We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – The quickest way to fuel an English ethnonationalist movement is to deny that English ethnicity exists Ethnicity is not an opinion, but a fact of history, intermarriage and statistics of known populations: Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon, a few Scandinavian and, later, Normans. If you care to look up ethnogenesis, pedigree collapse and “identical ancestry” you can learn that, over several hundred years and assuming intermarriage, these groups have by now mixed almost entirely.
The population statistics of England are particularly favourable to this analysis because there wasn’t much immigration, from anywhere, from the 11th up to the mid-20th century. If your family were all here in 1900, it’s reasonably probable, with the exception of a relatively small influx of Huguenots and Irish, that they were all here in 1100 and that most of them were here much earlier than that.
English ethnicity, at the end of those several centuries, is more clearly defined than most. To deny an English ethnicity is to say ethnicity does not exist, which would pose quite the shock to parts of our current political establishment.
– Isabel Paterson
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The argument by Isabel Paterson is correct – and thank you to Thomas Fairfax for posting it here.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, and others, make a terrible mistake by denying that the English exist as an ethnic group – “British” is indeed entirely a political and cultural idenity, “English” is NOT.
The English are a mixture of the Germanic tribes who came to this island in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. and the Britons who were already here – I say “Britons” not “Romano-Britons” because four centuries of Roman rule left almost no genetic impact on the population.
The Vikings are so close to the Angles (England was Angleland – so the Association Football chant is correct, and their class superiors are mistaken – “En-ger-land” is closer to the orignial term) that they can not be told apart – and the Normans were a tiny group (no disrespect meant to Perry).
Within living memory England was overwhelmingly populated by English people – ethic English people, of course the massive change in recent decades has come as a great shock.
Pretending that there is no such ethnicity as the English (that it is entirely a matter of culture and political loyalty) is just WRONG – and it enrages people (understandably so).
None of the above should be taken to mean that different principles of economics, or of morality, apply to the English people than apply to all other people – but to imply that the English ethnicity does not exist, is both wrong and dangerous – dangerous because the denial of the existence of a people (the “this land has always been Diverse in population” LIE) enrages people.
To undermine a people and then pretend they did not exist anyway (and so can not have been undermined – because it is impossible to undermine a people who never existed) is to add insult to injury.
As the old Russian saying has it “first they smash your face in – they they say you were always ugly”.