E. European immigrants are good for Britain

But most EU countries prefer Muslims, of course

Fresh divisions are opening in the European Union over allowing plumbers and other workers from the new member states of Eastern Europe the right to work in the West. A two-year ban on Eastern workers imposed by 12 of the 15 old member states on May 1, 2004 is coming up for review, provoking tensions between the old and new member states. Britain, Ireland and Sweden — the three countries which gave Eastern Europeans the right to work following enlargement — are being held up by the European Commission as proof of the benefits of abolishing the ban….

Mr Spidla’s spokeswoman said: “Member states that have opened up have benefited greatly. There is no doubt about it. The UK, Sweden and Ireland confirm it — jobs haven’t been taken away.” In Britain the arrival of Eastern European workers has been widely seen as a success, providing armies of construction workers and nannies, and beating labour shortages from dentists to bus drivers. With Britain and Ireland restricting access to the welfare system, there have been very few claims for benefits. The Bank of England has credited the Eastern Europeans with keeping down wage inflation, a mixed blessing for native workers. Most economists believe that they have helped to fuel economic growth, although some believe they could be responsible for the rise in unemployment….

Opponents of open borders are likely to argue that countries that did not impose restrictions had a far higher influx than predicted. The British Government predicted only 5,000 to 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come, but 175,000 came in the first year alone. Ireland had 85,000 workers from Eastern Europe in the first year. Countries with strong economies such as Britain and Ireland have been not been disturbed by the new workers but many EU countries have high unemployment, making the issue far more controversial. Fears of the “Polish plumber” boosted the “no” vote in last year’s French referendum on the EU constitution.

From The Times

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 01:11 AM in Immigration
Comments (103) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Andrew on January 17, 2006, 01:32 AM | #

Why can’t they train up their own tradesmen and what the hell is the population supposed to do when they are to become lobotomized and welfare dependants? And when the money runs out after the Elite Looters have stolen it, all that is left is Anarchy.
Sounds like the Eastern block Greens conspiracy to infect the west worked well.

Posted by friedrich braun on January 17, 2006, 04:26 AM | #

Personally, I don’t know how close the Polish are to the English to allow for successful assmilation into the native tradition: there are similarities, but some differences too.

It all comes down to numbers…London alone has 300 000 Poles. The vast majority of them are simply economic migrants with no attachment whatsoever to the UK. There’s no doubt that in such numbers the Polish migrants are pushing wages down…this might make greedy, fat capitalists happy but is undoubtedly the misfortune of the British labourer already struggling to make ends meet.

Additionally, even those willing to settle in Britain tend to have divided loyalties (even the offspring of those migrants feel more Polish than British, as any reader of Stormfront realizes)...I’d think that that might be a problem for British nationalists.

Posted by Alexei on January 17, 2006, 05:11 AM | #

Having to choose between a flood of Arabs and a flood of E.Europeans (Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Lithuanians…), no wonder the average British voter should prefer the latter—on the grounds of similarity and assimilability for one. The problem is, the average voter has never been asked. Until he get his say, whatever the press tells him about the benefits of immigration from some regions over others, will sound like mockery. “We’re going to force-feed you ground vegetables, which is good for you, instead of the raw meat we’ve been giving you. Rejoice!”

Immigration is an important, long-term issue that deserves being put to national referenda instead of being packaged with other, short-term and often trifling issues.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 06:49 AM | #

The answer to the East European question is simple. Unless one wants to destroy the nation state and all racial connection between peoples and the land they occupy, mass immigration is always bad.

It doesn’t matter how close genetically the incomers are. They are NOT the people of the land. Preservation means preserving the racial integrity of the latter.

The only silver lining in the Slav influx is that a good many will eventually go home. Those that don’t will be assimilable in the general cultural sense. But clear thinking is needed on this business of assimilation. It is a matter of numbers and limits. It is not an endlessly open concept, not a circumstance where “as long as they assimilate, that’s OK”. If we would deplore the open-ended, permanent Germanication of Poland, say, why would we not equally deplore the Slavification of England.

I am against open borders and mass immigration, against equality, against economism. I am for whatever preserves and sustains my own people.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 17, 2006, 10:03 AM | #

I’m a bit on the other side on this one, partly because I have a wife born in Bulgaria but naturalized British. The 300,000 in the first year was inevitable, since Britain was the only big country letting them in; it’s a first year figure and will tend to drop (but how far?—200,000 per annum ad infinitum is probably too many.) There will be another surge when Bulgaria/Romania/Croatia come in, but again temporary. The real problem would be letting Turkey into the EU, which we clearly shouldn’t do. Without Turkey, Eastern Europe is too small in population to pose a long term problem.

We may prefer to leave the EU altogether (I would.) However, if we’re in the thing, letting East Europe (but not Turkey and probably not Ukraine) in is clearly appropriate, and if you do so you have to let them immigrate; a single market can only work with free movement of labour. Their own countries are currently growing so quickly—and absorbing idle French and German jobs—that the urge to move to slow-growing Britain will quickly vanish. For a young and bright East Europeaner, the long term loss of income in moving to a new country may well outweigh the short term gain, and the big chance will be to start their own business in a country they already know and which has vibrant economic growth.

Non-EU immigration, particularly of the unskilled, is a MUCH more serious problem.

Posted by PolishAmerican on January 17, 2006, 01:12 PM | #

There was Polish immigration to the UK during the 20th century - on a small scale, early on (John Gielgud and Leopold Stokowski would be good examples) and on a large scale after WWII when several divisions of Polish soldiers who were loyal to the Polish government-in-exile and fought on the Allied side decided not to return to the country that was taken over by Communists. All assimilated well, so there should not be problems with the new arrivals. They must be required to assimilate, though.

As far as economics is concerned, I fear immigration may be used to sweep problems under the carpet. For example, inadequacy of the educational system, which fails to provide young people with marketable skills, may be used as a pretext to bring immigrant workers (instead of fixing the education.) Also, East European countries have birthrates even lower than the UK; they don’t have capacity to fix Western Europe’s demographic problems except in the short term.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 17, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

Western Europe don’t have a demographic problem, it has a demographic opportunity, to reverse the tragic overcrowding that followed the Industrial Revolution. All it needs is stout border fences and Italian-style reproductive practices. Bliss!

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 17, 2006, 01:19 PM | #

Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, produced a table (PDF) that calculates the number of immigrants from 26 European ethnies needed to reduce the Ethnic Genetic Interests of a random native by on child.

It takes 15.6 Poles or 11.7 Russians to create an EGI loss of one child in Sweden. For the Irish the distance is greater, 8.7 an 8.2 respectively. Closer than a random Greek to a random Englishman at 6.5, however, much more distant than a random Belgian at 83.7 immigrants to reduce a random Anglos EGI by one child.

Interestingly a random non-European Caucasian is genetically closer to a random European Caucasian at 8.5 than a Greek is to an Irishman at 4.7.

Posted by PolishAmerican on January 17, 2006, 01:27 PM | #

Some Western European countries are overpopulated - e.g. the Netherlands and the UK. France and Ireland are not - in fact Ireland’s population density is half that of Poland. Western Europe is also victim of its owns success - e.g. young Spaniards expect to do something more respectable than picking crops, and Moroccans fill the vacuum.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 17, 2006, 02:25 PM | #

That’s why Japan leaqds the world in robotics, sunshine. They don’t want to fill the place with immigrants but equally, houses and offices need to be cleaned and crops picked. Looks a pretty good solution to me. By choosing the low-wage helot route to low-skill operations, the US and EU are condemning themselves to technological backwardness.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 02:35 PM | #

And civil strife, high taxation and a permanent left-of centre polity.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 17, 2006, 03:00 PM | #

Still, I have several complaints about the post. First, there’s that emphasis on economic man: on the idea that the measures of success are purely economic ones. There is a blindness in this view to the existence of a traditional communal identity and what this means for the individual.

The jews my arse…it is precisely what you describe that is leading us blindfolded over a precipice.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 17, 2006, 03:02 PM | #

To flesh that out a bit…an economic view of man makes him into a commodity, which in turn makes the world into Wal-Mart.

It’s that simple.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 17, 2006, 03:30 PM | #

Why does it continue?

Dr. Salter notes that the genetic damage done by the post-1965 immigration to America “has decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined.” Why does it continue? Why does the white population allow it, while non-white peoples of other nations forbid immigration and preserve their group interests? Dr. Salter rejects the notion that white Americans want to be displaced; they may not actively resist displacement, but they surely do not welcome their own dispossession.

Darwin writes in the Descent of Man,

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.*

Madison Grant in The Passing of the Great Race,

In New England, however, whether through the decline of Calvinism or the growth of altruism, there appeared early in the last century a wave of sentimentalism, which at that time took up the cause of the negro, and in so doing apparently destroyed, to a large extent, pride and consciousness of race in the North. The agitation over slavery was inimical to the Nordic race, because it thrust aside all national opposition to the intrusion of hordes of immigrants of inferior racial value, and prevented the fixing of a definite American type, such as was clearly appearing in the middle of the century.

A. T. Lane writes, in Solidarity or Survival?American Labor and European Immigrants, 1830-1924

It was difficult to prevent comparisons being drawn between Asiatic and European immigration, impossible to stop speculation that the restrictive methods applied in the one case might be appropriate in the other. Of course, these comparisons were only made possible by the transformation in the ethnic balance of European immigration. Nevertheless, the Asian example offered a precedent for a more rigorous exclusion policy which appeared increasingly appropriate in the light of comparisons between the Asian and the “new” European immigrants. Since this analogy is of crucial importance in explaining labor’s choice of the literacy test, it requires more extended discussion.

The starting point is Alexander Saxton’s contention that the Chinese case did indeed offer a precedent in the campaign against the new immigrants. He notes that the response of native-born workers to Chinese immigrants in California in the 1860s was to classify them with blacks and thus to exclude them from the producer class, which encompassed all white workers and employers actively engaged in the creation of wealth. Such a classification placed no inhibitions of solidarity in the way of a restrictive and discriminatory immigration policy. If the new immigrants from Europe could have been similarly classified, restrictionist elements would have gained a major advantage. But, as Saxton points out, Europeans were white and, for the most part, Christian, and Americans had a very long tradition of hospitality to such immigrants. “Guilt stirred by denial of such loyalties,” he continues, “must somehow be set at rest before any reorientation on the matter of immigration would be possible. To this extent the Chinese experience had to be repeated.” Saxton proposes that labor was, indeed, attempting such a reorientation by reference to the Chinese example.

Darwin again,

Not withstanding many sources of doubt, man can generally and readily distinguish between the higher and lower moral rules. The higher are founded on the social instincts, and relate to the welfare of others. They are supported by the approbation of our fellow-men and by reason. The lower rules, though some of them when implying self-sacrifice hardly deserve to be called lower, relate chiefly to self, and arise from public opinion, matured by experience and cultivation; for they are not practised by rude tribes. As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

Why does it continue? It appears that it is evolved, naturally selected to enhance survival, and disparate, not unlike IQ, in the various races of man.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 17, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

Desmond credits Cavalli-Sforza for a table produced by Frank Salter. Granted, it is true that Salter used Cavalli-Sforza’s Fst data to produce the table (and so gives credit), but the table itself - which measures the effects of replacement immigration - is by Salter and is not anything that Cavalli-Sforza would want to have anything to do with. Anyone familiar with Cavalli-Sforza’s work understands that he is a leftist race-denier and someone who rejects genetic explanations for group differences in mental traits. I presume he would reject Salter’s work as well.

