Friday, 25 November 2011

mongrel Island?

As a postscript to August’s excellent article on Liberal democrat candidate Sandy Walkington's deeply bigoted and ignorant comments about Britain, which was posted earlier, I think it is important to make clear that not only are Mr. Walkington’s views flawed and misguided for the reasons which August highlighted so well, but that Walkington's basic premise, that we, the British, are a nation of mongrels is blatantly untrue.

This claim is, of course, made frequently by liberals and multicultural zealots, but it is a lie based on ideological wish fulfillment and pure fantasy exposing a total ignorance of history.

Prior to 1950, Britain was, in fact, one of the most racially homogeneous nations on Earth, even today over 80% of the native population are able to trace their genetic ancestry back by means of DNA at least 15 thousand years, that is to say some sixteen times longer than the indigenous  Maori people of New Zealand and roughly as long as the Clovis people of North America.

The “mongrel claim” depends on the hypothesis that previous influxes of immigrants and refugees changed the ethnic make up of the British people.  This hypothesis if frankly incorrect.  In the main the groups involved were so small in number that they had no perceptible impact on the indigenous population.  For example, the very largest group, the French Huguenots, amounted in number to less than a fifth of the current Somali population and there are currently over one hundred times as many people originating from the Indian sub continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) living in Britain today than all the Huguenots who came here in the 16th and 17th centuries. 

As the two main invasions of Britain, at least those which occurred prior to the second half of the 20th Century, these did not have the effect the multicultural fairy tale tellers would have us believe. Following the Norman conquest most Norman troops returned home and the only significant interbreeding with our ethnically identical kin the Normans was primarily restricted to our aristocracy.

Some limited interbreeding unquestionably took place following the Roman conquest  thousand years before, however, again, unlike today, this was insufficient to have any impact on the native population.

One can dismiss Bonnie Greer’s fanciful claims on the infamous Question Time edition with Nick Griffin, about platoons of Africans arriving with the Roman troops, this is the sort of dubious “history” which usually appears in books with large print, lots of colours and repeated references to “diversity”.

There is no firm historical evidence that African troops accompanied the Roman invaders in any significant numbers if any did at all. If such Africans actually existed, there is no evidence they were not castrated, as was the general fate of freed slaves in ancient Rome, or that they were “Africans” as we would understand the description today, the demographics of much of North Africa were very different than it is in our time. 

Finally, there is certainly no evidence any African were “left behind" to mate with the flan haired natives as the disingenuous Miss Greer whimsically suggests.

To be blunt Greer’s claims were laughable and devoid of any historical substance. It is a shameful indictment of our times that no mainstream historian had the guts or the honesty to challenge her.  

It may be true that over any milenia Britain became the home of a small number of other Northern European tribes  such as Angles, Saxons and Vikings but they were ethnically identical to the Picts and Celts who were before them.  Sharing the blood of a small number of identical Northern European tribes does not make us mixed race and most definitely does not make us “mongrels”.

The politically correct Mr.Walkington should remember that the population of Ethiopia, for instance is made up of no less than eighty North African tribes, meanwhile the people of Kenya include some forty ethnically identical East African tribes. If this hypocrite calls us mongrels on the basis that we are made up of half a dozen Nothern European tribes, he is clearly implying that Ethiopians and Kenyans are far more "mongrels" than we are.

How many times would hell have to freeze over before Walkington could bring himself to use a term, which trips so easily off his narrow lips in relation to white Europeans, when describing an African or Asian people?.

Lies such as those parroted by the unpleasant Mr. Walkington are repeated over and over again for ideological reasons, and in order to achieve a political goal. That goal is the destruction of Western Nations states by imposing an alien culture and finally an alien ethnicity upon once homogenous peoples.  They form part of an act of deliberate genocide by stealth, which I have described here before, and must be challenged every time they are told..

Walkington lies also when he says he has “no problem” with what he calls “the fact” that in 200 years we will all be coffee coloured.  In fact he glories in the prospect, as it is after all the outcome which the political masters he serves are determined to achieve.        

But a lie is a lie is a lie. Goebbels may have been correct that if you tell a lie often enough people will come to believe it, however, a lie can never become a truth no matter how often our enemies repeat it.        


Beverley said...

Even the "Normans" were north western Europeans Hence the name Norman - men from the north...
They were Vikings.

Anonymous said...

the "adjudicator" Customs and Excise UK... LOL

Anonymous said...

