Guest Post: Arky Eadric the Wild and 1066 Part One

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle for 1067 begins:

This year came the King back again to England on St Nicholas’s day;
and the same day was burned the Church of Christ at Canterbury.
Bishop Wulfwy also died, and is buried at his see in Dorchester.
The child Edric and the Britons were unsettled this year,
and fought with the castlemen at Hereford, and did them much harm.

The King was, of course, William the Conqueror. The castlemen were the Normans. Edric the Child, or Eadric the Wild, was one of the many members of the old English ruling class who took to the woods and marshes in rebellion against the Norman conquest.
After Hereford he burned the town of Shrewsbury and besieged Shrewsbury Castle.
Susan Reynolds, via Wikipedia:

Few outlaws… have apparently left so powerful a legend as Robin Hood… The most famous outlaws of the greenwood before him were probably the Old English nobility on their way down and out.

..

The hated Normans building castles everywhere, laying waste the homes of the Romano- British remnants and the “Welsh”. Displacing the Anglo-Saxon overlords, overturning a 500 year old order.

The English nobility fought back until 1070, and probably simmered with resentment toward the snooty Normans for generations after. The Normans were unlike previous invasions in that they did not intermix with the conquered. They retained their French dialect and England now had three languages: English, Roman and Norman French, of which English was the lowliest.

What ensued was a two hundred year occupation, repression, famine, and the seeds of the modern class system, and ultimately the re-emergence of an English speaking people who exploded into a global super power that continues to this day.

I point to this rebellion as the beginning of everything that we think of as Western Civilisation, for the version of Western Civilisation we take for granted is the English speaking one.

English is not a race. This is where the racial parts of the alternative right go hopelessly, stupidly wrong in subscribing to a “white” or a “European” Western civilisation. They are ahistoric, stupid bums. The race or colour is irrelevant. We are all mutts:

The language itself contains within it the memory of 1066 and the lessons thereof, and is the progenitor of all worthwhile you see in our civilisation: Liberty. A drive to explore new frontiers. An anti- authoritarian streak. A desire for property and property rights. Freedom of worship.

It is no accident that the coalitions that fought National Socialism, Japanese militarism and communism were centred around the English speaking world.

This is why progressives are now at war with the free expression of the English language: Their human rights courts and their college campus thought police are opposed to something fundamental about all of us.

Butler_Lady_Quatre_Bras_1815

We have nothing to fear from immigration, because English is not a race, and the English speaking people can absorb anyone. But we should fear the abolition of borders: For we number a few hundred million in a world of billions who do not share our love of freedom or our language of rebellion.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Guest Post: Arky Eadric the Wild and 1066 Part One

  1. pbw says:

    1)

    We have nothing to fear from immigration…and the English speaking people can absorb anyone.

    2. Immediately followed by:

    But we should fear the abolition of borders: For we number a few hundred million in a world of billions who do not share our love of freedom or our language of rebellion.

    Excuse me, but doesn’t 2 contradict 1?

  2. HGS says:

    Ze Anglanders is a race, vu ahistorical, stupid bum. Twas not the Enlish language, twas the people who spoke thus. But, a neat piece of provocation.

  3. RobK says:

    Interesting interpretation.
    I expect the Romans thought much the same in their hay day.
    Overall I think a society needs prosperity to be successful and that is a management issue in what ever form it takes politically. Immigration can play a part but the spread of prosperity is not necessarily reliant on it and needs to be controlled in some form.

  4. struth says:

    We have nothing to fear from immigration, because English is not a race, and the English speaking people can absorb anyone.

    So this is why the English language is so powerful.
    Most of your history and understanding of it is spot on.
    Overall a great post.
    Yet history regarding Muslims seems to be in dire need of a little bit more research.

    Get to it, and get back to us.

  5. Eddystone says:

    According to Daniel Hannan, the Anglo-Saxon vs Norman divide was still in evidence in WWII, when the Royal Navy sank the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir, the British officers (Normans) in the wardroom were in tears, but the ordinary seamen, ie the Anglo-Saxons, were jubilant.

  6. A Lurker says:

    Immigration works only if those who come possess the same values as the people in their new country. It doesn’t matter if they are from Lapland, Ireland, Egypt, India, Peru or elsewhere, if their worldview is fundamentally in opposition to their new country, then they will never fit in, and likely will turn their children and children’s children against their new country.

