Is there a place for our religious heritage…

In a restored West? If we are able to successfully stop the globalist juggernaut and if we can secure the continued existence of our people and a future for our children, is there a place for our Christian heritage and traditions?

There are a number of persistent voices which answer a vehement ‘no!’ to that question. As blogger “Hengest” at Faith and Heritage writes, Christianity is, according to some, a debilitating thing which has sapped our strength and our will.

In another thought-provoking post, Hengest answers those charges in his piece, titled Alfred Against the Vikings: Then and Now. 

Hengest quotes from G.K. Chesterton’s poem, Ballad of the White Horse, which Hengest describes as an allegory of the conflict between Christianity and nihilism, a conflict which he perceives as with us still today — on which I agree with him. Those on the right who oppose Christianity and the Christian heritage of Europe seem to want to jettison our heritage as being so much baggage, and as being a feminizing influence, a failed belief system. In its place they would put — what? Any number of post-modern belief systems, political ‘isms’, non-Christian religions-of-convenience, (seen as mere means to an end; some say we ‘need a new religion’ and they seem to believe we can cook one up to order, preferably one that is appropriately martial). But as I’ve written before, religion cannot be created out of whole cloth, to order. A religious tradition can’t be conjured up overnight. It took millennia to create the civilization that was Europe, or Christendom.

England was, up until the mid-20th century at least, still a country with a strong Christian heritage. The two World Wars, in which Christendom bore the brunt of the destruction, seem to have produced a loss of faith amongst many of the European people, including the English. It would not be impossible to revive the ‘faith of our fathers’ in Europe; it is not completely extinct, though it is obviously quiescent. But once that faith was at the heart of European civilization; now that it is all but gone, the heart seems to have gone out of Europe.

“We are told that if we Christians would just let go of our Savior and King, we could make our way unencumbered toward the New Right utopia of a race-conscious, agnostic white superman. This is a difference only in degree from the Christless, traditionless, monochromatic, mocha-skinned utopia promised to us by the globalists and liberals. If we would just let go of any meaningful attachment to our people and religion, we would have world peace. Both of these utopias are based on wholesome, but warped, values and flattery of different sorts of pride”

Hengest points out the importance of a living, intact culture to the health of a people:

“There are very few, if any, historical examples of one people resisting another without an intact culture, which always includes religion. The fork in the road appearing in America and the rest of the West is between an organic cultural revival for our various peoples, and an artificial utopian vision touted as a cure by cosmopolitans quite understandably disaffected with what our civilization has become.”

The ‘proposition nation’ for White people, championed by the secular right, seems just as unnatural as the ‘global community’ which is being forced upon us. Hengest points out that the secular right, many of whom have wholeheartedly embraced Nietzsche, have plenty of zeal for their cause, but lack a real connection to the people they claim to represent. This is something that is seldom addressed.

Not only is an organic, living culture necessary to the continued existence of a healthy folk but in order for this to exist, there has to be a core of people connected by a bond of kinship and loyalty. I don’t see much of this sense of loyalty. We often hear the phrase ‘no enemies to the right’ (which should be ‘no enemies to your right’, I think) meaning that there should be a willingness to tolerate differences in the name of loyalty to a cause or a political belief system — but what about loyalty to blood and to kin and kind? There’s not much of that out there.

Much of the division amongst us is based on political, religious, and generational animosity. If we could reclaim the faith and the outlook that sustained many generations of our fathers, this situation would not exist. If we were united by faith and once again regained a sense of brotherhood and loyalty amongst our own, and a common purpose and goal, we would not be easy prey as we are now.

