Modern Anglo-Saxons are accustomed to the fact that they are only spoken of in a lisping tone: they are glorified, admired, their language is considered international … Even those who hate and fear them speak of them, mentally bowing their heads to them in respectful bow. Without denying that the Anglo-Saxons are a phenomenal phenomenon, I offer readers a slightly different view of the native speakers of the English language, the English mentality and the racial type to which most of these people belong. The people whom I, the author of these lines, consider one of the oldest primordially fascist nations in the world.
Nowadays they talk a lot about fascism and with knowledge of the matter: these are, they say, fascists, but these are not fascists at all, but some ardent fighters for a just cause dear to our hearts.
I believe that there are only three criteria for fascism:
1) A public statement of some ethnic group that it, this very group, has some kind of exclusive rights, which it does not recognize for any other ethnic group. Quite simply, it is a brazen declaration of its own superiority.
2) Real, not fictional, power: intellectual, economic, military. What is a boastful declaration of your own superiority worth if it is not backed up by anything?
3) Long-term (over many generations and even centuries!) Successful functioning of just such a system of views and just such a system of actions.
And it's all. No more points are needed. Neither the skin color of the bearers of this ideology, nor the system of symbols (banners, emblems, clothing), nor the musical or verbal design have any meaning. Everything is pushed aside before the greatness of these three points.
So: the Anglo-Saxons fully fit into these three points.
Perhaps someone else from the inhabitants of the globe has these same three characteristics, and I can even name the ethnic groups that fall under them.
First, these are the worshipers of the Old Testament and the teachings of Moses about how to enslave nations. They are ideal fascists.
Secondly, it is the great Chinese nation - ancient, powerful and ruthless; where the Chinese live, no one else survives. The Chinese consume everyone.
And thirdly, this is the great Japanese civilization - powerful, cunning and cruel.
Perhaps the Arabic version of fascism or the Turkish one could be added to this list, but now I do not set myself such a goal - to delve into all these details and propose to return to the topic of this article, which is devoted to the Anglo-Saxons.
So, at what point did the Anglo-Saxons have a clear craving for fascist ideology?
The 5th century AD is, as it were, the official and well-known date of the birth of English fascism. But, I think that such a turn in the minds of the ancestors of this people took place even earlier, because it was necessary to thoroughly prepare for it, and such preparation could not take place in one day, it had to have its own long history.
Everyone knows that the Romans held the island of Great Britain under their rule until the 5th century AD. And then voluntarily (due to their internal reasons) left him. And then the tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes poured into the island.
The question is: why did they pour in? Why didn't they live in Central Europe, where they lived before? Why did they leave huge empty areas on mainland Europe after them? Why did you have to abandon their homes - villages, fields, forests, rivers? But the island of Great Britain was by no means deserted, and the Celts already lived there! So why did the Angles and the Saxons abandon everything in the world (despite the fact that no one chased them in the neck) and rushed to the island that had been occupied by someone for a long time?
There will be several answers.
While the Roman legionaries were on the island, the Germanic tribes were afraid of them and did not dare to poke in there. They would have received a powerful rebuff, and they perfectly understood this. The Germans were strong, but the fear of superior forces was what stopped them. The Germans respected strength.
But the Romans, for their own reasons, left the island, and for the Germanic tribes this meant that the way to it was open. The island can be occupied and, with the convenience of settling on it, make forays from there to Europe and the rest of the world, while remaining invulnerable to foreign armies. This was a very smart and forward-looking consideration.
But why weren't the aliens afraid of the Celts living there?
Because they knew from previous long-term experience: the Celts are those who can be defeated. The Celts have less organization and less cohesion. Celts are prone to internal divisions; there are fewer Celts than Germans; Celts are worse warriors than Germans.
For reference. The Celts are typical Indo-Europeans, the closest linguistic relatives of the Italic tribes, the very ones among which the Latins stood out at a well-known historical stage - the founders of the Roman Empire. For a long time, the Celts were not inferior in power and cohesion to the Germans, and in the intellectual sense they even significantly surpassed them, but, having moved from the continent to the islands, they met there immigrants from the Mediterranean - people of non-Indo-European origin with racial characteristics that were not characteristic of the rest of Indo-Europeans. According to the terminology of G. F. K. Gunther is the so-called "Western" or "Mediterranean" race. Today's Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern Italians, and North Africans have traits of the same racial type. In the same place, in the British Isles,since ancient times, tribes of completely unknown origin - linguistic and racial - have lived. After mixing with the people of these races, the Celts largely lost their former power and became more vulnerable. Only a few of them (mainly the Northern Scots) have retained their former Nordic racial identity.