    Multiculturalism has encouraged separateness, otherness, emboldened people to not assimilate or integrate. Separate languages, separate cultures lead only to the violent Balkanisation of what used to be a cohesive society.

    Political correctness has ensured that the native population cannot speak publically about the way their society is going for fear of legal or social backlash.

    Ideally, we should be drawing our immigrants from countries with cultures compatible to our own, that even if they possess a different culture, they should as a people possess a history of peaceful coexistence. Some cultures are too violent, too repressive, too intolerant to be invited here, and the inviting of them will surely spell our doom.

  7. Roger says:

    England now had three languages: English, Roman and Norman French, of which English was the lowliest.

    The Romans were a people, Latin was their language.

  8. john constantine says:

    Newspeak is important, because as it replaces English, it becomes impossible to object to borderless totalitarian socialism without using racist, homophobic, sexist and ignorant language they can prosecute you for.

    The new aristocracy of their lamington education system and their lamington media deliver their lectures to the English speaking proles in Newspeak, to emphasise the superiority of the new aristocracy and hammer home the new divide.

    When the proles just hear the ridiculous lamingtons of the media because they are using words rooted in English and mock the hysterical erraticness of the wordstream, the new aristocracy is sending signals in Newspeak, where it is the tone of the birdsong that matters, not the individual meaning of the words they string together.

    This works, because the right tone of progressive Newspeak narrative birdsong can unlock the buckets of taxpayer money the Newspeaking aristocracy control, where a stumbling prole, trying to mansplain facts and truths using English won’t get a sniff of the honey.

  9. Muddy says:

    I must be one of those ‘bums’ you write of, for I don’t understand the premise of your piece. The English language also contains a number of words of Scandinavian origin; your point is?

    Anyone who embraces the labels ‘progressive’ and ‘alternative right’ (WTF does that actually mean?) is immediately suspect in my view.

  10. iampeter says:

    For a lot of Conservatives the immigration debate is one they focus on because it is easier than arguing against the welfare and regulatory state which is the actual cause of the issues they want to fight by regulating immigration. Also because much of the regulatory state was also implemented by Conservatives it is impossible for them to logically argue against it.

    It’s a good post by the Guest Author but the only quibble I have is focusing on the English as the start of it, because the key ideas that make up Western Civilization predate the English speaking world. The ideas of liberty, freedom of worship, anti-authoritarianism (and I would add the very important idea of reason) all originate from ancient Greece. This further supports the overall point of the post that the ideas of Western Civilization transcend ethnic identity politics.

  11. Diogenes says:

    m of worship, anti-authoritarianism (and I would add the very important idea of reason) all originate fr

    Actually there was a very strong Germanic/scandinavian thread of the same. I do not think the angles, jutes , friesans, saxons and vikings would have had much exposure to these greek concepts, even if transmitted by the romans.

  12. struth says:

    English is highly changeable and adapts words from many other languages.
    It is the free market of expression.
    Lots of other languages have rigid, “official” words and offices to make sure people know what they are.
    It’s funny watching some Asian languages that have been a drag on development, take on English words , besides nouns, to be more able to express ideas, and to have those ideas in the first place.
    Fascinating stuff, altho’ I’d admut ta beeun won of the wurt yooosers of ut.

  13. dalai lama says:

    Nice piece. I would add the following observations:

    Quite often one sees comments on this supposedly “libertarian” forum about the need to “protect our borders” and, usually in the European context, the “nation state”. To do this is apparently needed so we preserve our Judeo-Christian values, our culture and quality of life.

    Several regular posters seem to be quite bitterly opposed to any concept of “open borders”, which they equate with the “hardcore” libertarian position.

    While the reasoning behind those sentiments is easy to follow, let us be reminded that the concept of a “nation state” is only a few centuries old.

    Moreover, the notion of national borders coupled with strict immigration control has been with us for less than 100 years. Thus our grandparents were able to come to Australia, Canada or the USA in the pioneering days of the 19th and early 20th centuries without any passports or much, if any, local government vetting. In fact, governments were so much smaller that most people never had any reason to deal with them. Taxes and regulation were non-existent, and there certainly was no welfare.

    Yet those were the days when the growth in innovation and living standards far outpaced what we seem to be able to achieve today.

