Macron seizes medical supplies?

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

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

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

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

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

 

Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

 

Brexit betrayal?

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

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

Per Guy Verhofstadt, MEP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Don’t write them off just yet

By now everybody knows about the results of the recent elections in the UK. The fact that Labour has suffered a defeat is good news for most of us who care about England. And I hope that there can be no more obstructions put in the path of Britain’s exiting the EU. After so many previous efforts to thwart Brexit, I can’t help wondering if someone will make an effort to delay it further; I wonder if the EU can legally pull something out of the hat at this point?

James Thompson at Unz.com gives a good analysis of the election results. Among other things, he brings out the fact, of which many in America are unaware, that the United Kingdom is made up of several separate ‘nations’: the three on the island of Great Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales, and then Ulster, in northern Ireland. England tends to be the most conservative part, with Scotland siding with the Brexit globalists, and making noises about independence, while voting against it in the last referendum on the subject. Wales, as Thompson notes, is leaning towards the English stance. I often hear people in America complaining of the “leftist” English, but they seem not to know that it is the other components of the UK that skew the politics of the country in a leftward direction. I can’t say I agree with the writer of the piece, or with the finer points of Chesterton’s supposed viewpoint on politics, because I am not a Catholic, but somehow Chesterton’s poem seems to fit the current situation in England.

“They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.”

A disappointment

Did Boris Johnson mean it when he made reference to getting immigration under control? It seems he didn’t mean it, as his recent statements contradicted what he was saying during all the Brexit confusion.

Even as he spoke about ‘getting the numbers down’ he made a deal with the EU that, for the foreseeable future, there will still be ‘Free Movement” between the UK and the EU, a policy which has guaranteed the entry of large numbers of immigrants.

The Labour Party has even more radical policy changes in mind:

The opposition Labour Party, for example, has voted at its most recent party conference to not just to allow Free Movement immigration from the European Union to continue, regardless of Brexit, but to extend Free Movement to other countries around the world, shut down all detention centres, and — perhaps not for unrelated reasons — extend the vote to all non-citizens resident in the country; moves Home Secretary Priti Patel believes could increase annual net immigration to an astonishing 840,000 a year.

Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 26, 2019

Imagine that many new arrivals in a small island nation like the UK. It seems that there is a housing shortage as it is. It seems as though there is some kind of mania compelling this obsession with importing immigrants en masse. And it’s the same in all parts of former Christendom. What will it take to bring some kind of common sense back before the situation is beyond repair?

The people make the place as I’ve said so often, and soon if the indigenous peoples of Britain and Northern Ireland are outnumbered and with their low birthrate, they may be headed for oblivion. This saddens me immensely; I think that the English or British have been people of high accomplishment, and they created a country that rightfully drew admiration for their achievements.

The one-world agenda has little to offer on the positive side, and it will mean a much less “diverse” world when everyone is thrown into the one-world ‘blender’, making for far less varied world than then one into which we were born.

And then the leaders of the leftist Welsh political party Plaid Cymru are saying they want to make their whole country, small as it is (population 3 million) into a ”sanctuary country” for the world. If that happens, Wales will slowly or quickly see the loss of their unique people and culture — and their country will be another overcrowded, overstressed country. But will there even be ”countries” in the former Christendom, or will we all be ”world citizens”, of no fixed character?

Or can a people preserve their ethnic identity in spite of no longer having a geographical territory to be themselves, and continue their culture, and their religion and folkways?

In considering that situation, which seems to be in the cards for so much of the Western world, I think of our Cajun people in Louisiana, who, having been colonists in Nova Scotia back in the 18th century, found themselves displaced, removed, and scattered. That event was in 1755, and it is still referred to as the ‘Grand Derangement‘. A good many of the displaced Acadian French people settled in Louisiana, as most Americans know. So many of the Acadians or ‘Cajuns’ maintain a strong sense of being who they are despite being a definite minority. But they and the local Anglo-American population of Louisiana are not at odds; they are not hopelessly disparate peoples. Most Cajuns are very loyal to America; there is not the sense of alienation, and no chips on shoulders or grievance mentality. For the most part there is little friction if any.

If only it would always work out that way. If.

Could this situation be replicated in Europe, or this country, as we head towards being minorities in our own native lands?

I ponder about this, and I have my own sense of what the future may hold.

I was just reading news commentary about the decline and ‘Grand Remplacement’ of ‘Old Stock Canadians’, which includes the French Canadian population, the Anglo-Celtic Canadians, and others (Ukrainians, Russsians, et al.) It seems as if we are all in the same boat, despite any ethnic or cultural differences among the European descendants. But can a culture and a sense of peoplehood survive in a “polyglot boarding house” as someone termed it?

It’s disappointing to witness Boris Johnson in his self-identified role as a ‘pro-immigration politician.’ But then I think few people expected anything different from him, with Brexit being the more pressing issue for many UK voters.

Brexit: defeatism?