It was this vulnerability that the new aliens hoped for - Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who themselves, at the time of the invasion of the island, almost completely belonged to the Nordic racial type.
Let's admit. But why was it necessary to leave forever the land from which no one drove them away?
And then, that on the old land the Germans constantly had to deal with Nordic tribes, equal in power and organization - with the same Germans or Slavs. And not everyone liked this; I wanted to deal with those who were obviously weaker and less protected, in order to enslave them as soon as possible and more successfully. That is: to parasitize on them, as well as on the inhabitants of continental Europe, on which successful raids could be made.
This last is the most important and vilest sense of the resettlement of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes to the island of Great Britain!
Among the Germanic tribes of Central Europe, there was a selection based on the tendency to parasitism. This had already happened before among the Germans, when from their total mass some one variant spilled out, striking with one property: the Franks amaze and still amaze with their extraordinary sanity and hard work; vandals - unbridled cruelty. It should be noted, however, that all the violent variants of the Germans certainly perished due to the stupidity and immoderate belligerence of the carriers of such mentality. The same cannot be said about the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. These survived - and very much! For they were not only cruel, but very smart and cunning.
Another characteristic is also: for the entire time of European history after the birth of Christ, this is practically the ONLY case when Europeans treated other Europeans in this way. They can object to me that there were bloodthirsty Poles who committed atrocities against the Ukrainians; there were Germans who were violent in the occupied territories, but this is not the same scale. The Anglo-Saxons are talking about many centuries!
The situation with the seizure of land and the centuries-old torture of the local population - this was the case in Europe only among the Arabs, who temporarily seized the Iberian Peninsula, among the Mongols in Russia and among the Turks in the Balkans. But in all of these three episodes, the aliens were not of Indo-European origin. Something like aliens. And in any case, it didn't last as long as it does in the British Isles.
Other explanations: the Angles and Saxons are South Germanic tribes, the Jutes are the North Germanic (Scandinavian) tribe from which the present Danes descended. The Angles moved to the island - almost in full force. Utahs and Saxons - only partially. From the Saxons came today's Germans. Modern Estonians still call the Germans the Saxons, and Germany the country of the Saxons (saksa, Saksamaa). It is possible that among the tribes rushing to the island, there was also a small part of the Slavs. Quite tiny. Modern English contains words of ancient Slavic origin. Of all the Germanic peoples, the Frisians living on the islands belonging to Germany and Holland are currently the closest in relation to the British. Frisians speak several dialects (4-6), among which none pretend to be the main one. In fact, these are several languages. And they are the ones most similar to English. More precisely - into Old English.
This is how the English nation developed. Its origins were based on the idea that one can first enslave someone weaker (because natural cowardice did not allow them to contact the stronger!), And then live well at the expense of the enslaved people.
How this idea was implemented over the next fifteen centuries is well known. All these centuries were the continuous beating of the Celtic peoples, which continues to this day. The Celts turned out to be not as malleable material as expected, but on the whole the plan succeeded: with the help of continuous wars, with the help of economic and political measures, with the help of artificial hunger, with the help of religious instruments of influence, it was possible, in the end, to break all these peoples …
As a fait accompli, we see that the Irish and Scots have almost completely forgotten their own languages and switched to the language of their oppressors. Much the same can be said of the Welsh, albeit to a lesser extent. Some Celtic peoples disappeared without a trace. The fact that alien conquerors fell on the head of the British themselves in the 10th and 11th centuries does not change anything in the history of this people. The Normans turned out to be cobbled together from the same material as the Anglo-Saxons, and, in the end, disappeared into the mass of the British, only increasing their inclination to conquest and arrogance.
In a strange way, the English did not like Catholicism, which imposed excessive moral restrictions on them. They always wanted to live for their own pleasure and impose difficult obligations on themselves as little as possible. Therefore, they created a version of Christianity that brought them closer to the followers of Judaism. A love of luxury and profit, framed in religious justifications, is a specific feature of English hypocrisy.
