The Sin of Americanism
From birth, the American Adam was stained by the original sin of the American Republic. Loyalist writers, many of whom were royal officials or Anglican clergymen, warned that the colonial rebellion was spawning an embryonic system of anarcho-tyranny. They saw clearly that the revolutionary republic undermined “deference for established leaders and institutions.” By playing upon popular passions, radical leaders reduced the colonies to anarchy, ripe for a novel “democratic tyranny” controlled, behind the scenes, by an ambitious, avaricious, and utterly self-interested elite of so-called Patriots.
The Loyalists knew that such a regime was bound, sooner or later, to end in tears. Unfortunately, American White nationalists still invest their hopes for the future in the Patriot tradition of Constitutional Republicanism. Racial realists such as Jared Taylor also struggle to endow the cult of the Constitution with an explicitly White identity.
Indeed, almost all of the many WASPs on the alternative Right—for example, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, and Greg Johnson—hope “to salvage as much as possible from the shipwreck of their great republic.” But they owe it to their Anglo-Saxon ancestors to recognize at long last that the Loyalists were right to oppose rebel colonists while defending the unity of the British race.
It is now obvious that the perpetual American Revolution has been an ongoing catastrophe for the Anglo-Saxon race. More than twenty years ago, Brimelow warned English Canadians that the “patriot game” is up; that they should unite with their co-ethnics kin south of the 49th parallel. He would do well to adapt that advice to the parlous prospects now facing American WASPs, standing alone, unorganized, and leaderless, in a globalized, multi-racial Empire.
Specifically, he should help to rejuvenate the British race patriotism that was second nature to the United Empire Loyalists. It was just such ancestral loyalty to throne and altar that led the Loyalists to settle in Canada after being driven, in their tens of thousands, out of the victorious and vengeful republic.
American patriotism, by contrast, was based not on race but on the American Creed, the Constitution and the Manifest Destiny of the aggressively expansionist Republic. Ironically, it was the founding race of Anglo-Saxon Protestants who embraced most fervently the constitutional faith that eventually dispossessed their posterity in favour of the teeming Others of the Third World.
Now that the Constitution has been turned into a mere thing of wax which the powers-that-be cynically shape in whatever form they please, American WASPs are bereft of a coherent and credible civic identity. Nor do they have even the residual constitutional ties to their kith and kin in other “Anglo-Saxon countries”—still symbolized by shared loyalty to the British monarchy—that bound the “old White Commonwealth” together.
The Necessity of Britishness
Jared Taylor visited Australia recently. While there, he toured several Anglo-Saxon sacred sites in Sydney and Parramatta. Taylor investigated modern Australia’s inauspicious origins in a British penal colony in New South Wales. He also witnessed the massive extent of recent Third World colonization in Australian cities.
The ancestors of the Anglo-Australians that Taylor met in Sydney first came to this country just as the US Constitution was being ratified in the various States of the proposed Union. For over two centuries now, Anglo-Australians have been a constituent part of the now bowed but not beaten British race.
Taylor has just seen a magnificent city built on the other side of the world by many generations of his Anglo-Saxon Protestant kinfolk (with some help from Irish Catholics). The experience should help him to understand what one Australian historian has called “the necessity of Britishness.” American WASPs, generally, can rediscover an unexpected stock of spiritual and cultural capital in their ancestral links to the people of the old British dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
In the century to come, the resources available to the British diaspora will provide a fertile seed-bed for trade, commerce, and intercourse within a global network of Anglo-Saxon tribes. By comparison, the modern nation-state offers no more than a specious simulacrum of collective identity. In erstwhile “Anglo-Saxon countries,” the official cult of the Other poisons the organic union of nation and state.
The rebirth of an Anglo-Saxon racial consciousness will be a transnational phenomenon. The global reach of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora will be an invaluable resource for otherwise isolated and ineffectual WASP communities. In particular, the survival of British institutions such as the monarchy and the Anglican Church leaves Anglo-Saxon Protestants in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with an advantage not available to their American cousins.
Unfortunately, Australia, like the USA, is being colonized by the Third World. But, arguably, Anglo-Australians are better equipped than American WASPs to resist that invasion. They still retain access to the repertoire of British myths and symbols that played such a crucial role in the creation of Australian nationality. It may yet be possible for Anglo-Australian patriots to regenerate the foundation myth of “a new Britannia” in the antipodes.
In the federation era, “Australian nationalists did not choose British origins for their nation; that was an inescapable fact of history. They did choose to emphasise British ethnicity as a keystone of national cohesion.” According to Russell McGregor, they promoted an “essentialised, ethnicised” form of nationalism.
In other words, the same blood that “congealed the Australian people into a single nation…also connected them to the British parent.” The Premier of Victoria insisted in 1899 that the Australasian colonies “were all cradled by the great Mother of the British Race.” At the turn of the twentieth century, references to “the crimson thread of kinship” binding Australians to the mother country were a staple of political rhetoric.
But Australian ethnicity “was more than a matter of blood”: “Britishness was the source of the heritage, history, culture and symbols that made Australia heir to a glorious past.” McGregor demonstrates that the “myths and symbols that resonated most deeply and meaningfully among the Australian people were Britannic myths and memories. These enabled Australians to transcend local or parochial loyalties, to conceive themselves as a national community with deep temporal roots.”
It is indisputable, therefore, that the Britannic heritage was “an essential source of sustenance and strength to Australian nationalism.” Not surprisingly, therefore, the so-called White Australia Policy laid down in the very first Act of the Commonwealth parliament “was founded on the assumption that ethnic unity provided the foundation-stone of both national cohesion and political democracy.”
And, as more than one Member of Parliament observed, White Australia “really means a British Australia.” Of course, White non-Britishers were admitted but only “on the understanding that they would readily assimilate, biologically as well as culturally, into the British-Australian nation.”
The Decline of Britishness
As early as 1923, Myra Willard’s analysis of the White Australia Policy warned that the “continued immigration of certain European peoples very dissimilar to Australians would have the same effect” as immigration from Asia. Unfortunately, the “populate or perish” mentality that took hold among the political class after the Second World War was the thin edge of the wedge which eventually whittled away the British core of Australian national identity.
And so it happened that the large-scale post-war influx of Italians and Greeks, for example, was the first step towards the decline of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant ascendancy in Australian politics and culture.
Well into the Sixties, however, both the monarchy and the overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Anglican Church—still known in Australia as the Church of England—worked to reinforce the British roots of Australian national identity. Both institutions were joined at the hip. The British monarchy was integral to Anglican thought and practice in Australia. For centuries, the monarch had been supreme governor of the Church and on accession took an oath to preserve its doctrines.
According to church historian, Brian Fletcher, “Anglicans believed that the monarchy possessed divine attributes.” They “took pride in the fact that at the apex of government stood one of their own faith—a claim no other denomination could make.” From Federation in 1901 until 1962, therefore, the Anglican Church helped keep alive in Australia cultural and other values that derived from Britain. Indeed, “it endowed empire, monarchy, and race with a religious sanction.”
By the Sixties, however, Anglicans responded to the radical nationalist intellectual movement that drove a wedge between the Britannic heritage and Australian identity, between ethnic and civic nationalism. The rise of “ocker nationalism” was assisted greatly by the Australia’s geopolitical shift from the British to the American sphere of influence. Some historians point to Britain’s entry into the Common Market as the decisive moment in such efforts to draw Australian national identity away from “the British embrace.”
At the same time, successive waves of non-British European migration cleared the path for the gradual abolition of the White Australia Policy in the late Sixties and early Seventies. Within an astonishingly brief time, a multi-racial society was established in the nation’s largest cities.
Fletcher points out that “the Anglo-Saxon ascendancy lost ground not only to post-war migrants but also to the large Irish minority whose social status rose.” Interestingly, in the Federation era, McGregor notes that the Irish had been “resistant to comprehensive Anglicisation” while remaining “generally receptive to the myth of Britishness.” But since the Sixties, the Irish have played a militant role in the rise of the Australian republican movement.
In 1999 a referendum was held to determine whether Australia should sever its constitutional ties to the British monarchy in order to become a republic. Leftists were pleased to see that non-British migrants joined Irish-Australians in lending disproportionate support to the Yes vote. Fully forty-five percent of the vote favoured a republic.
