The Anglo-Saxon Myth

The American ethnie has always been closely tied to its Whig origins, and the work of Whig historians helped to define the genealogy of the new Republic. The idea that the pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxons had known a primitive form of freedom that had its roots in the German forests had emerged in England by the sixteenth century. Seventeenth-century figures such as the great common law jurist Sir Edward Coke, in resisting royal power, "frequently asserted that English liberties were inherited unchanged from the ancient constitution of their sturdy Anglo-Saxon ancestors." (R. Smith 1997; 48-49). Some of the more radical variants of the theory held that the Anglo-Saxons carried a desire for freedom in their veins and had a destiny to realize this impulse. John Wilkes and Edmund Burke, for instance, were well-known eighteenth century exponents of this notion, with Burke noting that an English continuity existed "from Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right . . . derived to use from our forefathers" (Haseler 1996: 34). These ideas found a very responsive audience across the Atlantic. Eighteenth-century "Real Whig" historians such as James Burgh and Catherine Macauly stand out in this regard. These interpreters of English history witnessed the direct assimilation of their work into the American independence movement. In Reginald Horsman's words,

The various ingredients in the myth of Anglo-Saxon England, clearly delineated in a host of seventeenth and eighteenth-century works, now appear again in American protests: Josiah Quincy Jr., wrote of the popular nature of the Anglo-Saxon militia; Sam Adams stressed the old English freedoms defended in the Magna Carta; Benjamin Franklin stressed the freedom that the Anglo-Saxons enjoyed in emigrating to England; Charles Carroll depicted Saxon liberties torn away by William the Conquerer; Richard Bland argued that the English Constitution and Parliament steemed from the Anglo-Saxon period . . . George Washington admired the pro-Saxon history of Catherine Macaulay and she visited him at Mount Vernon after the Revolution. (Horsman 1981: 12).

Were these prominent Americans merely expressing an abstract ideological exuberance that happened to have an English historical referent? Liah Greenfeld appears to take this stance, arguing that Americans equated Englishness with Liberalism and no more (Greenfeld 1992: 409). Yet such an argument cannot explain the infatuation with the Anglo-Saxons displayed by both pre-Revolutionary pamphleteers and the statesmen of the new Republic. (R. Smith 1997: 72-86). Most explicit in this regard was U.S. president and founding father Thomas Jefferson, who proclaimed to John Adams after drafting the Constitution in 1776 that the Americans were "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; and on the other side, Henigst and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honour of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed" (Horsman 1981: 22, emphasis added).

Notice that Jefferson distinguished between Americans' ideological and genealogical inheritance, both of which he saw as deriving from the Anglo-Saxons. The idea that the Anglo-Saxon English had self-selected themselves through immigration to escape the British (Norman) yoke to bring the torch of freedom to America was a quintessential myth of ethnogenesis (Ross 19984: 917; Gossett 1953: 82). Accompanying purified religion and purified liberty, therefore, was a purified American genealogy. In this manner, one similar to the Quebecois, Afrikaners, and Ulster Protestants, the Americans were performing a feat of particularlistic fission from the mother stock which would form the basis for an entirely new ethnic group.

Meanwhile, the Anglo-Saxon myth came to be grafted onto American experience by the mid-nineteenth century. For instance, the New England town meeting was likened to the Anglo-Saxon tribal council, and the statements of Tacitus regarding the free, egalitarian qualities of the Anglo-Saxons were given American interpretation (Goldman 1992: 246). The most widely read American historians of the late nineteenth century -- George Bancroft, William Prescott, John Motley, and Francis Parkman -- helped popularize the myth, as did English literature scholars (Ross 1984: 917; Gossett 1963: 201-203). Nineteenth- and early twentieth century utterances by American elites such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson provide further evidence that the Anglo-Saxon myth was a historicist force in the American conscience collective.

