Many history books have something to teach us about English Politics. This is one example:- Michael Wood, In Search of England, 1999. Here is a significant extract which even if not entirely accepted as gospel helps to frame the debate.
"The modern English state was not created in one go. It is a product of a long – and continuing – process, but its roots lie in the Anglo-Saxon period, just as the Victorians thought. But from the beginning, it was not about race, or blood, as some Victorian racial theorists liked to say. It was rather about acceptance of common language and authority, about ‘group feeling’, about allegiance to the state and its way of doing things. That’s the core of the English story.
In conclusion, what we can say is this. The Anglo Saxons created England; the Normans and their successors attempted to create Great Britain, not succeeding half so well, despite their long attempts to dominate the cultures and societies of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. By the late tenth century, the rulers of the English had already come to a modus Vivendi with their Celtic neighbours: marking the limits of England almost exactly as it is today – that shape of England which Tom Paulin could not visualize. It was the Normans who tried to subdue the whole island, and their failure has finally been acknowledged in the late twentieth century.
England, on the other hand, is the creation of the Old English. It is something real to go back to, unlike so many modern countries whose attempts to build such allegiances have had to be fabricated. This is not to say that it doesn’t need reform now; not least the system of democracy itself – for who now would claim the English are better off than, say, the Germans? But it has a long and distinguished pedigree, which, contrary to the modern critiques, is more than the product of history than myth. It goes back to Gregory the Great, to Bede, and the Old English and Norman lawmakers, and for a country on a small island off the shores of Europe, its practical achievements in history have been considerable.
At root was a grand idea – the sense of a chosen people – but also something very practical: a workable conception of society, of order and of mutual obligations. The latter is still in place and still hardworking; and even the former has taken a long time to fade away."
What do you think of that?
I don't know about 'chosen people', are there not another group calling themselves that [Zionists]? How do great civilisations disappear? I think they are often victims of their own success. The history lesson is shortly to become irrelevant as the tzunami of Islamic colonisation sweeps over the whole island. This is something we need to discuss on this blog. If we don't talk now about solutions to this difficult issue, we risk being mere spectators in our own dispossession and destruction by mid-century.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it can be argued that the English are a mongrel breed. The contributors to the 'pedigree' were almost entirely northern european. The Normans were Norseman in France and the various German, Scandinavian invaders were culturally but not racially different. Crucially these vagabonds were regarded as enemies and fought against tooth and nail to repel. They endured by force of arms alone.
ReplyDeleteWar was declared.
The main symptoms of the disease today are mainly non europeans who will never and choose never to assimilate; as John Cleese put it in a recent outburst against the colonisation of London, to the 'parent culture', and religion.
In Britain we are not allowed enemies,that they may prosper.
War is being prosecuted in its most deadly fashion, without declaration. The scenario is perfect. no need to destroy by force, just change using the deceit of democracy ie buy the politicians first, then change the people. Thou shalt know no enemy, nor openly criticise without fear of censure or worse.