Folk Community

“A mongrel race” is how the British, and especially the English are labeled these days. Celt, Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman are some of the names of the peoples who have made Britain their home over the past 3,000 years, with more groups stretching back further into antiquity.

But is this term accurate? Are the English nothing more than a ‘mongrel race’ as anti-English pressure groups like to make us believe? To find the answer you need look no further than the works of Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer to discover the real genetichistory of the British people.

To put it simply, the bulk of the British population today can trace their ancestry back to late Upper Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic peoples who gradually migrated north from their home in northern Spain/ southern France after the glaciers melted at the end of the Ice Age. Britain before then did have a human presence, though its numbers were not large. Having said that, some of their genes do flow in the British today.

As Britain became ripe once again for human habitation, these early Mesolithic peoples arrived over land as Britain was still joined to mainland Europe at this time, about 10,000BC. (Their homeland was actually the Basque lands of today. The British and the Basques share a close ancestry).

The settlers moved quickly along the Atlantic coast to occupy the land as the glaciers retreated north. Most of the glaciers would have melted within fifty years, hence the land was exposed extremely fast. These post Ice Age settlers still constitute the majority of the British population today.

In his book ‘Origins of the British’, Stephen Oppenheimer says that 75% to 95% of the British population has an ancient Iberian (Keltic) ancestry. While the figures are higher for Wales than England (Llangefni, north Wales is 96% and Fakenham in Norfolk is 59%), he states that only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe (Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Goths, Vikings ect). This means that the original, indigenous British population is still the dominant in the modern British of today.

Since the British have been in Britain since the last Ice Age it stands to reason that they should not be considered a “mongrel race”. Though other peoples have left their imprint on the British, especially in England, the British are still remarkably united.

Consider this: the Maoris of New Zealand, a Polynesian people, arrived in New Zealand about the year 1000AD. Everyone considers them to be an ‘indigenous’ people. However, the British have been in Britain for 10,000 years, yet people call them a race of immigrants, with the insinuation that they are not indigenous. This is completely wrong and shows a terrible double-standard.

The British are just as indigenous to Britain as the Maoris are to New Zealand. Why is this such a hard pill to swallow? Perhaps it is because the world today is incapable of viewing ‘white people’ as being indigenous to anything.

The British have an ancient connection to their land and this must be respected. Simply calling them ‘immigrants’ and ‘mongrels’ is both historically wrong and a dreadful insult. The British are just as indigenous to their land as the Aborigines are to Australia, the Maoris are to New Zealand and the Native American Indians are to North America.

Prior to WWII, there would have been no argument regarding what constituted Britishness. With the waves of migration that have existed since then, a question now arises in order to placate residents of Britain who are ethnically a part of another cultural background. To deny the concept of indigenous Britishness is just incorrect and stupid.
 
The denial of individuality and of the biological differences between human beings has also led to a complete repression of the concept of "genetic hygiene". Today hygiene is only something about washing you hands and brushing your teeth. Man does know the principle of "genetic hygiene", though, and he spends an enormous amount of time and energy on the breeding of horses, cows, dogs, pigeons, parakeets etc. - all according to the best genetic principles, but when it comes to the reproduction of his own kind, he totally abandons these principles - as if they were only valid in the world of animals - and willingly contributes to the total biological degeneration of mankind.

In the nature, every population is subject to biological selection, which means that the individuals who are best fit for the given circumstances rise to the top of that society, whereas those who cannot cope with life as it is must perish. This is one of the iron, relentless Laws of Nature that man has been able to mitigate by building societies where there is also room and protection for the weaker elements of the population, who also have a meaningful role to play in a developed society. However, if we completely close our eyes to the existence of this Law of Nature, we, too, will be heading for disaster, as we would then no longer be able to secure the necessary biological quality in the population to preserve a system that is strong enough also to protect the weak. Without regard for the biological realities of life we will end in a free for all where the weakest individuals will be the very first to perish.

It is part of man's biological nature that he is not just an isolated individual but also a social being, and his social instinct goes beyond the nuclear family. From the earliest times human beings have lived together in groups so that they could better resist the dangers of their primitive existence. If they had not done so, man would hardly have survived as a species.

In any organized society, however, it is absolutely necessary that the individual adapts himself to a norm that is shared with other members of that community and that he abstains from misusing his intelligence and talents in a way that is harmful to the very community that has made the development of these talents possible.
The necessary loyalty within the group cannot be based on materialistic considerations alone - such as class. There often are conflicts among objective economic interests within a class- e.g. among workers. Conflicts occur over migration, international trade, religion or race. And workers often have objective interests in common with capitalists and in conflict with the interests of other groups of workers. Class membership is less decisive than culture in determining one's political views. It only makes sense to renounce some of one's personal freedom in a community with a common destiny, consisting of people with a common background, common norms and values, and with a common purpose in life - people whose forefathers have won and defended the same territory throughout generations, because they wanted to preserve their specific linguistic, cultural, and biological character. 

It is this wish that has produced our culture in close accordance with our people's talents, conceptions, ideals, and values - with what we can call our people's soul.