The British showed a striking resemblance to the Chinese already mentioned above. And here you need to make a small linguistic digression and talk about the special properties of the Chinese language.
The fact is that the Chinese people are very, very rational. Just like the British, for whom this trait is one of the most important. So, in the Chinese language there is nothing superfluous: cases, declensions, conjugations, tenses, numbers, degrees of comparison. Chinese words are not categorized by root, suffix, endings, or prefixes. They don't share anything at all. In fact, the Chinese do not know the parts of speech. Some linguists believe that the Chinese sometimes differ in noun and adjective, but this opinion can be debated.
The Chinese word is one and only syllable. At the beginning of this syllable there can be no more than one consonant, in the middle - one vowel or diphthong, and at the end - either nothing at all, or one of two valid consonants. The concepts of "syllable", "word" and "root" in the Chinese language completely coincide. An ordinary Chinese person is not able to pronounce a foreign word (someone's foreign surname or the name of a foreign city) if it, this word, consists of syllables that do not exist in the Chinese language. For example, they can say "Lenin", they can have both of these syllables (LE and NIN), but they are not able to say "Stockholm" or "Bratislava" without distorting these words beyond recognition. The stress in the Chinese language falls on each syllable separately, and hence the extremely specific features of Chinese poetry and Chinese music. They may object to methat in Chinese there are two-syllable constructions that give the impression of a two-syllable word. The word "Beijing" is not just one word consisting of two syllables, it is actually two words with the meanings "northern" and "capital", and we write them down together so as not to fool our heads with the peculiarities of the Chinese language. It's easier for us to write down the Chinese phrase in Russian letters. With stress, the Chinese are also not as simple as, say, in Russian, where there are only two concepts: stressed syllable and unstressed. But all this does not negate what I said about this language: it is a language that expresses super-simple thoughts in super-simple ways. Indo-Europeans once had exactly the same linguistic thinking, but this was many, many millennia ago, long before the Egyptian pyramids appeared. Since then, the thinking of the Indo-Europeans has changed beyond recognition, and now they are no longer able to think so.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes - these were typically Indo-European peoples, in whose languages all the features characteristic of Indo-Europeans were present: cases, numbers, tenses, suffixes, endings and other things that, from the point of view of the Chinese, seem to be sheer madness. The task of the Chinese is to express an idea as quickly as possible, as short as possible and as simply as possible. The Chinese is a man of action. He is not interested in emotions and details, only the final result is important to him: to populate the Earth with as many creatures of his own kind as possible, which need to be born and fed. And there is no time for jokes, and not for conversations. Reproduction is not a joke, it is very serious.
So, during the time that the Anglo-Saxons lived on their island, they performed such operations with their language that after that it began to approach as much as possible in its structure to Chinese.
Modern English is the most non-Indo-European language in its structure, unless, of course, you count Armenian, which has very good reasons for such a dissimilarity with other Indo-European languages. The English language has lost most of the case and other endings, the words in it have been simplified and many fit only within a single syllable - as in the Chinese language. Because of this, a huge number of coincidences arose that did not exist before: write - right, eye - I, no - know, main - mane. Homonymy has always been a shameful phenomenon in any language. It is no coincidence that among the ancient Indo-Europeans it was generally prohibited - there was not a single homonymous pair in the early Indo-European language described by Nikolai Dmitrievich Andreev (1920-1997)! In modern Russian, words like onion (weapon) and onion (vegetable),a key (tool) and a key (spring) are very few. Russians, like most other Indo-Europeans, do not like homonyms. And the British are quite calm about them. Just like the Chinese, where this phenomenon (which is true, it is true) is developed many times more strongly than among the British.
Many grammatical forms that were in Old English have now disappeared without a trace. In fact, the British made a complete defeat of everything that they received as a gift from their great Indo-European ancestors. And the purpose of this beating was the triumph of rationalism. In this sense, they have not yet caught up with the Chinese language, but the fact that the movement is going in this direction is beyond doubt.
Hemingway, by the simplicity of his soul, tried to return the lost case and verb endings to the English language. In his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, he decided to revive all this by an effort of his will, and even began to use the long-forgotten English pronoun thou with the meaning "you". Needless to say, no one supported his initiative!
