0 comment Friday, June 13, 2014 | admin
Our heritage up for sale:
Only copy of Magna Carta in private hands to be sold in New York
by Arifa Akbar
The Magna Carta, which set out the most basic principles of English law, is recognised as one of the most important documents in existence. So rare are the surviving 17 versions of the manuscript, drawn up by King John in 1215, that all but two reside in Britain's most hallowed institutions, including the British Library and Salisbury Cathedral.
But yesterday, in an extraordinary announcement, Sotheby's revealed that the only copy of the Magna Carta in the world to remain in private hands will be auctioned in New York this December. It dates from 1297 � the year the final versions of the charter were ratified � and it is likely to be the only version ever to be sold.
As one of only two versions outside England � the other belongs to Australia � the sale, which even by conservative estimates is expected to fetch �15m, has been hailed as momentous. David Redden, vice-chairman of Sotheby's, said that, as "the most important charter in the world", it had become a worldwide phenomenon. "The document symbolises mankind's eternal quest for freedom," he said. "It is a vessel for everyone's hopes and fears; it tells us how the concept of freedom in law began. If we go back to find the seed from which it all comes back to, the Magna Carta has had a huge impact which resonates today."
There is something sad about the sale of so symbolic an article, to those of us in the Anglosphere. I hope that it will go to some reputable organization or group who will preserve it and keep it against the day when all of our heritage may be destroyed or effaced. It's happening. Those who could never in a million years have created our civilization are now having their revenge by seeking to rewrite history and obliterate that which can't be spun to favor themselves.
...Claire Breay, head of medieval and earlier manuscripts at the British Library, said it was of great national and international importance. "Its significance was international because of the impact it had in other countries, and it has echoes in the American Bill of Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's why it still gets cited by lawyers and quoted by politicians," she said.
I am sorry, but Ms Breay is wrong to suggest that it means as much to some third-worlder as it does to us in the Anglosphere. For us, it is a visible, tangible token of the greatness of our ancestors and of their ideas, the like of which the rest of the world has never been able to approach.
As for likening it to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is very different in spirit, although liberal scholars claim that the U.N. document is merely a logical next step in the evolution of 'freedom' and 'rights.'
Jeane Kirkpatrick may have been accurate in calling the United Nations' document as a 'letter to Santa Claus.'
But in our age, the ideas of the past are being pressed into service to justify today's radical left ideas such as multiculturalism, and the universal 'right to immigrate' which is found in the U.N. declaration.
' Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.'
And ironically, the Runnymede Trust, named for the site of the signing of the Magna Carta, seems to be a leftist/globalist/multiculturalist organization.
The Runnymede Trust is an independent policy research organisation focusing on equality and justice through the promotion of a successful multi-ethnic society. Founded as a Charitable Educational Trust, Runnymede has a long track record in policy research, working in close collaboration with eminent thinkers and policy makers in the public, private and voluntary sectors. We believe that the way ahead lies in building effective partnerships, and we are continually developing these with the voluntary sector, the government, local authorities and companies in the UK and Europe. We stimulate debate and suggest forward-looking strategies in areas of public policy such as education, the criminal justice system, employment and citizenship justice system, employment and citizenship.''
Since 1968, the date of Runnymede's foundation, we have worked to establish and maintain a positive image of what it means to live affirmatively within a society that is both multi-ethnic and culturally diverse. Runnymede continues to speak with a thoughtful and independent public voice on these issues today.
How sad. What would the Magna Carta barons or King John think of what is being done to their country today?
Labels: Anglosphere, British Culture, History, Western Civilization
0 comment Wednesday, May 14, 2014 | admin
Over at the Australian Identity forums there is an interesting thread on the subject of Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism, based on a blog post here.
The blog post being discussed was a commentary on a lecture given by Professor Andrew Fraser, who has had problems with the 'thought police' in Australia due to his truthful observations.
There seems to be no transcript of Andrew Fraser's speech, unfortunately.
The blogger discusses how Professor Fraser thinks that the idea of 'White nationalism' is a reflection of Anglophobia or 'self-weakness' among Anglo-Saxons. This is a rather interesting way of looking at it; I am not sure that I agree.
The idea of 'White nationalism' is declared to be an American idea, and although I don't know the origins of it, it may be an American idea. But is it based on some kind of self-hatred or Anglophobia among Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage? I don't know. The charge is also made that Anglo-Saxons tend to try to 'ride on' the successes of other groups who are more ethnocentric, which in the case of America (and probably also Australia) would mean groups like the Irish or Italians.
