A Clarification and Distinction between Anglo-Saxons and Britons.
I.
Some general premises are due-:
(1) The following is subjected to the understanding from Galatians 3:28.
(2) There is no one to-day who is a pure Anglo, Saxon, Briton, etc., however, under the vagaries and influences of backgrounds, fate, chance and statistics, some of the original genes keep on surfacing, generating objectionable dangerous individuals.
(3) In spite of the great deal of genetic-intermixing everywhere, Barbarians have not disappeared, as genetic characteristics moulded by ancient unfortunate scenarios are always present in an individual's DNA. Barbarism can be also induced and fertilized by doctrines and ideologies. It does not necessarily become cured by technological advances or progress, sometimes being magnified by these material influences.
(4) The classical label of Barbarian applies to all those who have a
steppe/desert genetic nurturing background that has moulded through millennia, since say 10,000 BC, their DNA, in a recogniseable way, even to-day.
(5) There is among barbaric type of individuals, clans, tribes, nations, ideological confederations, masked as religious ones, an illusion/delusion ( there is a psychiatric term for this ) they are the supporters, bringers of Freedoms as against the Civilized Nations aiming at large co-operating Units, they call Empires, and wish destroyed without any demonstrated historical capacity to fill the vacuum.
(6) The religious component of these Barbaric Ideologies stems from an effort at trying to prove superior ethical worth in comparison to the people of the Empires, however, upon their initial successes these ideological confederations prove to be a SHAM!
Just look closely and wide-eyed at Islam, at the Hebrews, at Catholicism, at the Protestant Sects etc. to-day. In my opinion Christianity, the true one that was accidentally sabotaged in the first centuries AD, by well-meaning Constantine is the only ethical/religious system worth of trust and to be seeked by the West to-day.
Just savour the depths of Galatians 3:28, written by a Pharisee, once upon a time.................a Barbarian from the tribe of Benjamin!
La', ila la', ilaa Allah!
II.
The following is a short article written from information gathered from a Briton, a British writer, from Gibbon's " The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire "................
Anglo-Saxons, (See also Armorica.)-:
In ca. 410 A.D., during the reign of Honorius ( 394-423 A.D.), both Armorica and Britain received his valedictory message that ‘the cantons should take steps to defend themselves ‘. In fact, Rome had become unable to garrison these lands, since, after Radagaisus’ army invasion of Gaul and Spain in 407 A.D., Rome had been unable to expel them, and their armies were generating chaos and disorder in all the low lands were their cavalries could safely operate and their infantries could not be ambushed. In Gaul, only Armorica and to a lesser degree Auvergne were being defended by the Celts, the roman provincials and the Romans who had elected to stay and defend themselves. Since 375 A.D., the great hordes of the Huns had begun to appear on the Volga river as well as on the shores of the Baltic sea, where they had appeared even earlier than then and were going to cause the chain of displacements and migrations of the tribes located between the Baltic shores and the borders of the Noricum with Italy, resulting from the gathering together in 405 A.D. of Radagaisus’ gothic confederation.
Among the peoples who felt the pressures generated by the great mass of animals and human beings pressing at the roman borders, were the Jutes ( under the banner of Hengist ), the old Saxons, and the Angles who entered a loose confederacy aiming at the conquest of Britain. These people were joined by smaller tribes of Frisians, Danes, Prussians, Rugians and even Huns. At the end of four hundred years, these people had conquered approximately three quarters of the British islands which they divided in seven Kingdoms-: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent ( the Jutes), Sussex, Wessex, with the exception of the scottish lands, North Wales and West Wales.
In ca. 455 A.D., Vortigern, a British chief who had attempted the organisation of the war efforts against the Caledonians and the Picts issuing from the scottish lands, unsettled by Scandinavian raids, asked the help of the Saxons, giving them as a base the isle of Thanet. Soon the Saxons succeeded in obtaining permission to occupy the Orkneys islands to the north, so as to get nearer to the scottish raiders, and landed at the same time in northern Northumberland, or Lothian in a location just south of the roman walls. Eventually the alliance fell apart and Saxons and Britons began fighting one another. The Britons were initially softer and more civilised than the Saxons and their confederates who were callous, murderous, treacherous, beastly barbarians of the worst kind, and could only defend themselves by using their superior understanding of tactics, their better weapons and equipment which was in the roman pattern.
However, education, knowledge, memory, equipment, weapons, breeding, resources degenerated and decayed, unrenewed as these were to be for centuries to come, and the barbarians kept on winning territory through terror, treachery and the violation of treaties, superiority of number, wholesome ethnic purging and massacres. Even at the zenith of their conquest, these barbarians were so inept in the arts of civilized production of food and goods that they considered one of their british slaves more valuable than even their own children, whom it was their custom to sell into slavery whenever in need ( see Gibbon I, p.628).
III.
The necessity to understand the distinctions introduced above rises from the ignorance, misunderstandings, falsehoods, distortions of truth, misrepresentations, carelessness, sycophancy, commercialism, bordering on the criminal, shown by our best ( from a technical point of view of film-making ) directors and film-producers when representing HISTORY.
"Robin Hood ", recently directed by Ridley Scott, although being a great step-forward in relation to previously produced Yiddish/American shit and lies, is still full of misrepresentations and mistaken interpretations of Western History
Owing to the fact that this film deals with the re-birth of western democracy in Britain, i.e. through MAGNA CHARTA, during the Middle Ages, some 500 years before its extension to the Continent and to the world, in the times of the French Revolution, however also beginning its present abuses and corruption, in addition to those perpetrated by English Parliaments, contrary to the original intentions and goals of the Norman Barons who were Templars, it is an extremely sensitive and important subject that should be dealt with more rigorously and scholarly than what our debauched modern freedoms allow.
