Diversity Does Not Work (#1)

help_wanted_no_irish_need_apply

From a relatively unbiased source, an account of Irish-American integration:

Irish Americans controlled Chicago ward politics — and the police force. When it was founded in 1855, the Chicago Police Department only employed native born men. Within a decade, though, a third of Chicago’s police were Irish, and by 1900 the Irish dominated the department. Famously corrupt, Chicago’s “finest” prevented German Americans from voting, traded favors with Michael Cassius McDonald’s crime syndicate, and avoided setting foot on, much less policing, the city’s roughest streets.

Many of our most corrupt cities have an Irish heritage. Cultures differ at a genetic level, and Irish have always been outliers in Europe, partially because of their North African admixed heritage. The methods above may have been appropriate for Ireland and Irish people, but worked less well in the Western European society founded in the United States, which based itself on reliable institutions.

Tags: ,

29 Responses to “Diversity Does Not Work (#1)”

  1. Western European social trust is the glue that holds cohesive communities and impartial, meritocratic institutions together but we have become too trusting and too tolerant of outgroups who undermine the very social trust that makes our society attractive to them in the first place. Societies predicated on individualism will always fall prey to collectivists and one need not understand game theory to understand why cohesive group strategies always defeat individualist strategies. As you say, “Diversity does not work” because its self-defeating. Interested to read #2.

    • Societies predicated on individualism will always fall prey to collectivists and one need not understand game theory to understand why cohesive group strategies always defeat individualist strategies.

      This is an excellent point and clear formulation.

  2. cecilhenry says:

    The IRish are Celtic in origin, like the Scots, with some Viking presence. Where does this North African admixture claim come from??
    Seems questionable to me.

    But yes, diversity does not work. That;s why its promoted by our (((elites))).

    • So when or how would Sub-Saharan African (SSA) genes have arrived on our island? What other historical events may have contributed?

      Well we all know about the reputation that the people of the west of Ireland have for being darker skinned, the so-called “Black Irish”. This may be due to the influence of the Spanish (people from the south of Spain have a higher percentage of SSA markers) who were active traders along the coasts of Ireland. Some five thousand Spanish soldiers made up the Spanish Armada which was wrecked across the Irish Western Seaboard in 1588.

      http://www.dnaireland.ie/dna-origins/

      Scientists from Dublin and Belfast have looked deep into Ireland’s early history to discover a still-familiar pattern of migration: of stone age settlers with origins in the Fertile Crescent, and bronze age economic migrants who began a journey somewhere in eastern Europe.

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/28/origins-of-the-irish-down-to-mass-migration-ancient-dna-confirms

      • T. Kekkonen says:

        There’s less North African blood in the Irish than there is in the French, a people who integrated easily. Irish corruption surely had more to do with the clan political structure (that Scotland too suffered from, but that was massacred out of them by the English), and a siege mentality that developed around that time from the British aggressions.

        Pedigree is important, but there’s a danger of overgeneralising. The fact that Ireland is now one of the *least* dysfunctional and corrupt European states – for what that’s worth – supports the idea that, if the Irish are racially aberrant, then it’s in a way and to a degree that’s overshadowed by culture. Finnish history would suggest that they, too, are incurably savage (in their case due to North Asian admixture), but we know now that’s far from true. Different, certainly: but not deficient.

        This isn’t an apology for European vanilla-isation. I agree with you on that much.

    • Dualist says:

      I don’t know about African lineage, but there is certainly a large Iberian substratum to Celtic blood, especially in the Irish. The ancient Irish themselves used to claim their ancestors were from Spain; though this was dismissed by modern academics as yet another example of the unreliability of folk-memory over long periods of time.

      But guess what? In the last few years genetic tests have shown that they ARE closely genetically related to the Spanish! And, as it seems likely that Spanish genes would contain some North African admixture, this makes Brett’s assertion correct, I’d say. It really does appear that memories can be reliably passed down in pre-literate societies with great fidelity over perhaps thousands of years.

      This is one of the many reasons I love Old Irish literature, and why I believe it should be more widely-read, especially by the likes of ‘us’. In the 50’s, Kenneth Jackson described the sagas (the oldest vernacular literature in Europe) as ‘a window into the Iron Age’, yet the same people have now dismissed this for the same reasons as above (eg. Kim McCone in ‘Pagan Past and Christian Present’). The results of the genetic analyses should certainly give more credence to the older view.

      If you want to read a very currently-unfashionable, and hence likely more correct, viewpoint of the relationship between the Old/Middle Irish literature and ancient Indo-European Culture in general, check out ‘Celtic Heritage’ by Alwyn and Brinley Reese. These writers discovered the parallels between the Irish (and the much later Welsh) ‘myths’ and as seemingly-distantly-related material as the old INDIAN epics. There are many stories in the Ulster Cycle that are virtual paraphrases of tales about Vishnu etc. There are so many of these that coincidence is easily ruled put, proving the great antiquity of the Irish literature, and its Indo-European lineage.

