The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Headline v. Body
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A general theme of my work going back to the last century is that the glass is usually part empty and part full, and the part people choose to emphasize often depends more on the spirit of the age than on the data.

From The Independent:

New genetic map of Britain shows successive waves of immigration going back 10,000 years

STEVE CONNOR, SCIENCE EDITOR Wednesday 18 March 2015

A remarkable new map of Britain shows how the nation was forged by successive waves of immigration from continental Europe over 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age.

This Britain Was Always a Nation of Immigrants meme has been pushed hard, even as the mounting genetic evidence keeps suggesting that it’s mostly misleading.

… Geneticists and historians collaborated closely on the 10-years project and have been astonished to find that patterns in the DNA of Britons living today reflect historical events going back centuries, and in some cases millennia.

In other words, on the whole, the British have been pretty British for an awful long time.

The genetic map shows 17 clusters of similarities in the DNA of modern-day people that echo major moments in history, such as the collapse of the Romano-British culture in the 5th Century and the subsequent rise of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Norse Viking invasion of the Orkneys in the 9th Century.

It also reveals much older movements and separations of people, such as the ancient ancestry of the Celtic people of North Wales who are probably descended from some of the oldest inhabitants of Britain, and the clear genetic division between the people of Cornwall and Devon that still persists along the county boundary of the River Tamar.

“It has long been known that human populations differ genetically, but never before have we been able to observe such exquisite and fascinating detail,” said Professor Peter Donnelly, director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University. …

One of the most intriguing signatures seen in the genetics of present-day English is the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons from southern Denmark and northern Germany after the end of Roman rule in 410AD.

Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today.

This probably reflects the fact that often major cultural shifts are carried out by relatively few people within an elite who do not leave their genetic mark on the conquered masses, said Sir Walter Bodmer, the veteran population geneticist who first had the idea of the study.

Okay, so, more realistically, outside of the distant Orkney Islands, there hasn’t actually been much immigration into the British Isles since Beowulf, and/or what there was tended to be of Beowulf’s relatives.

 
Hide 130 CommentsLeave a Comment
130 Comments to "Headline v. Body"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I admit that I’m intrigued by the characterization of “waves of immigration.” I used to think of the Roman “conquest” of Britain and the Norman “conquest” of England. And then there were the barbarian “invasions” of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as “immigrants.”

    • Replies: @TWS
    I suppose 'waves of conquering invaders' was just too Conan the Barbarian and on the money. Newcomers always have the best of intentions don't you know.
    , @Gallo-Roman

    I admit that I’m intrigued by the characterization of “waves of immigration.” I used to think of the Roman “conquest” of Britain and the Norman “conquest” of England. And then there were the barbarian “invasions” of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as “immigrants.”

     

    Well, the poor dears didn't have the enlightened representatives of the PTBs of the day to explain to them what it all really meant, did they?

    OK, fine, it's been all "nation of immigrants" and "waves of immigration" all the time throughout history. So, since it can be demonstrated that humans have been wandering around the earth and bestowing the blessings of diversity on each other for tens of thousands of years, isn't it time we start putting together a more consistent, progressive, inclusive view of this wonderful process?

    Just as some scholars of "late antiquity" have sought to change our dark view of the first few centuries after the collapse of Roman unity in Europe as a time of relentless civilizational decline, so modern scholars need to reform our biased understanding of the last four hundred years of exciting, creative, and above all, natural and inevitable Völkerwanderung. We need to stop talking in tendentious and limiting terms like "colonialism" and "conquest of the Americas" and "imperialism", as apparently a growing body of modern genetic and archeological evidence is demonstrating that this construct of the past is based on non-existent demographic and cultural "essences". Instead, we need to think about all these things, not as the negative events they are reported to be by people claiming the privileged, excluding status of "native", but as part of the constant and always net-beneficent phenomenon of wavesofimmigration.

    We need to stop bickering and arguing about 'oo stole 'oos land and 'oo Othered 'oo and 'oo destabilized and destroyed 'oos culture, since "territory" and "culture" are merely myths cherished by ignorant xenophobes to (inaccurately) describe what was actually an ongoing process of vibrant change that improved life for everybody.
    , @Zachary Latif
    I think Samuel Huntington (and even Mahatir) articulated a key distinction between settlers and immigrants; it's what distinguished the folks of Albion's Seed from the later arrivals. Ironically in the West Bank they don't use the term immigrants there for the Jewish settlers, would kind of defeat the purpose of the mission to reclaim Judea & Samaria.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I blame the confusion on The Immigrant Song:

    https://youtu.be/hC-T0rC6m7I

  2. Anglo-Saxons always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Jute.

  3. It is interesting that conquest by the Roman Empire didn’t effect the demographic profile, yet breakdown of the Roman Empire did.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    I think the peace an unified government provided by the Romans created a larger region for mixing genes, which resulted in somewhat better homogeneity. Hooking up with a hottie is easier if you don't have to cross a border to do it, even when everyone had to do courting and moving by foot and ox cart.
  4. Somehow I can’t reconcile the Harrying of the North by William the Bastard or Ivar the Boneless’ The Great Heathen Army with the word “immigration” in any case. Even if the Danes or Normans had left a meaningful genetic legacy, I would call that the marks of conquest. We don’t say Hungarians have Mongol blood because of the great Mongol immigration wave.

    The shitlibs don’t know what they want. If a study shows almost no genetic turnover, they say it shows that immigration won’t shake things up. If it shows a sizable genetic turnover (20% Saxon is not nothing) then this is evidence that ‘immigration’ is good or…something. Forget that the Saxons completely overturned the old order.

    • Replies: @Andrew
    JP:

    "If the Danes or Normans had left a meaning ful genetic legacy"

    The Normans were Danes. And I am a genetic legacy of the Normans.

    My family line goes back to Worcestershire, then Normandy, then Denmark, and then actually into the mists of time in the Norse sagas to Sweden and Kvenland.

    I don't think anyone who suffered under his rule in the West Country would think Urse d'Abitot, my Norse "immigrant" was a peaceful Dreamer though!
  5. They established a presumably unrepresentative sample by identifying people who lived in much the same place as all four grandparents, and after years of toil established that families that don’t move much are pretty stationary.

    I’m have no objection to their conclusions – they may well be true. But their method means, I suspect, that the evidence won’t really bear the weight of their conclusions.

  6. It’s almost like “The Independent” wanted to make an ideological point . . . Nah.

  7. More than anything the study confirms how harsh the class divisions in Britain have been. You really don’t need to do a genetic study for the upper classes of Britain to see how much Norman blood they have–that’s what Debrett’s and Burke’s were/are for. Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years. And it’s not just in England–Normans took over the Scottish ruling classes pretty shortly after 1066 as well, with the Balliols, Bruces and Stuarts even taking over the crown a couple of centuries later. Normans formed the ruling class of Ireland and pushed deep into Wales too. You never hear about Norman peasants. They were just rulers wherever they were. They formed the ruling class in their very own conquered piece of France. I’m sure if you did a genetic study of Normandy, you’d see the same pattern. Most of the people have been there for thousands of years just like in Britain.

    It is pretty interesting how few of the native girls attracted their conquerors’ interests in Britain and elsewhere. That’s very Western. In the East the conquerors usually spread their seed pretty deep into the native peoples. Not too much of the “raping” going on in the “raping and pillaging” business among the Western warrior class. We’re not much for concubines in the West. You can see it in a study of the bastard children of the early English Kings, each of whom had about a dozen or so. The female was usually from a good family as well, probably pimped out by that family to get royal favor.

    • Replies: @Conqueror's descendant
    You are so right. The Normans (i.e. the Norsemen) are the greatest race of conquerors and subsequent rulers that the world has ever seen. Normandy, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and , don't forget, Sicily. And what they conquer, they keep.
    The British ruling class is utterly ruthless and has no loyalty whatsoever to the peoples over whom it rules.
    Remember what Lord Cardigan (yes, the famous one) said when told of the number of Irish peasants who had died during the famine: "Not enough". I myself once heard a member of one of Scotland's greatest noble families regretting that more of the rabble had not been killed off (as had been intended, he added) in the First World War.
    Thus the hatred of the common people of Britain for hunting to hounds: it's the man on horseback, the knight, the conqueror who is conjured up by the sights and sounds of Tally Ho.
    Impressive in its way, but pretty damned scary.

    The Germans, by the way, do not hate their old aristocracy: they are the same people.
    , @Lot

    Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years.
     
    That's totally wrong. The Normans were completely intermixed with the rest of the English hundreds of years ago. The Hundred Years War, Crusades, and War of the Roses all resulted in mass death and replacement of the Norman noble families by local new men.

    If you disagree, find me an Englishman, even one, who can trace more than 50% of his ancestry to Normans.

    For your claim to be true, the Anglo-Normans would have needed to have an extreme, India-style caste system. That was never the case.

    If you think that Greg Clarke says otherwise, go read his book again. That is not what his Norman name analysis says.
    , @Anonymous
    There weren't that many Normans to begin with when they invaded the British Isles.

    In Ireland the Normans were hit harder by the Black Plague than the Irish were because the former tended to live in urban areas while the latter lived in rural areas. There was intermarriage between the invading Normans and the Irish, which is why there were also attempts to restrict socializing and intermarriage with the Irish:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kilkenny#Statutes_of_Kilkenny
  8. There has been far less genetic admixture in Britain, an island at the edge of Europe, than in the Levant, situated at the crossroads between Africa, Europe, and Asia.

    How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim an ethno-state in the Levant?!

    Oh wait…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim an ethno-state in the Levant?!
     
    …let alone twenty-one of them.
  9. Moral of the supposed story: Britons have been constantly replaced by new people who then called themselves Britons, and it would be very un-British of the current British not to allow themselves to be replaced by cousin-marrying Pakistanis who rape white girls.

  10. Prevalence of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b for males in the British isles is a pretty good rough guide to the degree of Celtic-ness of the native population. It runs on a cline from 40 to 50% R1b in the Germanic and Scandinavian occupied eastern portions of the Isles which tend to be R1a to well over 80% R1b in Donegal, Mayo, Wales, and Cornwall. This cline is a generally true for most of Western Europe as evidenced by the high rates of R1b in places like Normandy and Brittany.

    How the R1b haplogroup dispersed from Eastern Northeast Europe or perhaps Anatolia through Western Europe in the first place is a matter of much current debate.

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/the-story-of-r1b-its-complicated.html

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/bell-beaker-corded-ware-ehg-and-yamnaya.html

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    R1b is found in Celtic, Germanic, Iberian and Italic populations and so is not a good indicator by itself of Celtic ancestry.
  11. I guess you could call the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons “immigrants.” They just did the jobs Romano-Britons wouldn’t do anymore. You know, fruit-picking, cattle-herding, militarily repressing the natives… Worked out just dandy for the Welsh, didn’t it?

  12. Yes, the British stock arrived longer ago than most Bantus in Africa got to their current locations in 500-1000AD

  13. It’s taken about forty years to destroy what’s been built up over the past couple thousand or so years. All that’s needed is a temporary period of madness and national suicide will have been committed.

  14. @Diversity Heretic
    I admit that I'm intrigued by the characterization of "waves of immigration." I used to think of the Roman "conquest" of Britain and the Norman "conquest" of England. And then there were the barbarian "invasions" of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as "immigrants."

    I suppose ‘waves of conquering invaders’ was just too Conan the Barbarian and on the money. Newcomers always have the best of intentions don’t you know.

  15. Oh, there’s been lots of immigration, it’s just that all of it happened in the last 100 years or so.

  16. Beowulf is a vulgar, stupid poem.

    In contrast, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s Song of Hiawatha is sublime and thought-provoking.

    Here is an excerpt that explains who should read it.

    Ye who love a nation’s legends,
    Love the ballads of a people,
    That like voices from afar off
    Call to us to pause and listen,

    Speak in tones so plain and childlike,
    Scarcely can the ear distinguish
    Whether they are sung or spoken ;
    Listen to this Indian Legend,

    To this Song of Hiawatha !

    Ye whose hearts are fresh and simple,
    Who have faith in God and Nature,
    Who believe, that in all ages
    Every human heart is human,

    That in even savage bosoms
    There are longings, yearnings, strivings
    For the good they comprehend not,
    That the feeble hands and helpless,

    Groping blindly in the darkness,
    Touch God’s right hand in that darkness
    And are lifted up and strengthened ;
    Listen to this simple story,

    To this Song of Hiawatha !

    Ye, who sometimes, in your rambles
    Through the green lanes of the country,
    Where the tangled barberry-bushes
    Hang their tufts of crimson berries

    Over stone walls gray with mosses,
    Pause by some neglected graveyard,
    For a while to muse, and ponder
    On a half-effaced inscription,

    Written with little skill of song-craft,
    Homely phrases, but each letter
    Full of hope and yet of heart-break,
    Full of all the tender pathos

    Of the Here and the Hereafter :
    Stay and read this rude inscription.

    Read this Song of Hiawatha !

    The entire poem should be part of the curriculum in every high school in the USA.

    • Replies: @Harold

    Beowulf is a vulgar, stupid poem.

    In contrast, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s Song of Hiawatha is sublime and thought-provoking.
     
    Maybe, but isn’t this like comparing an ancient folk-tune to a Beethoven composition?

    I was impressed with this poem (or riddle) from the tenth century book of Exeter

    What man is so mind-strong and spirit shrewd
    He can say who drives me in my fierce strength
    On fate’s road when I rise with vengeance,
    Ravage the land, with a thundering voice
    Rip folk-homes, plunder the hall-wood:
    Gray smoke rises over rooftops–on earth
    The rattle and death-shriek of men.I shake
    The forest, blooms and boles, rip trees,
    Wander, roofed with water, a wide road,
    Pressed by might. On my back I bear
    The water that once wrapped earth-dwellers,
    Flesh and spirit.
    […]
     
    The rest can be found here (including the old english):
    https://web.archive.org/web/20071009180124/http://www2.kenyon.edu/AngloSaxonRiddles/Riddles/Riddle1.htm

    Albeit this is a translation, but still, is this an old english poem or lyrics from a Swedish death metal album?
  17. @Diversity Heretic
    I admit that I'm intrigued by the characterization of "waves of immigration." I used to think of the Roman "conquest" of Britain and the Norman "conquest" of England. And then there were the barbarian "invasions" of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as "immigrants."