    And I think this is the crux of the problem. In the “old days” anyone could come here, as long as they could afford to pay for the passage, but these new migrants came fully expecting to stand on their own two feet. They overwhelmingly consisted of people who were prepared to work hard and to accept their new country as their own, and thus represented the best those who arrived here before them could possibly ask for.

    Abolish welfare, cut government and taxation by 95%, get rid of useless regulation, and you can safely open the borders. Then watch the place take off, without having to be overly concerned about a flood of a million plus “rapefugees”.

    Alas, I cannot see this happening, and most of the “conservatives” will be just as complicit in that particular outcome as their socialist counterparts.

  14. dalai lama says:

    @ iampeter

    You beat me to it, in fewer words.

  15. Entropy says:

    Old Yella got shot?

  16. Entropy says:

    pbw
    #2205832, posted on November 13, 2016 at 9:07 am
    1)
    We have nothing to fear from immigration…and the English speaking people can absorb anyone.
    2. Immediately followed by:
    But we should fear the abolition of borders: For we number a few hundred million in a world of billions who do not share our love of freedom or our language of rebellion.
    Excuse me, but doesn’t 2 contradict 1?

    No. We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come.
    Orderly immigration is not the same as open borders.

  17. A Lurker says:

    A Libertarian Government is elected and does the impossible and abolishes welfare, reduces Government and taxation, opens the borders and all the enterprising people come in. Then, three or six years later a Socialist Government is elected, reestablishes welfare, massively expands Government, increases taxation on all those previously enterprising people, keeps the borders open, and all the entitled people flood in.

    The moral to this story is – an ideal world never lasts.

  18. . says:

    Sometimes you might even get a conservative government that scuttles a “secure borders” position too (whilst pledging to keep this) and expands welfare (promising to be as socialist as the left).

    An ideal world may not last, sometimes you might get a dud from the outset – even if you never knew you bought a lemon.

  19. A Lurker says:

    Sometimes you might even get a conservative government that scuttles a “secure borders” position too (whilst pledging to keep this) and expands welfare (promising to be as socialist as the left).

    In which case, they cannot accurately be Conservative.

  20. iampeter says:

    Government is elected and does the impossible and abolishes welfare, reduces Government and taxation,

    I’d argue the welfare and regulatory states must be abolished. If this is not accomplished, if it is “impossible” like you say, then the only future we have is third world poverty. May as well just get rid of the border now and let ISIS take over as the result will be the same.

    Fighting the out of control state is the issue. The immigration debate is just evasion of the fact that Conservatives don’t believe it’s possible and aren’t really even opposed to big government as we see from their policies.

  21. Roger says:

    The ideas of liberty, freedom of worship, anti-authoritarianism (and I would add the very important idea of reason) all originate from ancient Greece.

    Actually liberty, freedom of worship and the notion of the individual conscience not being blindly subject all derive from the apostle Paul and Jesus.

  22. Roger says:

    *blindly subject to authority*

  23. JohnA says:

    dalai lama #2205982, posted on November 13, 2016, at 11:28 am

    Nice piece. I would add the following observations:

    Moreover, the notion of national borders coupled with strict immigration control has been with us for less than 100 years.

    Nope, sorry but you only have to read the Bible (the history books: Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and later Judges, Samuel, Kings) to see that national borders were already a known concept then. And there were distinctions between aliens/foreigners and native peoples.

    So focus on strict immigration control, please.

  24. T Bull says:

    And what has immigration ever done for us?
    ..

    ….

    The aquaducts?

    What??

  25. 2dogs says:

    We have nothing to fear from immigration

    Not immigration itself, but multiculturalism.

    Multiculturalism is a problem for this reason:

    Cultures make decisions.

    As a decision making entity, a culture needs to be accountable for its decisions. This happens simply in a mon0cultural country, as the populace has to live with any decisions that culture makes.

    But in a multicultural country, the negative impacts of any single member culture are diluted and borne by the entire nation. The culture is never held to account, and is not motivated to correct itself.

  26. Roger says:

    We have nothing to fear from immigration

    Except lower living standards, a higher tax bill and socio-cultural disintegration.

    Quite a few studies done recently on the net cost of immigration to the productive native – google the topic.

