It’s the demography, stupid

Posted by Calvin on January 03, 2006, 08:40 PM | #

Didn’t Hitler solve the problem of declining birthrates?

Posted by Lurker on January 03, 2006, 09:27 PM | #

Well I think he has pretty well hit the nail on the head.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 03, 2006, 11:03 PM | #

Nice Jewish boy Steyn, so busy ranting about Islam he misses the nail altogether and hits his thumb. Spain and Italy are the FUTURE, you bozo; if they can just stop the damn immigration they’ll be lucky enough to live in countries that are both wealthy and not overcrowded.  The optimum world population is no more than 1 billion; the key is to get other countries to follow Spain’s utterly civilized example.  Immigration blurs this truth and threatens the security of the civilized, and therefore needs to be stopped.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 04, 2006, 12:15 AM | #

If Mr. Hutchison would only refrain from invoking the JQ, he would be taken much more seriously. Martin makes a good point here:

Whereas in the United States the median population age will increase by 2050 from 35 today to just under 40, in Mexico it will increase from 20 to more than 40, and in other countries such as Egypt and Algeria the rate of aging is four times that in the United States.

While “aging four times as fast as in the United States” sounds spooky, like the episode of Star Trek in which Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Spock are rendered senile by a mysterious disease, the truth is much more mundane. The population in these countries exploded in the last half century as infant mortality rates dropped while birth rates didn’t; now, at last, birth rates are dropping towards or below replacement level and there is some chance that these countries’ populations will cease their inexorable increase. Only in Africa does population growth remain apparently uncontrollable and there, of course, the tragedy of AIDS may have a considerable effect.

Steyn is only accurate in his prediction if his assumptions are accurate and Martin manages to burst the first bubble, the iinexorable increase in Muslim birth rates. It may not happen. Apparently, over the last decade Tunisia is reaping the benefits of severely declining birth rates, seeing a doubling of GDP per capita.

Immigration, as Collacut and Stoffman have shown in Canada, although it falls on deaf ears, is not the solution to support an aging population.

He uses Sweden as an example: it has a greater proportion of its population in the 65-and-over category than Canada has, and a lesser proportion in the 15-to-64 working-age category. Sweden copes, “the way all countries not obsessed with the quick fix of immigration cope. By being productive. By using technology. By exporting products rather than relying on the domestic population for market growth. By facilitating the full participation of women in the work force. By offering excellent early childhood education programs that help children to maximize their potential. European countries are prospering with the same age structure Canada will have in about 20 years…”

Steyn also assumes that the recent problems in France stem from a programme of unfettered immigration over the last 30 years. However François Héran, director of France’s Institut national d’études démographiques points out that:

[F]or at least twenty-five years [France] has not been a country of mass immigration. On the contrary, she became the European country whose demographic growth is the least dependent on immigration. The problem to be solved is above all centered on the integration of the children of the great waves of worker migrations that happened in 1950-1974.

Muslim birth rates in developing countries are declining; Europeans are not the gungho immigrationist that is the accepted view in the Anglosphere; immigration is not a panacea for aging populations; ending mandatory retirement and increasing pension contributions are not causing the uproar Steyn is suggesting (Ontario recently banned mandatory retirement) and countries can be very productive despite an aging population.

France views their problem as one of integration not immigration. The problem is, as in the UK, Canada, US or Australia, they will not recognise (at least the elites won’t recognise) that race is the fundamental stumbling block to integration. To be fair, Steyn almost goes there, but then bails out, opting to blame culture rather than race.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 04, 2006, 05:53 AM | #

Steyn writes: “To fret about what proportion of the population is “white” is grotesque and inappropriate. But it’s not about race, it’s about culture. If 100 percent of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn’t matter whether 70 percent of them are “white” or only 5 percent are. But, if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn’t, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 9 percent of the population or only 60, 50, 45 percent.”

Why is it grotesque and why is it inappropriate?  Would any visiting liberal - a Splinter or a Silverhand - explain, please?  Don’t be afraid.  The worst that can happen to you is to have to answer Svi’s question: Do peoples of European extraction have the right to secure their future in their own lands?

