So our ethnicity is important?

I expect all of you, at least those in the U.S (or what is left of it) have got your Census questionnaires.
I couldn’t help noticing that a prominent question or series of questions centered on our ethnic identity.
Of course race was also a question in itself.

Maybe I’m not remembering correctly but I don’t recall previous census forms asking about our ethnic or national origins. The questionnaire specifically asks about ethnic origins, and I think it added a suggestion thus:
— “For example, English…”

Then they asked for the respondent’s other ethnic ancestry, in specific terms.

For a long time I’ve said that many Americans simply don’t know what their actual ancestry is, except maybe in the vaguest terms. A great many claim (like Elizabeth Warren et al) to have ‘Native American ancestry’, almost always Cherokee, and oftentimes if they get DNA testing they are told that they have little or no Native Indian ancestry.

And how can the people answer the questions if they really don’t know their ancestry? There are also a good few adopted people who may not know their actual ethnic origins.

I suspect that there is more Anglo-Saxon or English ancestry among Americans than they realize, but then again if the Census goes simply by self-reporting or hearsay, the results will not be very accurate.

But then it seems with our total surveillance state, the powers-that-be may know more about us than we ourselves know.

It would be interesting to know how many sons and daughters of Albion are out there in the U.S.A.

“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.

“And we then, what are we?”

Matthew Arnold asked that question in his Celtic Literature. “And we then, what are we? What is England?”

Leslie Stephen, in a lecture given in 1915, repeated Arnold’s question, and then went on to examining the English national character, as manifested in English poetry. His observations are very pertinent to this present time, as the majority of the people of Britain attempt to re-establish their sovereignty, to go their own way rather than remain a part of the European Union.

Stephen says:

“The governing characteristics of the Englishman are not greatly in dispute. His sturdy nationalism, for example, has all along and everywhere been acknowledged. The earliest proof of it lies in the ‘withdrawal,’ to use Bishop Creighton’s word, the ‘withdrawal’ of England from that marvellous fraternity of the Middle Ages, feudal and Catholic Europe. By the fourteenth century she had become a separate nation, committed to the voyage of her own destiny. At a price the Englishman purchased his freedom. Deliberately he stood aloof from the centre, from the main stream of ideas, from the light and warmth of European civility. He remained, as it were, the country cousin of the family, preferring, one might say, the rough, free out-of-doors life to the elegance and refinements with the accompanying restraints of the town.

He declined the advantages of the best Latin society. Unattracted by the mediaeval vision of a united Christendom, of races held together by common acceptance of the same laws, the same religious creeds and observances, the same chivalric ideals, he set over against the abstract perfections of this dazzling scheme his own liberty, his own habits, his own interests. He had no eye for the beauty of a universal, an ideal order. His talent has ever been for life rather than logic. Of general principles because they tend to imprison the individual he is suspicious. “My case is always a special case. Why should I be treated as one of a number, I, who am unlike all the rest? ” ‘

It would seem that Britain, specifically England, had long felt that he was separate from the continent of Europe, and not so very long ago this feeling still existed; Britain may in some senses be a part of Europe, though it was an island, disconnected by natural barriers from the Continent. Yet the people who stubbornly cling to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’, particularly those younger generations, seem very emotionally attached to the idea of being ‘part of Europe’. Some of the media interviews with the younger ‘Remainers’ found them tearful about the idea of leaving the EU. Yet traditionally Britain preferred to be separate and distinct, not a part of the European continent and its political systems.

Again, from Stephen’s lecture:

“He preferred, too, the old “laws of St Edward” to any legislative novelties, his own priests and bishops to foreigners, his own language to Norman French. He knew his mind and achieved his ends, not indeed so much by way of argument as by patient indifference to argument, and the gradual development of national consciousness only stiffened his original prejudices. His country satisfied him as the best, his race as manifestly the bravest and the handsomest in the world. To go his own way, think his own thoughts, conduct his own undertakings is all an Englishman asks, or used to ask, and if he interferes in the affairs of others, it is only that he may not be interfered with. By this early withdrawal from the comity of European nations, England led the van in liberty….”

