Another comment followed mine. I am going to address it here, rather than add to a thread which is already months old and which may be off-topic from the original post in any case.
Commenter Caradoc says:
I have given some thought to the issue of white tribes and white “intramural” competition. The root of the problem I think is, as always, sin. The English have done absolutely horrible things to the Irish and Welsh to name two. The Yankees have done horrible things to Southerners. We are at a crossroads of survival now, and the Other is not going to ask if you are English or Irish or Welsh or North or South. Keep your identity, learn your old tongue. Be proud. But the old hatreds have to go. If a Yankee or an Englishman (or a German, or French, etc) serves the Lord and wants to stand shoulder to shoulder in common interest, wonderful. Think of the twelve tribes.''
I agree that sin is at the bottom of all human woes, including the inter-ethnic conflicts and grievances among European-Americans, especially among those of different British Isles ancestry. Caradoc, whose screen name indicates he is of Welsh descent, names the English as having done 'horrible things to the Irish and the Welsh' among others.
However, in fairness, we never hear another side to this story. I frequently read bitter diatribes on various comment threads (mostly on the alt-right blogs) about how the Celts were oppressed and victimized for centuries by the English, but is the English side ever heard?
Obviously I can't begin to give a full account of that side on a short blog post, but it seems to me that the score has been more than evened, what with various acts of mayhem by IRA or other such groups during the last several decades. I used to know people who served in the British army who had stories to tell about their time in Ulster. And terrorist acts were not unknown on English soil in recent decades. The Anglophobe will counter that the British or the English began it all by invading Ireland centuries ago.
Most Americans who moan about this invasion of Ireland are unaware of the fact that divisiveness within Ireland among the various kings was what led to this invasion. Strongbow et al were invited by an aggrieved Irish king who had scores to settle with other Irish kings or clan chiefs. Internal disunion led to vulnerability to conquest -- just as with the American Indians on this continent.
It's simply a fact of history that the strong and capable tend to win, and the weaker or more disunited people fall prey to invasion and subjugation. We might take a lesson from that here; there is too much bitterness over centuries-old losses and squabbles to unite against the threat we face now, of conquest by demographics and subjugation by 'others' who are within our gates.
Right now, the English or the Anglo-Saxons are in disrepute in all the countries which they once founded or dominated. Now the 'underdog' and the 'victim' with ancient scores to settle are in the driver's seat.
I am afraid most of us in former Christendom have been infected with the leftist victimolatry, in which the weak and conquered peoples have established a spurious moral superiority based simply on having been bested in the past. We see this with Mexican revanchists who are taking 'their' land back in 'Aztlan' and we see it with every group which chooses to revel in their victim status.
This website about Scottish history indirectly invokes Hitler and 'genocide' in phrases like ''final solution'' in the following:
'[The English] followed through their victory with arson, rape and murder so that England could achieve its centuries old ambition to get a final solution to the Scotch problem by destroying the language and culture of the oldest nation in Europe.''
As Queen Victoria said of the Irish "I look forward to the day when an Irishman on the banks of the Liffey will be as rare as a Red Indian on the banks of the Mississippi. " And so with the Scots.''
And by the way: that supposed quote from Queen Victoria is usually attributed to a Times article, cited by Chesterton, which spoke of Irishmen becoming 'as rare on the banks of the Liffey as a Red Man on the banks of the Manhattan.' It's often quoted in various mutated forms, but who knows what its provenance is?
And did it happen as predicted? Obviously not; were the English too incompetent to carry out their 'genocide' or were they perhaps just not so 'genocidal' as their enemies allege?
And speaking of the 'Red Men', if we 'keep score' of the supposed horrible wrongs done by the English to various vanquished enemies, then we Americans leave ourselves, as 'invaders' of the Native Americans' land, vulnerable to the exact same charges as those laid to the English. If the Normans/English were evil for subjugating much of Ireland, and robbing the indigenous Irish of their culture and language, then we have not a leg to stand on as regards American Indians. The situation here is much the same.
If the English were morally wrong in what they 'did' to the Welsh, the Irish, the Scots, then how do we defend what the early colonists and settlers did here on this continent?
The same criticisms that are constantly made against the English in regard to their ruthlessness and appetite for conquest are made against White men in general. Constantly.
If you concede the guilt of the English, you are assenting to the anti-White charges made by leftists and minorities every day.
The Anglo-Saxon, like it or not, is the arch-White man. He was the most successful among the Europeans in terms of Empire and influence. If you call that evil, so be it. If you dispute it because your ancestors were on the other side, so be it. But if the Anglo-Saxon is guilty, so is the White race generally, because the White race is, vis-à-vis the other races what the Anglo-Saxon was in a smaller sphere.
One more problem I have with the score-keeping against the English; I simply find it irrational and exasperating that the people who hold bitter grievances against the English or the 'Brits' or the Sassenachs, are willing to see 'diversity' engulf their homelands. The English as overlords will seem harmless compared to Moslems or others who will one day dominate the former British Isles, should things fail to turn around.
But yet the 'nationalists' in Scotland, that is the SNP, and Wales, and Eire seem to be just fine with a multicultural, multiracial Babel in their countries. What a strange brand of nationalism and 'ethnic pride.' The antipathy towards the English overrules any genuine nationalistic impulse they have; the SNP would rather make common cause with Moslems, than with the English. That's little more than cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.