Thursday, May 21, 2015

 

640,000 migrants last year, and that's just the legals; but still the BBC won't discuss immigration seriously

 
Astonishingly, 640,000 migrants came to the UK in one year; and most of these from outside the EU -- the numbers of which the government is supposed to be able to control. This is just the official count, of course. There will be a huge extra number of illegals on top of this. Nobody wants to talk about these – not least Victoria Derbyshire. I was on her pre-election BBC TV immigration programme to outline how non-existent is our supposed immigration system, and in rehearsal the politico-freak producer evidently freaked out. I was prevented from contributing anything in a two-hour programme, so I walked out. As usual, the Boob was scared of anything honest about immigration in election week.
     The government estimate of a mere 600,000 illegals (which anyway doesn't include dependants and non-workers, which would boost it to a million; and it;s now a decade out of date) is based on an invalid international comparison. All Professor Salt – for it was he, under Tony Blair – did to arrive at this estimate was to look at how the total number of legals compares with that of illegals in various other countries, and this, averaged out to a standard ratio was then used to multiply the UK total of legals to come up with a guess at the total of illegals.
     Of course, this is bogus, because the UK has a unique constellation of 'pull' factors for immigration – the international second language as our native tongue; a US-style open labour market yet EU-style welfare benefits; an enclave for every migrant group in the world to join; and the world's most useless, nigh-on non-existent immigration system, where not only is it a piece of piss to get in, but there is no effort to chuck you out – or even to find you, and once here there is no effective 'internal gateway' to stop you getting benefits, an NI number, NHS treatment, etc. Anyone can simply overstay – even if it turns out you've got a serious criminal record. We are STILL waiting for the Gnome Orifice to set up a system where they even bother to count people in and out; let alone to take and to check their details. [Just WTF is the problem?!] So a more realistic estimate of the total number of illegals is more like TWO OR THREE MILLION.
     So much for debate and honesty about immigration. It still does not exist in any serious way here in Britain.
     The government-media-education uber-class continues to be hell-bent on perpetrating their utter hatred of all of the rest of us through their chucking the toys out of the pram backlash of 'identity politics' and 'PC', where any category outside the ordinary distinguishes the new 'worthy': those of an ethnic minority or heterosexual – and, quintessentially, not male. The rest of the population ... the bulk of the former 'workers' who declined to buy the bull from the Left ... is consigned to ... where? We've been here with this naked and nasty elitist-separatism from the political-Left before; on several occasions. Thus far it has usually ended in mass murder.
     When are the masses going to twig just what 'identity politics' and 'PC' is about? In the meantime, if the government continues rhetoric but no action on immigration, eventually there will be hell to pay in the other direction.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

 

The 'genetic filter' theory of the origin of sex and the function of the male confirmed: Nature journal paper published today

 
Today is published in the journal Nature, comprehensive confirmation of the theory of the origin of sex in dealing with mutational load through the 'genetic filter' or 'mutational cleansing' role of the male, as I've outlined in papers on my website (see below).
 
The paper published today is:
 
'Sexual selection protects against extinction', by Alyson J Lumley, Łukasz Michalczyk, James J N Kitson, Lewis G Spurgin, Catriona A Morrison, Joanne L Godwin, Matthew E Dickinson, Oliver Y Martin, Brent C Emerson, Tracey Chapman & Matthew J G Gage.
 
My papers are:
 
'The Origin of the Sexual Divide in the Genetic Filter Function'. Moxon SP (2012) New Male Studies 1(3) 96-124 [http://stevemoxon.co.uk/the-sexual-divide-.php]

'From DNA Repair to Social Minds: The Root of Sex-dichotomous Psychology and Behaviour. Steve Moxon, 2014. Presentation for the conference From DNA To Social Minds, University of York, June/July 2014.
http://stevemoxon.co.uk/from-dna-repair-to-social-minds.php]
 

Saturday, May 09, 2015

 

The election reveals the future for Liebore is a painful death, and so it should be