By that time, of course, the Anglican Church no longer viewed the survival of British-Australia as a vital theological issue. Indeed, by the Eighties, Anglican leaders were determined to avoid the perceived “dangers of remaining tied too exclusively to their heritage.” Accordingly, Bishop Reid of Sydney expressed fears in 1983 that “in another generation Anglicans will be seen as an Anglo-Saxon sect.”
Rather than become an ethno-religious ghetto for “White Australian Anglo-Saxon Anglicans,” the Anglican church chose to fashion “a new and dynamic national church” open to people of any and all races and ethnicities.
British-Australia is clearly down but it has not yet been counted out. Both the monarchy and the church can once again help to revive the fortunes of the Anglo-Saxon race.
A Postmodern Pan-Angle Confederation?
It has taken Anglo-Saxon Protestants hundreds of years to dig themselves into the black hole now inhabited by the invisible race. It will take at least a century to climb out again. During the New Dark Age looming ahead of us, the political, cultural, and economic landscape of the world will be transformed utterly.
The gargantuan, impossibly complex structures of corporate neo-communism are likely to fail. In the long emergency which follows any such collapse, the search for resilient communities will foster a new tribalism.
The monarchy and the church—which together created the English nation over a thousand years ago—will be the essential medium for the postmodern rebirth of the Anglo-Saxon race. Anglo-Saxon Protestants must shed the bad habit of looking to the corporate welfare state to preserve and protect their collective identity. The modern state has been captured by the cosmopolitan elites presiding over the globalist system of corporate neo-communism.
Sooner or later, the time will come when Anglo-Saxon Protestants in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and even the UK recognize that their collective interests can best be served by detaching or disestablishing both the monarchy and the church from the state apparatus.
Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the old British dominions need not fear the advent of republican constitutions. The British monarch will remain the head of the Anglican Church throughout the diaspora. Outside and apart from the state, a Christian King will serve as defender of the ancient blood faith of the Anglo-Saxon race. A postmodern confederation of Anglo-Saxon Protestant tribes acknowledging allegiance to a new-modelled British monarchy will become the stateless incarnation of the Pan-Angle union imagined by men such as Sinclair Kennedy in the early twentieth century.
According to Montesquieu, honour is the generative principle of monarchy. By honouring selected subjects, by conferring upon them ranks, titles, and pre-eminences denied to others not so favoured, a king can regenerate an Anglo-Saxon aristocracy. In an earlier book, I have tried to show how an aristocracy might thus be reinvented in the least expected area of corporate governance.
It may seem far-fetched to suggest that through the Anglican Church in England, Australia, and even in America the Holy Spirit will once again irradiate the Anglo-Saxon Volksgeist. But Anglo-Saxon Christians of the early twentieth century certainly never expected to see their island race laid low by the dregs of the Third World now flooding into their homelands.
Who is to say that we are not on the cusp of a new Golden Age in which Anglo-Saxon Christian tribes unite to serve the King while the King serves God? The rebirth of Christian nationalism may well become an adaptive response to the crisis facing Anglo-Saxon Protestants over the next century.
Anglo-Saxon Christian Nationalism
White nationalists frequently blame Christianity for the universalist drive to transcend the biocultural realities of race and ethnicity. But that is not the whole story.
No one can deny, of course, that “early Christianity was committed to universal, values,” if only because it sought very consciously to transcend Jewish national particularism But, as Adrian Hastings points out, the spiritual vision of a heavenly, new Jerusalem “could not negate an equally pervasive quality of incarnatedness, rather it reinforced it.” As one second century writer put it, the body, the flesh, might “hate the soul. … All the same the soul loves the flesh.”
We also know, Hastings adds, that “Pentecost thus established a program which was both universal and particularist, providing full justification for translation of the scriptures and rites of the Church into any and every language.”
This program was in accordance with Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:19 NKJV) “to go and make disciples of all nations.” In the course of his own mission to the gentiles, Paul explained that God made “every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each of us” (Acts 17: 26-27, NKJV).
Historians have demonstrated that the “evolution of English and other national identities in the Middle Ages” owed an enormous “debt to specifically biblical and Christian influences.” The strong particularist loyalties which came to dominate Europe challenged “the universalist vision of Christian society which had hitherto shaped” the European mind, but they “were themselves a product of Christianity.”
Hastings affirms that the “forces within Christianity and society encouraging the rise of nations and nationalism were at work within every ecclesiastical tradition and almost every part of Europe.” For much of the twentieth century, however, the forces of Christian universalism rose into prominence once again. In the wake of two destructive world wars, both Catholics and mainline Protestants began to view the forces of nationalism as a blight on Christian civilization (see here and here).
Hastings concludes, however, that “a false universalism is now an even greater threat, a succumbing to the globalization, economic, cultural, and political, sweeping the world under the pressure of capitalism and American military dominance.” Effective resistance to the crassly commercial cosmopolitanism of corporate neo-communism will emerge when the particularistic Volksgeist of Christian nations incarnates the ecumenical spirit of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church, each in its own manner.
Marooned in their propositional republic, American WASPs are fixated on the universalistic ideal of Christian charity. Such pathological altruism has suppressed the particularistic principle of honour—a traditional manifestation of the love of God found deep in the heart of the European nobility. The divinely-ordained mission of both the British monarchy and the Anglican church, therefore, must be to promote a Christian way of life grounded in the charity of honour.
Conclusion
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Partly-inbred and relatively large in numbers WASPs may be, but they are also a hopelessly dysfunctional extended family. Without a healthy racial consciousness to prevent further self-harm, dishonourable WASPs remain a threat to the restored unity of European Christendom.
Anglo-Saxon Protestant men of honour will not remain an invisible race. A postmodern Christian ethno-theology will foster the spiritual rebirth, or palingenesis, of the Anglo-Saxon race. Nowhere is that regenerative mission more urgent than amidst the decaying ruins of the American Republic.
A new age will have dawned when Jared Taylor’s Anglo-American kin-folk join Anglo-Australians to sing “God Save the King.”
Andrew Fraser was born in Canada and educated there and in the USA before moving to Australia where he taught law at Macquarie University in Sydney. He is the author of The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (Arktos, 2011)
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
I would gladly join the Anglican Church if it functioned as a racial and cultural institution and I wasn’t required to believe the superstitious aspects. But the Church of England seems to promote Islam more than Anglo-Saxon identity anyway, and for all the problems of decentralization and democracy, the hierarchical tradition has its own set of problems as well.
As far as monarchy goes, Dixie was far more loyalist than New England and maintained an aristocratic tradition that the Puritans did not. I know some monarchist (women) that were enthralled with the new royal wedding, one even approvingly describing it as a “celebration of White Supremacy” but the whole Diana thing before didn’t seem to turn out so well.
American conservatives may go along with the Anglican idea, but anti-constitutionalist monarchy, even if symbolic, almost certainly won’t fly.
Not being an Australian, either by birth or upbringing (though he consistently represents himself as one, even giving “G’day” salutations in his jarring Canadian accent), Prof. Fraser’s comments respecting the country should be treated with more scepticism than enthusiastic bigots are inclined to provide.
Weren’t Whitlam and Hawke, gasp!, respectively an agnostic Anglican and the wealthy, rabidly Zionist son of a Congregationalist minister? The repulsive mafia creature Al Grasby was, admittedly, a half Irish and half Spanish animal who begrudged Anglo-Australia for several, self-evident reasons.
Australia is unique among the British Commonwealth nations you cite. Here Irish settlement is of a colonial not an immigrant nature, and parallel to this is that Roman Catholicism here, both ethnic Irish and ethnic English, is also of colonial date and no wise inferior in the antiquity of its churches and genuine belonging to the soul of Australia. That said, this British Christian racial outpost has outlived its attachment to either benighted and scurrilous sect of the Christian delusion, with their (the sects’) promotion of humanitarian materialism and equality hogwash.
After 1945 Germans and Dutch arrived in huge numbers as well and although Teutonic, but far from all Protestant (a moiety or above of the Germans post-WWII may have been of the Roman variety of the Christ cult), they did not altogether help in cementing our internal relatedness or British ancestral character (which you rightly point out as vital). Also at this time America, republican, Jewish, and anti-traditional, supplanted decrepit Britain as our imperial liege lord in the region.
Italians have actually assimilated pretty well: B.A. Santamaria is probably the best traditional conservative philosopher we ever produced, setting up the briefly successful Democratic Labor Party which was stridently anti-communist and anti-capitalist (therefore afoul of “Irish/ethnic” Labor Party and “WASP” Liberal Party orthodoxy), opposing the internationalism inherent in both systems. A leading supporter and thinker associated intimately with One Nation was also Italian.