The British love to claim that they are the direct heirs of the Ancient Roman Civilization. About why this is a lie, I will tell only from the point of view of linguistics. There are a lot of words of Latin origin in English. But the way they are pronounced in English cannot be explained by excessive rationalism. This is just a mockery of the Great Latin. Indeed, the English word nation and the Latin natio are spelled very similarly. But how are they pronounced? In the English version of the Latin word, only the very first consonant remains, and everything else disappears and is replaced by something else that has nothing to do with Latin. Likewise: the English word future and the Latin word futurum. The examples could be continued. The English have words in their language that claim to be Latin or Greek, but they really are not. These are some new words, some other sound. The inability of the British to treat words of foreign origin with any respect makes this people very close to the Chinese. Moreover, the Chinese are showing much more decency. They depict a foreign word with their hieroglyphs and pronounce it as best they can. At the same time, the Chinese do not impose themselves on these foreigners as relatives and ideological heirs, as if saying at the same time: but we ourselves are worth something without any relatives. At the same time, the Chinese do not impose themselves on these foreigners as relatives and ideological heirs, as if saying at the same time: but we ourselves are worth something without any relatives. At the same time, the Chinese do not impose themselves on these foreigners as relatives and ideological heirs, as if saying at the same time: but we ourselves are worth something without any relatives.
By the way, about hieroglyphs: to write Latin letters that are not readable at all, or something completely different is read instead of them, this means - just draw. The hieroglyph is drawn, and someone else looks at it and then remembers what should be meant by this pattern. The hieroglyph does not contain any phonetic signs, it only reminds by its appearance that the person who drew this conventional sign wanted to express. For this reason, the same hieroglyphs with the same meaning are found in three completely different and not related languages to each other - in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. A Chinese, Japanese or Korean look at this picture, remember what it means, and thus receive the same information, moreover, this word is pronounced completely differently in each of these languages. The same is true in English: letters are drawn in such a way that they resemble some words from other languages. These words are understandable to a German, Frenchman, Italian, but they are pronounced in a completely different way, because for an Englishman, letters are not really needed. He only needs the correct drawing. If the letters add up to the word "Manchester", but it is assumed that it is actually written "Liverpool", the Englishman will calmly read: "Liverpool"! In fact, the British reduce the literal writing to hieroglyphic, again likening the Chinese, and not the ancient Romans and Greeks, who wrote as they heard!He only needs the correct drawing. If the letters add up to the word "Manchester", but it is assumed that it is actually written "Liverpool", the Englishman will calmly read: "Liverpool"! In fact, the British reduce the literal writing to hieroglyphic, again likening the Chinese, and not the ancient Romans and Greeks, who wrote as they heard!He only needs the correct drawing. If the letters add up to the word "Manchester", but it is assumed that it is actually written "Liverpool", the Englishman will calmly read: "Liverpool"! In fact, the British reduce the literal writing to hieroglyphic, again likening the Chinese, and not the ancient Romans and Greeks, who wrote as they heard!
So I'm trying to imagine that I am an Englishman writing the word "knew". What should I feel while doing this? So I wrote the letter "k", which is not pronounced in this word at all. Why did I do this? There is a reasonable explanation: so as not to confuse this word with another, namely "new"; let these two words - knew and new - differ even on paper, if in real life they began to sound the same. Then, with a clear conscience, I write the letter "n" - the only one that actually sounds in this word. Then I write the vowel "e" instead of the consonant "j" which actually sounds here. Then I write the consonant "w", although I would need to represent the long vowel "u". Finally, I wrote this word in full. I drew a hieroglyph instead of a monument of literal writing. Why did I do this? What have I proved by this? The fact that I cherish the memory of my ancestorswho wrote this word the way I portrayed it now? But, in fact, I don’t pronounce it that way and, therefore, did not preserve the heritage of my ancestors …
Even if we admit some mystical component in this ritual, then even then this is some kind of very formal explanation of love and devotion to the ancestors. Formal and insincere. Even deceitful. It is done with the expectation that the spirits of the ancestors, watching the present generations from their distant places, do not understand a damn thing, and these ancestors can be deceived …
And then a suspicion arises: maybe the British communicate with God in the same way - they say one thing to him, but do something else? In the expectation that God does not understand anything and can be fooled.
The situation when one writes one thing and says something completely different is a real deception. This is absolutely immoral! Such people are capable of proclaiming one thing and doing something quite different; they will write a law or a constitution, and then they themselves will not implement them. Cheating, cheating is part of the mentality of these people.