The supposedly surprising election result was fully predicted by not a few; me included. It was obvious there would be the usual late swing back to the incumbent party, and this time markedly so because of the 'shy Tory' phenomenon opaque to polling in a now virulent 'PC'-totalitarian climate, with extra late drive from the prospect of a nationalist Scotland wagging the tail of the Liebore donkey – to get the English to pay for socialism for Scotland, when they had not long ducked out of independence because they realised likely they wouldn't be able to afford it.
     This is even before you consider the most boring, unconvincing election campaign in history providing no impetus to do other than 'switch off', never mind responding to the lame invite to 'vote for change'. What change? Not Liebore's stuck record of 'not me gov' and rapidly rescinded 'sorries' re the debt, and Red Ed deliberately forgetting to even mention the debt and immigration in that speech. Latterly, the Walking-Dead Ed wouldn't come clean even to pointed direct attacks from the audience in TV hustings.
     Everybody well knows Liebore spent way too much, and trying to blame the w(b)ankers for the debt hardly washes when it was Gorgon's taking an axe to bank regulation that led to the 'crash'. Few had twigged that until Ed admitted it and almost said 'sorry' for it. Then they tried clobbering the Cameroonies for not tackling the debt well enough, by claiming that the debt would go down further and quicker if … you spend more. Just who the hell did they think was ever going to buy that piece of inanity apart from their own ideologically blinkered tribesmen or other PPE Oxbridge graduates educated out of any common-sense and into hating 'capitalism'?
     Everybody bar the ESN could smell a mile off the giant porkies about the NHS, after Liebore had actually voted against extra spending and had themselves introduced privatisation -- most especially in the PFI travesty whereby we get hospitals built and run by the private sector and the taxpayer gets an extra bill of £100 billion more than it should have cost.
     Everybody has seen all too clearly the mass importation of the culturally incongruous low-skilled and worse, deliberately to piss-off and dilute the locals and to make better voting booth fodder.
     The truth is that on their record, Liebore had nowhere to go.
     What's so revealing about the future of UK politics is that Liebore failed even when four million voters opted not to vote Tawdry but instead for UKIP. The problem Liebore has is that most of these are not disaffected Tawdries but previously non-voters or some of their own core vote so long taken for granted. Ask Ed Balls. A lot of them previously would have voted Liebore, but they've come to understand that Liebore is just a Metropolitan elite sneer fest in which their heads have been put in place of the coconuts in the fairground to chuck Ed's Balls at.
     In all those northern rust-belt seats where UKIP polled as much or more than the Tawdries, in many seats the combined vote easily exceeded Liebore's; so, come the next election, what would have been the Tawdry vote will redistribute tactically to UKIP and in more than few spots send Liebore packing. There won't be a resurgence of GlibDems here to re-split the anti-Liebore vote, because their whole point up-north was to be anti-Liebore and relatively anti-establishment. UKIP has now usurped them in that role. Instead, Liebore will be haemorrhaging votes from its Left flank to the growing 'watermelon' tribe of the Greens. Neither will there be much relief from places in the south, because the Tawdries have become themselves so infected with 'identity politics' and other liberal [sic] notions that they've become like the other legacy parties, such that in many ways you can't get the proverbial piece of paper between them. UKIP is almost as much the natural party of protest in the shires as in the industrial cities. UKIP will grow not least as Liebore and the GlibDems shrink.
     The future for Liebore is a painful death, and so it bloody well should be.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

 

UNMASKING KING ARTHUR. Etymology reveals the basis of Arthurian legend

[IMPROVED VERSION]
Now uploaded on to my website, stevemoxon.co.uk, is the latest of my mythology papers: following on from the etymology-based investigation into the origin of Robin Hood mythology, here's the same re King Arthur; and the conclusion is as surprising as for Robin Hood, and a close parallel. There is now a cohesive framework for English mythology.
 