Finally of the 39 Australian soldiers needlessly killed in a Judeo-WASP American orchestrated war, one has an Italian surname and one Serbian. The name Fraser is conspicuously absent, as are Dutch, Swedish, etc surnames of the kind we have been told in this series are of the utmost significance to *all* British-majority dominions. It may be a little impolite for Canadians to so blithely ruffle the nests of other peoples’. We have to live here with these folk, Prof Fraser has lived in three countries and, based on past form, leaves whenever he pleases.
There are some Canadians who want nothing to do with the dirty Brits who lied to us about the war and killed and maimed our Fathers and Grandfathers and left us bedeviled. We would be much better off with European Canadians uniting along with Canadian Irish and Scottish with those is the US. Those Canadian and American Anglo-Saxons who have studied history will get this and agree.
Pretty good analysis about Church of England and future of Christianity. Long article but worth reading.
The Rise Of Anti-Western Christianity
“”…..The statistics are compelling. By 2025, nearly 75% of the world’s Catholics will be non-Western (mostly African and mestizo). At present, Nigeria has the world’s largest Catholic theological school. Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro may be the world’s largest Catholic church. India has more Christians than most Western nations. By 2050, more than 80% of Catholics in the U.S. will be of non-Western (often mestizo) origins. By 2050, only a small fraction of Anglicans will be English or of the European Diaspora. Nigeria, not England, is the new heart of Anglican Christianity….
the Global South does not care whether Westerns deny that a particular practice is Christian. Westerners, in their eyes, no longer define what is Christian.
Matthew Oshimolowo, head of the black Kingsway International Christian Centre in London, as saying that the Anglican church should “die gracefully” and hand over its buildings to Africans…”"
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the Anglican Church ordain both Women and Gays into their clergy???
Good luck with that!
lol
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1830282,00.html
At the beginning of the American War of Independence, England was already “controlled, behind the scenes, by an ambitious, avaricious, and utterly self-interested elite” of Jewish and Freemasonic bankers. The first modern-style revolution did not take place in American or even France. In the 1688 “Glorious Revolution,” foreigner William of Orange led a Jewish-financed Dutch invasion of England with the connivance of traitorous English Freemasons. The rightful King James was forced out because of his tolerance for Catholicism, the ancestral religion of England.
As William Cobbet has documented, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was a play on words against the official document of usurpation used by the Glorious Revolutionaries to justify replacing King James with the invading William of Orange. Washington, Jefferson, and the Virginia gentlemen class were decedents of Cavaliers, ancient aristocracy expelled by Judaized, Puritan middle-class strivers in the 1642 English Civil War, which laid the groundwork for the “Glorious Revolution.” So the War of Independence can be seen in part as revenge by England’s ancient exiled aristocracy against the Catholic-hating low-borns that had hijacked control of England.
Under orders from the Jewish-owned central Bank of England and jealous of America’s unrivaled economic independence and prosperity, Parliament passed the Currency Act of 1765 to outlaw American Colonial Script. This threw the colonies into a deep deflationary depression until independence was finally declared as a last-ditch effort necessary to “defend the rights of Englishmen.”
Since the Declaration, a pitched battle raged between American patriots and agents of the Bank of England. In 1913, America finally lost her War of Independence with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS.
White Nationalism tends to attract some overbearing Germanophiles. After reading this article I infinitely prefer them to preening Anglophiles. L
While whites jealously bicker among themselves, I read stories like Muslim complains because CEO of an ice-cream company,(he is white) supposedly ‘insulted him by falsely assuming he was Pakastani. Indeed, as the story says, the CEO is now in “hot water”.
Personal comment:
Whites continue to exhibit a knuckleheaded stupidity : an almost breathless display of ignorance of the situation that now exists in this country CONCERNING THEM!!
@Edward: What a splendid and informative comment! I thank you sincerely. The material in your paragraph 1 is completely new to me, and that in paragraph 2, especially regarding the Virginian Cavalier descendants, all but forgotten. My grammar school teachers (long-pre-VII Ursuline nuns) and high school teachers (Catholic laymen and Irish Christian Brothers) were very laudatory of Washington, who was always described as especially sympathetic to the Catholics under his command. (I wonder whether they knew that he was a Mason, albeit one who virtually never attended lodge meetings.)
Most interesting of all, however, is paragraph 3. One cannot be reminded often enough that the economic grounds for independence may be the soundest of all.
@Peter: Not unlike the beauteous Ilana Mercer, maybe?
@Pierre de Craon: William Cobbet’s 1824 classic HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND is required reading for anyone seeking a realistic understanding of the Anglo Saxon condition. Here is a free soft copy:
http://www.exclassics.com/protref/protref.pdf
Skip the lame Ex-classics introduction. Tan Books has a much better introduction in its hard copy edition. The book is written in a page-turning, rhetorical style but the included information comes from some of the most eminent English historians of the time.
The book describes how Great Britain was turned inside out by its Reformation and how a horrific class warfare ensued that continues to this day. Think of the SWPL’s who are too proud to work for the interests they share in common with the much despised “rednecks.” This is the real reason Ango-Whites are unable to unify around a common interest.
Washington may have been a Freemason, but he did speak against the Illuminati infiltration of the Lodge.
@Juri:
All of this confession, and self flaggelation by the Catholics…they can get the whips & chains out to share with their brothers and sisters from Latino America. Catholicism will be a real interesting ethnic combined cult in a few years here in America. Human sacrifice too…LOL?
“Aristocracy might thus be reinvented in the least expected area of corporate governance.”
“Nowhere is that regenerative mission more urgent than amidst the decaying ruins of the American Republic.”
Then the cold reality …The eternal jew.
grudman@bellsouth.net
@Tom: Tom, I don’t even worry about the religious angle when it comes to hispanics/Mexicans. I worry about the political angle, things like, language, continuing affirmative action, jobs, etc.etc.
I want to offer a little inspirational poem to the members of the British race, written by Wordsworth for the Napoleanic Wars:
It is not to be thought of that the flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world`s praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flowed, `with pomp of waters, unwithstood,`
Roused though it be full often to a mood
Which spurns the check of salutary bands,
That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands
Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung
Armoury of the invincible knights of old:
We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spoke: the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held. – In everything we are sprung
Of Earth`s first blood, have titles manifold.
@Snake: Reading Fraser’s ravings I wonder whether he ever left his ivory tower for the real world.
Monarchy (a truly pathetic, outdated, clownish institution) and a state church/religion is what he recommends for the salvation of the non-existent Anglo-Saxon race.
As I pointed out before, the English, far from being a race apart from other Nordics, are merely a branch of the Germans whose low German language got corrupted by the French-speaking Normans, who themselves lost their own Germanic Norse tongue to the local French vernacular.
As for Anglicanism or even Christianity being the ancient faith of the Anglo-Saxons, Fraser again drops a whopper.
The ancient faith of the Anglo-Saxons was not a set of writings imported from Israel, but the Germanic pantheon of Woden, Freya, Thor and so on. The Anglo-Saxon warriors went to Walhalla after death, just like all other German warriors.
Even the names of the week derive from the Germanic pantheon to this day.
Fraser lives in his own Wonderland, but not with Alice.
Ride out to meet them!
Come in Mr. Frazer this is ground control. Your rambling sir request you come down to the year 2012. Anglo Saxons, Montesque..were alittle worried.
You see the whites have a Zionist control problem today.
My understanding is that the English derive from
Ingvaeone. “people of Friga”. Their antiquity is quite well attested to, in Tacitus. Various Ingvaeonic kingdoms that are now counties. Kent, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex, Anglia, Mercia… They are more than a branch of a “Germania” that didn’t even exist up until the modern period.
Thank you Edward, especially for the noting the Jewish Dutch invasion and takeover of England. It should be noted that Jews had been exiled from England by Richard 1 and his Mother Eleanor of Aquitaine from both England and Eleanor’s
French grand duchy, about 1/3 of present day France. Over the years Jews snuck back in. Their vicious moneylending practices led Edward 1 to collect and deport them all again.
After that the Jews stayed away.
Who let the Jews back in England? Cromwell the puritan, Tom’s great hero.
