Bob Doney: "There are no such "national communities" in the way you describe them."

Really? So the United Kingdom is a unified nation-state, and Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are merely administrative regions? And everyone identifies their ethno-nationality as British? 

Bob Doney: "Many such individuals identify themselves as English, Welsh or Scottish in addition to their British identity. As an example, watch the Commonwealth Games, or the cricket, football (soccer!) or rugby World Cups, where each national team enters competitors of very different "racial" origins. The same is true in the arts, the law, the church, academia, politics and most other walks of life."

Actually the vast majority of non-Whites identify themselves as British because: (a) membership in the aforementioned ethno-national groups is seen as exclusive, (b) membership in these groups does not confer any special legal status that British citizens do not already have, and (c) the British government is unitary and seeks to create a singular British identity, which non-Whites are more likely to identify with rather than those descended from the United Kingdom's constituent nations.

Please read this !
telegraph.co.uk

" a Financial Times/Harris poll which revealed that British citizens are now more hostile to immigration than any other western European country "

Ha, Ha!
I knew it.

"I have coined ethnolysis as a blanket term for the dissolution of an ethnic group. One way that ethnolysis can occur is through racial intermixture, i.e., the genetic dissolution of a people by means of a racially foreign element (*)

Examples of racially-induced ethnolysis is the creation of the Latin American nations, whereby the Native American people were ethnolyzed via the European colonists, the destruction of the pre-Aryan cultures in parts of India, or the pre-Celtic cultures in the British Isles. In these cases, the racially foreign element achieved its goal by the possession of greater strength. There are also cases where the dominant group was ethnolyzed by the subordinate one, as in e.g., the Lombard element in parts of Italy, the Bulgar element in Bulgaria, or the Spanish element in parts of America. The last example also illustrates that sometimes two ethnic groups (Spaniards/Americans) ethnolyze each other.

I suspect that there are three stages in racially induced ethnolysis. In Stage I, the balance of power/numbers is in favour of one of the two groups, which shrugs off the presence of the other as an inconvenience. Europe is probably in this stage with respect to its racially foreign population, similar to the Roman past where the early penetration of the racially foreign northern element was not checked initially, with the result being the downfall of the Western Empire.

In Stage II, maximum tension between the groups is reached, often resulting in violent conflict. An example of this is White-Black relations in the United States in the 19th and 20th century, or the struggle between Russians and Tatars. It is possible at this stage for the group undergoing ethnolysis to strike back and preserve its identity. Examples of this include the Christians of the Balkan Peninsula who survived the Ottoman occupation.

In many other cases though ethnolysis is not halted at Stage II, but rather proceeds to Stage III, which is also the terminal condition. We need to look no further than the history books for examples of countless peoples who no longer exist in a cultural-genetic sense, having been ethnolyzed at some point in the past by racial intermixture.

(*) I use "racially foreign" in the sense of genetically distant, rather than the stricter sense of belonging to a different human subspecies."

Bob Doney: "Just because you idiosyncratically decide to use the word "nation" in a very restricted sense, it doesn't mean the rest of us have to."

Membership in national communities is inherently restrictive because it involves rules of inclusion and of exclusion and is usually determined by the principle of jus sanguinis. Jus sanguins continues to be the method of determining citizenship even in Western European states with substantial and increasing non-European populations, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, as well as Finland and Ireland.

In the United Kingdom, for example, membership in Irish, Welsh, Scotch or English national communities is conferred by jus sanguinis. It is worth noting that this does not prevent individuals lacking in ethno-national affiliation to these indigenous communities to gain British citizenship or from identifying as British. As I noted in a previous post, however, the strengthening of the British and Belgian states at the expense of self-determination for their national communities is a consequence of non-Europeans identifying with a British or Belgian identity.

Bob Doney: "And you're about 5,000 years too late with your tribal stuff."

This is in reference to what?

MarcFrans: "It all depends on the exact meaning one gives to that term?  We know what nationality entails.  But what is "ethnicity" and what is "culture"?  They certainly are not exclusively or purely defined by 'looks', nor limited by it."