UNMASKING KING ARTHUR
Etymology reveals the basis of Arthurian legend
by Steve Moxon, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK. stevemoxon3(at)talktalk.net
Creative Commons copyright Steve Moxon, April 2015
 
Following the successful etymological investigation into the origin of the Robin Hood name and mythology – see the major investigation on this site -- the prospect of a similar resolution of the mystery of the roots of the other major English, nay British, legendary figure could not but beckon. As is universally agreed, there has been no satisfactory etymology in respect of King Arthur thus far. I had put off embarking on such a quest, assuming the luck I had with the Robin Hood project would not be repeated, given that no 'way in' had suggested itself: there was no clue handed to me, as had spurred me to look into the Robin Hood name (an encounter with elderly residents of Hood Hill in South Yorkshire, who proffered the tradition of a mythical association and meaning of the name of the hill). It was not until 2015, after some updating of the Robin Hood text, that finally I began as a diversion a little provisional digging. Amazingly, the pretty obviously right derivation presented itself within the first day of work. The rest was just a matter of tidying up.

Thought to be a deity of the ancient Britons rendered into a supposedly real, though obviously not an historical figure within a genealogy of British kings, Arthur turns out to be of greater antiquity than such an account presupposes. The name is usually understood to mean 'bear' or 'stone', yet there is no cogent basis to this. No sense can be made of either of those meanings to pertain to the hero of Arthurian legend. Trying to find any place where there is significant mythology centred on the bear is a wild goose chase until you travel to Switzerland.
     The Welsh and Gaelic word for 'bear' is the single-syllable arth or art, leaving the second syllable unexplained, unless – it has been suggested – it is -(g)wr, 'man'. This is dismissed in a (surprisingly useful) Wikipaedia entry: "There are phonological difficulties with this theory -- notably that a Brittonic compound name Arto-uiros should produce Old Welsh Artgur and Middle/Modern Welsh Arthwr and not Arthur (in Welsh poetry the name is always spelled Arthur and is exclusively rhymed with words ending in -ur – never words ending in -wr – which confirms that the second element cannot be (g)wr 'man').
     To try to address the impasse, a new etymology was tentatively proposed in 2009 by Stefan Zimmer (https://www.academia.edu/3255782/2010). His putative Brittonic construction Artu-rig-ios, from arto-rig, meaning 'bear- king', Zimmer admits is "nowhere attested in the Celtic world", but he proffers it as a name given to a Roman commander in Britain; this being the figure he supposes the source of Arthurian legend. A fanciful claim at best, it's a usual sort of attempt at trying to identify an historical figure for one which all but screams its mythological nature. In any case, this bid is a most convoluted etymology, and one in which Zimmer himself appears to lack confidence. It's evidently a straw-clutching exercise.
     In some etymologies the origin in 'Celtic' re a meaning of 'bear' is taken back to proto-'Celtic' artos, but there is no explanation etymologically of how the second syllable could change to produce arthur. A root in artos is offered in a database of Scottish names (available at http://www.amethyst-night.com/names/scotmale.html): "Artair — (AHR-shtuhr), 'eagle-like' or 'high, noble'; Gaelic form of Arthur, fr. Celtic artos 'bear', or poss. borrowed from Latin Artorius." The meaning here looks more promising, but it's entirely superficial, being merely derivative of the very construction at issue: the meaning appears to be a generic extension from the specific figure of King Arthur. That King Arthur self-evidently was 'noble' is not informative as to whether the notion of nobility is in the etymology of his name. Artair apparently here is a mere Gaelicisation of a word/name from another (Celtic) language. So it just takes us back to the usual suggestion of a meaning of 'bear'. In any case, a rendering into Gaelic would seem to have it backwards, in that the name was more common historically in Gaelic than in Welsh. A Gaelic origin looks the more likely; in which case the name underwent a transition from a Gaelic to a Welsh form and then to English, or, even (though, surely, unlikely), direct from Gaelic to English.

