“Generation-X has been cleaning up behind Boomers for decades, while Millennials walk behind Gen-X proverbially throwing mud back on the floor. Gen X is rightfully angry.
We were raised on Guns-and-Roses, Hank Williams Jr., smashmouth professional football, military movies, and cartoons whereby the main characters routinely blew up. What we see are old hippies and young trannies.
Thankfully, however, our children, Gen-Z, is emerging as the most conservative demographic cohort in generations. They are still young. Their brand of conservatism seems to have a nationalist vibe. If we can survive the destructive impulses of Boomers, we might be OK.”
Of all the things which happened in Cambodia, none are too far from happening in the west, even today. In particular, we have seen our leaders more than willing to enter contracts that guarantee a ‘great reset’ of culture, economy, and society.
This idea is not new, nor has it ever actually worked successfully.
The idea of a cultural reset – for the uninformed – is blatant Marxian theory in the open.
The thought leaders behind this idea – such as businessman Klaus Schwab – may simply see this theory as an effective element in ‘bettering’ society, but history has taught us otherwise.
Especially when Western civilization is engaged in a life and death struggle for its very survival and our enemies are attempting to twist the very lexicon and identity forming descriptors we have used for centuries to define ourselves, in an attempt to supposedly ‘de-toxify’ what they perceive as ‘white supremacist’ terms.
A perfect example is the disingenuous way historians like Dr. Mary Rambaran-Olm, a fellow at the University of Toronto, who specializes in race in early England and Sherif Abdelkarim at John Hopkins University, who apparently studies Early English language, assert that “First-millennium Britain offers one glimpse into the extent to which communities mixed and flourished…. suggesting extensive exchange and assimilation among Britain’s inhabitants and settlers.”
Their colleague Paul Edward Montgomery Ramírez, a Nicaraguan-American archaeologist, desperate to exaggerate the significance of a theological expression used by Alfred the Great, “You must not oppress foreigners and strangers, because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt,” making a timely intervention (especially coming from someone who shares the same heritage as the people currently rushing America’s southern border) to remind us that Britain was always multicultural.
And please remember the International Society of Anglo Saxonists (ISAS) have only recently been forced to drop the term Anglo Saxon and the academic department at Cambridge specializing in Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, as well as the longstanding Chairs of Anglo Saxon at Oxford (most famously held by J.R.R. Tolkien) have also been attacked for using such a divisive name.
Which brings me back to my core point.
Anyone making a detailed study of early English charters will see the predominant usage of the expressions englisc and angelcynn rather than Anglo Saxon (think also of the Roman Tacitus and the word Anglii). The very term Anglo Saxon was coined in fact on the continent to differentiate between German and English Saxons.
But accuracy is tangential to the reasons behind the arguments being put forward by the likes of Rambaran-Olm, Abdelkarim and Gonzalez, who are in fact attempting to deconstruct the very meaning of the words Anglo Saxon, arguing fallaciously that “Archaeological evidence shows that people of sub-Saharan African descent lived in early England.”
I have even heard the descriptor Afro-Saxon being used. Politically correct historians abusing the fact that the descriptor Anglo Saxon was rarely used prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066 and became more common at the time of the British Empire’s major expansion in the nineteenth century in order to demonstrate the term was being applied to imply the superiority of “white people” by the Victorians.
Today’s liberal propagandists operating in the field of medieval studies increasingly trying to cast aside the use of the expression “Anglo-Saxon” because they continually insist it denotes Western superiority with one media article related to Rambaran-Olm’s work, ignoring the acclaimed work of academics like Stenton, Hill, Crossley-Holland, Hook, Carver, Campbell, Higham, Wood and Morris and instead saying:
‘Because in their (the left wing deconstructionists) view it has more connection to white hoods than boar-decorated helmets. The record shows that myths about the past can be exploited to create hateful policies. But as perceptive readers, we can arm ourselves against hate by wielding historical precision as a weapon’.
Which is why we need to defend the use of such terms as Anglo Saxon, Norse and Celtic, until we control these centres of research and teaching because it is for us, not our anti-white enemies, to provide nuance to these identities.
Especially given the reality that our people currently recognize such expressions as they relate to their ancestors. Indeed, walk into any bookshop and you will see, for now at least, histories referring to Anglo Saxons and Celts. That must be our starting point. Our cultural outreach must begin on such familiar ground.
Especially when it so rich and fascinating, contributing to who and what we are and linking us forever to the land that is ours by right of inheritance.
“It’s apparent why the controllers are feminizing the traditional male martial vocations: soldiers, cops, MMA fighters, and heads of state. It weakens the social order in general, demoralizes men, and siphons women from motherhood and happiness. Like legalized pot, it makes a population docile and easily controlled when so many are so profoundly confused about reality.”
Understanding that the current trend in gender confusion and identity has it’s roots in historical misinformation/disinformation brings home the Orwellian ideal that “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
Ignorance of History is the main reason that the Left can propagate such ridiculous ideology so easily.
On the 11th April 1822 an army of some 40,000 Ottoman troops began landing on the Greek island of Chios, which is situated just 7 kilometers off the Turkish coastline of Anatolia, with express orders to kill all Christian infants under three years old, all males 12 years and older, and all females 40 and older, except those willing to convert to Islam.
Estimates suggest that up to three quarters of the 120,000 inhabitants were slain, enslaved or died of starvation or disease. With the remainder forced to flee an ethnic cleansing which the Turks were to repeat with their genocide of the Armenians between 1915-1923.
The Tactical Hermit 
You must be logged in to post a comment.