    I admit that I’m intrigued by the characterization of “waves of immigration.” I used to think of the Roman “conquest” of Britain and the Norman “conquest” of England. And then there were the barbarian “invasions” of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as “immigrants.”

    Well, the poor dears didn’t have the enlightened representatives of the PTBs of the day to explain to them what it all really meant, did they?

    OK, fine, it’s been all “nation of immigrants” and “waves of immigration” all the time throughout history. So, since it can be demonstrated that humans have been wandering around the earth and bestowing the blessings of diversity on each other for tens of thousands of years, isn’t it time we start putting together a more consistent, progressive, inclusive view of this wonderful process?

    Just as some scholars of “late antiquity” have sought to change our dark view of the first few centuries after the collapse of Roman unity in Europe as a time of relentless civilizational decline, so modern scholars need to reform our biased understanding of the last four hundred years of exciting, creative, and above all, natural and inevitable Völkerwanderung. We need to stop talking in tendentious and limiting terms like “colonialism” and “conquest of the Americas” and “imperialism”, as apparently a growing body of modern genetic and archeological evidence is demonstrating that this construct of the past is based on non-existent demographic and cultural “essences”. Instead, we need to think about all these things, not as the negative events they are reported to be by people claiming the privileged, excluding status of “native”, but as part of the constant and always net-beneficent phenomenon of wavesofimmigration.

    We need to stop bickering and arguing about ‘oo stole ‘oos land and ‘oo Othered ‘oo and ‘oo destabilized and destroyed ‘oos culture, since “territory” and “culture” are merely myths cherished by ignorant xenophobes to (inaccurately) describe what was actually an ongoing process of vibrant change that improved life for everybody.

  18. The cynical “headline vs. body” dichotomy mentioned in your post title has been elevated to high art in recent years, and invariably deployed to cast aspersion on the “core” even when the miscreants are members of the “fringe.”

    A headline on MSN a while back, “Domino’s Pizza Apologizes for Racist Comment,” was clearly meant to conjure visions of white boardroom types being exposed as crypto-klansmen. The actual story, however, had to strain to obscure the fact that the actual infraction–a juvenile “microagression” against an Asian patron–was the fault of the low-level black and Hispanic employees of an individual storefront in New York City.

    Ironically, and even commendably, the white boardroom types were in fact taking responsibility for the actions of these low-level employees; but a fat lot of good it did them in the “journalistic” eyes of MSN. To the casual reader who merely scans the headlines, the damage was done, the truth obscured, the “narrative” advanced–which is the whole point of these carefully crafted headlines.

    • Replies: @Beach
    +1 Great comment
  19. “This Britain Was Always a Nation of Immigrants meme has been pushed hard, ”

    I find this bizarre, since Britain is (if we consider it a nation) the quintessential emigrant nation. They’ve been exporting people for a good four centuries now. Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the US (among others) didn’t get populated out of the vacuum.
    Britain has also not been invaded or conquered since about the time of William. While places like Germany and Russia get rolled over (or roll over somebody, or both) once every century or so.
    I suppose it is possible for a nation to be both an immigrant and an emigrant nation, especially over a prolonged period of time. Though it doesn’t quite make sense. Intuitively, either people want to leave a nation, or they want to go there. I guess it’s possible for some people to want to leave, and for others to want to go there… But that’s a bit of a leap.

  20. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    Ah, the Mongol immigration into Russia.

    The Nazi immigration into Poland.

    Japanese immigration to Nanking.

  21. Wyrd bið ful aræd.

    • Replies: @Wyrd
    I certainly like to think so.
  22. @Diversity Heretic
    I admit that I'm intrigued by the characterization of "waves of immigration." I used to think of the Roman "conquest" of Britain and the Norman "conquest" of England. And then there were the barbarian "invasions" of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as "immigrants."

    I think Samuel Huntington (and even Mahatir) articulated a key distinction between settlers and immigrants; it’s what distinguished the folks of Albion’s Seed from the later arrivals. Ironically in the West Bank they don’t use the term immigrants there for the Jewish settlers, would kind of defeat the purpose of the mission to reclaim Judea & Samaria.

  23. This Britain Was Always a Nation of Immigrants meme has been pushed hard, even as the mounting genetic evidence keeps suggesting that it’s mostly misleading.

    Pat Buchanan once wrote something along the lines of this. Immigration not only changes your nation’s present and future, it also changes its past. He was referring to some story in France about them changing the curriculum of a history course so as to not offend contemporary students.

    Britain’s history will have to be retconned to align with the current conditions so as to not arouse the natural, defensive ire of her population.

  24. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    OT, but related to the status of Albion’s Seed in the world:

    Steve, I’d like to know your take on the Outlander phenomenon, based on Diana Gabaldon’s chick novels. Some traditionalists like Andy Nowicki object to the story because it romanticizes infidelity. But on the other hand, it shows a 20th Century English woman who finds sexual fulfillment with a Highland Scottish laird through unexplained time travel back to mid 18th Century Scotland, around the time the Hanoverian English monarchy decided to exert its authority over that society and drag it into the world of the Enlightenment.

    In other words, despite the current propaganda about how badly white people suck, this cultural phenomenon shows a contrary view, appealing to many 21st Century American women, about the virtues of patriarchal, traditional, hierarchical, religious white men. And you can’t get much whiter than a Highland Scot.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    This is the first time I've ever heard of a show on Starz before it went of the air.
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/isis-tunisia-museum-attack_n_6902244.html

    The term ‘Islamo-fascism’ has been often used.

    But ISIS can only be called ‘Islam0-anarchism’.

    These guys are like the CLOCKWORK ORANGE of Islam. They just love to revel in the mayhem.

  26. The most pleasurable way to get a feeling for the ‘waves of immigrants’ into Britain is through the novels of Bernard Cornwell. He’s the guy that wrote all the Sharpe novels about the Peninsular War of Wellington . He has also written a few novels about American history. But most of his non-Sharpe novels are about various English conflicts.

    Currently I’m reading ‘The Pagan Lord’. The protagonist Uthread had fought for Alfred the Great. He’s a Saxon who was captured by the Danes and fights all sorts of ethnic groups including Scots, Norse, and Frisians.

    Cornwell has other series that address similar periods.. His Arthurian series is particularly fine.

    • Replies: @HA
    "Cornwell has other series that address similar periods.. His Arthurian series is particularly fine."

    Cornwell's bigotry against Christians is strident. He should have worked that through with a shrink, or something, before setting pen to paper. The deformed priest in the Uhtred novels is perhaps the first pious Christian he ever bothered to include who wasn't either a monster, a neurotic prig, or else one of the tolerable Christians who don't let a little thing like religion interfere with their drinking and whoring. (King Alfred's piety is portrayed as something akin to his bowel disorder, so that doesn't really count.)

    And it's not just Christians who are reduced to ham-fisted cliches: https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/The_Saxon_Stories

  27. Steve, I think the genetic analysis misses the point. If the survey measured only aging British citizens as a pre-immigration survey, the information is both skewed and misleading. Assuming that Great Britain + Ireland were not islands of immigrants measured since pre-Roman times, they are now. The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire (similar to the United States today), that all of the people within its empire were British citizens, and therefore all of these people deserved British passports with the right to immigrate to the motherland. Henceforth, British cities now have Pakistani, West Indian, and Indian neighborhoods. In 1973, the United Kingdom joined the European Union. Now, it has Romanian, Polish, and (very shortly) it may have Ukrainian neighborhoods. It is only a question of time until the aging British citizens included in such surveys start to show their genetic markers.

    • Replies: @fnn
    " The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire "

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.
  28. Germanic Brits were those who created the British Empire. The “native”, pre-Indo-European people of Britain were never anything special, they have multiplied in the last generations again and superseded the Teutonic stock. Of course, that this also correlates with the decline of the British Empire is not surprising.

  29. “I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as “immigrants.””

    I would force illegal aliens to wear plastic horned Viking helmets and carry around plastic toy battle axes. Besides being good for some chuckles, it would also make clear exactly what these people are – invaders.

  30. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Just because people invade doesn’t mean they get to breed. If invaders don’t bring their own foreign women with them, they’ll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn’t mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list–the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves–and he didn’t often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders’ own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn’t killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn’t die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman’s family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn’t want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist

    Just because people invade doesn’t mean they get to breed. If invaders don’t bring their own foreign women with them, they’ll find it tough to locate mates.
     
    Conquistadors in the New World didn't seem to have this problem.
    , @HA
    "Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn’t mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can...Also, killing a woman’s family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate."

    Well, they don't call it raping and pillaging for nothing, and soldiers have been known to do a fair amount of both. Marriage has nothing to do with that.

    I suspect that goes a long way towards explaining that 2% Neanderthal contribution.

    , @anonitron
    The Bastard's armies largely dispersed after Norman victory in Britain and the settlers he brought with him hardly numbered 8,000 souls. It really isn't terribly surprising the genetic imprint they left is minimal.

    The idea that environmental differences between England and northern France killed a portion of the invading population comparable to European settlement of American malarial swamps is laughable on its face.
    , @Paul Mendez
    Also, killing a woman’s family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate.

    Sure it is!

    Women can't resist a winner.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it, hold it now. Normandy to England is what, less than thirty miles by sea? Calais to Dover basically?

    There wasn't any "new diseases" that the Normans would have caught from being in England (and in fact they didn't) since the land/topography, climate, DNA in the English of 1066 was basically the same as that of the Normans, or Norseman. The Norse (Vikings) had already conquered England a couple previous centuries ago so the people, from a DNA perspective, weren't all that different and thus there weren't any diseases that wiped them out.

    Sailing thousands of miles to the New World, however, and encountering a totally different strain of DNA in a race that had heretofore hadn't been in contact with Caucasians since…before the last Ice Age, well, that's an entirely different matter.

    Basically, the 1066 Invasion would be like North Carolina deciding to invade South Carolina. How far's Charlotte from say, Charleston? Less than 200mi? 150mi? Come on.

    Also, William believed that he had a genetic basis of which to claim the English throne for himself, albeit from an indirect line.

    Funny how it worked for William the Conqueror to claim the English throne but not okay for Edward III of England to claim the throne of France in 1327. And as a Plantagenet king, that meant that Edward had a strong enough genetic claim to the throne of France as his family lineage included Normandy and other nobles from the French aristocracy.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  31. And then there were the barbarian “invasions” of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes.

    Some of those Germanic barbarians were invited by local Romano-Britons in an effort to deal with raids by other Germanic barbarians and also to serve as allies in their internal struggles.

    As the “Saxons” (though small in number) gained military-political ascendancy many Britons began to imitate the manners, dress, and speech of the Saxons, and so became Saxons in culture, if not in genes.

    Sometimes an alien ruling elite imposes its own culture on the larger subjects (Angl0-Saxons), sometimes such an elite assimilates into the culture of the ruled (Mongols in China).

  32. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    ‘Leftism’ and ‘Liberalism’ destroyed Detroit.

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.
    --
    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia. Detroit is also notable for a homicide rate more than 4x Haiti's and 15x that of Liberia.

    ==


    Leftism’ and ‘Liberalism’ destroyed Detroit. Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development. Many vested interests to injure, so do not hold your breath.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.
     
    Inasmuch as San Francisco and Seattle are "run" at all, the parts that make them rich are pretty "right wing" in practice, which is where it counts. How'd that bus protest work out in the end? Left or right?

    Hong Kong and Macao have been a damned sight richer, for generations, than demographically equivalent villages a few miles away.

    Brits and Portogees must be so smarter than them Chinamen!

    , @Reg Cæsar

    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.

     

    PPS. Come on, now. Even Jamaica isn't Haiti or Liberia. Get a grip.
  33. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @Anon
    Just because people invade doesn't mean they get to breed. If invaders don't bring their own foreign women with them, they'll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn't mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list--the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves--and he didn't often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders' own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn't killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn't die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman's family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn't want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    Just because people invade doesn’t mean they get to breed. If invaders don’t bring their own foreign women with them, they’ll find it tough to locate mates.

    Conquistadors in the New World didn’t seem to have this problem.

  34. Off-topic:

    Seems that the PC mob have their pitchforks out for Razib Khan:

    Today the New York Times announced its selection of 20 new op-ed writers who will contribute to the paper on a monthly basis. Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told Capital New York that his staff selected contributors with “a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of.” This commitment to a diversity of viewpoints is remarkably strong, as indicated by the paper’s inclusion of science writer Razib Khan.

    According to his Times author page, Khan is “a science blogger, a programmer and a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis.” Omitted from the paper’s biography, as a quick Google search indicates, is Khan’s history with racist, far-right online publications.

    http://tktk.gawker.com/new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yeah, I went over to that article and made two very innocuous comments -- for example, to the effect that a certain very vocal commenter had not actually proved that blacks and whites are the same on average with respect to IQ from a genetic point of view, leaving it at least an open question -- but the comments lie in limbo.

    It's remarkable how bravely and vociferously the commenters there "refute" the hereditarian position, from the comforts of their carefully guarded echo chamber.

    Why can't they come out and fight like a man?

    , @Anon
    I'm sure he can win him over with his trademark charm.
  35. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    How come no one says FAR-RIGHT Netanhayu won?

    How far right does a Jew have to be before he’s called far-right?

    PS. Jews hate Marie Le Pen because she hasn’t denounced her father, but how many Jews have denounced their parents who were on the far-left?

    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't know where you live but people constantly call Netanyahu far right. They do it in the NYT, the Atlantic or Slate. It's a claim made by by Jewish writers like Peter Beinart, by arab and muslim authors both mainstream and radical and by democratic senators. Technically given there are parties further right than Likud so in once sense he is probably closer to centre right in Israel. On the other hand far right is now a widely used/abused/overused term. A recent article in the NYT called the FN the extreme right, an indicator that far right is loosing meaning, which is strange given Marine is more centrist than her father.
  36. So America received waves of immigrants beginning with the bunch that came across the Bering land bridge?

    The point is immigrants don’t get the right of indigenous people to at least express their dislike of new people coming in, and justify any acts of violence committed by one’s ancestors towards the newly arrived disliked folks. So, if Europeans are immigrants, just like Americans, they have no leg to stand on.

    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was. And nobody has lectured them on it for a good long time. Indeed, it’s “controversial” to even go there. Although, similar actions appear to be an unforgivable cassus belli for ISIS.