Please do not merge "ethnicity" and "culture." The former is synonymous with people, folk and nation, despite that "nation" has been incorrectly used in popular discourse to refer to a state and "nationality" equally used to refer to citizenship. A nation is a group of people with a shared language, history, myths, culture, and ancestry from a tribe or group of tribes. It is the factor of shared ancestry or genetic lineage that results in physical characteristics. Nations are not founded only on physical characteristics, as many are a blend of various human sub-races, but the shared descent from a relatively small group results in similar physical characteristics that differ to various degrees from other nations if taken as a whole. Because neighboring nations often have similar sub-racial blends, individuals from these nations can visibly "pass" for one another e.g. Poles and Czechs, who are both West Slavs. Arguably those nations that composed the former Yugoslavia are almost identical genetically, however, other factors intervened to split them into bona fide nations. Although the German cantons of Switzerland and Austria have significant Alpinid strains, genetically they belong with Germany, yet again non-genetic factors have prevailed in nationhood. Therefore, while "looks" play an important role in demonstrating one's shared ancestry, there are other variables that come into play. Note that I have not included a "homeland" as part of nationhood because there are stateless nations and nations can move over time.

Culture refers to convention, which can be impacted by local environmental factors (e.g. natural resources, climate, soil type, etc.) and transnational ideas e.g. religion, ideology, etc. Culture changes in ways that nations themselves cannot i.e. declining church attendance has not resulted in lingual or physical changes in say England.

MarcFrans: "Now, how narrowminded or how broadminded do you want to be in 'filling out' those concepts?"

It depends on whether or not one is a nationalist or one is more committed to individualism or transnational causes as both pure liberals and socialists are. 

MarcFrans: "But these concepts are pretty meaningless without a 'commitment' from the nation's citizens."

This commitment is rarely chosen; the state and other socialising institutions determine whether or not there is a culture of contribution or a culture of entitlement.

MarcFrans: "And I do not believe in a "world state".  There simply does not exist sufficient commonality of values in the world..."

Multiculturalists believe that there is "sufficient commonality" and are determined to experiment in Europe and North America.

MarcFrans: "There is also a big difference between 'looks' and commitment."

Agreed. However, can a non-White individual "commit" themselves to a European nation? It may be that the Rwandan of whom you speak is committed to Belgium as a state, but how can they support Flemish nationalism when nationhood invariably involves shared genetic lineage? It is almost certain that this Rwandan would suppress both Flemish and Wallonian nationalism in favor of a Belgian state united by non-exclusive principles. Why? Because it is in his interests to secure his membership in society and as he cannot visibly pass for a Fleming or Walloon, this means that he cannot permit such exclusivity to impact him or his children, etc. This is statism not nationalism and is a precursor to a global superstate.

MarcFrans: "There is a big difference between constructive and "loyal" opposition that wants to 'improve' the culture, and those who (naively and hatefully) want to destroy it or deliver it to its enemies."

Agreed. However, Chomsky may merely be advocating what he believes is best for the United States and the world. Or do you believe he is acting for a foreign power?    

MarcFrans: "As a general rule one can reasonably assume that parental lineage will play a big part in ensuring a specific 'commitment' and cultural adherence."

100% agreed.

MarcFrans: "But birthplace or jus solis can also be important in that respect."

If jus soli overtakes jus sanguinis, as is occurring in various Western European states due to immigration and fertility rates, the nation in question faces ethnolysis, namely the genetic dissolution of a people by means of a racially foreign element. There are three factors which determine at what stage the ethnolysis is:

1. Can the foreign immigrants can visible "pass" for the native population e.g. East-Central Europeans to a large degree
2. The number of foreign immigrants vis-a-vis natives i.e. can they be "absorbed" and integrated or assimilated
3. Is the native population expanding, contracting or maintaining its current population

It is clear that the masses of non-White immigrants cannot "pass" for Europeans, and therefore cannot be ethnic Europeans even if they claim citizenship. Nor can the numbers be absorbed either genetically or socially, and these immigrants are creating colonies particularly in inner cities and public housing states. Finally, European populations are declining. European states are between the first and second stages of ethnolysis, the latter being the point at which racial minorities can no longer be ignored and conflict results. Nor does this analysis account for the impact on European economies that these rent-seekers cause.

MarcFrans: "If there are proportionately many more among the newcomers I dare to say that the fault lies largely with the immigration policies (in combination with welfare policies) set up by 'oldtimers'."

Nevertheless, these newcomers are not refusing the welfare and choosing to work hard and contribute to their new home, which ostensibly is paradise compared to the chaos in which they were spawned. Should Swedes have to give up their amenities because they are being inundated with free-riders? No. The solution is either to close the borders and/or deny non-Swedes access to the welfare state i.e. second-class citizenship.