Interestingly, there was also a recent piece at Faith and Heritage, written by Adi, in which he reports that there is an upsurge in ‘British nationalism’ which is tied to a ‘revival of Christianity’ in Britain. While that sounds like welcome news, I will take it with a grain of salt until there are more visible signs of it. Adi writes that it is supposedly the younger generation which is receptive to ‘British nationalism’ and Christianity. But which Christianity? The liberal, politically correct kind we have here in the U.S.? Or the real Christianity? And does British nationalism mean civic nationalism? It almost has to; the term ‘British’ includes not just English, but Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and Northern Irish (Ulster) folk. The Welsh, Scots, and Cornish have their own particularistic nationalisms whose interests are often in conflict with those of the English. Also there are probably millions of immigrants from many countries who hold British passports, as well as their children born in Britain, and they can legally claim to be ‘British’. England needs a true English nationalism. I am hoping for a day when the English can be a nation as  it once was, with its own identity. Christianity prescribes that a people choose their leaders from amongst their own people; Britain has had a succession of Scots and others as Prime Ministers, with few Englishmen in that role in recent years.

And are the ‘young’ in Britain (which age group?) more receptive to ethnonationalism? The only true English nationalists I’m aware of are men of middle age or so, people who remember a time before the madness set in. I am not aware of many young people who are so inclined; they have no experience of it. However I would be more than glad to be proven wrong on that score.

Defacing the past

The King Arthur lore is part of our culture even in America — although all such ‘Eurocentric’ materials are probably going to be casualties of political correctness if they haven’t already been banished from our school curricula. However there’s more than one way to ‘kill’ our European heritage, and just exiling it to the outer darkness, excluding it from our culture, is perhaps a less satisfying method for the left. It seems they would prefer to deface and distort our heritage, our folklore and legends and heroes, and the “entertainment” media have been busily doing that for some decades now.

Back in 2008 or so, there was a British TV series about King Arthur and Queen Guinevere — and Merlin; I think the series was titled ‘Merlin’, and it gave us a multicultural, multiracial Camelot, with Queen Guinevere played by a mixed-race (black/White?) actress. Recently, Guy Ritchie, the former Mr. Madonna, concocted yet another of these politically corrected travesties, with a ‘diverse and inclusive’ Round Table. Sir Bedivere is played by a black actor with an apparently African name. I suppose when the Norse god Thor has already been Africanized, why not Sir Bedivere too? Soon Arthur himself will be played by a black actor. Why not? Verisimilitude and accuracy are irrelevant to this crowd of vandals who make movies and TV series, and Ritchie is decidedly on the side of those who want to rewrite the past — even though in this case it may be a semi-legendary world being depicted.

One reviewer, at, writes of the Ritchie film:

“Let’s start by talking about the out of place and anachronistic things that repeatedly take us out of the film, which caused me so much eye-rolling I was getting dizzy. This story is set around the 5th Century, and yet Arthur grows up watching mixed martial artists with a highly diverse and multicultural Fight Club in his neighborhood (this isn’t a complaint about diversity, it’s just the fact literally nobody even remarks upon it at all or notices, and there’s no attempt to really even offer a passing explanation for this, when explanations would’ve added greater backstory and characterization and flavor to those proceedings). Arthur also wears red-brown leather pants and hip stylized jackets that look like he raided Jim Morrison’s wardrobe, has a slick hipster haircut and goatee, and uses casual modern slang (when asked several questions about himself, he replies, “Why, you writing a book?”).”

The same sort of treatment was given to a BBC series  The Tudors about 10 years ago; the ‘modern’ hipster look, haircuts that belong more to our time period than to the days of Henry VII and Elizabeth I. But the anachronisms of outward style grate far less than this crazy, arbitrary imposition of ”diversity” on medieval Britain. And the writer above questions the lack of explanation for it; it needs no explanation; diversity just is, or it must be imposed and shoehorned in, regardless of how implausible and just plain surreal it is. But the BBC, being a crowd of lefty ideologues, have no regard for fact or truth; ideology, their ideology must be served, first and foremost, and the truth be damned.

And the whole apparatus of the ‘British’ government and media are brought to bear to convince at least the up-and-coming generations that ‘‘Britain has always been diverse. England was always multicultural and multiracial. There was a black soldier in Queen Victoria’s army, didn’t you know that?