I personally detest the “go back to the constitution and the founding fathers branch of White nationalism”. That ship sailed when the supreme court ruled on the Jewish and black
case, Brown vs Topeka. Since then it has been all downhill for Whites
I am no admirer of the revolution. It was nothing but a power grab by the aristocrats and richest people in the colonies. The ordinary people always said, “What does it matter if I pay my taxes to King George 111 or King George 1?”
Here are the reasons why the aristocrats wanted “freedom” from England.
(1) 7 years aka french and indian war. That war gave the northwestern half of Louisianna territory to England, about 10 states ranging from Tennesse to Minnesota and the Dakotas. The colonists naturally wanted to expand to these terrotories. Washington and his officers who fought that war felt they were entitled to huge territories. Washington wanted W Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennesse, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin given to him as a land grant. He would then rent out farms to tenants and become the greatest landowner in America. Of course it would be necessary for the British goverment to maintain a huge army to protect the settlers from the Indian tribes. The Indians did not mind the French too much. Except for Quebec and what is now S. Louisianna state, the French were basically traders.
That made the Indians happy. Trade furs for iron pots, pans and tools. But the English brought their women, had children and staked out farms. By that time the Indians realized what was happening and were ready to fight for their land.
The British goverment said ok to using the British army but decided that the American taxpayers, not the British would have to pay for it. Seems reasonable does it not? The tax created to protect the settlers moving into Louisianna territory was the stamp act. Nothing to do with postage. It was a tax on county clerk document stamps. Lawsuits, court judgements, real estate transactions, debt collections done by the court, etc. This was basically a tax on attorneys. That too is reasonable. When people use the courts and goverment record keepers such as county clerks they pay a tax to support that goverment service. Our goverment keeps birth, death, marriage and divorce certificates. We pay a small fee to keep these records safe and avaliable when we need them. it is a completely reasonable tax.
But it fell on attorneys and litigants, a group always anxious to twist things for their own benefit.
And remember, the stamp act taxes were to be used to support the British army against the Indians defending their lands against an invasion of settlers.
(3) Tea smuggling. In England, many imported products were very cheap because they were smuggled. Fine french broadcloth was actually cheaper than medicore English broadcloth. Same thing in the colonies. There was a tax on Tea. But so much tea was smuggled in that the smuggled tea was much, much cheaper than the legal tea. So few bought the legal tea. John Hancock was the wealthiest tea smuggler in the colonies.
In order to raise revenue, the English goverment lowered the tax on tea. The idea was to lower the cost of legal tea to compete with the cheaper smuggled tea. That was the purpose of the Boston tea party. It was not to protest raising of the tax on tea but to protest the lowering of the tax on tea to such an extent that legal tea would cost no more than the smuggled tea. The Boston tea party was aranged by Hancock and the other smugglers who had become very rich by tea smuggling. Think 18th century George Soros types.
(4) Wilberforce and his anti slavery crusade. In I think 1770 a
Jamacian slave brought to England by his master was used by the anti slavery crusade in an anti slavery lawsuit. English common law was of course made by individual Judges. The court ruled that slavery was illegal in England and all slaves brought to England became free men. This of course shut down the Bristol slave trade. Wilberforce was on a typical puritan crusade. The next move was the colonies.
Most of our founding Fathers were either slave owners or slave brokers. Franklin was the largest slave broker in Philadelphia among other things.
It was the anti slavery Judgement that decided thing. Had that law extended to the colonies it would have been all over for the Southern plantation owners and the New England slave traders who colloborated with the Jewish slave traders The founding Fathers knew it was coming.
Those were the main reasons for the revolution.
I detest the aristocrat version of American history because it meant that Whites who did not have the capitol to buy slaves were marginalized into poverty, especially in the south. That continues to this day. Also, in the 17th century the poor Whites were sent off to the Piedmont and Blue Ridge mountains to defend the wealthy plantations against the Indians. That meant that White women and children were fighting the Indians while the White male southern aristocrats
stayed safe far from Indian territory.
In New England there was a high level of unemployment among men and teen age boys as early as 1650. This was because of the slave trade. There was always a need for women slave for the household. But New Englan has poor soil and a short growing season so there was no need for
unskilled fresh off the boat from Africa male slaves. So they were freed and contributed to the unemployment problem.
That is the real story of the revolution folks, aristocrats hurting the common folk, the story of human history.
@Edward:
Just so. As Freeman’s great biography makes clear, he was an extraordinarily ambitious man, but ambitious for virtue. Not the kind of thing one encounters every day.
I wish he had been less eager to trade in the Articles for the Constitution, but I have no other serious gripe against him. His presidency was the closest thing this country’s ever had or ever likely to have to the reign of a Louis IX or an Edward the Confessor.
Many thanks for the link. I’ll read the book.
@Edward:
The English Reformation also wrecked health care which brings us right up to date with Obama.
@ Frank Edwin Stone
That’s very true about both tribes being kin. But I was referring to the heavier, ponderous, bellicose, metaphysical Germanism that conflicts with the Nation Of Shopkeepers. Nietzsche contra Locke if you will.
Fraser is a lunatic or just wants to profit from a theory. Organizing the Anglican Revolution? The least ethno-centric tribe will not save us. Nor is it time to squawk over old-world conflicts. We’re in complete agreement in regards to monarchy, Anglican revival, and the fundamental Otherness of Abrahamic mythology.
Perhaps a new faith rooted in the vitalism of Homer and the wisdom of Wotan will arrive. Of course it won’t worship gods per se. We can build upon Pierce’s Cosmotheism.
Mr Fraser should read ‘The Origins of the British’ by Stephen Oppenheimer (2006). If he did, he would realize that the genetic evidence clearly shows that the English are actually very similar genetically to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. The Anglo- Saxon invaders (while successful) were relatively few in number and soon amalgamated with the native inhabitants. The fusion of Celt and Saxon was greatest in the west and least in the east but the truth is that today’s English are an ‘Anglo-Celtic’ people and have been for centuries. The term ‘British’ is therefore probably an apter descriptor for them than ‘English’ or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ from a genetic standpoint.
The Anglican Church is one of the most morally degenerated institutions in the world and frankly deserves to disappear. Far from leading a renaissance of the ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ it is busy welcoming Nigerians into its leadership and fighting for gay rights and multiculturalism. It was an utterly lost cause even thirty years ago.
While Mr Fraser deprecates German and other non-British European immigration to Australia and extols the virtues of the British monarchy, he might pause to reflect that the current Queen actually has more German ancestry than British ancestry. Also, the notion that post-war European migrants somehow spearheaded opposition to the White Australia policy is utter rubbish. The dismantling of the White Australia Policy was carried out in defiance of overwhelming support for it among the Australian population – including among non- British White Australians. The real driving force behind the fall of White Australia was Jewish ethnic activism. As someone else stated: ‘If they dont mention the Jew, then it isn’t true.’
Mr Fraser’s arguments read like the quaint Anglo-Israelism that was popular in late Victorian times. In the current political and demographic predicament we face they simply don’t stack up.
@Juri
Exactly why Christianity – the Jew derivative religion – is a dead end; it’s already a majority non-White religion, and getting more non-White all the time. Why waste anymore time on it? Or really, any “religion” for that matter? Why do we need a “religion” per se?
@Snake
Germanophiles and Anglophiles are indeed obnoxious. I’ll embrace the Germans are blood brothers as long as we don’t have to drag Catholicism and the rest into it. Yes, Anglos have historically proven to be the least ethnocentric.
@Tom
Indeed, Catholicism offers us nothing but a browning of the race.
@Frank Edwin Stone
The best counterpoint to Fraser yet – two dead institutions, Christianity and monarchy, likely do not lead us forward.
…
It seems to me there’s a clear path forward, and a clear path backwards. We can, as a race, invent technology that sends our probes to Mars, genetically engineer the race, use our medicine to lengthen our lifespans, and provide an abundance of material wealth …
Or we can continue to obsess over gods, virgins, religious and civil wars of the past, and other sleep-inducing historical minutiae, merely to entertain the aging humanities academics overdue for retirement.
I’ll take the path that gave us the internet – you know, that allowed us to bypass Jew broadcast media.
Anyone with me?