"The fathers followed Boon[e] or fought at King's Mountain," thundered Theodore Rooseelt in 1889. "The sons marched south with Jackson to overcome the Creeks and beat back the British; the grandsons died at the Alamo or charged to victory at San Jacinto. They were doing their share of a work that began with the conquest of Britain, that entered on its second and wider period after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, that culminated in the marvelous growth of the United States. The winning of the West and Southwest is a stage in the conquest of a continent" (Roosevelt 1889, I: 26).

Less clear is the extent to which the Anglo-Saxon myth penetrated down the social scale. This is a similar question to that posed by Eugen Weber or Walker Connor: what proportion of the population must hold a particular myth of descent for a category of persons to be considered ethnic. In the American case, although we do not know how many were aware of the Whig formulation of the Anglo-Saxon myth, unless totally isolated from other groups, they were conscious of their WASP cultural markers (White race, "Anglo-Saxon" in speech and surname, Protestant in religion). Furthermore, the Yeoman (independent farmer) representation, which was strongly connected with Anglo-Saxonism, definitely had popular resonance and has been described as "the myth of mid-nineteenth century America" (H. Smith 1950: 135; Hofstander 1955: 24-25).

Finally, many Anglo-Americans were conscious of their descent from the various Anglo-American regional groups Hence we cannot consider the ethnic Americans to be merely etic (other-defined) category like the eighteenth-century inhabitants of Ukraine and Slovakia (A. Smith 1985: 30; 1991: 21). Rather, this was a self-conscious ethnic category whose elite held to an Anglo-Saxon myth of descent.

Some more interesting info here:

"American" Ethnicity Defined

The Anglo-American myth-symbol complex that had arisen by 1820 and had spread widely by 1850 can be summarized as follows. The "Americans" believed that:

• They were an elect who shared a covenant with God to spread Liberalism and Protestant Christianity throughout America and the Western Hemisphere, an event that would herald the millennium on earth.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• They were destined to spread across the West to the Pacific (at the very least), and theirs was a chosen land, a New Israel that at the same time served to regenerate the freedom of the American people.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• Their material and political success showed them to be a chosen people, an elect descended from the pre-Norman, freedom-loving Anglo-Saxons described by Tacitus.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• They knew themselves by the cultural markers of the white race, [American] English language/surname, nonconformist Protestant religion, and Liberal ideology.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• Their founding fathers included the Puritans and the leaders of the American Revolution. Virtually all the main figures in this ethnohistory (that is, John Winthrop, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson) were of English Protestant origin.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• They were an egalitarian, independent, self-improving Yeoman people: a grassroots pioneer constituency from which organically flowed the American spirit of democracy and pure Christian morality.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo]
• The era of the Yeoman Republic, described by Jefferson in an allusion to both the Bible and King Alfred's Anglo-Saxons, constituted a Golden Age for America, to which it should return.[/*:m:3fu4jnbo][/list:u:3fu4jnbo]


 

Here is some more interesting info from a chart which explains how the "American Dominant Ethnicity" came to be replaced by the views of the "New York Avant-Garde Community."

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5998

American Dominant Ethnicity

Boundry Symbols: U.S. English language, British surname, North European Phenotype, Protestantism, Liberalism and Egalitarianism, American Landscape.

Communal Narrative/Myth of Descent: Pilgrims, Puritans, Founding Fathers, American Revolution, Pioneers, Settlers.

Territory: United States

Art Form: New England and Appalachian Traditions

Iconic Figures: Yeoman, Pioneer

Myth of Immortality: Communal Eternity

Destiny: White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, Liberal-Egalitarian Millennium

Avant-Garde Community

Boundry Symbols: Egalitarianism, Modernism, Urban Residence, Cosmopolitan Education/Experience

Communal Narrative/Myth of Descent: Myth of the Outsider in History, Myth of the Avant-Garde (from Socrates and Christ to 1789, 1848, 1917, 1968 and more)

Territory: Scattered Urban Enclaves Worldwide

Art Form: Modernist

Iconic Figures: Progressive Outcast, Revolutionary, Marginalized Masses

Myth of Immortality: Humanity's Eternal Gratitude, World Historical Recognition

Destiny: Expressive-Egalitarian Utopia

America is a geography term. Americans are those who occupy the United States. Although both Canadians and mexicans can claim citizenship in the group "Americans", it was the inhabitants of the U.S. that became known by the name "Americans". That group now includes groups I want no association with.
Aryan for formal, as it is the highest ideal.
White for less formal uses.
Sounds right to me.