Sadly the younger generations will grow up knowing no better, and believing that Britain has always been the home of all races, and from that they will conclude that everybody in Britain probably has mixed ancestry; they will believe, as the powers-that-be want them to, that they likely have some distant African or Middle Eastern or even South Asian genetics.

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. Telling people that they are ‘citizens of the world’ or ‘just a mongrel nation’ leaves them bereft of any real ethnic and racial identity.

All the media and government deception is meant to weaken the cohesion and the viability of the English (and other British) people, that is, the rightful inhabitants of Britain. And for what? So that the globalist megalomaniacs can have a deracinated, blended, passive group of people over whom they can rule.

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.

Is Theresa May out to stop Brexit?

At Patriactionary, a good piece on the question of British Prime Minister Theresa May’s motives in calling the upcoming early election. Is she attempting to stop Brexit from being finally implemented? The ensuing comments on the blog piece are worth reading too; it seems that the majority are at least skeptical of May’s motives, while a commenter or two disagree, thinking her motives are benign or neutral at least.

Granted, I’m an observer from afar, and I don’t claim to be fully up-to-speed on the British political scene; I believe few outsiders can see things through the eyes of those who are born and bred there, and it’s a little presumptuous for an outsider to try to form real convictions. However I do try to be somewhat informed, and I do have a sort of gut-level sense about May. I just simply distrust her based on what I’ve seen, as I’ve indicated here on this blog. (In fact I was told in a comment that I was too hard on women, or on women leaders. Maybe so, but some of the commenters at Patriactionary expressed similar ideas.)

I have certainly heard and seen comments from pro-Brexit people who live in Britain, or who are British expats, that they are suspicious of her reasons for calling this election. Like some of those skeptics, I believe May, like virtually all Western political figures, is simply a ‘hireling’ of the globalist powers-that-be, and of course TPTB plainly do not want Brexit to be implemented. However I’m not prepared to say that the Brexit vote will be overturned; I don’t see that as being a certainty — or at least I hope it is not. I hope that the pro-Brexit voters are determined enough to turn out in great numbers to ensure that the ‘Remainers’ don’t have their way. Of course the real cynic would say that elections are generally rigged in favor of the globalist status quo, and that votes don’t matter. But to take that for granted is to ensure that the ‘elites’ always win.

The Patriactionary piece ends thus:

“Time will tell, perhaps, whether May is betraying the British people the way Trump has betrayed reactionaries.”

The optimist or the true believer in Trump would say that he hasn’t betrayed reactionaries (or the ‘alt-right’, or his base) though some of us see it otherwise; the ‘will to believe’ is very strong with some people and they will often go through some very complicated rationalizations to be able to maintain their belief in a leader. That often has bad consequences when the object of the believer’s faith proves to have deceived them. However I don’t think that Theresa May, unlike Trump, has such a devoted group of followers who trust her blindly. A little healthy skepticism is called for.

Transatlantic exchanges

The English language is endlessly fascinating to me. In an early post on this blog I mentioned my intention to write about the English origins of many American dialect expressions. Obviously the English and other British Isles colonists of this country brought over certain usages that persisted here while they died out, in some cases, in the mother country. (That is a subject I’ll return to later).

However it’s observably true that many current British usages and idioms have crossed the Atlantic, and have become more noticeably common in the United States.

Examples: the term ‘aggro.’ Millennial acquaintances of mine use it, and I know it was a colloquial or slang term decades ago in England. Then it was (according to the Oxford Dictionary) an abbreviation for aggravation or aggression. Now, that same source defines it as meaning aggressive, violent behavior, or problems and difficulties.

However, the American-oriented Urban Dictionary probably reflects the slightly mutated meaning as used by American millennials.

Many of the British expressions change meaning slightly when introduced into our country.

Other terms that have come into usage in the States which were once unknown here include terms like ‘arse’, now increasingly used, but sounding somewhat artificial here, ‘bespoke‘, meaning custom-made, made-to-order, usually high quality goods vs. the increasingly low-quality mass-produced goods we are now accustomed to.

