Yesterday, I watched Michael Wood's excellent 1981 documentary on Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred ("the Unready"; 966-1016); which crystallized a (more-than-) analogy between the imposition of "the Norman Yoke" on England from 1066.
Ethelred was a disastrously bad king. His posthumous and punning epithet "unready" actually translates to something like badly-counseled, with connotations of one who made many foolish, or even wicked, decisions; one of which was to simultaneously impoverish England and strengthen the Danish pirates, by truly enormous payments of Danegeld over many years (rather than organize, and fight the invaders)*.
Ethelred had inherited from illustrious ancestors, such as Alfred and Athelstan, an English Empire (i.e. of the Saxon Kingdoms such as Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria), which Wood describes as the wealthiest and most prestigious Kingship in Europe.
By Ethelred's death, the English nation had been substantially disunited and demoralized by decades of helpless rapine under rule of a spiteful, moody, feckless and cowardly king; and made vulnerable to the Norman conquest a couple of generations later.
Something I did not fully appreciate until relatively recently, was the way in which the Normans not only tyrannized England; but killed a very large proportion of its people (directly and indirectly), and destroyed its wealth. After William I; it took centuries before England was again wealthy, prosperous, and with her own high culture.
As I have written before; the Normans were motivated by an elitist disdain of the Anglo-Saxons, who were treated as pressed soldiers, servants and slaves at best; but were exiled, starved and killed in such numbers as severely to weaken the country.
Much of the North was reduced to depopulated desert, and the rich agricultural lands of the South was converted to semi-wild Forests; exclusively dedicated to the hunting-related recreations of the Norman Masters.
In this respect, as well as in ancestry, the Norman rule resembled the rapacious and destructive piracy of the worst of their Viking ancestors. And resembled too the attitudes and behaviours of the modern alien-cosmopolitan Establishment (many of whom have, and are overweeningly proud of, Norman ancestry).
When these alien pirates became England's kings and aristocrats; their twin priorities were absolute power on the one hand - with a network of garrisoned castles as the symbol; and on the other hand a short-termist, selfish, and pleasure-seeking attitude to the country and its people - which they regarded as booty of war.
Their Norman's 'problem', as usually happens with successful pirates, was squabbling over the loot. So that the country was rapidly and repeatedly riven by civil wars; motivated by the selfish power-seeking of the outsider-Lords; and which kept on killing people and dissipating England's innate economic advantages for generation after generation - for no better reason than the choice of whether to be oppressed by Norman de Tweedledum or Norman de Tweedledee...
The Great-Reset intends a strikingly-analogous economic destruction, depopulation - and conversion of the world (or, as much as possible) to wasteland and recreational territory intended for their exclusive use.
The modern excuses for this evil, selfish and net-destructive power/ pleasure grab are different and dishonest compared with the past: the Normans did not need or bother to justify their deliberate and strategic destruction of farming and industry, with agriculture repurposing to exclusively-accessed wilderness and forests in huge estates which the Establishment own, by anything equivalent to the modern elite's pseudo-environmentalism.
The Normans killed and starved the peasantry because they wanted-to and could, and because they regarded Saxons as inferior beings.
But our modern-Norman's pretend to be promoting 'global' public health, defending 'democracy', and preventing 'climate change' by doing so.
As in Norman times, the problem - but now over most of the world - is an alien and evil-motivated elite; who care nothing for the nations or the people they rule and administer; which they manipulate and torment.
Indeed the modern-Normans loathe all nations and peoples, as obstacles blocking them from their proximate and insatiable desire for ever-more power and loot.
Yet our modern, alien elites are far worse even than the Normans of England - not just in their scale and wealth; but because they are more advanced in their evil - and desire destruction for its own sake, rather than as a means to the ends of power and loot.
Our modern-Normans would make chaos everywhere, and pull-down the whole civilized world around themselves - even if it makes their own lives less pleasurable, and breaks their own structures of power.
But merely in order to demonstrate to themselves their own superiority; to enjoy their own callously-sadistic indifference to the planet and all creatures and plants on it.
Because the modern-Normans do not any more serve their own appetites; but serve a master who is of-spirit and not dependent on the material for survival; and who loathes all of God's creation - including, of course, his gullible and blinkered Norman servants.
*Note: Indeed; it is the many tens of thousands of silver coins with which the Danegeld was paid, time and again; that provides perhaps the most direct evidence of the pre-existing wealth of Etheldred's England.
I think you would agree that historical analogies are largely insufficient in these times; however, the Sorathic connection you've made here between the ancient Normans and our current crop of "Normans" is incisive and valid as far as I'm concerned.