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 08:15 AM | #

“But it’s not about race, it’s about culture”

Unless Steyn can show us a culture that has produced a race, I’d say he was 100% wrong with that statement.

The whole population issue is an obvious hoax. Any increase in expenditure caused by the demands of an increase in the number of pensioners caused by a decline in birthrates is automatically ameliorated by a coteminous drop in the number of under sixteens. The decrease in the net cost of education, health care, prenatal, postnatal and maternity care will at least significantly offset any fiscal burden imposed by the elderly and might even result in net financial savings to the tax payer.

In an increasingly automated society we do not need a large labour force. The decline in population in the West is compatible with the demands of the labour market in an increasingly technological society.

The same technological advances would allow us to anihalate any prospective invaders despite numerical disadvantage.

As for integration? Who cares about what the foreigners and the elite want? I refuse to integrate with non-European, homophobes and women haters. Let the Africans and Arabs develop something worth sharing and I might consider it. I’m not holding my breath.

The overall population trend in the last hundred years in Europe has been an upward trend. We had a population boom as recently as the sixties. Demographic speculation based on a twenty year trend is just bullshit.

The greatest detriment to Western populations is mass immigration that, by depriving the indigenous population of employment prospects, discourages reproduction.

Fourteen million people were displaced when India was partitioned. The Muslims and Africans must leave Europe and if the House of Commons, the BBC and the staff of the Guardian want they can go along too.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 01:01 PM | #

Steyn is right to worry about demography yet it’s not just European demographics that he should be concerned about. He’s written about the US’s immigration problem (he seems to be a moderate restrictionist) but he’s said in the past that at least Latin American immigrants are closer, culturally, to Americans than Muslims are to Europeans. That may be true but if they’re arriving in the US in such huge numbers it’s not going to matter that they share a religion or one or two other characteristics with real Americans.  Serbs and Croats in the former Yugoslavia and Catholics and Protestants in Ulster have a hell of a lot in common. They are also closer to each other culturally, than they are to any outsiders, yet they’ve still had bloody conflicts over the same land.

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 01:31 PM | #

“Steyn is right to worry about demography”

I can’t agree with that. The Caucasian race is the only race that is controlling its population growth in a sane and civilized manner. The Chinese leave babies to die in gutters, the Africans beg other races to feed them and the Latins, simply impose themselves on the Anglosphere. If the Africans, Arabs and Latins could control their procreative impulses they wouldn’t need to sponge of off Caucasians.  In Denmark 3% of the population are recent immigrants. These people absorb 34% of the welfare budget and yet the pensions “crisis” in Denmark is attributed to falling birthrates? Bullshit! We don’t have a population problem, we have an immigration problem.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 01:35 PM | #

Steve Sailer has commented on the Steyn article and a rather important omission.

Desmond Jones -

Europeans are not the gungho immigrationist that is the accepted view in the Anglosphere…France views their problem as one of integration not immigration

According to Xavier T Hierry immigration to France has been increasing since the mid-90s with 2002 seeing more immigrants accepted than any year since 1974 - just over 200,000, with almost half of them Africans.

http://tinyurl.com/9cgp5

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 02:06 PM | #

Calvin -

I can’t agree with that. The Caucasian race is the only race that is controlling its population growth in a sane and civilized manner.

That doesn’t do us much good if millions of Third Worlders and their offspring are living here in the West and more are on the way.  Changing demographics most certainly do matter.

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

“Europeans are not the gungho immigrationist that is the accepted view in the Anglosphere…France views their problem as one of integration not immigration”

The first statement has absolutely no bearing on the second. You can be opposed to immigration and in favour of integration, or alternatively, you could be in favour of both immigration and integration. Typical of the meaningless bullshit people come out with about immigration.

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 02:20 PM | #

“That doesn’t do us much good if millions of Third Worlders and their offspring are living here in the West and more are on the way.  Changing demographics most certainly do matter”

Nothing to do with changing demographics. Its about changing policies. If the Euro-American elite wanted to stop immigration and repatriate immigrants they could do so at the drop of a chapatti. There have always been more of “us” than there has of “them”. They didn’t get in in the past did they? These people are here because the elite want them here.