There are similarities with the Japanese, but not linguistic.
First, both the Japanese and the British are island peoples, which gave them extraordinary advantages over the continental peoples.
And secondly, both the Japanese and the British came to their islands when they were already inhabited. Great Britain by the Celts, and the Japanese archipelago by the Ainu. I have already spoken about how the British treated and continue to treat the Celts. But about the Ainu is a special topic.
It is not known exactly where the Japanese came to these islands, no matter what they say. There is an opinion that at first it was not one tribe, but two different (one - Siberian, and the other - some kind of tropical), which merged together and formed a new nationality. In any case, it has not yet been possible to establish the relationship of the Japanese language to any other language on Earth. Japanese has nothing to do with Chinese or Korean. This is a completely special language.
The Ainu, who lived in the archipelago before the arrival of the Japanese, are also of a special origin. If one can at least say for sure that they are Mongoloids about the Japanese, then nothing at all can be said about the Ainu in this sense. Their racial identity, like their language, is a mystery shrouded in darkness.
At first, the warlike Ainu fiercely resisted the aliens, and the Japanese only with great difficulty moved from south to north. But later this resistance weakened, and the Ainu were almost completely destroyed.
The main moral lesson that the Japanese learned from the brutal extermination of the indigenous inhabitants of their archipelago: to destroy the weaker is not a shame. And one more thing: this can be repeated in the future with other peoples. At the very first clash with the Russians, who broke through many thousands of kilometers from their main habitat, the sedentary Japanese made a conclusion for themselves: this is just a kind of Ainu, which can be cut out as mercilessly and with impunity as the morally broken natives of the Japanese archipelago. The basis for this comparison was some of the racial characteristics of the Russians, who, like the Ainu, have beards and mustaches on their faces, which are not so characteristic of Mongoloids. I will not talk about how the relations between the Russians and the Japanese developed further, because my topic is the British. And here it is appropriate to draw a parallel between the attitude of the Japanese towards the Ainu, and the attitude of the British towards the Celts.
So, the British, during their stay on the island, learned a valuable moral lesson: to exterminate the weaker is necessary and possible. And this is not a shame.
And with this knowledge they moved to the vastness of the Earth, when the development of shipbuilding and other technology allowed them to do this. I am not going to talk about how the British Empire expanded and who entered it. Everyone knows it anyway.
But only a few know that only once did the British meet in the conquered land unusually strong resistance, which plunged them into amazement. Someone will say that they were Chinese or Afghans, but I'm not talking about them. When large nations or nations with geographic advantages put up resistance to aliens, it's not so interesting. It is much more interesting when those who, it would seem, have no chance of winning, put up resistance.
Such people turned out to be the New Zealand Polynesians, who are usually called the word "Maori". Some Polynesians have very noticeable Caucasoid features, which they got from nowhere and, apparently, in ancient times. In their languages there are many words of ancient Indo-European origin, but it is quite obvious that these are not Indo-Europeans. European navigators, when they saw the first Polynesians, were amazed to note that many had blue eyes and red hair. The same goes for the Maori people. Outwardly, they looked like Europeans, painted with exotic tattoos.
And these savages suddenly turned out to be unexpectedly worthy and noble opponents. When the British withstood a siege from the Maori in their forts, they were surprised to note that the besiegers planted a little food on them at night. In Maori morality, it was considered impossible to starve someone. Which, of course, seemed surprising for the British, who successfully used massive artificial famine as a weapon against the Irish, and other peoples as well.
But - let's continue!
The Australian aborigines could not resist and were almost completely exterminated.
American Indians resisted as best they could. But they were done away with when it became clear that they were of no use. For some unknown reason, American Indians are completely incapable of slave labor. In slavery, they simply die, but they do not want to work in chains and cannot. This is their property.
Along the way, it turned out that blacks living in Africa are quite capable of working in chains. It was then that blacks from Africa were transported to the American continent, and the Indians were killed as unnecessary.
The main thing in this story is this: the British acted on the basis of a unique experience for Europeans, acquired on their island called Great Britain. If you can destroy and enslave the Celts with impunity, then you can do the same with other peoples, regardless of skin color.
With the blacks, they somehow settled down somehow, with the Indians - more or less too. But the experience remained. And even replenished.
