Elite and pseudo-elite whites don’t identify themselves by ethnic group, they identify themselves by the membership they have or believe they have in the class that decides. College and occupation are the most important of these; the SWPL pseudo-elite usually can’t really claim these, so they obsess over music, food, and alcohol. The real elite does form a kind of English ethnic group, but they would never identify themselves as such, because they identify themselves as a moral, not an ethnic elite.
However the ethnic identity of ethnic groups that are firmly loyal to the system is slightly positive. This encompasses three groups- the Irish, the Jews, and Scandinavians.
The Irish clashed with the establishment in the beginning. The best example of Irish behaving badly was the Civil War draft riots. The establishment didn’t care for the machine politics of the Irish, their clannishness, or their Catholicism, but after the Progressive era- dedicated to “good government” unsullied by patronage- and Prohibition- dedicated to keeping the drunken Irish fit to work and obey- it decided, as part of the New Deal coalition, to absorb them rather than fight them. This entente might be said to be the birth of the system.
Occasionally the Irish behave badly- the riots over busing in South Boston, occasionally voting Republican or speaking poorly of the negroes- but mostly Irish-Americans are urban, liberal, relatively educated, and heavily employed in government and education. Internationally the Irish are heavily into famine relief and other NGO activities. The SWPL love of Irish alcohol- especially the undrinkable Guiness- and St. Patrick’s Day prove the bona fides of the Irish.
The Jews hardly need mention. Real elite Jews don’t play up their religious or ethnic background, as it’s declasse. But they don’t try to hide it either, and a nice suburb with a significant number of Jews isn’t complete without a huge (insert Jewish first and last names and family name of the donating couple) Family Jewish Center.
Scandinavians are much lower profile, because they are naturally low profile and there aren’t very many of them. Scandinavians had, in the distant past, an aggressive military history and a mystical pagan warrior culture that white supremacists and white nationalists like to model. But that was a long, long time ago. More recently, Norway and Denmark were invaded by the Germans, and relatively resistant. Sweden avoided invasion by being a tacit German ally in World War II, but has made up for it ever since by being more politically correct than thou.
Scandinavians have the image of being quiet, cooperative socialists, which is pretty much the case, in their home countries and in the US. Leftists love to use the Scandinavian social model as an example of how things should be, carefully avoiding that the political and social systems of small, isolated, homogenous countries might not scale upward very well. But nobody will object in the least if you claim Scandinavian ethnicity or display a Scandinavian flag- it’s practically a demonstration of loyalty.
Only elite or pseudo-elite implicit whiteness is unambiguously good. But the implicit whiteness of loyal ethnic groups is neutral to somewhat positive. It’s all downhill from here, though- the best any other implicit whiteness can be thought of is suspicious.