    What would be the response if a contemporary politician used the same rhetoric for a hero like Quannah Parker (who may or may not have been involved in some nasty doings and was the result of a nasty raid) that they do for those brutes in Iraq? No, we must reserve our horrified shock for Muslims, but never, ever lecture the Apache or Kiowa for past unpleasantness.

    The point is to be a sacred indigenous, protected sort. You can kill infants, ravish women, make Mexican boys into eunuch slaves, torture p.o.ws, etc. Heck, in a case of national stockholm syndrom, the descendents of your victims will try and pretend they are related to you (see further white pretendian idiocy or recent Mexican preening about their indigenous ancestry) and attribute all sorts of mystical knowledge to you. It wasn’t the Native Americans’ fault, we made ‘em angry. They still love us, right?

  37. This is why we should call them British and not English.

  38. @OsRazor
    More than anything the study confirms how harsh the class divisions in Britain have been. You really don't need to do a genetic study for the upper classes of Britain to see how much Norman blood they have--that's what Debrett's and Burke's were/are for. Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years. And it's not just in England--Normans took over the Scottish ruling classes pretty shortly after 1066 as well, with the Balliols, Bruces and Stuarts even taking over the crown a couple of centuries later. Normans formed the ruling class of Ireland and pushed deep into Wales too. You never hear about Norman peasants. They were just rulers wherever they were. They formed the ruling class in their very own conquered piece of France. I'm sure if you did a genetic study of Normandy, you'd see the same pattern. Most of the people have been there for thousands of years just like in Britain.

    It is pretty interesting how few of the native girls attracted their conquerors' interests in Britain and elsewhere. That's very Western. In the East the conquerors usually spread their seed pretty deep into the native peoples. Not too much of the "raping" going on in the "raping and pillaging" business among the Western warrior class. We're not much for concubines in the West. You can see it in a study of the bastard children of the early English Kings, each of whom had about a dozen or so. The female was usually from a good family as well, probably pimped out by that family to get royal favor.

    You are so right. The Normans (i.e. the Norsemen) are the greatest race of conquerors and subsequent rulers that the world has ever seen. Normandy, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and , don’t forget, Sicily. And what they conquer, they keep.
    The British ruling class is utterly ruthless and has no loyalty whatsoever to the peoples over whom it rules.
    Remember what Lord Cardigan (yes, the famous one) said when told of the number of Irish peasants who had died during the famine: “Not enough”. I myself once heard a member of one of Scotland’s greatest noble families regretting that more of the rabble had not been killed off (as had been intended, he added) in the First World War.
    Thus the hatred of the common people of Britain for hunting to hounds: it’s the man on horseback, the knight, the conqueror who is conjured up by the sights and sounds of Tally Ho.
    Impressive in its way, but pretty damned scary.

    The Germans, by the way, do not hate their old aristocracy: they are the same people.

    • Replies: @colm
    Well , like it or not, their days are numbered thanks to their own policies of bring people who do not understand or honor their superiority.
  39. HA says:
    @Pat Boyle
    The most pleasurable way to get a feeling for the 'waves of immigrants' into Britain is through the novels of Bernard Cornwell. He's the guy that wrote all the Sharpe novels about the Peninsular War of Wellington . He has also written a few novels about American history. But most of his non-Sharpe novels are about various English conflicts.

    Currently I'm reading 'The Pagan Lord'. The protagonist Uthread had fought for Alfred the Great. He's a Saxon who was captured by the Danes and fights all sorts of ethnic groups including Scots, Norse, and Frisians.

    Cornwell has other series that address similar periods.. His Arthurian series is particularly fine.

    “Cornwell has other series that address similar periods.. His Arthurian series is particularly fine.”

    Cornwell’s bigotry against Christians is strident. He should have worked that through with a shrink, or something, before setting pen to paper. The deformed priest in the Uhtred novels is perhaps the first pious Christian he ever bothered to include who wasn’t either a monster, a neurotic prig, or else one of the tolerable Christians who don’t let a little thing like religion interfere with their drinking and whoring. (King Alfred’s piety is portrayed as something akin to his bowel disorder, so that doesn’t really count.)

    And it’s not just Christians who are reduced to ham-fisted cliches: https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/The_Saxon_Stories

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Well you certainly are correct about Cornwell's anti-Christian bias. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are really quite moderate in their anticlericalism compare to Cornwell.

    But I enjoy his viewpoint. As I'm sure you know, he was boarded out during the war to a fundamentalist sect called 'The Peculiar People'. Apparently that experience filled him with a life long detestation of religion - particularly Christianity. Since Cornwell writes fiction there is usually at least one clerical person who is a villain.

    He depicts the actions of inquisitors for example. I suspect that his depictions are accurate. There were a lot of nasty priests. In 'Pagan Lord' and the whole series he contrasts the morality of the pagans with that of the Christians. Much of the time the pagans are shown in a more favorable light. Maybe that's historically accurate - I really don't know but the way he describes it -it feels right.
  40. I guess the shore defenses against the potential invasions, er, immigrations of Napoleon and Hitler were just Haters, er H8ers, hating on the Dreamers, who just wanted a better life… Gives the Battle of Britain a whole new spin I guess

  41. @syonredux
    Off-topic:

    Seems that the PC mob have their pitchforks out for Razib Khan:

    Today the New York Times announced its selection of 20 new op-ed writers who will contribute to the paper on a monthly basis. Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told Capital New York that his staff selected contributors with “a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of.” This commitment to a diversity of viewpoints is remarkably strong, as indicated by the paper’s inclusion of science writer Razib Khan.

    According to his Times author page, Khan is “a science blogger, a programmer and a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis.” Omitted from the paper’s biography, as a quick Google search indicates, is Khan’s history with racist, far-right online publications.
     
    http://tktk.gawker.com/new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849

    Yeah, I went over to that article and made two very innocuous comments — for example, to the effect that a certain very vocal commenter had not actually proved that blacks and whites are the same on average with respect to IQ from a genetic point of view, leaving it at least an open question — but the comments lie in limbo.

    It’s remarkable how bravely and vociferously the commenters there “refute” the hereditarian position, from the comforts of their carefully guarded echo chamber.

    Why can’t they come out and fight like a man?

  42. @OsRazor
    More than anything the study confirms how harsh the class divisions in Britain have been. You really don't need to do a genetic study for the upper classes of Britain to see how much Norman blood they have--that's what Debrett's and Burke's were/are for. Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years. And it's not just in England--Normans took over the Scottish ruling classes pretty shortly after 1066 as well, with the Balliols, Bruces and Stuarts even taking over the crown a couple of centuries later. Normans formed the ruling class of Ireland and pushed deep into Wales too. You never hear about Norman peasants. They were just rulers wherever they were. They formed the ruling class in their very own conquered piece of France. I'm sure if you did a genetic study of Normandy, you'd see the same pattern. Most of the people have been there for thousands of years just like in Britain.

    It is pretty interesting how few of the native girls attracted their conquerors' interests in Britain and elsewhere. That's very Western. In the East the conquerors usually spread their seed pretty deep into the native peoples. Not too much of the "raping" going on in the "raping and pillaging" business among the Western warrior class. We're not much for concubines in the West. You can see it in a study of the bastard children of the early English Kings, each of whom had about a dozen or so. The female was usually from a good family as well, probably pimped out by that family to get royal favor.

    Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years.

    That’s totally wrong. The Normans were completely intermixed with the rest of the English hundreds of years ago. The Hundred Years War, Crusades, and War of the Roses all resulted in mass death and replacement of the Norman noble families by local new men.

    If you disagree, find me an Englishman, even one, who can trace more than 50% of his ancestry to Normans.

    For your claim to be true, the Anglo-Normans would have needed to have an extreme, India-style caste system. That was never the case.

    If you think that Greg Clarke says otherwise, go read his book again. That is not what his Norman name analysis says.

    • Replies: @OsRazor
    Probably a majority of the peerage of England and Scotland have more than 50% Norman blood. I don't think that's much in dispute. Most of the titles and property have descended through several female lines, but last time I checked females are just as able as men to pass on the genetic stuff of their ancestors. I don't think you fully appreciate how insular marriages have been among the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and Barons of Britain for centuries. The inbreeding is pretty extreme.

    There are even a couple of really glaring examples of even more direct descent. The current Dukes of Somerset (Beauforts) are direct descendents in the male line of Henry II (d. 1189). Their ancestors make up a lot of the drama of Shakespeare's historical dramas. Same for the Dukes of Norfolk (Howards) who've been around in the male line since the 14th Century and are descendants of the fitzAlan and d'Aubigny families who've been around since 1066. The Earls of Shrewsbury (Talbots) and Derby (Stanleys) have also been around since the 14th Century. One of the wealthiest families of Britain the Dukes of Westminster (Grosvenor family) are still pretty proud of their Norman ancestry. The list is endless. As I said, read Debrett's or Burke's for the sensational account or Cokayne's Complete Peerage for a more scholarly approach.

    Did Norman blood infuse much of Britain? Hardly at all, as Clarke shows. Did Norman blood remain relevant to England? Absolutely. At the highest levels of wealth and power. The whole of English/Scottish/Irish and Welsh history since 1066 testifies to it.

  43. HA says:
    @Anon
    Just because people invade doesn't mean they get to breed. If invaders don't bring their own foreign women with them, they'll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn't mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list--the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves--and he didn't often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders' own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn't killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn't die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman's family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn't want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    “Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn’t mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can…Also, killing a woman’s family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate.”

    Well, they don’t call it raping and pillaging for nothing, and soldiers have been known to do a fair amount of both. Marriage has nothing to do with that.

    I suspect that goes a long way towards explaining that 2% Neanderthal contribution.

  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @OsRazor
    More than anything the study confirms how harsh the class divisions in Britain have been. You really don't need to do a genetic study for the upper classes of Britain to see how much Norman blood they have--that's what Debrett's and Burke's were/are for. Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years. And it's not just in England--Normans took over the Scottish ruling classes pretty shortly after 1066 as well, with the Balliols, Bruces and Stuarts even taking over the crown a couple of centuries later. Normans formed the ruling class of Ireland and pushed deep into Wales too. You never hear about Norman peasants. They were just rulers wherever they were. They formed the ruling class in their very own conquered piece of France. I'm sure if you did a genetic study of Normandy, you'd see the same pattern. Most of the people have been there for thousands of years just like in Britain.

    It is pretty interesting how few of the native girls attracted their conquerors' interests in Britain and elsewhere. That's very Western. In the East the conquerors usually spread their seed pretty deep into the native peoples. Not too much of the "raping" going on in the "raping and pillaging" business among the Western warrior class. We're not much for concubines in the West. You can see it in a study of the bastard children of the early English Kings, each of whom had about a dozen or so. The female was usually from a good family as well, probably pimped out by that family to get royal favor.

    There weren’t that many Normans to begin with when they invaded the British Isles.

    In Ireland the Normans were hit harder by the Black Plague than the Irish were because the former tended to live in urban areas while the latter lived in rural areas. There was intermarriage between the invading Normans and the Irish, which is why there were also attempts to restrict socializing and intermarriage with the Irish:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kilkenny#Statutes_of_Kilkenny

  45. The Norman Yoke has been on Britain’s back for nearly a thousand years. Their descendants own all the property, go to all the best schools, and have their hands on all the important levers of power, ever since the law was enacted in 1067 which gave all land the the crown, and all power to the mercenaries who had just invaded. It is still law in England, but it is never spoken about, people really don’t know, or care. William’s great-great-etc-granddaughter is now on the throne.

    The Norman-descended elite are much more likely to share their wealth with foreign elites than with their own ‘fellow citizens’. Immigration makes no difference to them, since they don’t live on the wrong side of the tracks. After a thousand years, the cultures are still different. The Normans, whose Norwegian and Danish ancestors had taken on French affectations, still drink wine, while the peasants still drink beer. The two sides barely intermarried for hundreds of years.

  46. I think we should all embrace this idea of deliberately confusing the difference between immigration and invasion. The implication clearly is that there’s nothing wrong with it. We can then point out that people used to meet these waves of immigrants with peasant militias and by implication there’s nothing wrong with that either.

    You can even point out that only those “immigrants” who came with superior skills passed that selection process so it guaranteed that “immigration” brought some new innovations with it, though it wasn’t guaranteed that locals actually got to enjoy them. If we build enough fences and difficulties then the immigration that manages to pass probably actually is beneficial.

  47. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

    'Leftism' and 'Liberalism' destroyed Detroit.

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is... Haiti or Liberia.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.

    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia. Detroit is also notable for a homicide rate more than 4x Haiti’s and 15x that of Liberia.

    ==

    Leftism’ and ‘Liberalism’ destroyed Detroit. Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development. Many vested interests to injure, so do not hold your breath.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia.
     
    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA.....

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development.
     
    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%.....
  48. @ChrisZ
    The cynical "headline vs. body" dichotomy mentioned in your post title has been elevated to high art in recent years, and invariably deployed to cast aspersion on the "core" even when the miscreants are members of the "fringe."

    A headline on MSN a while back, "Domino's Pizza Apologizes for Racist Comment," was clearly meant to conjure visions of white boardroom types being exposed as crypto-klansmen. The actual story, however, had to strain to obscure the fact that the actual infraction--a juvenile "microagression" against an Asian patron--was the fault of the low-level black and Hispanic employees of an individual storefront in New York City.

    Ironically, and even commendably, the white boardroom types were in fact taking responsibility for the actions of these low-level employees; but a fat lot of good it did them in the "journalistic" eyes of MSN. To the casual reader who merely scans the headlines, the damage was done, the truth obscured, the "narrative" advanced--which is the whole point of these carefully crafted headlines.

    +1 Great comment

  49. @Anon
    Just because people invade doesn't mean they get to breed. If invaders don't bring their own foreign women with them, they'll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn't mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list--the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves--and he didn't often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders' own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn't killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn't die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman's family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn't want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    The Bastard’s armies largely dispersed after Norman victory in Britain and the settlers he brought with him hardly numbered 8,000 souls. It really isn’t terribly surprising the genetic imprint they left is minimal.

    The idea that environmental differences between England and northern France killed a portion of the invading population comparable to European settlement of American malarial swamps is laughable on its face.

  50. @Flinders Petrie
    There has been far less genetic admixture in Britain, an island at the edge of Europe, than in the Levant, situated at the crossroads between Africa, Europe, and Asia.

    How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim an ethno-state in the Levant?!

    Oh wait...