      • -A says:

        I have always noticed a similarity between the Celts and the Indians and Indian myth. The Celts would ride into war with blue body paint, blow in chamois/ibex horns as a battle horn, and rode “golden” chariots into battle. The East Aryans who split from the Vedic wars were likely very similar to the Celts and also, there is speculation that the Celts themselves started as the Anatolians because there seem to be genetic presence of Celts in later populations. They are a bit of a mystery. Or at least, we are told that as hands are waved and theories are kept secret because they are not palatable so, who knows? An interesting pattern is that the Tuatha de Danaan of Irish myth could very well have been Norse. They practically worshiped their conquerors. If there is any connection between Euro Celts and Indian myth, could the same be said of the Celts with the Indians?

        • We know that Celt-like people were in the Tarim Basin in China as well. As some have speculated, Europeans may have arisen in what is now Turkey and spread outward from there to Asia and Europe simultaneously.

        • Dualist says:

          This is a big, important topic so I’ll just say a few things. Yes, the Indians and Irish are both the most extreme ends of the same Indo-European ‘race’. I put the last word in quotes because the real extent to which Indo-Europeanness = race needs clarifying.

          When we talk of ancient Indo-Europeans, all we can say for certain is that a particular People (eg. Iron-Age Britons) USED IE-type artefacts and SPOKE IE languages (the main linguistic groups being Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavic and Indo-Iranian). And just because all Americans speak English today does not imply that all Americans are of English descent, for example.

          Just because a CULTURE spreads geographically in the archaeological record does NOT necessarily imply there has been any mass migration. Think of it this way, if archaeologists in 1000 years time start digging up McDonalds and Gap plastic bags all over the world, they may easily come to the conclusion that Americans conquered and migrated all throughout Africa and Asia. Yet we know that is not case; it is simply that other indigenous peoples have adopted many of the customs of the higher-status society.

          It actually appears that most Europeans are merely descended from the same stone-age inhabitants already in each area by the Mesolithic. All the evidence we have of sudden appearances of, say, Celtic-type artefacts from a certain date in a certain country only proves that the CULTURE spread, or at most (and most likely) that the original ruling ELITE was deposed by an invading ‘Celtic’ elite.

          I remember you were surprised a few weeks ago that about 40% of European’s DNA was not Indo-European. The reasons for this are likely those just given. If you want a striking example of this, consider the (cannibalised?) skeletons found in Gough’s Cave, England. The 7000 year-old mDNA has been checked and the man’s closest individual genetic-relative has been located: he still lives about 3 miles from the cave! So much for mass migrations.

          It really does appear that the vast majority of Europeans have worked the same soils their prehistoric ancestors did, only looking up from their harrowing every once in a while to check who they were paying tribute to this year. Warfare and invasion were only ever really the preserve of those elites who could afford weapons (and also remember that such non-perishable items are the only type that survive in the soil to be found today; Mrs Flintstone’s wooden spoons have long decayed, making the owners of such items archaeologically invisible).

          Now, if this were all true we should expect to see much, much higher frequencies of Indo-European genetic markers in the blood of elite castes. But as there has been so much intermarriage between middling and upper sorts for the past 1000 years in Europe this is now difficult to determine. But we DO have a place were this is not the case: India. The tests have been done, and Indians DO have many IE genes – but only in the Brahmins and Guptas, as expected (the lower, darker castes are more related to Australian aborigines, once again showing how long they have been there before their ancient leaders were replaced by IE overlords).

          Now, all this may disappoint many on the Alt-Right but I’m compelled to say it because it’s the truth. And it really shouldn’t concern them, for several reasons. The main one is this: let’s say ‘we’ DO share most of our genes in common with other races. So what? We share about 96% of our nuclear genome with chimpanzees, too. Literally one or two extra genes (out of 20 000) makes ALL the difference, so it is still highly probable that such small genetic differences explain the social differences between Europeans and Chinese, say, and between Celts and Germanics too.

          To give you another example: you may think something as major as primordial dwarfism is cause by massive genetic anomalies. Incredibly, it is actually caused not by a lack/addition of chromosomes, or even several genes, but by literally one ATOM difference in a single base-pair. This is like changing one LETTER in a book and the entire meaning of the book completely altering!

