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.


Can a people change or be changed?

Can a people, that is, a kindred nation, people born of the same stock with the same history and culture, change from their ways and habits and become something different? Or is it possible for them to be changed into another type of people altogether, under the influence of an influx of non-kindred peoples, or a different philosophy?

I am asking this in earnest; not just posing an idle question just for the sake of it.

My original blog was about the American nation — and now many of the gloom-and-doomers who say America was never a real nation have me almost convinced — not quite, though. I honestly doubt the motives of those who say that America was always a polyglot boarding house, as Theodore Roosevelt spoke of (and warned against). Usually there is an axe to grind there, covert or overt. Usually it’s pro-Germanism or pro-multicult.

Jim Goad at Taki-Mag wrote a piece in response to that silly Scandinavian Airlines brouhaha in which the (literally) cuckolded Scandinavians plead that they really have no culture or character whatsoever, and beg for mercy or something on the basis that they are a nation of ghosts or ciphers who have no cuisine or genetic heritage, just an empty name.  Pathetic.

In the context of England and the English people, naturally I am not going to buy the idea that the English, too, are as lost as the Scandinavians appear to be. But for years now, a family member and I have had a lot of conversations about the seeming change in the UK and in the actual people of England — not paper citizens; not even those who are children or grandchildren of immigrants, like the Polish descendants who consider themselves English or British. A lot of people are prepared to accept this people or that people as the same as English (or British) because the families have been there for a generation or two, and they sometimes look fairly indistinguishable from the actual English. Or British (Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Irish). But they are not English. Or British.

After all the generations of immigrants to the U.S., there are those who despite long occupancy here, still cling to a language their ancestors of last century spoke, instead of English. Or worse they have lived here for generations and still hate ‘the WASPs’ or the ‘Anglos’ despite the longer tenure here of those they resent and against whom they bear grudges and resentments.

So even long residency doesn’t mean someone has assimilated or become a ‘real American.’ And just now there are lots of Americans who think exotic ancestry is worth more culturally, genetically, and in other ways than plain old Northwest European ancestry –especially if it’s Anglo-Saxon ancestry — which should be known as ”Oppressor-American” origins, according to some.

To return to the topic at hand, though, it seems to me, judging not just by the media coming out of the UK (movies, TV, music, etc.) but by individual peoples’ behavior, that the English have become sadly more like today’s Americans — which makes sense because we all take part in this same ugly pop culture, lowest-common-denominator. There was a time some decades ago when Britain (or England) appeared to be more ‘sophisticated’ and more ‘tolerant’ than America; America was ridiculed yet again for being Puritanical because many Americans were church-goers and liked their entertainment more wholesome. Europe was held up to us as an example of what we should be — Europeans were blase about sex,  saw nothing wrong with nudity and ”adult” entertainment. We were told that the French Prime Minister (which one, I’ve forgotten) openly kept a mistress, and the public didn’t mind this. Why couldn’t we be more like those open-minded, sophisticated French people? And the British, by comparison, were told they were too inhibited. Even the ‘reserved’ Scandinavians were famous, or notorious, for their sexual openness and kinkiness. In Scandinavia, we were told, sex crimes were all but unknown because the people had no inhibitions or ”hang-ups” in sixties’ parlance, about sex, hence nobody ‘needed‘ to commit sex crimes.

Long story short: fast-forward to U.S. (or what’s left of it) in 2020. Our ‘entertainment’ is rife with every kind of vulgarity and degradation and this is the new normal, both in the UK and in once-Puritanical America.

The English were once known as a reserved people, confident, intelligent, articulate, running a well-ordered society. Good educational system; hierarchical rather than egalitarian (which is good in my book) low crime, high trust, high level of honesty according to studies done, and so on.

Now it seems that the UK and its people are more similar to the American stereotype, with all that implies. Both our peoples have been subjected to the media mind-conditioning, and our countries both apparently being merged into this ‘New World Disorder’ which becomes an ever-more-burdensome yoke to be worn.

I can’t speak for other countries, whether or not they have experienced such changes to the character of the people. I know that the Scandinavians in the United States, most of whom have been here for generations, are apparently as passive as their cousins who stayed behind in the old country. Just look at the strange assortment of people they elect to ”represent” them. If they aren’t a people, as the spokescreatures at Scandinavian Airlines plead, then they should not be represented in Congress, should they? Do ghost-descendants of dead Vikings have rights?

Actually two fairly close relatives of mine have married Norwegians — people actually born in that country, not hyphenates, not ‘Norwegian-Americans’ whose Scandinavian-ness has been PC-whipped out of them. And they are likeable people, intelligent people. Maybe they are here because they didn’t fit in with their zombie countrymen back home.

All the same I like them. I would like to see everybody who has had their ethnic nature and their love for their heritage drained out of them, re-infused with that pietas and healthy pride.  That goes for fellow Americans, especially our Anglo-Saxon cousins, not just in the UK itself but in Canada, the old-stock Canadians, the Aussies (for whom I’ve also had a soft spot) and New Zealanders, even though they may be the farthest-left of all.

How does one classify brainwashing and mental programming? Manipulating people’s minds and emotions, tampering with the nature and essence of what makes people who they are? It should be a crime. It probably is, though it’s gone on, on a mass scale for a few generations now, unrecognized for what it is. If someone de-racinates you, takes away your sense of who you are, where you come from, what makes you a unique person as you are, or makes your folk and family and kin unique amongst the peoples of this world — that person, or those people who are doing this en masse to people are doing something heinous. It’s a theft, or even tantamount to a murder of a big part of who we are as individuals. Or as nations of people, distinct people who each carry the image of God in a unique way.

That’s being stolen from us and from whatever future generations may exist. Why is this so little acknowledged?

Realizing that many of our English cousins have learned not to like us, to view us as ‘ugly Americans’ who are gun-obsessed, dumbed-down, and crass (the Stereotype) they should know that we, too, are encouraged to dislike them for all sorts of reasons. The Powers want to set the kindred peoples against each other; they especially fear the Anglosphere peoples and don’t want us to cooperate or to work together or even sympathize with one another. This should not be.

But as to my original question: is it possible for us to change our very natures as it seems? Do genetics really count for nothing, and mental programming count for so much? Or have we really changed, we here in America, or the English, the Scandinavians? Can we recover who we once were? Is it dormant in our genetic memory, coded into our DNA? Answers, anyone?


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.