"American" is a social identity. Its our social identity. Its who we are. I for one am not willing to surrender it. Perhaps you would rather have the Jews speaking on behalf of the "Americans."

I don't know many white Americans who think of themselves as "Aryans." Do you?

That's the problem. They are, and they should. They aren't proud to think of themselves as 'White' either, and we'd get just as much backlash from use of White. Might as well use 'Caucasian' and really be dweebs.

Aryan catches interest, and the content speaks for itself. Stop worrying, all of you, so much about the title.

America is a geography term...

"American" is a social identity...

Sorry, Fade. Whirlwind's right on this one.

Ask any awakened white in the world (and they are the only ones worth asking) what America means. They'll tell you that "America" is the tool by which the globalists and multiculturists and zionists are destroying the white race. And they're right.

"American" was an okay cultural identity once but it's been hijacked by the enemies of our race. Time to admit it, I think.

Its possible. Sure. There are a few white people in America who think of themselves as Aryans but they are few and far between.I really don't see why you are doing this.

1.) White Americans do not think of themselves as being Aryans.
2.) They have never thought of themselves as being Aryans.
3.) They do identify themselves as whites.
4.) They have always done so.

Not really, or not exactly. White identity is denied today - except as 'white trash,' as some hsitorical guilt repository. Then you've got guys like EMJones who say race is for DERACINATED people, and ethnic groups are the reality while race is abstraction. I say ethnic groups are real, but the differences quickly pale when niggers and mex enter trhe picture. But what Demonica says is truer today, they'll claim they're just people or citizens of the world.

Like I said, we do use the term 'white' most of the time, but we mix in Aryan, so that people come to think our way. It's a cool label, like a designer lable that is designed by nature. But most whites today have been conditioned away from thinking of themselves as white. All kinds of kids will try to claim they're not whites because they have (ususally nonexistent) Indian ancestors or they're Polish or something.

Thus it makes more sense to address them in terms of categories they already identify with.I would make a distinction. I would say that the Mexican is a U.S. citizen but I would deny that the Mexican is an American. Its a mistake to concede our nationality to anyone. We should present ourselves to the public as the real Americans.

I agree, but this is extremely difficult to do when a certain race -- the same race that let all those Mexicans in, in the first place -- controls the airwaves. They claim they're americans, and they claim to define America, and define her opponents. Anyone who opposes them is anti-American. Hence our term AmeriKwa for the bogus culture they've produced here. I certainly won't take any responsibility for what the jews are doing in iraq in my name. The Iraqis are calling American troops jews! We act like the jews, now we become hated like them. And the jews have a whole bogus historical narrative that anyone who departs from gets denounced as a racist antisemite hater, even the paleos. That history is most definitely that anyone can become just as good an american as any other, because America is an Idea (TM). So you can say what you want, but you'll never be able to enforce your distinction without gaining control of TV.

Race was an essential aspect of the American identity for centuries. This notion that America is a "universal" nation is a recent act of revisionism. I would drive home that fact. I would hit it again and again.

We have, over and over. But the jews such as Ben Wattenberg, who wrote some book about the US being the first universal nation aren't interested. And they hold all the high positions. Take the ultimate guy down what I take to be your line: Jared Taylor. You'll probalby not find a more eloquent, rational guy. If he ever got an editorial published anywhere, or more than a brief street-cur treatment on tv, I haven't seen it. My point being, the system is controlled to exclude our arguments. The jews will not allow any narrative competition. A Somali is a Vietnamese is a Mexican is an American. Disagree, you're a racist. History is whatever the jew says it is.