          So all we really to need to ask is: were the Indo-Europeans (even if only the elites as previously discussed) so superior to other Peoples’ elites or not? I would argue that all of the historical evidence suggests they were. Because let’s say all the prehistoric ‘invasions’ really were merely cultural appropriations. Well, one would surely only imitate an elite culture that was clearly superior to one’s own? And if it they instead represent the movement of IE-speaking elites then the fact that, say, 4000 years ago the only IE speakers were in Ukraine (or wherever the homeland is) but now the WHOLE of Europe still speaks IE languages shows just how much they dominated the prehistoric, aboriginal elites of Europe, time and time again.

          Every ancient source tells the same story: whenever the Indo-Europeans arrived on the doorstep, they didn’t just conquer the land but were actually regarded as so superior in body and mind as to be considered GODS by the newly vanquished.

          • -A says:

            Dude, we aren’t entirely unschooled in Anthropology. We were not implying relation with the Austranesians nor were we saying that we are direct cousins of most other races. It’s cool, honest. I think this comment is great for newer readers who haven’t done their own reading (mine quite light compared to Brett’s) but, we aren’t going into wild flights of fancy. What I do doubt is that 40% of the general European genome is not IE. I doubt that a lot. I will be spoogling that little tidbit and reading up on that for myself.

            • Dualist says:

              Cool.

              It was because you mentioned ‘could there be a connection between the celts and indians?’ that made me unsure whether you knew anything about IEs at all, so I thought I’d give the whole background, for both your and other people’s benefit. Also, it was because you had mentioned you disbelieved the 40% thing in the past that made me think I’d go into the genetics too.

              Refering to genetics though, just remember when they say 40% they are only refering to percentage IE ANCESTRY as estimated by mitochondrial DNA epigenetic studies. Though I never actually thought you were implying those 2 things about austronesians etc, just so you know. I merely thought you were ‘new’ subject, so I took some time to write you a nice little introduction to these ideas, which would (and will) be useful to those not as conversant with the subject, and who may also be reading this site.

              As for Anatolia, there certainly were Celts there historically. The Galatians who St. Paul wrote his epistles to were Celtic speakers. But this should be of little surprise because practically the whole of northern Europe below Scandinavia (ie. most of France, Germany) was Celtic until roughly imperial Roman times. It was Celts, not Germans, we read of in Livy as sacking Rome in about 400BC.

              Though I’d be very doubtful the Tuatha De Dannan were Norse. The Book of Invasions makes them out to be the last people in Ireland before the Gaels, so they arrived in BC-times (if they ever ‘properly’ existed) and the Scandinavians had only just spread South to the Denmark/Netherlands area by 1AD, roughly. Not that all this is the really important stuff.

              If you want to look into IE online, and any evidence for genuine mass migrations, I’d definitely check this out first:

              https://dlc.hypotheses.org/807

              The reason I suggest this page is because it is written by an evolutionary biologist who is critiquing one of the very latest studies with the latest genuinely genomic results. This is good because you will quickly see the most up-to-date results and analyses from both sides of the argument, and as this is one field were new testing has been coming thick and fast literally each year, that’s all you should look at (as far a genetics goes). If there are any concepts you aren’t familiar with (eg. relation between Germanics and the Grey Corded Ware Culture), a chap like you should find it very easy to ‘work backwards.’ Either way, you’ve GOT to check it out if only for one of the comments below it – you’ll know which one I mean!

              If you get more into it and fancy reading some books on IE linguistics/poetry and archaelogy, give me a shout because I actually have some of the better ones in PDF format also, which I could email over.

              • -A says:

                Me likey. Join the forum if you haven’t already. I think you would have a lot of interesting things to post that could be more easily archived for future interests. It would also be easier to keep our e-mail addresses secret while still exchanging PDF’s and stuff.

                • Dualist says:

                  Yes, I will do. I actually created a new email account with a false name etc. just for the purpose of using this site and DMU. We’ve both gotta be very careful posting what we do in these times of Racial Hatred Laws etc.

                  As for PDFs, I personally believe I have the world’s greatest collection – I’ve got well over 10 000 on mainly history, philosophy and science. I must have over 1000 on medieval history alone. There are some that I just know would be right up your street, so we’ll defo have to get something sorted out.

                  It’s a bit naughty I know (what with authors’ copyright and all) but the way I ‘justify’ it is that any books I intend to read cover-to-cover I DO buy, albeit normaly off Amazon marketplace. I would never spend £100 on a monograph I only intend to refer to 1 chapter of, so nobody is losing any money through my privateering! It just means I can spend less time in the library when I finally get round to writing all those books that need writing…

                  But yes, I’ll see you in the forum in the near future. Only thing is, I just hope it doesn’t start seriously eating into that most precious of commodities: time. To give you an idea why this may be a problem, consider this reply here: I only intended to write ‘Yes, good idea, I’ll see you there’! :)

  3. Tom Bennett says:

    The link with Spain is largely a link with the Basques, and not with the Spanish Armada myth. The very next paragraph in that link refutes the myth, Brett. I honestly don’t get your insistence that the Irish aren’t white. If the Irish aren’t white due to Basque/Spanish admixture, then neither is the rest of the British isles, or the Basques. Why do you have such a strong issue with the Irish ? It’s frankly annoying and just serves to tarnish your cause. More infighting isn’t the answer in the alt right.