@Frank - What makes the historical analogy somewhat more than usual, is the surprising extent to which the lineage of the UK ruling class (and its Anglosphere diaspora) has been preserved across 1000 years. But it is quite right to make clear that these (end) times are unprecedented.
My family name is apparently of Norman descent. The old sigil of our house is a small serpent wrapped around the shattered base of a mighty pillar. You wouldn't believe the cruelty and subtlety of things that can be done to terrorized children. But it's all pathetic self-worship in the end. Stunted souls staring into ponds at false reflections.
It was sobering to read that 1 in 6 people in England and Wales are foreign born. Now I'm not against immigration as my mother is one. However, there is a huge implication to outright population replacement. The last time such replacement happened was the Norman Conquest. However, the Anglo Saxons still fought bravely despite the corruption that was going on in Saxon England. Harold II died fighting for his nation. William the Conqueror had to commit outright genocide in the north to subdue the people. Today, the conquest is of the mind, not the body. The modern leadership willingly embraces population displacement and most people go along w/ it. A harrying of the north is no longer necessary. Modern middle class white women will eagerly embrace their extinction.
However, the House of Wessex didn't die out even though it was deposed. St. Margaret of Scotland preserved the English line of succession despite marrying into the Scottish royal family. In fact, one of the justifications for keeping Scotland an independent kingdom during the wars w/ Edward Longshanks was that the Scottish royal line from Margaret of Wessex was more legitimate than the Norman derived Plantagenets. The union of England and Scotland has a spiritual connection. It's unfortunate that this union became corrupted into secular materialism and modern liberalism. The legacy of St. Margaret is a spiritual heritage that both Englishmen and Scots should be proud of. This is the answer to the spiritual "Normans".
@LM - The Norman Conquest wasn't really a population replacement, despite the population reduction among Saxons; because a few tens of thousands ruled over many hundreds of thousand (population estimates are conjectural), and seemed not to interbreed much.
Nowadays the goal is chaos rather than control; and the importation of (but the government isn't counting) 1-2% (several hundreds of thousands) per year over several decades will indeed replace the natives; and replace the culture with chaos.
But the root of this is the utter demoralization of the English, who do not reproduce enough to replace themselves; and have not done so for many decades. And this demoralization is due to our spiritual abandonment of any religion at all but Christianity in particular.
So mass immigration is a matter of 'assisted suicide' at the national level; and the English are complicit in their own destruction - which is why it was allowed to happen.
How is this any different from the Angles, Jutes and Saxons conquest of Britain?
@Evan - I have explained that - above; in terms of attitude and motivation, as expressed in what actually was done.
It is not the conquest that was different; but what was done with it. That is what shows the difference.
There is more to conquest than conquering.
The Norman Invasions are quite a sore spot for me. There's a niche hobby that I'm into called Anglish, which is a community constructed form of English that rids English of as many non-Germanic words that came into it through this alien aristocracy as it can. I translated this post into Anglish during a slow day at work for fun. There are a few other things Anglishers tend to do like removing the Latin style of and making Germanic style compound words, but I only had time to replace vocabulary:
Yesterday, I watched Michael Wood's outstanding 1981 truthfilm on Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred ("the Unready"; 966-1016); which hurst-hardened a (more-than-) alikness between the thrusting of "the Norman Yoke" on England from 1066.
Ethelred was a dreadfully bad king. His afterdeath and wordplay name "unready" more truly awends to something like badly-shepherded, with undermeanings of one who made many foolish, or even wicked, choosings; one of which was to adearth England and strengthen the Danish sea-reavers at the same time, by truly entish fees of Danegeld over many years (rather than kilter, and fight the raiders)*.
Ethelred had come into a birthright from thrymfast forebears, such as Alfred and Athelstan, an English Richdom (that is of the Saxon Kingdoms such as Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria), which Wood betells as the wealthiest and most high-standing Kingship in Europe.
By Ethelred's death, the English stock had been greatly unknitted and downhearted by year-tens of helpless reaving under rule of a loatheful, moody, unfit and gutless king; and made weak to the Norman raidings some two begettings later.
Something I did not fully heed until somewhat lately, was the way in which the Normans not only trampled England; but killed a sorely great share of its folk (straightly and asidely), and shattered its wealth. After William I; it took year-hundreds before England was again wealthy, thriving, and with her own high folkways.
As I have written before; the Normans were driven by a highborn downlooking on the Anglo-Saxons, who were behandled as drafted kemps, bondsmen, and thralls at best; but were outcast, starved and killed in such scores as harshly to weaken the kithland.
Much of the North was lessened to undwelt dryland, and the rich farming land of the South was wended to half-wild Forests; earmarked only to the hunting-sundered playworks of the Norman Overlords.