    How ridiculous would it be for someone to claim an ethno-state in the Levant?!

    …let alone twenty-one of them.

  51. @Anon
    Just because people invade doesn't mean they get to breed. If invaders don't bring their own foreign women with them, they'll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn't mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list--the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves--and he didn't often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders' own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn't killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn't die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman's family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn't want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    Also, killing a woman’s family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate.

    Sure it is!

    Women can’t resist a winner.

  52. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

    'Leftism' and 'Liberalism' destroyed Detroit.

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is... Haiti or Liberia.

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    Inasmuch as San Francisco and Seattle are “run” at all, the parts that make them rich are pretty “right wing” in practice, which is where it counts. How’d that bus protest work out in the end? Left or right?

    Hong Kong and Macao have been a damned sight richer, for generations, than demographically equivalent villages a few miles away.

    Brits and Portogees must be so smarter than them Chinamen!

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    According to Richard Lynn's book IQ by the various nations….Brits would be. You've read the book too?

    Bus protest, not so good, how about the Minimum Wage increase? That worked out just fine, making WA with the state highest minimum wage in US.

    Also, marijuana and same sex marriage, those aren't right wing issues.

    All we have to do is view which side in US and state elections that the adults tend to vote and we have our answer.
  53. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

    'Leftism' and 'Liberalism' destroyed Detroit.

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is... Haiti or Liberia.

    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.

    PPS. Come on, now. Even Jamaica isn’t Haiti or Liberia. Get a grip.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Yes, but neither is Kingston in the same level of say, a first world status (e.g. Seattle, SF etc) Jamaica still has outbreaks of Malaria. OOPS


    Rather, Jamaica is more akin to…to……..Furguson.

  54. @Diversity Heretic
    I admit that I'm intrigued by the characterization of "waves of immigration." I used to think of the Roman "conquest" of Britain and the Norman "conquest" of England. And then there were the barbarian "invasions" of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and later of the Danes. I doubt that the native inhabitants of the British isles ever regarded any of these people as "immigrants."

    I blame the confusion on The Immigrant Song:

  55. @GW
    Wyrd bið ful aræd.

    I certainly like to think so.

  56. Aguy says:

    For the life of me I couldn’t find an email for Steve.

    The following article was published on The Atlantic and then mysteriously deleted with no record of it. Luckily my RSS feed preserved it.

    A White Parent’s Dilemma
    13 Master Feed : The Atlantic by Leslie Seifert / 7h // keep unread // hide // preview

    Shutterstock/The Atlantic
    In the fall of 2006, when my daughter was 5, my wife and I visited public elementary schools on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in search of kindergarten programs to which we might apply. At PS 84, on West 92nd Street, the principal led the tour herself. We stopped at a showcase on an African-drumming program, heard about a close relationship with Ballet Hispanico, and visited a humongous garden that covered virtually the entire rooftop.

    By her very presence as a tour guide, the principal was communicating an unspoken plea to our group: More people like you—comfortable, college-educated white families who live in this neighborhood—must come here, or I can’t make this place any better.

    The garden was being used to teach science and gardening and healthful eating. It looked a little tattered, and the principal said she needed the community’s help to renovate it. Somehow, thanks to the machinations of the Department of Education, PS 84 had come to serve many students of color and lower socioeconomic status who lived in the Bronx, far out of the district. That was on top of all the non-white students from housing projects who lived in the school’s catchment zone. White families who had gentrified much of the neighborhood would not send kids there. We peeked into classrooms and observed passing students but saw no white faces. The principal needed a better mix of race and social class to lift the school community.

    I thought of this visit after reading a recent New York Times report showing that seats offered to black and Latino children at the city’s nine elite “specialized” high schools were as scarce this year as in 2014; at Stuyvesant, for example, black students received 10 of 953 seats, with places offered on the basis of a single entrance exam. I get angry about the rank inequality and lack of progress on increasing diversity in the city’s schools exemplified by this news. But then again, I had a chance nine years ago to help the city boost equality of opportunity for minority students and chose not to participate. Should I be angry with myself? Was this the right choice?

    At the time we visited PS 84, a white mother who lived in the neighborhood was organizing meetings to encourage white families to go there. As an incentive, the school was offering dual-language classes in French, an offering that is very rare, along with Spanish. These immersion programs had proven to be a draw for white families at other schools we visited. I attended these PS 84 meetings. The principal spoke at the opening session, and in subsequent weeks we met among ourselves to discuss the pros and cons. Perhaps 20 parents were showing up—all seemingly earnest, educated white professionals.

    The call to action appealed to my belief in social equality, which I am convinced will never be achieved without racial diversity in the schools. Superior public education is the best path for getting there. I also enjoy rooting for underdogs and confronting an occasional Goliath. But would our family join the pioneers?

    This question opened a labyrinth of others. How many of these families would send a child to this school? Might there be five, 10, 15 white faces, among more than 500 students? What number would be enough? Would our daughter be helping to improve test scores and the social climate of a school but at a cost to her education? For example, might she be surrounded by too many students doing remedial-level work? Might there be more disorder in classrooms than is ideal? Would this be fair to her, as we enjoyed being at the center of social change? Was this the best fit for her, academically and socially, to be a member of a tiny minority of students of her race and social class? Might “pioneer” mean “guinea pig”?

    We finally chose a public school with a reputation for academic quality and a commitment to diversity. We couldn’t have predicted the sharp decline in minority students that occurred. (This change can probably be attributed to the school’s shift from relying on applications for out-of-district admissions to using a lottery system, as well as an increased interest in the free school among white families who were struggling in the sluggish economy.) And in the same period, PS 84 has grown much more mixed; today roughly one-third of its students are white, according to DOE data. The garden has been restored, with help from graduate students in Columbia University’s landscape-design program. A dean at the Ivy League is a parent of a student at PS 84.

    The continuing bleak admissions figures for minorities at the city’s elite public high schools are raising old arguments about improving minority access to the entrance exam and test prep. One idea is to admit the highest scorers from each middle school. This would open the doors to more minorities—but it could also water down the overall achievement level of incoming classes.

    Broadening admissions criteria beyond a single test score is another proposal. But a new study by the Research Alliance for New York City Schools finds that including attendance and grades would not substantially increase diversity. According to the report: “The sobering reality is that disparities in the specialized schools mirror larger, system-wide achievement gaps that exist prior to middle school.” The preparation really needs to begin much earlier in the educational process. In schools like PS 84—where good study habits, time-management skills, and the ambition to succeed in school and in life can be codified and nurtured from the beginning—age 12 or 13 is too late to start.

    Did our family make the right choice to stay away when a glory-bound train was pulling out? Did we buy stability and certainty at the expense of a golden learning opportunity for our daughter to grow up among pioneering children and many others less economically blessed? Were we selfish to have let the school system down?
    A white family visiting PS 84 today faces a far different and easier choice for its child than we did. More of the minority students who go there will likely graduate with tools to earn a shot at Stuyvesant than in 2006. But until more families are willing to face such questions and more elect, as we did not, to become pioneers, how much more equality in this system are we ever likely to see?
    This article was originally published at http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/a-white-parents-dilemma/388199/

  57. @advancedatheist
    OT, but related to the status of Albion's Seed in the world:

    Steve, I'd like to know your take on the Outlander phenomenon, based on Diana Gabaldon's chick novels. Some traditionalists like Andy Nowicki object to the story because it romanticizes infidelity. But on the other hand, it shows a 20th Century English woman who finds sexual fulfillment with a Highland Scottish laird through unexplained time travel back to mid 18th Century Scotland, around the time the Hanoverian English monarchy decided to exert its authority over that society and drag it into the world of the Enlightenment.

    In other words, despite the current propaganda about how badly white people suck, this cultural phenomenon shows a contrary view, appealing to many 21st Century American women, about the virtues of patriarchal, traditional, hierarchical, religious white men. And you can't get much whiter than a Highland Scot.

    This is the first time I’ve ever heard of a show on Starz before it went of the air.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    You haven't heard of Black Sails? That's pretty good. The production values for it are amazing.
  58. @syonredux
    Off-topic:

    Seems that the PC mob have their pitchforks out for Razib Khan:

    Today the New York Times announced its selection of 20 new op-ed writers who will contribute to the paper on a monthly basis. Editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal told Capital New York that his staff selected contributors with “a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of.” This commitment to a diversity of viewpoints is remarkably strong, as indicated by the paper’s inclusion of science writer Razib Khan.

    According to his Times author page, Khan is “a science blogger, a programmer and a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis.” Omitted from the paper’s biography, as a quick Google search indicates, is Khan’s history with racist, far-right online publications.
     
    http://tktk.gawker.com/new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849

    I’m sure he can win him over with his trademark charm.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’m sure he can win him over with his trademark charm.
     
    Well, facts certainly aren't going to do the job.The PC Left has a very good crimethink censor.
  59. @TheJester
    Steve, I think the genetic analysis misses the point. If the survey measured only aging British citizens as a pre-immigration survey, the information is both skewed and misleading. Assuming that Great Britain + Ireland were not islands of immigrants measured since pre-Roman times, they are now. The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire (similar to the United States today), that all of the people within its empire were British citizens, and therefore all of these people deserved British passports with the right to immigrate to the motherland. Henceforth, British cities now have Pakistani, West Indian, and Indian neighborhoods. In 1973, the United Kingdom joined the European Union. Now, it has Romanian, Polish, and (very shortly) it may have Ukrainian neighborhoods. It is only a question of time until the aging British citizens included in such surveys start to show their genetic markers.

    ” The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire ”

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since.
     
    Very little that is American about the "American Empire" these days, dear fellow.....
    , @Art Deco
    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    There is no 'American Empire', the closest Britain ever was to bankruptcy was in seeking a loan from the IMF in 1976, and Britain is not and never has been a vassal state. It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world. American troops billeted at air bases in Britain barely break into five digits.

    The lot of you are talented in putting a string of falsehoods in one glib package for effect.
  60. @Anon
    Just because people invade doesn't mean they get to breed. If invaders don't bring their own foreign women with them, they'll find it tough to locate mates. Though the Big Shots at the head of the invasion can usually find native wives, that doesn't mean Joe Ordinary Soldier in the ranks can. Joe Ordinary was often at the short end of the plunder list--the Big Shots reserved the mass of the loot for themselves--and he didn't often gain much in the way of land holdings.

    Look at the Norman invasion. The men who were rewarded with land were the fellows who raised the troops back in France, men who were already aristocrats to whom all the Joe Ordinaries owed feudal obligations. In other words, the winnings went to the invaders' own 1%. Joe Ordinary would have found it difficult to end up with enough assets to make him attract to native women, if he wasn't killed in battle, or maimed badly enough to make him hideous to women, or if he didn't die of exposure to unusual diseases found in this new land. Just look at the death rate among the early settlers in America. Anyone invading England may have had a comparable death rate.

    Also, killing a woman's family and friends and burning her family farm is not a way to recommend yourself as a mate. Most sane women will hate your guts if you do that. Another point: The very traits that made Joe leave his foreign lands to become a raider were very likely a penchant for violence and theft, and an inability to make something of himself at home, and the foreign women didn't want to settle down with such a noxious specimen. Thus he became a surplus male and went a-raiding. But the same unpleasant personality traits would also work against Joe with new women in the foreign country as well.

    Hold it, hold it, hold it now. Normandy to England is what, less than thirty miles by sea? Calais to Dover basically?

    There wasn’t any “new diseases” that the Normans would have caught from being in England (and in fact they didn’t) since the land/topography, climate, DNA in the English of 1066 was basically the same as that of the Normans, or Norseman. The Norse (Vikings) had already conquered England a couple previous centuries ago so the people, from a DNA perspective, weren’t all that different and thus there weren’t any diseases that wiped them out.

    Sailing thousands of miles to the New World, however, and encountering a totally different strain of DNA in a race that had heretofore hadn’t been in contact with Caucasians since…before the last Ice Age, well, that’s an entirely different matter.

    Basically, the 1066 Invasion would be like North Carolina deciding to invade South Carolina. How far’s Charlotte from say, Charleston? Less than 200mi? 150mi? Come on.

    Also, William believed that he had a genetic basis of which to claim the English throne for himself, albeit from an indirect line.

    Funny how it worked for William the Conqueror to claim the English throne but not okay for Edward III of England to claim the throne of France in 1327. And as a Plantagenet king, that meant that Edward had a strong enough genetic claim to the throne of France as his family lineage included Normandy and other nobles from the French aristocracy.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  61. @Reg Cæsar

    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.

     

    PPS. Come on, now. Even Jamaica isn't Haiti or Liberia. Get a grip.

    Yes, but neither is Kingston in the same level of say, a first world status (e.g. Seattle, SF etc) Jamaica still has outbreaks of Malaria. OOPS

    Rather, Jamaica is more akin to…to……..Furguson.

  62. @John Mansfield
    It is interesting that conquest by the Roman Empire didn't effect the demographic profile, yet breakdown of the Roman Empire did.

    I think the peace an unified government provided by the Romans created a larger region for mixing genes, which resulted in somewhat better homogeneity. Hooking up with a hottie is easier if you don’t have to cross a border to do it, even when everyone had to do courting and moving by foot and ox cart.

  63. @Reg Cæsar

    Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.
     
    Inasmuch as San Francisco and Seattle are "run" at all, the parts that make them rich are pretty "right wing" in practice, which is where it counts. How'd that bus protest work out in the end? Left or right?

    Hong Kong and Macao have been a damned sight richer, for generations, than demographically equivalent villages a few miles away.

    Brits and Portogees must be so smarter than them Chinamen!

    According to Richard Lynn’s book IQ by the various nations….Brits would be. You’ve read the book too?

    Bus protest, not so good, how about the Minimum Wage increase? That worked out just fine, making WA with the state highest minimum wage in US.

    Also, marijuana and same sex marriage, those aren’t right wing issues.

    All we have to do is view which side in US and state elections that the adults tend to vote and we have our answer.

  64. Christopher Caldwell hits it out of the park, again:

    http://www.claremont.org/article/the-browning-of-america/#.VQtI1I7F8cQ

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    +1 on Christopher Caldwell. Almost everything he writes is interesting.
  65. @Art Deco
    PS. Detroit without socialism is… Haiti or Liberia.
    --
    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia. Detroit is also notable for a homicide rate more than 4x Haiti's and 15x that of Liberia.