The EC/NEC vs. Greek/Irish genetic comparison is true based on the interpretation of the Fst data. However, I strongly believe that newer studies of gene frequencies and genetic structure may somewhat re-arrainge certain of these rankings. In any case, Salter did touch on the Greek/Turk distinction, with respect to an explanation why Turkish admission to the EU would be such a bad thing, genetically speaking, given that the relative genetic distance of Greeks and Turks to most EU nations may not be hugely different (but, they are different, to what extent remains to be determined).

Salter’s points revolve around a) the much greater size of the Turkish population which means the genetic impact of Turkey being in an open immigration zone is much greater, b) the greater fecundity of the Turkish people, and c) cultural considerations that may impact genetic interests - a large Muslim nation would disrupt the organic solidarity of Christian Europe (and I may add open the door to the admission of Muslim nations genetically even more distant than Turkey). The relative prosperity of Greece vs. Turkey, and the established Turkish ghettoes in Germany and elsehwere also means, in my opinion, that a given Turk is much more likely to emigrate to western Europe than is a Greek.

But as I said, more genetic data are needed.

If Desmond’s point is that Eastern European immigrants damage English genetic interests, that is correct. Such immigration is “good” for English interests only insofar if the migrants boost carrying capacity to outweigh their effects (doubtful) or if the choice is between a certain number of Eastern Europeans and South Asians/Africans, etc.

Certainly, the best thing for England is NO more immigration of any kind. The question though is whether the Eastern Europeans already in the UK, can they be assimilated, or should English nationalists ask for their repatriation also? That’s for the people in England to decide. Genetic distance, ethnic genetic interests, as well as cultural compatibility (which indirectly influences genetic interests) may be used to decide.

Posted by Voice on January 17, 2006, 05:41 PM | #

JW Holliday,

this is a very difficult issue for WN to discuss because once you start talking about Greek Genetic distances from rest of Europe you then have to begin to look at the Italian Genetic issue don’t you?

Aren’t we looking at those populations under dispute in the white world actually Mediterrannean?

I understand the Turkish issue from a cultural(Islam) and from Arab,Asian and Negroid element that has worked its way into the Gene pool.

Difficult question and I wonder how you view this? I am a mix of different european sub-racial groups but probaby fall most neatly under “Atlanto-Meditrannean(found in Italy and Sicilly but all over Europe) and my wife’s parents come from around Florence and she is phenotypically Mediterranean.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 06:18 PM | #

The Italian people north and south face the same dark future in the decades to come as every other European people. They have the same right to preservation as us - the same right as any other people anywhere. They endure the same dubious benefits of liberalism as us. They are ignored, deceived, socially engineered like us. Their path to freedom lies along the same route of self-expression as ours. They have to choose to survive like us. If one day we make that choice it will strengthen the possibility of them doing so, and vice versa. Our fates are intertwined.

So I don’t pay too much attention to genetic absolutes on this issue of who is European. We each of us know who we are. We are all Europeans, and I find something vaguely offensive in the notion that I, as an Anglo-Saxon, have some special privileges of race which attain to me but not to, say, the business associates I have in Villa d’Adda or Barco di Bibbiano.

But there is an additional dimension to this issue. We only really act as European when we consciously strengthen the connection between European blood and European soil - or at least do nothing to weaken it. If we weaken it, however, we render ourselves mere economic units or autonomous individuals or we are “equally free”, etc. We can be all that, for what it’s worth. But we cannot ever gain control of our fate and so cannot be ourselves.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 17, 2006, 06:39 PM | #

I find something vaguely offensive in the notion that I, as an Anglo-Saxon, have some special privileges of race…

And so it begins…

This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 07:07 PM | #

That quote is taken from an unfinished conversation, Desmond. But to answer you directly. Racially, we all know who we are and we know who we are not. Consciousness is far more practical in matters of racial politics than genetics.

Also, the nature of the sympathy, for want of a better word, which I extend towards Italians is as I have described it above. I know Italy is not England. Obviously. Your point seems strangely artificial, in the sense that legalistic argument has little connectivity to the lives of real men and women.

Let me turn things around. Will you, a drowning man, refuse an outstretched hand from all but a fellow Nord? (My own answer differs in degree according to whether one is drowning in one’s European homeland or not!)

Posted by xbt on January 17, 2006, 07:33 PM | #

GW wrote: We are all Europeans, and I find something vaguely offensive in the notion that I, as an Anglo-Saxon, have some special privileges of race which attain to me but not to, say, the business associates I have in Villa d’Adda or Barco di Bibbiano.

In the context of this entry (immigration), your comment baffles me.

You believe Italians have the same right as you to live in England?

Posted by Phil on January 17, 2006, 07:37 PM | #

GW,

I hate to say this but Desmond is living in a past that is gone forever. What can be salvaged in the US (and perhaps with superhuman effort, Canada) is a white majority nation state. Demond would like to go back to an all Nord Canada. That is a fantasy (for a start how do you split the white Canadians between Nords and non-Nords especially with mixing over the last three or four generations?).

I wonder if Desmond is a bitter old man in his 70s still longing for a world that is now permanently lost. The Nords can be conceivably saved in Europe and I hope they are. But getting into Nordicist politics in the New World in 2006 AD is utter foolishness.

Posted by J Richards on January 17, 2006, 08:39 PM | #

Desmond Jones,

Depending on the populations compared and the loci analyzed, sometimes the genetic distances between populations within a continent may be greater than the genetic distances between populations in separate continents, but the inverse finding is mostly found, and if all genes are considered, there is no way that non-European Caucasoids will be more genetically closer, on average, to European Caucasoids than the average genetic distance between the Greek and the Irish.

Posted by American-American on January 17, 2006, 09:05 PM | #

Note that Phil’s arguments can be and have been used by those who deny the workability of generic “white nationalism”: minorities are already here, mixing has already occured, “white nationalists” are “bitter” and “living in the past”.

Question for GW and Phil: Are you two fully English? Are your wives?

“Nordicism” is compatible with and follows from EGI as described by Salter. Northern Europeans tend to be more closely related to each other than they are to other Europeans. In the US case, it is obvious that the descendants of the original colonists should prefer British, German, or Scandinavian immigrants to Italian or Greek immigrants.

In practical terms, the “Nordicist” cause is advanced by individuals of northern European ancestry reproducing with, and where possible, living around and doing business with, those of like background. In most of the US, this is not difficult. S/E euro immigrants are still concentrated largely where the steamship operators put them ashore, with a few other pockets throughout the US.

There is no more reason for the Nordicist to give up hope just because it is unlikely that Italians and Greeks will be repatriated in the near future than there is for white nationalists to despair because Negroes are unlikely to be deported anytime soon.

Posted by ben tillman on January 17, 2006, 09:11 PM | #

To flesh that out a bit…an economic view of man makes him into a commodity, which in turn makes the world into Wal-Mart.

But where does that economic view of man come from?

Posted by Voice on January 17, 2006, 10:36 PM | #

Instead of beating around the bush I will give my 2 cents..

Europeans-Alpines, Mediterraneans and Nordics have to stick together for fortress Europe. Squabbling is pointless as it stupid. This doesn’t mean Slavs should replace Ancient Anglo-Saxon and Celtic populations in the UK because they are cheaper to employ.

But speaking generally, intra european breeding has no massive impact on European Subracial groups unless on a massive scale

I think it is a pretty safe bet Italian Mediterranean’s won’t move in mass to Scotland .

Saying that, I always laugh when I see a Mediterranean Irish hybrid in the US talk about their Irish heritage. They have no idea how Mediterranean they are and how that genetic stock can to Ireland.

Once racial consciousness is achieved again in the mass European populace(made to feel proud of it as it already naturally there) then the ethnocentrentrism will flow naturally and harmlessly in European Sub groups.

The US is a different matter. I have lived in the US most of my life and Europe for ten years and have seen in many parts of the US there is a process of hybridisation that is creating a Caucosoidal European that differs slightly but noticeably from distinct European sub-racial groups.

Yes, the Midwest is Germanic and the South is Scot-Irish while the Northeast begins to take on a Mediteranean character(note:not New England), but there is a hybridisation process between different European sub racial groups.

The point I making here is a Swede in Europe should think of himself as a Nordic but Swede/Irish/German/Italian mix in Minnesota should get a grip and start to look at his European American Genetic interests. If his forefathers arrived in the US and wanted to stay purely Nordic then they should have stayed at home!

Realistically, if we achieved Freedom of Association in the USA then European sub racial groups may begin to create Ethnic enclaves within a European American land area naturally ,but harmlessly ,adding to a real diversity that I would have no problem with.

Posted by Kubilai on January 17, 2006, 11:36 PM | #

I see Voice (of reason) as well as the other commenters here make quite reasonable points. I also see Desmond still banging on the Nordicist drum against the mangy curs and I do think Phil is probably correct that ole DJ yearns for the years gone by. Yet I don’t see DJ making any type of stink in his Hogtown about even tempering immigration, let alone promoting Nordicism. LOL He knows where that would get him amongst his own kind.

I’ve made my point known before. I would not want England to be full of Greeks, or Italians, or Slavs because it would not be England. I would respect the wishes of the populace if that is what THEY wanted in something like a 4/5th majority vote. A simple majority should not suffice. This goes for all of Europe, in my opinion of such things.

I also do not agree with GW when he states…

I find something vaguely offensive in the notion that I, as an Anglo-Saxon, have some special privileges of race

He does not have a special privilege of race, but does have one for being an Anglo-Saxon. Most here on this site are Anglos, though some are not. All have rich histories from their ancient homelands and all should be proud of it. I don’t think GW or anyone should attempt to apologize for their Anglo roots, despite Desmond’s yelpings. What’s sad is we are in our darkest hours and need to be collective while maintaining the idea of distinctiveness and all Desmond can think of is fighting the fight of ten wars back. He doesn’t seem to be bothered that England’s major cities are inundated with Blacks, Asians, and Pakis. That’s no problem, however someone comes at him with a slice of pizza or a souvlaki, he fucking flips. LOL Yeesh…

Posted by John J Ray on January 18, 2006, 12:17 AM | #

Poles are fine Christian people
I have known many of them
And lots of very attractive blonde women among them
Just don’t try to follow Polish pronunciation rules

Posted by ben tillman on January 18, 2006, 01:28 AM | #

Liberalism (in the broadest sense) reduces individuals to atomised individuals, each pursuing their own wants.

But homo economicus predates the advent of liberalism, at least as I believe you understand it. In fact, liberalism would seem to be more a result than a cause of the advent of homo economicus.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 18, 2006, 07:10 AM | #

Aren’t we looking at those populations under dispute in the white world actually Mediterrannean? ... fall most neatly under Atlanto-Meditrannean ...

Those terms are not valid genetic categories. People can post Madison Grant’s maps here all they want, but these classifications do not correlate to biological reality. Iberians and Greeks are both considered Mediterranean in these classifications, but are genetically distinct. I’m not interested in what someone thinks they look like, and what someone thinks they look like is not relevant to EGI.

John Ray contributes by telling us that Poles are fine Christian people who have a lot of blondes. Again, completely irrelevant from the standpoint of EGI.