A trawl through Gaelic lexicons in conjunction with checking pronunciation throws up athaid, athach: 'monster'. The pronunciation suggests a feasible transition, and not only does a meaning 'monster' immediately arouse interest because of the clear possibility that it is an allusion to a former religion now eclipsed by one which necessarily portrays the religion it replaced as 'devil worship'; but it is decidedly interesting where this leads. It's fairly obviously a derivation from the Gaelic nathair, 'snake', used to denote 'serpent' or 'dragon'. This is precisely where the investigation into Robin Hood mythology led. The conceptualisation here is in terms of the weaving motion of a serpentine creature, with its being from Old Irish nathir, in turn from Proto-Celtic natir, related to snath ('thread'), snathad ('needle').The pronunciation is approximately 'narr-hurr', which seems not far from that of arthur, assuming that in Anglicisation the 't' would no longer remain silent. Evidence of such a change actually happening in transition to English is needed if this putative derivation is to hold water.
     Just such seems to be provided in the place-name Athersley -- first recorded as Hattirslay -- a village by Barnsley in South Yorkshire. As I explained in the Robin Hood text, 'Celtic' and not least (if not especially) Gaelic roots of the stems of Pennine South Yorkshire place-names are commonplace – indeed, it's the more usual derivation rather than from even Anglo-Saxon. Corroborating evidence shows this particular place-name to be derived from nathair in a standard hybrid with a much later common suffix, nathair('s)-leah. What appears to have originated as nathair has undergone a transition through Anglicisation of a sounding of the 't' as written but silent in the Gaelic. The dropping of the initial 'n' presumably would have already occurred within a Gaelic-speaking milieu judging by the afore-mentioned athaid / athach.
     Athersley formerly was a name attached to a wood (on which site is now the modern village), by an ancient holy well named St Helen's (on early OS maps, now giving its name to an area right by Athersley village). This is a generic naming of holy wells, with Helen (here formerly Ellen, and likely still earlier as elsewhere, Elian or Eilian, pronounced ehl-ihn) apparently derived from Gaelic Aillen, a mythological fire-breathing water-monster; a dragon, or serpent, indeed, with affiliation to water. [Wells were thought of by 'Celts' as interfaces with the 'otherworld', and as such were envisaged as being guarded by mythological creatures -- serpents. So the general category nathair clearly would pertain to St Helen's Well here. Confirming that this Well had Gaelic mythological association, adjacent to St Helen's Well on early OS maps is Smithy Hill, which is a generic naming of small knolls (as, for example, also in South Yorkshire at Stocksbridge) from Gaelic sithean, 'fairy spirits', who were considered to be of the 'inter-world', living in mounds.] The wood stretched along Carlton Road to Carlton Hill and village, which last was rendered as Carleton or Carlenton in Domesday; and therefore, as with nearby Cawthorne (recorded in Domesday as Caltorn), most likely derived from Gaelic caltuin, 'hazel grove', which is a generic feature of holy significance. The parent model for this derivation is the famous Carlton Hill in Edinburgh. It would appear, then, that just as is also evidenced in place-names at Cawthorne -- with its Serpent's Well -- there is in St Helen's Well and Carlton (Road, Hill and village) likewise a cluster of an ancient holy well and concrete allusions to a serpent and to a hazel grove. This cluster is a standard mythological three-way mutual association in Gaelic folklore. All of the evidence here is internally and externally consistent, and thus is fully explained the occurrence of a place-name for the locale with a derivation from nathairAthersley.
     Note that long ago a different derivation had been proffered for the Ather- stem -- though this is re surnames, not for the placename Athersley or similar -- by Henry Harrison in his Surnames of the United Kingdom: A Concise Etymological Dictionary. He took Ather- to be OE oedre, 'spring'; yet no trace is to be found anywhere else of this supposed word/meaning, which anyway begs questions regarding the sound transitions that would be needed for the etymology to be accurate. It seems, therefore, that here we have a mistake by or invention of Harrison's. As his compilation was published back in 1918, when 'Celtic' generally, never mind Gaelic roots of English names normally would not have been considered, leading to 'forced' derivations from a restricted lexicon (and in this, still today the English Place Name Society is notably remiss), then this may be what Harrison did here. In any case, etymology was at that time lacking rigour, being far more like mere guesswork than it is today. Poor scholarship, then, would appear to be the explanation for this wayward attempted derivation.
     As for other attempts at derivation -- of the placename: they have been poor even by the low standards of placename research in England. Regarding also the possibly related Hattersley (Cheshire) but forgetting Atherton and Athelstone, which appear to have quite different roots; there is the usual feeble recourse to a supposition that the stem is from some Anglo-Saxon first name. The dire state of the specific etymology is starkly admitted by John McNeal Dogson: 'The -er- in Hattersley Cheshire and Hothersall Lancashire'. Leeds Studies in English 18 (1987) http://digital.library.leeds.ac.uk/256/1/LSE1987_pp135-39_Dodgson_article.pdf
     Looking across language use and mythology, there is decisive support for the argument that nathair indeed is the derivation of (King) Arthur, in that the Gaelic compound word righ-nathair – literally 'king-serpent' – is the term for 'cockatrice', 'dragon'; exactly corresponding to the meaning of Arthur's supposed surname, as that of his father in the Welsh tradition: Uther Pendragon (from the Welsh pen-, 'chief').
     It's hard to believe that no-one hitherto had come up with this really quite simple analysis to account for the origin of King Arthur's name. It must be, just as in the case of Robin Hood, that with a failure to fully appreciate the antiquity of much mythology, then there has been no consideration that quintessentially English figures would have even the remotest connection to Gaelic -- especially as any cursory look would be dissuasive in the absence of an appreciation of the quite marked sound changes across the language transition to English. Yet none of these factors should apply to scholars, so where have they been? Apparently, the same place they often are: in 'groupthink' misplaced deference to 'authority', protecting their own position by avoiding the risk of stepping out of line, instead of thinking laterally, putting in some work and doing their job.

