« Hillary in 2008? Here's What You Need To Know | Main | The ACLU: Surprising Beginnings »

Comments

Long John

To more or less preserve the original demographics of Europe, there is a much simpler solution to the problem as stated above.

First, encourage the Muslims to go back to their countries of origin. This would solve the (lack of) assimilation problem and the presence of Muslim radicals problem.

Then move Blue State Americans to Europe. Many of the American leftists threatened to leave America when President Bush was re-elected anyway. These leftists are not going to be any happier after they have lost a few more election cycles, and will probably volunteer to go back to Europe, from whence most of their ancestors came. Besides, they will feel right at home in the corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic climate of socialist Old Europe.

Moving forty or sixty million leftists from America to Europe is a win-win situation. The level of intelligence increases in both North America and Europe. The European demographics are preserved and the European population is increased. America will be freed of a bunch of whining, unproductive criminal malcontents, a significant number of which are named Kennedy.

Who knows, when the newly arrived Americans settle in Europe, they might finally come to understand just how destructive socialist policies really are, and with their experience from America, lead a revival of freedom in Europe; after all, the Enlightenment originated in Europe before the socialists hijacked the Old Continent.

Solid Surfer

You know, as wild as that may sound on the surface, I wouldn't be surprised if millions of Blue Staters truly honestly would want to do this.

Ron Jay


Europe does indeed have a general immigration problem above and beyond the specific nature of the Islamic immigrants presently causing problems in the West.

Europe will remain Europe only if it is populated by Europeans, not by various Third Worlders (and by the way, Spain is having problems with Latin American immigrants as well as with Muslims; alien is as alien does.)

The viciously destructive nature of your proposal is explained here:
http://www.amren.com/store/salterreview.htm

Alternative solutions can be found here:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/europe.htm

Proposing an alien influx is genocide, and ends up solving nothing, even beyond the damage it causes. What happens when these immigrants retire and need their own pensions? What does Europe do about “economic growth” 30 years from now? Do we invoke the Ponzi scheme, and allow even more immigration? And more, after that? Or will these non-European immigrants have the children that Europeans do not have, thus further changing Europe into the Third World? And if so, we can turn back to Steve Sailer’s ideas and see what can be done to enhance native fertility instead. If the immigrants can have families and still work and support the economy, then so can the natives.

What is the point of “economic growth” if the descendants of another people are going to reap the eventual benefits? And why should young non-European immigrants and their offspring decide to continue to fund the old-age pension welfare state for a bunch of elderly whites who couldn’t be bothered to have children of their own? When these Third Worlders get the right to vote, they may well decide to support policies to cut off the pension feedbag to old white folks, and thus take care of their own people first.

Indeed, it will be ironic if Third World “Europeans” enact the family-friendly legislation suggested by Sailer, rather than the Europeans themselves.

As in the USA and in Europe, cheap immigrant labor has become an addiction, to prevent the native population from facing economic and social problems. Cut off the influx, and FORCE the natives to behave like adults and do what is necessary to preserve their own civilization.

Solid Surfer

Ron Jay,

I agree with you somewhat, but not entirely. Europe's main problem indeed is Muslim immigration, not just immigration in general. Of all immigrant groups, only Muslims constitute a current threat to Europe's democracies; they are the only immigrants to have produced terrorists and it is the only religion that wants its own laws to supercede the laws of nation-states.

That said, it is nevertheless true that Europe will remain Europe only if populated by Europeans. But the question is - what makes someone a European? Certainly being genetically European has a lot to do with it, but I still believe that in some cases, people from elsewhere can be assimilated into the mainstream population and become as "European" as anyone else.

For example, most Latin Americans are descended from Europeans to begin with. Like Sailer's article says, if an ethnically Italian citizen of Argentina moves to Italy, I think that person would assimilate pretty quickly into the Italian mainstream. Same with a Brazilian moving to Portugal, a Mexican moving to Spain, etc. This is not to say, of course, that it would be seamless, but within a generation or two, those people's descendants will be about as "European" as anyone else.

The situation is indeed a bit trickier with non-Muslim immigrants who are not European-descended, such as Indians, Chinese, and Africans. Given assimilationist policies, these people could certainly become Europeans culturally (and they wouldn't transform the continent into the "Third World" either, just as they haven't done so in America), although of course they won't look natively European.

Is this something native Europeans should accept? Depends what they care about. I wrote my original piece as a suggestion for how Europe can still preserve its cultures, democracies, and economies, regardless of native "white" population numbers.

If Europeans wish to preserve themselves as distinct ethnic groups, though (and of course there's nothing wrong with that), there is only one solution - have more children. Even if non-ethnic Europeans immigrate to the continent, the majority white populations are in no danger of disappearing as long as they reproduce themselves adequately.

Getting them to do so is another story, which perhaps I'll address on this blog at some point. (I do think it will happen eventually, though, and sooner rather than later, for reasons which can be discussed.)

Ron Jay

Obviously you didn't bother to read, or understand if you did read it, the link to Salter's work. A European identity is based foremost on genetics. You think the Chinese would accept a Confucian Swede as Chinese? LOL!

Your understanding of race is close to nil. An ethnic Italian moving to Italy is not the same as a Mexican mestizo moving to Spain, or a Brazilian mulatto moving to Portugal. I note you had enough forethought though not to say "ethnic Spaniard" or "ethnic Portuguese" for the latter cases. And, if you read American Renaissance, you'll see that Latin American immigrants have been disastrous to Spain. They cannot assimilate, despite language, because they are alien.

"Given assimilationist policies, these people could certainly become Europeans culturally (and they wouldn't transform the continent into the "Third World" either, just as they haven't done so in America), although of course they won't look natively European."

If you think America is not becoming "Third World", you must lead a very sheltered life. The point is not whether the aliens "look...European" but rather whether they ARE European. Please read on Salter before making comments that are silly.

Saying "what they care about" misses the point, which is: "what SHOULD they care about", and any people SHOULD care about their group continuity. No one should care about "culture, democracy, and economy" if SOMEONE ELSE benefits from them. A parent cares - or should care! - about their own children first, and is unlikely to be pleased if the hard work building up their family goes to benefit the children of a complete stranger. To you, a parent should accept the death of their own children, as long as the children are replaced with those of a stranger who "have the same culture as the parents in question." No, not quite, I think.

Given that Europe has a fixed carrying capacity, an alien influx is equivalent to genocide, even if natives reproduce; further, if the natives reproduce, there is no reason for the influx, is there?

Please stop promoting genocide. You are promoting the displacment of native groups with other groups and justifying it with dubious (and unproved) comments about "culture." In my opinion, at some future date, there certainly should be Nuremburg-style trials for those who have attempted the dissolution of the native European peoples. About this, I am 100% serious; if we ever retake our lands and our heritage, those who have promoted our demise need to be held legally responsible, in courts of law.

Ron Jay

Hmmm:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/11/madrids_latin_kings_raise_spec.php

"close cultural affinities", yet they are unassimilated and causing street crime and gang warfare. Spain "needs" the immigrants for "economic growth", yet more than 8% of the Spaniards are unemployed, AND more than 10% of the foreigners are unemployed. But, not to worry, the jobless rate is falling faster for the foreigners than for the natives! After all, why should Spain care more about native employment than that of immigrants? We wouldn't want to be racist now, would we?

Fascinating. How about replacing immigrant labor with unemployed Spanish labor, and taking some of the social welfare monies saved and plowing that back into programs to boost native birth rates?

Europeans are amusing. They work 30-35 hour weeks, take constant vacations, have relatively high native unemployment, eschew the automation the Japanese use instead of immigrants, and then import immigrants because "they are needed for economic growth." Then, they tell us that the riots in France were because so many of the African youth are unemployed! LOL!!

Maybe France then needs to import millions of Chinese to "do the jobs the Africans won't do." I mean, there ARE jobs that need to be filled, no? That's why the immigrants are coming, no? And after Chinese gangs become established (as they are in many "Chinatowns" in America) and when the second generation Chinese-"French" become disaffected and riot, France can start importing Filipinos or Indonesians.

That's the ticket! Hey, as long as the name of the country is "France", and as long as some Chinese or African mutters something in garbled French, then it is the same nation as that of Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, and Louis Pasteur. Not to worry. Go back to sleep.

Solid Surfer

I hope for your sake that you didn't quite mean your comment accusing me of promoting "genocide". Do you honestly believe that anyone who encourages non-whites to move to Europe should be put on trial like the Nazis? Nothing about that strike you as disgustingly racist and immoral? (Because it totally is.) Plus, to even say that an alien influx is equivalent to genocide is a leap of logic with no basis in reality.

As for my own comments, I never said it'd be good for native Europeans to disappear. In fact, it'd be a great tragedy for the whole world. But the only people who can prevent that are Europeans themselves - by having more kids. You say that Europeans "should" care about group continuity, but if you aren't a European yourself, that's not your decision to make for them. I agree that it's pretty stupid of them if they DON'T care about it, but it's not my decision to make either. Ultimately, only Europeans themselves can solve this problem that they have entirely self-created.