The U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressing doubt about the prospects of Brexit, speaks of British ‘defeatism’ on their prospects of escaping from the EU:

This is not the first time Trump’s man in London has encouraged Brits to be courageous in dealing with Brexit. Speaking in June, Ambassador Johnson said the UK should abandon its “defeatist attitude” and take inspiration from President Trump, remarking: “The thing I want to get out more than anything else is an attitude that I feel I don’t see enough in this country and that is a confidence for where you are heading – light at the end of the tunnel with Brexit.”

He said: “The British have always been experts and great business people, great business minds, so to see this defeatist attitude towards Brexit is a bit startling to me.’

Ambassador Johnson’s harsher remarks were directed more at the EU:

“Accusing the European Union of merely paying lip service to the notion of free trade before stacking the deck in favour of their own companies “with taxes and barriers that make it almost impossible for foreign companies to compete,” Ambassador Johnson said, “The United States has let this go on for too long.”

If we are to take Ambassador Johnson at his word, it sounds as though the U.S. will take a more active role in siding with the Brexit proponents, rather than attempting to be neutral. I also notice that Johnson’s words about the UK and the U.S. cooperating towards a favorable trade deal refers to the old ”special relationship’ between our two countries. In recent years that relationship has been treated as ‘in the past’, dismissed as a relic of a different time. It’s true that the major demographic changes in both our countries have made for more estrangement than mutual warmth; sad to say, many in the UK have an active dislike or resentment of Americans, and that’s understandable. Many British people base their knowledge of us on what they see in our corrupt media, just as Americans, at least those who have never visited the UK, see our cousins in the UK through that same distorting lens.

We might almost think that there’s been a longstanding effort to cause hostility between our nations.

In order for this prospective trade deal to work, there has to be a renewal of trust between our nations, despite the hostile media on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the more important message in the Ambassador’s speech is the exhortation to be confident, avoiding ‘defeatism’, and to recall our former achievements. He seems to say that our countries and peoples could assert their former pre-eminence, given determination, cooperation, and the right attitude.

If Britain takes back control of its trade policy, you will be at the head of the line. America and Britain are two of the most advanced economies in the world. Together we could agree the most sophisticated and ambitious free trade deal ever done — a heavyweight deal that gets the whole world to sit up and take notice. Together, we can show the rest of the world how it’s done.

However it’s obvious that the powers-that-be within Britain and in the EU, with their globalist aims, will not give up easily, so it won’t be a walk in the park. Still, what’s the alternative?

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.

Un-diplomatic remarks

Nick Gutteridge at the Express (UK) reports on the controversy over some odd remarks from Jean-Claude Juncker.

“Nigel Farage this afternoon branded Jean-Claude Juncker a “fool” after the EU boss extraordinarily threatened to promote the break-up of the US in retaliation for Donald Trump’s support for Brexit.”

Gutteridge describes Juncker’s remarks as part of an ”angry speech”, and says that the words were not ”in jest.”

“Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

Now, assuming Juncker’s impolitic remarks weren’t ”in jest”, I don’t know just how he believes he could go about inciting division or secession within the US. There are already secession movements in several parts of the US. Some of us actually believe, as did our forebears, that our system allows for secession; that it cannot compel or force a state to remain part of the Union — though that was the point of the North’s invading the South back in 1863.

It may be that foreign powers have encouraged divisions in our country, and likely Mr. Juncker’s superiors, whoever they are, are busy inciting dissension in order to work toward their globalist vision.

That aside, the question is, why do men like Juncker think centralization and eventually a monolithic global government is a desirable thing? Could it be because they don’t see people as anything more than objects to be manipulated, controlled, or exploited?

And if those in power see us as people at all, it’s as individual units, isolated and atomized, not recognizing the importance of our connections to kin, clan, nation.

The EU is an arbitrary collection of differing groups of people, speaking different languages, with disparate cultures. It is not a natural state, growing from a kindred group of people. It is artificial and it can only be a ‘civic’ creation, not a natural one. Obviously Nigel Farage recognizes this, and attempts to school Mr. Juncker:

“Juncker has made a complete fool of himself.

“He clearly does not understand the difference between the EU and the United States of America. One was formed by consent while the other is being imposed.

“The US is an organically formed nation with a single language and similar culture while the cultural and linguistic differences in the EU are immense.

“If this is what Juncker calls diplomacy, he needs to take a long hard look at himself.”

Bless Nigel Farage. I know he is viewed with suspicion even by some English nationalists but he clearly “gets it,” when it comes to what makes a nation.

And that ‘single language and similar culture’ on which this country was formed would be the English language and the English culture.

Brexit vs. the plan for a united Europe

From The Local:

“On the 60th anniversary of the start of the European Union, at least 3,500 demonstrators in Berlin joined an international protest to show their opposition to the UK leaving its member states behind.

As British Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to trigger Article 50 next week, setting into motion negotiations for an EU without the UK, thousands in Berlin and other major cities took to the streets on Saturday, marking 60 years since the Treaties of Rome laid the foundations for the modern-day Union.