      • -A says:

        Well shit. I guess they aren’t Celts, huh? Well, at least, not anymore. I do hope this gains popularity. If it does, it means that we won’t have to work too hard to kick them out. If Quinn wants to get on his knees and thank Allah then, he can. On top of that, the fighting spirit of the Irish and their Catholic upbringing could be a civilizing effect.

        • -A says:

          I do have an addendum. I would like to see more evidence that social dysfunction among Irish remains consistent, more genetic analyses to see how widespread non-Celtic/Euro DNA really is among the populations and why it is that the majority of them seem so White in the first place. Sure, Irish picked up culture from Mediterranean sources but, so did the English. The Irish had just as much of a trade relationship with the French as the English did and when that went south, the English took up a taste for Port, Madeira and Rioja instead of Clarets for a while and took to Spanish Arias instead of French and Italian. I have never really assumed that the Celts and Nords were at all conflatable in the same way one could conflate general NW Europeans in the first place. All Celts seemed to have a strong East Aryan identity. I don’t know, I can see how it is likely the Irish are not true Euro anymore but I just need more evidence before I dismiss their place. The onus is on me to look and I will.

          I am in agreement, however, that Irish were very violent and dysfunctional but, they were also treated much more akin to the Roots treatment than the blacks ever were. The same for many non-Irish White slaves. Why they stayed, I don’t know. They are not at all admonished of guilt in their criminality or corruption. They stayed, brought their friends and family over and unleashed their distrust and anger. Nevermind the scores of cacophonies on how this not only must stop but the role it played in ending European slave trades in the first place. Also, it has long been noted among Teutons that all Celts seemed to have a comparable and nearly identical ethology. From Ireland to Wales to Scotland to Brittany, Picardy and Spain. Their breeding and their socializing were all the same mostly r-type strategies.

        • I guess they aren’t Celts, huh?

          They are an interesting mixed population. Some Celtic influence as well as some Nordic, but mostly Neolithic people plus Mediterraneans (including North and Sub-Saharan African influences) who have existed in relative genetic isolation. The low average IQ is a big warning sign.

  4. avraham says:

    I like the Irish. Sir W.R. Hamilton [Hamilton’s equations] was Irish.

  5. EX says:

    You can thank Italians and Jews for introducing gangster “culture” to America (and subsequently the world).

    • The record of Italians, Greeks, Irish, Cubans, Slavs and other near-whites in America is one of crime, corruption and lowered standards.

      If you follow my perspective, this is a result of both (1) diversity itself failing and lowered trust causing a cessation of attention to the public sphere and (2) the native cultures of these places, coded into DNA, being borne into the new world where the people then acted out the same scripts.

  6. Tom Bennett says:

    And if you’re going to shit on the celts, then at least take it to its logical conclusion and claim the Scots, Welsh and Cornish aren’t white either.

  7. Markus Ryan says:

    Irish are not African they are European. What ‘darker’ skin? Have you ever seen a native Irish person? They are as white as Scandinavians.

    Irish DNA is very close to most mainland Europeans:

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-gaels-were-from-scythia/

    Some of the disadvantages you cite regarding Irish people are actually cultural advantages including heavy in group loyalty and limited pathological altruism. Mainly due to centuries of persecution.

    • Irish are not African they are European.

      Why not both?

      Mainly due to centuries of persecution.

      #IrishLivesMatter

      …the point, as always, is that life is not as simple as “white is good and black is bad.” Diversity is bad, and Irish need to walk their own path separate from Western Europeans, just as Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans and all non-Europeans do.

      • Markus Ryan says:

        Why not both?

        Because there is no African admixture in the Irish DNA they are very similar to most Europeans. Both Irish and English are from the same background stock. English interbreed a bit more with mainland Europeans. Irish genetics are closer to the original British Isles genetics.

        Irish people do walk their own path that it why they have their own country that is separate from the UK.

  8. Godomar says:

    De Gobineau and De Lapouge wrote this long time ago, they were very unpopular in France, but not in Germany, guess why…

    The easiest way to detect North African admixture is an over-sized ego along with an unmerited pride. Common in Southern French (who are not French but Occitans) and Italians, this is why I generally dislike them.

  9. avraham says:

    Godomar’s comment has that quality you sometimes see on the internet. Someone has some real astute comment to make and you notice it. But then you forget about it. Later on you wish you could find it because it stands out in your mind as really pin pointing and focusing on the issue. I have had this happen to me lots of times.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>