END OF ENGLAND; Homer Lea Predicts the Downfall of the “Saxon” People…..IN a work of portentous gravity Gen. Homer Lea has depicted the inevitable downfall of the British Empire, or, as he pleases to call it, the “Saxon People.” With a mind filled with the everlasting imminence of war, he has analyzed the strategical position of the congeries of dominions that form the “Saxon” heritage, and has found them lacking in every element of permanent military strength. …..http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0CEFD81E3CE633A25752C2A9619C946396D6CF
@mari: The founding fathers were no saints but the War of Independence was in part of a legitimate fight against the Bank of England. Today this greatest of evils and its numerous progeny strangle the entire globe.
@Edward:
Thank you, both for the link and the website which hosts it. What a treasure!
@Richard Pierce:
Technology or religion, that is choice? We cannot do both as we have up until now? Without religion, how will you get the white women to have babies?
Can anyone think of another people subjected to as much Hostile analysis of their genetic, linguistic and cultural roots as the English?
See there’s no such thing as the English! They conclude, look close and there’s nothing there.
It’s wishful thinking. Comical too.
@Pete:
Oppenheimer’s book doesn’t seem to be very highly regarded among geneticists. I have read that the English are also genetically close to present day Belgians. I would wait a while before latching onto any one view.
Mr. Fraser is an Anglo supremacist with little interest in a wider White cause. He promotes the constitutional British monarchy as the quintessential Anglo-Saxon institution to retain the essential English ethnicity of the members of the Commonwealth. Similarly, for Americans of Anglo descent he believes ethnic identity ought to take precedence over racial identity. Mr. Fraser is wrong in fact and opinion.
First, a constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch reigns but does not rule, has no power to influence legislation concerning immigration, affirmative action, quotas, or integration of schools.
Second, the British monarchy is not an ethnic Anglo-Saxon institution representing the historic peoples of the Britsh Isles. After the demise of the Romans, the historic peoples of Britain, the Brytons and the Picts, were invaded by various Germanic tribes, among them the Angles and the Saxons. These ruled from about 400 to 900, when the French began to invade. From 1066 until about 1400 only French was spoken at the English Court. Richard the Lion Heart (Richard I) did not speak a word of English and spent only a few months in England. Finally, with the crowning of George I in 1714 the British monarchy has remained predominantly German until today. The British monarchy is mixed European, truly a symbol of the White race.
Fraser is a promoter of ethnic divisions among Whites where none now exist. He chastises Jerod Taylor for promoting pride is his White heritage while ignoring his British background. One wonders whether he would consider Kevin MacDonald a lesser person than himself and Taylor because MacDonald ‘s Scottish Anglo blood has been sullied by German.
His remarks in a radio interview with Tom Sunic are revealing. Sunic interviewed Fraser shortly after the publication of his book, “The Wasp Question.” In the interview Fraser expresses his disapproval of college age kids in Australia forming friendships with those of other races, presumably because such friendships could lead to interracial marriages. When Fraser mentions that his own son has a Russian girlfriend, Sunic interjects saying, “Well that’s good news, isn’t it?” thinking that Fraser must be relieved that his son is not dating a Black or Asian. “No,” replies Fraser, “I wish
he had an Anglo-Saxon girl friend.”
http://reasonradionetwork.com/index.php?s=andrew+fraser
The Sunic Journal: Interview with Andrew Fraser, Part I
@Edward:
Have sex with them? Am I missing something here?
Please omit my last name from the preceding reply if you decide to use it.
Using Anglo-Saxon and British interchangeably is bad enough, but considering a Rhodes-like Anglosphere of the “British Race” to be the solution to the present condition is truly laughable.
@Richard Pierce: Are you feigning ignorance? Post-Christian white women are having plenty of sex, but very few babies. High rates of abortion, contraception, late marriage, and divorce are some of the many fruits that have come from secularism.
@Richard Pierce:
Religion gives people a sense of purpose in life and a moral foundation, despite all its drawbacks, it is a necessity for a healthy society IMO. Otherwise there will be total atomization and a rudderless mess like we have today. To its credit, Christianity did help provide a stable family life, but I think I would prefer a more particularist, ethnic-based belief system. OTOH the most fervently universalist Christian groups, the Calvinists, Puritans, and other Protestants, have had a poisonous influence, from encouraging Jewish immigration, to promoting the American civil war, to the pathetic humanist guilt trips over third world suffering.
@Edward:
Fair enough. Tell girls that condoms and abortion will make them go to hell and Jesus wants them to have babies. Marry them off at 18. That’s a great age for making babies anyway, and sex with 18 year olds is enjoyable.
I’m still failing to see the problem here. But pardon me, I can be a little slow at times.
Anything else?
Well, Christianity certainly does need to be reformed from what it has become through manipulation by the tribe. I am the first to agree there.
But, certainly women with a sense of having a higher power to guide them are more apt to see procreation as a important life goal, rather than being “fulfilled” by working at career, taking care of a cat, and painting their toe nails and other important earthly stuff like that.
@mari:
Jews were heavily involved in the American Revolution as well. An interesting article on that subject can be found here:
http://jewishmag.com/80mag/usa3/usa3.htm
Wotan and his war pals got blitzed on the battlefield by the Christian God. It was only natural to convert to the victor. But yeah, call back the loser… I’m sure that will work out well. Let’s also give away the ‘zero’, because the Asians invented that. I’m sure it will be no problem plotting Mars co-ordinates with Runes.
@mari:
Well done!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040260/Maciej-Dakowicz-Cardiff-After-Dark-binge-drinking-images-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html
All one needs to know about modern Brits and Irish. I viewed the same behavior recently in UK, Ireland, and Spain.
@Lombard:
Rooting for the winner is definitely something American Christians are very good at. Just look at how much they love jews and Israel.
@Richard Pierce:
Off to Mars then? Now that’s what I call white flight.
The Oppenheimer/Iberian theory has been essentially debunked. Waiting is prudent advice.
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2008/11/another-nail-in-coffin-of-iberian-irish.html
Thomas et al advanced a theory of apartheid.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/
The notion that Celts are a racial entity is mythical.
I had the pleasure to debate Andrew Fraser over many of the matters raised in these articles, back at the Sydney Forum in 2009. Unfortunately, the recording was corrupted.
The Australian nationalists who founded our tradition in the original labour movement argued a case for ‘whiteness’. We modern nationalists still do and rely on the history of the earlier movment.
In the current climate, it is (we say) a very false and impossible position to divide Australia’s very mixed (sic) Europeans from each other. These native-to-the-soil folk are the core of the Nation. It is true that Australia has communities of ‘unassimilated’ whites who were drawn into multiculti. For the nationalists, it is only a transcendent creed that can unite them. The native core is the group around which all can unite. There remains the chance to rescue the nation from the Third World challenge. There is the case that a new nation founded upon this core would take its place alongside other ‘European Nations’.
It is the case that an ‘anglophile’ conservatism exists here. I would say that it fails to evoke even the fighting spirit it would need to be the sort of movement Andrew talks of. That is its contradiction.
There is little doubt that the ‘ethnic group’ of which Andrew speaks has contributed to the nation. But it was never alone.
I think that our American friends should learn a little more of our peculiar experiment in whiteness (sic) and that the modern nationalists are not likely to be diverted.
I would end up on saying that nothing here takes away my respect for Andrew and what he endured at the hands of the thought-police here.
@Richard Pierce: Amen brother Rich. Praise the Lawwd, you’ve seen the light!
It is the case that an ‘anglophile’ conservatism exists here. I would say that it fails to evoke even the fighting spirit it would need to be the sort of movement Andrew talks of. That is its contradiction.
True. The Anglos are the most sycophantic suckholes one could ever imagine. They are:
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
A united White Australia can easily overcome the asian hordes, drive out the muslim scum, and reclaim again, our Southern Cross destination, of a nation of White People.
Part 2 has officially jumped the shark.
Reactionaries have long railed against 1789 … and now we hear the problem is really 1776.
This argument is ridiculous. If Loyalism and “British patriotism” were the answers, why has Canada – which was pretty much founded by UEL types – turned out to be an even bigger train wreck than the US in terms of multiculti and PC?
The harsh truth is that ALL the Anglosphere countries have turned into varying degrees of PC basket cases since the 1960s, and ALL of them are headed into the demographic abyss (for Whites at least). No difference whether one recognizes QEII as monarch or not.
Indeed, given that native stock peoples are in terrible decline in the UK itself – let’s face it, the Brits are the most self-hating once-imperial people anywhere on earth – how are we “colonials” supposed to hold up values which the originators cannot?