Posted by Svigor on January 04, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

To be fair, Steyn almost goes there, but then bails out, opting to blame culture rather than race.

I’m thinking “trial balloon.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 04, 2006, 02:46 PM | #

Matra, The original link @Polyscopique, did mention the increase, however, the link you provided, (very interesting, thank you) suggests that

Even if immigration to France has increased markedly over recent years, it remains at levels appreciably lower than those observed in the UK. Over the period 1999-2001, immigration to the UK was double that to France (363,000 and 163,000 persons a year, respectively). The same was true over the period 1994-1996 (Table 7).

There is an issue with French reporting of immigration numbers, however, it is also hard to believe, that the British authorities capture data for *all* the illegals residing in the UK. Foreign born in France has remained relatively level at 5.5% compared to Canada, where foreign borns are now over 20% of the population. 2001 Census data showed 1.8 million immigrants arrived in Canada between 1991-2001, and 58 percent came from Asia; 20 percent from Europe; 11 percent from the Caribbean, Central and South America. The European portion of the Cdn immigrant population is much smaller than France’s and despite a population half the size of France, Canada, on average allowed twice the number of immigrants per capita over the same period. 250,346 immigrants arrived in 2001 alone. Even head to head, not accounting for population difference, and with a French increase to 200,000, Canada’s immigration numbers are 25% greater than France’s.

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 03:05 PM | #

With respect Desmond, who cares? Does it matter who is closest to the abyss? The fact is, that once immigration reaches a certain level it becomes, through the fast breeding habits of the Muslims and Africans, and through family reunification, a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Stopping all immigration now would only postpone the problem we are facing by about five decades. Its time to call the show off and send home the cast.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 03:22 PM | #

Calvin, just for the record, when I say demography I’m referring to the statistical study of human populations. Immigration obviously affects the demography of a society. That is why it is a problem. If changing demographics brought about by immigration don’t matter then immigration doesn’t matter.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 04:01 PM | #

Desmond, you’re right about France bringing in fewer immigrants than Canada, but then Canada has few peers in that department. But the increase in immigration isn’t going to make the French task of integration any easier, especially if most of the newcomers head straight for the neighbourhoods populated by earlier waves of immigrants.

Posted by Phil on January 04, 2006, 04:02 PM | #

GW,

Steyn is quite clever. He says:

The refined antennae of western liberals mean that, whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, “Racism!” To fret about what proportion of the population is “white” is grotesque and inappropriate.

I don’t think he is saying that he believes it is grotesque and inappropriate. He says that the liberals believe this.

I am giving him credit. Look, when Buchanan wrote his book some years ago Jonah Goldberg wrote an article excoriating him. Now Steyn makes some of the same essential points that Buchanan made. But Steyn writes for National Review! I wonder if someone will now question the mighty Goldberg on whether Steyn deserves a similar denunciation? 

Nice Jewish boy Steyn, so busy ranting about Islam he misses the nail altogether and hits his thumb.

I will draw fire for saying this. But Steyn is only half Jewish at best. His father was Jewish, mother Catholic. And so technically he is not a Jew. Also, he has said that he himself is Catholic. Not that what he says needs to be taken at face value.

But to be honest, this bloke is better than the rest of the Neo-con crowd put together multiplied by a 100. So let’s not crib too much guys. You couldn’t even give this news (of Europeans becoming practically extinct) a few years ago in “respectable” Conservative media. He has broken the first taboo.

One step at a time chaps. If you go with an attitude of all or nothing, you will wind up with nothing. This doesn’t mean that we agree with his views. Only that we have more scope to exploit all the tender hearts who will have just found out and had been asleep all along (and who wouldn’t even venture as far as Vdare for respectability reasons).

I got a very disturbed e-mail from an American friend earlier today linking me to this article and saying that it was depressing to even think about it (this chap is basically a Liberal). I say its a good start. A friend of his (a neo-con linked to Steyn’s article in the Wall Street Journal). I replied to him saying that these facts have been known for years now. Why didn’t he know this?