Speaking for America, I would say that it is not a lack of self-confidence that has caused Anglo-Saxons to be less ethnocentric and less apt to organize and agitate for their own ethnicity. I would instead say it's a sign of an overconfidence among Anglo-Saxons in America. Even now, as we hear the news about our coming minority status in our own land, most Americans seem to see this as no threat. After all, we ARE America; we've always been in charge, the most successful and most capable and the most visible group -- until the present age of compulsory 'diversity' and the elevation of victim groups to the highest status. Still, despite the loss of influence and political power, most people live off the social and political capital of past generations and stubbornly believe that we will still come out on top, that the poor Third World waifs can't be any kind of threat to us. Too many of us take our position for granted.
I suppose maybe there is a kind of existential loss of confidence among some Anglo-Saxons at least, but there are a good many who are like the hare in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare, by virtue of his speed and his winning record, can't imagine the tortoise besting him in the race, so he slacks off, letting the plodding tortoise win, due to overconfidence. We are too confident in our luck or talents to imagine that we won't land on our feet.
Is there Anglophobia on the part of Anglo-Saxon Americans? Well, first of all, how many Americans even identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans? I've written at length about this in the past. The regions which had a heavily Anglo-Saxon demographic for the longest time were New England, until the mid-19th century immigration wave overtook them, causing many of the old colonial stock people to flee Westward, and of course the South, which remained demographically and ethnically stable, without much change due to immigration until the current tidal wave from Mexico and Central America.
But neither New England or the South had a strong Anglo-Saxon identity. In both those regions, at least until the 19th century, the people who lived there were descended from colonial stock for the most part, and since the Revolution, most thought of themselves as Americans, first and foremost, conscious of the fact that their forefathers fought a war -- no, two wars -- against the mother country, Great Britain. And in the South, of course, regional identity was especially strong; the Southron culture was the primary identity for many people. So the Anglo-Saxon identity was not dominant, although there was certainly a consciousness of our ties to Mother England, and a respect and regard for that country.
In Texas and other border states, however, the term 'Anglo' is applied more generally to any White, obviously Northwestern European person, so it is not necessarily applied only to people with roots in Britain. So that complicates things, semantically. A person primarily of, say, German descent or Czech descent (and there are quite a few of both groups in Texas) will by default be called an "Anglo", simply by virtue of the fact that they are White, European-descended, and not Spanish-speaking.
Another reason why 'Anglo-Saxon' identity was not as strong even in the most heavily British-descended areas was that even in these areas, many people were aware of having other strains in their ancestry. In the South, many old-stock Americans claimed some French Huguenot ancestry or in some cases German ancestry, or Dutch. Many people in parts of the Northeast likewise had some Dutch or Scandinavian ancestry, and as time went on and the great waves of 19th century immigration proceeded, there began to be admixture with Irish and later with Italian and other, later-arriving ethnic groups. Hence, the present-day Americans who will say they are 'mutts', usually a self-disparaging term for people with several mixed European ethnicities in their family line. Another term these people call themselves is 'Heinz 57' American.
Those who are most likely to be of predominantly Anglo-Saxon stock are also the very people whose ancestors have been in this country the longest, for 400 or so years, enough time to feel a sense of belonging to this land, even though one's ancestors were mostly from Britain.
I suspect it's easier for Australians, for instance, to identify more strongly with their Anglo-Saxon heritage, given that they were part of the Empire and under the British crown historically, as was Canada, without deliberately creating a separate and independent nation as we did. We chose to dissolve the political bonds, and for some people, that distanced us psychologically from our ancestral country.
I believe, too, that there are more people who are first and foremost of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic descent in Australia, and many people there have much more recent roots in Britain than we Americans. That simplifies the question of loyalties for them.
So 'White nationalism', however you define that, is simply a reflection of our less homogeneous population in America; many of us are the descendants of several distinct European peoples. And many of our fellow Americans are not of Anglo-Saxon descent at all, or at least believe they are not. If we tried to rally people to an Anglo-Saxon ethnic banner, we would find few would answer the call. The only way to get our fellow European-Americans together is under a less exclusive category. I think most of us who are born of at least several generations of Americans find a sense of kinship with other European-Americans of whatever descent, knowing that our similarities outweigh the differences. And maybe here in America we are able to recognize, maybe as a result of the dissonance between ourselves and other more distant ethnic groups, that we have more in common with Europeans generally than with people from other parts of the world.
Many Anglo-Americans, as I've said, don't even know their Anglo origins, because they only know their ancestry for a mere two or three generations, and they only know that one of their grandparents or great-grandparents was 'German' or 'Irish' while the more remote ancestry is unknown. So these people are unaware of their roots. Another large segment of Americans are so deracinated as to almost boast that they don't know their ancestry and moreover, don't care. 'What's that got to do with me?' is a line I've heard from some Americans. Some people can't tell you what the origin of their surname is, and care less.
I suspect there are plenty of 'don't knows' and maybe even more 'don't cares' in America, and then there are those deluded people who loathe their oppressive European DNA and actively work against their own kin.
