EGI is the Most Hack Resistant

Thoughts.

Following up on this, let us examine the question of EGI again.

Lawrence wrote in his Unz screed:

...but in practice can be ‘hacked’ by anything from linguistic similarity to political similarity to cultural similarity. 

My reply:

No, it are proximate interests that can be “hacked.”  EGI cannot be “hacked” because genetic similarity is what it is – which is why focusing on ultimate interests rather than proximate ones is superior.  

Focusing on an important political issue related to race, such as immigration, we begin to understand the value of an EGI-based approach. See this.

Beating the drum about “IQ” or “highly-skilled” or “law abiding” or “k-selected” or whatever other proximate measure avoids the fundamental issue of kinship and also sets you up for race replacement by “high-IQ Asians.”  

HBD leads to race replacement.  EGI supports racial preservation.

Most parents tend to prefer their own children compared to strangers’ children, even if the latter are smarter or better-looking or more “highly skilled” than the former.  Until Whites are able to comprehend that the same principle applies at the population group level, maladaptive outcomes will occur. At some point, the Establishment will say, “Hey, you want high-IQ?  There’s several hundred million Chinese who would jump at the chance to migrate to the USA!  And they are ‘highly-skilled’ (and non-White, and potential ‘liberal Democrat’ voters).  You want them, you got them!”  What’s going to be the anti-immigration argument then?  Or will the HBDers welcome the influx?

HBDers may welcome the influx; from an EGI perspective, it must be opposed. Which view is consistent with racial nationalism? 

Genetic kinship is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that almost all in the immigration debate — and many people in general who believe they are “racially aware” — pretend does not exist.  It is “the argument that dare not speak its name.”  Hopefully, here at TOO we will continue to speak its name. Therefore, I’ll stake out the (perhaps controversial) position that: (1) kinship-based racialism and HBD-based pseudo-racialism are competing for the same niche space, (2) only kinship-based racialism ensures adaptive responses, and (3) a predominant emphasis on HBD is, ultimately, detrimental to White racial interests.

That’s exactly what has happened. HBD has emerged as a major enemy to kinship-based White nationalism, a theme I write about frequently.

Emphasizing kinship gets to the core of the matter, and also sets aside all sorts of arguments such as those made by Ron Unz, re: “His-Panic” and all the detailed counter-arguments…But the immigration issue is worth delving into because it provides an “educational” opportunity to emphasize that what’s it is all about is race and genetic interests, not about legality, IQ, economics, the environment, or what have you.  It’s about White vs. non-White demographics in America, and all the rest is a smokescreen obfuscating this key point…It is about Race, or the Race-Culture; it is about genetic interests, and these are things that can be, in the long run, defended only by Explicit Whiteness. If we can’t talk about racial interests as Whites, we can’t win. All these other arguments are ultimately meaningless if they don’t serve ultimate interests.

That's what EGI is all about. All other interests and issues could in theory be “hacked” to serve anti-White, or at least non-White or aracial, interests, while EGI is resistant to such “hacking.” Of course, we cannot say anything, even EGI, is absolutely resistant to “hacking” – our enemies are (as we should be) “flexible strategizers” and will always try to find ways to subvert our mission.  But, we do the best we can, and EGI is the most unhackable foundation practically possible.

I addressed the HBD focus in the TOO essay.  HBD actually really doesn’t even have to be hacked as it is itself openly hostile to racial nationalism, basically allowing Asians and Jews to replace Whites. Religion? Plenty of nice Christian Blacks and Hispanics; there are even Christian Koreans (and Filipinos of course). What else? Citizenship? Laughable civic nationalism. Phenotype? Racial theories from the early 20th century? Are “green-eyed Kalash” European?  Are "Aryan" South Asians White ? Are “Nordish Jews” racially akin to Scandinavians?  Are White-looking Hapas White?  No, they are not.  Even Yockeyian High Culture – by itself, isolated, without EGI considerations – could be a problem because even Yockey admitted the possibility of some assimilation – but, to be honest, that was mostly Jews (admittedly not good from the WN 1.0 perspective) and what he considered to be non-Western Whites (Eastern Europeans). Of course, Yockeyian High Culture merged with EGI considerations is another story.

But basing identity on genetic similarity – genetic kinship – as the foundation, drilling down to the core of what we are, representing ethnoracial ancestry, ensures that one is actually preserving racial, ethnic, and national identities. My concept of the EGI Firewall is highly relevant here, which was followed by this essay on the importance of EGI and the EGI Firewall for mediating pro-White activism.

From the EGI Firewall essay:

If all possibilities for structuring society have to pass the “EGI litmus test” then that can prevent biological race replacement from occurring, despite how such replacement could be “dressed up” in faux-rightist clothing (e.g., citizenism, HBD, etc.). EGI serves – or can and should serve - as a barrier preventing maladaptive ideologies from getting a foothold within nationalist thought.  Civic nationalism?  Fails to preserve EGI, since anyone can become a citizen who believes in the civic creed.  HBD “race realism?”  That fails since it elevates IQ before race; thus, HBD would be fully supportive of Europeans being race replaced by “high IQ Jewish and Asian cognitive elitists.”  As that would devastate European EGI, that fails the EGI test. Caring only about culture?  Fails – genetic aliens can mimic a culture. Economics? Fails – since “economic efficiency” can entail replacement migration and thus diminish EGI. A strict phenotypism?  That fails as well, since phenotypic mimicry can mask genetic distance.  A Samoan and an African may “look similar” to someone, but are highly genetically distinct. Replacing Samoans with genetically distant, but (superficially) phenotypically similar Negroes would obviously be maladaptive to Samoans, and the EGI firewall would prevent that from happening.  If adaptive fitness is all about genetic continuity, then the best way to ensure continuity and fitness is through the use of memes that make genetic interests fundamental – the minimum “ultimate” requirement that must be met before other more “proximate” interests are considered.

From the second essay:

But for the firewall to be an effective one must accept that one’s worldview has a grounding in EGI, and one must have a serious understanding of the concept.

It should be clear from all of the foregoing how an emphasis on EGI is the best approach to prevent activism from being hijacked away from core racial interests.