So says Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is described in this Daily Mail article as an ‘independent scholar and author.’ She says the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is used by so-called ‘[W]hite supremacists’ to refer to ‘White British’ people and it should therefore be banned. I don’t quite see how that conclusion follows. If the term is tainted or offensive simply because it describes ”white British people” or because it is allegedly used by White supremacists, then a great many more words will be banned on that flimsy basis.

It’s troubling to hear that one’s ethnicity is so objectionable that the very name ‘Anglo-Saxon‘ ought to be banned. This woman says that, instead of Anglo-Saxon, the term ”early English” should be the acceptable name.

Mary Rambaran-Olm also says, of these elusive ‘White supremacists’:

‘Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with ‘whiteness’ but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.’ …

She seems to imply that those she calls ‘supremacists’ have a false idea of their own heritage, connecting it somehow with ‘whiteness’ — but Whiteness and Anglo-Saxon or ‘early English’ heritage are connected. Anglo-Saxon=White. Why do these simple facts upset anyone?

As for the ‘warrior past’, that, too, is part of being an Anglo-Saxon, and what’s wrong with that?

This may seem trivial to some people, this toying with words, but it is symbolic of the ‘Great Replacement’ of the English and British peoples; even their name is to be effaced, so as to further nullify their identity and their rightful place in the UK.

Ms Rambaran-Olm, who is identified as Irish in the article, though she was brought up in Canada, is somehow designated to tell the people of the UK what words they may use to describe themselves. How does this happen?

In any case, her double-barreled surname doesn’t tell us much about her ethnicity, though she does not seem to be English. But there is more about her objections to the name ‘Anglo-Saxon’:

Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or ‘Englelond’ – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as ‘Englisc’ or ‘Anglecynn’. The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their ‘supposed origins’. Hitler wrote of the ‘Anglo-Saxon determination’ to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term. John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard’s Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.

So I am getting the idea that if a word or phrase is used by the ‘wrong’ people, such as Rhodes or the ubiquitous Hitler, then that word is tainted just because it’s used by someone who is disliked or condemned. So the name must be changed.

And how is it that a curator of early books at Harvard is the arbiter of what must be banned? Who bestowed this power on him, ?

The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists voted to drop the name Anglo-Saxon from its name, as 60 per cent of its membership voted to ban the term. I can only assume these are the lockstep, group-mind academics.

When even a group calling themselves ‘Anglo-Saxonists’ are willing to bend the knee, it’s worse than I thought.

Look back on the glory days of England, and contrast that to today’s topsy-turvy world in which the English are being made to humble themselves, while others aggrandize themselves and wallow in schadenfreude at the apparent ‘fall’ of the once-great England.

But this is an unnatural situation, being created by those who are determined to erase England/Britain off their map and establish their regime of sacred ”Diversity” and pretend equality,none of which could exist without being engineered and imposed from above.

In the meantime, it’s vital that we don’t acquiesce in the destruction of our folk and our heritage. Let’s have neither art nor part in this.