The awkward reality is that all White countries have been infected by the Cultural Marxist bacillus in the second half of the 20th century. How that exactly happened is elaborated in about half the posts on Dr McD’s blog here. It’s clear that the CM, Frankfurt School ideology is mostly the creation of Jews from Eastern and Central Europe. Yet the interesting question is WHY formerly healthy WHITE society accepted the CM death virus, as a gift, so quickly and easily.
Hard to blame the Germans for their pathetic and self-hating beliefs now, since the Anglosphere countries rammed the PC ideology down their throats after 1945. The Latin countries of Europe are a tad more resistant to the CM stuff, since they still have a remnant of cultural confidence. The mostly Slavic countries of the East are still relatively resistant to the PC bacillus the West is forcing on them – just this week the Serbs had to cancel yet another effort, sponsored by the US and the EU, to have a gay “pride” parade in Belgrade due to fear of “right wing violence” – but how long they can hold out is a worrisome question.
If you want to really make your head hurt, accept that Eastern Europe was protected from Western CM nonsense by having actual Bolsheviks in power from 1945 to 1990 – never forget that, although the Soviets talked about multiculti stuff, they were remarkably Hetero White Guy friendly in practice. Which is why Germans from the East still today are much less prone to PC gibberish, and much more comfortable with historic German nationalism, than their co-nationals in the former West Germany.
You see, the real problem is US, the real revolutionaries of the ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD. Sure, we’ve infected others, through the EU, but the awful truth is that Jew-inspired Cultural Bolshevism took root in the Anglosphere and then poisoned the world – the UK perhaps worse than anywhere else.
WE are the problem, my friend. Not the solution. If we had retained our cultural and racial confidence of the Revolution of 1776, the USA would be a quite healthy country, and helping to build a better world. Alas ….
Bottom line: this is the dumbest post I have ever seen on this great website. Calling this wishful thinking is too kind, it is a WASP fantasy devoid of historical fact. It is just as fantasy-based as anything vomited by Marcuse.
1 in 5 ANZACs were born in Britain.
3/5 had a parent or both parents born in the UK.
The founding military generation of Aussies were not Greek, Italian… The Fenian Irish were probably NOT volunteering for combat. Those Irish who did join up should be honoured.
It’s said that Australia was born at Gallipoli, much of the blood spilled there was actually British (most troops were Metropolitan regiments ) the Anzacs were more British than British in many ways.
Now, in WW1 Australian soldiers were given more equpment that British regiments. The quota of mortars, machine guns and grenades turned them into Stormtruppen. They were not sacrificed willy nilly. They also got extra artillery and trained around tanks.
So quit effing whining about Galipoli. The French
were there, the British army proper (forming the majority of forces) and the first cohort of Aussies/Kiwi were blooded there. Then the Aussies went from strength to strength as heavily equipped shock troops.
Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943–October 2, 2012) carries himself with dignity, integrity and aplomb -
As Political Correctness reaches its heights, Shabbos goy Phil Donohue administers an obscene PC bludgeoning and the audience follows in nightmarish lockstep. American free speech, a sick joke, in those times just prior to the advent of the Internet. Rushton on Donohue 1990:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeEFjr1pfaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CsFvcLb1us&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRduoxbH6HA&feature=relmfu
The proposition that all men are created equal was to racially devastate whites eventually.
Jefferson was a horrorshow with that stupid illogical statement.
Lincoln simply fulfilled to wrecking job on white supremacism in the US.
@Richard Pierce:
As an atheist and engineering student, I’m totally with you.
We need technology, new thinking, and innovation.
These ramblings about a “Golden Age in which Anglo-Saxon Christian tribes unite to serve the King while the King serves God” are laughable.
I can’t tell you how many Israeli professors there are that are creating new technologies every day—not only in Israel, but here in the U.S.
This is the Twenty First Century. I thought we would be talking about a real modern political and social movement, rather than listen to fictional tales about kings and Christianity.
Are you telling me that you actually want to go back to a time where we believed in the Jewish fiction of the bible?
Let me tell you, I will never listen to a leader who tells me that his authority or nobility comes from God. Never.
That is unnecessarily irrational and regressive.
When I was 14, I walked out of Sunday School in bewilderment about how brainwashed my peers were. I remember being utterly confused every time I heard stories about Moses or whoever being read. I would ask myself, “Is it me or is it them?”
Eventually I found out, indeed, that it was them.
Please, don’t go there.
We’ve had so many more valuable philosophers in our own race than those cons who wrote the bible.
Plus Christianity is not really tribal at all, is it? It is universal, exactly the thing we want to avoid.
@Elie:
Thanks for the vote of confidence Elie. If this “movement” of ours had more scientists and engineers, and fewer priests and preachers, we may actually be able to get something done.
100% agreed. I think a lot of the problem is that humanities academics and underworked clerics have more time to write on WN blogs, as opposed to technologists who, after all, are busy doing useful work.
I would point out this wonderful world wide web of ours that allows them to post was invented by a White man without the slightest reference to god or Christianity. The clerics could pray all day long and still never invent the internet. Two hands engaged in useful work do more than a million hands clasped in prayer.
@Richard Pierce:
“I think a lot of the problem is that humanities academics and underworked clerics have more time to write on WN blogs, as opposed to technologists who, after all, are busy doing useful work.”
Oh no, I’m not putting down humanities academics. I greatly respect their profession and find their work interesting.
I just think that they need to focus on “forward” and “progressive” thinking like the Marxists do.
Of course, they should replace what the Marxists call progress with our own version.
But humanities academics are actually incredibly important.
Look at what liberal academics have been able to achieve in 60–70 years.
Humanities academics are needed for moral, political, and social thinking.
Engineers can’t do that.
But the humanities academics CAN get us to all cherish engineering as a part of social progress more than the bible.
The printing press was primarily used to print bibles.
I’m no holy roller but Guttenberg is primarily known for certain books.
Now, on technology. The Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Catholic Priest. Malthus was ordained. Almost all Oxford Professors were ordained. The list is virtually endless. The Vatican is one of the great archives and museums in the planet. The Cathedrals of Europe are technological feats that bettered the classical period.
Most real research is conducted at either Oxford, UCL, Liverpool School of Tropical medicine, Kings College London, Cambridge or MIT, UCLA which are tremendously Anglo places.
Who made the breakthrough with cloning? DNA discovery? Penecilin? Israeli professors? Elie get lost.
Harvard Yale ect are law schools with famous brand name professors.
@Dan
There’s no question that Christianity had its golden age, that included technological progress. It’s also clear that age has passed. So let’s stop beating the dead horse and get on with it. Dragging along Christianity means dragging along the majority of Christians, who are non-White and increasingly third world. Everyone used to be Christian, including all the scientists. As Christianity had faded – scientific progress has not stopped. So let’s not pretend scientific progress was in any way reliant on Christianity.
No one is demanding anyone abandon their religion. But the current article suggests that the Church will somehow lead us forward. There’s simply no evidence the institution, or the ideology, can contribute anything meaningful to our future. Well except for scaring girls into having babies, I have been informed. Fair enough.
@Elie
OK point taken about humanities, my real targets were the clerics and crypto-clerics. Although historians seem to take up far too much space in the WN movement for my taste.
…
I think the commentariat has make short work of Fraser’s proposals. So, what’s next?
I sure don’t want to live in a place where everyone believes the fairy tale bible, but why is living in a society run by engineers any better? We have both, now, and it’s pure hell.
@Barkingmad:
At least in the US, the leaders are lawyers that pander to religious voters. The Republican party openly courts Catholic mestizos with family values rhetoric.
China seems to have spent the last generation run by scientists and engineers, at the highest levels, and that coincided with their economic boom and increase in power, while also retaining their Han majority. Just a thought.
@Barkingmad:
Society shouldn’t be RUN by engineers.
But I’m saying it would be more socially useful to cherish engineering and science rather than old religions.
Of course engineers cannot do the social thinking for us.
But certainly look at how much social progress the Dark Ages produced when science was put below the bible.
The point is that our humanities and social thinkers should look beyond Christianity and be more modern.
I believe the Israelis are very modern and secular in their thinking. At least they behave that way.
Mr. Fraser:
Thank you SO MUCH for your writings and for this new emergent Anglo-Saxon voice. The whole world will fight you (just see above, LOL) but that’s what makes the work invigorating for you, one hopes!