More examples: ‘ginger,‘ for red-haired individuals, or ‘red-headed’ as the usual Southern idiom refers to them. The term ‘ginger‘ for a redhead was once unheard of in America, in my experience.

Going on‘ about something, meaning ranting, talking at length, harping or nagging on a subject ad nauseum. This is newly popular among some people in the U.S. Also ‘banging on‘ about something.

Going off’ something or someone: cooling to a person or thing or idea. ‘Going off on’‘ someone — losing one’s temper; ‘blowing up’ at someone.

Going missing‘ – used where we Americans used to simply say ‘disappearing’. However the term ‘disappear’ might imply something supernatural whereas ‘going missing’ is more descriptive.

Queue’ for ‘line’, or ‘queueing up‘ where once Americans would say ‘lining up.’

Wait for it…‘ – it’s hard to describe the usage of this one if you haven’t heard it used. It’s meant to create suspense in the listener as we are about to say something surprising (or not, if the phrase is used ironically).

The word ‘smarmy‘ and its transatlantic voyage is a pet peeve of mine, because its original meaning is not understood by most of its American adopters. Most Americans take it to mean ‘sleazy’, ‘slimy’, ‘lowlife’, or dishonest. It originally meant something more specific. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as meaning, loosely, insincerely helpful or charming. I think it originally meant unctuous, oily, and obsequious. That’s a little different than just sleazy and slimy, as in the American popular usage.

I believe that some of the earliest American users of ‘smarmy‘ were movie critics who had picked it up from English friends, and they may have used it correctly but their readers misunderstood it, while using it in an effort to sound cosmopolitan.

Which brings me to my next point: on a recent thread on a blog I read, some people were venting their bile about English idioms infiltrating American English. They particularly seemed annoyed about expressions like ‘at the end of the day…’, which we often hear TV pundits and other media personalities use. I agree, it can sound pompous, but I don’t know why it’s considered objectionable any more so than any number of other turns of phrase that the media often foist on us. For instance, usages like ‘…not so much‘ which suddenly was ubiquitous some years back. Or ‘my bad‘, which always grated on me. The commenters who complained about the encroachment of English idioms mentioned those, with some even positing that ‘my bad‘ came from England. I had read that it had originated with one of those African or Brazilian soccer players. This article looks into the story that it was Manute Bol who originated it. Ultimately they cast doubt on it, but it seems to me that it must originate from a non-native English-speaker at least, including possibly an Ebonics speaker. Not an Englishman, in my opinion.

Generally these adoptions of British idioms and terms is among the younger generations, many of whom have been to the other side of the Atlantic, or even attended colleges there, or worked there. The world is much more cosmopolitan now, and this is by design, as national cultures and local customs and speech are being deliberately subverted and destroyed by the globalists.

This is fostered by the media, and by the exposure of people everywhere to differing ways of life. The fact that ‘Harry Potter’ became such a phenomenon has introduced more young people to all things British.

Looking at the opposite phenomenon, that is, American English infiltrating British speech, I see much, much more of that taking place in recent decades, thanks to the global nature of the ubiquitous ‘mass media.’ Examples: the word ‘guy‘, which once meant either a dummy, (such as the effigies burned in Guy Fawkes’ bonfire-night ceremonies) or a ridiculous-looking figure. Now, the Oxford Dictionary gives the primary meaning as ‘a man.’

One often hears English people address a group of men, or even a mixed group of both sexes, collectively, as ‘guys’, much as do Americans, or Northern Americans, with their collective ‘You guys’ address.

I suspect that many British people are not pleased at the incursions of our mass media and our dialect of English, but it seems there are more peevish Americans complaining about ‘those Brits’ and their weird expressions. At least I see more of it online, with many people saying that any British turn of phrase is ‘pretentious’, even though the origins may well not be the hated British ‘upper class.’ Really, what was once called ‘upper-class British English’ in America seems to have all but vanished from the media, at least. The English newsreaders, who used to have impeccable diction, have been replaced by non-English minorities who speak with odd accents, or by people with strong regional dialects. Someone online (British) mentioned the old days of the Dr. Who series, back when the actors all spoke ‘RP’, or ‘Received Pronunciation.’