MarcFrans: "The USA is certainly a "nation", both in a legal sense and in a sociological sense."

Au contraire. The United States is a "state." Arguably, it can be characterised as a nationless state or a multinational state, the latter accounting for African-American and Hispanic 'nationalism' within the United States.

MarcFrans: "It certainly applies to all those white leftist Flemish 'collaborators' who wouldn't give a hoot about their own culture.  Blood is 'given', it doesn't require anything from the individual."

I would argue that those 'collaborators' take their particular stance because they believe that it is best, rather than taking it because they have an ethno-national or racial agenda. They may be misguided but they do not have an innate agenda in the same way as a non-Fleming would if he or she advocated for the same ideology i.e. multiculturalism.

......

@ Kapitein Andre

....

7) I guess we are back to that needed course in "symbolic logic".  It is not because nutty marxists also believed that "ethno-nationality" was primitive that it couldn't be "primitive".  It all depends on the exact meaning one gives to that term?  We know what nationality entails.  But what is "ethnicity" and what is "culture"?  They certainly are not exclusively or purely defined by 'looks', nor limited by it.  Now, how narrowminded or how broadminded do you want to be in 'filling out' those concepts?   I do know, though, that civilised people are capable of forming "affinities" based on rational grounds, but I have my doubts about tribal people in that regard.   I am well aware that "primitive" is a perception, but it surely is more than that.  It is not difficult to set up rational criteria, both objective ones (economy and technology) and subjective ones (e.g. individual self-determination versus group-think etc...) to "measure" it.   

8) On the contrary, I do believe in national identity, sovereignty and self-determination".   But these concepts are pretty meaningless without a 'commitment' from the nation's citizens.   And I do not believe in a "world state".  There simply does not exist sufficient commonality of values in the world - not even in Europe today - to make such a super state possible.  There is also a big difference between 'looks' and commitment.  And I also believe that those who manifestly hate and despise their own nation and culture (e.g. Chomsky) should leave it, rather than 'exploit' it.  There is a big difference between constructive and "loyal" opposition that wants to 'improve' the culture, and those who (naively and hatefully) want to destroy it or deliver it to its enemies.  

9) I have nowhere "associated ethnic nationalism with the welfare state".  The citation you refer to does not support such a contention, and particularly in the case of Singapore your assertion is totally off the mark.  I still recommend a course in symbolic logic and better empirical observation.                  

@ Kapitein A

1) Who can determine intentions?  Well, everybody has to make judgements all the time about almost everything.  And wise governments certainly will try to follow reasonable assumptions about likely  "intentions" when constructing a rational immigration policy. 

2) Who said that jus sanguinis is "excluded from the equation of European nationalities"?  Certainly not me!.  As a general rule one can reasonably assume that parental lineage will play a big part in ensuring a specific 'commitment' and cultural adherence.  But birthplace or jus solis can also be important in that respect.  There are always numerous exceptions though, and in both 'directions'. 

3) I am sure there are both oldtimers and newcomers among those welfare addicts in Sweden.  If there are proportionately many more among the newcomers I dare to say that the fault lies largely with the immigration policies (in combination with welfare policies) set up by 'oldtimers'.  But, I agree with you that Sweden is not a bad place on the whole, especially when compared with most alternatives.

4) The USA is certainly a "nation", both in a legal sense and in a sociological sense.  And its 'creed' is definitely not in accordance with current "global values".  I am not sure what you mean by "globalist" values.  But I do know that many Americans naively think that their values could have universal applicability.  In doing so they are naive but well-intentioned.  They still naively think that most of the world could be as 'good' and 'tolerant' than they generally are.  But the current 'long war' will teach them differently. 

5) If the adopted Ruandan child was properly brought up by his adopting Flemish parents, then presumably he will identify with the culture in which he grew up.  The fact that he went into politics is on its face a positive sign.  However, if he was not properly brought up, then everything is possible.  That applies just as well to white 'Flemish' children with a 'bad' background.  It certainly applies to all those white leftist Flemish 'collaborators' who wouldn't give a hoot about their own culture.  Blood is 'given', it doesn't require anything from the individual.