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 04:52 PM | #

Steyn is always readable, very funny and very clever.  At the end of the day, however, his anti-Islamicism is only a manifestation of his Judeophillia. Steyn doesn’t give a damn if you get swamped by Latinos, Eastern Europeans or Africans, in fact he wants that. Anything to make his favoirite ethnic minority a little bit more cosy. Steyn has to support a stupid war in Iraq because he can’t admit that the Iraqi invasion was the product of a policy of American Zionist Jews, probably funded by Israel.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 04, 2006, 04:58 PM | #

Ultimately you are correct Calvin. However, stopping the show is an effort that is at least a century old, especially in North America, and it has born little result. First it’s the Irish, then it’s Southern & Eastern Europeans and still the taps of immigration dripped, dripped, dripped…and then it’s well, these people aren’t so bad, maybe others can be integrated… “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions . . .” and so it went. The point is that throttling back Canada’s, and indeed the Anglosphere’s, peddle to the metal immigration policy, even to France’s level, is indeed only one small step for WASP-kind, however it would be one huge leap for the Anglosphere.

Matra, It won’t improve the task for a moment, however, it does contradict Steyn’s almost at times gleeful prediction of the coming Eurabia.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

Steyn is a Baptist convert from Catholicism.

Desmond Jones mentioned earlier that Canada allows in 25% more immigrants than France despite the latter having close to twice Canada’s population. Here’s the latest from Canada.

The leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, announced today that if elected he would cut in half the immigration landing fee, extend automatic citizenship to children adopted from abroad, and he’d make it easier for immigrants to get professional accreditation. In Canada this is the national party with the most  immigration sceptics in its ranks.

http://www.mississauganews.com/mi/topstories/story/3244855p-3757315c.html

Posted by Phil on January 04, 2006, 05:23 PM | #

Like I said, Canada is already f****d or has been for some time. I apologise for swearing. It is something I rarely do. But in this case, no other word describes it better.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 04, 2006, 05:26 PM | #

Matra,

The face of the Conservative Part of Canada.

What would Hazel say?

“We send the federal government a bill every month for our portion [20%] of welfare costs to refugees. We have done so for the past three years. Last year, our 20% totalled $1.5-million,” she said. “We aren’t reimbursed. We do it out of principle.”

“The motels around the airport are filled with so-called refugees,” said the Mayor. Toronto’s Pearson International Airport is in her municipality, as are the hotels. “These people come here by plane, have passports when they board then flush them down the toilet and declare refugee status, even when they are from rich countries,” she says. “It’s hard to believe they are so blind and all of this impacts our budgets. They do not listen.”

“Then there are the concerns I hear from teachers. You take a class of 35 kids. Suddenly during the year the teacher has four kids come into a class and not one speaks a single word of English. How can they be included in a class? And what does this do to the learning for the other 31 kids?” she asks. “The school system has to adapt to them the day they land.”

“We let [sponsored immigrants and refugees] in and they get their teeth fixed at our expense,” she said. “They get free drugs.

“If you go to the Credit Valley Hospital the emergency is loaded with people in their native costumes. A couple will come here as immigrants and each bring over their parents. Now you have four people who never contributed a nickel toward our medical system using it at an age when they will cost everyone a great deal of money. No wonder we have to worry about our medical system looking after everyone,” she said.

Of course the old girl is jus’ a damn racist! 

Posted by Phil on January 04, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

Of course such things shouldn’t happen in a country with an immigration policy of “Cognitive Elitism”. (chuckle)

Posted by Calvin on January 04, 2006, 06:04 PM | #

As I said Steyn starts off with the flawed premiss that Western population decline is a problem in its own right. It is not a problem in the absence of immigrant inflow and technological outflow.He also envinces an absurd belief that short term population growth rates are an accurate predictor of long term trends.

Steyn is a typical Europhobic neocon. He hates Europe because it fails to kowtow to Israel to the same dgree that America does. He is too stupid to realise that Islamic victory in Europe will seal the fate of Israel and that the overunning of America by Spanish speaking Indians will result in a civil war between the Blacks and Mesoamericans that will cripple Americas ability to fund a rescue attempt. I can’t wait to remind him about his “Eurabia” sneers when Zion burns.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 06:32 PM | #

CBC Newsworld just had a report on immigration and an interview with CBC reporter Natalie Clancy. Here’s a summary:

- The Chinese Head Tax (I started a thread on it a couple of weeks ago) is still a top story in the Chinese language press.