And now absolutely white people - Boers (or Afrikaners), living in southern Africa, are considered by the British only as a variant of the Celts, Negroes, Indians or Australian aborigines. And so: the Boers are whiter people than the British themselves. They are all completely blue-eyed blondes, unlike the British, among whom black-haired are often found. Everyone knows how the British committed atrocities with the Boers. They set the local blacks on them and, in alliance with them, exterminated their fellow European civilization.
About Yugoslavia - everyone who has a conscience has long understood everything. We don’t know and we don’t want to know where this country is and what it did so bad to us, but we must bomb it - this is the motto of an ordinary American bastard.
Everyone has long known about the tender love of the Anglo-Saxons for Chechen terrorists and other Muslim fanatics … Still, the Anglo-Saxons are very smart people, but why are they so surprised when someone crushes their skyscrapers or blows up something in the center of London? A kind of naivety: to do nasty things to others is only we have the right, but who gave the right to do nasty things to us? After all, we are the best and most correct!
The overwhelming majority of today's Americans quite sincerely think that their way of life is the only right one and that all those who live differently are wrong. And if they are wrong, then they can be taught. For their own benefit.
The Anglo-Saxons have always had a special penchant for conspiracies, deliberate misinformation, incitement, murder from around the corner and all kinds of betrayal. I do not mean individuals, but the state policy of England and the United States. This is a very ancient custom and is regarded by the Anglo-Saxons as something sacred, as part of the precious Anglo-Saxon mentality. This was pointed out by Jonathan Swift: if you want to win the case in court, then you must somehow hint to the judge that you are a swindler and a scoundrel, and your opponent is an honest man, and then the judge will certainly be on your side. It is not my task to enumerate who was betrayed and how, who was artificially pitched against whom or who was framed by the Anglo-Saxons. And the topic is too grandiose for a separate article. Turks, Crimea, writer Griboyedov, Pearl Harbor,the surrender to death of our Cossacks in Yugoslavia after the Second World War, the will of Allen Dulles to future American descendants, the assassination of President Kennedy, secret aid to Muslim fanatics - you can't list everything.
They did this with their blacks: they brought them from Africa in chains, built their well-being on their labor, and then liberated them. And now, when white and black Americans have a kind of mutual awkwardness about who owes whom and what, the American Anglo-Saxons once again show their most vile traits. They make all white people on Earth pay for their sins. Love for blacks, currying favor with them, the indispensable cohabitation with them, the compulsory joint education of children - white and black, and then the indispensable racial mixing of whites with blacks - this is an indispensable condition not only for all white Americans, but for all whites in general. Globe. For them it has long been decided by the same Anglo-Saxons and without the knowledge of the white people themselves.
For example, a Russian man, whose ancestors never used the labor of black slaves - why should he feel awkward in front of blacks? What should he pay for? But a sense of responsibility is imposed on him with the help of bribed media.
Why in front of the palace of the Swedish king, as part of the guard of honor, can you see a Negro in Swedish uniform among the fair-haired Swedish guys? Because this is an order from across the ocean, and the Swedish king will not dare not to obey it. All white people have a duty to express their love for blacks …
They substitute and betray not only strangers, but also their own. The famous Scott (which in translation means - Scotsman!) With his team died during the storming of the South Pole, not because he was a coward or lacked skill, but because he was set up. Little Norway found the means to prepare the expedition of its Amundsen, but the powerful British Empire, which does not hold real beautiful feats in high esteem, did not. Result: Amundsen reached the South Pole first, and he returned home safe and sound. Scott reached the South Pole second and died shortly thereafter due to a poorly funded expedition. And what? The British declare after that that they were the first to discover the South Pole, and English schoolchildren read this information in their textbooks!
Not a hero, but a scoundrel held in high esteem by the Anglo-Saxons. As long as they understood that Scott is a heroic person, they harmed him as best they could, and as soon as Scott died and it turned out that it was possible to benefit from his death, they turn him into a scoundrel and impostor, although, of course, he is not to blame for anything …
The favorite pastime of the Anglo-Saxons is to ascribe to themselves scientific and technical inventions that were made earlier by other peoples - more talented than them. The same applies to military, political and cultural exploits. To ascribe someone else's to themselves and completely sincerely believe that the stolen glory is their own is an integral part of the Anglo-Saxon mentality.