6) Whether there is little reason "to not integrate the various states of Europe" is neither here nor there.  I think one can reasonably expect that some forms of further integration are almost inevitable.  At the same time there is great value in Europe's diversity as well.  Just like there is value in the diversity of states in the great democracies of the USA and India.  Thank God that the occasional 'follies' of Alabama or Massaschussets etc...have at times been tempered by more common sense in other states to contain the 'damage'.  Instead of seeing Europe in racial and/or ethnic terms, one should better ask questions about the 'nature' of the possible "super state", about the nature of 'subsidiarity' in Europe, and perhaps about the number of European 'superstates' in the future.  Indeed, it is quite conceivable - even likely - that various parts of the EU will pursue different courses in the future, especially if America goes back to a more isolationist posture, as it has done before. After all, for many current leftist Europeans' EU-enthusiasm is directly proportional to their anti-Americanism.  But then, the rest of the world will surely also influence events in Europe.

............

MarcFrans: "...just like the black adopted Ruandan orphan who became a city official in Belgium probably represents better Belgian or Flemish 'values' than those white 'Belgians' who refused his 'civil wedding services'."

Firstly, I am unfamiliar with this individual. Secondly, if he upholds Belgian values, he is upholding a state that was imposed on two distinct national communities and is therefore upholding an institution that prevents their national self-determination, although it is clear the Flemings are more upset with the situation than the Walloons. Thirdly, he cannot be Fleming or Walloon because he is not descended from either of those communities, and he certainly cannot be a member of both. He differs little from non-Whites in the United Kingdom who identify as British, rather than English or Scottish, and rightly so.

MarcFrans: "You are what you are 'committed' to, and what you live by, both in a cultural and in a moral sense."

Clearly then, you are not a nationalist and do not believe in national identity, sovereignty or self-determination. I fail to see why you are on a blog dealing with Europe when there are myriad liberal, conservative and globalist blogs out there. The only question is: how would you like your world state?

MarcFrans: "Any other perception or concept of 'identity' is primitive."

Marxist-Leninists believed that ethno-nationality was "primitive" as well. Unfortunately, 1989 demonstrated that no transnational or supranational force could eradicate national affinities; the Balkan Wars demonstrated that each nation required self-determination; and German re-unification demonstrated that nations could not be divided.

MarcFrans: "Then, of course, there is the legal concept of "nationality", which can be at a 'civilized' level (requiring commitment and effort)..."

Please quantify 'civilised.' Committment and effort to one's community can easily be transcribed to a global superstate or reduced to one's city or local territory, and therefore are not nationality.

MarcFrans: "...or at primitive levels (i.e. based on 'looks', or on noneffort..."

Please quantify 'primitive.' Tribal and city-state democracies must have appeared "primitive" to the Imperium Romanum; Romantic notions of democracy must have appeared "primitive" to the Germanic tribes that overran the Empire; the decentralised civil society tendencies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with its liberum veto must have appeared "primitive" to the autocratic and centralised states that surrounded and later partitioned it; and the English parliamentary system and constitutional monarchy must have seemed "primitive" to the National Socialists, who nearly obliterated European liberalism and democracy. Primitive is a perception rather than objective fact. Nor does ethnic nationalism reward lack of effort for ethno-national groups compete with one another for economic, military and political gain.

MarcFrans: "...like in give-away nationalities of fiscal 'paradises'..."

Please refrain from associating ethnic nationalism with the welfare state, for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have all embraced the free market and retained their national identities; indeed, these peoples are among the most ethnocentric on Earth and refuse to allow statistically significant immigration whilst providing monetary assistance to aid the Third World. 

MarcFrans: "....Swedes can emigrate. If they do that with the intention to 'integrate' somewhere else, then they become something else, and their offspring even more so.  And, if their intention is to 'play the field', or to play the extended tourist, or if they are unable to commit to anything else (than Sweden), etc....then they remain 'in limbo' and do not deserve to be properly called something else (like Australian or Canadian or German etc...). Swedes who are not 'committed' to Sweden are not really 'Swedish', irrespective of how they 'look'."

Firstly, who can determine whether or not someone's intention is to integrate or to acquire citizenship for the socio-economic benefits it confers? Is there a test to distinguish between those "committed" to Sweden and those who are not? Secondly, if physical characteristics and genetic lineage, symbolised by jus sanguins, are excluded from the equation of European nationalities, then there is little reason to not integrate the states of Europe into a superstate with the ultimate goal of creating a global state. Furthermore, because languages and cultures are subject to change, there is no need to insulate them with the erection of boundaries that only hinder the free flow of commerce and ideas throughout the world.