- A Chinese-Canadian Conservative Party candidate in British Columbia said immigrants don’t feel as comfortable with a candidate who doesn’t speak their language. Unfortunately he could barely speak English so I guess actual Canadians in his riding/constituency aren’t as fussy.

- A Chinese Liberal candidate held a press conference only for Chinese language press. English-language press were asked to leave.

- Natalie Clancy listened in (using an interpreter) on a Punjabi radio phone in programme regarding the PM’s promise to abolish the immigrant landing fee. She said almost all the callers were hostile to the PM but not because they support the fee but because they think the immigration backlog preventing the speedy arrival of their grandparents and other relatives from India should be a higher priority.

Demographic changes due to immigration just lead to even more demands to change the host country.  The demands become harder to resist as more minorities enter the voting rolls. There’s a snowball effect.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 07:03 PM | #

Here’s Mark Steyn responding to a letter at his Mailbox:

I am in favor of efficient fair legal immigration and utterly opposed to the ludicrous concept of the “undocumented”, as anyone who saw my speech at the Claremont Institute dinner earlier this month can testify. However, in the end, everything is comparative: for all the problems you cite with unassimilated Hispanics and alienated blacks, they are as nothing to the degrees of unassimilation and alienation of third-generation European Muslims in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Pick the most disaffected black male you can imagine in the worst ghetto in America: whatever his pathologies, if you gave him ten million bucks he’d want to live pretty much like the average rich white guy lives. On the Continent, disaffected Muslims wish to create an entirely different society from the rich white folks’, and as their demographic and economic strength they will do so. No nation’s prospects are guaranteed but America has enormous advantages over Europe

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 04, 2006, 08:38 PM | #

It’s clear Steyn’s nowhere near understanding the role of race.  Either he’s incapable of understanding it or, like many intelligent people, he represses his understanding of it for some reason.  I think some otherwise intelligent people are actually incapable of seeing the role race plays (they can’t all be repressing it) and others are capable but repress it, either because they think it’s evil, or because they see its acknowledgement as going against their own ethnic interests, or whatever.  Some people favor the use of certain races as bludgeons to bludgeon other races with and try to kill them off because they hate them.  Different people have different reasons for repressing or mendaciously denying their own perfectly good understanding of the role of race.  Steyn is in one case or the other: repressing it or blind to it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 04, 2006, 08:39 PM | #

My comment was partly in response to Matra’s, just above.

Posted by Lurker on January 04, 2006, 09:32 PM | #

I still think on balance its a good article, the glass is half full not half empty.

True, changing demogrphics hardly matters if our borders and populations are safe.

If Steyns article shakes up a few liberal/lefties or neo-con/libertarians and makes them think, its a start.

Posted by Svigor on January 04, 2006, 09:55 PM | #

Demographic changes due to immigration just lead to even more demands to change the host country.  The demands become harder to resist as more minorities enter the voting rolls. There’s a snowball effect.

No no Matra, you have it wrong, Wrong, WRONG!  Cognitive Elitism will save us all, don’t you know?

Asians are all wonderful, and can do no harm.  Only the groups engaged in in-your-face, undeniably egregious behavior are bad.  The rest must be assumed to be a wondrous boon, unless they can be linked to runaway violent crime stats or sub-civilized IQ means.

Back from Bizarro World, do you have names to go with those stories?  I’d like to search for articles.

Posted by Matra on January 04, 2006, 10:29 PM | #

Back from Bizarro World, do you have names to go with those stories?  I’d like to search for articles

I just looked up the CBC website and was able to watch the full report on Real Player.

The website is here.  Just go down to Wednesday and click on “P.M.”