This is exactly what we observe with the assessment of the results of the Second World War. The official version of the Anglo-Saxons: it was only they who fought in it, and the honor of victory belongs to them alone. The Anglo-Saxons do not like to perform real feats, it is much easier for them to falsify history. Indeed, this is much easier. Reasoning of typical traders and crooks.
When it becomes profitable for the Anglo-Saxons to oppose themselves to the Chechens, they will certainly have films in which the heroic Pskov paratroopers fight off Chechen bandits that are dozens of times superior to them. And almost everyone dies. But among these heroes there will certainly be an American Negro, leading all and several of the Americans subordinate to him, one of whom will certainly be a Jew, and the other a homosexual. In the same way, they will tell about the heroic defense of Mount Donkey's Ear: American blacks with their whites subordinate received clever orders from Washington, and the Russians fought under their leadership.
Amazingly, many forms of art were never given to the Anglo-Saxons. Among them there was not a single composer of the level of Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, not a single artist of the level of Durer, Rembrandt or Botticelli. They also never had anything remotely similar to Dostoevsky, Turgenev or Tolstoy. Although among the writers they had very great talents - however, very, very specific, which is associated with the peculiarities of the English language, which is not well suited for artistic speech. It is characteristic that many of the great American writers eked out the most miserable existence during their lifetime and died in complete oblivion. If the Americans were not prompted from outside that Edgar Poe, Herman Melville, O'Henry or, say, Jack London are big people, they themselves would never have thought of this. On the other hand,the Englishman Dickens is a producer of mass literature for the average consumer and that madam who writes whole volumes about Harry Potter is the very thing that the Anglo-Saxons enjoy wild success and is very well paid even during the lifetime of the authors.
It is characteristic that many of the famous English literary figures had Scottish (Celtic!) Roots. And yet this does not detract from the talents of the English people themselves. From time to time, this people gives rise to great people - especially in those areas where science and technology are concerned: the brilliant 18th century linguist Monboddo, ridiculed by the British during his lifetime and even after death; Fenimore Cooper, cursed during his lifetime for anti-Americanism; Charles Darwin (also ridiculed!); HG Wells, Ernst Rutherford and many others are the adornment of the Anglo-Saxon nation. I would especially like to mention the famous travelers: Slokam, Fawcett, the same Scott, Chichester, and this is only in the last hundred years! And how many were there even earlier?
Among the Anglo-Saxons there are honest journalists, incorruptible policemen and judges, and real thinkers of the European level. I hope these people will still have their say.
It is striking how persistently Anglo-Saxon men strive to marry Russian women. This can be explained in the following way: damned hucksters want to buy good goods, that's all. I readily admit that this is partly true. But this phenomenon can be given a completely different explanation: the Anglo-Saxons feel that they are missing something, and in this way they want to improve their breed. For some reason, there are Englishmen who respect Russia, or convert to Orthodoxy, or move to live in the Russian outback. Leskov also wrote about one such … No one is surprised when the Germans behave in this way, when a Frenchman founds Russian ballet, and a Dane writes an explanatory dictionary of his language to the Russian people, but when arrogant Englishmen are friendly and interested in something Russian - this is something incredible!.. So,they are not all the same.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about the racial type of modern Anglo-Saxons. Of course, among the British, Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australians and Anglo-New Zealanders there are different types - almost all the same as in the rest of Europe. Anglo-Saxons can be Dinaric, Alpine, False, Nordic, and East Baltic. They can be brunettes, blondes and redheads. Yet one trait is very typical of most Anglo-Saxons. This is a noticeably visible admixture of the Mediterranean race. In the rest of Europe, this racial type is common among Spaniards, Portuguese, southern Italians and some other southern peoples. And also for European Jews, who received a very strong Spanish admixture during their famous stay in this country. But in all these cases, as a rule,undersized brunettes with specific facial features. For the Anglo-Saxons, these are tall brunettes and blondes with all the transitions between them, but with the same features in their faces. This is the result of a mixture of the Mediterranean racial type with the Nordic. There is practically no such option anywhere else in all of Europe.
Narrow elongated faces, not widening upward, as is the case with most other Europeans. And the same exact nape - very narrow and high. It is this characteristic shape that the shaved backs of American soldiers have, by which they can be unmistakably recognized. Unfortunately, they are now becoming a symbol of Anglo-Saxon rule all over the world.