Where did this independent spirit, this ‘national consciousness’ go? Is it only dormant, or will it die with the older generations, the last remnant of the England or Britain that used to be? We can ask similar questions in the U.S. now.

Reading Leslie Stephens’ words, it is evident that much of what we Americans traditionally thought of as quintessentially American (the desire to be ‘left alone’, the preference for less government, etc.) is also part of our ‘old inheritance’, the legacy of our English ancestors.

A Patent of Nobility

To be by blood and long descent
A member of a mighty State,
Whose greatness, main-girt, but unpent
By ocean, makes the World more great;

That, ranging limitless, hath won
A rule more wide than that of Rome,
And, journeying onward with the sun,
In every sea hath found a home;

That, keeping old traditions fast,
Still hails the things that are to be,
And firmly rooted in the past,
On law, hath grafted Liberty.

That is a birthright nobler far
Than titled claim or “Right Divine”
From far-off rapine, wanton war,
And I could feel this birthright mine.

And not the lowliest hand that drives
Or share or loom, if so it be
Of British strain, but thence derives
A Patent of Nobility.

  • Alfred Austin

Alfred Austin (b. 1835) was Poet Laureate of England after Alfred Lord Tennyson. It seems he wasn’t very highly regarded as a poet, and as this source indicates, he was criticized for his ”jingoism” as well as his poetic style. Nevertheless, I like the old style of poetry and sometimes the message of the poem overshadows any fault one finds with the stylistic aspects of the poetry — which after all is a matter of personal preference to an extent.

<

The UK and the US estranged?

My previous post addressed Pat Buchanan’s column on the growing rift between Britain and the United States. In my blog piece I noted that there is a very obvious animus that has grown up between the two kindred peoples on either side of the Atlantic.

Now, as if to make my point for me, on the Unz.com blog, Buchanan’s piece was posted, with comments from readers — and it seems the Anglophobia I noted was very much on display in the comments from Americans. Am I surprised? No, but I seem to have underestimated just how much resentment and contempt some Americans feel towards the British.

Some of the condemnations were obviously intended for the rulers of the UK, whoever they may be. By that, I mean, just as with much of the world nowadays, the official heads of state seem to be simply fronting for unseen people, the people who actually run things.

Many Americans seem to think that Queen Elizabeth et al actually rule over the UK; and/or they think that the so-called ‘titled’ aristocrats are in charge. I suppose these critics are not aware of today’s frivolous and politically correct awarding of titles to non-British, and to some UK natives whose only ‘achievement’ is being a pop singer or prominent ‘social justice warrior’.

Britain, truly, is a shadow of her former self, and it was meant to be this way; it did not happen by accident.

And we can say the same of our country, and of the rest of the Anglosphere, as well as most of Europe.

So then, it takes considerable gall, in my opinion, to single out Britain and her people as being to blame for the loss of their country and heritage. If they are guilty then are we Americans to blame for the state of our country today? If we are honest and consistent, we would have to say so.

I wonder, too, about the harsh critics of Britain and her people; who are those who resent and loathe Britain? What is their origin? Either they are among the many ‘mixed Europeans’ who don’t have a particular ethnic identity, or people with misplaced historic grudges. Sometimes those of German descent are the most bitter and scathing about Britain, because of the bad feeling over the two world wars. To them, it is never over with; on and on it goes.

If I felt that kind of bitterness and alienation towards the country in which I was born, and the people of that country, I think I would pull up stakes and move to some country that suited me better, and a place where I might actually like my neighbors. That would show some integrity.

The old formula ‘divide et impera‘ comes to mind. Divided as we are, we are easy pickings.

The (once) Special Relationship

Pat Buchanan has a column this week which asks whether America and Britain are growing apart. I recommend you read it; he asks a legitimate question. Current news reports tell us how the UK Ambassador (now ex-Ambassador) Kim Darroch has been feuding with President Trump, calling him ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘unpredictable’, among other things. This is all to be expected as the left universally loathes Donald Trump, on both sides of the Atlantic.