At the same time, though, non-whites are not necessarily third-world and can indeed assimilate into other countries. First of all, the definition of "white" isn't exactly clear cut. A century ago, when America was populated primarily by people of Northern and Western European descent, there was plenty of fear about immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were not considered whites and who came primarily from poor, third-world countries. But did that happen? Of course not. The initial immigrants themselves may have been poor, spoke little English, joined gangs, etc., but their children and grandchildren assimilated into the mainstream and seamlessly became first-world Americans.

Today's Hispanic immigrants to America (and to Spain, if that's where they go) are little different. The first generation is poor, uneducated, not considered white, etc. After a few generations of assimilation and more education, though, they should become first-world Americans just like the early 20th-century immigrants. Indeed, the process is already happening; millions of Hispanics have moved here over the past 25 years, but has America become third-world? Not whatsoever. Our per capita GDP has steadily risen, and today Americans are on average much wealthier than Europeans.

That's not to say there haven't been problems with Hispanic immigration (and I'm not naive about it either - I grew up in a majority Latino area in Texas), but most of that has come from allowing so many immigrants at once without assimilating them. If the people are properly assimilated, they should continue to become Americans just fine.

Now that said, Europe is indeed different in a sense, because being "American" does not require one to be part of any particular ethnic group, whereas being German, French, British, etc. is. And once again, I think it'd be a tragedy if those groups were to disappear. Obviously having more kids is the ideal solution for them. But if they won't do that, their economies and living standards are going to largely collapse unless they bring in immigrants. You see, the absolute numbers of a population aren't what matters here. It's all about the age structure of the population. And given the current birthrates in Europe, there won't be enough working-age people to support all the retirees.

So unless they have more kids, Europe has only two choices - either bring in immigrants, or fall into almost certain economic decline and potentially even poverty. This latter choice, which you advocate, would about make them third-world countries populated entirely by native Europeans.

Ron Jay

“Do you honestly believe that anyone who encourages non-whites to move to Europe should be put on trial like the Nazis? Nothing about that strike you as disgustingly racist and immoral? (Because it totally is.) Plus, to even say that an alien influx is equivalent to genocide is a leap of logic with no basis in reality.”

Look, I am illustrating a point of principle. An alien influx is indeed genocide; genocide is genocide, regardless of whether it is in a concentration camp, in an immigration center, or…in the bedroom. The following chart makes this clear:
http://www.amren.com/0302issue/Table3sml.jpg
Dividing the numbers of immigrants by the conversion factors demonstrates that the advocacy of non-Western immigration into Western nations is the genetic (and moral) equivalent to the promotion of mass murder. I cannot see why the lack of understanding. Every nation has a carrying capacity. In the absence of an alien influx, a nation may have a population X of group A. With the influx of alien group B, the nation becomes more and more filled up with members of group B and their posterity. So, even if group A later decides to increase its birth rate to fill their nation’s capacity, they can no longer do so, since the nation is at least partially occupied by members of another group. Given enough political power, group B may promote policies detrimental to the native group. Inter-marriage between the two groups further diminishes the numbers of the native group. Comparing the situation with or without the immigration, the numbers and status of the native group will be, in the long run, inevitably harmed by immigration and the presence of the intrusive group. (And of course, the homeland of group B, untouched by immigration, allows for continuity of group B even as they threaten the long-term continuity of group A). We see demographic projections of minority status for certain native European ethnic groups in the not too distant future. The long-term prospect for the continuity of these groups is significantly harmed by immigration. Why is this not genocide? Let us look at the end results. Immigration has the LONG TERM result of replacing potential natives with aliens. It harms, in the SHORT TERM and the LONG TERM the social cohesion and organic solidarity of the nation. It introduces into the nation a group with interests different from that of the natives. And unless the newcomers are repatriated, this is a permanent diminishment of the proportional (and eventually, absolute) numbers of the natives in their own land. Please, before you accuse others of leaps of logic, at least read reviews of Salter (if not the original work).
http://www.amren.com/store/salterreview.htm
Better still, read the original work; 300+ pages of science-based, biopolitical and sociobiological analysis.

And calling me “racist” is simply ad hominem. Only advocacy of interests of European-derived peoples’ interests is “racist” it seems. Promoting the displacement of an entire race is seemingly “not racist.” Why?
And, if this is so, why shouldn’t promoters of genocide be held accountable by legally convened tribunals?

“You say that Europeans "should" care about group continuity, but if you aren't a European yourself, that's not your decision to make for them.”

People of European descent worldwide have a vested interest in what happens in their ancestral homeland. I note that, by analogy, an individual threatening suicide will have intervention and therapy to help them. Doesn’t a historically productive and innovative race deserve the same?

“First of all, the definition of "white" isn't exactly clear cut….”

We can stop this nonsensical neocon/Barone “argument” right here. First, if what we mean by “white” is European ancestry, then there is no question of who is “white.”
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/productsandservices/ancestrybydna/ethnicities/images/worldtree.gif
Second, questions of population clustering can be answered by population genetics, and researchers like Neil Risch
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15625622
have established the objective existence of a “white” (i.e., Caucasian) category, which is distinct from that of Hispanics. Third, the recent non-European immigrants are obviously different from the white ethnics of the past, unless you believe there are no physical differences between, say, Stan Musial and Joe DiMaggio and, say, Fernando Valenzuela and Sammy Sosa. Reality check! On a more genetic level, if the distance between Eastern/Southern Europeans and Anglo-Saxons is “X”, then, the distance between Mexicans and Anglo-Saxons would be, say, “10X”, Chinese “30X”, Africans, “50X”, etc. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, there is a serious error of logic in your argument: that a past error justifies a present error. That is, because people in the past believed that whales are fish and not mammals, which is wrong, that does not mean we must now believe that tuna, cod, and salmon are really mammals! Just because Ben Franklin thought that even Swedes were “not white” (!!!) does not then mean that genetically distant non-European peoples from Africa/Asia/Latin America are therefore “white.” If everyone and anyone are “white”, then the term has no meaning. Instead of quibbling over semantics, I put forth that what I (and most people today) mean by “white” is “of European ancestry.” Given that, the debate can progress.

“Today's Hispanic immigrants to America (and to Spain, if that's where they go) are little different. The first generation is poor, uneducated, not considered white, etc…”

And, objectively, they are in fact not white:
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/productsandservices/ancestrybydna/ethnicities/9.html
This cannot change. We need to stop talking about subjective semantics – definitions of “white” – and begin talking about objective definitions of population groups. One can define “white” any way they choose, but that does not change what Risch finds when the genetic data are analyzed. It does not change that Europe is the most genetically homogenous continent, and that this population cluster is distinct from Hispanics and other groups. How can a group that is half-Amerindian be “white”, the same as Europeans?

“….but has America become third-world? Not whatsoever. Our per capita GDP has steadily risen, and today Americans are on average much wealthier than Europeans.”

Have you been to LA recently? There is a “work in progress”, or should I say a “disaster in progress.” The point is not whether America as a whole is a Third World nation now, but rather will most of America look like Detroit or LA in the latter half of this century. It sure looks like it.

“If the people are properly assimilated, they should continue to become Americans just fine. Now that said, Europe is indeed different in a sense, because being "American" does not require one to be part of any particular ethnic group...”

What is an “American?” By law, the offspring of an illegal woman who just crossed the border is an “American.” Abe Foxman and David Duke are both equally “Americans”; good luck with them in the same room together. Pat Buchanan, Louis Farrakhan, Alan Dershowitz are all “Americans.” ”American” means what? Strengthening America benefits who? The people of America, I presume. But these people are of different groups, with different interests. A nation without some sort of common ethnic/cultural basis, even if only at a broad racial level, is not a nation at all, but a divided Empire that will one day fall as did Rome.

“But if they won't do that, their economies and living standards are going to largely collapse unless they bring in immigrants. You see, the absolute numbers of a population aren't what matters here. It's all about the age structure of the population. And given the current birthrates in Europe, there won't be enough working-age people to support all the retirees.”

Again: why should the immigrants and their posterity fund pensions for old white folks? Once they have sufficient political power, what guarantee is there that they will not rewrite the rules for their own benefit? Even if the pensions continue, who will fund the retirement of the immigrants? More immigrants? Ponzi scheme, anyone? Maybe the elaborate social welfare system of Europe needs to be scaled back, and society made more family/baby friendly? There are a number of options, immigration is not set in stone as the only one.

“So unless they have more kids, Europe has only two choices - either bring in immigrants, or fall into almost certain economic decline and potentially even poverty.