Desmond and his associate “American-American” (an Amerindian?) promote the “Nordicist” view. Both engage in “slippery slope”, but since racial genetic differentiation has now been shown to be clustered as well as clinal, with the major clusters so far being at the continental level, one cannot equate intra-continental, intra-racial sympathy and mating with that of inter-continental and inter-racial. Effects on genetic structure would most likely amplify these differences. And so it begins, indeed ... Who “began it?”

Yes, “Nordicism” could be compatible with EGI, as long as one looks at genetic, and not phenotypic, definitions of these categories. But since AA and DJ like to play “slippery slope”, then why should English-Americans not attempt to promote their EGI against German-, Dutch-, Irish-, and Scandanavian-Americans as well? They are genetically distinct. Looking at Greek vs. Irish in Salter’s chart brings my eyes to the Finnish-Irish value of 6.0, which is less than the EC/NEC value of 8.5 (and note there are no data there comparing NEC to Irish, so it may well be less than 8.5 for that specific comparison). How about those Icelanders, who are considered to be Nordic? And, why should Anglo-Americans tolerate those Germans among them?

Salter in his book actually refers to the situation in America with the tern “white Americans”, likely for the reasons that follow from the above. KMacD, a proponent of Salter, also has made it clear in his writings (eg, his book review of Rubin at TOQ) that he favors an alliance of European-derived peoples in the USA, including those that AA sneers were dropped off by the “steamships.” Since the genetic cut-off can be made at various points along the continuum (as KmacD makes the point in his integrative ethnicity essay, on his website, where he also favors a broader approach), one needs to decide where and why. Just invoking EGI is not enough. Salter also brings up Huntington’s civilizational divisions (which roughly approximate racial divides) as a possible starting point for decisions on EGI concentration - although he does not openly endorse it.

I believe that GW’s point was not that Italians in England have the same rights as Englishman, and only a mendacious or semi-retarded reading of GW’s comment can come away with that. GW is saying that all groups have the right to pursue their EGI. In fact, if MR is a “pan-western” enterprise, then concern for EGI can be “pan-western” as well. There should be no Italians in England, but didn’t GW mention his clients in Italy?

Mark, if a narrower principle will work in Canada, then I sure wish DJ would go ahead and show us, as he was challenged to do months ago. In fact, the narrower principle, in the European diaspora, has always failed,

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 18, 2006, 03:50 PM | #

Desmond, I explained this to you about two weeks ago. There has been too much interbreeding between different white races for there to be a distincive Nordic or Slav race. Those slavs coming across are largely the descendants of the Kievan Rus, a.k.a. Vikings.

The medieval world had plenty of intra-Europe immigration, even economic immigration (see Dutch traders resident in London for instance). Whilst there must obviously be limits, it is a radical and unprecedented (and revolutionary) step to abolish all intra-Europe immigration.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find Desmond adorable, sort of a mirror-image liberal: both can’t quite tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Papua New Guinean.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 18, 2006, 04:47 PM | #

It appears that the US already strongly identifies by ancestry and it is reflected in a homogeneous geographic distribution.

Posted by AA on January 18, 2006, 06:12 PM | #

Rienzi wrote: But since AA and DJ like to play “slippery slope”, then why should English-Americans not attempt to promote their EGI against German-, Dutch-, Irish-, and Scandanavian-Americans as well?

I support the right of those of, for example, colonial British ancestry to reproduce with others of similar ancestry. But, fact is, most NW European derived Americans have significant ancestry from more than one country.

In Europe, co-nationals tend to be genetically similar to each other. But, it is likely Germans from Schleswig-Holstein are more closely related to Danes than they are to Bavarians. It’s entirely possible East Anglians are more closely related to Danes than Cornishmen. In the US, international breeding among those of NW European descent is not necessarily more damaging to EGI than intranational-interregional breeding.

They are genetically distinct. Looking at Greek vs. Irish in Salter’s chart brings my eyes to the Finnish-Irish value of 6.0, which is less than the EC/NEC value of 8.5

Big surprise. Everyone who’s read C-S knows Finns are outliers on the markers he analyzed. (By the way, Finns are not Scandinavians.)

How about those Icelanders, who are considered to be Nordic?

Neutral genetic variation is not god. By definition, neutral genetic variation means all of shit in the real world. Functionally, Icelanders seem to be entirely compatible with their fellow N. Europeans, as they should be. Genetic drift is expected in a small population that has experienced minimal gene flow since the Viking age.

And, why should Anglo-Americans tolerate those Germans among them?

If you knew anything about US history, you’d know that quite a few didn’t. But more did, and Germans haved proved reasonably assimilable.

Salter in his book actually refers to the situation in America with the tern “white Americans”, likely for the reasons that follow from the above.

Yes, a “white American” ethnic group exists. It consists of the descendants of the original colonists/settlers and the mainly NW European elements that have assimilated into this American racial mainstream. In general, S. Italians are not part of the mainstream. They view themselves and are viewed by others as distinct. And, no, the occasional crossing with Irish does not constitute assimilation.

KMacD, a proponent of Salter, also has made it clear in his writings (eg, his book review of Rubin at TOQ) that he favors an alliance of European-derived peoples in the USA, including those that AA sneers were dropped off by the “steamships.”

MacDonald has written about the differences between those adapted to N. Europe and those adapted to the M.E. It stands to reason that your kind are intermediate between N. Europeans and Jews in many traits MacDonald considers important. The choice MacDonald gave in the Rubin review is a false one. The northern European ethnic groups he mentions have already largely assimilated into a white American identity. Italians retain a seperate identity. Even mixed Italians, like Jews, tend to identify more with the “ethnic” portion of their ancestry.

What’s with the scare quotes around “steamships”? Your grandparents swam from Sicily?

I believe that GW’s point was not that Italians in England have the same rights as Englishman, and only a mendacious or semi-retarded reading of GW’s comment can come away with that. GW is saying that all groups have the right to pursue their EGI.

How daring. Number one, I suggest you let GW speak for himself. Number two, if your interpretation is correct, GW was arguing against a strawman. I haven’t seen anyone suggest mass N. European immigration to Italy, while quite a few Italians seem to think they have a right to immigrate to N. European countries.

There should be no Italians in England

I couldn’t agree more. How do you feel about Italians in America?

Posted by Phil on January 18, 2006, 06:18 PM | #

Phil, I don’t agree. If there are Canadians who identify as northern Europeans and wish to preserve this identity, then why not seek to organise on this basis?

Mark,

At a time when we cannot even get half the white majority to vote against non-white immigration, where is this movement going to go? While we squabble amongst ourselves, our countries will disappear under a tide of aliens.

I don’t like losing, Mark. I want to win and I want our nations to survive in their present form - as they are, despite their imperfections. I am not against the principle of saving Nordic races in Europe - which would mean limiting non-Nordic immigration to Nord nations in Europe. That is a workable proposition in Europe.

But trying to split up Americans and Canadians into Nords and Non-nords when many whites have an ancestor from both groups is not going to work. It may work in Australia though. And if does Mark, good luck to you guys. Im not recommending that nations that are Nordic be made non-nordic through non-nordic race replacement immigration. I don’t want Iceland to look like Hungary and vice versa. But that is a distant second in terms of the battles we need to fight.

Question for GW and Phil: Are you two fully English? Are your wives?

I don’t trumpet this but if you insist on knowing, I am throughly English by ancestry. There are no Scot, Welsh or Irish ancestors in the family tree so far as I am aware. I am still in my twenties and I am unmarried. My girlfriend is also English, if you insist on asking.

Posted by Phil on January 18, 2006, 06:35 PM | #

I know Greeks and Italians who have willingly assimilated, but I know many, even third generation, who use the word “skip” as an insult. There are plenty of “skips” out there, including myself, who have suffered beatings at the hands of “ethnic” Australians (there is an unfortunate pattern of drunk Anglo men being beaten up by “ethnic” bouncers at nightclubs, the most prominent case being that of cricketer David Hookes who was recently killed by a bouncer whilst attempting to leave a Melbourne pub.)

I didn’t know that.

Was the guy who beat David Hookes, Greek or Italian? The death of David Hookes was a tragedy. He was a gutsy bloke who had his jaw fractured by Andy Roberts but still came back to clobber the West Indian quicks. A true Aussie hero.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 18, 2006, 06:39 PM | #

Alex,

If the PNG lives in Chirac’s France he is French. That’s the trouble.

American-American,

Yes, fully English. Wife, too. Our daughter is blond and blue-eyed. My father’s family name derives from Old English, which is the first local transmogrification from Saxon. My mother’s derives from French. The family rumour is that they came over with William and, certainly, were gentry, with their own coat of arms, in Elizabeth Tudor’s time. So I think I pass the test.

The reason I am cold towards McCulloughism is because it has no application whatever in Europe and is divisive and arguably irrelevant in North America.

I’ll expand on that. In Europe we are, say, Anglo or German or Dutch or Greek first, second and third, and only European a long way after that. I can recognise national types in Germany and Holland that don’t arise at all in England. Desmond speaks of sympathy as out-group altruism. To me it is the emotional force of my English particularism. But I can recognise a shared destiny with Germans and Dutch and with all Europeans. It does not imply any cost to my EGI.

In America and Canada identity is obviously more problematic. You may, of course, identify as something called Nordish and claim whiteness to yourself. But it is artificial - nothing more than a response to the loss of such distinctiveness as still obtains in Europe. And it doesn’t matter that this distinctiveness may be largely cultural in some European countries rather than genetic. People take identity by the armfull if it is really there to be taken.

So my recommendation to Americans and Canadians would be: by all means know thyself and particularise accordingly - but recognise the limits of its efficacy for you. The greater battle is not for possession of whiteness but for its survival, and allies in that cause from every part of old Europe are still allies, for all their Mediterranean or Slavic traits.

Posted by Phil on January 18, 2006, 06:46 PM | #

Mark,

On the subject of White inter-ethnic strife, US history is full of it. And mind you, the strife wasn’t limited to Northern vs Eastern/Southern Europeans only. In the initial years there was friction between WASPs and Irish Catholics and WASPs formed the Know Nothing Party to stop all Irish immigration. There was also a great deal of resentment against German immigration. Anti-German feelings ran strong for a very long time in the WASP strongholds.

There is an interesting book on this, “Destination America” by Maldwyn Jones. Unfortunately, the man is a dyed in the wool liberal who sees nothing wrong with any immigrant no matter where he’s from and the evil “nativists” are always at fault. But for all of that, he does chronicle the conflicts quite well.

I will also grant that your perspective may be skewed by the Australian experience. I mean look at America - the best and the most solid Conservatives in the Establishment, men like Tancredo, judge in waiting Sam Alito, Scalia are all Italians. On the other hand, you have Irish Americans like Sandra Day O’Connor and Ted Kennedy who are firmly for endless liberalism. So times change, people change.

I am for pragmatism. I am neither completely opposed to Nordicism nor completely in favour of it. It depends on time and place.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 18, 2006, 07:16 PM | #

One thing I note is that people against the promotion of white racial interests and the preservation of western civilization (as we understand it) constantly emphasize, pick at, and amplify intra-white differences in a transparent attempt to promote nationalist infighting and to prevent the coalescence of a united white front against racial dispossession. There are countless examples of this; one particularly juvenile attempt is from an online “anti-racist” screed called “Racist Tricks”, which included the following gem:

“Reality: Racist terrorists have been trying to start a race war for decades and have failed miserably. This was The Order’s and Timothy McVeigh’s goal and the dream of every two-bit Klansman, but it will never happen. America is a melting pot nation. Most “white” people have heritage that includes Africans, Irish, Mexicans, Native Americans, Italians, Greeks, Jews, and many other non-Aryans. The die-hard Nazis believe that anyone who isn’t blonde-haired and blue-eyed will be the enemy in a race war. The REALITY is that if there were a race war, the majority of white Americans would fight AGAINST the racists, as would the rest of the people of Earth.”