Ridley Scott is still half right, half wrong!
(1) The antagonism between Anglo-Saxons and Normans has nothing to do with Magna Charta. Freedoms were not supported by the Anglo-Saxons who had enslaved the Britons, as amply agreed upon by History. If Freedom means love of debauchery, corruption and laissais-fairism as it has become to-day in Anglo-Saxon distorted democracies, than the Saxons were freedom-lovers, the Mafiosis are freedom-lovers. These bastards however also love chaos and disorder in which to spin their cunning financial webs. Abuses of freedom following chaos and disorder are the evils, the weackness of a democracy going to seed being abused by the criminal anti-social elements who tend to rise and to infiltrate democratic governments through the abusive use of the Laws, as a democracy becomes complacent, corrupt and stupid.
(2 ) The Normans were not French. The Normans were Barbarians civilized by Christianity. The Anglo-Saxons and the bastardized/fuckumized Britons ( Scots, Welsh and Irish ) were a mix of Roman Gaul ( my anscestors ), Gauls, and Gaelic Barbarians who were so embittered and confused by their protracted feuds and atrocities that they were mistrusting anyone from the European Continent. This applied also to Christianity and, paradoxically the bastardized Britons, who have a propensity to snobbery, ended opposing Roman Catholicism and Normans alike that was attempting the reconciliation between Saxons and Britons. I do not blame them considering the confusion of those times. However not blaming them does not mean one must cease from attempts to see the issues clearly, as the confusion is still there to-day with Anglo-Saxons trying to appear as the pure unblemished supporters of freedoms and justice.......which is pure bullshit!
I, the spiritual and physical descendant of the Norman Barons, a lover of the Christian Western Civilization, am intervening in the defence of modern Democracy which has been allowed to become vitiated by American Anglo-Saxonism. Since the latter, like the French, is in total decline and cannot even produce new enlightened leaders, who knows what the future pof American Democracy is going to be! The trouble is that Americans are so fanatical about Americanism and their Flag, that it is not possible to talk to them without hitting them on their stupid snouts.
They have become thouroughly bastardized................
However Galatians 3:28 is still there to offer counsel.
(3) Ridley Scott has tried to condense too much history in two hours. The French should have been left totally out and the film should have focused entirely on Magna Charta.
(4) My personal research aided by Tim Farr, my once co-operating American correspondent, points to the possibility of Robin Hood having been a member of a minor branch of the Ferrers of Loxley. Now, the Ferrers were of Roman /Breton/Norman/ origins with a Latin surname of Ferrerii/Ferrari, which modern nationalistic Britons and Anglo-Saxons are trying to suppress and eradicate from British History, paradoxically even in spite of the movement towards a United Europe.
However, this brand of cretins is spread all over Europe, each nation of cretins still believing that somehow, each cretinic European Nation can, separately from a United Europe, defend itself and maintain its economical achievements.
Good-bye Europe........all the cash is now flowing East to China, India and Japan.
So, look forward to a slide down the curve of affluence and standards-of-living you bloody idiots.
(5) So, perhaps Sir Walter of Loxley, all Coat of Arms in the film being fakes, one being unable to be guided by Heraldry, was a Ferrers of Loxley. Maybe Robin Longstride was really called Longstride, and as it appears he was born in Loxley, so there was perhaps a connection between Robin and Sir Walter and since he was perhaps a cadet of the family, it is possible the offer made to him of the sword and resources of Loxley in exchange for supplying a male heir is plausible.
The fact is that at least two prominent/high nobility---members of the Ferrers were participating in Richard's Crusade............(i) Sir William Ferrers a knight-Templar, the vth Earl of Derby who died at the siege of Acre in ca. 1197, (ii) Sir Gualcheleinus Ferrers, the Baron of Oackam-Ferrers in Rutland, who died in 1205, after returning to England. it is quite possible minor cadets of the family may have also participated.
(6) If Robin was not a Ferrers by birth but became one by adoption, this might explain the problem Tim Farr and I encountered...........my blood-Y-DNA-haplogroup being an ' E ', in contrast to all American Farr, some Porto-Rican Ferrer, some Argentinian Ferrers whowere found to belong to the 'R' group.
Even if not a concrete fact, it is possible as an hypothesis.
(7) Notwithstanding all else, the spiritual implications are plausible and of extreme interest. I am referring to the Ferrers's involvement, possibly as the inspirers, originators and precursors of the ideals behind Magna Charta, even if only by association to the myhical person of Robin's executed father.
(8) The focus on the gaelic crosses in some of the British villages was felicitous as it just supports my focusing on the Britishness of English cicilized beginnings.
(9) The primitivity of the civic structures in the still relatively undeveloped parts of the Midlands is good as it points to the contributions of the Norman Barons as most active, efficient, competent managers of resources.
(10) The killing of 3,000 Moslems at Acre was a normal military practice in the Middle Ages, practiced by the Moslems and the Mongols too, which aimed at redressing the unbalance caused by the futile resistance of a town under siege, resulting in the death of too many, irreplaceable besiegers. Sir Walter Ferrers was one of the high-ranking ( he was an Earl ) slain at Acre. Also, Richard had just barely survived the poisoned dagger of an Assasshin which had permanently affected his health, and the Laws of Chivalry did not consider such an attempt lightly.