Two words: carrying capacity. Once a nation is partially filled by newcomers and their posterity, there is no longer room for the natives to expand to fill their nation as there was before. Unless the newcomers are repatriated, this is a permanent diminishment of the demographic options of the native population. It is such a serious effect, that it must be considered with great seriousness, and not promoted with an easy air of “we need pension money.” Further, the presence of the aliens themselves may have effects on the natives that would further depress birth rate: crowding, economic competition, crime, and a general feeling of alienation and loss of social cohesion.
Do you really believe that without immigrants Europeans will continue a decline into poverty without making the societal changes needed to change this?

“This latter choice, which you advocate, would about make them third-world countries populated entirely by native Europeans.”

Nonsense. Without the “crutch” of immigrants, Europeans will be forced to face their demographic, social, and economic problems and address them (as Sailer suggests). With the artificial support of young immigrants, there is no incentive for change, other than the racial-cultural arguments I and others make. Europeans, being intelligent albeit selfish people, will not sit back and let themselves fall into Third World status without the immigrants, but would take the required steps to enhance the birthrate out of sheer economic necessity (if for no other reason). There is also automation (which the Japanese, another aging population use instead of immigrants), which shows the short-sightedness of the whole immigration program. Do we import people just in time for them to become absolute because of automation? Further, the Third World will not have the incentive to address their own overpopulation problem with the “crutch” of the emigration option. Everyone needs to address their own demographic problems in their own lands, instead of delaying the inevitable (and irreversibly altering Europe in the process) through population transfer. Sooner or later the Third World must stop the population increase, or the entire world will collapse under the strain. Better to do it now, in their own nations rather than later, in ours.

Furthermore, your logic escapes me. You advocate an “economically strong Europe” which may be inhabited by people racially alien to the natives. How the natives benefit from this – in the long run- I am not quite sure. Native Americans did not benefit from being displaced by Europeans, despite the greater economic efficiency brought by European immigration. This immigration benefited the Europeans and their posterity, not the natives. If you cannot afford to send your kid to college, my scheme to “help you” will in fact NOT help if it, in the end, helps MY kid, and not YOUR kid, to attend college. If immigrants are good for the economy, why not propose replacing the entire population of Europe with immigrants? Why not? Hey, the immigrants are “hard-working”, they have children, and they are, you say, “culturally assimilable.” Why wait several generations, let’s get rid of those pesky Europeans now. Saying it that way sounds ludicrous; if the purpose of the immigration is to help the people of Europe, then it makes no sense to eliminate the very people the immigration is supposed to help. This is the point. The fact that the elimination may take generations doesn’t alter the facts. Look at it another way: what on Earth can justify a people losing control of their own nation? South Korea now has a birthrate of 1.08 children/family. There may be some short-sighted Koreans who may consider immigration (I doubt that many would, they are healthier than Europeans). But consider this: would the Koreans accept immigration if it was made plain that, say, 100 years from now, Koreans would be a minority of the population of Korea, and would have lost effective control of their ethnic destiny in their own homeland! That’s insanity! Better a period of economic decline, which could be reversed by the right policies, than a PERMANENT diminishment of a people in their ancestral lands. That’s madness! Why do something that may be irreversible? Why not try EVERY possible option before letting in the immigrants?

Boosting Europe’s economy will not help native Europeans if they are being gradually displaced by others. Look, the Europeans let in the immigrants for selfish reasons – for their economies, pensions, and to enjoy the “good life” without families – not to help the immigrants. But the immigrants do benefit, which is why they come. The REAL selfishness of the Europeans is not with respect to the immigrants, but to future (potential) generations of Europeans, who are being deprived of their birthright by the selfishness and fecklessness of the present generation. Not surprising that a people who do not want children care little for the future of their own people. But here is the point. A mature and intelligent and far-seeing people should recognize that actions taken today must benefit the future generations as well as the present. There is NO long-term benefit to Europe and Europeans if the fruits of the “strong economy” end up in the hands of the posterity of Afro-Asiatic and Latino immigrants. Like the grasshopper compared to the ant, the Europeans are essentially throwing away their civilizational and demographic future for a few decades of “fun” now. They have no right to commit self-genocide, and no one has the right to promote it. If someone is suicidal, their problem does not justify you pressing a gun in their hand. If someone is an alcoholic, this does not give you the right to give them a bottle of vodka along with their car keys. Immigration will, literally, destroy Europe and the Europeans, and everything must be done to prevent this from happening; certainly, this destruction should not be promoted.

Solid Surfer

I understand what you're saying regarding genetic diversity, but it still doesn't remotely resemble an actual genocide. A genocide is the mass extermination of a people through killing. With immigration (and subsequent assimilation and intermarriage), the host society's genetic diversity may increase, but nobody dies and nobody is killed. The people may be a bit different, but they're still around. This circumstance and genocide are two entirely different situations.

Furthermore, our current ethnic groups today are not monolithic to begin with. The British people, just for example, are a mix of Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Welsh, and probably some ancient Roman mixed in. All of these groups contributed over long periods of time to add their own genetics to the British mix, but this is simply a normal human experience, and nothing resembling a genocide.

Also, I don't believe whatsoever that immigration should only go one way. If some white Europeans want to move to China or Africa or wherever, then so be it. I certainly would understand if those countries don't want *too much* immigration from other peoples (just as I understand if Europeans don't want too much immigration), but I think it'd be very bad to completely end all immigration between peoples entirely.

And I never said that only white people can be racist. People of any race can be racist, and some of the worst are black (e.g. Mugabe of Zimbabwe), Arab (Saudi Arabian government), Hispanic (the Aztlan group), etc.

Regarding who is considered "white", there is indeed some genuine disagreement, regardless of what people thought in the past. Obviously Asians and black Africans are not white. But the average Greek is probably about as genetically close to the average Arab as he is from the average Swede. And yet both Swedes and Greeks are considered white, whereas Arabs generally aren't. So it's not always so clear cut.

Re: America - being an American is not an ethnic thing; it's about subscribing to the idea of living according to American principles. Anyone of any ethnic group can do this. America could indeed become more like Detroit or LA, but not from having too many immigrants; this would occur only if we fail to assimilate them properly. The fact that immigrants come from the third world isn't an issue if we turn them into first-worlders here in America. After all, most European immigrants to America in the 1800s and early 1900s came from what were then third-world countries themselves, but because the existing Americans assimilated them, their descendants became first-worlders as well.

The same thing is happening with Hispanic immigrants - the second and third generation are much more successful and assimilated than the initial immigrants. The only reason we see problems in places like LA is because fresh immigrants keep coming and it takes a generation or so to adjust.

Regarding Europe, I'm not nearly as confident as you that they'll do what it takes to prevent aging related economic problems before they occur. Look at France, for example - the welfare state is obviously untenable under its current structure, but people still rioted there to keep it as is. At this rate, I frankly don't believe Europeans will do anything to help themselves until the problems are so overwhelmingly bad that they have no choice. Proactive actions now will save them a great deal of grief in the future, but as you said, they only care about the present, and I don't think they'll do a thing until the danger is staring them right in the face.

Going back to my original article, I agree fully (as I wrote in it) that having more kids is a better situation for Europe than immigration. Immigration is not a panacea given their situation, and my whole point to begin with was merely to criticize a New York Times article which assumed that all immigrants had to be Muslim. I disagree that immigration will hurt Europeans if they have a healthy native growth rate (and I never meant ultra large scale immigration to begin with - limited immigration is the only reasonable possibility); the carrying capacity of any land is not a known quantity, and having a bit of diversity is not a problem if the native population grows in itself. (I feel this way about all countries, not just in Europe - for example, there are in increasing number of Westerners moving to India, but this is no danger to the Indians themselves because the number of ethnic Indians is increasing as well.)

Regardless of immigration, it all comes down again to birthrates. If Europe wants to avoid a decline, its native peoples must increase their natural growth rate.

Ron Jay

“I understand what you're saying regarding genetic diversity, but it still doesn't remotely resemble an actual genocide.”

This is a self-contradictory sentence. If you really did understand what I am saying, you’d realize that it is actual genocide. Either you are not bothering to look at the links, or are perversely refusing to comprehend the simple data and explanations therein.

“ A genocide is the mass extermination of a people through killing.”

Not so.
Definition of genocide:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
“Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.”

Preventing the group from reproducing itself, taking away resources…anything then that leads to a diminishment of the group and its ability to survive, is genocide. “Destroy” a group doesn’t always involve typical direct killings. “Preventing births” directly implies that “destroying” the group includes future generations of the group; that is, harming group continuity by indirect means is also genocide. Thought experiment: if instead of killing members of a group, say that instead you sterilized them all. Isn’t that genocide? Let’s say the plan was to sterilize all their grandchildren. Isn’t that a “larger plan to destroy the group?” If a group ceases to exist, or is greatly diminished by admixture, isn’t that genocide? Let us say that, for some reason, you hated, say, Koreans. It was not practical to kill them all, or sterilize them all. But, instead, it was practical to add immigrants to their nation, displacing Koreans over time, and causing intermarriage, reducing the numbers of people of unmixed Korean ancestry (and thus, genetics and phenotype). Projecting this over time, the proportion and numbers of ethnic Koreans are greatly diminished. No direct murders – but the same end result: Genocide.

