Archive for Effects of Ethnic Diversity

Good Fences Make Good Neighbours…

Posted in Diversity, Nationalism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 15, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

Seeing as before an apparently abrupt 180° turn, multiculturalism was political dogma here in the UK it might be informative if we actually take a look at what happens when we try to mix different ethnic groups into the same territory (spoiler: it isn’t good…)


To cut a long story short, where political boundaries fail to coincide with ethnic boundaries, you tend to find ethnic conflict.

For example, 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.


Take a look at the following graph taken from a book titled Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, by Finnish political scientist Professor Tatu Vanhanen. He conducted extensive work on the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic conflict (and published his results in said book).



As Prof Tatu Vanhanen says in the book,

“In ethnic conflicts, people seem to follow a similar behavior pattern across all existing developmental, civilizational, and cultural boundaries. The more the population is divided into separate ethnic groups, the more they seem to become organized along ethnic lines in interest conflicts, and the more often they tend to resort to violence in ethnic conflicts.”


He also goes on to say,

“Ethnic nepotism belongs to human nature and … it is independent from the level of socioeconomic development (modernization) and also from the degree of democratization.”


And to include another (unrelated) quote – though at this point quite superfluous:

“Diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.”

This is actually from Dick Lamm, an American Democratic politician and three time governor of Colorado. It’s from a speech he gave arguing against multiculturalism, in favour of assimilationism (but we’ve already seen what that involves: a complete disintegration of community and social capital.)


Now, on to the next piece of research; this one looks at how to actually prevent ethnic conflict (hint: it doesn’t involve multiculturalism.)

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence


We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing [ENR-NW: again see ‘On Diversity’ to see the desirability of going down that road.] to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world

…which corresponds to what we previously said in Why Ethno-Nationalism? Best policy involves separating people out along ethnic lines, and handing them a certain degree of autonomy. Good fences make good neighbours…


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.

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.