From the research into the etymology of the Robin Hood name (see the parallel investigation on this site), we know that 'serpent' is an epithet of the pan-'Celtic' primary deity, Bridhe (Brigid). [Rather than reproduce all of the research into this here, it is perhaps best left in the context of the far more extensive etymological excavation that is the Robin Hood paper.] Arthur, then, is not merely akin to Robin Hood in being of Gaelic origin, but appears to be a manifestation of the very same 'earth' goddess of regeneration -- that is, he is the 'sacred king' figure who self-sacrifices to the 'earth' goddess; so that he takes her name whilst being dubbed 'king'. This is hardly unexpected given the centrality in Arthurian legend of the 'grail' – another name for the mythical inexhaustible cauldron of regeneration lore; the receptacle of the sacred king's self-sacrificial blood, spilled in homage to the deity with the supposed function of bringing renewed life to the land so as to continue the life/death/rebirth regenerative cycle. [The Arthurian stories in outline are familiar to everyone, and there is much writing on them without requiring any from me.]
     That they appear to us as entirely separate mythologies indicates that the two traditions originated from different cultures separated by language, which later came together through the eclipse of 'Celtic'-speaking regions in the Western half of England as English became ubiquitous. King Arthur being still more obscure than Robin Hood suggests that Arthur may be the more ancestral figure of the two. On the other hand, whereas Robin Hood seems to be ambiguous as to whether he is the 'red king' self-sacrificial 'sacred king' or the deity to which this self-sacrifice is made; King Arthur is clearly distinguished as the former. It's not clear if this clarity indicates a more recent origin for Arthurian than for Robin Hood mythology. Either way, the profundity of the notion of the life/death/rebirth never-ending cycle of regeneration as being the core of mythological imagination of old -- as, surely, it must remain in some form or other even today -- is pointed up by this surprising convergence of these two key English legendary personages.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

 

UNMASKING KING ARTHUR. Etymology reveals the basis of Arthurian legend

Now uploaded on to my website, stevemoxon.co.uk, is the latest of my mythology papers: following on from the etymology-based investigation into the origin of Robin Hood mythology, here's the same re King Arthur; and the conclusion is as surprising as for Robin Hood, and a close parallel. There is now a cohesive framework for English mythology.
 
UNMASKING KING ARTHUR
Etymology reveals the basis of Arthurian legend
by Steve Moxon, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK. stevemoxon3(at)talktalk.net
Creative Commons copyright Steve Moxon, April 2015
 
Following the successful etymological investigation into the origin of Robin Hood mythology – see the major investigation on this site -- the prospect of a similar resolution of the mystery of the roots of the King Arthur name obviously beckoned. It would be more complete to include an account of the other most central figure in English mythology rather than leaving off with just Robin Hood – and England's most renowned dragon legend. I had put it off, assuming the luck I had with the Robin Hood project would not be repeated, given that no 'way in' had suggested itself: there was no clue handed to me, as had spurred me to look into the Robin Hood name (an encounter with elderly residents of Hood Hill in South Yorkshire, who proffered the tradition of a mythical association and meaning of the name of the hill). It was not until 2015, after some updating of the Robin Hood text, that finally I began as a diversion a little provisional digging. Amazingly, the derivation presented itself in the same evening I had started work, so it turned out to be the briefest of research and writing projects.