Thus, Irish, Greeks, and Italians are together with Africans, Mexicans, Native Americans, and Jews as being on the same side of a “race war” against “die-hard Nazis” who want to kill anyone who is not blonde and blue-eyed. It is ludicrous, yes, and a very extreme example of my point, but instructive nonetheless. These people *want* the issue to be one of white ethnics (including the Irish??!!!) vs. other whites, and they want to promote the idea - a caricature of Nordicism that gains minute credibility given some strains of extreme Nordicism - that everyone and anyone who is not a blonde/blue Nordic is the enemy in a race war. Other people are of course a bit more subtle, including Sailer, the GNXPers, more mature “anti-racists”, and, of course, Hollywood and their unique casting choices and ethnic stereotyping. The aim though is always the same: divide and conquer.

Now, some important points have to be made. The fact that our racial foes use our differences against us of course does not logically imply that these differences are illusory or that they are unimportant.

No one says that. Nor is there a logical imperative to pursue a particular course of action solely because it goes against the wishes of the other side. No one says that either.

However, the point being made here is important and cannot be ignored. There is a reason why the enemies of white preservation stress division and rub salt in the wounds of the infighting about these topics that has unfortunately plagued nationalist activity for so long. I can assure everyone that these people are not interested in Nordics or in Anglo-Celtic EGI, just as the French who promoted Bavarian separatism did not do so out of an interest in Bavarian EGI and South German interests. No, the French agenda was to weaken the German nation, just as the aim of these others is to weaken white solidarity. True enough, Bavarians indeed have their own narrow interests and those should not be ignored, just as we should not ignore narrower concerns within the broader scope of white interests. But it is a grave strategic mistake to err in the identification of the real threat, a grave error to eschew broader interests and focus solely on those more narrow.

The main threat we face is racial/civilizational, and while every course of action needs to be evaluated on its own merits, the fact that our most bitter enemies in this struggle for survival keep on stressing our divisions should give us pause to those who would base their predominant agenda on these internal differences.

In any case, this debate has gone on here in the past, and I do not expect to convince anyone who thinks differently. Although, my previous comment that everyone should go ahead and promote the interests of the group they identify with, stands.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 18, 2006, 07:19 PM | #

What people answer to a specific census question may not be reflective of what they identify with through their interactions with others. More to the point: I’m more interested in prescriptive argument than descriptive. Lots of young whites think inter-racial relations are fine, that’s descriptive. I propose a different view, based on genetic interests and the organic solidarity of the group, my proposals are prescriptive.

And here is something descriptive: the average American, from my personal experience, is a complete ignoramous on ethnic/racial matters. They may know what their own ethnic ancestry is - but you’d be surprised by cases of ignorance in this regard - but they are far from knowing what that means in the context of biopolitics.

Posted by Kubilai on January 18, 2006, 08:24 PM | #

Can other Europeans assimilate racially? In general, I’d answer yes. But it seems to me that there are exceptions, and that some southern and south-eastern Europeans are genetically distant enough for assimilation to be problematic. - Mark Richardson

Mark, I think this is primarily an Australian perception. It is only from Aussie’s mouths that I have heard…“in Australia, we are quite diverse. We have Greeks, Italians, Germans” and the like. I’ve heard this on more than one occasion and from more than one Australian. Therefore I have to presume that the distinction is significant and is large enough in Australia to be a “sore point”. If someone is always telling you that you are “just not quite equal”, then it builds resentment. In the US and Canada, there is no such distinction. Hell in Canada, EVERYONE is Canadian no matter what SPECIES!

As a person whose parents experienced significant discrimination after immigrating to North America, I can attest that the hurt runs deep for many people. The reason it is not a huge problem in North America any longer is due to the fact that there is a “white” identity for the most part and most fall into it. However, if there is still emphatic distinctions being made in Australia about European regional origins, then I’m sure there is reason for this continued resentment and antagonism you speak of. I’ve never been to Australia to see first hand, though I have a rough idea.

I can understand where you’re coming and your more than a little frustration with it. However the point remains. As to your defense of Desmond, Desmond is divisive firstly and secondly his hatred is clear when he refers to Southern Europeans as “curs”. So I do not think the criticism of him is over the top. He is a bitter fool who has much larger fish to fry and he should start with his homeland of Canada where in a few short years, whites will be a minority, even if you include all the curs from the South.

Posted by Matra on January 18, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

I’ve said before that I think all people of European Christian origins should unite and in that respect I disagree with Desmond. However, I can’t say I blame him if he is indeed bitter towards other ethnic Europeans.

It was the Ukrainians and Italians who started the ball rolling on multiculturalism. Once Ukrainians got their language taught in Saskatchewan public schools, Italians and other immigrants started making their own demands. If I’m not mistaken, it was southern European immigrants who first started complaining about schools doing IQ testing because, you see, IQ tests are biased against immigrants. Ukrainians whose parents and grandparents were spared the Holodomor under Stalin are still bitching about internment in WWI. Just a few months ago there was a TV drama about the suffering of Italians in Canada during WWII with the Canadian WASPs as bad guys. The non-Europeans of today did not invent victimology, though they’ve certainly taken it to a new level.

Where I live it is about 90% Anglo-Celtic/Saxon/Germanic and the few Poles, Italians and Greeks here have completely integrated. But in the cities the European ethnics are more likely to form their own communities. I’m hoping that over time they will realise that we have to stick together, but I won’t hold my breath. Every time spokesmen for the National Council of Italian Canadians or the Hellenic organisations open their mouths they babble on about diversity being our strength and how Canada must remain multicultural: in other words we must continue to weaken white Anglo-Canada. In that respect Canada is just like Australia: everyone gangs up on the Anglos.

Posted by Matra on January 18, 2006, 11:24 PM | #

Kubilai -

Mark, I think this is primarily an Australian perception. It is only from Aussie’s mouths that I have heard…“in Australia, we are quite diverse. We have Greeks, Italians, Germans” and the like. I’ve heard this on more than one occasion and from more than one Australian. Therefore I have to presume that the distinction is significant and is large enough in Australia to be a “sore point”. If someone is always telling you that you are “just not quite equal”, then it builds resentment. In the US and Canada, there is no such distinction. Hell in Canada, EVERYONE is Canadian no matter what SPECIES!

It’s no different in Canada. Here, the Greeks, Portuguese, Italians and others have their own TV programmes and channels, flags from the old country all over their neighbourhoods, and they insist they are “Italian” or whatever. When Greece played Canada at the international basketball tournament held in Toronto in 1994 Greek-Canadians taunted the Canadian players and a couple of their fans tore up Canadian flags for the TV cameras. As I said in the last post some also hold grudges against Anglo-Canada for things that happened nearly a century ago. We’ve got a long way to go before we’ll be united.

Kubilai -

As a person whose parents experienced significant discrimination after immigrating to North America, I can attest that the hurt runs deep for many people.

I’m an immigrant too. We all go through that stuff. I spoke with a different accent from all the other kids at the numerous New Zealand and Canadian schools I attended and, at first, was called names, picked on and got into the occasional fight. I consider it an initiation rite. I feel no bitterness - though it might be easier for kids.

The hurt also runs deep among quite a few Anglo-Canadians at what has happened to their country. But they aren’t allowed to have the organisations that “ethnic Europeans”, Jews, and non-whites have to represent their concerns: that would be racist!

European Canadians of non-British backgrounds need to join with old stock Canadians of British heritage in defence of our civilisation. By believing in multiculturalism they are dividing us and playing into the hands of those who would bury us all.

Posted by Kubilai on January 19, 2006, 12:07 AM | #

Matra,

You bring up a good point and I thought about it after I wrote to Mark. It is true that all ethnicities hold onto their original designation in Canada, except the Anglos and French who state they are Canadian or Quebecois. What I was trying to state is that in Canada, I do not believe that in a group of European sub-races, one would consider that “diverse” but more “white” and “Canadian”. In Australia, they outwardly state that as “diversity”. It struck me as odd the first I heard it because I view Europeans outside of Europe as white. Within Europe, then yes, a diverse group of people.

As for this promotion of separate ethnicities and TV programs, I’m Greek and I don’t watch that shit. I know I a lot who do however. I blame the Trudeau monstrosity of a “cultural mosaic” that has allowed NO loyalty to Canada. That was never the case in the US where people were expected to assimilate and hold a greater loyalty to it as opposed to their original country of origin. Many relatives that live in the US are completely blended in and are American. That is where Canada and maybe Australia went wrong. I don’t know.

Posted by jonjayray on January 19, 2006, 12:12 AM | #

I think the sepate identity of “wogs” in Australia that Mark refers to is dying out. I remember it how it was 50 years ago and I know how it is now and there is a huge difference. Southern Europeans DO still feel some loyalty to their “old country” but the younger generation at least see themselves as primarily Australians. And Christian Lebanese are the same.

It is Muslims who are the problem groups.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 11:14 AM | #

Concerning assimilation ...

Given the complexities of ethnic identification and reporting, it is not possible to ascertain 100%, absolutely accurate measures of everyone in the USA, over time, for single vs. mixed ethnic origin. However, it is possible for researchers to sift through the census and other demographic data to produce estimates of the proportion of outmarriages and single origin vs. multiple origin persons of different ethnic groups, in America, over time. One study (Perlmann, 2000) attempted this with Italian-Americans, most of whom derive ancestry from the southern half of that nation.

The study showed that each generation of “Italian-Americans” exhibited a greater proportion of multiple-origin individuals. By the fourth generation, only ~ 8% of “Italian-Americans” were of unmixed parentage. Percentages for the third generation were compared to that of Germans, Irish, and Poles, and the proportions for each were similar. In fact, even the older Mexican influx showed comparable rates of multiple origins as the European-derived ethnies.

The following excerpts are from a 1995 article in “Public Interest” by R.D. Alba, an article that contains quantitative data, similar to the Perlmann study. Based on these data:-

Intermarriage has had an especially deep impact on the groups from southern and eastern Europe. This is partly because their smaller size (in comparison, say, with the German ancestry group) makes them more vulnerable to what is called “out-marriage.” It may also be due to their concentration in regions of the nation where ethnic diversity is greater among whites (the Northeast compared to the South, for instance), increasing the likelihood that they will have close relationships with individuals of diverse backgrounds ... Intermarriage has attained, by any standard, very high levels among the Italians and Poles, the two groups in the table from southern and eastern Europe. Close to three-quarters of the younger Italians have spouses without Italian ancestry; for Poles, the equivalent figure is higher still.

If “three-quarters of the younger Italians have spouses without Italian ancestry”, this would indicate high levels of assimilative intermarriage; the article also states the obvious that the partners in these marriages (other white groups are considered as well) are coming from other European ethnic groups; rates of inter-racial marriage are low.