Blah, blah, blah.......Most american people cant even pronounce Aryan, let alone read these days.

You would do a million times better to record a reading of the paper and put it on an audio cd for distro.

And I agree with Paul that "Alternative" definetly smacks of "queer" these days.

That's the problem. They are, and they should.

You think they should call themselves Aryans. I suppose that is your right. You are entitled to your point of view. I just don't think you are going to have much success with that.

They aren't proud to think of themselves as 'White' either, and we'd get just as much backlash from use of White. Might as well use 'Caucasian' and really be dweebs.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I am not seeing the sort of universal racial masochism that you are seeing. On the contrary, I think there are millions of white people in our country today who see an obvious double standard here and don't approve of it.

Aryan catches interest, and the content speaks for itself. Stop worrying, all of you, so much about the title.

I will still say that it is a much better idea to use "white" or "American" as opposed to "Aryan." I do not see anything necessary about the term. White makes much more sense to use.

I see the "Phora" has also migrated to this server.

My 2 cents - call it the "Non-Jewish News - information the Jews don't want you to know". Clear, to the point and demonstrably true. Plus Christians may see the cover and at least start reading. Too many Whites see the word Aryan and look for a place to hide.

"American" is a social identity. Its our social identity. Its who we are. I for one am not willing to surrender it. Perhaps you would rather have the Jews speaking on behalf of the "Americans."

It isn't a question of what you prefer, the point is what whichever group controls the country sees fit, and that means redefining American to mean anyone from anywhere, with the sole provision he be willing to ship off to fight for israel at a moment's notice.

Those are good posts above. I note the way the Protestants are very, very jewy in asserting the city on a hill and their own variant of the chosen people nonsense. In a very short time their religion declined into social gospel, and the newly arriving jews picked up the ball and ran with it.

I will still say that it is a much better idea to use "white" or "American" as opposed to "Aryan." I do not see anything necessary about the term. White makes much more sense to use.

The subtitle resolves any confusion: Uncensored News for Whites...

Aryan is like a cool new brand.

OWG is probalby right that tape or video would work best. We're getting there, just give us some time. Those cost more to make, too. But we'll do up some tapes eventually. With papers, you're going to get your more intelligent people. I still can't get over the kids here, according to thejew prof, wanted to burn a paper with a review of Fahrenheit 451, includign a pic of burning books. Oy weh. Long ways to go, weve.

My 2 cents - call it the "Non-Jewish News - information the Jews don't want you to know". Clear, to the point and demonstrably true. Plus Christians may see the cover and at least start reading. Too many Whites see the word Aryan and look for a place to hide.

Whatever title is decided on, this should definitely be right beneath it on the masthead - "Information the Jews don't want you to know."

Not really, or not exactly. White identity is denied today - except as 'white trash,' as some hsitorical guilt repository.

This is not the impression that I am getting from the literature available on the subject. The truth is that most white Americans already define themselves racially in terms of their whiteness. Huntington covers the subject in his recent book. You should check it out. The term is also used in the census, if I recall.

Then you've got guys like EMJones who say race is for DERACINATED people, and ethnic groups are the reality while race is abstraction.

There are a lot of people who say things like that. Very true. But its also true that this sort of deracialization is nowhere near as widespread as you are making it out to be, especially in the Southeast where I live. There are already millions of white Americans who sympathize with racialism and define themselves in racial terms. These white Americans have no real affection for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton telling them that they are not entitled to their racial and cultural identity. An enormous amount of research has been done on this subject. You can read all about it in any decent university library.

I say ethnic groups are real, but the differences quickly pale when niggers and mex enter trhe picture. But what Demonica says is truer today, they'll claim they're just people or citizens of the world.