These people are the worst of all; I wish I could say they were more to be pitied than censured, but I would be lying if I said that.
I'm afraid that a specifically Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism would be a non-starter in this country, aside from a very small group of people. I do, however, applaud any such attempt at increasing ethnic solidarity and revitalizing our heritage and culture all over the English-speaking world. I think we could all benefit from trying to revive an interest in and a respect for our common Anglo-Celtic origins. I am lately beginning to realize just how important the cultural aspect is, in our struggle for survival.
Politics alone is not the solution, and under our present system it's a big part of our problem.
Our common cultural heritage is something that might connect us to our cousins all over the Anglosphere.
We do, after all, have a common matrix, as is also true not only with our British cousins but with our European cousins in general. Sadly, many of our kin on the other side of the world don't like us very much; they identify us with the people who run our government, just as we do with them. Too many Americans don't like Europeans. This seems to be a problem; rather than just Anglophobia among Anglo-Saxons, it's a case of Europhobia among all European descendants. We tend to infight and turn all our hostility and suspicion towards kin, whether near or far. This is a huge problem for us.
Primarily, though, we should focus on our most immediate ties; kin, faith, community, in our local and regional area. This should not preclude allying with more distant kin groups but our immediate ties should be first. As we become increasingly outnumbered and marginalized in our own countries, we need to re-find a clannishness that has become lost in our deracinated and atomized age. Our enemies are using the old divide and rule principle against us, and we are falling for it. We must not become isolated in our own communities or isolated from our cousins who are in the same dire position as we are.
Despite our differences, all European-descended people are all under the same Damocles sword, demographically. We need to find ways to re-establish our common ethnic and cultural bonds, and unite in spirit, giving one another encouragement and support. If we all stood together in spirit we would be invincible.
The blog post being discussed was a commentary on a lecture given by Professor Andrew Fraser, who has had problems with the 'thought police' in Australia due to his truthful observations.
There seems to be no transcript of Andrew Fraser's speech, unfortunately.
The blogger discusses how Professor Fraser thinks that the idea of 'White nationalism' is a reflection of Anglophobia or 'self-weakness' among Anglo-Saxons. This is a rather interesting way of looking at it; I am not sure that I agree.
The idea of 'White nationalism' is declared to be an American idea, and although I don't know the origins of it, it may be an American idea. But is it based on some kind of self-hatred or Anglophobia among Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage? I don't know. The charge is also made that Anglo-Saxons tend to try to 'ride on' the successes of other groups who are more ethnocentric, which in the case of America (and probably also Australia) would mean groups like the Irish or Italians.
Speaking for America, I would say that it is not a lack of self-confidence that has caused Anglo-Saxons to be less ethnocentric and less apt to organize and agitate for their own ethnicity. I would instead say it's a sign of an overconfidence among Anglo-Saxons in America. Even now, as we hear the news about our coming minority status in our own land, most Americans seem to see this as no threat. After all, we ARE America; we've always been in charge, the most successful and most capable and the most visible group -- until the present age of compulsory 'diversity' and the elevation of victim groups to the highest status. Still, despite the loss of influence and political power, most people live off the social and political capital of past generations and stubbornly believe that we will still come out on top, that the poor Third World waifs can't be any kind of threat to us. Too many of us take our position for granted.
I suppose maybe there is a kind of existential loss of confidence among some Anglo-Saxons at least, but there are a good many who are like the hare in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare, by virtue of his speed and his winning record, can't imagine the tortoise besting him in the race, so he slacks off, letting the plodding tortoise win, due to overconfidence. We are too confident in our luck or talents to imagine that we won't land on our feet.
Is there Anglophobia on the part of Anglo-Saxon Americans? Well, first of all, how many Americans even identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans? I've written at length about this in the past. The regions which had a heavily Anglo-Saxon demographic for the longest time were New England, until the mid-19th century immigration wave overtook them, causing many of the old colonial stock people to flee Westward, and of course the South, which remained demographically and ethnically stable, without much change due to immigration until the current tidal wave from Mexico and Central America.
But neither New England or the South had a strong Anglo-Saxon identity. In both those regions, at least until the 19th century, the people who lived there were descended from colonial stock for the most part, and since the Revolution, most thought of themselves as Americans, first and foremost, conscious of the fact that their forefathers fought a war -- no, two wars -- against the mother country, Great Britain. And in the South, of course, regional identity was especially strong; the Southron culture was the primary identity for many people. So the Anglo-Saxon identity was not dominant, although there was certainly a consciousness of our ties to Mother England, and a respect and regard for that country.