The article also provides information on the break-up of ethnic neighborhoods and the fact that the younger generations do not speak the “mother tongue.” Rates of college attendance for white ethnics are shown to approximate those of older white American stocks. Together with the Perlmann study, this underscores that there is no basis to talk of a lack of assimilation.

Based on available data, there is no evidence that Italian assimilation in America has been in any way limited, or less than that of NW European groups such as Germans or Irish. These data match earlier studies of R.D. Alba, who came to similar conclusions about assimilation rates of Italians and other white ethnics in America.

Whether or not Finns are considered to be Scandinavian or not is irrelevant, and I did not state that they were. They are Northern European, and that they are outliers is in fact the point; the Greeks as well are outliers. What Icelanders’ “function” has to do with EGI I don’t know, unless one considers functional genes, rather than phenotypes, and assumes the overall distinctive pattern of the former correlates with physical appearance. Salter does seem to concern himself with functional genes, the frequencies of which have not been extensively quantitated between ethnies in a broad sense. I have previously commented on the fact that functional genes cannot constitute the totality of genetic interests, since other genes contribute to distinctive information as well. There is some confusion in Salter’s book on this topic, that needs to be clarified in future editions.

Whether changes in genetic interests derive from drift or from other processes is not relevant, as Salter himself states (thus adding a bit to the confusion), what’s important is the final state of total distinctive gene frequencies.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 11:35 AM | #

I’ll reproduce some relevant numbers from the 1995 Alba study, based on his sifting through the demographic data. These numbers are from the 1956-1965 cohort, and measure the percentages of marriage to spouses that are: fully of the same ancestry, partially of the same ancestry, and not of the same ancestry at all. Ethnic groups are ordered by size, with Germans being the largest of the ethnic groups in the census, Poles being the smallest, which can assist in estimating effects of group size on the percentages (chances of finding same/different spouses).

German: 22.6, 25.6, 51.8

Irish: 12.7, 22.4, 64.9

English: 17.1, 20.4, 61.9

Italian: 15.0, 11.7, 73.3

French: 12.1, 10.0, 77.9

Scots/Scots-Irish: 7.0, 10.8, 82.1

Polish: 7.6, 8.3, 84.1

These data indicate high levels of inter-European marriages in all cases, including the Italians and Poles.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2006, 01:53 PM | #

That’s all well and good for Italians like you JW, however, that still portends the destruction or disappearance of northern ethnies whose phenotype depends on recessive genes. If GW’s blonde, blue-eyed daughter really wishes to replicate her genetic structure in her offspring marriage with a southern European (especially a Greek) is suicidal. Only isolation will ensure the survival of those traits.

Darwin, of course, predicted this outcome, in his Descent of Man.

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

The prescription then, Doctor, is that the random Englishmen or whatever, should sacrifice his EGI and be happy with a random European EGI. That is presuming you can stop non-European immigration.

For northen Europeans, it is still essentially ethny nihilism. It denies their value and importance. The very people who originated the system of governance and laws are expected to blissfully meld into this new ‘white’ America. And this despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence to show such an amalgamation will have any better success denying NE immigration. In fact the opposite is true. Quebec or Austria are examples of how a cohesive homogeneous effort is more effective in the the fight for ethnic survival.

Darwin will be proven right once more,

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility. If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 19, 2006, 02:39 PM | #

I’ve not yet read all the recent posts here but I do wish to add something now anyways: consider that starting from a more radical position allows for more flexibility.

For example, if one starts from Desmond’s position and compromises, one might end up at a pan-European compromise. If one starts from a pan-European position and compromises, one might end up at a less savory compromise.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 19, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

In other words, I think extending the bounds of acceptable debate on this issue as far out as possible is generally a good thing.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 19, 2006, 02:45 PM | #

Desmond, there you go again, with your Nordic fantasies I’m sorry to break this to you, but if you’re an Anglo, you’re probably not Nordic, but a mixture of Nordic, Celtic, German, and Norman. Happily, those Slavs coming across just happen to be part Nordic and Teutonic aswell. England does not have a distinct racial identity (apart from a broad white one), but a cultural one.

Those English (presumably) law-givers that you venerate-sorry, close but no cigar. The barons that forced the Magna Carta onto John were of partlyNorman descent.

Posted by Matra on January 19, 2006, 04:50 PM | #

This Scot certainly doesn’t like Eastern European immigrants.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2006, 04:51 PM | #

Let’s accept your position Alex. Anglos are ‘Nordic, Celtic, German, and Norman’. Not really a disparate group even according to Salter’s chart. Why, if in fact the pursuit of EGI is paramount, should it be extended to say, the Portugese.

What benefit accrues?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 19, 2006, 04:59 PM | #

Alex,

There has been a study demonstrating a rather more tightly clustered English lineage than previously suspected. I’m sorry I don’t have the details to hand but doubtless others do. We are not the mongrel race many people need, for obvious reasons, to make us out to be. We will, of course, become so if present trends persist.

My point on this thread is simply that, yes, genetic diversity should be preserved. Desmond is right in that and few here would argue. It is a proper interest, in fact, for all peoples. It’s slightly tough on Slavs outside the the Slavic lands and Germanics outside their lands. But that’s just Nature.

Those Englishmen and women who live far away in other lands and who reject what Desmond terms “a random European EGI” need not venture down the liars path of expropriating whiteness for themselves. There have a simple solution. COME HOME. We certainly need you.

If you prefer the social and economic freedoms and the exciting scale of Canada and America, don’t complain about the racial consequences ... and take whatever help you can get to fight off the tsunami from the Third World.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2006, 05:01 PM | #

A measure of integration in Canada is outlined by a chart entitled Top 10 ethnic origins(1), based on total responses, Canada, 2001 and 1996. Identifying as Canadian has increased ~8 points from 1996. Where does it comes from? English, French, Scottish, Irish and a bit from the Germans. Italians and Ukrainians reporting is largely unchanged.

As for intermarriage,

In both 1996 and 2001, roughly the same number of people (18.3 million) reported only one ethnic origin as their ancestry. They accounted for 64% of the total population in 1996 and 62% in 2001.

What changed, however, was the number of people reporting more than one ethnic ancestry. In 2001, 11.3 million people, or 38% of the population, reported multiple ethnic origins, up from 10.2 million, or 36%, in 1996. In 1991, 7.8 million people reported multiple ancestries, as did 7.0 million in 1986.

People more likely to report multiple origins include those from European backgrounds whose ancestors have lived in Canada for several generations, especially groups such as the Irish, Scottish, English, French and Scandinavian.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 19, 2006, 05:09 PM | #

The Portugese, Desmond? You mean the descendants of the Teutonic Visigoths?

I’m not saying that Englishman=Portugese (or =German or =Slav or =whatever). However, the purely racial, genetic differences are limited. There’s been too much movement of European peoples and interbreeding between them. The differences between the European peoples are primarely cultural.

Wouid you expect a German to feel more affinity for a Greek (belonging to what you call the Med race) or for an Aryan Indian? If the former, why? Is it, perchance, because pursuit of EGI is not the sole good?

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2006, 05:10 PM | #

Why should England have the right to preserve its founding peoples and Canada not, GW? Why is complaining about the racial consequences inappropriate? As Matra has eloquently pointed out, there is little or no assistance from other European groups who ally themselves with non-Europeans and aid and abet that cause.

I am home!

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

Is it, perchance, because pursuit of EGI is not the sole good?

Then make the case, Alex.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 19, 2006, 05:16 PM | #

Personally, I’ll stick with the Anglo identity, though I’m happy to extend it to people who can conceivably assimilate both culturally and racially-Mark

Read my defintion, posted the last time this discussion started, of an Englishman as being a white who is loyal to England and assimilated into English culture. It seems we agree.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 19, 2006, 05:46 PM | #

Alright, Desmond. Most people feel affinity for others based not solely on race, but also on religion, on culture, on occupation.

Imagine a typical hippie-type white. A pagan, a hater of Western culture and exalter of tribal African rock-painting, and a proffesional dropout. You would no doubt feel less affinity for him than for another, equally Nordic, individual: a devout Christian, expert on Anglo-Saxon literature, and sturdy academic. In short, you’d feel more affinity for Tolkien than for Peter Hain. Both are equally white, as far as you know. Hence, race cannot be the only source of dis/affiliation.

So, next to EGI there must be CI (cultural interest), RI (religious interest), etc, etc.

Or do you feel as much affinity for Peter Hain as for any poster on this site? Please answer this question.

Posted by Phil on January 19, 2006, 05:55 PM | #

Desmond,

Even if we extend the preservation principle to Canada, what about America? I have yet to meet any white Americans who claim to have a proper understanding of their ethnic origins - other than Irish Americans and even with them they often downplay the admixture with other ethnies. One particularly vehement “Irish” lad would not discuss the fact that his family also had German and Italian ancestors in the family tree. The Irish bit was the one that received the greatest emphasis.

If you think this kind of thing is going to work in America, you are barmy.

Posted by Voice on January 19, 2006, 06:08 PM | #

Desmond,

I don’t think anyone is stating they want to import Greeks, Italians, Slavs etc to decimate the UK Genotype.

What we are saying is that for political purposes in the US and Canada it is unrealistic to break up “white” category into European Sub-races.

Once we get immigration stopped in Europe different European Sub-races for the most part will stay where they are. In the US we need racial consciousness and Freedom of Association as guaranteed by the Constitution, then if sub-racial enclaves erupt then so be it.

Although the UK is a distinct genotype it has to be said that a hybridisation process has been underway for a couple of thousand years melting in all different Europeans, i.e study posted on MR a couple of weeks ago that showed 95% 3rd century londoners having roman chin!

The debate is important to have, but what I am stating is a global and politically workable solution that won’t ostracize different groups of Europeans that share our history, cultures and genetic similarities is paramount to the cause.

On a lighter note from a US perspective, if the brother in the ghetto says “kill that honkey” then that person is white!

Italians, Greeks, Mediterranean Irish and Nordics all pass the test!

Posted by Guessedworker on January 19, 2006, 06:22 PM | #

Desmond,

Canada is lost. Its function now is to model for us what lies ahead unless we change in ways the Canadians shown no inclination to do.

Alex,

Much trite usage of this word, assimilation, is splashed around, because it is in the interests of so many people to keep the definition as loose as possible.

In this respect England and Englishness are always spoken of as kinds of capacious, elasticated bags. It is as if nobody wants to say anything than may fall harshly on the ears of the oppressed. This is deeply dishonest.

Englishness is NOT cultural. It is not a club that people who have learnt to speak and to live more or less like us automatically join. It is not bestowed by the act of living here for a certain time, or by “acceptance” by friends and neighbours, or by marriage to someone truly English.

Englishness is the character of the English people

. Or it is nothing at all ... a worthless, changing thing no more substantial than a shadow falling across your face.

But it is not just nothing. It is, in the end, lineage. We all know who we are. I don’t need a genetic study to tell an English girl from even a Dutch or Swedish girl. It’s uncanny, but I can almost always name the Rose.

As for the panmixia of Europeans, I think this is partially true in France (which has, I believe, several identifiable native peoples). But it is not at all true in most of Europe, which is a settled continent. That’s plainly, phenotypically obvious.

