On Diversity

Posted in Diversity with tags , , , , , , , on January 14, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

We won’t bother commenting too much on this topic, as the research really does speak for itself. So, read, enjoy, and arm yourself with the basic facts!


The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders by Dr. Frank Salter:

“[Increased immigration] will harm national interests in ways documented by scholars in economics, sociology and related disciplines. Much of the harm is predictable from what is known about the dysfunctions of diversity. They include growing inequality in the especially invidious form of ethnic stratification. No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.

Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.

The loss of social cohesion bears emphasis. Disapproving of birds flocking together is beside the point; it is a biological fact that needs to be taken into account. Rising diversity within human societies tends to drive people apart, causing them to take sanctuary in individual pursuits and ethnic communities. The practical consequences are reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”


E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century by Dr Robert Putnam:

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

On this theory, the more we are brought into physical proximity with people of another race or ethnic background, the more we stick to ‘our own’ and the less we trust the ‘other’ (Blumer 1958; Blalock 1967; Giles & Evans 1986; Quillian 1995, 1996; Brewer & Brown 1998; Taylor 1998; Bobo 1999; Bobo & Tuan 2006).

The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:

• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).

• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).

• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).

• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).

• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).

• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).

• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a)”



“Diversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation. In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle.

In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate:

• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.

• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

• Less likelihood of working on a community project.

• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

• Fewer close friends and confidants.

• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment’.

Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”



“In our ‘standard model’ we have included simultaneously controls at both the individual and the census tract level for:

Age  –  Affluence/poverty  –  Citizenship

Ethnicity  –  Language  –  Commuting time

Education  –  Residential mobility  –  Homeownership

In addition, we control for region of the country; the respondent’s gender, financial satisfaction and work hours; the population density and the Gini index of income inequality in his or her census tract; and two measures of the crime rate in the respondent’s county. Obviously, it is impossible here to present the full array of statistical evidence for each of the dozens of dependent variables we have examined.

Does the relationship between diversity and sociability vary between men and women, upscale and downscale neighbourhoods, liberals and conservatives, whites and non-whites, young people and older generations?

The short answer is basically ‘no’. The same pattern appears within each of these demographic groups.”


So there you have it. Ethnic diversity basically wrecks communities. We can’t help but wonder what the Left makes of all of this, because obviously, if they did in fact genuinely care about increasing social cohesion and people’s general well-being they wouldn’t be leftist at all; they’d be on our side.


Decadence and Renaissance

Posted in Against the Modern World with tags , , , , , on January 14, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

Western leftism by its very nature believes in inevitable progress; that’s why you always get told, for example, that the mixing of the world’s racial and ethnic groups is “inevitable” (much like the world-wide takeover of communism used to be inevitable!)

We here at ENR – North West know better than this. We’re fully aware of history’s cyclical nature – peaks and troughs, rising and falling, growth and decay, zeniths and nadirs, Golden Ages and Dark Ages…


Decadence and renaissance.


Here we present for you two videos contrasting the decadence of modern Western life with what life in the West could be if a cultural, socio-political and spiritual renaissance were to occur. The following two videos, like the Racism is Natural series, are the work of one MrHerrIQ:



Britain: Israel’s Rottweiler’s Lapdog?

Posted in Zionism with tags , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

This really is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the wars in Iraq and, more recently, Libya; or more specifically why they even took place at all. Your eyes will definitely be opened after reading this, we promise you.

This is a report on the Israel lobby’s influence over American (and consequently British) foreign policy. Its authors are two highly-rated American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; their facts are well-accepted and their conclusions are absolute dynamite!


The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

“U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this feat, and how its activities have shaped America’s actions in this critical region. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its potential impact on others, both Americans and non‐Americans need to understand and address the Lobby’s influence on U.S. policy.

Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding light on these issues. We also rely on evidence provided by respected Israeli and international human rights organizations. Similarly, our claims about the Lobby’s impact rely on testimony from the Lobby’s own members, as well as testimony from politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.


Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain. …”



There are, of course, serious questions that need to be asked in light of this. Such as how is it that the British government can wage pointless wars on behalf of Israel, when our educational system is failing, the NHS is collapsing and order can’t even be maintained on the streets of our own cities?

How much money have we wasted on this? How many of our soldiers have been maimed or worse? How much hostility has this created towards us in the Middle East? And all for what exactly?

As for America, they really need to be doing more to free themselves from the yoke of Israel, seeing as many of their cities are in varying states of decline and post-apocalyptic decay. (For example: Failing dreams: California faces its own Great Depression)



ENR(NW) demands that British foreign policy should seek to serve the interests of the indigenous nation(s) of the British Isles, and not those of a foreign nation!

Nationalism 101

Posted in Nationalism with tags , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

“Nation connotes a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related. Nationalism connotes identification with and loyalty to one’s nation as just defined. It does not refer to loyalty to one’s country.“ — Walker Conner


OK, here we go…


Two main forms of nationalism:

Civic nationalism (also referred to as ‘liberal nationalism’)

Ethnic nationalism (also referred to as ‘ethno-nationalism’)


There’s also something called cultural nationalism between the two which exists solely for indecisive people who enjoy sitting on fences.


Civic nationalism (or liberal nationalism):

Membership is voluntary and is considered to be based on the desire to live together. Membership in the nation is based on the acceptance of a political creed – i.e. a shared set of values (read ‘liberal values.’).