Today anything ‘posh’ or upper-class and educated is seemingly in disfavor, what with the celebration of the underclass and the ‘downtrodden’ Other.

So is it always affectation and pretentiousness to use a British idiom? Hardly. For people who have spent considerable time on that side of the Atlantic, it can become second-nature; ‘pretentiousness’ implies a self-conscious effort, when it may well be absorbed unconsciously by frequent exposure.

Languages do change, and though I am not a fan, like most post-modern linguists who proclaim that ‘change is unavoidable; we have to be descriptive, following current usage, not prescriptive, which is rigidly enforcing standards.’ No, we should try to maintain standards and rules; language should not be allowed to mutate willy-nilly, especially as education is dumbed down, and IQs apparently on the decline. And now, in America, we have much more underclass influence on our language, with young people in particular eagerly copying slang that originates in the ghetto, and silly adults follow suit. Examples: expressions like ‘woke’ and ‘based’, among myriad others, but those are rife among the young right, who are supposed to be racially conscious.

If we have to be linguistically colonized, far better to accept influences from our kinsmen on the other side of the pond (incidentally, some Americans say they ‘hate that expression’) than from non-kinsmen on the other side of the tracks, to use an old American term.

‘Nation of immigrants’?

It’s a longstanding claim in America that this country is a ‘nation of immigrants’, a claim without much validity in my opinion. But there is even less validity to the now-frequent claim that Britain is, and has always been, a ‘nation of immigrants’ or a ‘multicultural nation.’

Patrick Cleburne has a piece about this at VDare, linking to a National Geographic article which refutes that claim nicely, supported by new genetic information that has come to light in the last decade or so.

The information cited in the article (which I linked to on this blog, in an earlier post) has been available long enough that you’d think the ‘nation of immigrants’ or ‘multiracial Britain’ canards would be discredited by now. But no, these brazen assertions live on. Why? Because of the globalists’ determination to do away with nations as we have known them, and to destroy the concept of race or ethnos. ‘We are all one race: the human race.’ The shameless big lie, as always.

Can reality be denied forever? It would seem not; I’d like to think not, but the globalist/Kalergists are determined to keep on trying to efface reality altogether.



Brexit delayed

I wrote about Brexit just after the passing of the measure, and it seems since then that there is increasing doubt being cast on the outcome.

Various sources, usually ‘official’ sources, scoff at the idea that there is deliberate intent to thwart the plan to exit the EU. The claims ring very hollow, however,  when it appears that a suit brought by two non-indigenous ‘British’ people will delay if not prevent the exit.

“The case was brought by British citizens Gina Miller and Deir dos Santos, a hairdresser.”

They may be British citizens, obviously citizenship is made too easy — but they are not British (or English, Scottish, or Welsh) but of foreign origin. Miller is described as a multi-millionaire, and is of Guyanese origin, while Deir dos Santos, whose name is obviously Portuguese, is Brazilian in origin.

Just for the record, the  law firm behind this is Mishcon de Reya, described as a “British” law firm with offices in New York and London. It was founded by a Victor Mishcon, and as I suspected, he was ‘the son of a rabbi’. Were his parents British-born? I can’t be bothered to look it up, because obviously some identities transcend place of birth; one can be ‘in’ a country but not ‘of’ it, which is the case here, evidently. Just a bit of trivia about Mishcon: they represented Princess Diana. And it appears they are a bit of a left-wing activist law firm.

So whichever way you cut it, there are moneyed and powerful — and foreign — interests trying their best to thwart the will of the majority of the people of Britain, that is, the rightful heirs of the country of Britain.

We have a de facto one-world government now, it seems, when foreign people with interests in opposition to the native-born majorities can exercise power and influence to such a degree. It’s as true here as there.

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will ever be put into effect, what with these machinations going on.