If I was a young Englishman living in Russia or Italy I would have to find the inner resources to concede the incontrovertible fact of Russianess or Italianness. If I found myself disadvantaged thereby, however, I would be very surprised. Europeans are generous people. The way I see it, it is a fine thing to know who one is. It is no less fine to know who one is not. So, the descendent of Russians or Italians who, though he has lived all his days in England nonetheless reveres his lineage and his unique, distant heritage, does himself no service and his hosts a great disservice by denying them the same considerations themselves.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 19, 2006, 06:52 PM | #

There has been a study demonstrating a rather more tightly clustered English lineage than previously suspected. I’m sorry I don’t have the details to hand but doubtless others do.

British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 19, 2006, 07:06 PM | #

Alright, Desmond. Most people feel affinity for others based not solely on race, but also on religion, on culture, on occupation.

Imagine a typical hippie-type white. A pagan, a hater of Western culture and exalter of tribal African rock-painting, and a proffesional dropout. You would no doubt feel less affinity for him than for another, equally Nordic, individual: a devout Christian, expert on Anglo-Saxon literature, and sturdy academic. In short, you’d feel more affinity for Tolkien than for Peter Hain. Both are equally white, as far as you know. Hence, race cannot be the only source of dis/affiliation.

So, next to EGI there must be CI (cultural interest), RI (religious interest), etc, etc.

Or do you feel as much affinity for Peter Hain as for any poster on this site? Please answer this question.

I don’t want anyone to take this as me siding with Desmond’s excessive (in my view) particularism, but want to point out that you’re proffering a false dichotomy.

The hippy you propose is working contrary to his and my EGI - the fact that his EGI is similar to my own doesn’t earn him a pass.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 07:18 PM | #

That’s all well and good for Italians like you JW, however, that still portends the destruction or disappearance of northern ethnies whose phenotype depends on recessive genes.

“All well and good” is not the point of the previous comments, concerning data about intermarriage. I stated no prescriptive comment; I presented descriptive evidence, specifically in response to comments made here that Italian-Americans were not assimilating, and that intermarriage for that group was only with the “odd” Irish. How about admitting that that was incorrect - grossly incorrect?

Instead, your side moves from a descriptive argument to a prescriptive one, without even acknowledging the difference.

By the way, phenotype is not an ultimate interest. Intermarriage causes the destruction of all ethnies that participate in it.

If GW’s blonde, blue-eyed daughter really wishes to replicate her
genetic structure in her offspring marriage with a southern European
(especially a Greek) is suicidal. Only isolation will ensure the
survival of those traits.

There should only be English in England, not Greeks. And not Chinamen like Bruce Lahn either, although the presence of Asians in England doesn’t seem to bother you very much. By the way, the specifically Greek genetic structure would be disrupted by this mating as well, a good reason to preserve both a homogenous Greece, and a homogenous England. And, the specifically English genetic structure of the girl would be disrupted by mating with a Swede, although the extent of disruption would be less, given lesser genetic distance. It would still occur, though. From the standpoint of broader structures, those would not be disrupted. EGI is relative in this regard, but not purely clinal.

Darwin, of course, predicted this outcome, in his Descent of Man. As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

Ignoring of course that both human biology and culture is clustered and not purely clinal. Of course, one could invoke this statement by Darwin to argue against ethnic-national sentiment, or Nordicism, or in fact any human grouping larger than small tribes, which no longer exist.

(Continued)

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 07:20 PM | #

(Continued)

The prescription then, Doctor, is that the random Englishmen or
whatever, should sacrifice his EGI and be happy with a random European
EGI.

No one here has prescribed that for Englishmen; to assert otherwise is a lie. To turn it around as well, should the random Englishmen sacrifice his EGI with a random North European EGI?

That is presuming you can stop non-European immigration.

Which you apparently are unconcerned about. Indeed, you attack the immigration restrictionist Tancredo and defend the Chinese ethnocentrist Bruce Lahn, who lives in America. How well will GW’s daughter preserve her genetic structure with Chinamen?

The very people who originated the system of governance and laws are
expected to blissfully meld into this new ?white? America.

Based on the data, they seem to be doing so. Interesting - with non-white immigration skyrocketing, the next US election possibly being Condi vs. Hillary, and with the Mexican military crossing the border with impunity, it seems inter-European mating bothers you most of all. The people who originated the system of governance and laws in America are people of English, Welsh, Scottish, and Scots-Irish descent. With some Dutch as well. Not Germans, Swedes, Irish Catholics, Finns, or Icelanders. Should the originators of the system of government meld with members of those groups? Should they sacrifice their EGI for that? The sacrifice may be less than that for melding with Greeks, Italians, Czechs, or Poles, but real nonetheless. Or do you go back to descriptive arguments and claim that these former groups have already assimilated, which then brings us back to the Perlmann and Alba data. Or do you have a cut-off within the cline of the European genetic cluster where the sacrifice is acceptable?

And this despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence to show such an amalgamation will have any better success denying NE immigration. In fact the opposite is true. Quebec or Austria are examples of how a cohesive homogeneous effort is more effective in the the fight for ethnic survival.

Let me know when Quebec or Austria have nationalist governments, and limit immigration, much less repatriate the non-whites already there. Austria in fact is a perfect case supporting my views; by merely voting for the racial conservative Haider, the nation and its people were sanctioned. How is one white nation going to sustain a nationalist system if the rest of the west goes multicultural? If Kansas alone decided to become a white nationalist state, with the rest of America as it is now, how long will that last?

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 07:21 PM | #

Svi,

You assume that “compromises” will be made. Slippery slope arguments are not always logically valid, particularly given the civilizational divide that exists between the ‘west’ (Europeans) and others. For whom will compromises be made?

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 07:24 PM | #

“Let’s accept your position Alex. Anglos are Nordic, Celtic, German and Norman. Not really a disparate group even according to Salter’s chart. Why, if in fact the pursuit of EGI is paramount, should it be extended to say, the Portugese. What benefit accrues? “

What benefit accrues in fact from moving out from any ethny to another, even those a bit closer to other comparisons?

- Europe is the most genetically homogenous of the continents (see Fig. 7.1 in Salter’s book)

- Europe belongs to a major civilizational world-historical divide, the west. Culture is not an ultimate interest, but it strongly influences how people act in defense of ultimate interests. For example, rejecting Turkey in the EU for cultural, civilizational grounds has genetic benefits. European peoples working together to bolster their individual and collective genetic interests against the expanding non-western world is another potential example.

- All European peoples are suffering from the same demographic catastrophes - immigration, low birthrates, hostile non-western groups, etc. - thus we have genetically similar, albeit not exactly similar, populations, of the same basic culture, suffering from the same problems.

EGI can be bolstered by allying with closely related groups - particularly when doing so does not violate the organic solidarity of the group by crossing civilizational divides - and working together to bolster group fitness.

Does an Anglo-Portuguese alliance to forge a nationalist Europe violate the EGI of the Anglos? I don’t see how. Acknowledgement of the fact that both groups belong to the same civilizational group and the same broad genetic cluster (which is why they are both in that same genetic chart to begin with) does not mean that England must open its borders to Portuguese, or vice versa.

The question can be reversed - why shouldn’t intra-cluster ethnies in the same civilizational divide work together if they can do so without giving up more particularist interests?

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 19, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

Wouid you expect a German to feel more affinity for a Greek (belonging to what you call the Med race) or for an Aryan Indian?

Alex,

That’s a bad example. Even the most “caucasian” Indian is more distant from Germans than the average Greek. See Cavalli Sforza’s map for this.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 19, 2006, 07:56 PM | #

Actually there is one other point to be made in this debate: Desmond’s posts suggest that the flow of people is necessarily one way (within white nations): from Southern and Eastern Europe to Northern Europe (or nations that have been historically Northern European). This is historically true, no doubt.

But what, for example, does one make of the enormous number of Britons who now own holiday homes in Spain and France? The number of Britons owning second homes in Spain and France now runs in the thousands (I don’t have precise figures for this but the number could even run into six figures). Additionally, enormous numbers of Britons have also bought properties in Eastern Europe and many have moved around. The same would apply (to a lesser extent) to the Germans and the French too.

So clearly, the movement of European ethnicities is more random than Desmond and other Nordicists would have you believe. And the simple fact is that if one wishes to stop this altogether, it would mean putting up significant barriers to travel within Europe. Which would then mean shrinking the economies of almost all nations (some parts of Europe run their economies solely on tourism). How many people will be willing to forego their second homes in France and Spain or their holidays in Croatia? It a question that serious thinkers will need to ponder.

Unfortunately, a great many WNs and indeed almost all Nordicists I have run into have little time for the current state of European man. Ignoring that, they proceed to construct fanciful models of an ideal world.

I am not saying these things to puncture anyone’s optimism. But just to add a dose of reality to otherwise runaway hypothesising.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 19, 2006, 08:11 PM | #

I believe a problem is that the term EGI is being used without a full understanding of its relative nature, which Salter stresses repeatedly in his book.

Genetic interests are based upon - the genetic differences between peoples, the size of the populations, and the specific context of the situation, including the severity of the threat to interests, the cost/benefit ratios, etc.

Taking the Anglo-Portuguese example - the English are genetically closer to the Portuguese than they are to the immigrant groups entering Portugal in relatively high numbers, the populations involved are of significant size, and a number of things can be done that not only have minimal costs but may actually be mutually beneficial.

There has been an increasing tendency of European nationalist parties to cooperate on a number of issues; this cooperation can be mutually beneficial, without costs to each of the parties involved.

Some have invoked cultural and ideological differences here. Those are not ultimate interests, but strongly influence ultimate interests. There is a correlation between genetic clustering, inter-continental genetic distances, and the major civilizational divides discussed by Huntington (and others).

Both Mark and Matra have discussed the presence of large, unassimilated and sometimes hostile groups of European ethnics in Australia and Canada. To the extent that those exist, that’s an issue on the table, and those people obviously forfeit any identity as Australians or Canadians. However, both Mark and Matra have also noted the presence of assimilated members of those groups and have no problems with these. As already noted, assimilation in the United States is much more advanced.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on January 19, 2006, 09:18 PM | #

You assume that “compromises” will be made. Slippery slope arguments are not always logically valid, particularly given the civilizational divide that exists between the ‘west’ (Europeans) and others. For whom will compromises be made?

Actually, I was forwarding a tactic (triangulation). If the extreme “right” is pan-European RNism, then perhaps that helps the proposition-nationists, or the traditionalists, or whomever, who might otherwise form the extreme “right.” If the extreme “right” is Euro-particularist RNism, perhaps that helps the pan-European RNists.

Posted by Voice on January 19, 2006, 09:25 PM | #

Phil

this is an excellent point which I have thought about too. How about Greek and Italian Genetic interests?

Greeks are being colonised by Turks and Greek birthrate at all time low.

Italian women have some the lowest birth rates in Europe. I read somewhere that Italian are genetically a distanct Old Meditrannean group with Alpine and Nordic in the breeding pool as well. Is this not worth saving? Considering the intellectual and artistic beauty that has came out of Italy, I think it is.

Since my wife is English by Culture, and Father was Pure Italian and mother some strange Meditrannean/Celtic Mix, I begin to appreciate that Mediteranneans can be bred out just as easy.

Her cousin who phenotypically Meditrannean married a local Celt and the kids look Phenotypically Celtic with Dark hair.

Another example is I live in Nordic/Germanic minnesota and when you see a Italian named person, they usually have Blond hair with maybe larger eyes but most of Meditrannean is bred out.

I think the intelligence, personality and style that flows from these people should be cherished the most hardened Nordicist.