The topic of immigration is introduced at 13.00 minutes into the show and the Natalie Clancy report which includes the two Chinese candidates I referred to earlier at 13.45. The Conservative Party candidate who says immigrants are more comfortable when candidates speak their language is called Kanman Wong and he appears exactly at 15.00 while the Liberal candidate who shut out English media appears about 20 seconds later. His name is Raymond Chan.  The reporter is then interviewed by the host of the show at 16.00 and she briefly mentions the 1885 Chinese Head Tax and the Punjabi radio show.

Posted by Svigor on January 05, 2006, 12:34 AM | #

Thanks Matra.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 05, 2006, 12:16 PM | #

Pick the most disaffected black male you can imagine in the worst ghetto in America:

Okay, how about this guy?

Tyson is said to have squandered nearly $300m in ring earnings through lavish spending and bad advice. The 37-year-old spent extravagantly on mansions, Bentley cars, jewellery, and even pet Bengal tigers while buying expensive gifts for his large entourage.

...as part of a divorce settlement, Tyson agreed to pay his ex-wife $6.5m from future earnings. On February 10, 1992, he was found guilty on one charge of rape and two counts of deviate sexual conduct and sentenced to 10 years in prison, of which four years were suspended.

whatever his pathologies, if you gave him ten million bucks he’d want to live pretty much like the average rich white guy lives.

The average rich white guy pictured below is Robert Schad, CEO of Husky Injection Molding Systems. Net worth about $379 million. German born, immigrated to Canada in 1951, started in his garage building snowmobiles or “Huskymobiles”.

Schad also has established the Schad Foundation, which supports projects focused on solutions to environmental problems; and Earth Rangers, a program that teaches school children about wildlife and environmental responsibility.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 05, 2006, 03:21 PM | #

doesn’t give a damn if you get swamped by Latinos, Eastern Europeans

-Calvin.
Slav immigrants tend to be polite, courteous, hard working, and (perhaps more importantly for you) white, Christian and culturally European. It’s the invasion of entrely alien peoples that is modernity’s invention. Intra-Western migration is as old as…well, the ancient Greeks that we know of, and probably older than that.

Posted by Phil on January 05, 2006, 04:16 PM | #

Alex,

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. However, I do think that the migration of people from Eastern Europe needs to be better regulated. At the moment what we have is a free for all.

Posted by Calvin on January 05, 2006, 05:51 PM | #

I agree. I can’t say I can see much of a phenotypical difference between “Slavs” and other Northern Europeans. Most of the Poles I know wouldn’t look out of place in Denmark or Germany. I also agree that unrestricted immigration of any type is just a gambit to create a new voter base and a cheap labour force.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 05, 2006, 09:15 PM | #

Regardless of whether there are observable characteristics that differentiate Slavs from Nords a genetic distance does exist. Small by comparison to African or Asian phenotypes yet still present. Greeks are considered white and Chrstian yet genetically are closer to Iranians than to the English. If you believe in preserving you EGI then, IMO, intra-European immigration should be resisted.

Even discounting that position, the Matra rule still applies;

“Demographic changes due to immigration just lead to even more demands to change the host country.  The demands become harder to resist as more minorities enter the voting rolls. There’s a snowball effect.”

In the Canadian experience, adopting a position of Anglo Conformism (assimilation of eastern and southern Europeans) only evolved into a culture of victimology, aiding and abetting other forces, like the Jewish left in the form of the Canadian Jewish Congress, in breaking down Anglo-Protestant resistance to an immigration policy that led to the eventual decline of the founding peoples.

Posted by Mark Richardson on January 06, 2006, 02:24 AM | #

Desmond, a similar thing happened in Australia. There was large scale immigration from southern Europe, and the differences in race and culture, though obviously much smaller than with non-Europeans, was still enough to lead to a policy of multicultural diversity, which then eased the way for large-scale non-European immigration.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 06, 2006, 07:44 AM | #

Desmond, there are genetic differences between different groups of Nords. Seems to me the only tenable definition of an Englishman is a white who accepts the British cultural tradition and feels primary loyalty to England.
Mark, no needs to worry on htat front. Most Slavs are extremely suspicious of egalitarianism.