You are a breath of fresh air, sweeping away the endless ragging and nagging of other populations. Their sad sack stories, sense of invalidation, “need not apply sign” propaganda on t.v. intercut with the Bull Conner hose scenes, that kind of thing— that drives so much of the peoples’ psychology today.
The exploration of the Irish, and how they have used their positions (when they have gotten them) in the U.S. is a worthy topic. Philip Hart opened the border to his co-religionists, nearly entirely romanizing the u.s., which has created a situation from which that country will probably not recover. HIs allies got Israel and Latin America got America— apparently that was their deal.
Leaving the Ethnic Americans (i.e. wasps, the children of its founders) to come up with some other idea for how they are going to live, or where they are going to live, in the future.
The Northern European tone is simply gone in the u.s. The Latin tone is prevalent—a warfare-welfare centralist universalist elite re-distributions group. Surely, the Irish hatred for “anglos,” has been a huge u.s. player, as evidenced in the Hart Act, the Kennedys and their Latin connections, the new “Romney-Ryan” ticket (no wasps on the ticket, nor on the Supreme court, etc.— Mormons aren’t wasps, something many people don’t seem to know).
After college, many of my anglo-saxon friends worked briefly in the large u.s. cities, giving it a try (but nyc is only 4% of the founding stock, and the same is true in other u.s. cities seen as central to the functioning of the country, such as L.A., south FL, chicago, and the main southern cities such as Atlanta, Raleigh, etc.)
Nothing could have been more alien to them than the u.s. “power” cities. Their own ethnic group does not live there, and the cities (and the country really) does not reflect their culture, language, values and so on.
We would talk about how the other Euro groups treated us— and it was usually decided that the Italians were best (maybe, we thought, because they really were Romans and they hadn’t been conquered by rome, like the Irish were— rolling over the pope instead of the queen never made them any more Irish, is how it seemed to us, lol). The Irish were the worst, it was always said. They look like us, but have no loyalty to us. The jews would actually give you a much better shake than the Irish. The White Spanish were just in town to take the fat public jobs teaching the influx of Latinos (their co-religionists) some pigeon English, so they could get along until they manage to make their own language the only one in the country, the way they did in South Florida. The Spanish couldn’t care less about americans, except the redistribution checks they were getting for teaching English, and for populating towns like New Haven (where Yale used to be) and so on, in other towns just north of nyc, all of which are 60% Spanish now.
At least in America— it’s their brave new world and very interesting to watch it unfold. U.S became the world of the “ethnic whites,” the “anti-anglos” who are in the government now— Ryan, Romney, Pelosi, Biden, Napolitano, Reno (the recent immigrant and catholic who did the neo-Auto-Da-Fe at Waco, burning the American children alive), and the ideologists such as Lady Gaga and Madonna (same nyc catholic school), Tarantino, Deniro, Decaprio, Scorcese, Coppola, etc, etc.
To what, exactly, is their “loyalty”? To money? The “economy?” Their co-religionists from overseas? To living in a sort of multi-racial “free for all?” To oligarchy and the hopes their own personal families will get to be in the “administrative and redistribution” class, so morally giving away other peoples’ money as “charity” for an “economy?”
In the same way that the War Between the States made the “Southerners” continue to be a people, the Anglo-Saxons of the u.s. are becoming so now (they, like the south, are the “ground against which” the other peoples’ “nation” is being born).
Recently a “white nationalist” was going on and on about the “Anglo elite” and how they screw everyone. It was very funny that that American did not consider that HE decided to fight the anglo elite (revolution)— so clearly, the elite would think HE, not them, was the sellout.
Well, it cut both ways— they sold each other out. In what way, the Generational Americans, Ethnic Americans (i.e. wasps) will make it up with their English leadership remains to be determined. Certainly, the south is still a stronghold for loyalists, (and why it is attacked with Northeast immigrants, as well as the previous civil war).
But many are still standing, so to speak. More than is realized, should they find leadership.
@Elie
@Barkingmad:
“Society shouldn’t be RUN by engineers. But I’m saying it would be more socially useful to cherish engineering and science rather than old religions….”
Elie, you seem like the stupidest of young girls. NOBODY EVER DIED for engineering. But oh my— they give their lives for religion every single day. Race and religion— these are powerful things. Grow up.
The language of symbology, the encoding of deep psychic material, the repeater memes still extant from the ancient world— this is religion. And you think engineering is something.
Christianity should be this…
-Everything was created by a higher power (God).
-God says that people should live by the golden rule.
- Golden rule says that whites like our nation and non-whites like theirs so let’s keep it that way.
-Jews rejected God’s message and the Jews are messing everyone up and God does not like it.
Everything else ( burning bushes , noahs ark, virgin birth)
is just metaphorical.
—Catholicism is a brown religion, really. It didn’t start out that way, but it became so, and very committedly. The Orthodox are less this way, were nationally based—- as catholicism bites the dust, the reasons for protestantism also fade away. A white Orthodoxy is a possibility— leaving the pope to the populations he’s so long cultivated, to keep up his 25,000 room house and other properties, at which point, the protestants need not uphold that religion for european-ness and can make other alliances (and more easily) with the Orthodox.
Orthodoxy would have been the smart way to go after the dissolution of Russia. The American population (like the Russians) have many similarities in terms of land space, rural connection and background, etc.
The “real” Americans (anglo-saxon farmers, basically) had more in common with the average Russians, in many ways— than they did the southern european/ Irish base that runs their country.
The Southern-Euro toned American leadership—- made its alliance with Latin America (to make that “america”) INSTEAD OF THE OBVIOUS MOVE to connect with Russia in the 90s (what the Anglos would have done, and which is a much better fit for them in many ways), in terms of alliances.
Pat Buchanan discusses in SOSP.
@dixie:
“Answers” says that Romney is primarily English, with a bit of German and Scotch in the distant past. There’s lots of proselytizing in Mormonism over the years and they don’t care what your ethnic background is at all. Just get those converts!
@Elie:
Elie, maybe, that the white people’s involvement with, and domination of, science, engineering, technology, and so on, has reached a point of diminishing returns is all I meant to say.
An individual, or an entire race/ethnic group, can go back to some aspect of their tradition, but that does not mean they can or should go back 100%. We won’t lose our knowledge of engineering by turning more toward a spiritual outlook. That portion of the brain is full up.
Anyone watch Jared Taylor’s talk at Towson University defending the establishment of a White Student Union? His audience is significantly non-White with Blacks representing the largest group.
Taylor presented a very articulate and eloquent case. Readers here will unlikely find the content enlightening, but what is most interesting is the Q&A session. Nearly every student who asks a question is hostile to Taylor and opposes the union. Interestingly, one exception is a black student who said half his family is White and he turned down admission to MIT in protest of affirmative action.
It’s stunning to observe the lack of objectivity and rationality of the audience. What Taylor proposes is hardily even radical. I can only imagine their reaction to some of the proposals here. The Blacks in attendance represent to a degree the elite of their race. Their objections were clearly refuted by Taylor, but that did not seem to effect them. Each subsequent question upheld the same predictable approach to the topic without taking Taylor’s previous responses into consideration.
This video suggests the prospects of reasoning with other groups about our interests are slim. There is considerable difficultly in even reaching our own people. They overlook repeatable patterns of behavior and attitudes of groups as whole because of some positive personal association they have with a non-white. Our task will become increasingly more difficult as non-Whites become further integrated in our social, work, and family lives.
The darkages could represent a technological leap.
The Viking longship is a technical marvel. Very IKEA. Maybe the Germanics were better with tech than the Romans. Better wagons, swords, armour, better social organization. Much of the
Roman world was worth washing away. Maybe Rome was keeping the lid on a lot of real creativity.
@Dan: I only respond for the sake of other readers, as I do not respect a person who disrespected the heroic soldiers of the Christmas Truce.
Your mind lacks accuracy.
If “Germania” did not exist in ancient times, then Tacitus was a fool as well as all Romans and other people of the ancient world.
You confuse the ancient Germans, among whose tribes the Anglii, were first described by Tacitus and the lands inhabited by them with the modern nation-state of Germany, which was formed in 1871.
That the ancient Germans were not united in a nation state is well known, but it makes no difference as far as my assertion that the English are merely a western branch of the Germans.
The Kelts themselves were never united in one political entity, yet no one would deny that the Irish represent the westernmost branch of the Kelts and the Galatians of Paul’s letters in Asia Minor the easternmost branch.