Brexit has been largely viewed as unpopular in Germany even before the referendum vote last summer, with a poll in early June showing that nearly 80 percent of Germans wanted their British allies to remain in the Union.”

Well, the Germans have a right to their opinion, I suppose, but the will of the majority of British people should and does take precedence over that of Germans and of any other people within the EU who object to the British voluntarily leaving their Union.

The article notes there are British expatriates participating in the demonstration. It seems to me they, by expatriating themselves, have ‘voted with their feet’, and expressed their desires to choose their home according to ideology and not according to nature; evidently they have little attachment to their country of birth nor for the majority of the fellow native Britons who voted for Brexit. They prefer, like the Germans quoted in this piece, to remain under the control of a handful of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It seems they think that to be far preferable than for their country to be sovereign again — why? Because they ‘fear’ populism. In this case, ‘populism’ means the will of the majority of the people deciding the fate of Britain.

If only Brexit would actually return the UK to the native, indigenous people of that land, to the descendants of the people who have inhabited that land for many centuries. Sadly it is just a small step towards restoring the UK, but it’s a necessary step if Britain is ever to control its own fate again.

It is something of a cliche to refer to the EU ‘Presidents’ as ‘unelected bureaucrats’ as I’ve done, but it is a fact. This article gives some background on these oligarchs (or are they just front-men?) and on why the U.S. seems to have favored the idea of the EU since its inception — and before.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is quoted from two articles, one published in 2000 and another in 2007. 

“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s.”

The articles make for interesting reading. Evans-Pritchard mentions the leaders of the pan-European movement who were part of this initial plan, but he does not mention the name of Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. Interestingly, amongst my ephemera collection is an old British magazine from the late 1940s or 1950 at the latest, if I recall correctly, that has a photo layout of various British and other European dignitaries at some sort of meeting to plan for this ‘united Europe.’ Coudenhove-Kalergi and his wife were pictured there.

Is it just coincidence that Coudenhove-Kalergi’s vision for a unified Europe seems to be playing out with the EU and with the effort to obliterate national boundaries and in fact, genetic boundaries?

The English have traditionally been a commonsensical people, practical and no-nonsense — or they were, once upon a time. But I suppose no people in former
Christendom are what they once were, thanks to many decades of conditioning, manipulation, and enforced diversity. But the Brexit vote hinted at the people of England at least showing something of their old traits.

 

The ‘Brexit’ issue

What does the question of Britain possibly leaving the European Union have to do with the theme of this blog? Of course it’s an internal matter, but to anybody in the United States who has Anglophile leanings, or English roots, it’s certainly a matter of interest.

Having followed the news on the upcoming ‘Brexit’ vote somewhat casually, I am afraid that it looks as though the status quo will win out. And I don’t see that as a desirable outcome; I can’t say why the people of the UK seem to fear leaving the EU; maybe it’s a case of the old ‘better the devil you know’ reasoning.

I read here that those who fear Britain leaving the UK are thinking of expatriating themselves, in some cases, to Germany. My first thought, of course, is that who on earth would want to go from the frying pan (Britain) to the fire (Germany)? Have these people not read of the recent chaos involving all the ”refugees” flooding Germany at Frau Merkel’s invitation? Or of the announced decision to let the supposedly temporary ”refuge-seekers” stay permanently after only three years? Some of the British people considering becoming German citizens fear their applications may not be approved — yet the ”refugees” are being fast-tracked. I wondered just who would find Germany a desirable destination compared to the UK. One interviewee, married to a German man, says of Germany:

“A country that’s shown leadership in the refugee crisis and that’s shown itself to be inclusive and welcoming – not like the prevailing atmosphere in the UK right now, she says. ‘Europe should be celebrated – not feared’

I don’t like the politics of Brexit and the nationalism and intolerance that goes with it.”

[Emphasis above is  mine].

So this woman is a far-leftist, who finds ‘diverse and inclusive’ Britain not ‘inclusive and welcoming’ enough for her. She wants more diversity and more inclusion. She is, in my opinion, doing a service to her home country by expatriating herself.

On a different note, we have this piece from the Texas Nationalist Movement blog, expressing solidarity with those in the UK who wish to break free of the EU, and comparing the situation of Britain in the EU with the status of Texas within the Federal Union. It’s worth remembering that Texas was, following its break from Mexico, a free and sovereign nation, a nation which chose (after some consideration) to join the United States. I don’t know how my Texas colonist ancestors felt about that decision but it has proved to be a bad thing in light of the recent decay of the United States into a tower of Babel.

A comment on the piece suggests that Britain’s exit from the EU could inspire the Scots to achieve their own independence, but the fact is, the Scottish voters declined that choice not so very long ago. So it appears that the Scots aren’t interested in being free from Britain; the financial benefits of staying within the UK were apparently a factor.

However it’s natural for someone who is an Anglophile to wish that England might win her independence. Since Scotland refused to leave the nest when offered the chance, England might go her own way. The English, like English-descended Americans in this country, are the ignored and undervalued ethnic group, though they are the core, original people.