MarcFrans: "There is also no doubt that Swedish society and culture have changed dramatically over the centuries in a 'cultural' sense..."

Indeed, it has undergone "visible" changes as well. Sweden is on the forefront of a process colloquially known as the "browning" of Europe.

MarcFrans: "...from 'Vikings' and 'foresters' to 21st century welfare addicts."

Is it Swedes who are "welfare addicts" or the newcomers to their country? Until very recently, Sweden's mixed economy functioned with competitiveness, equity and efficiency and still remains in the leading tier. Furthermore, immigration aside, Sweden is one of the few states most prepared for the challenges that human civilisations are facing in the 21st century.

MarcFrans: "And there is also little doubt that 'black' Condoleeza Rice is more of a true American patriot than 'white' Noam Chomsky..."

What do Condi and Chomsky have to do with Sweden? The United States is a self-declared "melting pot" and an experiment in civil society with globalist values, not a nation. And who claimed that Rice is less of a patriot than Chomsky? The latter, incidentally is of Jewish descent, and would probably not consider himself White per se. Both are educated individuals who have some opinions I agree with and some I disagree with.

....Swedes can emigrate. If they do that with the intention to 'integrate' somewhere else, then they become something else, and their offspring even more so.  And, if their intention is to 'play the field', or to play the extended tourist, or if they are unable to commit to anything else (than Sweden), etc....then they remain 'in limbo' and do not deserve to be properly called something else (like Australian or Canadian or German etc...).  Swedes who are not 'committed' to Sweden are not really 'Swedish', irrespective of how they 'look'.

There is also no doubt that Swedish society and culture have changed dramatically over the centuries in a 'cultural' sense, from 'Vikings' and 'foresters' to 21st century welfare addicts.  And there is also little doubt that 'black' Condoleeza Rice is more of a true American patriot than 'white' Noam Chomsky is, just like the black adopted Ruandan orphan who became a city official in Belgium probably represents better Belgian or Flemish 'values' than those white 'Belgians' who refused his 'civil wedding services'.

You are what you are 'committed' to, and what you live by, both in a cultural and in a moral sense.  Any other perception or concept of 'identity' is primitive.  Then, of course, there is the legal concept of "nationality", which can be at a 'civilized' level (requiring commitment and effort) or at primitive levels (i.e. based on 'looks', or on noneffort - like in give-away nationalities of fiscal 'paradises' or of the 'snelbelgwet-types' etc..).

"Swedes" cannot emigrate. Swedes are all those who reside within the territorial boundaries of Sweden and who hold Swedish citizenship. Even if Swedes are Arab and Iranian Muslims, they are are still "Swedes" aren't they? Even if the official name of the state is changed and the Swedish language disappears, the inhabitants of that geographic area are still Swedes right? According to people like MarcFrans, so long as the "new Swedes" adhere to liberal democracy, they are no less Swedish than the Teutonic tribes that inhabited Scandinavia millennia ago. Let's drop the ethno-racial card guys. Sweden will change, but it ain't going anywhere: sure Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Britons, French, Italians, Spaniards, Dutch, and Belgians will all be "brown" and may speak Arab, African, Farsi or Urdu, but criticising this is only racist. No one "owns" any part of this planet, certainly not any individual or group - so long as the world is a gigantic liberal democracy, who cares.

In the latter decades of the 19th century, agricultural advances caused overpopulation throughout Europe, especially in Western European cities to the alarm of burghers and the aristocracy e.g. there was a transient mass of young unemployed men in and around Paris; the British were fearful of revolt. Malthus suggested that, because there seemed no solution, the population would be corrected by famine, disease and war; colonisation and massive emigration to the United States solved the problem though.

My mother's side settled in Rockford, Illinois along with a bunch of other Swedes around that time period.  Was anything in particular going on in Sweden that caused such an exodus at that time? 

"The last time a higher number of people emigrated from Sweden was in 1892"

Don't know if that is accurate or not but some people have estimated that 1/2 of Sweden left during the mid to late 1800's. Europe has always been a good source of refugees. My Swedish family left for Michigan in the 1850's and they were certainly not alone.