Alien immigration destroys at least part of the future group by taking away the resource of delineated ethnic territory (itself a genocidal act), and by preventing births of the group, by filling up carrying capacity, promoting admixture (http://www.amren.com/0302issue/table5sml.jpg), and the fact that immigration may depress native birthrates:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/cure-or-disease.html

Alien immigration can have a catastrophic effect on the demographic profile of a native ethnic group, with all the disastrous consequences stemming from that effect. The decision to allow (or promote….) such immigration is a conscious one, and the potential demographic effects are well known. It would seem then, taking into account the effects of immigration on group continuity and group cohesion, then promotion of alien immigration is promotion of genocide. Of course, politically incorrect establishment organizations – which themselves promote white genocide – would not of course wish to indict themselves. So, just as the “official” proclaimed definition of “indigenous people” mysteriously are not meant to include Europeans, so too definitions of genocide mysteriously do not apply when the victims of ‘programs to produce conditions preventing the survival of the group’ are whites.
Immigration to America:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/another-american-century-or-another.html
Japan as model:
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_051106.htm

“The people may be a bit different, but they're still around.”

Completely illogical. If the people are “different” they are, by definition, not the same. Therefore the original stocks are not maintained. Thus, the original stocks disappear. Get it? How about the American Indian? Go to a reservation, they are “still around”, albeit “a bit different”, since most are part-white hybrids. There were wars of course (just as there is plenty of anti-white racial violence in America), but for the most part the genocide – and it was genocide – of the American Indian was not from mass killings. It was genocide nonetheless – look at the results – and the presence of a number of hybrids today doesn’t change the enormity, from the Native American perspective, of what happened.

“Furthermore, our current ethnic groups today are not monolithic to begin with.”

Irrelevant. Current group interests are based upon what the groups are today, not how they got that way. Slight past admixture in the past doesn’t justify current and future large admixture. Having a dent on your car doesn’t justify smashing the whole thing. Puerto Ricans have group interests and certainly defend them, despite being a mix of Spanish, African, and Amerindian. Should they let themselves be over-run by Haitians because of that large mixture? Nonsense. And if large admixture does not justify a lack of defense of territory and interests, certainly lesser admixture does not either.

“The British people, just for example, are a mix of Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Welsh, and probably some ancient Roman mixed in. All of these groups contributed over long periods of time to add their own genetics to the British mix”

You are a describing a mix of different European peoples, mostly of Northern European origins. How on Earth does that compare with say, modern miscegenation in Britain, between whites, blacks, and Asians? Are you serious?

“Also, I don't believe whatsoever that immigration should only go one way. If some white Europeans want to move to China or Africa or wherever, then so be it.”

No Europeans want to live there, and they wouldn’t be allowed in. Chinese are xenophobic, and whites are being ethnically cleansed from southern Africa right now.

“Regarding who is considered "white", there is indeed some genuine disagreement, regardless of what people thought in the past. Obviously Asians and black Africans are not white. But the average Greek is probably about as genetically close to the average Arab as he is from the average Swede. And yet both Swedes and Greeks are considered white, whereas Arabs generally aren't. So it's not always so clear cut.”

“Probably”, indeed! Data? See the pie chart here
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/productsandservices/eurodna/manual/
and the comments:
“This illustrates that most Europeans are of admixed NOR and MED ancestry, (whether or not they call themselves Germans, French, Italians etc..”
See also:
http://nusapiens.blogspot.com/2005/03/ranking-native-european-ancestry.html
In any case, while Greeks and Swedes obviously differ in their “NOR” vs. “MED”, as expected, Greeks are clearly not halfway between Swedes and Arabs. Stop inventing excuses.

Your comment makes no sense from two other perspectives. First, if Greeks fall into a “white” biological category, then it doesn’t matter if they are halfway between another white group and a Caucasian group considered non white. Likewise, if one defines “East Coast” with particular geographical criteria, and if Philadelphia meets these criteria, the fact that Philadelphia is “as close” to a Mid-west city as it is to Boston does not alter the fact that Philadelphia still makes the cut as “East Coast.” Furthermore, the fact that Philadelphia is not “as East Coast” as is Boston, does not magically make Denver into an “East Coast” city. The whole point here is (or was?) about mixed-race New World Hispanics, not about Swedes/Greeks/Arabs. No matter how you consider Swedes/Greeks/Arabs, half-Amerindian Hispanics are not “white.” Groups that are genetically and phenotypically distinct from any type of European cannot be considered “white”, in the European sense, regardless of the internal differences within Europeans themselves. You may argue whether aquamarine is more blue or green, but this does not make scarlet to be blue or green; instead it is a shade of red. Semantics cannot replace facts. Differences within Europe will not magically cause most Mexicans to fall into Risch’s Caucasian genetic cluster.

“Re: America - being an American is not an ethnic thing; it's about subscribing to the idea of living according to American principles.”

That’s true because you say so? The Founding Fathers thought differently, and there are some who agree with them today. What are “American principles”, by the way? Obviously not what the nation was founded on, or it would still be for the original posterity. These “principles” will change as the population changes, a convenient way to justify continued immigration and demographic change.

“Anyone of any ethnic group can do this.”

Would you say the same of Israel as you do for America and Europe? I’m not talking about empty assurances, said because you know the Israelis would never do it. I’m talking about real, sincere belief. Deep down, do you think that superficial “assimilation” would justify allowing significant immigration of non-Jews into Israel, allowing them to become citizens and intermarry with natives if they meet “American” standards of assimilation, etc?

“The fact that immigrants come from the third world isn't an issue if we turn them into first-worlders here in America.”

How are you going to change their genes? How are you going to change their civilizational history?

“After all, most European immigrants to America in the 1800s and early 1900s came from what were then third-world countries themselves, but because the existing Americans assimilated them, their descendants became first-worlders as well.”

Because they were European and came from the western civilization.

“The same thing is happening with Hispanic immigrants - the second and third generation are much more successful and assimilated than the initial immigrants. The only reason we see problems in places like LA is because fresh immigrants keep coming and it takes a generation or so to adjust.”

Not so, and I think guys like Sailer would also disagree. How about the problems with Hispanic gangs in Northern Virginia? New York? Even the Midwest? And what if we do not WANT them to be assimilated into our nation? See also:
http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2005/03/wrong-kind-of-assimilation.html
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/assimilation.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/spanish_preferred.htm
http://vdare.com/rubenstein/050713_nd.htm
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002235.html

“Regarding Europe, I'm not nearly as confident as you that they'll do what it takes to prevent aging related economic problems before they occur. Look at France, for example - the welfare state is obviously untenable under its current structure, but people still rioted there to keep it as is.”

Welfare states are sustainable only in homogenous nations. France is not, thus….

“Regardless of immigration, it all comes down again to birthrates. If Europe wants to avoid a decline, its native peoples must increase their natural growth rate.”

To increase their birthrates, no immigration
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/cure-or-disease.html

Considering that India wouldn’t allow one single white man- Peter Brimelow – to emigrate there, based on race (see: Alien Nation), where are all these “westerners” moving to India? I find it a bit hard to believe that, besides a small number of TEMPORARY diplomats, businessmen, or academics, there are any westerners who wish to move to India, to become citizens (if they can!), etc. India, by the way, has more than a billion people (more than all the white people on Earth combined), and is a net exporter of people, so I fail to see the relevance for your statement in the first place.

In summary, I’d advise you to carefully consider the demographic impact of even limited immigration, before making further assertions that have no connection to reality whatsoever.

Solid Surfer

I get all your points, and they make good sense, but only if you go along with two large assumptions that I don't share. This, I think, is why we disagree.

Your assumptions are:

1. Only European-descended people (i.e. "whites") are capable of achieving first-world civilization.

2. Nations are best defined ethnically and not nationally.

Of these two, I strongly believe that #1 is flat-out wrong, while #2 can go either way.

First of all, European whites are not automatically synonymous with first-world civilization. Two hundred years ago, there were no first-world nations, period. It is true that white-majority nations were the first nations to industrialize and achieve this level, but not all white nations did it. Spain and Italy only got there recently, while I'd argue that most of Eastern Europe still isn't there. Meanwhile, certain non-white nations have achieved first-world status, such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, and others are on their way such as China and India. This is not a matter of contention; non-European Japan is clearly more first world and industrialized than all of Eastern Europe, and some European countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Bosnia, etc.) are economic basket cases.

The key to becoming first-world has not been a nation's particular ethnic group, but that nation's governmental and economic policies. South Korea and Ghana had similar GDPs 50 years ago (both third-world), but then South Korea stabilized its government, got rid of corruption, and implemented free market reforms. As a result, Korea moved up to first-world, whereas Ghana, which did no such reforms, is still third-world.

With the proper economic and social policies, anyone can become successful, and this is why the descendants of immigrants to America have done so much better than the immigrants' home countries, be it nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.

