The English have a secret weapon, one which they don’t seem to even realize that they have. Some time ago, the English identity was partitioned into two pieces: English and British. As the British Empire was constructed between the 16th and 20th Centuries, to call oneself British was a statement of national pride, not only denoting a dominion of the entirety of the British isles, but also eventually of 1/4 of the globe, and so English fell into secondary usage. To be British was to be a conqueror, a civilizing force, part of a monolithic institution. As such, the English identity was subsumed and minimized, emerging as significant only in the case of the most trivial concerns, namely sports (football in particular). Only at an international football match could you see an ocean of white flags emblazoned with the red cross of St. George. This flag represents the English as a people, while the union jack represents the English as the heads of an empire.
Today, there is no empire. A minor spattering of overseas territories and its begrudging companions of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland clinging to its continued, though shrinking, economic and military relevance: this is the British Empire of today. In the era of mass migration, not only was the British Empire attacked and demeaned by historical revisionists, but the success of these attacks paved the way for the ‘reparations’ inflicted upon England, that is, the relinquishing of the exclusion control of her British identity and accepting mass migration from former colonies. Whereas before, a Jamaican man would have been considered a subject of the British Empire, while only the English, Welsh, Scots, and Ulster could be called ‘British’, today the former designation is no longer in use, and the Jamaican man can actually achieve the latter designation.
WE WUZ SHAKEYSPEAR!
Not only this, but people with absolutely no firmly rooted history in the British isles can have history rewritten to include themselves in it. I don’t think I need to point out the ethnic victorian aristocrats in Danny Boyle’s satanic Olympic opening ceremony from 2012, or abominable ‘non-fiction’ like this to prove my point, but I will anyway. The point is that the British identity, which was not connected to a specific ethnos but instead to a broad geographical area, became exceedingly vulnerable once mass migration had begun. There is, in my estimation, a more comfortable transition for foreigners to become ‘British’ than there is for them to become ‘German’ or ‘French’. In the latter instances, even in highly degenerated Germany, it’s more of a laughable political correctness that is ultimately very fragile, but in the UK it seems to have more substance, it truly seems as if the identity itself has been wrenched open, like a house blasted by lightning. The effects are devastating, and it is very telling that David Cameron had to define ‘British values‘ formally, in order to combat the fact that while ‘British’ identity was being adopted, it had nothing to say about culture. Devout ‘British Muslims’ will tell you that they are “just as British as you are!” and so will Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews. Are they wrong? I contend that, as things currently stand, they aren’t. The policies of redefinition have allowed Pakistanis to claim as much right to be British as the Welsh have, and the majority of the brainwashed crowd will go along with it.
What then, is the solution? We know that it is, in geodemographic terms, England that has been the victim of mass migration, as foreigners rarely seek opportunities in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, not only because the job markets are less welcoming but also because they do not already have enclave ghettos to welcome them. With their very survival and continuity at stake, the English have no choice but to abandon ‘British’ as a concept. I know this is rather radical, since a great deal of pride is threaded through this word, but I am of the strong opinion that much of that pride is falsely informed (i.e – it ends up lauding things which ultimately led to national destruction), and that where it is not, the achievements can be very easily re-associated with the distinct aspects of an exclusively English identity.
What do snide politicians (read: mainly Remoaners) mean when they say “little England”. It can be interpreted as an accusation of ‘small-mindedness’ and ‘ignorance’ which leads to xenophobia. However, why not “Little Britain” then? After all, the Welsh voted for Brexit as well. I actually think Little England is an ethnic slur, a not very well-cloaked assault on what it means to be English, in order to mock and embarrass people into associating with the more cosmopolitan, welcoming, and in this day and age, mixed, British identity, where they cannot exclude others. The English should actively resist this, and begin to assert themselves as an ethnos, the rightful owners of English clay. This does not necessitate hostility to other natives of the isles, as Scottish nationalism so often manifests itself. I do not think the actual union should be broken apart, because I think the constituent groups all benefit from it, but as a political and socio-cultural structure, Britain is harming the nations it contains, none more-so than the English, because as its people form the bulk of the country’s leadership, the actual English identity has been forced to play the role of the mild-mannered janitor, seen but not heard. He appears at football matches, and occasionally pops up to “completely sicken” Labour Party politicians, but beyond this he is always below the surface.
The English flag, outside of sports events, is seen as an exclusionary and racist symbol. we should celebrate this, because it means English as an identity group has not been compromised. It lives! But it is suppressed, and people struggle to see its relevance in a world where there is no ‘English Parliament’, nor an ‘English Broadcasting Corporation’.
Another important aspect of this is that a rejection of ‘Britain’ as it has been conceived of since England became irrelevant, would represent a profound break with the Atlanticist tradition, formerly headed in London, now located in Washington DC. Abandoning this rule-by-sea, bourgeois, and ultimately liberal orientation would force England to reconnect with its own past of both early Christian and pre-Christian tradition, the tradition of Land. The Land is the King is the People. It must always be remembered that for the longest time, England was not the seat of the diabolical principle. While Carthage still existed and for a long time thereafter, England was a folkish place, close to nature, linked inextricably not to the tides, but to the rivers and streams, the moors and mires, the rolling hills and the thicket, the deep forests and the caves. She was in many ways closer to her Welsh and Scottish neighbors. She had the norse sense of the magical and the unseen, but had a placid nature absent in ancient Norway and Sweden. If she can successfully rekindle these traits, buried deep beneath the layers of muck; the sarcastic arrogance, the dismissive pomposity, and worst of all the masturbatory virtue-signaling, then she will find new life, and be integral to the coming civilization of Land. If she cannot, I do fear she may be lost forever.
to a watery grave
I recall for you now the famous poem of William Blake, And Did Those Feet in Ancient Times.
And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen!
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green & pleasant Land.
What does “Build Jerusalem” mean? Is this a call to mimic Jewish civilization? Is it a call to mimic Palestinian architecture? Or, as the common interpretation has it, is it speaking of heaven on earth? No, my interpretation is that ‘Jerusalem’, like ‘Rome’, like ‘Constantinople’, like ‘Moscow’, is merely a stand-in word for the civilization of Land. For a place so supposedly dependent on the sea, isn’t it odd how Blake never mentions it in this poem. Mountains, pastures, hills, and finally LAND. That is the destiny of the English, to awaken from this stupor and return to an authentically European sensibility and a sacred attitude towards life, and it is the only way it can restore a true monarchical institution not beholden to a disgusting parliament of liars, plunderers, and imposters! England is a weapon, and the established class fears it, because in condemning its sacred banner as racist, they will only drive the English from them, and into the arms of Tradition. This is above all, the greatest fear of the new ‘Britain’, not Scottish independence, but English identity. Whether it is in Tolkein’s epics, in the writings of the Venerable Bede, in the legends of Camelot, or simply in nature itself, the English must rediscover themselves, not in the sense of who they were before the great wars (as so many ‘nationalists’ proclaim), but in an older sense, a timeless sense. The tellurocracy of England is waiting to be reborn. What else can the legendary foretelling of King Arthur’s return mean?
G.K. Chesterton wrote of the “people of England who have not spoken yet“. I suggest now is the time for them to speak, in strong low tones, under the red and white.
(For more on the ancient English concept of kingship, see my esoteric analysis of the film Excalibur alongside Tom Rowsell and Craig New Troy. And for more information on Land vs. Sea metahistorical models, see Aleksandr Dugin’s book Last War of the World Island.)