Posted by Calvin on January 06, 2006, 06:01 PM | #

My default position has always been that if these immigrants are such a wonderful economic boon, the evidence would manifest itself in the countries they were born into. Pakistanis are supposed to be such marvelous contributers as immigrants, but how come the country with the most Pakistanis (Pakistan, duh!) is such a toilet?

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 06, 2006, 06:59 PM | #

Seems to me the only tenable definition of an Englishman is a white who accepts the British cultural tradition and feels primary loyalty to England.

If that’s the definition of an Englishman then why can’t he be black, brown or yellow, Alex? Would you say the same of your children? Your child is only a child who accepts your tradition and feels primary loyalty to you. However, that’s not the case. Your child is the carrier of your distinctive genes. The distinction between Nords and Nords is not as great as between Nords and Slavs, Nords and Meds, Nords and Asians or Nords and Africans.

Why would Slavs or Meds want to forego their genetic distinctiveness to intermix with Nords? Unless immigrants contribute to the economy in ways that the native population cannot, it’s a zero-sum proposition.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 07, 2006, 08:21 AM | #

Desmond, Your beloved Nords are not, I’m afraid, as Nordic as you might like them to be.

The English are not pure Anglo-Saxons, but a mixture of Anglo and Celt (and Norman, Greek for tht matter). The original Kievan Rus were Vikings, as Nordic as it gets. Modern Western Russians are as such part Nordic aswell.

The Czechs, having lived in close proximity to and union with Austria, probably have a few Teuton genes floating about too. As many as the ever so Nordic Welsh and Cornish, in all probability.

As for that wonderful exercise in creative thinking you call the Med race…it doesn’t exist, sorry. Modern Itlains and Iberians have som much Gothic/Teutonc blood it’s absurd to even call them a separate race.

So, sorry Desmond, but intra-Western “multiculturalism” (it’s not really, seeing as its the same culture) is an ancient tradition, and the natural state of Euro man.

Oh, and I found this hilarious:

Seems to me the only tenable definition of an Englishman is a white who accepts the British cultural tradition and feels primary loyalty to England.

If that’s the definition of an Englishman then why can’t he be black, brown or yellow

Posted by Svigor on January 07, 2006, 04:25 PM | #

Mmmm, compelling arguments on either side.

For my tuppence, I recognize both as valid, and suggest we find a balance like good flexible strategizers.

Posted by Kubilai on January 08, 2006, 12:21 AM | #

Funny thing is, I don’t recall any stupid Greek, or WOP , or thieving Polack, or slimy Ruskie ever being in charge of anything in the “good old days” Desmond reminisces about.  I do recall there were plenty of Anglos in charge of pretty much everything in English Canada.  Quebec had their Francos to stir the sh*t with their Anglo brethren.  So if Desmond has any beef, he better start looking in the mirror and in the extended family tree for the cause of the decay in his beloved Nordic Canuckistan.

Also, Desmond wants to splinter the WN, EGI movement of Europe into a dozen or so factions and is willing to sacrifice individual countries in order to save obviously Britain.  He’s betting that Britain can withstand this onslaught and does not need to exert any resources or energy for the rest of Europe.  I don’t know folks.  Britain is in dire straights the way I see it.  It is bitten by the egalitarian, Marxist, PC bug something fierce and despite my eternal optimism, there are days where I think she will fall.  Despite Desmond’s internecine racism, I do not wish it to succumb to its suicidal ideology.  But that’s just me, a stupid northern Greek who not only cares about immediate family, but cousins as well.  I’ll place my bets on Greece making it out of this relatively unscathed in relation to the certain powerhouses of Europe for several reasons, which are not that important right now.  I wonder where Desmond will run to when, and not if, Canada will be full of gun toting Jamaicans, Pakis, Tamils and other Asians?  England, which may be in worse shape by then?  But what the hell Desmond.  We’ll take your sorry ass even after all this crap you spew because we are decent.  We may even laugh right along with you when you say you are surrounded by “essentially Iranians”.