As for assumption #2, there is no right or wrong answer to this. Most nations do indeed define themselves ethnically, and if that's what they want to do, then so be it. If European nations want to define themselves only in this manner, then you are absolutely correct - any immigration from anywhere else is bad.

However, if they want to define themselves nationalistically and not neccesarily according to an ethnic group, then immigration shouldn't matter to them as long as the immigrants assimilate and become genuine members of the host nation. This is how America has worked.

Should Europe accept such a change? You say no because it reduces the purity of the European blood of the natives. Now that is, of course, a valid point, but that's something Europeans need to decide for themselves. I completely understand your desire as an ethnic European to want to discourage this. However, personally I don't feel as attached. My family also came to America from Europe, but I feel far more American than European. I do believe it would be a tragedy if any race died out, including whites, but let's also be realistic - white people aren't going to disappear. Europe may have low birthrates, but not all segments of European nations do, and at some point, the white European subgroups who DO have higher birthrates will eventually grow enough to sustain the population. Furthermore, there are hundreds of millions of whites in the U.S., Latin America, and elsewhere with more stable and/or growing birthrates.

Now again, if Europe wants to be defined only by ethnicity, then I have no problem with that. But multi-ethnic countries can indeed function and even thrive as long as there's a common nationalistic thread to them. I'm glad you brought Israel up, because it's actually a great example of this.

Most Israelis are Jews, yes, but Judaism is a nation and a religion, not an ethnic group. Israel has Jews who are white (European-descended), black (Ethiopian descent), Middle Eastern (the Jews who have been in Israel continuously throughout history, as well as those from the Arab nations and Iran), Indian (the Bnei Menashe), and so on. Israel also has continuous immigration from America, Russia, Ethiopia, Argentina, France, etc. Whites are not the majority in Israel either - Middle Easternern Jews are. (Whites certainly haven't disappeared though; far from it.) Furthermore, to respond to the question you asked, yes - Israel indeed lets in people of any ethnic group, as long as they are Jews religiously. Ethnicity doesn't matter, just being Jewish - that's why Israel has accepted large-scale immigration from all continents and ethnic groups.

Meanwhile, this has not turned Israel into a third-world country; in fact, it's been the opposite. In the past 50 years, Israel has risen from third-world status to first-world status (and I can attest to this, as I've been there), all while allowing mass immigration from everywhere. The reason is because despite ethnic differences, all the groups have in common being Jewish and Israeli, and today there is much intermarriage and intermixing between the different ethnic groups there.

Israel has done this successfully, and I think any other country and do it as well by following the same template. Once again, if countries would rather define themselves ethnically instead, I understand and respect that too, and have nothing against it. But the Israel-model is certainly achievable, and that's why I don't think (non-Muslim) immigration is necessarily as bad as you think it is, regardless of where it occurs in the world.

Ron Jay

I never made assumption 1. Japan is "first world" and not white. My assumption is that only whites can create and maintain a western civilization. With respect to #2, I've shown that alien migration is genocidal, by accepted definitions, and since I oppose genocide, my position is clear.

Your comment that Judaism is not connected to ethnicity is untrue. First, most Jews worldwide are Ashkenazim, not only an ethnic group but an extremely inter-related one. Most Jews in Israel belong to one of three groups: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and "Middle Eastern" Jews, such as Iraqi Jews. There are of course small communities of Indian, Chinese, and Ethiopian Jews, but let us be honest: most Israeli Jews belong to one of the big three Caucasian groups.

There are differences between these groups - just as there are differences between different kinds of Europeans - but there are also strong similarities. All three groups derive from a common pool of Middle Eastern ancestors (thus, there are no "European-descended" Jews), and, while there has been some degree of subsequent admixture (some, not a lot), the genetic similarities between these groups can still be discerned:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/matrilineal-ancestry-of-ashkenazi-jews.html

http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9326232&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14740294&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10801975&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

To say that Israel allows "mass immigration from everywhere" when in fact what we are dealing with are, for the most part, different varieties of Jewish groups, is really, really stretching reality to the breaking point.

"Mass immigration from everywhere" would include the same variety of immigration, regardless of ethnicity and religion, now flowing into the USA. I cannot believe you actually believe what you have written. This is either deception of self-deception at an incredible level, in that you believe that Russian Jews and Iranian Jews and North African Jews and Iraqi Jews and Polish Jews, with small drops of other groups, equals "mass immigration from everywhere." Really, now.

To what extent external subsidies have contributed to Israel's first-world status, is another question.

If you think ethnicity has nothing to do with GDP, you can review the relationship between ethnic IQ and GDP; do literature searches. Gee, when are we going to worry about Ghana developing an atom bomb? Any day now?

Solid Surfer

Concerning creating a Western civilization, a lot depends on what's considered "Western." In many respects (representative democracy with checks and balances, laws, cultural values, economic productivity, etc.), Japan is very Western, much more so than many white nations (Russia and much of Eastern Europe in particular). And if non-white Japan can do it, then other non-white nations can do it as well. Here is an article that well encapsulates how I view Western civilization: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50266

Also, I get what you're saying about immigration regarding the changing of a host country's ethnic character, but genocide is still the wrong word to call it. When there were killings in Rwanda and Cambodia, that was genocide. To also call alien migration a genocide would seem to imply moral equivalence with Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. and that's clearly not the case. (I'm not saying you intended it that way, but that's how it comes across as sounding.) The difference with mass immigration is that the host country willingly does it to themselves. If anything, you could call it ethnic suicide in countries where the ethnic and national identity are one in the same.

Regarding Israel, Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews did originate from the same population from thousands of years ago, but so did all human groups if you go back far enough. What matters is that today, there are many huge cultural differences between Ashkenazim and Sephardim (and Mizrahim and all the rest), and Israel has very successfully integrated them all together. Also, the majority of Jews worldwide are Ashkenazim, but in Israel there are about equal proportions of Ashkenazim and Sephardim/Mizrahim (these two are often grouped together as one).

And yes, it's true that immigrants from Israel have come from all over the world. Not necessarily in equal proportions from everywhere, but the overall scope of immigrants there is very global. And there are definite physical differences too - Ashkenazim and Sephardim (not to mention Ethiopian Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc.) are generally very distinguishable from each other based on looks.

Ron Jay

*Of course* there is a moral equivalent, genocide= genocide. Why are some forms of genocide more "worthy" of concern than others? I have *already* shown, in detail, that mass migration is genocide, there is little more to say on that issue.

I'm sorry, but migration of different types of Jews, most of whom share common ancestry and a common religion, is NOT "mass migration from all over the world", no more than Greek Orthodox and Danish Protestants and Croat Catholics would be "migration from all over the world." And, yes, the Danes and Greeks "are generally very distinguishable from each other based on looks." Thus, if America had a Europe-only immigration policy, we could then enjoy migration from all over the world, right?

"Regarding Israel, Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews did originate from the same population from thousands of years ago, but so did all human groups if you go back far enough"

Gee, don't you think there is a difference between relationships dating back 2000 years (or earlier) and those dating back 40,000-200,000 years?

Do you have some inner compulsion not being able to admit that you are wrong on this topic?

Regards that link, it is the typical NeoCon nonsense. The West is more than a set of abstract principles, it is the combination of the peoples and cultures that the peoples have produced over thousands of years. Even IF non-whites could be "western", that is not the point. The point is that displacement of racial groups is GENOCIDE.

Why ignore my points? If one were to merely sterilize or enforce celibacy on an entire ethnic group, but not "kill them", is not that also genocide?

Listen carefully: what is important is the FINAL RESULT, not the method used to achieve the result. If immigration and admixture result in the same outcome as direct killings, death is death.

The "voluntary" nature of this is also questionable. Elites - with vested interests of their own - lie to the people, pass laws making it illegal to speak out against immigration (in practical effect in Europe to great extent), the media manipulates public opinions.....if presented honestly, would populations choose genocide (or ethnic suicide, if you prefer?)?

No, they have guys like you and Zeiger telling them that it is A-OK, and no problem. There IS a problem, and they must be told. If they "choose" self-annihilation, let it be an informed choice, no?

Ron Jay

Racial mixing used as a form of ethnic cleansing (i.e., genocide):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16001-2004Jun29.html
In Third World nations, this takes the form of violence against women; in the First World, by immigration and the promotion of inter-marriage. The results are the same.

Regarding the similarity between Jewish populations, most of these studies are by Jewish scientists, some of them Israeli. There has been some positive comment of these studies in the Jewish community; for example, by this rabbi:
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp
After all, the findings are true, and they seem to confirm a link between today’s Jews and the ancient Israelites.
The genetic data point to the history outlined in this diagram:
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/full/90/7/2654/F4
Note that most of the differences between different kinds of Europeans far predate the divisions of the major groups of Jews. Therefore, migration of Danes, Greeks, and Croats to America would constitute a more diverse migratory stream than have been the major sources of immigration to Israel over the last ~ 60 years.