"15 thousand years" ??? I'm a bit sceptical about that. I'm not sure many men or women could read or write up until 1500 years ago

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Anonymous

Sorry I was not clear, my reference to genetic ancestry was in relation to DNA, in the same way that Native Americans can trace their ancestry back to the same period. clearly not through any written record

I will make that clearer

BritishActivism said...

Superb, concise and forthright.

Unfortunately the general public seem to have no concept of what their true heritage is and - as is written in this article - what devastating and unprecedented effect vast numbers of interlopers are going to have for this country, and why it is extremely different to what has ever happened before.

Couple into that how many people's eyes have been trained to glaze over when these sorts of 'race' issues get mentioned - and well, it doesn't really bode well for us in the future.

However, perhaps only by informing people (and thus smashing apart these ludicrous fairy tales) will the inner struggle and outer national culture on the matter change towards that of actively seeking self-preservation.

If they are told they are nothing, were nothing, have a shameful past, are the same as everybody else, all interchangeable, have no homeland, have nothing unique, etc, then in their view, why would they care or even fight in any way against what is taking place?

If we are going to set out our premise of why we nationalists hold some of the 'tricky' positions we do, then I think we need to have balanced toned and factual articles like this one (and the one before it) from time to time to remind us - and also to inform new people who may be coming along with fresh eyes.

There is a gulf out there, it seems, between those of us who know these silly games they play and know the real state of affairs - and those who are ignorant of them and have no understanding of why we hold some of the views we do.

Unbelievably, I still hear debates and phone in callers going on about "hating people just because they do not look like you do" or being "ignorant" of different races and cultures and religions and "ignorant" of our so-called "mongrel" 'nation-of-immigrants'.

First of all, there is no hatred of people for the reasons they just "look different" to us - that is certainly not why we are here.

Anybody who believes we simplistically "hate" people in this world for being Black or Asian etc (and all the "Paki's Smell" or "Chinkies eat dogs" style buffoonery they associate with 'racism') has no idea of what we are here for and they should do us the basic courtesy of finding out the true situation for themselves before they open their silly, ill-informed mouths.

Second of all, we are not ignorant of other races and religions - most of us know what the real situation is with both racial differences and the real nature of some religious groups and ideologies.

It is often those people saying we are ignorant who do not have the first idea of anything beyond the end of their ultra-egalitarian, relativistic and universalist nose.

Thirdly, as in this article, we know our history much better than most of the general public - especially when it comes to our ethnic heritage and matters of percentages of previous entrants to this nation.

BritishActivism said...


I was once one of those people who believed the lies. This was throughout my teenage youth and into my early 20's.

However, I educated myself on what was really going on and what effect it would have on us all and future generations. That is why I am here, as a Nationalist.

If I had any doubts whatsoever, I would not be here today.

The moral right and high ground is on our side, the fight is a 'just' and righteous one, the facts and evidence are on our side too.

Add to that the rest of a general nationalist manifesto of all parts to life, such as self sufficiency and whatever else, and by all accounts we really should be popular and romping ahead.

For self survival, self-preservation, a better national society and better quality of life, for national harmony, for national safety, for human progress and for advancement of high civilisation, for continuation of our values and our world outlooks - it seems imperative to me that we halt and reverse all the aspects of those things working counter to those things listed above.

We perhaps should be selling where we came from, what we achieved, and how we could once again shape the future in a positive way.

At the moment, I personally can only see a dystopian future of retrograde steps and an ever worsening society. So, what can we offer to build a better future than what is offered by our opponents?

We have to remember that we need to sell people a future too, not always do a Jim Bowen Bullseye "here's what you could have won" look to the past and a look at what we have lost. The past is, unfortunately, gone forever.

I have faith that our indigenous people could build a much better future for themselves than what is on offer for them at the moment. What is the alternative? Well, we nationalists all know what the alternative is.

The hard task, as ever, is leading the horses to the water....and getting them to drink!

andy said...

I once heard a multi culti warrior justifying mass non white immigration into this country by stating that black soldiers had first come to this land with the Romans.

I replied "So they came as invaders and colonizers and helped to kill and enslave the native people?"

He had no answer.

Laager said...

The reality of what is going on is starting to kreep into the consciousness of the original inhabitants of a number of European and Scandinavian nations.

Take a look at:

and the article: Apartheid in Norway?

Anonymous said...

An early architect of the EU, financially sponsored by a Warburg, envisioned all future humans as "negroid mongrels". Said Kalergi:

"The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice.

"The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."