    ==


    Leftism’ and ‘Liberalism’ destroyed Detroit. Gee, I guess San Fran and Seattle are rich cuz far-right-wingers and Libertarians run them politically.

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development. Many vested interests to injure, so do not hold your breath.

    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia.

    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development.

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You're planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?


    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.
  66. @Anon
    I'm sure he can win him over with his trademark charm.

    I’m sure he can win him over with his trademark charm.

    Well, facts certainly aren’t going to do the job.The PC Left has a very good crimethink censor.

  67. The loonie who writes here about the Norman Yoke should have applied for the late Auberon Waugh’s prize. Waugh offered £1000 (or some such) to anyone who could prove descent from someone who came over with the Conqueror. Nobody ever claimed it.

    • Replies: @CCG
    HM Elizabeth II is descended from William the Conqueror himself, but the prize money would be small change for her....
    , @OsRazor
    The British people descended from the Normans would have scoffed at Waugh's "prize", even if they were somehow made aware of it.
  68. @fnn
    " The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire "

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since.

    Very little that is American about the “American Empire” these days, dear fellow…..

    • Replies: @fnn
    We all know that.
  69. @WhatEvvs
    Christopher Caldwell hits it out of the park, again:

    http://www.claremont.org/article/the-browning-of-america/#.VQtI1I7F8cQ

    +1 on Christopher Caldwell. Almost everything he writes is interesting.

  70. @Sam Haysom
    This is the first time I've ever heard of a show on Starz before it went of the air.

    You haven’t heard of Black Sails? That’s pretty good. The production values for it are amazing.

  71. Interesting drawing, but the rear legs of the dragon are certainly inverted.

  72. @syonredux

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since.
     
    Very little that is American about the "American Empire" these days, dear fellow.....

    We all know that.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    We all know that.
     
    Then why call it the "American Empire?" It misleads the ignorant.
  73. @fnn
    " The tipping point was the realization in the 1960s that the United Kingdom was a global empire "

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    There is no ‘American Empire’, the closest Britain ever was to bankruptcy was in seeking a loan from the IMF in 1976, and Britain is not and never has been a vassal state. It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world. American troops billeted at air bases in Britain barely break into five digits.

    The lot of you are talented in putting a string of falsehoods in one glib package for effect.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world.
     
    They did defeat Argentina back in the 80's. Hardly a powerhouse.
  74. @syonredux

    No. Personal income per capita in Detroit is about 45% below national means, or about 20x what it is in Haiti or Liberia.
     
    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA.....

    Coleman Young destroyed Detroit, with some preliminary assistance from Jerome Cavanaugh, and the political class and populace let him do it for perverse reasons. Detroit can be salvaged with time, institutional adjustments including metropolitan policing, and a commitment to public order maintenance, sensible retirement programs for public employees, charter schools, and a removal of witless impediments to real estate development.
     
    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%.....

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?

    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?
     
    Dear boy, surely so fervent a supporter of Jewish supremacy in Israel must be aware that population control does not necessarily involve "slaughtering" people. Simply offer the Black denizens of Detroit financial inducements for moving.I daresay that a host of social ills could be ameliorated if no city in America were more than 10% Black.

    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.
     
    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    No, Detroit is home to a large mass of working class people with the skill sets working class people have.
     
    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.
    , @JSM
    "You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?"

    Ahhhh, come on. It's entirely possible to reduce population without violent measures. Simply set the incentives up correctly. *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.
  75. In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    No, Detroit is home to a large mass of working class people with the skill sets working class people have.

  76. @fnn
    We all know that.

    We all know that.

    Then why call it the “American Empire?” It misleads the ignorant.

    • Replies: @fnn
    I'm a humanitarian, I don't want Art Deco to have a stroke.
  77. @Art Deco
    Of course the British Empire was obviously dead by 1947. Britain was a bankrupt US dependency after WWII and has been a vassal state of the American Empire ever since. They did continue to have illusions, but Suez in 1956 ended all those.

    There is no 'American Empire', the closest Britain ever was to bankruptcy was in seeking a loan from the IMF in 1976, and Britain is not and never has been a vassal state. It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world. American troops billeted at air bases in Britain barely break into five digits.

    The lot of you are talented in putting a string of falsehoods in one glib package for effect.

    It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world.

    They did defeat Argentina back in the 80′s. Hardly a powerhouse.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe 3 other countries could have done what Britain did in that war, The US, the USSR, and France.

    Who else had the ability to project that much force 8,000 miles away?

  78. @Art Deco
    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You're planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?


    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?

    Dear boy, surely so fervent a supporter of Jewish supremacy in Israel must be aware that population control does not necessarily involve “slaughtering” people. Simply offer the Black denizens of Detroit financial inducements for moving.I daresay that a host of social ills could be ameliorated if no city in America were more than 10% Black.

    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.

    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    No, Detroit is home to a large mass of working class people with the skill sets working class people have.

    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    No, the skill sets they have are the one's they acquired pretty much the same way anyone else acquires skill sets in this country.
    , @Art Deco
    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    You've never acquired the status of 'serious thinker', and you cannot.
  79. For many thousands of years it was customary for conquerors, upon subjugating a new land, to kill all the men and boys. The women and girls left over were thus left with the choice of either embracing the new studs or starving to death with nobody to provide for them.

    It it really that surprising that so many chose the first option?

  80. @anonymous

    It is one of the few countries in the world with armed forces which can be deployed in quantity out of their immediate area and possesses one of the half-dozen or so best equipped militaries in the world.
     
    They did defeat Argentina back in the 80's. Hardly a powerhouse.

    Maybe 3 other countries could have done what Britain did in that war, The US, the USSR, and France.

    Who else had the ability to project that much force 8,000 miles away?

  81. They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.
     
    Push-pull.Condemning the attack would have been better for US relations with Latin America, but doing that would have alienated Britain.Ultimately, Reagan placed a much higher value on good relations with the UK.

    To some (cf PC Roberts), it's comforting to imagine that the White House just issues dictates and is immune to pressure from other states.But that is far from true.
    , @Art Deco
    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    No they did not. They assembled a task force and sent it. Alexander Haig wasted a mess of man-hours undertaking pointless shuttle diplomacy but ultimately folded when neither side would budge.
  82. @syonredux

    We all know that.
     
    Then why call it the "American Empire?" It misleads the ignorant.

    I’m a humanitarian, I don’t want Art Deco to have a stroke.

  83. @dearieme
    The loonie who writes here about the Norman Yoke should have applied for the late Auberon Waugh's prize. Waugh offered £1000 (or some such) to anyone who could prove descent from someone who came over with the Conqueror. Nobody ever claimed it.

    HM Elizabeth II is descended from William the Conqueror himself, but the prize money would be small change for her….

  84. @fnn
    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    Push-pull.Condemning the attack would have been better for US relations with Latin America, but doing that would have alienated Britain.Ultimately, Reagan placed a much higher value on good relations with the UK.

    To some (cf PC Roberts), it’s comforting to imagine that the White House just issues dictates and is immune to pressure from other states.But that is far from true.

  85. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor
    How come no one says FAR-RIGHT Netanhayu won?

    How far right does a Jew have to be before he's called far-right?

    PS. Jews hate Marie Le Pen because she hasn't denounced her father, but how many Jews have denounced their parents who were on the far-left?

    I don’t know where you live but people constantly call Netanyahu far right. They do it in the NYT, the Atlantic or Slate. It’s a claim made by by Jewish writers like Peter Beinart, by arab and muslim authors both mainstream and radical and by democratic senators. Technically given there are parties further right than Likud so in once sense he is probably closer to centre right in Israel. On the other hand far right is now a widely used/abused/overused term. A recent article in the NYT called the FN the extreme right, an indicator that far right is loosing meaning, which is strange given Marine is more centrist than her father.

  86. Who else had the ability to project that much force 8,000 miles away?

    Yes but who did they fight? They kept possession of some rocks. The countries they could defeat dwindle by the day.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They do? Come up with a list of countries which could not stand up to Britain in 1982 which could today.

    --
    , @WhatEvvs
    What countries would those be? I am no military expert, so I appeal to your expertise, o Swami. How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 1982?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 2015?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    The rest of the countries in the world they could defeat. In other words, very powerful country with a powerful military. Still probably the best navy, cis-gender man for cis-gender man. Although again, I am no expert.
  87. It’s that damn monogamy. If King Cnut was like Genghis Kahn 10% of the British would have Danish genes.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It’s that damn monogamy. If King Cnut was like Genghis Kahn 10% of the British would have Danish genes.
     
    Monogamy? It's that silly Christianity thing - so inconvenient (for men), yet so good for you and your people in the long run.

    Not "Kahn," "Khan." Temujin was a Central/East Asian, not of the Cohenim.
  88. @Art Deco
    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You're planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?


    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.

    “You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?”

    Ahhhh, come on. It’s entirely possible to reduce population without violent measures. Simply set the incentives up correctly. *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.
  89. @JSM
    "You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?"

    Ahhhh, come on. It's entirely possible to reduce population without violent measures. Simply set the incentives up correctly. *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.

    • Replies: @JSM
    "f social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since." Good ideas remain good ideas. And bad policy (subsidizing irresponsible black breeding) remains ill-advised.
    , @anonymous

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.
     
    You're on this site aren't you? Or are you someone who visits a bordello but pretends to be there just to help the employees with their spiritual questions?
  90. @syonredux

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?
     
    Dear boy, surely so fervent a supporter of Jewish supremacy in Israel must be aware that population control does not necessarily involve "slaughtering" people. Simply offer the Black denizens of Detroit financial inducements for moving.I daresay that a host of social ills could be ameliorated if no city in America were more than 10% Black.

    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.
     
    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    No, Detroit is home to a large mass of working class people with the skill sets working class people have.
     
    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    No, the skill sets they have are the one’s they acquired pretty much the same way anyone else acquires skill sets in this country.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    No, the skill sets they have are the one’s they acquired pretty much the same way anyone else acquires skill sets in this country.
     
    Uhm, why yes, dear boy.They (Black denizens of Detroit) acquired their skill sets "in this country." And this country is America.Blacks benefit enormously from living in America.

    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    You’ve never acquired the status of ‘serious thinker’, and you cannot.
     
    Only Cloud Cuckoo Landers ignore biology, dear boy.
  91. @fnn
    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    No they did not. They assembled a task force and sent it. Alexander Haig wasted a mess of man-hours undertaking pointless shuttle diplomacy but ultimately folded when neither side would budge.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The key decision was the Reagan Administration deciding to promise the Thatcher government that if they lost an aircraft carrier, the U.S. would supply another one.
  92. @anonymous

    Who else had the ability to project that much force 8,000 miles away?
     
    Yes but who did they fight? They kept possession of some rocks. The countries they could defeat dwindle by the day.

    They do? Come up with a list of countries which could not stand up to Britain in 1982 which could today.

  93. @syonredux

    Alternatively, just reduce the Black share of the population to, say, 10%…..

    You’re planning on slaughtering 600,000 people?
     
    Dear boy, surely so fervent a supporter of Jewish supremacy in Israel must be aware that population control does not necessarily involve "slaughtering" people. Simply offer the Black denizens of Detroit financial inducements for moving.I daresay that a host of social ills could be ameliorated if no city in America were more than 10% Black.

    Quite a sewer Unz has been dredging.
     
    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    In other words, Detroit benefits enormously from being part of the USA…..

    No, Detroit is home to a large mass of working class people with the skill sets working class people have.
     
    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    You’ve never acquired the status of ‘serious thinker’, and you cannot.

  94. @Lot

    Truly one people have been ruling over another for more than a thousand years.
     
    That's totally wrong. The Normans were completely intermixed with the rest of the English hundreds of years ago. The Hundred Years War, Crusades, and War of the Roses all resulted in mass death and replacement of the Norman noble families by local new men.

    If you disagree, find me an Englishman, even one, who can trace more than 50% of his ancestry to Normans.

    For your claim to be true, the Anglo-Normans would have needed to have an extreme, India-style caste system. That was never the case.

    If you think that Greg Clarke says otherwise, go read his book again. That is not what his Norman name analysis says.

    Probably a majority of the peerage of England and Scotland have more than 50% Norman blood. I don’t think that’s much in dispute. Most of the titles and property have descended through several female lines, but last time I checked females are just as able as men to pass on the genetic stuff of their ancestors. I don’t think you fully appreciate how insular marriages have been among the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and Barons of Britain for centuries. The inbreeding is pretty extreme.

    There are even a couple of really glaring examples of even more direct descent. The current Dukes of Somerset (Beauforts) are direct descendents in the male line of Henry II (d. 1189). Their ancestors make up a lot of the drama of Shakespeare’s historical dramas. Same for the Dukes of Norfolk (Howards) who’ve been around in the male line since the 14th Century and are descendants of the fitzAlan and d’Aubigny families who’ve been around since 1066. The Earls of Shrewsbury (Talbots) and Derby (Stanleys) have also been around since the 14th Century. One of the wealthiest families of Britain the Dukes of Westminster (Grosvenor family) are still pretty proud of their Norman ancestry. The list is endless. As I said, read Debrett’s or Burke’s for the sensational account or Cokayne’s Complete Peerage for a more scholarly approach.

    Did Norman blood infuse much of Britain? Hardly at all, as Clarke shows. Did Norman blood remain relevant to England? Absolutely. At the highest levels of wealth and power. The whole of English/Scottish/Irish and Welsh history since 1066 testifies to it.

    • Replies: @Conqueror's descendant
    I would agree that this was the pattern up till around 1950. Sadly things have changed quite a bit since then.
    But is not the exact percentage of Norman blood which matters but the self perception. If you are the heirs of a great Norman dynasty (the Percys say) then it does not matter that your actual male line descent is from a family called Smithson.
  95. @dearieme
    The loonie who writes here about the Norman Yoke should have applied for the late Auberon Waugh's prize. Waugh offered £1000 (or some such) to anyone who could prove descent from someone who came over with the Conqueror. Nobody ever claimed it.

    The British people descended from the Normans would have scoffed at Waugh’s “prize”, even if they were somehow made aware of it.