Cultural Nationalism:

Based on being an integrated member of a common, national culture. It lacks the belief that ethnic nationalism has of the importance of shared ancestry.

Cultural nationalism is an intermediate position between civic and ethnic nationalism.


Ethnic nationalism (or ethno-nationalism):

Based on ethnicity. Membership in the nation is based on common descent.

Herodotus – the ancient Greek historian – is arguably the first who stated the main characteristics of ethnicity, with his famous account of what defines Greek identity, where he lists:

Kinship (Greek: ὅμαιμον – homaimon, “of the same blood”)

Language (Greek: ὁμόγλωσσον – homoglōsson, “speaking the same language”)

Cults and customs (Greek: ὁμότροπον – homotropon, “of the same habits or life”).


Further reading:

[From a civic nationalist perspective]

Civic Nationalism & Ethnic Nationalism

[Both of the following are from an ethno-nationalist perspective]

Abstractions Are a Weak Source of National Identity by Kevin MacDonald

Nation or Notion? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Racism is Natural

Posted in Diversity, Nationalism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

One of the most important questions that we need to answer in order to evaluate the merits of ethno-nationalism, is whether or not Nature has given human beings an innate tendency to prefer their own kind – i.e. whether it’s through Nature that ‘birds of a feather flock together’? Is our preference for genetically similar others rooted in biology? And also, might forced integration be depriving people of a deep-seated human need for communal homogeneity?

Of course, just because something is ‘natural’ it doesn’t make it right (that’s not what we’re suggesting so don’t even try it…); but it does tell us about the feasibility (or lack thereof) of constructing ethnically diverse societies, and it also serves to give us an idea as to what sorts of societies will be the most stable and harmonious.

The conclusive answer to this important question will be demonstrated in the following video series, created by our Swedish comrade-in-arms MrHerrIQ, ‘Racism is Natural’:































Why Ethno-Nationalism?

Posted in Nationalism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

When it comes to people of different ethnicities you can, politically speaking, do one of two things with them; you can mix them together or you can separate them.


There are two forms of mixing:

Mix them as individuals – ‘assimilationism’


Mix them as groups – ‘multiculturalism’


And of course you can keep them separate:

Ethnic nationalism (also referred to as ethno-nationalism) or ethnic separatism


Here at the English National Resistance – North West, we firmly believe that a nation is definitely not a social or bureaucratic construct – it is, both biologically and culturally, a part and product of Nature. A corollary of that, of course, is that the human tendency towards ethnocentrism and national loyalty is also a product of Nature – and as such is an important part of what it means to be human. Consequently, we believe it would be neither possible nor desirable to eradicate such phenomena from the human experience.

We believe that those who believe in either assimilationism or multiculturalism have a strong tendency to do so because of a misreading of modern history. In short, they see ethnic nationalism as the primary cause of such problems as the Yugoslavian wars. They don’t often stop to think that maybe ethnic nationalism is a predictable reaction to certain circumstances, and that, in reality, the primary cause of nationalist violence is ethnic mixing – a cause we have more control over than the strength and prevalence of nationalist sentiment.

The truth of the matter is that World War II, etc. was caused by different ethnicities co-existing within the same states. Nationalism was a natural, human reaction to that. And the end of the war did not signify the victory over nationalism; it in actuality represented the victory of nationalism. The ethnic and political boundaries in Europe coincided more accurately than they had before, ushering in an era of unprecedented peace. And now what are European states doing? Mixing everybody up worse than ever.


If we look at human group psychology, there are two important social phenomena with regards to ethnicity: in-group amity and out-group enmity. In-group amity refers to positive feelings towards members of one’s own group; out-group enmity refers to negative feelings towards individuals who are not a member of one’s own group. The former is obviously a good thing; the latter not such a thing.

Now, as previously stated, you can mix people up as individuals, mix them up as groups or separate them as groups. All three have fairly predictable results:

Mixing people up as individuals (assimilationism) destroys both in-group amity and out-group hostility. People are too mixed-up for tribal conflict (at least in the short-term) but sharing the environment with dissimilar others tends to alienate people from the world around them and each other, and consequently all sense of belonging, community and social capital breaks down.

Mixing people up as groups (multiculturalism) increases both in-group amity and out-group hostility. In short, it produces cohesive groups, but these groups tend to engage in significant ethnic conflict. This can easily be seen from 20th century European history: Yugoslavia, for example (and also Northern Ireland where you have Irish Catholics mixed in with Anglo-Scotch Protestants.) At its worst this produces civil war, ethnic cleansing and even genocide.

Separating people as groups is ideal. This will, on the one hand, increase in-group amity, but at the same time, negate out-group hostility. Separated ethnic groups still go to war with one another, of course, but it’s significantly less likely to happen than it is between ethnic groups mixed up together within the same state (according to the United Nations there were 82 conflicts between 1989 and 1992 which caused 1,000+ fatalities. Out of these 82 conflicts, 79 (96%) were fought between different ethnic and/or religious groups within the borders of the same state. A mere 3 (4%) were fought across state borders.)


This is why the English National Resistance – North West Division believes in the ethnic division of the world’s land according to historical patterns of settlement. We exist to fight to make this a reality for the English nation and related peoples.