    The socio-cultural disintegration is self-evident. But at least we get more interesting food, eh?

  27. . says:

    Immigration doesn’t create multiculturalism, governments do.

    People used to assimilate until they were encouraged, subsidised and coerced not to do so.

  28. . says:

    Except lower living standards, a higher tax bill

    Errant nonsense.

    Quite a few studies done recently on the net cost of immigration to the productive native – google the topic.

    Bullshit.

  29. Roger says:

    Errant nonsense…Bullshit.

    Lol, our dot – a master of persuasion.

    Here’s just one paper which draws a fairly modest conclusion as to the cost of immigration, probably because its data base is so broad – but even it concludes there is no economic justification for immigration in developed societies. Several other studies based on more circumscribed data – the US or individual states within it, for e.g.. – are much more pessimistic in their conclusions. I hate to think what the net cost in a highly welfare subsidised country like Australia would be. We got some anecdotal indication with the release of cost figures of the migrant parent visa scheme recently.

  30. . says:

    “Here’s one…”

    FFS the other day you said you knew next to nothing about this. No go out and read the relevant papers, and tell us what most of them say.

    but even it concludes there is no economic justification for immigration in developed societie

    Complete and utter nonsense.

    Wages are not a function of population. They are a function of the capital-labour ratio and worker productivity.

  31. dalai lama says:

    Nope, sorry but you only have to read the Bible (the history books: Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and later Judges, Samuel, Kings) to see that national borders were already a known concept then. And there were distinctions between aliens/foreigners and native peoples.

    I have read the Bible. It is not a historical documents, but rather a collection of often mutually contradictory myths, which any rational person (i.e. anyone who’s not a believer in The Great Policeman in the Sky) can safely disregard in favour of real, documented historical accounts.

    That said, no doubt “borders” have existed for a long time. But these were only vaguely defined and certainly not subject to any significant limitations of movement. The early “states” consisted of a myriad kingdoms, principalities and similar (have a look at an historical map of Germany, as an example). They were not “states” as they are now understood, but often just towns with some surrounding countryside. Their “borders” often changed after a marriage of an offspring or a contest by the neighbouring warlord. Gold or silver, in bullion or in the form of coins, were the universal “international” currency. People could move between them with minimum hindrance.

    True, illiterate peasants were not able to, and even free, to move in the vast majority of cases, but it was largely due to their lack of assets other than the bit of land that fed them, rather than a passport or a Department of Immigration.

  32. Fisky says:

    Stuff I wasn’t expecting to see in 2016 – a Randroid like Peter lecturing us on Western culture.

  33. Roger says:

    Wages are not a function of population.

    Whoever said they were?

    The issue at point is the wealth transfer migration effects.

  34. . says:

    Which is related to the welfare state.

  35. Roger says:

    Which is related to the welfare state.

    Which we won’t be rid of anytime soon.

  36. . says:

    What about the benefits? You’re just not counting.

    We don’t “have” to do anything. We can curl up in a ball and die.

    If you want optimal outcomes, you have immigration, filter for bad migrants and let as many good migrants in as you can.

  37. Roger says:

    If you want optimal outcomes, you have immigration, filter for bad migrants and let as many good migrants in as you can.

    If you want optimal outcomes, you have immigration

    Only for short term skills shortages.

    filter for bad migrants

    That goes without saying. Ability to assimilate culturally – not racially – should be paramount in any check list.

    and let as many good migrants in as you can

    As many as you can? On what basis?

    No, only as many as you demonstrably need.

  38. . says:

    Do you “need” to do anything at all?

    You’re spouting economic nonsense.

  39. Driftforge says:

    We have nothing to fear from immigration, because English is not a race, and the English speaking people can absorb anyone.

    Sure. Now of course it took 800 odd years of good breeding practice for the English to reach their zenith as a people. And yes, of course they can absorb anyone: if you have another thousand years to wait, and can reimpose good breeding practices.

    Better to respect and retain your privilege, because most of it is genetic.

  40. john malpas says:

    why are people in prison because they spoke against pigmented people.
    Why can you lose your job if you talk wrong.
    For that matter why did the3 British go to so much bother to keep the Germans (Not the nazis) out of Britain. If Britain can absorb anyone.
    Why is there white flight.
    Plus think on the fate 0f Quisling.

Comments are closed.