Ha! You should come to Alabama. I have honestly never come across a white person here who has identified himself as a "citizen of the world." In fact, I would go so far as to say that "United Nations" is something of an epithet around here.

Like I said, we do use the term 'white' most of the time, but we mix in Aryan, so that people come to think our way.

That's your right. I simply disagree with your approach on this point. For instance, I first found my way into racialism after reading Buchanan's Death of the West because I was concerned about the future of America. Now I am sure there must be millions of white Americans who harbor similar concerns. But such people don't want to reinvent themselves as Aryans. They don't want to spend all day talking ad nauseum about how Hitler was right or why Christianity should be destroyed. They don't want to live under some fascist dictatorship that is going to take away their individual rights either.

It's a cool label, like a designer lable that is designed by nature. But most whites today have been conditioned away from thinking of themselves as white. All kinds of kids will try to claim they're not whites because they have (ususally nonexistent) Indian ancestors or they're Polish or something.

I don't think its so much a lack of whiteness as it is a sense that there is something inherently wrong with being white. And that is why we should be telling these people who believe its wrong to hate other races that self-hatred is the most destructive form of hatred there is.

I agree, but this is extremely difficult to do when a certain race -- the same race that let all those Mexicans in, in the first place -- controls the airwaves.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I wouldn't put it that way. The studies that I have seen on the subject suggest to me that the Jews are in control of something in between one-fourth to one-third of the elite mass media in the United States. They have substantial influence within the mass media but they are certainly not predominant. You can say they control some sectors of the mass media, such as Hollywood, but that is about it.

They claim they're americans, and they claim to define America, and define her opponents.

That's true. But IMHO you are focusing too much on the Jews. You are only grasping part of the story here. You are ignoring the role our Protestant elites have played in redefining America as a cosmopolitan nation.

Hence our term AmeriKwa for the bogus culture they've produced here. I certainly won't take any responsibility for what the jews are doing in iraq in my name.

But are they really responsible for the cosmopolitan culture? Its undoubtedly true that they played a major part in it but they never could have risen to the level they are at today had it not been the degeneration of the Protestant elite.

The Iraqis are calling American troops jews! We act like the jews, now we become hated like them. And the jews have a whole bogus historical narrative that anyone who departs from gets denounced as a racist antisemite hater, even the paleos.

LOL I know. I believe they have been denouncing Bill O'Reilly lately for telling some Jew to go back to Israel. I can only wonder how they are going to react to the Merchant of Venice that is about to come out, considering how they reacted to the Passion.

That history is most definitely that anyone can become just as good an american as any other, because America is an Idea (TM). So you can say what you want, but you'll never be able to enforce your distinction without gaining control of TV.

You can easily go back and search my posts on the subject. I must have said a million times that the problem is not so much the Jews as it is whites. We simply don't have the sort of infrastructure we need to get out message out. That is what we should be focusing on creating. Its a waste of time to argue about WW2 all day on the internet.

We have, over and over. But the jews such as Ben Wattenberg, who wrote some book about the US being the first universal nation aren't interested.

Its not what the Jews think that should concern us. We should be concerned about how white America sees us.

And they hold all the high positions. Take the ultimate guy down what I take to be your line: Jared Taylor.

Ever hear of Bill Paxton?

You'll probalby not find a more eloquent, rational guy. If he ever got an editorial published anywhere, or more than a brief street-cur treatment on tv, I haven't seen it.

I have seen Taylor on MSNBC several times now. il ragno was pointing out just the other day about how William Donahue of the Catholic League named the Jew on national television. LOL even O'Reilly, hard as it may be to believe, has denounced the ADL as an "extremist organization."

The jews will not allow any narrative competition. A Somali is a Vietnamese is a Mexican is an American. Disagree, you're a racist. History is whatever the jew says it is.

There are definitely Jews out there who engage in that sort of rhetoric. I see all sorts of antiracist books written by such people all the time. You have probably never heard of the vast majority of them. Check out "Critical Race Theory," for instance.