Thought to be a deity of the ancient Britons rendered into a supposedly real (though obviously not an) historical figure within a genealogy of British kings, Arthur turns out to be of greater antiquity than this account presupposes. Usually thought to mean 'bear' or 'stone', there is no cogent basis to this, even if these meanings could be made sense of. The Welsh and Gaelic word for 'bear' is the single-syllable arth or art, leaving the second syllable unexplained, unless – it has been suggested – it is -(g)wr, 'man'. This is dismissed in a (surprisingly useful) Wikipaedia entry: "There are phonological difficulties with this theory -- notably that a Brittonic compound name Arto-uiros should produce Old Welsh Artgur and Middle/Modern Welsh Arthwr and not Arthur (in Welsh poetry the name is always spelled Arthur and is exclusively rhymed with words ending in -ur – never words ending in -wr – which confirms that the second element cannot be (g)wr 'man'). As a supposedly more plausible possibility, suggested on the site is Artu-rig-ios, from arto-rig, meaning 'bear- king', but how/why this would be further compounded is not explained, never mind what the significance might be of the bear in any mythology, ancient British or otherwise. It's evidently a straw-clutching exercise.
     In some etymologies there is a two-syllable putative origin in 'Celtic' (whether Brittonic or Goidelic is unspecified, so does this mean proto-Celtic?) artos, but then the second syllable does not appear to readily give rise to that corresponding in arthur. A root in artos is offered in a database of Scottish names (available at http://www.amethyst-night.com/names/scotmale.html): "Artair — (AHR-shtuhr), 'eagle-like' or 'high, noble'; Gaelic form of Arthur, fr. Celtic artos 'bear', or poss. borrowed from Latin Artorius." At first sight, this would seem to be more promising, until you consider that the meaning appears to be a generic extension from the specific figure of King Arthur – artair apparently here is a mere Gaelicisation of a word/name from another (Celtic) language, which just takes us back to the usual suggestion of a meaning of 'bear'. But a rendering into Gaelic would seem to have it backwards, in that the name was more common historically in Gaelic than in Welsh. A Gaelic origin looks the more likely; in which case the name underwent a transition from a Gaelic to a Welsh form and then to English, or, possibly – though surely unlikely -- direct from Gaelic to English.