That you are confused about basic facts does not surprise me.
I recommend that after you see a priest or psychiatrist, go take an entry level course in logic and a entry level course in Germanic languages and history.
By the way, there are not very many Dans among the French, Lombardians, Spaniards or the Swedes.
Every Frenchman knows that the German tribe of the Franks founded France and gave it its very name. Even the French region of Burgundy owes its name to the German tribe of the Burgunden. Every Lombardian knows that the German tribe of the Longobarden founded Lombardy.
Every Spaniard knows that the Spanish state was founded and ruled for 800 years by the Visigoths.
No Swede is surprised that the Svea were listed among the tribes of Germania by Tacitus. No Swede’s feeling are hurt by the fact that the Goths are counted among the most powerful and important German tribes.
The curse and downfall of England is that too many Dans live there in ignorance and with false pride.
@dixie:
“Elie, you seem like the stupidest of young girls. NOBODY EVER DIED for engineering. But oh my— they give their lives for religion every single day. Race and religion— these are powerful things. Grow up.”
What?
Please, you don’t understand my points.
I said “Society shouldn’t be RUN by engineers.”
So who would die for it?
I think I was trying to imply that reason or whatever makes us stronger WOULD PROBABLY be good for us, as opposed to illogical ramblings of a book that was the moral code for people living in the Dark Ages.
But don’t think what I actually meant was that we should live and die for the latest iPhone.
What the heck are you talking about?
there is no b r i t i s h race, you dimwit.
(saxons, danish, normans, celtics – and some millions muslims).
@J R:Statism and CM, the former still enjoying adulation from all and sundry.
@Trenchant: Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes a good case for the superiority of monarchy vis-à-vis democracy without endorsing it as an ideal form.
http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/hhhdtgtf.pdf
@Richard Pierce: Private property, just a thought. Deng Xiaoping & Co.
Plus Christianity is not really tribal at all, is it?
If you examine the evangelical doctrine of “accountable free will individualism” and that the “homogenous unit principle” that argues that “people are most likely to come to Christ when they do not have to cross “racial, linguistic, or class barriers”, then it is clear that evangelical places of worship sustain and support implicit whiteness. Evangelicalism also portends a reproductive differential with a greater fertility rate than average.
http://colebrownpdx.com/2012/08/institutional-racism-american-evangelicals-part-3-of-4/
Here’s a new link to the YouTube video where Jewess Barbara Specter indicates that Jews are in the forefront of the multicultural trend in Europe and this will give rise to increasing “anti-semitism”. (French subtitles)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaMKUL-GSY
@Desmond Jones:
Is that why many Jews despise the New Testament?
Depending on who you talk to in the TOO commentariat:
1. Britain doesn’t exist it’s a fake construction of disparate cultural and ethnic groups. English Scot and Welsh (depending on your preference the million or so protestants in NI) a beast created by Hun-like Westminster to the detriment of the Celtic fringe.
Or
2. England doesn’t exist. It’s just a linguistic construct built over the homogenous M DNA of a population that has remained largely undusturbed
since Neolithic times, with fairly insignificant Y infusions since then, plus linguistic or cultural borrowings.
Well, Anglophobes, what is it to be?
Stone,
England has existed as a unified state since at least Alfred The Great’s grandson. Before that the “Heptarchy” and a Bretwalda as senior king. A very well defined very well oiled state capable of minting coin, a translated bible, tax collection system and a common law. It was considered to be a state of great age and venerable tradition in 1066.
Germany has only existed since the 1870s. Before that it was a collection of free cities, dukedoms, kingdoms, counties and elastic Illdefined conquered territory. 20 odd years ago it was two states.
France has also had its problems. At various stages of the last two millenia France was reduced to the Isle de France. Various marcher lords were really in charge. England is one of the most resilient political and cultural entities in Europe.
I am English. A pedigree specimen. Yet, in group form I (we) do not officially exist. Englishness is but a myth for as long as England is dominated by the BBC, Jewish financiers, snake-oil salesmen, and the pond-life known as the Rothschilds.
The authentic English cannot even point to a Political Assembly where they can meet periodically to discuss their own fate. York? Cirenchester? Chester? Winchester? All these historical places offer a more logical capital cities than that cockroach, black, and Jew-infested city known as London. One has to go way back in the archives, to pre-1066 in fact, to find the last time the “nominally English” met of their own accord, free of Norman and Scottish interference.
Whoever the English may now be, they routinely end up being led and controlled by sexual perverts (paedophiles and/or closet homosexuals … Winston Churchill, Ted Heath, Tony Blair, Portillo, Gordon Brown, Cameron, etc., etc.) operating in informal alliance with the City of London and its secretive financiers.
Crikey, in the latest James Bond film, Skyfall (due for release in November) you are going to see 007 getting into bed with a ‘Black’ woman. What in friekin’ ‘ell has happened to the real James Bond? Even the normally excellent Daniel Craig ended up marrying an Austrian Jewess!
If we truly want to forge or rebuild a ‘White’ or Anglo-Saxon unity, then more of us better learn to talk and act tough. The time for pussyfooting is fast coming to a close.
England obviously is a historical cultural unit. Britain is more of a confederacy. The Scots and the Welsh have been willing participants since at least James I. However I thought that the modern English were actually more Germanic than Romano-British genetically?
@Marcus: Don’t know about that, but I believe an article written about a year or so ago in the Telegraph, suggested that genetic studies showed at least half of England to be “germanic”, and caused quite a stir. Some Brits felt they already knew this, others doubted it, and some completely rejected it.
@Edward: Excellent background information. Edward.
@Blockbuster: May I ask what called this man and book to your mind? I ask because I first heard of General Homer Lea exactly fifty years ago, and in those pre-Internet days finding out anything about him wasn’t precisely child’s play. I discovered that he was an American with a worldwide reputation. He was also very much a white loyalist and certainly what today’s MSM would call a dangerous and deranged white supremacist—that is, he thought white Christian people were pretty damn smart and talented. Oy, the hate!
The fragmentary statement of his that I (then 17) saw that piqued my interest was this: “… the divine right of majorities, that illegitimate offspring of the divine right of kings. …” That was provocative stuff then, and it’s no less provocative now.
Sure. The Day of the Saxon is over except Britain. Plain to see.
“Having an identity as White need not compromise identifications with sub-groups of Whites.” ~ Dr. Kevin MacDonald
@ mari October 4, 2012 – 8:05 pm
Fascinating history. Refreshing too, I’ve always been scepticle of the conservative whitewashing of their checkered, heterodox origins. Could you suggest some titles/authors that treat of this subject in the manner you have summarized? Thanks.
Andy Fraser is a British Israelist with an idolatrous view of the British government. Among other things, in his other writings, he actually believes that the Anglican Church has the right to decide what constitutes ‘orthodox’ Christianity simply because it is the British church. People like Andy are another reason why those of us Americans who are just about completely of British stock should nevertheless be glad to be separated from it.
Andy you are clueless on American history just as you are everything else you write. If ‘Americanism’ can be said to be a problem, then it pales in comparison to your idol god British Israelism.
@dixie:
We have nothing in common with Russians save for being Europeans. Russians are the lowest of all Europe – and incapable of political liberty.
The Orthodox ‘Church’ (actually, churches – there goes the creed out the window) has among other things – an untenable theology and the demand that you forego your Westerness.
Those of you who attack Catholicism are off base. The reason for the decline of Protestantism isnt Catholic nepotism, but rather because it is a crippled belief system. The intellectual bottom came out from under it over 50 years ago. I say this with love as someone with almost completely protestant ancestors – I know the process because it happened to my own family.
Here’s Mila Kunis attacking a fictive Anglo redneck from Georgia:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/08/mila-kunis-slams-christians-republican
she’s Jewish though she denies it. I wonder what her family did to kulaks back in the day?
Part of a letter from Landsberg-Prison 15.October 1952.
“Do not forget, that in the cadres of the Waffen-SS the first Europeans paid the supreme sacrifice. That the slayen after the war stemmed mostly from our ranks, and only because of their belief in the indivisibility of the Occident, they were ostracised. Hold high in estem these martyrs, do never dispair. The Europa-concept is the only political ideal which is worthy to fight for today.
Jochen Peiper, last commander of first Panzer Regiment of the 1st. SS-Panzer-Division “Adolf Hitler”.
(Murdered in France 14. of July 1976)
@Catiline:
Bump. Mari?