He spurred his steed,
And to the cry he sped;
And when he thought upon that fox,
Said naught, but shook his head.”

– Said to have been found among the papers of D.W. Nash, possibly written around 1870-71.