Of interest is that even these relatively small differences between the major Jewish groups in Israel results in some conflict:
http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol7Is099WurmserPostZionism.shtml
what then of the much greater differences that occur as the result of real migration from all over the world?
http://www.eaif.org/IMMIGRATION.htm
Even the Asian immigrants and their offspring are attacking whites, despite Asian affluence and their alleged eagerness to assimilate.

Solid Surfer

No, what you're talking about is not genocide whatsoever. If a Chinese immigrant moves to Sweden and marries a white Swede and they have mixed-race kids together, you honestly think that's the moral equivalent of Hitler killing Jews or Pol Pot killing Cambodians? That's a pretty indefensible argument there.

See, you're forgetting one major thing - when you mix races/ethnicities, the ethnic groups of both parents are affected. Yes, the children who are half-Swedish/half-Chinese represent a loss to the population of purely Swedish people. But they also represent the same loss to the population of purely Chinese people. So now what - are these parents contributing to the "genocide" of both ethnic Swedes and ethnic Chinese?

And what about people who don't have children, perhaps because they never found the right person to marry or because they weren't able to have children? These people don't contribute any kids of their particular ethnicities to the next generation. Are they too contributing to the "genocide" of their people?

There is a huge difference between a real genocide and these types of situations.

And plus, I'll say it again as I've said before - if a particular group wants to perpetuate itself, it needs to have kids. I just read somewhere that 30% of German women don't have kids. Clearly, this will impact the German population to a great degree. But does immigration to Germany have much to do with this? Of course not. If you ask these German women why they don't have kids, I doubt a single one would answer "because we have immigrants to the country to take their place". Rather, having kids is a personal choice, not something that the media has much influence over. Anyone who decides to not have kids knows that they aren't contributing to the gene pool, but for whatever reason, they don't care because something else in their life (putting career first, being able to afford a wealthier life, or whatever) means more to them than children.

Without addressing this issue, immigration hardly even matters.

Ron Jay

Yes, it is exactly equivalent, and the genetic data support my position. Your subjective "outrage" over this does not alter the facts one iota.

"See, you're forgetting one major thing - when you mix races/ethnicities, the ethnic groups of both parents are affected. Yes, the children who are half-Swedish/half-Chinese represent a loss to the population of purely Swedish people. But they also represent the same loss to the population of purely Chinese people. So now what - are these parents contributing to the "genocide" of both ethnic Swedes and ethnic Chinese?"

Are you serious? The genocide is unidirectional because the immigration is unidirectional. China remains homogenous, while Chinese move to Sweden, displace Swedes, and create Eurasian mongrels in place of native Swedes. Are Swedes moving to China in your scenario? No. Third World immigrants represent a surplus of their population invading the territories of others, while their own nations are demographically secure. Granted, a Chinese in Sweden would conserve more genes by marrying a fellow Chinese, but, since this is taking place *in someone else's territory*, even the intermarriage represents a net gain for the expansion of Chinese genes. And, after all, the Chinese - with 1.25 billion people and a xenophobic policy - are in no danger. Eight million Swedes, threatened by immigration, are. "See, you're forgetting" several major things.

Is it a lack of logic or is it an intentional aim to convince European-derived peoples to accept replacement?

I already linked to Sailer about the correlation between immigration and native fecundity. Whether the native overly knows it, is not the point. The other point is, as I *already* stated, is that there is less incentive for a selfish population to increase their numbers if economic positions are filled by foreigners.

Ron Jay

The comments below are from Steve Sailer's http://www.isteve.com site, and I present them in their entirety and without further comment:

"Swedish fury over miscegenation ... among falcons: Nature and falconry writer Steve Bodio sends me this, which offers an amusing perspective on the "species does not exist" problem:

Here is the text-- from The Gyrfalcon, by Eugene Potapov and Richard Sale-- Sale is mostly a translator.

'There was panic in Sweden in 1999 when an escaped male Gyrfalcon x Peregrine Falcon hybrid from Denmark paired with a native Peregrine female in Bohuslan, the male bird being identified by its leg ring. The pairing made the headlines of Swedish newspapers...Falconry is, in general, prohibited in Finland, Sweden and Norway, and so the public reaction to this event was negative because of the potential for genetic pollution of the native species. The case was termed the 'birds of prey scandal' by the Swedish Ornithological society...Officials from Naturvårdsverket (the Swedish Ministry of the environment) killed the chicks produced by the pair and shot the hybrid. They also wished to kill the female as her willingness to mate with a non-pure bird caused concern that should another escape happen the bird might be equally willing a second time. However the female escaped and remained at large...'

This is also the opinion of the U.S. federal government. Well, not about people, but about red wolves. The red wolf is found in isolated spots in the South. Although the government lists it as an endangered species, it looks like a cross between a wolf and a coyote. Indeed, as genetic tests have shown, that is exactly what it is.

In other words, the red wolf is not an endangered species but an endangered race. The main threat to the continued racial existence of red wolves is - miscegenation with the common coyote. So, in some parts of the South, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is pursuing an aggressive campaign of sterilizing or killing uppity coyotes that can't keep their cotton-pickin' paws off our precious red wolves.

This program of lynching Southern coyotes that don't know their place is pretty amusing in a sick way. But it probably is the only way to preserve the red wolf race. Being of conservative temperament, I tend to favor conserving things, because if we don't, we'll miss them when they're gone."

Solid Surfer

The comments you've made on Sweden vs. China don't hold up. You say such a case would be unidirectional "genocide", but what if that same couple, living in Sweden, picks up and moves to China? (Such a thing happens.) Then what - now Swedish purity has been restored, and they're contributing to Chinese "genocide" simply by moving there? That sounds pretty absurd.

Plus, the fact that China has many more people than Sweden isn't the issue; regardless of how many people are in the respective countries, immigration and intermarriage mixes the genes of both people. You could do it the other way too - say, a Botswanan marries a Russian and settles in Russia. Botswana has less than 2 million people, so percentage-wise, Botswana would lose much more of its native genetics than would Russia, with 150 million people, no matter where this particular couple lives.

The point is, this is not genocide as you describe it. And I don't agree with Sailer's conclusions either - he's making a theoretical point that doesn't hold true in reality, because people in general don't make family decisions based on someone else's economics.

Ron Jay

Yeah, how many Swedes move to China? China is an enormous net exporter of people, and they do NOT allow immigration.

Of course, where the couple lives influences the outcome, as does the net immigration flow. If country A and country B both have a carrying capacity of, say, 50 million, and if B is at or approaching that mark (or is overpopulated past that mark), and if millions of Bs enter country A, displacing As, the effect is not reciprocal.

What is the net effect of immigration flow? Third World nations remain overcrowded, and ship their excess to western nations, where they displace western peoples. The nations of origin remain intact. In your deceptive example, the Botswanan represents an excess of population in Russia. Believe me, Botswana is NOT underpopulated; any population efflux can be made up virtually overnight. What happens with African emigration to the west is that Africa remains full of Africans while, at the same time, western nations become increasingly full of Africans and/or mongrels. This a NET expansion of African genes. How obtuse can you be? If there was ZERO immigration, Asians, Africans, Latinos would fill the carrying capacity of their own nations (whatever that may be) without spreading their genes into other people's nations.

WITH immigration, they fill their own nations up with their own peoples, AND fill up other people's nations as well. That intermarriage for immigrants is not as adaptive as endogamy misses the point that immigration and intermarriage is more adaptive for the immigrant-source nation than no immigration at all. When the story is over, what is the net picture of genetic expansion and displacement?

You can continue to whine "it's not genoicide" all you want. On my side, I give genetic data, UN defintions of genocide, links and logic; on your side, all you give is your personal opinion.

Very well. Here's an idea. There is a demographic problem in Israel - the Arab population is growing too fast. Solution - Asian, African, Latino (gentile) immigration into Israel, followed by American-style "assimilation" - if the men get circumcised, wear a yarmulke, and wave the Israeli flag, they should be considered Israeli Jews. And intermarriage should be no problem, I assume.

However, we observe these rather remarkable articles:
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13914&intcategoryid=5
“Under current laws, couples that wish legally to be wed in Israel must be married in a religious ceremony that is conducted by a state-recognized clergyman. For Jews, that means only one thing: an Orthodox rabbi. If the couple is comprised of a Jew and a non-Jew — an arrangement most common among the country’s Russian immigrant population — or members of a non-recognized faith or no faith at all, it means they are completely out of luck.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1112442,00.html
http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2006/05/anti-abortion-group-seeks-to-keep.html#links
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248515,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3068007,00.html

The "no sex pledge" is particularly fascinating, and a good idea I think. Can we have that for America and Europe too, please?