A trawl through Gaelic lexicons in conjunction with on-line pronunciation checking throws up athaid, athach: 'monster'. The pronunciation suggests a feasible transition, and it is decidedly interesting where this leads: it's a clear derivation from the Gaelic nathair, 'snake', used to denote 'serpent' or 'dragon'. The conceptualisation here is in terms of the weaving motion of a serpentine creature, with its being from Old Irish nathir, in turn from Proto-Celtic natir, related to snath ('thread'), snathad ('needle').The pronunciation is approximately 'narr-hurr', which seems not far from that of arthur, assuming that in Anglicisation the 'th' would no longer remain silent. Evidence of such a change actually happening in transition to English is needed if this putative derivation is to hold water.
     Just such is provided in the place-name Athersley, a village by Barnsley in South Yorkshire. As I explained in the Robin Hood text, 'Celtic' and not least (if not especially) Gaelic roots of Pennine South Yorkshire place-names are commonplace – indeed, it's the more usual derivation rather than from even Anglo-Saxon. Corroborating evidence shows this particular place-name to be derived from nathair in a standard hybrid with a much later common suffix, nathair('s)-leah. What appears to have originated as nathair has undergone a transition through Anglicisation of a dropping of the initial 'n' as well as a sounding of the 'th' as written but silent in the Gaelic.
     Athersley formerly was a name attached to a wood (on which site is now the modern village), by an ancient holy well named St Helen's (now giving its name to an area right by Athersley village). This is a generic naming of holy wells, with Helen apparently derived from Gaelic Aillen, a fire-breathing water-monster; a dragon, or serpent, indeed, with affiliation to water. [Wells were thought of by 'Celts' as interfaces with the 'otherworld', and as such were envisaged as being guarded by mythological creatures -- serpents. So the general category nathair clearly would pertain to St Helen's Well here.] The wood stretched along Carlton Road to Carlton Hill and village, which last was rendered as Carleton or Carlenton in Domesday; and therefore, as with nearby Cawthorne (recorded in Domesday as Caltorn), most likely derived from Gaelic caltuin, 'hazel grove', which is a generic feature of holy significance. The parent model for this derivation is the famous Carlton Hill in Edinburgh. It would appear, then, that just as is also evidenced in place-names at Cawthorne -- with Serpent's Well in this village named after a holy hazel grove -- there is in St Helen's Well and Carlton (Road, Hill and village) likewise a cluster of an ancient holy well and concrete allusions to a serpent and to a hazel grove. This cluster is a hallmark three-way mutual association in Gaelic folklore. All of the evidence here is internally and externally consistent, and thus is fully explained the occurrence of a place-name for the locale with a derivation from nathairAthersley.
     Looking across language use and mythology, there is decisive support for the argument that nathair indeed is the derivation of (King) Arthur, in that the Gaelic compound word righ-nathair – literally 'king-serpent' – is the term for 'cockatrice', 'dragon'; exactly corresponding to the meaning of Arthur's supposed surname, as that of his father in the Welsh tradition: Uther Pendragon (from the Welsh pen-, 'chief').
     It's hard to believe that no-one hitherto had come up with this really quite simple analysis to account for the origin of King Arthur's name. It must be, just as in the case of Robin Hood, that with a failure to fully appreciate the antiquity of much mythology, then there has been no consideration that quintessentially English figures would have even the remotest connection to Gaelic -- especially as any cursory look would be dissuasive in the absence of an appreciation of the quite marked sound changes across the language transition to English. Yet none of these factors should apply to scholars, so where have they been? Apparently, the same place they often are: in 'groupthink' misplaced deference to 'authority', protecting their own position by avoiding the risk of stepping out of line, instead of thinking laterally, putting in some work and doing their job.

From the research into the etymology of the Robin Hood name (see the parallel investigation on this site), it should be clear that a meaning of 'serpent' is the epithet of the pan-'Celtic' primary deity, Bridhe (Brigid). [Rather than reproduce all of the research into this here, it is perhaps best left in the context of the far more extensive etymological excavation that is my Robin Hood paper.] Arthur, then, is not merely akin to Robin Hood in being of Gaelic origin, but appears to be a manifestation of the very same 'earth' goddess of regeneration -- that is, he is the 'sacred king' figure who self-scrifices to the 'earth' goddess; so that he takes her name whilst being dubbed 'king'. This is hardly unexpected given the centrality in Arthurian legend of the 'grail' – another name for the mythical inexhaustible cauldron of regeneration lore; the receptacle of the sacred king's self-sacrificial blood, spilled in homage to the deity with the supposed function of bringing renewed life to the land. [The Arthurian stories in outline are familiar to everyone, and there is much writing on them without requiring any from me.]
     That they appear to us as entirely separate mythologies indicates that the two traditions originated from different cultures separated by language, which later came together through the eclipse of 'Celtic'-speaking regions in the West of England as English became ubiquitous. King Arthur being still more obscure than Robin Hood suggests that Arthur may be the more ancestral figure of the two. On the other hand, whereas Robin Hood seems to be ambiguous as to whether he is the 'red king' self-sacrificial 'sacred king' or the deity to which this self-sacrifice is made; King Arthur is clearly distinguished as the former. It's not clear if this clarity indicates a more recent origin for Arthurian than for Robin Hood mythology. Either way, the profundity of 'regeneration' (the life/death/rebirth never-ending cycle) as being the core concept in the mythological imagination of old -- as, surely, it must remain in some form or other -- is pointed up by this surprising convergence of these two key English legendary personages.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

 

[Re-post] The daft farrago over Farage's call for employers to not preferentially out-source outside the UK, and to scrap totalitarian equality law