I find Desmond’s racism in light of the catastrophe that has befallen western man quite unpalatable, narrowminded, and quite ignorant.  I do not agree that countries should be cut loose and allowed to fall, unless it is completely inevitable.  Though the inevitable group as of today seems to be England, France, Germany, and probably Sweden due to the amount of non-whites and Marxists in the respective countries.  Regardless, the fight is beginning to get interesting in many places.  I do agree with Desmond that intra-European migration should be held to a minimum or even near zero and if all of Europe decides by state referenda that open migration is wanted, then so be it.  If not, then so be that.  The people of Europe should decide.

Svi, as usual, you are on the mark when you state: suggest we find a balance like good flexible strategizers.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 08, 2006, 03:37 AM | #

It was the English who f**ked up Canada… It’s already been said Kubilai. Madison Grant was right. It was a huge mistake for English Canada/America to embark on a programme of Anglo Conformism/melting pot immigration strategy. In was even a greater mistake for English Canada since they had experience a century and a half of French resistance to assimilation. La survivance is the is the ultimate theme of the Quebecois and its been constantly re-inforced by a seething hatred of les maudits Anglais. This is the brethren who will save me from gun-toting Jamaicans and Tamils. Pleeeaaase.

Ever been to a basketball game in Toronto between Greece and Canada. It’s nothing but a sea of Greek flags. Ditto for Italian football teams. Spare me your charity. I’ve had my fill of souvlaki.

Splintering WN is not necessary because it does not exist. It’s a pipe dream. Jorgen Haider realized it and was quite right to decry Russian, Polish and Croat immigration as equally detrimental to Austria as the immigration of Turks.

Internecine rascism? You guys adopt the some old liberal drivel whenever it suits your case. If it is conflict within the same race/ethny, then how is it racism? And if it is not within the same ethny then obviously… The only time whites ever hung together was under Catholic corporatism. A white nationalist movement led by the Vatican. It splintered big time. Why? It was because of EGI. So if England fails in the multiculti wars, and Greece and Italy and Spain survive, what are you gonna do. Send another Armada. The each national group will require every last ounze of it’s energy to insure it’s own survival.

Why did the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians resist Russification? After all, it was white nationalism Kremlin-style. It does not work and to expend the energy to make it work ensures, as with empire, self-destruction and blow-back.

Posted by Kubilai on January 08, 2006, 10:47 AM | #

Uh-huh.  So your kin, Anglos, screwed things up.  Your kin continue to do so, especially in Canada and the UK.  I would say these two countries are quite advanced on their road to destruction.  Your kin have imbibed in the multi-culti and are trying to spread it all around and you prattle on about Greeks and Italians and Poles and Croats.  LOL So then WTF are you railing on about?  Do you even know?  Do you know how stupid you sound when taken into context?

Look, I am not interested in letting this get too personal and I understand what you are saying.  I’m actually quite sympathetic and agree for the most part of saving regions as they are or more accurate were,  though I think your scapegoating and ire is a wee bit misdirected.

Posted by Calvin on January 08, 2006, 11:25 AM | #

This is bullshit. The various European ethnocultural groups can retain their seperate identities within their ancestral territories. We can still forge a pan-Caucasian identity based on broader cultural similarities. Intra caucasian immigration can continue to take palce on a meritocratic and assimilative basis. We can tolerate a lesser degree of Eurasian immigration. We cannot tolerate immigration from races and cultures that cannot subordinate their religious beliefs, or whose behaviour is not compatible with caucasians. That means no Africans and no Muslims. Sorry about that! These groups are excluded on the empirical basis of their own failures to contribute anything positive to European civilisation.

Posted by Kubilai on January 08, 2006, 01:02 PM | #

I concur, Calvin.  Though I think as I stated if the people do not want any intra-Europe immigration, then so be it.  I also do not believe in any non-European immigration INTO Europe. 

I don’t see what the problem is really and I think a unified assault on the multi-culti is better than a dozen individual ones.  However, Desmond disagrees.  His attitude is strikingly similar to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by Alex Zeka on January 08, 2006, 02:50 PM | #

I agree entirely with Calvin’s and Kubilai’s statements above, esp. about immigration being allowed or not allowed being ultimately down to the people. I’d vote for intra-Euro immigration, but would respect those that voted otherwise.

Desmond should stop pretending to be a WN: he believes in the white race no more than the typical liberal does.