Brexit delays

Nigel Farage, in recent comments on the Brexit situation, expressed some skepticism about the outcome of the extended discussion on the issue. That’s understandable; the Brexit process was approved in 2016, and here we all are, near the end of 2020, with Britain still in the EU.

The never-ending discussion could appear to be just a stalling tactic, to delay any Brexit, and to weary the public, until eventually the plan will fail to be implemented.

It appears some of the people are disillusioned with the whole thing, and few have a heart to continue. Farage, in a recent video, expresses some guarded optimism about the possibility of a good Brexit deal, but acknowledges that it may not have an ideal outcome.

Personally I don’t put a lot of faith in Boris Johnson when it comes to getting the best possible Brexit conditions. But we’ll see, as the deadline approaches. But with the still-ongoing negotiations (and is the EU negotiating in good faith, BTW?) the situation is a little cloudy.

But is there a conscious plan to drag these negotiations out, so as to dull the desire of the pro-Brexit people to leave the EU? It was noticeable at the time of the original Brexit vote that the younger generations (Millennials and so-called Gen Z) were vehemently against exiting the EU. They were interviewed, sometimes in tears, over the prospect of leaving the EU, and this upset them. “We won’t be Europeans anymore” — “I don’t want to lose my European identity” and words to that effect.

Leaving aside the fact that nobody’s nationality is actually ‘European’ — a broad category — it struck me as a silly reaction on the part of the anti-Brexit youth. I do remember also that these same ‘Remainers’ said that the old people were ”racist” for wanting Brexit. Whatever.

Maybe the EU, being aware of the age divide on the issue, is hoping that if they delay Brexit longer, the ‘racist old people’ will be gone to their final reward, and that the younger voters attitudes will make a pro-EU decision much more likely. Minus the ‘problem’ older voters, maybe the plan for a Brexit will simply be dropped for lack of interest. I hope not. I would like to see Britain remain Britain, and I would like to see England once again recognized as its own country, and as a nationality, an ethnicity, not just an archaic name on a map.

The Scots talk independence, though they voted it down when given a chance; Wales is free to be nationalistic, but so far England has not been allowed that choice. Not even an English Parliament as of now.

The people of the UK made a choice for Brexit; I hope the will of the people is not disregarded or quietly pushed aside.

‘Rogue’ Britain

Yesterday’s post was about English independence, among other things, and it seems that the UK is now the object of efforts to prevent the implementing of Brexit. Will the UK ever break loose from the EU?

Obviously the EU never wanted Brexit to happen, both for economic reasons, as this article at Cambrian Dissenters mentions, and because the EU is pretty obviously meant to form the nucleus of a united Europe, a stepping-stone to the global government that we have heard about over the years. And their plans would be incomplete unless they succeed in absorbing the UK.

I might have guessed that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden would be involved in this effort to prevent Brexit.

“Not wishing to be upstaged by the Speaker of the House, Presidential candidate, and world renown plagiarist, Joe Biden, announced in words not of his choosing that due to breaking international law Great Britain will be at the back of the queue for a trade deal.

This pair of long serving, senile geriatric swamp dwellers from across the water have joined forces with a treacherous cabal of British politicians, civil servants and an assortment of other establishment figures to frustrate and reverse Brexit or keep the British people shackled to the hated EU with a Brexit in name only deal.”

Cambrian Dissenters blog

The Brexit plan has been troubled by obstacles and roadblocks all along the way, during the years it was awaiting approval through referendum.

This kind of thing reflects very badly on the EU and its apparatchiks, as well as ”our” politicians here in the U.S., with their attempts to influence British politics.

3 Million new ‘citizens’?

As most of us have probably read by now, Boris Johnson says he is prepared to welcome 3 million emigrants from Hong Kong.

This is the result of China’s proposed new security laws, which many Hong Kong residents fear as being too restrictive.

Under the proposed arrangement, these Hong Kong residents, or at least those with the appropriate passports would be allowed to enter and to work in the UK, ultimately being awarded UK citizenship in theory.

I can’t help asking why it is that whenever a country experiences some problem, such as war, economic problems, or in this case fears of new restrictions on liberties or rights, a Western country somehow ”owes” it to the people in question to provide a new home for them, along with valued citizenship? It used to always be said that the U.S. was too often the world’s policeman, but now our role is more like that of Santa Claus and somehow we feel obligated to provide for others — while many of our own folk are homeless or, in the wake of the ”pandemic”, unemployed or destitute. But never mind; we are still the rich uncle to the world, always room for one more. Or in the UK’s case, 3 million more.

Keeping in mind that Britain is a small island, very densely populated, and besieged by people attempting to enter the UK by any means, fair or foul — it makes little sense to add another few million to the already high total of immigrants.  Ever-increasing development is a problem. Yet the solution is always more immigration.