[Re-posted because of junk imposter mailing]
Predictably political class establishment figures have shown themselves to be the rabid bigots they are in attacking Nigel Farage's call for employers to preferentially employ the UK-born, and – even aside from this being misrepresentation – to get rid of some of the equality legislation.
    Out-sourcing abroad by employees seriously undermines the employment, pay and training opportunities of UK-born individuals, 'black' and 'white' – and especially relatively recently arrived migrants. It's nothing to do with 'race' It's a no-brainer. Even the Gorgon Brown called for "British jobs for British workers" (before he called "that woman" "bigoted" for having the same opinion).
     The farrago is more over a question to the UKIP leader about what might be the future in "UKIP land"; that is not what is likely to be in the next or any near-future UKIP manifesto; but anyway is hardly less of a no-brainer. 'Equal opportunities and diversity' [sic] is a farce, and it is about de facto quotas and not mere 'positive discrimination'.
     Not only is the legislation over-zealous, open to abuse, out-dated, and geared to looking in the wrong places – 'racism' being 'in-group love' rather than 'out-group hate', is therefore more apparent from migrant enclaves rather than to them: an issue more of 'ethnic'-on-'white and inter-ethnic – but it is the product of 'identity politics' totalitarianism, which is based not at all on any sort of consideration for minorities but on contempt for and hatred towards the mass of ordinary people. [See my paper on this: http://stevemoxon.co.uk/identitypoliticsandpc.php]
     Liebore politicians have the gall to accuse the UKIP leader of "breathtaking ignorance", when this charge can squarely be levelled at them.

 

Ray-Ban Sunglasses Only 14.17GBP



Ray-Ban Factory Direct Sale

Biggest Selection! Bigger Savings!

All Sunglasses Only 14.17GBP  

Ray-Ban: The Top-Selling Eyewear Brand Worldwide

Hottest Styles. 5600+ New Styles.

Free Delivery On Order 3Pairs.


Shop Online Now!








Ray Ban values your privacy. If this email was sent in error, or you wish to stop receiving occasional account updates from Ray Ban, click here to unsubscribe






Friday, April 17, 2015

 

[Re-post] The daft farrago over Farage's call for employers to not preferentially out-source outside the UK, and to scrap totalitarian equality law

[Re-posted because of junk imposter mailing]
Predictably political class establishment figures have shown themselves to be the rabid bigots they are in attacking Nigel Farage's call for employers to preferentially employ the UK-born, and – even aside from this being misrepresentation – to get rid of some of the equality legislation.
    Out-sourcing abroad by employees seriously undermines the employment, pay and training opportunities of UK-born individuals, 'black' and 'white' – and especially relatively recently arrived migrants. It's nothing to do with 'race' It's a no-brainer. Even the Gorgon Brown called for "British jobs for British workers" (before he called "that woman" "bigoted" for having the same opinion).
     The farrago is more over a question to the UKIP leader about what might be the future in "UKIP land"; that is not what is likely to be in the next or any near-future UKIP manifesto; but anyway is hardly less of a no-brainer. 'Equal opportunities and diversity' [sic] is a farce, and it is about de facto quotas and not mere 'positive discrimination'.
     Not only is the legislation over-zealous, open to abuse, out-dated, and geared to looking in the wrong places – 'racism' being 'in-group love' rather than 'out-group hate', is therefore more apparent from migrant enclaves rather than to them: an issue more of 'ethnic'-on-'white and inter-ethnic – but it is the product of 'identity politics' totalitarianism, which is based not at all on any sort of consideration for minorities but on contempt for and hatred towards the mass of ordinary people. [See my paper on this: http://stevemoxon.co.uk/identitypoliticsandpc.php]
     Liebore politicians have the gall to accuse the UKIP leader of "breathtaking ignorance", when this charge can squarely be levelled at them.

 

Ray-Ban Sunglasses Only 14.17GBP



Ray-Ban Factory Direct Sale

Biggest Selection! Bigger Savings!

All Sunglasses Only 14.17GBP  

Ray-Ban: The Top-Selling Eyewear Brand Worldwide

Hottest Styles. 5600+ New Styles.

Free Delivery On Order 3Pairs.


Shop Online Now!








Ray Ban values your privacy. If this email was sent in error, or you wish to stop receiving occasional account updates from Ray Ban, click here to unsubscribe






This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?