However there has always, probably since colonial times, been distrust and dislike between Americans and our British kinsmen. It does seem to be worsening in recent years, at least judging by Americans’ comments on blogs and social media. The most popular criticism of the English/British is that ‘they don’t have the right to bear arms; they’re weak.’ Or, these knee-jerk Anglophobes jeer at ‘undemocratic’ Britain, with its class system, however weakened it is. This kind of American takes pride in saying that ‘we [Americans] don’t bow down to kings’. Oftentimes it’s said that ”we fought a war to keep royalty out of our country, to get rid of kings.’

Judging by the words of the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers clearly objected to George III:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Nevertheless, our country never expressly repudiated the idea of a monarchy, though some uninformed Americans repeatedly say that.

Certain Americans (I won’t say all) seem to feel superior to the British people in the sense that our political system is better and more ‘enlightened’ — we are ‘freer’ supposedly. But it seems we are all in the same boat.

In the above-referenced Pat Buchanan piece, he concludes that Britain is our most natural ally, though we are currently at odds. This attitude used to be the most commonly-held one in the U.S, at least until the mid-19th century wave of immigration. That influx brought a great many immigrants who either had no ties to England (or Britain) or who held animosity towards the English because of historical grievances. I wonder if we could trace a direct line between the anti-English feeling of later immigrants to today’s resentments on the part of some Americans?

Reading many internet comments and blog pieces, I often come across denunciations of English/British people (past and present), as well as the British government and the Royals. There are those who hold an everlasting grudge against the Puritans who arrived in the 1630s and their descendants, the ‘New England Yankees’ and the favored whipping-boys, the ‘WASP elites’. Some people are still under the misapprehension that those ‘WASP elites’ still run this country. Nothing can convince them otherwise.

All in all, it’s getting harder for Americans of English descent to feel appropriate pride in our ancestors. Hardly anyone seems to want to claim their English (or British) heredity, having internalized the scathing criticism of the English-descended American.

I won’t attempt to speak for the English, but it’s my impression that their heritage (which is in part the same as ours) is under constant attack, and their ancestors are decried as perpetual villains. Why? Because of their successes and their strengths. This is upside-down, but then so is our world now.

Despite the fact that apparently, most Americans have no significant English (or British) roots — at least, by their account — they still must face the fact that much of our culture — our folkways, our children’s games, our proverbs and sayings, our folklore, and even many of our idioms come from our English heritage. That’s not insignificant.


English America?

Under the blog title above, on the header, you see the phrase ‘English America.’ It’s a simple enough phrase, and it was once taken for granted, but today everything has to be argued all over again, and ‘proven’ to those who were not properly educated in our failing educational system, or who have been mind-conditioned by the media.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

There is some confusion, not just about ‘English America’, but also about the South and its place within America, amongst the younger generations. Many of them have somehow been taught that the South does not include Texas, whereas there was formerly no confusion about this: Texas considered itself part of the South; after all, Texas was part of the Confederacy. The school of thought which denies this makes Texas something of an orphan amongst the States, though the people who hold this view maintain that Texas is part of the Southwest.

Why does it matter? Well, history matters. Truth matters.

I think it is the same kind of crowd who like to rewrite history according to some political agenda they have; these people exist on the right as well as on the left.

Can Texas rightly be considered a part of English America, that is, those parts of America which were predominantly settled by original stock Anglo-Americans? There is that persistent claim that Texas — and all of the South, for that matter, was Celtic, and I’ve addressed that at length.

“Somewhere near or at the location of the present international boundary on the south, is the logical (geographic) line of demarcation betweeen English America and Latin America. A glance at a rainfall map, a plant map, a crop map, and a population map of North America shows clearly that Texas is in every respect a continuation of the South that lies east of the Sabine [River]. Geographically, Texas is peripheral to Mexico and continuous with America.” – from A.E. Parkins, The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, 1938

In the quote above, Parkins does not specifically mention the culture of the South, but I believe it applies culturally and ethnically too.