Don’t forget the barbarians that brought down Rome were Germanic.

It like that Monty Python skit that goes

“what did the Romans ever do for us?”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python’s_Life_of_Brian

Classic

Posted by Ethnocentrist on January 19, 2006, 09:26 PM | #

There should only be English in England, not Greeks. And not Chinamen like Bruce Lahn either, although the presence of Asians in England doesn’t seem to bother you very much.

This is my perception as well. I’d like to ask Desmond why he is so absorbed on directing his wrath at Southern Europeans when the greatest threat is coming from non-whites? I can understand his wanting to preserve Northern Europeans, however it appears to be academic if there won’t be a Northern Europe to preserve.

Posted by ben tillman on January 19, 2006, 11:30 PM | #

Few threads at MR have been plagued by as much inanity and talking-past-one-another as this one. I admit I had no interest in reading most of the comments. I did note Alex’s question, however:

Is it, perchance, because pursuit of EGI is not the sole good?

It is the sole, indeed the only good, for an ethny. Similarly, the good for each individual is his IGI (individual genetic interest, which corresponds, I suppose, to his “inclusive fitness”). For the life of me, I can’t figure how such an erudite man as Desmond can so readily merge his IGI into his EGI yet so vehemently reject any collective or communal genetic interest relating to the next concentric circle.

The whole point of EGI is that members of an ethny tend to share genetic interest (though those members have different IGI’s) and can secure their IGI’s by acting collectively. The point of the concept of “white” nationalism is that white ethnies (including Nordics, Slavs, Mediterraneans, Alpines, and whatever other categories you identify), though different, have some genetic commonalities and can secure their OWN genetic interests by cooperating with similarly situated others.

Some may foolishly reject the notion that all “whites” are sufficiently similarly situated to justify his participation in a collective effort that extends beyond his ethny, but we all know that the enemies of our race have put us all in one boat, and we shall sink or survive together. Attacked as one, we must respond as one.

Posted by AA on January 20, 2006, 03:16 AM | #

It should go without saying that I speak only for myself. Rienzi has trouble understanding that not all “Nordicists” (anyone who doesn’t view Italians as his brothers) share identical views.

I suspect that in many cases the “assimilation” is going the other way. E.g., when a Catholic Italian marries a Protestant the offspring tend to be raised Catholic and identify more strongly with their Italian half. I recall reading about a North American track athlete who evidently considers himself Greek because one great-grandparent was Greek. That’s an extreme example, but in almost all cases of which I’m aware people of mixed background more strongly with their more “ethnic” roots.

Functional vs. Neutral genes: What is not to get? Of course functional genes are more important than neutral genes. Imagine some genes are replaced in your future offspring. If this dna is truly neutral you won’t notice. If genes affecting skin color or brain development are switched out, on the other hand . . .

It is self-evident that Icelanders are genetically similar to their cousins in NW Europe where it counts. Icelanders represent a subset of the genetic variation of Norway and Ireland a thousand or so years ago. Also, off the top of my head, there are only about 230,000 Icelanders in existence today. Not a huge threat.

Anyway, it’s clear to me that core NW Europeans share important mental and physical adaptations in addition to their relatively similar neutral dna.

Finland is in extreme NE Europe. Ireland is in extreme NW Europe. They are seperated by several bodies of water. Of course they are genetically distinict.

Neither I nor any “Nordicist” I’m aware of claims N. Europeans are uniform or all necessarily equally desirable as immigrants to America.

GW and Phil: You both seem to be laboring under the idea that “Nordicists” look forward to Italians in Italy dying out and being replaced by third-worlders. I have no problem with Italians in Italy (despite the fact I’ve seen plenty of Italians gleefully forecast the mongrelization of N. Europe). I also see no problem with the English cooperating with the Italians where mutual interests are served and EGI are respected. If Desmond believes otherwise, that is his business; but I haven’t seen him make that argument in this thread and I fail to see why you keep raising this point.

Phil, I find it strange that you seem more concerned with the health of the S. European tourist trade and less concerned with the integrity of the English border.

Let’s suppose the English are displacing Spaniards in Spain (which I doubt). If you are an English nationalist, you do not call for reciprocal displacement. Period. You might try to prevent English settlement in Spain in the interest of diplomacy, but you would never accept Spanish immigration to England.

And about Alito/Scalia: you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. You forgot Clarence Thomas. This is no time to be divisive.

Tancredo is not a racialist. I’m glad to have him pushing for immigration restriction, but one also finds the odd black (Terry Anderson) or Asian (Malkin) in that movement. We’re probably already at the point where any strictly democratic immigration reform movement will need multiracial support to succeed. If that happens, great. But I won’t make-believe Terry Anderson is my brother to make it happen.

GW, the white American identity is no more “artificial” than the English identity. I suggest you read, for example, The Old Americans by Hrdlicka.

There are whites in the US confused about ethnic identity, but I believe there are also quite a few of those in England these days.

Anyway, I entered this thread in response to English who were presuming to tell Canadians and Americans who to include in their ingroups. American Italians are far from my biggest concern, but when I see misguided statements like some of those in this thread I have to respond.

Posted by AA on January 20, 2006, 03:43 AM | #

Just a reminder: Italians are a tiny minority in the US pretty much everywhere outside the NE. Greeks barely register. It is not the case that Americans are intextricably mixed with S. Europeans.

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/maps/ancestry/

Also, some fact-checking for Alex Zeka: Whatever their cultural contribution, Germanic settlers did not leave a significant genetic imprint on Russia or Iberia (genetic studies confirm this).

Kubilai with his whining about discrimination and Voice with his blathering about Germanic barbarians and Mediterranean Celts are doing a pretty good job of showing why their kind don’t belong here.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 20, 2006, 04:36 AM | #

AA,

I don’t particularly care for the health of the tourism industry. But I suggest that you come to Britain sometime to check how “attached” average Britons are to the pleasures of travel. At any rate, the tourism industry is larger in Northern Europe than it is in southern Europe. The no.1 tourist nation on Earth is not Spain but France.

I think it saves a lot of time to talk of practicalities. What measures do you propose for America? And what would be your political goal?

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 20, 2006, 05:42 AM | #

It is the sole, indeed the only good, for an ethny-bt

But is our identity solely racial, or is it also cultural, religious, etc.? Most throughout history would consider it a mixture of those. Racial differences did not prevent the early Anglo-Norman kingdom from assisting the Greek/Slav Byzantine empire against the Turks. The Aryan Crusaders were ready to go fight for the Jewish expelees from Jerusalem. An exclusively Teutonic/Nordic identity did not exist before the 19th century. Before, the Teutonic/Slavic HRE was united largerly by religion.

Need I return to the Dutch traders resident in London during the Middle Ages, or to the Hanseatic League, an early political unit based solely on occupational loyalties?

Posted by JW Holliday on January 20, 2006, 06:44 AM | #

On assimilation: I don’t have time to check it, but I’ll accept the data you present for the time being. In any case, intermarriage does not equal assimilation into the mainstream. Similarly high outmarriage rates have been claimed for Jews.

The highest estimate of the outmarriage rate for Jews is no higher than that for German-Americas, yet the size of the Jewish-American population would be at the bottom of the white ethnic list from the Alba paper, where outmarriage rates for Poles exceed 80% - or more than 50% higher than the German-American rate. Italians and Poles fit perfectly along the line of population size vs outmarriage rates; other groups would not, if placed in the same table.

And, exactly what constitutes assimilation into the mainstream?

I suspect that in many cases the “assimilation” is going the other way. E.g., when a Catholic Italian marries a Protestant the offspring tend to be raised Catholic and identify more strongly with their Italian half. I recall reading about a North American track athlete who evidently considers himself Greek because one great-grandparent was Greek. That’s an extreme example, but in almost all cases of which I’m aware people of mixed background more strongly with their more “ethnic” roots.

“I suspect”, “I recall”, “I’m aware of” - opinions and anecdotes do not replace quantitative data.

Since I already stated that functional genes are more important, and explained why, this paragraph is irrelevant. My point in fact was that non-functional genes, while not as important as functional genes on a per-codon basis, also constitute genetic interests. There is competition for the representation in the next generation for the total distinctive genome, and the non-functional part of that represents kinship genetic interests.

It is self-evident that Icelanders are genetically similar to their cousins in NW Europe where it counts. Icelanders represent a subset of the genetic variation of Norway and Ireland a thousand or so years ago ... Anyway, it’s clear to me that core NW Europeans share important mental and physical adaptations in addition to their relatively similar neutral dna.

The same can be said of Europe as a whole.

Finland is in extreme NE Europe. Ireland is in extreme NW Europe. They are seperated by several bodies of water. Of course they are genetically distinct

Completely irrelevant. Descriptive “why” arguments do not influence questions of EGI.

And about Alito/Scalia: you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. You forgot Clarence Thomas.

Phil of course can speak for himself, but perhaps the point is that Alito/Scalia are more representative of their ethny’s politics than is Thomas.

Tancredo is not a racialist

First, not relevant to the point being made, which is that Tancredo’s politics rebound to the benefit of the EGI of all white Americans. And if he was a racialist? Instead of Tancredo, one could mention Calabro, for example.

I’m glad to have him pushing for immigration restriction, but one also finds the odd black (Terry Anderson) or Asian (Malkin) in that movement. We’re probably already at the point where any strictly democratic immigration reform movement will need multiracial support to succeed. If that happens, great. But I won’t make-believe Terry Anderson is my brother to make it happen.

There is no difference in relative genetic difference and civilizational difference between a Tancredo and Anderson/Malkin?

... but when I see misguided statements like some of those in this thread I have to respond.

Indeed. I say the same.

Kubilai with his whining about discrimination and Voice with his blathering about Germanic barbarians and Mediterranean Celts are doing a pretty good job of showing why their kind don’t belong here.

Consider that the whining of Desmond and blathering of AA can be used by guys like Sailer the next time he and those of his ilk debate Taylor and attempt to delegitimize white racial nationalism. Consider the damage done by infighting and ask who is doing a pretty good job of showing why their ideological kind don’t belong here at MR.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 20, 2006, 06:49 AM | #

Ben: ... but we all know that the enemies of our race have put us all in one boat, and we shall sink or survive together. Attacked as one, we must respond as one.

Indeed. One defining characteristic of “Nordicists” is a failure to recognize this, and a willingness to let us all sink together rather than including (assimilated, if you will) “ethnics” in the endeavor.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 20, 2006, 10:14 AM | #

This complaint leads to the question: if a person of full or part-Greek ancestry had as their identity “white American”, would people like AA accept him/her as such, or would they claim that the Greek ancestry is a problem? The latter would be inconsistent, as this would be criticizing European-derived people for choosing an “ethnic” identity over an assimilated white American identity, while at the same time criticizing those who do the opposite. The descriptive question of whether a group assimilates and the prescriptive question of whether you want them to assimilate need to be distinguished.

The sense you get is that for some people, there is nothing that Greeks, Italians, Poles, Yugoslavs, etc. can do that would ever satisfy particular definitions of assimilation. By many standard determinants of assimiliation:-

intermarriage, moving out of urban enclaves and into the suburbs, college attendance, lack of bilingualism, identification, politics, and popular culture, “white ethnics” have assimilated (talking about the US here, not Australia or Canada). I’m not quite sure what else these ethnics are to do to be considered “assimilated.”