    • Replies: @Conqueror's descendant
    What is being missed here is that Waugh was half scoffing at himself as he wrote it.
    One forgets that through his mother, a Herbert, he descended from dukes and earls aplenty. He also married the daughter of an earl. So his family are now, although not landed, a part of the British ruling class. That few of them seem to have taken advantage of this is another matter.
    What he was doing with his little wager was laughing at those who talked of such descents rather than simply quietly taking them for granted.
  96. @Jacobite
    Prevalence of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b for males in the British isles is a pretty good rough guide to the degree of Celtic-ness of the native population. It runs on a cline from 40 to 50% R1b in the Germanic and Scandinavian occupied eastern portions of the Isles which tend to be R1a to well over 80% R1b in Donegal, Mayo, Wales, and Cornwall. This cline is a generally true for most of Western Europe as evidenced by the high rates of R1b in places like Normandy and Brittany.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4tmWE8JAKMI/T4iwYdFPvdI/AAAAAAAAAdg/GXSCkODG2ss/s1600/300px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA_version_2.gif

    How the R1b haplogroup dispersed from Eastern Northeast Europe or perhaps Anatolia through Western Europe in the first place is a matter of much current debate.

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/the-story-of-r1b-its-complicated.html

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/bell-beaker-corded-ware-ehg-and-yamnaya.html

    R1b is found in Celtic, Germanic, Iberian and Italic populations and so is not a good indicator by itself of Celtic ancestry.

  97. @Art Deco
    *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.

    “f social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.” Good ideas remain good ideas. And bad policy (subsidizing irresponsible black breeding) remains ill-advised.

  98. @Art Deco
    They had to get approval from the White House for the war.

    No they did not. They assembled a task force and sent it. Alexander Haig wasted a mess of man-hours undertaking pointless shuttle diplomacy but ultimately folded when neither side would budge.

    The key decision was the Reagan Administration deciding to promise the Thatcher government that if they lost an aircraft carrier, the U.S. would supply another one.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    What 'key decision'? The armada was on its way to the South Atlantic well in advance of any declarations by the administration.
  99. @Economic Sophisms
    Somehow I can't reconcile the Harrying of the North by William the Bastard or Ivar the Boneless' The Great Heathen Army with the word "immigration" in any case. Even if the Danes or Normans had left a meaningful genetic legacy, I would call that the marks of conquest. We don't say Hungarians have Mongol blood because of the great Mongol immigration wave.

    The shitlibs don't know what they want. If a study shows almost no genetic turnover, they say it shows that immigration won't shake things up. If it shows a sizable genetic turnover (20% Saxon is not nothing) then this is evidence that 'immigration' is good or...something. Forget that the Saxons completely overturned the old order.

    JP:

    “If the Danes or Normans had left a meaning ful genetic legacy”

    The Normans were Danes. And I am a genetic legacy of the Normans.

    My family line goes back to Worcestershire, then Normandy, then Denmark, and then actually into the mists of time in the Norse sagas to Sweden and Kvenland.

    I don’t think anyone who suffered under his rule in the West Country would think Urse d’Abitot, my Norse “immigrant” was a peaceful Dreamer though!

  100. @george
    It's that damn monogamy. If King Cnut was like Genghis Kahn 10% of the British would have Danish genes.

    It’s that damn monogamy. If King Cnut was like Genghis Kahn 10% of the British would have Danish genes.

    Monogamy? It’s that silly Christianity thing – so inconvenient (for men), yet so good for you and your people in the long run.

    Not “Kahn,” “Khan.” Temujin was a Central/East Asian, not of the Cohenim.

    • Replies: @OsRazor
    The thing is not many of NW Europe's aristocracy was all that monogamous. Almost to a man, they had lots of bastards, the most famous being William the Conqueror himself. What they weren't as good at compared to Khan was to create two, three hundred feet piles of human (male) heads. It's not enough to just impregnate a lot of women--you've also got to remove all other competing male lines to achieve Khan's genetic imprint.
  101. @Mike Sylwester
    Beowulf is a vulgar, stupid poem.

    In contrast, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha is sublime and thought-provoking.

    Here is an excerpt that explains who should read it.

    Ye who love a nation's legends,
    Love the ballads of a people,
    That like voices from afar off
    Call to us to pause and listen,

    Speak in tones so plain and childlike,
    Scarcely can the ear distinguish
    Whether they are sung or spoken ;
    Listen to this Indian Legend,

    To this Song of Hiawatha !

    Ye whose hearts are fresh and simple,
    Who have faith in God and Nature,
    Who believe, that in all ages
    Every human heart is human,

    That in even savage bosoms
    There are longings, yearnings, strivings
    For the good they comprehend not,
    That the feeble hands and helpless,

    Groping blindly in the darkness,
    Touch God's right hand in that darkness
    And are lifted up and strengthened ;
    Listen to this simple story,

    To this Song of Hiawatha !

    Ye, who sometimes, in your rambles
    Through the green lanes of the country,
    Where the tangled barberry-bushes
    Hang their tufts of crimson berries

    Over stone walls gray with mosses,
    Pause by some neglected graveyard,
    For a while to muse, and ponder
    On a half-effaced inscription,

    Written with little skill of song-craft,
    Homely phrases, but each letter
    Full of hope and yet of heart-break,
    Full of all the tender pathos

    Of the Here and the Hereafter :
    Stay and read this rude inscription.

    Read this Song of Hiawatha !
     
    The entire poem should be part of the curriculum in every high school in the USA.

    Beowulf is a vulgar, stupid poem.

    In contrast, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s Song of Hiawatha is sublime and thought-provoking.

    Maybe, but isn’t this like comparing an ancient folk-tune to a Beethoven composition?

    I was impressed with this poem (or riddle) from the tenth century book of Exeter

    What man is so mind-strong and spirit shrewd
    He can say who drives me in my fierce strength
    On fate’s road when I rise with vengeance,
    Ravage the land, with a thundering voice
    Rip folk-homes, plunder the hall-wood:
    Gray smoke rises over rooftops–on earth
    The rattle and death-shriek of men.I shake
    The forest, blooms and boles, rip trees,
    Wander, roofed with water, a wide road,
    Pressed by might. On my back I bear
    The water that once wrapped earth-dwellers,
    Flesh and spirit.
    […]

    The rest can be found here (including the old english):

    https://web.archive.org/web/20071009180124/http://www2.kenyon.edu/AngloSaxonRiddles/Riddles/Riddle1.htm

    Albeit this is a translation, but still, is this an old english poem or lyrics from a Swedish death metal album?

  102. @Art Deco
    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    No, the skill sets they have are the one's they acquired pretty much the same way anyone else acquires skill sets in this country.

    Whatever skills they possess are due to living in the USA, dear boy.

    No, the skill sets they have are the one’s they acquired pretty much the same way anyone else acquires skill sets in this country.

    Uhm, why yes, dear boy.They (Black denizens of Detroit) acquired their skill sets “in this country.” And this country is America.Blacks benefit enormously from living in America.

    Being a serious thinker entails studying unpleasant things, dear boy.

    You’ve never acquired the status of ‘serious thinker’, and you cannot.

    Only Cloud Cuckoo Landers ignore biology, dear boy.

  103. Anglo-Saxons always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Jute.

    Angles, Saxons, Jutes (Normans, Belgii, Franks, Teutons) …

    Germanic-Germanics always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Germanic.

    Just sayin’.

    The shitlibs don’t know what they want. If a study shows almost no genetic turnover, they say it shows that immigration won’t shake things up. If it shows a sizable genetic turnover (20% Saxon is not nothing) then this is evidence that ‘immigration’ is good or…something. Forget that the Saxons completely overturned the old order.

    Immigration is the best in times of war, and times of peace, in times of prosperity, and times of hardship, in big (white) countries, and in small (white) countries, in times of innovation, and times of stagnation, in sickness and in health, ’til death do us part.

    It’s a floor wax, and a dessert topping.

    Gallo-Roman, yes, well played. This stupidity is even easier to see here in the US, where the coming of the White Man is called “immigration” when whining libs want to encourage the browning of America, and called “colonialism” when libs want to bash Whites over the head for what their ancestors did to the Red Man. More liberal matter-antimatter that can’t be brought into proximity without causing an explosion.

    new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849

    Is that a racist crack because Razib has brown skin? Racist joke is racist.

    Priss, Bibi isn’t “far right,” he’s extreme right. He’s a right-wing extremist.

    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was.

    I’ve yet to see a comprehensive treatment of Amerind savagery and atrocities. Anyone know a source I’m missing?

    The Normans, whose Norwegian and Danish ancestors had taken on French affectations

    .

    The Germanics, whose pre-Germanic and Germanic ancestors had taken on Germanic affectations

    Just sayin'.

    I think we should all embrace this idea of deliberately confusing the difference between immigration and invasion. The implication clearly is that there’s nothing wrong with it. We can then point out that people used to meet these waves of immigrants with peasant militias and by implication there’s nothing wrong with that either.

    Devious!

    You can even point out that only those “immigrants” who came with superior skills passed that selection process so it guaranteed that “immigration” brought some new innovations with it, though it wasn’t guaranteed that locals actually got to enjoy them. If we build enough fences and difficulties then the immigration that manages to pass probably actually is beneficial.

    Deviouser! My man.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was.

    I’ve yet to see a comprehensive treatment of Amerind savagery and atrocities. Anyone know a source I’m missing?
     
    It's been a while, but I recall this book being reasonably even-handed:

    The real story of the ordeal experienced by both settlers and Indians during the Europeans' great migration west across America, from the colonies to California, has been almost completely eliminated from the histories we now read. In truth, it was a horrifying and appalling experience. Nothing like it had ever happened anywhere else in the world.

    In The Wild Frontier, William M. Osborn discusses the changing settler attitude toward the Indians over several centuries, as well as Indian and settler characteristics—the Indian love of warfare, for instance (more than 400 inter-tribal wars were fought even after the threatening settlers arrived), and the settlers' irresistible desire for the land occupied by the Indians.

    The atrocities described in The Wild Frontier led to the death of more than 9,000 settlers and 7,000 Indians. Most of these events were not only horrible but bizarre. Notoriously, the British use of Indians to terrorize the settlers during the American Revolution left bitter feelings, which in turn contributed to atrocious conduct on the part of the settlers. Osborn also discusses other controversial subjects, such as the treaties with the Indians, matters relating to the occupation of land, the major part disease played in the war, and the statements by both settlers and Indians each arguing for the extermination of the other. He details the disgraceful American government policy toward the Indians, which continues even today, and speculates about the uncertain future of the Indians themselves.

    Thousands of eyewitness accounts are the raw material of The Wild Frontier, in which we learn that many Indians tortured and killed prisoners, and some even engaged in cannibalism; and that though numerous settlers came to the New World for religious reasons, or to escape English oppression, many others were convicted of crimes and came to avoid being hanged.

    The Wild Frontier tells a story that helps us understand our history, and how as the settlers moved west, they often brutally expelled the Indians by force while themselves suffering torture and kidnapping.

     

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Wild-Frontier-Atrocities-American-Indian/dp/0375758569


    And here's some data on deaths due to fighting:

    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov't:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500
    TOTAL: 65,000 ± 7,500
    William Osborn: The Wild Frontier: atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee (2000)
    Deaths caused by specific settler atrocities: 7,193 (1623-1890)
    Deaths caused by specific Indian atrocities: 9,156 (1511-1879. Incl. Indian vs. Indian)
    Osborne basically defines an atrocity as murder or torture of civilians and prisoners. Most of your outright massacres are counted, but the Trail of Tears, for example, isn't.
    Trail of Tears (1838-39)
    Trager, The People's Chronology: 4,000 out of 14,000 Cherokee die on route.
    Osborne: anywhere between 1,846 and 18,000 Indians died, in total.
     
    For cross-comparisons, here are totals for Australia and New Zealand:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000 [make link]
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA ("best guess", probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborgines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborignies k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aboriginies intentionally killed by whites.




    New Zealand (1800s) 200,000 [make link]
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Maori pop: 240,000 (pre-contact) to 40,000 (1896)
    Clodfelter, Maori War (1860-72)
    UK, NZ: 700 k.
    Maori: 2,000

     

    http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm#Australia
    , @Anonymous
    When we say that the Normans had taken on French affectations, we don't mean Germanic affectations. "France" derives from "Frank", but "Frank" doesn't imply just a tribe of Germanics, but a tribe of Germanics that had assimilated and adopted a Gallic/Roman/Mediterranean/Christian culture. By French affectations, we mean that the Normans had adopted and assimilated Gallic-Roman-Med-Christian culture.
  104. @Twinkie

    It’s that damn monogamy. If King Cnut was like Genghis Kahn 10% of the British would have Danish genes.
     
    Monogamy? It's that silly Christianity thing - so inconvenient (for men), yet so good for you and your people in the long run.

    Not "Kahn," "Khan." Temujin was a Central/East Asian, not of the Cohenim.

    The thing is not many of NW Europe’s aristocracy was all that monogamous. Almost to a man, they had lots of bastards, the most famous being William the Conqueror himself. What they weren’t as good at compared to Khan was to create two, three hundred feet piles of human (male) heads. It’s not enough to just impregnate a lot of women–you’ve also got to remove all other competing male lines to achieve Khan’s genetic imprint.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The thing is not many of NW Europe’s aristocracy was all that monogamous. Almost to a man, they had lots of bastards, the most famous being William the Conqueror himself.
     
    They *were* monogamous - they had only one wife at one time. Sure, I bet they were adulterous (at least the males) obviously, but the adultery had to be restrained due to the prevailing religious and cultural influences, i.e. Christianity, and also because bastards were *generally* unable to inherit status.

    Mongol overlords, on the other hand, practiced socially recognized polygamy and gave status to all their offspring.


    What they weren’t as good at compared to Khan was to create two, three hundred feet piles of human (male) heads. It’s not enough to just impregnate a lot of women–you’ve also got to remove all other competing male lines to achieve Khan’s genetic imprint.
     
    Although Genghis Khan could be a butcher when he felt necessary (or when he felt he wanted vengeance for a perceived insult), much of the reputation for building pyramids of skull originated with Tamerlane, not Genghis.

    Genghis and his immediate successors ruled over such a vast realm and such a huge population that it was impossible to remove "competing male lines" in toto. Indeed, the Mongols were highly pragmatic and "meritocratic" in that they frequently incorporated defeated, but "worthy" nobles of other peoples into their own families, even those who were ethno-racially very distant from their own kin.

  105. @HA
    "Cornwell has other series that address similar periods.. His Arthurian series is particularly fine."

