The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots….If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out.”
apparently spoken by King Edward 'Longshanks' in the movie. Whether he actually said such a thing in real life I don't know; I do know Hollywood, and even 'conservative' Mel Gibson sometimes puts words in the mouths of historical personages that may or may not be established as words they actually spoke.
Assuming Edward said this, or harbored sentiments along those lines, it is certain that our present-day rulers, who have the temerity to pretend that 'representative government' still exists, do in fact harbor the intent to replace us or 'breed us out'.
So Jetbrane's analogy is an apt one. He continues:
Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film “Rob Roy.” I’ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.
The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America.''
He makes reference to the recent report of the dwindling numbers among the White majority, and our looming loss of majority status in 2042. As he says, this coming change is not an accident or the result of some freak occurrence, but is an engineered, deliberate transformation of America, produced by collusion between government and the schools (government-run) and lately, by our mainline churches -- and even now, by some formerly conservative churches which have become infatuated with the liberal 'emergent' church movement.
And of course the faceless 'globalist' manipulators are the force at the center of it all.
It’s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.''
Amen to that. I also find it passing odd; I cannot understand how people can have become so utterly captured by this PC, one-world ideology in such a short time.
In the time of William Wallace, of course it was not some kind of sinister, worldwide plan as it appears to be now; it was simply the usual struggles over territory and power.
But as to why the many Americans wildly cheer on Braveheart and the Scots defeating the stereotypically-evil 'Saxons' while obtusely remaining blind to the obvious parallels with what is happening to us today, I can't quite explain.
Maybe some of you who have seen the movie Braveheart can clarify this for me: in the movie, was it made clear that 'Braveheart' Wallace was actually fighting to preserve his kin, his heritage, his birthright? Or was it shown as simply a battle for an abstract ideal like 'freedom'?
I have seen many promos for the movie, with Braveheart, face painted blue, bellowing ''Freedom!!!' The impression I got from that image is that maybe the movie soft-pedals the angle of fighting for one's people, hearth and home and heritage, while emphasizing that Braveheart was willing to fight or die for 'Freedom!' rather than blood and soil.
If I am wrong, I am confident some of you will correct me.
Even if the movie did not present the struggle between the Scots and the English this way, I have a suspicion than many historically illiterate Americans would read it this way nonetheless. We have been fed so much of this abstract proposition stuff that we seem to think that our country came into existence solely on that basis, and that all of our forefathers shed their blood and died in past wars solely for abstract ideas like 'Freedom!' or, (perish the thought) 'democracy' rather than for kin, home, hearth, and posterity.
I truly think that the idea of a nation consisting of a people tied mostly by blood and birth, and only incidentally by ideas and ideals, is a foreign one to many Americans today, especially those born after the P.C. reign began.
So now we have a populace who can bristle with indignation over the plight of Braveheart's Scots, threatened with loss of their land and possibly their very existence as a people, yet somehow these Americans cannot perceive any analogy to their own situation.
One more side note about how Americans seem to have embraced the Braveheart movie, cheering on the Scots against the 'villainous' Sassenachs: maybe because of our own Revolutionary struggle against the British, many Americans are inclined to see the British as villains in these historical movies. And the fact that most such movies portray the English as foppish, effete scoundrels does not help much, either.
I think it fairly likely that, of an average Braveheart audience, most of the people watching (who were probably nearly all White, I would wager) who were cheering the defeat of the English were themselves likely to be of more English ancestry than Scots. But somehow the English end up being the side we cheer against. It's ironic. Is this just part of our somewhat knee-jerk sympathies for the 'underdog'? I think it's a dangerous tendency to automatically assume that the 'underdog' is the good guy, and that sympathy of ours is no small part of our suffering millions of immigrants to overrun us. We see them as the poor underdogs, and maybe we feel it would be ungallant of us to treat them sternly. It might appear much like beating up on a weakling, so we try to be magnanimous and treat them as unthreatening objects of charity.
I am descended from people on both sides of the conflict shown in Braveheart; I am not anti-Scots in any way. I love Scottish culture and the Scots people I have met. I just wish that we needn't villainize the English in the process of showing these historical struggles. The Scots and the English are really near cousins, as recent DNA studies have shown. We should not have to pick a side; they are all our kin.
But back to the blog entry. In the comments following, the usual arguments about how 'White' is not an ethnicity, unlike Scots, are made. And also the argument about 'cultural adoption' by immigrants: if the brown-skinned folk who are coming to take our places can adopt our culture, where's the problem?
The discussion never reaches the conclusion, as I have, that race or ethnicity and culture are intertwined, but it's a somewhat interesting discussion nonetheless.
One commenter somewhat grudgingly says 'American' may be an ethnicity but that we are too young to be a 'race'. At least the commenter does not say that 'race' is only a social construct, but that's rather faint praise.
We have to somehow surmount this common notion that it's somehow abhorrent or radical to assert that Americans are an ethnicity or that any mention of the White race being somehow part of American identity is verboten. There is no escaping the fact that the founding stock of this country was White and that they were conscious of that fact, and that they were predominantly of English, or more broadly, British descent.
The truth is never 'racist'. It just is.
It should not have to be so difficult to get more Americans to see what is glaringly obvious about our demographic jeopardy, but the indoctrination has been so thorough and so characterized by propaganda overkill, that it will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.