Years ago Andrew Neather made a statement (not intended to be heard by the citizenry) that there was a plan to increase immigration so as to ”rub the right’s noses in Diversity”, I suppose to punish those who were ‘xenophobic’ enough to wish to limit immigration. Even though the public eventually heard this conversation about the immigration agenda, and ostensibly those involved were supposedly chastened by the brouhaha,it seems as if the plan rolls on. Immigration in large numbers is an established, always-in-progress agenda, just as it is in just about all Western countries.

As for the Hong Kong immigrants, I expect not all will go to the UK. Parts of Canada have received many Hong Kong immigrants, and as a result places like Vancouver, B.C. have been transformed. I am sure the idea is to further ”fundamentally transform” the UK as well as Canada — and I’m certain the U.S.A. will be expected to welcome some of the 3 million. Now, it may be that they are quite Westernized because of being part of the British empire for those many years. It may be that they are educated and skilled and speak excellent English. Nonetheless is there no other solution than the predictable practice of setting them up somewhere in an Anglosphere country? Is there some kind of law that compels this?

The globalists, in quest of their ”utopian” One World anti-nation, seem determined that Britain is never to be the home of its historic population, but instead to be a polyglot nation, severed from its historical roots, and simply a place to plant any or all displaced people. That is an injustice to the indigenous people of Britain, and once that country is transformed completely the nations lose more of their true character.

 

 

Scotland’s new PC edicts

First of all, I apologize for my absence and lack of posts in recent weeks. I have written a couple of posts on the other blog but haven’t had it in me to write more. I always hope to be more active as circumstances allow. I hope I haven’t lost everybody who visit(ed) this blog in the past. I do appreciate your presence and your input.

Spiked reports that the Scottish ‘Nationalist’ Party is clamping down on more politically incorrect speech. The changes to the hate speech laws have not yet been approved, but are proposed. It seems doubtful that they will meet with much in the way of opposition, given that the SNP is very left-wing.

At present, Scots hate-crime law largely parallels the English law (actually it is slightly narrower). It criminalises the stirring up of racial hatred by any behaviour that is threatening, abusive or insulting, and it requires heavier sentencing for a number of crimes if they are aggravated by hostility towards the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender status.”

Read the article; the proposed new law would be much stricter in that even showing something ‘offensive’ to someone, say, a friend, in a private social context, would carry a stronger penalty. Certain categories of ‘victim’ groups would be protected (as is the case in most Western countries now) while, oddly, no protections against religious ‘offenses’ would be included.

Now, this is not about England (or the UK, in the broader sense) but about Scotland. For some strange reason Scotland has its own Parliament as does Wales while the English alone, once the dominant ethnicity and the core people of Britain, do not enjoy that privilege. I used to have a running disagreement with a Scots-American who insisted (counter to fact) that yes, the English do have a Parliament of their own. Oddly this quasi-friendly argument was with a distant cousin of mine who shared some English ancestry with me. I never understood his rationale, but whatever.

I do wish the Scots well but I hope they someday wake up to the dangers of socialism and communism. And it seems we have our share of ”those who will not see” in this country as well as in Canada and the UK. The whole Anglosphere seems to be in some kind of state of blindness as regards political realities. I know there are people who are fully awake to reality, but it seems the media have made mental captives of far too many people who are now adept at denial of reality.

It’s good to see that our Australian cousins are now given freedom of  movement or so I’ve heard, as well as New Zealand. Will we be the last to be given our ‘privileges’?

By the way, I don’t know how many of you may be aware of Morgoth’s blog, based in the UK where there is a very active group of commenters, and blogger Morgoth writes very good essays; it makes for an interesting read and it shows that there are people in the UK who are not mind-conditioned by the media. The link should be in my blog roll; if not I should add it there.

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

On what England means

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Linsell, What England Means to Me

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

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

Tony Linsell’s thoughts about ancestry and nationality:

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

What England Means to Me

By all means, read the essay at the link.

Brexit and other matters of interest

It’s become very difficult to follow just what is happening with Brexit. Things seem to change from day to day. As of now the elusive exit is supposed to happen on January 31.

John Derbyshire writes about Brexit, Trump, and the ‘two Anglo-Saxon cousin’ nations, that is, the U.S. and the UK, experiencing parallel political crises, and offers his thoughts about the situation. Both our nation and our cousins in the UK voted for change, and it seems that our systems have not worked to achieve the changes we voted for.

As so many people in this country have been saying, we can’t ”vote out way out” of the present predicament. The trouble is, what is the alternative, then? That’s the question. John Derbyshire goes into some detail in explaining the situation in the UK. It’s worth reading.

I like that Derbyshire refers to our nations, the USA and the UK as ‘Anglo-Saxon cousin nations.’ That’s what we are, despite the fact that some Americans don’t like the English or the British, and vice-versa. We are kin; there was a time when we all knew that, and that fact should be acknowledged. It’s odd that the ‘system’ would have us regard people who are very distant from us as our brothers while we downplay our kinship to the Anglosphere peoples.

Also The Thinking WASP blog has a piece about Guy Fawkes Night, which has just passed, and about the relevance for today. The post concludes with this:

“Remember your history. Savor and celebrate your way of life.”

I second that. I’m very much in favor of doing just that.