Ron Jay


Readers need to understand the depth of your obfuscation here. The issue at hand is not an individual Chinese moving to Sweden or an individual African moving to Russia, or the mythical Chinese-Swedish couple moving to China. The issue is, of course, your promotion of the immigration of significant numbers of non-whites into Europe. I have explained in great detail the reasons why this should be considered genocide, by any reasonable interpretation of that word. If, however, you insist on defining genocide in a narrow “direct killing only” fashion (which would mean, absurdly, that sterilizing an entire ethnic group would not be genocide), fine. We can use an alternative phrase: racial elimination. Of course that’s the same as genocide, but you seem to have an emotional attachment for using the word “genocide” to describe methods rather than outcomes. Semantics do not change outcomes.

Why Sailer’s idea is considered abstract, I do not know. If you’d bother to read Sailer’s site, or VDARE, or American Renaissance, the reasons why immigration can depress native birthrates would be obvious: job and resource competition, overcrowding, wage depression, high taxation to fund social services for the growing underclass, the destruction of cities (necessitating longer commutes and constant moving, and the fact that white families are scattered, so that extended family help with raising children cannot occur), the destruction of the public school system, etc. Sailer has shown, for example, that white birthrates are highest in the so-called “red states”, which have the lowest number of immigrants. That correlation of course does not prove causation, nevertheless, all available evidence suggest in favor of Sailer’s hypothesis. Then there is my comment that Europeans will have no economic incentive to enhance native birthrates as long as immigration continues. One must attempt to ponder the question: what if Europe had NO alien immigration, and that all aliens were repatriated? Would Europeans blithely let their populations collapse to nothing? Amazing how the same type of people who believe in “market forces” as influencing human behavior develop mental blocks when the concept leads to the conclusion that a birth scarcity would enhance the value of raising families in the society, leading to developments more conducive to such growth.

On top of everything else, we then have this graph:
http://www.amren.com/0206issue/TATU1sml.JPG
Which cannot be ignored by repeating subjective opinions over and over again.

Not to mention that in America, all these immigrants benefit from affirmative action favoritism over whites, and this is growing in Europe as well. The whole thing is absolute madness; in so-called “democracies” the rights of the majority are being trampled upon by a coalition of elite-minority interests.

There is NO reason for the native populations of Europe to be subjected to immigration. EVERY possible alternative needs to be tried first. Note that not a single alternative has been tried, replacement immigration has been going on for decades. How about trying something different? The problem is, of course, that the “need” for the immigration is only an excuse. The immigration is favored not because it is “needed”, but because it is “wanted” by the elites who run so-called western nations.

Solid Surfer

I never said Europe *needs* immigration. They can make do without it, but they'll have to suffer certain consequences. Conversely, there are also consequences to accepting immigrants. And once again, it's their choice. And whatever they do, I'm not making any judgements on it. I'm not European, and I don't feel any attachment to them, the same way I'm not Chinese, Australian, Brazilian, or whatever, and I wouldn't not making the same judgement on them either.

Sailer's theories are not proven correct. They are just theories, and not all the evidence points to him being correct. For example, one could clearly make the counter-argument against him that birthrates are higher in suburbs than in cities (which they are) because it's more expensive to live in cities due to the high real estate prices that come with having city conveniences.

And once again, immigration does not mean genocide or racial elimination or whatever you want to call it. You are the one promoting theories, graphs, etc., but look at actual reality. Where has immigrant assimilation and intermarriage eliminated the host nation? Nowhere. Just one of many examples - South Africa used to be exclusively black, but then whites moved in. Many intermarried with the local blacks, resulting in the Coloured (their word for it) population. But did the native blacks disappear? Of course not, bcause they had adequate birthrates. There was no ceiling on population growth there as you seem to believe exists in Europe. Today, whites, blacks, and coloureds there generally all consider themselves South Africans, similar to the way whites, blacks and others in America consider themselves American.

In Israel, meanwhile, they would certainly accept Asians, Africans, and Latinos if they genuinely converted to Judaism. Judaism is a people and a religion, not a particular ethnic group. Anyone can convert to it and become as Jewish as someone who was born into it. (And BTW, Israel's demographic picture is not nearly as bad as many think: http://www.pademographics.com/ )

You accuse me of saying these type of examples are only my personal opinion, but in reality, you have everything backwards. Europe and other nations only accepted immigrants once their own birthrates fell. Immigrants didn't cause the birthrate to fall. Rather, it was the complete reverse - falling birthrates spurred the desire for immigrants. Nations with falling birthrates have only themselves to blame, and regardless of immigration, having more kids is their only solution if they want to grow as ethnic groups.

Some countries, by the way, are indeed letting their populations decline without immigration - look at Japan. Will it work? Only time will tell if they can manage it or if they'll go into large-scale economic decline. But that's Japan's choice. If Europe wants to make the same choice, then so be it, or if not, then so be it as well.

Ron Jay

"I'm not European, and I don't feel any attachment to them.."

That I know full well. You are not European nor are you of European ethnic descent.

"Where has immigrant assimilation and intermarriage eliminated the host nation? Nowhere."

Hmm..The American Indian has been reduced to a number of mostly hybrids on reservations. And you, of course, miss the point that what is happening in the west today is completely unprecedented in history, complete demographic collapse followed by mass immigration. Of course, the Roman patrician class disappeared for the same reason, so it is not totally unprecedented.

The further point: genocide does not have to mean complete elimination, does it? Let's consider what you would hold up as the text book case of genocide - Nazi crimes against the Jews. The Jewish population in Europe was partially, not totally, eliminated, yet you would call that genocide. Therefore, a partial elimination of a people is genocide.

"There was no ceiling on population growth there as you seem to believe exists in Europe"

Because the whites increased the carrying capacity by introducing first world standards (third world immigrants will likely lower carrying capacity). But every land has *some* carrying capacity. Do you think America could maintain a population of 50 billion people? Yes or no? At any given carrying capacity, the foreign genes introduced by immigration = genocide.

"In Israel, meanwhile, they would certainly accept Asians, Africans, and Latinos if they genuinely converted to Judaism. Judaism is a people and a religion, not a particular ethnic group. Anyone can convert to it and become as Jewish as someone who was born into it."

Lie. Why don't they then promote immigration to solve their demographic problems? Promote conversion? Which of the world's major "religions" is non-proselytizing? How about the fact of putting the bar to "genuine conversion" so high as to limit the numbers that would so convert? Since you like anecdotes more than "numbers and graphs" (the horror!), I can tell you I even know of cases where Orthodox Jews refused to consider as Jewish people with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers who had gone through a reform Bar Mitzvah and were practicing kosher. Stop the nonsense please. Stop claiming that Judaism is not a meta-ethnicity, when the vast majority of Jews share a closer genetic relationship than do, say, Irish and Greeks. Stop the nonsense, when rabbis write articles praising genetic data showing this close genetic relationship. Stop the nonsense, when guest workers in Israel sign "no sex pledges" so as to prevent miscegenation.

"Europe and other nations only accepted immigrants once their own birthrates fell."

No one denies that. The point I've made is that they are unlikely to reverse the trend if they are being flooded with immigrants.

"Some countries, by the way, are indeed letting their populations decline without immigration - look at Japan."

God bless the Japanese.

Ron Jay

How are the Ainu doing these days? As well as the American Indian, I imagine. Where are the Dacians? The Thracians? How about the Old American stock (predominantly British with some Dutch) that have been demographically marginalized in the US by subsequent waves of immigration and intermarriage? Remember those guys? Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren? Of course there are still people of that ancestry in America today, but consider how their numbers would have compared without immigration. More to the point, project 50, 100 or more years in the future. North Africa used to be populated, and dominated, by people of unmixed Berber stock; while there are some unmixed Berbers around today, that area is dominated by Arabs, and hybrids of Arabs with Berbers and with black Africans. And so it goes….now, the French are on the way to being displaced by these racially mixed North Africans. So, that’s the “actual facts, the actual history”, exposing another deception on your part…

Also amusing is your implication that showing quantitative data, in the form of numbers, tables, and graphs, is somehow “wrong.” Amazing. I’ll tell you what, instead of counting votes in the next election, we’ll all depend on your personal opinion (declared to be “the actual facts”) to decide the outcome. Not that it’ll make much difference as the parties are the same.

Let me digress a bit, but don’t worry, this will, in the end, be of relevance to this discussion.
Consider: why is Jewish identity through the mother’s line? What was that guy Ezra thinking? Now, Ezra was an interesting fellow, and a man after my own heart:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/0195151208/acprof-0195151208-chapter-2.html

In ancient times, particularly in the Middle East, society was extremely patriarchal. The father’s identity needn’t even have been a topic of discussion, because women always went with their husbands, with their husband’s tribe, and the children’s identity were based upon that of the father. After all, that is why it was patriarchal. Very well. Thus, from the blood purity standpoint, no reason to worry about gentile men marrying Jewish women – the women and the children would be absorbed into the man’s tribe. But, alas, what to do about Jewish men marrying those gentile women? There, the possibility existed of absorbing her blood into the community. Thus, Ezra’s racialist motivation becomes clear in defining Jewish identity through the mother; therefore, in a patriarchal society, only individuals with two Jewish parents would be members of the tribe – the father through tribal custom, the mother through religious law. Of course, this definition still exists today. Although opposition to intermarriage now includes both genders, as we no longer exist in an ancient Middle Eastern tribal society. Or, at least, most of us don’t.