Though there were many Scots-Irish and ‘Celtic Irish’ from Southern Ireland who came to Texas as settlers and colonists, I see no reason to believe that the demographics of the original colonists who were invited to settle Texas were any different from those of the South overall.  Until the late 20th century (that is, very recently) few people questioned the general belief that the South was Anglo-Saxon. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon South’ persistently recurs. It was accepted as true by the older generations who were closer to their roots and who knew who they were. That in itself is more convincing than the word of a few writers and ‘activists’ with an agenda of their own.

If the culture of the original Southern states, since their inception as colonies, was Anglo-Saxon in origin, then this is also true of Texas, as it shares, for the most part, the broader Southern culture: a shared history, shared culinary habits, political leanings.  And then, for another example, the speech and dialect of Texas was very much Southern; not surprising since most of the original Texas colonists came from Southern states. As I mentioned, Texas was part of the Confederacy, and has, until the reign of ‘political correctness’, been very proud of our Confederate forefathers.

Another feature which makes Texas a part of the South culturally is that it is part of the Bible Belt, so-called, and most of the population is Protestant. This is a big factor which distinguishes the South from the other regions, and also the kinds of Protestantism which historically dominated in the South differ from the Northern varieties of Protestantism in style if not in substance.

But isn’t Texas heavily Hispanic, and wasn’t it always populated by lots of Mexicans? The answer is yes, thanks to uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal, Texas is now much more Hispanic than it was in the colonial days, or even into the latter part of the last century. There were once, believe it or not, areas of Texas where few Hispanics lived. But when the original colonies of White Americans began in Texas, there were few Mexicans; the Spanish had been unable to subdue the fractious Comanches and the Anglo colonists, known for having dealt with Indian aggressions successfully were brought in to help get this under control.

Texas in recent years has been much more open to Hispanic influence on the local culture, thanks in part to political correctness and the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to their Hispanic neighbors. But that does not nullify the fact that Texas was part of English America — though whether it remains so, and will remain so, is up in the air.

Do present-day demographics, though, make Texas ‘Hispanic’ more than Anglo? Maybe in those areas where Mexicans are the majority, and the White population has either moved away or adapted themselves to Mexican ways.

But if we say Texas is no longer ‘part of the South’ or part of Anglo-America because of demographics, could the same argument be used to say Louisiana is not part of the South? After all, it has a very large black/Creole population, and also many Cajuns in South Louisiana, people with a distinct culture who until fairly recently were French speakers — as well as being mostly Catholic, unlike the rest of the South. However I don’t think that is even a persuasive argument; the Cajuns have maintained their culture to a great degree (though they have been ‘enriched’ with illegal immigrants in Cajun country, to some extent) but they are also very Southern, and have not rejected the larger American society, or adopted the ‘victimhood’ mentality so popular amongst most ethnic minorities everywhere. My experience is that they see themselves as American (and Southron) as well as Cajun. Louisiana, though demographically different, is part of the South. And even Louisiana has a large Anglo population in the Northern part of the State.

The people make the place, however, and if the demographics of all the Southern states keep changing, with fewer White old-stock people represented, then these states will lose their original identity in proportion to the demographic changes. Nonetheless the past can’t be changed; these states were part of English America, and the original Anglo-Celtic culture of the South is still there as long as there are enough of the people who created that culture.

 

 

‘Who controls the past…’

Recently I wrote of how the history of Britain was being re-written by the diversity-obsessed left, using the complicit media to propagate false information. As an example I cited the numerous movies and TV shows depicting blacks and Moslems showing up in the Robin Hood story, as well as a black or mulatto Guinevere in the ‘Merlin’ series of a few years ago.

Now the BBC is lying to children in its recent series about Roman Britain, in which the main purpose of the lessons seems to be to convince gullible children that Britain has always been heavily populated by blacks and other nonwhite races.