    Cornwell's bigotry against Christians is strident. He should have worked that through with a shrink, or something, before setting pen to paper. The deformed priest in the Uhtred novels is perhaps the first pious Christian he ever bothered to include who wasn't either a monster, a neurotic prig, or else one of the tolerable Christians who don't let a little thing like religion interfere with their drinking and whoring. (King Alfred's piety is portrayed as something akin to his bowel disorder, so that doesn't really count.)

    And it's not just Christians who are reduced to ham-fisted cliches: https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/The_Saxon_Stories

    Well you certainly are correct about Cornwell’s anti-Christian bias. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are really quite moderate in their anticlericalism compare to Cornwell.

    But I enjoy his viewpoint. As I’m sure you know, he was boarded out during the war to a fundamentalist sect called ‘The Peculiar People’. Apparently that experience filled him with a life long detestation of religion – particularly Christianity. Since Cornwell writes fiction there is usually at least one clerical person who is a villain.

    He depicts the actions of inquisitors for example. I suspect that his depictions are accurate. There were a lot of nasty priests. In ‘Pagan Lord’ and the whole series he contrasts the morality of the pagans with that of the Christians. Much of the time the pagans are shown in a more favorable light. Maybe that’s historically accurate – I really don’t know but the way he describes it -it feels right.

    • Replies: @HA
    "I suspect that his depictions are accurate. There were a lot of nasty priests."

    I understand your viewpoint, and I liked some of his books (though as in many serials, the later episodes are disappointments). Also, I have no doubt that there were lots of nasty priests, just as I have no doubt that there were, say, a lot of nasty, oppressive Jewish tax collectors. Nasty people are rarely in short supply among any group. But if I pack my novels with nasty clerics, it is well and good as long as it “feels right”. However, if I put more than one or two of that second group in my works, do you think anyone will care how accurate the portrayal might be, or how it “feels”?

    And what is particularly galling, given Cornwell’s recent subject matter, was that it was the priests and the monks he works so hard to vilify that by and large wrote the histories and built the scriptoria and the libraries and the universities that allow bigots like him to twist that history to their own ends. If that feels right in any way to you, I submit that it should not. And if someone is trying to understand what made King Alfred the Great, and what helped him overcome and civilize the berserking savages attacking his people, then sneering at Christianity is not going to help.

    Finally, it was those nasty clerics in the Inquisition who first developed what would come to be known in this country as the 4th amendment. Due process, the right to an advocate, and so forth. The terrible stuff that they engaged in, the tortured confessions, the easy indictments by anyone who might profit from seeing a rival put in prison, etc. That was indeed terrible, but none of it was new. The real novelty was in what they did to correct that. So much so that some victims of the Inquisition (I’m not denying that they were still victims) purposely engaged in blasphemy so that their cases would be moved from civil courts into the ecclesiastical ones, where a more modern understanding of justice was taking shape.

    Conservatives rightly grumble that white European Christians are repeatedly asked to apologize for slavery, an institution that long predated them, even though their most anomalous historical contribution to that institution was ending it. That same principle should apply to the Inquisition.

  106. @Svigor

    Anglo-Saxons always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Jute.
     
    Angles, Saxons, Jutes (Normans, Belgii, Franks, Teutons) ...

    Germanic-Germanics always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Germanic.

    Just sayin'.


    The shitlibs don’t know what they want. If a study shows almost no genetic turnover, they say it shows that immigration won’t shake things up. If it shows a sizable genetic turnover (20% Saxon is not nothing) then this is evidence that ‘immigration’ is good or…something. Forget that the Saxons completely overturned the old order.
     
    Immigration is the best in times of war, and times of peace, in times of prosperity, and times of hardship, in big (white) countries, and in small (white) countries, in times of innovation, and times of stagnation, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part.

    It's a floor wax, and a dessert topping.

    Gallo-Roman, yes, well played. This stupidity is even easier to see here in the US, where the coming of the White Man is called "immigration" when whining libs want to encourage the browning of America, and called "colonialism" when libs want to bash Whites over the head for what their ancestors did to the Red Man. More liberal matter-antimatter that can't be brought into proximity without causing an explosion.


    new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849
     
    Is that a racist crack because Razib has brown skin? Racist joke is racist.

    Priss, Bibi isn't "far right," he's extreme right. He's a right-wing extremist.


    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was.
     
    I've yet to see a comprehensive treatment of Amerind savagery and atrocities. Anyone know a source I'm missing?

    The Normans, whose Norwegian and Danish ancestors had taken on French affectations
     
    .

    The Germanics, whose pre-Germanic and Germanic ancestors had taken on Germanic affectations

    Just sayin'.


    I think we should all embrace this idea of deliberately confusing the difference between immigration and invasion. The implication clearly is that there’s nothing wrong with it. We can then point out that people used to meet these waves of immigrants with peasant militias and by implication there’s nothing wrong with that either.
     
    Devious!

    You can even point out that only those “immigrants” who came with superior skills passed that selection process so it guaranteed that “immigration” brought some new innovations with it, though it wasn’t guaranteed that locals actually got to enjoy them. If we build enough fences and difficulties then the immigration that manages to pass probably actually is beneficial.
     
    Deviouser! My man.

    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was.

    I’ve yet to see a comprehensive treatment of Amerind savagery and atrocities. Anyone know a source I’m missing?

    It’s been a while, but I recall this book being reasonably even-handed:

    The real story of the ordeal experienced by both settlers and Indians during the Europeans’ great migration west across America, from the colonies to California, has been almost completely eliminated from the histories we now read. In truth, it was a horrifying and appalling experience. Nothing like it had ever happened anywhere else in the world.

    In The Wild Frontier, William M. Osborn discusses the changing settler attitude toward the Indians over several centuries, as well as Indian and settler characteristics—the Indian love of warfare, for instance (more than 400 inter-tribal wars were fought even after the threatening settlers arrived), and the settlers’ irresistible desire for the land occupied by the Indians.

    The atrocities described in The Wild Frontier led to the death of more than 9,000 settlers and 7,000 Indians. Most of these events were not only horrible but bizarre. Notoriously, the British use of Indians to terrorize the settlers during the American Revolution left bitter feelings, which in turn contributed to atrocious conduct on the part of the settlers. Osborn also discusses other controversial subjects, such as the treaties with the Indians, matters relating to the occupation of land, the major part disease played in the war, and the statements by both settlers and Indians each arguing for the extermination of the other. He details the disgraceful American government policy toward the Indians, which continues even today, and speculates about the uncertain future of the Indians themselves.

    Thousands of eyewitness accounts are the raw material of The Wild Frontier, in which we learn that many Indians tortured and killed prisoners, and some even engaged in cannibalism; and that though numerous settlers came to the New World for religious reasons, or to escape English oppression, many others were convicted of crimes and came to avoid being hanged.

    The Wild Frontier tells a story that helps us understand our history, and how as the settlers moved west, they often brutally expelled the Indians by force while themselves suffering torture and kidnapping.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Wild-Frontier-Atrocities-American-Indian/dp/0375758569

    And here’s some data on deaths due to fighting:

    Indian Wars, from a 1894 report by US Census, cited by Thornton. Includes men, woman and children killed, 1775-1890:
    Individual conflicts:
    Whites: 5,000
    Indians: 8,500
    Wars under the gov’t:
    Whites: 14,000
    Indians: 30-45,000
    TOTAL:
    Whites: 19,000
    Indians: 38,500 to 53,500
    TOTAL: 65,000 ± 7,500
    William Osborn: The Wild Frontier: atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee (2000)
    Deaths caused by specific settler atrocities: 7,193 (1623-1890)
    Deaths caused by specific Indian atrocities: 9,156 (1511-1879. Incl. Indian vs. Indian)
    Osborne basically defines an atrocity as murder or torture of civilians and prisoners. Most of your outright massacres are counted, but the Trail of Tears, for example, isn’t.
    Trail of Tears (1838-39)
    Trager, The People’s Chronology: 4,000 out of 14,000 Cherokee die on route.
    Osborne: anywhere between 1,846 and 18,000 Indians died, in total.

    For cross-comparisons, here are totals for Australia and New Zealand:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000 [make link]
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA (“best guess”, probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborgines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborignies k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aboriginies intentionally killed by whites.

    New Zealand (1800s) 200,000 [make link]
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Maori pop: 240,000 (pre-contact) to 40,000 (1896)
    Clodfelter, Maori War (1860-72)
    UK, NZ: 700 k.
    Maori: 2,000

    http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm#Australia

  107. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    Anglo-Saxons always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Jute.
     
    Angles, Saxons, Jutes (Normans, Belgii, Franks, Teutons) ...

    Germanic-Germanics always take credit for writing Beowulf, but it was actually written by a Germanic.

    Just sayin'.


    The shitlibs don’t know what they want. If a study shows almost no genetic turnover, they say it shows that immigration won’t shake things up. If it shows a sizable genetic turnover (20% Saxon is not nothing) then this is evidence that ‘immigration’ is good or…something. Forget that the Saxons completely overturned the old order.
     
    Immigration is the best in times of war, and times of peace, in times of prosperity, and times of hardship, in big (white) countries, and in small (white) countries, in times of innovation, and times of stagnation, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part.

    It's a floor wax, and a dessert topping.

    Gallo-Roman, yes, well played. This stupidity is even easier to see here in the US, where the coming of the White Man is called "immigration" when whining libs want to encourage the browning of America, and called "colonialism" when libs want to bash Whites over the head for what their ancestors did to the Red Man. More liberal matter-antimatter that can't be brought into proximity without causing an explosion.


    new-times-op-ed-writer-has-a-colorful-past-with-racist-1692187849
     
    Is that a racist crack because Razib has brown skin? Racist joke is racist.

    Priss, Bibi isn't "far right," he's extreme right. He's a right-wing extremist.


    I’ve yet to hear a Native American talk about how wrong scalping and torture of prisoners was.
     
    I've yet to see a comprehensive treatment of Amerind savagery and atrocities. Anyone know a source I'm missing?

    The Normans, whose Norwegian and Danish ancestors had taken on French affectations
     
    .

    The Germanics, whose pre-Germanic and Germanic ancestors had taken on Germanic affectations

    Just sayin'.


    I think we should all embrace this idea of deliberately confusing the difference between immigration and invasion. The implication clearly is that there’s nothing wrong with it. We can then point out that people used to meet these waves of immigrants with peasant militias and by implication there’s nothing wrong with that either.
     
    Devious!

    You can even point out that only those “immigrants” who came with superior skills passed that selection process so it guaranteed that “immigration” brought some new innovations with it, though it wasn’t guaranteed that locals actually got to enjoy them. If we build enough fences and difficulties then the immigration that manages to pass probably actually is beneficial.
     
    Deviouser! My man.

    When we say that the Normans had taken on French affectations, we don’t mean Germanic affectations. “France” derives from “Frank”, but “Frank” doesn’t imply just a tribe of Germanics, but a tribe of Germanics that had assimilated and adopted a Gallic/Roman/Mediterranean/Christian culture. By French affectations, we mean that the Normans had adopted and assimilated Gallic-Roman-Med-Christian culture.

  108. @Conqueror's descendant
    You are so right. The Normans (i.e. the Norsemen) are the greatest race of conquerors and subsequent rulers that the world has ever seen. Normandy, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and , don't forget, Sicily. And what they conquer, they keep.
    The British ruling class is utterly ruthless and has no loyalty whatsoever to the peoples over whom it rules.
    Remember what Lord Cardigan (yes, the famous one) said when told of the number of Irish peasants who had died during the famine: "Not enough". I myself once heard a member of one of Scotland's greatest noble families regretting that more of the rabble had not been killed off (as had been intended, he added) in the First World War.
    Thus the hatred of the common people of Britain for hunting to hounds: it's the man on horseback, the knight, the conqueror who is conjured up by the sights and sounds of Tally Ho.
    Impressive in its way, but pretty damned scary.

    The Germans, by the way, do not hate their old aristocracy: they are the same people.

    Well , like it or not, their days are numbered thanks to their own policies of bring people who do not understand or honor their superiority.

  109. @OsRazor
    The British people descended from the Normans would have scoffed at Waugh's "prize", even if they were somehow made aware of it.

    What is being missed here is that Waugh was half scoffing at himself as he wrote it.
    One forgets that through his mother, a Herbert, he descended from dukes and earls aplenty. He also married the daughter of an earl. So his family are now, although not landed, a part of the British ruling class. That few of them seem to have taken advantage of this is another matter.
    What he was doing with his little wager was laughing at those who talked of such descents rather than simply quietly taking them for granted.

  110. @OsRazor
    Probably a majority of the peerage of England and Scotland have more than 50% Norman blood. I don't think that's much in dispute. Most of the titles and property have descended through several female lines, but last time I checked females are just as able as men to pass on the genetic stuff of their ancestors. I don't think you fully appreciate how insular marriages have been among the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and Barons of Britain for centuries. The inbreeding is pretty extreme.

    There are even a couple of really glaring examples of even more direct descent. The current Dukes of Somerset (Beauforts) are direct descendents in the male line of Henry II (d. 1189). Their ancestors make up a lot of the drama of Shakespeare's historical dramas. Same for the Dukes of Norfolk (Howards) who've been around in the male line since the 14th Century and are descendants of the fitzAlan and d'Aubigny families who've been around since 1066. The Earls of Shrewsbury (Talbots) and Derby (Stanleys) have also been around since the 14th Century. One of the wealthiest families of Britain the Dukes of Westminster (Grosvenor family) are still pretty proud of their Norman ancestry. The list is endless. As I said, read Debrett's or Burke's for the sensational account or Cokayne's Complete Peerage for a more scholarly approach.

    Did Norman blood infuse much of Britain? Hardly at all, as Clarke shows. Did Norman blood remain relevant to England? Absolutely. At the highest levels of wealth and power. The whole of English/Scottish/Irish and Welsh history since 1066 testifies to it.

    I would agree that this was the pattern up till around 1950. Sadly things have changed quite a bit since then.
    But is not the exact percentage of Norman blood which matters but the self perception. If you are the heirs of a great Norman dynasty (the Percys say) then it does not matter that your actual male line descent is from a family called Smithson.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jerry Pournelle identifies as Norman. It's an excellent self-conception for a sci-fi writer who writes about exploring and settling the galaxy.
  111. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    *Instead* of rewarding black irresponsible breeding with a welfare system that gives more money for more kids, simply pay young black women NOT to get pregnant. She can go in once a month, take a preg test, if neg, get a check. You could, to further the goal and make her life easier, offer free birth control, too. Maybe get a bit of extra money everytime she accepts a Depo Provera shot or allows a gyno to check if her IUD is still correctly placed.