Here is an interesting essay:
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2525/html/rss/
“Diluting the Torah”, indeed! Intermarriage does dilute something, but it’s not the Torah. In today’s society though, it does sound better though to talk about dilution of belief, rather than of ancestry. And what are the other ethnic groups fighting against intermarriage? I can’t find the online equivalents, for example, “Irish against intermarriage”, or Scots-Irish, or Italian, or Danish, etc. And then we see that a general white opposition to intermarriage is “racist”, compared to the good “tribalist” Jewish opposition. Thus, here we have a masterpiece of obfuscation, deception, and, possibly, of self-delusion as well:
http://www.slate.com/id/1005219

Really, now. Point 1 is not only deceptive based on the ancestral relationships of the vast bulk of Jews (and the Ashkenazi are so closely inter-bred they suffer from a wide variety of recessive genetic disorders), but Shulevitz then admits in point 2 that the ethnic component is indeed important, although she again obfuscates the reality. What percent of the worldwide Jewish population are Ethiopian, Chinese, and Indian Jews? The point (merely a personal opinion) about converts being accepted is not only laughable on its face (one can imagine the ultra-Orthodox and the Hasids gleefully accepting converts – LOL!; ever hear the phrase “supernal refuse?”) and disproved by anecdotal evidence, but is refuted by point 4. Oh yes, it is quite “cute” to compare discrimination against converts to baseball league rules, but that doesn’t alter the fact that converts, even when “accepted” are second class citizens. If you are a convert in Israel, try marrying a “Cohen.” Fat chance.

The major points are 2 and 3, and these are classical examples of dual morality. When Jews practice racialism, then that is, to Shulevitz, acceptable “inward looking tribalism.” When white gentiles practice racialism, it is unacceptable “outward thinking racism.” But, Shulevitz admits, the outcome of both may be the same. But – and does this sound familiar here? – “motivation” is what is important, not outcome. I see. Very interesting. A person of European extraction, with a heritage going back thousands of years, objects to their children outmarrying, and that is “racism” with a bad motive. A Jew, with a heritage going back thousands of years, objects to intermarriage, and that is “tribalism”, with a good motive. Oh, that’s right, we can’t “dilute the Torah”, that’s the reason.

Look, outcome is outcome, and no one has the right to impugn the motives of others. How dare Shulevitz imply that her ethnic preservation is more moral than that of white gentiles! Can I use the word Chutzpah here? Alan Dershowitz would be proud of Shulevitz, I think; she must be taking his advice. The fact that she has to so carefully explain the “differences” is an indication that something is ‘wrong’ here; her case is not obvious. The reason her case is not obvious is that she is rationalizing hypocrisy and dual morality, using all sorts of obfuscation. It doesn’t wash.

And point 3 doesn’t wash either. Every group has an equal right to attempt to preserve continuity, special pleading based on group history does not convince. It is so easy to find reasons why *our group* (the good and the persecuted) has the right to act in one way, and that *your group* (the bad and the racist) cannot. Sorry, from the perspective of each group, their group’s survival should be paramount, regardless of what someone else thinks about them. One can also add that citing persecution to justify tribalism may be reversing cause and effect; possibly the tribalism preceded and provoked some of the persecution? Who knows? Shulevitz argues that some forms of racialism are more valid than others, and makes sure that her group falls within the confines of the good racialism, while members of the hapless majority – who are of course assigned no rights within a minoricentric multiculturalism – fall outside. Jewish and Black racialism – good. White gentile racialism – bad. How convenient – for Jews and Blacks. If only businesses could do the same! Post Cereal Company can discredit the idea that Kellogg’s has the same rights to make profits. Why, there’s some evidence of past monopolization there, they can argue! How long do you think people are going to stand for this hypocritical, self-serving nonsense?

If you do a Google search on “intermarriage”, the top hits will be of Jewish groups against intermarriage. That is good and right and healthy; I approve. One can imagine that these people (like Elliot Abrams, whose public attacks on intermarriage, for some strange reason, have not disqualified him from public service) would strongly object to “hey, if they choose to do it, it is OK.” No, they want to convince them not to do it. I assume they would also object to gentiles coming in and promoting intermarriage. What is the “motivation” there, to take in Shulevitz’ concern? Indeed.

Now, some people may object to someone who admits no connection to Europeans coming and promoting alien immigration with a “if they want to do it, so what?” attitude.

That is the endpoint of the digression. Shulevitz and company are dead wrong. You see, they DO have the right to fight for Jewish group continuity – defined as they see fit – but the do NOT have the right to consider their continuity objectively more important or more moral than that of any other people. They do NOT have the right to engage in transparently self-serving semantic quibbling about racism/tribalism when the two boil down to the same thing, as they themselves admit.

Everyone needs to be honest about what their aims are and where their ethnic interests are.

And gee, the “choice” of the Europeans seems to me to be a little difficult, since even politicians in Europe get arrested for making speeches against demographic change, and political parties are banned, never mind the ceaseless propaganda. What choice would they really make in a “free market” situation? You do support the “free market”, don’t you?

Ron Jay

A bit more on Shulevitz. Her argument #3 is, on its face, absurd. Why should white gentiles accept her formula? Why should members of group A listen to a member of group B when such a person claims that group B has rights and privileges not to be accorded to group A? Why should members of A accept a concept of inter-generational guilt (more on that below), which consigns them and their descendants to some sort of second-class status with respect to the “rules” of group competition and group continuity? Arguments such as those by Shulevitz are just self-serving and group-serving assertions of group priority in competition. That she makes such comments is not surprising; that anyone outside of her group should take the comments seriously, is. That white gentiles may accept such arguments demonstrates that this group is dangerously low on the sort of healthy ethnocentric behavior that characterizes most other human groups.

More interesting is how Shulevitz has painted herself into a corner here. Her argument rests upon making a sharp distinction – ethnically, culturally (including religion), historically, and, above all, morally – between Jews and white gentiles. This distinction supports her double standard. Furthermore, implicit in her comments is that all white (American) gentiles are historically guilty for black slavery, even though most white Americans did not have slave-owning ancestors, and that white gentiles (rather than just Germans) have historical inter-generational guilt (not a legitimate concept in western ethics, by the way, but then, what would Shulevitz know of that?) for the Holocaust. So, not only is she making sharp distinctions, but implicit in her argument is that, compared to Jews (and blacks), white gentiles are a coherent group, with a moral-historical unity.

This leads in directions that perhaps Shulevitz would rather not go. Why do some people promote racial intermarriage for whites? Why the promotion of third world immigration? Of the absurd idea that “there is no such thing as race?” Why the promotion of the idea that any stand by whites for their rights as a group is inherently “racist and immoral?” The answer is that they do not want white gentiles to coalesce around an identity as a specific group with specific interests, distinct from that of other groups. But, in order to make her arguments about intermarriage, Shulevitz presents white gentiles as precisely such a group - albeit as an implicitly bad and racist group without the same rights accorded others. But, it is just as easy to flip her argument around and say that if such distinctions exist, and if people like Shulevitz really look at things with an “us” and “them” attitude, and if all white gentiles are “them”, then shouldn’t the white gentiles look at reality the same way?

I assume that is something Shulevitz does NOT want to occur, and she may be banking on the relatively non-ethnocentric nature of white gentiles to ensure that it does not occur. But if immigration and other demographic pressures continue unabated, if ethnic/racial balkanization increases, and if white gentiles are not given the same rights to strategize on behalf of their interests as are other groups, there may be a backlash. And that backlash will be a mirror image of Shulevitz’ arguments.

The solution goes back to the points of this entire debate. All groups should be allowed the rights of group defense and group continuity, nothing that endangers that continuity should be promoted, and everyone should lay their cards on the table with respect to their group interests and group identity. Now, I fully support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and I support the rights of Jews to oppose intermarriage and to ensure the continuity of their people. Surely, you agree with this and appreciate this attitude. However, it *must* be reciprocated; certainly whites cannot be expected to support the rights of peoples who would deny those same rights to whites. Let us be reasonable here. The idea of Afro-Asiatic/Latino immigration into Europe is an abomination.

This is the whole point. The proposal of such immigration is, at least to some of us, so disgusting, its implications so horrifying, that to have it “on the table” is nothing more or less than an attack on our group. It is viewed by some people as the same as, let us say, how an Israeli would view someone who gives support to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Israeli cities. It is not a matter of polite debate; Israelis would not say, “hey, let’s look at the merits of having our people blown up”, they oppose it with every fibre of their being. It is self-preservation, group preservation.

What’s the best way to ensure that “the other guy” will support your group’s right to exist? Support his group’s right to exist – and certainly don’t suggest policies that do direct harm to the group. Remember the Golden Rule?


The comments to this entry are closed.