You might want to read Adam Tooze’s book ‘Wages of Destruction”
Some of the things Hitler did was default on all forign debts. Forbid all labor strikes. Abolish all labor unions. Dictate labor rates that were so low workers were hungry.
So yes the Nazis reduced unemployment. They made Germans into slaves.

Sounds like a typical tabloid news story (i.e. more proof that foreigners are inferior to “us” – whoever “we” are). Would it have been run if the same study had been conducted over here, with the same results? Possibly not. 
 
Several possible lines of enquiry: 
1. Figures for the international standard dimensions are bogus. 
2. Nutrition during childhood has an effect on growth. 
3. Abdominal fat deposits during adulthood swallow up the extra cms. (I can relate to that…) 
4. Use it or lose it. 
 
Some years ago now there was a TV programme where prostitutes were being interviewed about their clients. An intriguing comment was made by one – she could tell how “large” a man was even before he took his clothes off. I don’t think she was referring to racial origins but something in the phenotype (face, hands, feet?) must have been acting as a reliable marker. 
 
Paul

From the Daily Telegraph article (my emphasis): 
 
For Anglo-Jewry to survive, Rabbi Romain agrees that it must be prepared to adapt. “We need to recognise that Jewish identity is cultural rather than religious. Jews have changed. It is possible to be Jewish and an atheist at the same time. They might not be sure about God, but feel at home in the Jewish community. We should be putting people before ideology, whether they are gay or in a mixed marriage.”

Alex, thanks for the correction. 
 
I think the person concerned may have been referring to the Gaelic College of Celtic Arts and Crafts in Cape Breton. (There is also an offshoot in Vermont.) 
 
I found the following statement from their web site quite interesting. 
 
It has been suggested that many aspects of the Highlander?s culture – it?s music and dance – is more authentic today in Cape Breton than in Scotland. The settlers came to this isolated island with their music and dance and were largely insulated from outside influences. In Scotland the influence of the English was substantial and traditions were lost. 
 
Paul

David: The lead story in the Sunday Telegraph reports that a majority of people in both England and Scotland want independence from each other. But I don’t think it will happen, because it is against the vested interests of politicians and bureaucrats. 
It would also be against the interests of said majority of people in both England and Scotland, in my opinion. The Scottish Nationalists are playing a dangerous political game. If for every action there is an opposite (but not necessarily equal) reaction, in this case the reaction will be to wake the sleeping giant of English Nationalism. The Runes suggest that Chancellor Gordon Brown (a Scot) and his ambitions to be Prime Minister of Great Britain will be a casualty. And perhaps, in part, that is why the SNP are following this tack. 
 
Incidentally I learned today (is this true?) that the only Gaelic/Scottish University is in Nova Scotia, Canada. 
 
Also of interest today is Tony Blair’s expression of “deep sorrow” for Britain’s role in the slave trade, as is his choice of the New Nation newspaper (to show he is still in touch with the people…)  
Paul

Reanimator: It would be interesting to compare how hairiness and civilization are related in other cultures. How about Sikhs and beards? Or any culture where male hairiness is valued, especially by other men? Perhaps even Rastafarians, given enough time: 
 
~ “We’re going to kick those crazy bald heads out of town.” (Bob Marley, song)  
 
It is not hard to imagine a mechanism whereby some populations could buck the general trend. And presumably, if men get hairier then women would do also? 
 
Paul

Hmmm… our London Tube bombers were definitely young and idealistic. I’m sure the same was true of the 9/11 bombers. That really was the point I was trying to make. 
 
Granted, conventional armies may be structured differently but stateless warriors cannot afford the overheads. Their military objectives are (a) to keep the elite safe and (b) to maximize the impact per footling casualty. The leaders are no fools. They know they cannot win a conventional war – at least, not unless they acquire a powerful enough state. In the meantime terror is their most effective tactic. Suicide bombers are particularly effective as they are hard to defend against. From the perspective of the leaders, the tactics are a rational response to a difficult challenge. (The cause on the other hand is plain wacko…) 
 
Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on Islam, but I do know that in terms of numbers (1.4 billion?) it is a very successful ideology. It has also been reported as the fastest growing of the major world religions. Its spread throughout the Middle East and Asia was in large part due to military conquest. That was in the past but even today it must the source of some shame to many Muslims that the most powerful countries are (nominally at least) Christian. Worse yet, the Christians are supporting the Jews who are holding Palestine. Put yourself in their shoes. OK, you might say, we Muslims have our differences. But we are a lot better than the other lot. What we want is something to cheer about. What we want is a leader who can return us to our glory days. That leader has not come yet. Maybe he never will. But what if he did? 
 
Returning to the subject of young soldiers, I am reminded of the words of the Paul Hardcastle song: 
In 1965 Vietnam seemed like just another foreign war, but it wasn’t. 
It was different in many ways, as so were those that did the fighting. 
In World War II the average age of the combat soldier was 26… 
In Vietnam he was 19. 
Paul

Belief in God seems to be a product of the emotional rather than the rational mind. As such, it can encompass anything from love and devotion on the one hand to fear, hatred and rage on the other. I don’t believe there is anything intrinsically good about it. Conversely, I don’t believe there is anything intrinsically good about the rational mind either. It seems to me that “you pays your money and you takes your choice”. 
 
Given a choice I would rather belong to a group that preached “love thy neighbour” than “random human sacrifice”. But if I came to believe that a neighbouring group saw my anhilation as their route to eternal bliss then I would be prepared to reconsider. One cannot divorce religion from basic human instincts. Fear of other groups and what they might be plotting is always going to be a factor. 
 
Religion serves a purpose by organising and controlling belief. It provides a set of principles around which people can rally. Perhaps more importantly though, it provides a social hierarchy which ambitious individuals can climb. Those at the top are probably motivated by very different ideals than those at the bottom. What’s a little reinterpretation of principles if it helps the cause? 
 
Whether one is fighting for King and Country, or for one’s faith, the same emotions come into play. The leaders have to persuade the followers that their sacrifice is necessary for the good of the group. You can try reason, but emotion is always going to be a more powerful motivator. That’s why the foot soldiers tend to be young. The older one gets, the more cynical one becomes. 
 
Paul

I know from my own (limited) research that here was significant migration from Ireland to London during the 19th Century eg to work in the Docks. Irish labourers (“navvies”) were also important in building canals, roads, and railways throughout the country. Rural populations were generally much more stable than cities. So a lot depends on where the data was collected from. 
 
My maternal ancestry has a large Irish component (eg Brosnan, Leahy, Mahoney). The Catholic faith placed a severe constraint on inter-marrying, even fairly well into the 20th Century. This must have some implications for gene flow. 
 
In contrast my paternal ancestry comes from Leicestershire in central England. Census and civil registration data show limited geographical movement over a period of 200+ years. 
 
World War II was a significant dispersal event, with people moving from the cities out into the countryside to avoid the bombing. A lot has happened since the war to mix things up further. However if one was looking for typically “English” people to sample from then rural communities would still seem to be the best bet. 
 
A footnote. There has been significant recent immigration from Poland (Polish seems to be the second most common language amongst bus drivers in our area!). Mostly fair-haired, they look more “English” than most English people do. 
 
Paul