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.

    You’re on this site aren’t you? Or are you someone who visits a bordello but pretends to be there just to help the employees with their spiritual questions?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Cannot help with spiritual questions. Can throw darts. Since most of the posters here are targets the size of Kate Smith's rear end, I don't even need to sober up and work on my aim.
  112. @Conqueror's descendant
    I would agree that this was the pattern up till around 1950. Sadly things have changed quite a bit since then.
    But is not the exact percentage of Norman blood which matters but the self perception. If you are the heirs of a great Norman dynasty (the Percys say) then it does not matter that your actual male line descent is from a family called Smithson.

    Jerry Pournelle identifies as Norman. It’s an excellent self-conception for a sci-fi writer who writes about exploring and settling the galaxy.

  113. @anonymous

    This site appears to be composed of people whose understanding of social policy was hardwired in around about 1977 and is completely impervious to developments since.
     
    You're on this site aren't you? Or are you someone who visits a bordello but pretends to be there just to help the employees with their spiritual questions?

    Cannot help with spiritual questions. Can throw darts. Since most of the posters here are targets the size of Kate Smith’s rear end, I don’t even need to sober up and work on my aim.

  114. @Steve Sailer
    The key decision was the Reagan Administration deciding to promise the Thatcher government that if they lost an aircraft carrier, the U.S. would supply another one.

    What ‘key decision’? The armada was on its way to the South Atlantic well in advance of any declarations by the administration.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165945/Not-neutral-Ronald-Reagan-secret-plans-loan-U-S-warship-Britain-aircraft-carrier-lost-Falklands-War.html

    I'd heard about this 30 years ago, so it wasn't secret until 2012 like the news coverage implies.

  115. @Pat Boyle
    Well you certainly are correct about Cornwell's anti-Christian bias. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are really quite moderate in their anticlericalism compare to Cornwell.

    But I enjoy his viewpoint. As I'm sure you know, he was boarded out during the war to a fundamentalist sect called 'The Peculiar People'. Apparently that experience filled him with a life long detestation of religion - particularly Christianity. Since Cornwell writes fiction there is usually at least one clerical person who is a villain.

    He depicts the actions of inquisitors for example. I suspect that his depictions are accurate. There were a lot of nasty priests. In 'Pagan Lord' and the whole series he contrasts the morality of the pagans with that of the Christians. Much of the time the pagans are shown in a more favorable light. Maybe that's historically accurate - I really don't know but the way he describes it -it feels right.

    “I suspect that his depictions are accurate. There were a lot of nasty priests.”

    I understand your viewpoint, and I liked some of his books (though as in many serials, the later episodes are disappointments). Also, I have no doubt that there were lots of nasty priests, just as I have no doubt that there were, say, a lot of nasty, oppressive Jewish tax collectors. Nasty people are rarely in short supply among any group. But if I pack my novels with nasty clerics, it is well and good as long as it “feels right”. However, if I put more than one or two of that second group in my works, do you think anyone will care how accurate the portrayal might be, or how it “feels”?

    And what is particularly galling, given Cornwell’s recent subject matter, was that it was the priests and the monks he works so hard to vilify that by and large wrote the histories and built the scriptoria and the libraries and the universities that allow bigots like him to twist that history to their own ends. If that feels right in any way to you, I submit that it should not. And if someone is trying to understand what made King Alfred the Great, and what helped him overcome and civilize the berserking savages attacking his people, then sneering at Christianity is not going to help.

    Finally, it was those nasty clerics in the Inquisition who first developed what would come to be known in this country as the 4th amendment. Due process, the right to an advocate, and so forth. The terrible stuff that they engaged in, the tortured confessions, the easy indictments by anyone who might profit from seeing a rival put in prison, etc. That was indeed terrible, but none of it was new. The real novelty was in what they did to correct that. So much so that some victims of the Inquisition (I’m not denying that they were still victims) purposely engaged in blasphemy so that their cases would be moved from civil courts into the ecclesiastical ones, where a more modern understanding of justice was taking shape.

    Conservatives rightly grumble that white European Christians are repeatedly asked to apologize for slavery, an institution that long predated them, even though their most anomalous historical contribution to that institution was ending it. That same principle should apply to the Inquisition.

  116. @Art Deco
    What 'key decision'? The armada was on its way to the South Atlantic well in advance of any declarations by the administration.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165945/Not-neutral-Ronald-Reagan-secret-plans-loan-U-S-warship-Britain-aircraft-carrier-lost-Falklands-War.html

    I’d heard about this 30 years ago, so it wasn’t secret until 2012 like the news coverage implies.

  117. @OsRazor
    The thing is not many of NW Europe's aristocracy was all that monogamous. Almost to a man, they had lots of bastards, the most famous being William the Conqueror himself. What they weren't as good at compared to Khan was to create two, three hundred feet piles of human (male) heads. It's not enough to just impregnate a lot of women--you've also got to remove all other competing male lines to achieve Khan's genetic imprint.

    The thing is not many of NW Europe’s aristocracy was all that monogamous. Almost to a man, they had lots of bastards, the most famous being William the Conqueror himself.

    They *were* monogamous – they had only one wife at one time. Sure, I bet they were adulterous (at least the males) obviously, but the adultery had to be restrained due to the prevailing religious and cultural influences, i.e. Christianity, and also because bastards were *generally* unable to inherit status.

    Mongol overlords, on the other hand, practiced socially recognized polygamy and gave status to all their offspring.

    What they weren’t as good at compared to Khan was to create two, three hundred feet piles of human (male) heads. It’s not enough to just impregnate a lot of women–you’ve also got to remove all other competing male lines to achieve Khan’s genetic imprint.

    Although Genghis Khan could be a butcher when he felt necessary (or when he felt he wanted vengeance for a perceived insult), much of the reputation for building pyramids of skull originated with Tamerlane, not Genghis.

    Genghis and his immediate successors ruled over such a vast realm and such a huge population that it was impossible to remove “competing male lines” in toto. Indeed, the Mongols were highly pragmatic and “meritocratic” in that they frequently incorporated defeated, but “worthy” nobles of other peoples into their own families, even those who were ethno-racially very distant from their own kin.

  118. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @anonymous

    Who else had the ability to project that much force 8,000 miles away?
     
    Yes but who did they fight? They kept possession of some rocks. The countries they could defeat dwindle by the day.

    What countries would those be? I am no military expert, so I appeal to your expertise, o Swami. How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 1982?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 2015?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    The rest of the countries in the world they could defeat. In other words, very powerful country with a powerful military. Still probably the best navy, cis-gender man for cis-gender man. Although again, I am no expert.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 1982?

     

    North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, France, etc etc. Depends on what they're trying to achieve. Because of their navy they could retain the crown jewel of their shrunken empire, the worthless rock pile called the Falkland Islands. Otherwise, were they to try to engage on land against a lot of countries where they couldn't maximize use of their navy, then and now, they'd be at a loss. They couldn't defeat the Taliban, which is not even a country. They held some areas of Iraq for a while then left without a trace left behind.
    The world has changed. The British can't sail around the world anymore and dominate primitive natives. They might be able to defeat the conventional army of another country but can't occupy it and bend them to their will. Insurgency drives them out negating the point of venturing in. The US is also finding that out. After all it had a much more powerful military than Vietnam and look what happened.
  119. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @WhatEvvs
    What countries would those be? I am no military expert, so I appeal to your expertise, o Swami. How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 1982?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 2015?

    Germany
    Russia
    China
    US

    The rest of the countries in the world they could defeat. In other words, very powerful country with a powerful military. Still probably the best navy, cis-gender man for cis-gender man. Although again, I am no expert.

    How many countries in the world could Britain not defeat in 1982?

    North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, France, etc etc. Depends on what they’re trying to achieve. Because of their navy they could retain the crown jewel of their shrunken empire, the worthless rock pile called the Falkland Islands. Otherwise, were they to try to engage on land against a lot of countries where they couldn’t maximize use of their navy, then and now, they’d be at a loss. They couldn’t defeat the Taliban, which is not even a country. They held some areas of Iraq for a while then left without a trace left behind.
    The world has changed. The British can’t sail around the world anymore and dominate primitive natives. They might be able to defeat the conventional army of another country but can’t occupy it and bend them to their will. Insurgency drives them out negating the point of venturing in. The US is also finding that out. After all it had a much more powerful military than Vietnam and look what happened.

  120. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “After all it had a much more powerful military than Vietnam and look what happened.”

    Yes, but the US was not fighting just North Vietnam. It was also fighting the Soviet Union and China, and for that matter North Korea (fighter pilots). Take the Soviet Union and China out of the equation and you would have had a very, very different war.

    The wikipedia page on the Vietnam war (don’t take it as gospel but it’s a good starting place) lists 170,000 Chinese serving in the Vietnam war, 3,000 Soviets, and 300 to 600 North Koreans. The Soviets were mostly advisers, a lot of the Chinese were anti-aircraft troops and labour battalions freeing up North Vietnamese to fight.

    The Vietnam war casualties page lists 1,446 Chinese killed and 16 Soviets killed.

    Without all the Soviet and Chinese weapons (and bullets), the North Vietnamese could not have fought the war.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Without all the Soviet and Chinese weapons (and bullets), the North Vietnamese could not have fought the war.
     
    Yes that's true, they needed supplies since it wasn't a modern industrial country. The VC fighting in the south went up against helicopters, tanks, jet fighters and bombers without having those things themselves. The anti-aircraft installations were in North Vietnam; most of the fighting took place in South Vietnam. The US had the South Vietnamese armed forces as an ally fighting on it's side and we supplied them with weapons and ammo. Also, we had some South Korean troops there fighting on our behalf for a while. It wasn't necessary to defeat the Americans like the French were but rather to thwart them from achieving whatever goals they may have had. After all, they live there and could carry on for thirty years if need be.
  121. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There’s a case that the Normans are the original Western “bad guys”, in the modern PC sense. Or perhaps they were in a sense the early proto-typical foot-lose Westerners on the make.

    They were not a long-established ethnic group. They originally were the remnants of 4 Viking fleets, I think it was, that “stalled out” in Normandy during an attempted invasion of Paris (raids down the Seine to Paris were apparently common). The French king bought them off by promising them Normandy if they protected Paris from other Viking invasions. They had no women with them so they married local women and adopted their culture. They were famous for not having much inhibition about “marrying out” to local elites if it was to advantage and for successfully creating diverse armies; a young non-Norman man who did well militarily could go places and marry into their crowd. Maybe they more resembled a loose army-in-being than a traditional ethnic group; an army that was still opportunistic when it came to easy loot.

    They also got around. A few years after invading England, they conquered Sicily and then southern Italy. (“Norman conquest of southern Italy”.) They also played a big part in the First Crusade and in establishing the Crusader states in the Mid-East.

    It didn’t hurt that the Catholic church bet heavily on the Normans and some German princes. The 2nd in command during the invasion of England was William’s half-brother, the Bishop Odo, who fought with a mace (a cleric couldn’t wield a sword, or so the story goes). This apparently was not uncommon; an advantage of this was that clerics could read.

    Exaggerating for effect: Everyone in the world blames the whites, the whites blame the Americans, the Americans blame the British, the British blame the Normans.

  122. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    "After all it had a much more powerful military than Vietnam and look what happened."

    Yes, but the US was not fighting just North Vietnam. It was also fighting the Soviet Union and China, and for that matter North Korea (fighter pilots). Take the Soviet Union and China out of the equation and you would have had a very, very different war.

    The wikipedia page on the Vietnam war (don't take it as gospel but it's a good starting place) lists 170,000 Chinese serving in the Vietnam war, 3,000 Soviets, and 300 to 600 North Koreans. The Soviets were mostly advisers, a lot of the Chinese were anti-aircraft troops and labour battalions freeing up North Vietnamese to fight.

    The Vietnam war casualties page lists 1,446 Chinese killed and 16 Soviets killed.

    Without all the Soviet and Chinese weapons (and bullets), the North Vietnamese could not have fought the war.

    Without all the Soviet and Chinese weapons (and bullets), the North Vietnamese could not have fought the war.

    Yes that’s true, they needed supplies since it wasn’t a modern industrial country. The VC fighting in the south went up against helicopters, tanks, jet fighters and bombers without having those things themselves. The anti-aircraft installations were in North Vietnam; most of the fighting took place in South Vietnam. The US had the South Vietnamese armed forces as an ally fighting on it’s side and we supplied them with weapons and ammo. Also, we had some South Korean troops there fighting on our behalf for a while. It wasn’t necessary to defeat the Americans like the French were but rather to thwart them from achieving whatever goals they may have had. After all, they live there and could carry on for thirty years if need be.

  123. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The VC fighting in the south went up against helicopters, tanks, jet fighters and bombers without having those things themselves.”

    But they couldn’t have done it, at near the scale they did, without Russian and Chinese rifles and the Ho Chi Minh trail. If the Ho Chi Minh trail had not existed the war would have been very different. Perhaps it was the Ho Chi Minh trail (which was _not_ in South Vietnam, but conveniently over the border, off limits most of the war to US troops) that was the difference between Vietnam and the outcome in the campaigns in places like Malaysia, Brunei, and Borneo. No Ho Chi Minh trail in those places. People hardly recall the wars.

    The war in North Vietnam seemed pretty real to a lot of US air crews.

    “It wasn’t necessary to defeat the Americans like the French were but rather to thwart them from achieving whatever goals they may have had…

    The most public articulated American goal was simply to stop the advance of communism. If that really was the goal, it may have succeeded. You got rapidly developing capitalist economies in the region, the Tiger countries, and places like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia that wouldn’t dream of going communist after the Vietnam war.

    The Soviets shifted from direct confrontation to backing proxy wars of national liberation after the Cuban missile crisis. US grand strategy (which may not have even been thought through, but was perhaps adopted ad-hoc for lack of a better plan), may simply have been to fight all these wars, even if the cost was asymmetrical, until the Soviet support for all these wars bankrupted the Soviets.

    In the overall Cold War, Vietnam was just one battle. Communism lost the Cold War, in good part because it was simply a bad economic idea. Toward the end of the war, the Soviets couldn’t even make microprocessors, while Taiwan could crank them out.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.