In this way, as well as in bloodstrain, the Norman lording beliked the fiendish and shattering reaving of the worst of their Viking forebears. And beliked too the moodways and deedways of the nowtide outlandish-worldly Steadihood (many of whom have, and are overweeningly proud of, Norman forebears).
When these outlandish reavers became England's kings and highborns; their twin foreranks were unanswering might on the one hand - with a network of kemp-warded strongholds as the mark; and on the other hand a short-span, selfish, and lust-seeking mood to the kithland and its folk - which they saw as plunderings of wye.
Their Norman's 'pitfall', as often happens with gainful reavers, was squabbling over the plunder. So that the kithland was swiftly and again and again riven by inward wyes; driven by the selfish might-seeking of the outsider-Lords; and which kept on killing folk and shatter-sundering England's inward trade highgrounds for begetting after begetting - for no better grounds than the choosing of whether to be downtrodden by Norman de Tweedledum or Norman de Tweedledee...
The Great-Newset wants a strikingly-alike trade shattering, unfolking - and wending of the world (or, as much as mightly) to barrenland and playwork turf meant for their brooking alone.
The nowtide false-grounds for this evil, selfish and overall-shattering might/ lust grab are unlike and false when likened with yore: the Normans did not need or bother to uphold their willful and foreplotted shattering of farming and craftwork, with farming new-goaling to alone-handled wilderness and forests in great landholdings which the Steadihood own, by anything alike to the nowtide highborn's false-greenmongering.
The Normans killed and starved the bowerdom forwhy they wanted-to and could, and forwhy they bethought Saxons as lesser beings.
But our nowtide-Norman's play as if to be uprearing 'worldly' folk health, shielding 'shirerich', and forestalling 'lofthelm shifting' by doing so.
As in Norman times, the pitfall - but now over most of the world - is an outlandish and evil-driven highborndom; who care nothing for the kithlands or the folk they lord and bedeal; which they overhandle and bedevil.
Indeed the nowtide-Normans loathe all kithlands and folks, as hurdles blocking them from their nearby and unsalveworthy lust for ever-more might and plunder.
Yet our nowtide, outlandish highborns are far worse even than the Normans of England - not just in their score and wealth; but forwhy they are more skillful in their evil - and crave shattering for its own sake, rather than as a way to the ends of might and plunder.
Our nowtide-Normans would make messiness everywhere, and pull-down the whole thriven world around themselves - even if it makes their own lives less lustworthy, and breaks their own frameworks of might.
But merely in kilter to outshow to themselves their own greatness; to beglad their own hardskinned-heartless carelessness to the world and all wights and plants on it.
Forwhy the nowtide-Normans do not any more help their own cravings; but help a lord who is of-ghost and not needful on the stuff for onliving; and who loathes all of God's making - holding in, rightly, his foolish and blinkered Norman thralls.
*Log: Indeed; it is the many tens of thousands of silver mintings with which the Danegeld was yielded, time and again; that affords mayhaps the most straight witness of the fore-bestanding wealth of Etheldred's England.
@Michael - Thank you. That's very impressive!
It's only the second or third time, I think, that anything on this blog has been translated.
I have come across this idea before - Tolkien did it sometimes; I mean, avoiding Romance language words, deliberately and to create a particular effect. Also Gerard Manley Hopkins - and some of your translation has a Hopkins-esque quality to it. And the (Australian) composer Percy Grainger - who would not use the traditional Italian instructions on his music - like allegro, andante etc - he would translate them into Anglo-Saxon equivalents.
It's interesting that the carrying capacity of most Western nations is soon going to go way way down, due to the Sorathic destruction of the means of production, agriculture, medical systems, industrial production, economic means, etc.
After the USSR collapsed, a large % of the population just "disappeared" - died off without many noticing.
This time, the Great Reset loss of carrying capacity will be very noticeable. I wonder how the loss of resources will affect the native versus immigrant populations? I would hypothesize that the natives who live in rural areas will be more adept at getting by, although it will be very brutal for everyone. Will immigrant-derived people try to return to their homelands? Not very useful thoughts, but interesting in a theoretical way. IN the past there have been massive movement of peoples.
@JG - My understanding is that a *very* high proportion of the Christian population of the Middle East disappeared after the West-sponsored and -sustained Arab Spring - nobody seems to know where or how - nobody was interested.
Tolkien is well loved among people into Anglish, and I think he would have really loved Anglish if he had lived to witness it. I really appreciate your NCP blog as well. I'll have to look into Gerard Manley Hopkins and Percy Grainger, as I've not heard those names before now. Thanks for reposting my little translation
Post a Comment