BBC lies-horzDo the propaganda merchants really believe that everyone will fall for these outlandish lies? Sadly, too many will simply accept these false representations, mostly the young, who have deliberately been maleducated and force-fed these contrived deceptions. The population across the generations have been so mind-conditioned over the last several decades that they too are slowly acquiescing and accepting what they, deep-down, must know is not true.

As of now, there are still many images of life in Britain before the onslaught of mass immigration, images showing a White Britain, with little ‘diversity’ to be seen anywhere, at least, not diversity in a racial sense. There are You Tube videos (as long as they are allowed to remain up, on politically correct You Tube) showing London, now heavily non-white, as a decidely White city. There are books with photos showing the true Britain of old, before ‘diversity’ set in.

But will such resources continue to be allowed, considering that they contradict the ‘false history’ cooked up by the UK propaganda-pushers and diversity Kommissars? I doubt it, sadly.

Here in America, some years ago (after the 2008 election) there was a story that showed up in some news outlets about some kind of government edict that all books, textbooks I believe, published before a certain year, were to be recalled from libraries, schools, and even second-hand booksellers. They were to be destroyed, and the reason given was that these old textbooks had some kind of toxic materials.(!)I’ve done internet searches to find these articles (which I blogged about back then) and come up empty. So is it being done, this destruction of old books? I suspect it is, though I can’t prove it. The local library where I live appears to have purged a lot of classic books, choosing to focus on more current popular tripe, stuff that will probably be of only passing interest, as well as buying lots of pop-culture materials like rap/hip-hop CDs and other such high culture. There is also a recent dearth of old books at the local thrift shop which used to be a real treasure-trove of old and rare books. Where are all these books going? To landfills, or to be burned, as one librarian tells on her blog. She justifies getting rid of old books because they are dated; they are too politically incorrect — for example, a book that recommends traditional female roles, or a book from long ago which states that the races have evolved unequally. Can’t have books like that around in case someone gets ideas, or starts to question the diversity dogma, and the egalitarian faith.

So the establishment, which is the left now, wants to remove the truth from the marketplace of ideas, and wants to prevent people from even dreaming of other ways of looking at things, ways that conflict with the coerced ‘diversity’ dogma that is force-fed to us and our children.

And not being satisfied with that, they want to erase the past and replace it with this grotesque parody, in which Britain was always multiracial, never a predominantly White country, never a Christian country, never homogeneous, never the home of a particular people with a distinct way of life, a way which is being destroyed relentlessly.

Do the ‘Mary Beards’ and all the other propaganda hacks really believe the lies they churn out and defend? To the left, there is no objective truth; it’s just whatever suits their purpose. It’s all relative, and the past is what they make it, in their eyes anyway.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.”

The same process is occuring in all Western, White majority countries. Thanks to the orchestrated ‘refugee’ invasion, these countries will not be majority White for long, as there is no end in sight to the invasion. Maybe this is why the powers-that-be, with their controlled media, are working so hard to condition the indigenous British to accept minority status and second-class (at best) citizenship in their rightful country.

An excerpt of a comment that appeared on Vox Day’s blog:

“It’s a direct, deliberate effort to extinguish all sense of European history as anything distinct or even European.

They are attempting to erase our own identity from us, to cut us loose and make us the descendants of foreigners.

They are scum, and this is a deliberate, profoundly evil, genocidally motivated attack on even the MEMORY of our existence. An effort to obliterate past whites as thoroughly as they want to obliterate the current ones.”

And (apologies for quoting myself), as I wrote on the King Arthur post:

“This is all more than just frustrating; it’s an outrage, because it robs a people of their sense of who they are, and a sense of their history and accomplishments. Shouldn’t all of this be considered a type of genocide?

I am not much in favor of throwing the word ‘genocide’ around, because like the word ‘racism’ it has become too widely employed to describe anything that a ‘victim’ group objects to. But when you lie to people about their origins and their past, when you ‘gaslight’ a whole nation of people, you strip them of their sense of themselves as a people, and of their bond with their real kinsmen.”

 

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.