This is an important point because a predominant reason Robertson (Dispossesed Majority) labelled specific white ethnics as unassimilable was because of descriptive, not prescriptive, reasons. That is, the groups were labelled unassimilable because a) they were not assimilated (according to Robertson), and b) he thought that they would not become assimilated in the future, and were not capable of doing so. And, intermarriage was considered an integral part of the assimilation question in that book. Furthermore, even Lothrop Stoddard writing in the 1920s, even as much as he detested the S/E European immigration, had as his objectives stopping that immigration (done) and having the ethnics assimilate (which students of ethnic matters believe was done as well).

Posted by Kubilai on January 20, 2006, 11:29 AM | #

I think JW has done a tremendous job in debunking any fallacies that Desmond or AA have thrown into this debate. This last comment above of his clearly indicates the heart of the matter as it pertains to Desmond and AA. What was clear to me from the very beginning is aptly put by JW here:

By many standard determinants of assimiliation:-

AA has the nerve to call me a whiner. LOL It is not whining to state that discrimination of my parents generation did occur. Hell, AA and Desmond want discrimination NOW in their barely hidden seething contempt of Italians and Greeks. I could only imagine what it was like 40-60 years ago. Despite this, I am not asking for any “reparations” or such as the non-white hordes are, whom both these Nords seem to ignore and have no problem with. I simply state truth and if that truth is deemed whining, then fuck AA and the Nordic horse he rode in on. I’m sorry I’m not the good little cur to just take it and STFU about it…like my parents did!

Posted by Kubilai on January 20, 2006, 11:38 AM | #

Also, if this is the type of “welcome” Southern European ethnics had to deal with in countries like Australia and Canada where their ethnicity was allowed to be maintained instead of assimilated and where they call Anglos “cakes” and “skips”, then you have your answer why some hoot during Canadian/Greek basketball games or want to team up with the “Lebs”. It isn’t a tremendously difficult problem to solve, is it?

My apologies to the GW and all others here who are undeserving of my “whining”.

Posted by Voice on January 20, 2006, 11:40 AM | #

AA,

No Mediterranean influence in Ireland? Are you serious?

Ireland is actually a very diverse (I hate that word) country genetically. The influence of invasions from Scandinavia and Normandy, as well as from other parts of the British isles is well documented. However, Ireland also has strong genetic connections to the Mediterranean. The Galicia region of Spain is actually closer to it (by boat) than Calais, France, and areas further north. There was extensive trade and some colonization by the Phoenicians, and the Tuatha ni Danaan/Milesians were from the eastern Mediterranean - Crete (see the myths of Miletus, contemporary with Minos), the Aegean coast of what’s now Turkey, or the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

And, anthropologist Carleton Stevens Coon has this to say:

Cornwall, which is the darkest county in England and an ancient Keltic linguistic stronghold, contains, like Wales, strong vestiges of a pre-Keltic population…. A large-bodied, muscular type, with a head which is frequently brachycephalic, is common here, and must be attributed to the Bronze Age invasions…. Besides having medium or
tall stature, and a tendency to brachycephaly, they are said to be heavy-bodied, lateral in build, thick-necked, with features of a somewhat Armenoid cast, dark, curly hair, thick eyebrows, and eyes which are frequently brown. This type…may…be associated with the strong local belief that the Cornish are descended from Phoenicians” (The Races of Europe, Chapter X, Section 3, Great Britian, General
Survey).
Julius Pokorny states that it is “from every point of view impossible” that the Celts were the earliest inhabitants of Ireland, arguing emphatically that the Berbers predated them. He goes on to show that the Megalithic inhabitants of Ireland were long-headed Mediterraneans, similar to those who “still form the principal element
in the population of North Africa” (The Pre-Celtic Inhabitants of
Ireland, p. 229).

AA you may want to go to Wales or Ireland and see for yourself. It may be that you don’t belong here!

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 20, 2006, 01:15 PM | #

The ultimate mistake of the Nordicists is to assume that loyalty and affiliation is entirely racial. We might agree that Europe is not a single entity racially. It’s various peoples, however, have cultural, etc. links that are exclusively European.

Desmond and AA, knowing, one can only presume, nothing of culture, are incapable of grasping this.

Posted by Phil Peterson on January 20, 2006, 02:23 PM | #

I note that neither AA nor Desmond have ever really dealt with the subject of practical measures in any great detail.

This is fairly representative of my experience with American Nordicists - a lot of complaining and endless attacks on those who really should be their political allies. But no alternative practical steps to offer.

I am much more in agreement with Mark when he says that he would defend an Anglo identity in Australia rather than a Nordic identity - this accords with the history of colonisation of Australia and is a perfectly valid argument. Australia’s identity isn’t Nordic any more than England’s identity is Nordic. England’s identity is fundamentally English and Australia’s Anglo-Celtic. To defend both is to defend tradition and history.

Therefore, in Europe, “Nordicism” is irrelevant. Because if any movement to preserve the current etho-racial compostion of European states is pursued, it would be fundamentally nationalistic. And any nationalistic movement would fundamentally preserve the interests of the ethny that form the nation - Poles in Poland, Austrians in Austria, Swedes in Sweden. So Nordicism here is a red herring. On that basis, it would seem that “Nordicism” becomes more of an issue in an America/Canadian conext.

And given the amount of inter-marriage between various European ethnicities in the US, “Nordicism” would appear to be a political non-starter in that country. But anyway, it is not for me or GW to preach to Americans as to what they should be doing, since I have been accused of poking my nose in American affairs even though I am English.

So why don’t AA and Desmond come up with some measures to back up their Nordicist position? Measures that are practical and have at least a remote chance of success? Otherwise, their posts have little value other than allowing them to blow off a little steam on the internet. Which means in practical terms that their posts are essentially worthless.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 20, 2006, 06:12 PM | #

After much discussion of EGI, ethnicity, and assimilation, it may be of value to listen to Alex and consider culture and the civilizational divide. Culture is not an ultimate interest, but strongly influences these interests by forming identity, motivating to defend genetic interests by proxy, and by sharpening the practical perception of genetic gradients between large genetic clusters by overlaying a cultural component over the biological one.

These issues have been discussed by many; two of the leading exponents of the culture-based prescriptive school are Francis Parker Yockey and Samuel Huntington, two men who differ obviously in their politics, but who are both concerned with the West.

There is much in the work of Yockey and Huntington to disagree with, but their overall ideas of the concept of western civilization, civilizational divides, the value of the organic solidarity of the West, the “West against the rest”, and the need to defend the West against the rest are of value, and Salter discusses the genetic implications of Huntington’s ideas in his book.

A problem is that both men view the predominant divide in Europe as being that between West and East, with Russia - Europe’s largest nation - as being particularly problematic. Yockey is the more dogmatic (and potentially offensive) of the two, stating in Imperium that Russia is not part of the West and is in fact hostile to the West, and that anyone thinking otherwise is a “cultural idiot.” Yockey believed the same of the rest of Europe to the east of Germany. Yockey later stated that there were elements in Russia capable of participating in the western idea, but his overall ideas on this subject are defined by Imperium. Huntington is less dogmatic; he suggests that Russia and the Eastern European nations may form a ‘Euro-asiatic’ Orthodox culture, but the possibility exists for them to ‘choose’ to belong to the West. Russia is an example of a nation “torn” between two civilizational alternatives, in this view. [In his TOQ piece, MacDonald specifically stresses Western Europe as well].

I disagree with Yockey and believe we need Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe in the West. Of course, the “West” of today,
represented by Bush, Blair, and Chirac is not anything to appeal to Eastern European nationalists; the West they need to ‘choose’ is that of the past and, more importantly, that of the potential future, not that of the decadent and depressing present. Of course, both Yockey and Huntington are correct that there has been in Russia the divide between the “westernizers” and the “traditionalists” and that the “Eurasian” school of geopolitical thought has adherents there as well. But Russia is a nation of European people, a nation with a Christian heritage, and the civilizations of the East and of Islam are hostile to Russia as they are to “the West.” The same applies to the rest of Eastern Europe as well.

To go back to the synergy between culture and EGI, Russia and Eastern Europe fall within the greater European genetic cluster. Russians may be genetically closer to Poles and Hungarians than they are to Englishmen, Germans, or Italians, but these differences are not great in the worldwide context of global genetic variation and the “clash of civilizations” (which has always had racial overtones, whether the culturalists admit it or not). The non-western world is both genetically and culturally distant from Eastern Europe and a “Eurasian” identity is a delusion. The Chinese have no solidarity with Russians; they just want their land in the East. A Russian nationalist may complain about the same with respect to Western Europe (Napoleon, Hitler), but Western Europe poses no threat to Russia today, but the East does. And prescriptive arguments concerning genetic distance and a common Christian and European heritage trump descriptive arguments about past history. Or they should.

Merging biological Salterism with Yockeyism (whose views on race and biology were absurd and wrong), and incorporating Russia and Eastern Europe along with the entirety of Western Europe may be the key to win in the “clash of civilizations” (and the clash of genetic clusters as well).

Posted by Dave on January 21, 2006, 06:28 AM | #

Rienzi wrote…

Rienzi has trouble understanding…

Did I miss something?
Is JW Holliday MX Rienzi?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 21, 2006, 07:39 AM | #

You didn’t miss anything except our doubly American friend throwing stones.

JW Holliday is JW Holliday, btw. Who is AA?

Posted by friedrich braun on January 21, 2006, 09:20 AM | #

I believe AA is anon behind the excellent Refuting Racial Reality:

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/index.html

Posted by friedrich braun on January 21, 2006, 09:34 AM | #

Question: is JW Halliday really Rienzi?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 21, 2006, 10:40 AM | #

Jesus, Friedrich, what is this? Hate week against non-Nordicists? JW is J godammed W, and I neither know nor care who or what he might or might not be or have been. He is a great asset to MR period, and is respected by all. Is that clear enough? He certainly isn’t RM if that’s what you are suggesting, because of the screamingly obvious disparity in knowledge and intelligence.

Perhaps you could return to the subject of the thread now.

Posted by friedrich braun on January 21, 2006, 01:56 PM | #

Who is AA?

Calm down…I answered your question, why are you getting hysterical?

You obviously have no clue who Rienzi was/is.

Why don’t you let JW Halliday respond to my question?

I never attacked JW Halliday or implied that he was MR. He’s one of the best posters on MR…and I’ve already said as much.

Posted by JW Holliday on January 21, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

FB,

I noted your positive words about my work in another thread, and I appreciate it. I’m JW Holliday, and that’s who I am. Don’t see why GW and I need to repeat the same thing more than once

Posted by friedrich braun on January 21, 2006, 06:37 PM | #

Alright then. Anon seamed convinced that you were Rienzi…Incidentally, I’ve got nothing against Rienzi either.

He seemed to be very aware of the JQ…he had a nice site Legion Europa…it’s down now…he seems to have left the scene…too bad.

Posted by Martin Kelly on March 08, 2007, 06:46 AM | #

Matra,

You misrepresent me when you write that,

“This Scot certainly doesn’t like Eastern European immigrants. “

That is not the case; my feelings towards Eastern Europeans are strictly neutral.

What I do not like is the apotheosis of the immigrant qua immigrant.

Next entry: Scottish votes in English matters to end?

Previous entry: Kinsey & sexual liberation

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

E. European immigrants are good for Britain

Comments:

Post a Comment:

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Links