In Texas and other border states, however, the term 'Anglo' is applied more generally to any White, obviously Northwestern European person, so it is not necessarily applied only to people with roots in Britain. So that complicates things, semantically. A person primarily of, say, German descent or Czech descent (and there are quite a few of both groups in Texas) will by default be called an "Anglo", simply by virtue of the fact that they are White, European-descended, and not Spanish-speaking.
Another reason why 'Anglo-Saxon' identity was not as strong even in the most heavily British-descended areas was that even in these areas, many people were aware of having other strains in their ancestry. In the South, many old-stock Americans claimed some French Huguenot ancestry or in some cases German ancestry, or Dutch. Many people in parts of the Northeast likewise had some Dutch or Scandinavian ancestry, and as time went on and the great waves of 19th century immigration proceeded, there began to be admixture with Irish and later with Italian and other, later-arriving ethnic groups. Hence, the present-day Americans who will say they are 'mutts', usually a self-disparaging term for people with several mixed European ethnicities in their family line. Another term these people call themselves is 'Heinz 57' American.
Those who are most likely to be of predominantly Anglo-Saxon stock are also the very people whose ancestors have been in this country the longest, for 400 or so years, enough time to feel a sense of belonging to this land, even though one's ancestors were mostly from Britain.
I suspect it's easier for Australians, for instance, to identify more strongly with their Anglo-Saxon heritage, given that they were part of the Empire and under the British crown historically, as was Canada, without deliberately creating a separate and independent nation as we did. We chose to dissolve the political bonds, and for some people, that distanced us psychologically from our ancestral country.
I believe, too, that there are more people who are first and foremost of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic descent in Australia, and many people there have much more recent roots in Britain than we Americans. That simplifies the question of loyalties for them.
So 'White nationalism', however you define that, is simply a reflection of our less homogeneous population in America; many of us are the descendants of several distinct European peoples. And many of our fellow Americans are not of Anglo-Saxon descent at all, or at least believe they are not. If we tried to rally people to an Anglo-Saxon ethnic banner, we would find few would answer the call. The only way to get our fellow European-Americans together is under a less exclusive category. I think most of us who are born of at least several generations of Americans find a sense of kinship with other European-Americans of whatever descent, knowing that our similarities outweigh the differences. And maybe here in America we are able to recognize, maybe as a result of the dissonance between ourselves and other more distant ethnic groups, that we have more in common with Europeans generally than with people from other parts of the world.
Many Anglo-Americans, as I've said, don't even know their Anglo origins, because they only know their ancestry for a mere two or three generations, and they only know that one of their grandparents or great-grandparents was 'German' or 'Irish' while the more remote ancestry is unknown. So these people are unaware of their roots. Another large segment of Americans are so deracinated as to almost boast that they don't know their ancestry and moreover, don't care. 'What's that got to do with me?' is a line I've heard from some Americans. Some people can't tell you what the origin of their surname is, and care less.
I suspect there are plenty of 'don't knows' and maybe even more 'don't cares' in America, and then there are those deluded people who loathe their oppressive European DNA and actively work against their own kin.
These people are the worst of all; I wish I could say they were more to be pitied than censured, but I would be lying if I said that.
I'm afraid that a specifically Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism would be a non-starter in this country, aside from a very small group of people. I do, however, applaud any such attempt at increasing ethnic solidarity and revitalizing our heritage and culture all over the English-speaking world. I think we could all benefit from trying to revive an interest in and a respect for our common Anglo-Celtic origins. I am lately beginning to realize just how important the cultural aspect is, in our struggle for survival.
Politics alone is not the solution, and under our present system it's a big part of our problem.
Our common cultural heritage is something that might connect us to our cousins all over the Anglosphere.
We do, after all, have a common matrix, as is also true not only with our British cousins but with our European cousins in general. Sadly, many of our kin on the other side of the world don't like us very much; they identify us with the people who run our government, just as we do with them. Too many Americans don't like Europeans. This seems to be a problem; rather than just Anglophobia among Anglo-Saxons, it's a case of Europhobia among all European descendants. We tend to infight and turn all our hostility and suspicion towards kin, whether near or far. This is a huge problem for us.
Primarily, though, we should focus on our most immediate ties; kin, faith, community, in our local and regional area. This should not preclude allying with more distant kin groups but our immediate ties should be first. As we become increasingly outnumbered and marginalized in our own countries, we need to re-find a clannishness that has become lost in our deracinated and atomized age. Our enemies are using the old divide and rule principle against us, and we are falling for it. We must not become isolated in our own communities or isolated from our cousins who are in the same dire position as we are.
Despite our differences, all European-descended people are all under the same Damocles sword, demographically. We need to find ways to re-establish our common ethnic and cultural bonds, and unite in spirit, giving one another encouragement and support. If we all stood together in spirit we would be invincible.
Labels: Anglosphere, Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Self-Hatred