EGI Once Again

Considerations.

We can first consider some of the points made in this post; I am not going to comment on the description of ethnic genetic interests (EGI), which I have discussed many times in the past, but rather the policy implications, as well as how the EGI concept is viewed by different groups.

“Mainstream” discussions about immigration, race, and the implications of a multiracial society usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity. No rational person would support policies that would, on the one hand, “enrich” their family while, on the other hand, simultaneously replace their family with strangers. And yet we seem to completely ignore the large scale effects of public policies on our greater “extended family”–the racial and ethnic groups to which we belong.

That description accurately describes the attitude of the Mainstream Right toward immigration, race, and multiracial multiculturalism. That is not surprising and to be expected from what is essentially merely the right-wing of the anti-White System. Unfortunately, there are elements on the Far Right who can be described in like manner. On the “left” of the Far Right are the civic nationalist right-wing populists, who may in fact not actually be part of the Far Right proper, but who populate a nebulous border zone between the Mainstream Right and the Far Right.  And then we have the HBDers, who would be content with White racial replacement, as long as the replacers are “high-IQ” Jews and Asians. Some of these aberrant views are critiqued here.

Even more bizarre are those on the Far Right (for example) who are not civic nationalists and not really HBDers either (but who are unfortunately powerfully influenced by HBD mendacity) but who reject the concept of ethnic genetic interests, which essentially leaves them in a position not really different from the aforementioned misguided (or mendacious) rightist groups.

From the standpoint of genetic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological. The assertion that immigrants must be imported for “economic” reasons, or for some other short-sighted rationale, is therefore exposed as incredibly destructive to the interests of the natives.

One of the fundamental pillars of modern conservatism, and of the modern non-racial Right in general, is economics. The strong strain of libertarianism that runs through the modern Right is consistent with this. The neoconservative infection of the Right is also strongly associated with “economics over all” at least with respect to domestic affairs (with the well-being of Israel, and defending liberal globalism, as prime foreign policy objectives). An EGI-based viewpoint therefore incompatible with the underlying ideology of much of “conservative” “thought.” Of course, paleoconservatism and associated civic nationalism and right-wing populism do consider issues of national identity and culture, and do not focus, as does mainstream conservatism, on economics.  But even these bastions of a somewhat healthier Right tend to shy away from a more biological, ancestry-based perspective on fundamental interests.

Any consideration of the costs vs. benefits of immigration–or of a multiracial society in general–must absolutely consider the costs incurred at the most basic, most personal, and most fundamental human level. After all, humans are living, breathing organisms–”economic growth” or other issues are important only insofar as they influence real, living humans and human interests. A people do not “benefit” from “X” if “X” results in that people’s displacement and their replacement by others to an extent equivalent to mass murder.

That applies to “cognitive elitism” and “high IQ immigration” as it does other non-kinship considerations.

Genetically, mass alien immigration is genocide. Similarly, a multicultural, multiracial society that manages the demographic eclipse of its majority population is also practicing genocide. These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.

Unfortunately, the entire mainstream political spectrum – and a significant portion of dissident politics – evades those facts and refuses to consider the legitimacy of “racist” EGI-based arguments.

No, the ultimate causes of Western decline are that the governments and “leaders” of the West are openly and actively betraying the interests of their own peoples, and that the peoples of the West themselves, all too comfortable and unconcerned with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests. Or is it that Westerners are grossly uninformed about where their real interests lie?

As mentioned above, there are many on the Right, including the Far Right, who are equally uninformed and, in some cases, aggressively hostile to the interests of the peoples of the West because they champion competing, incompatible ideologies (e.g., HBD).

Thus, this essay has three basic purposes. First, to introduce the fundamentally important concept of genetic interests–which are ultimate interests–to Western peoples. 

How best to do so?  See below for the endless difficulties in what should have been a “slam dunk.”

Second, to explain, succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire people, with a consequent devastating personal loss for each and every member of that people. 

How to do so?  I have written about this in the past and I plan to do so in future posts. In theory, this could be a two-tier approach. First, the full, complete EGI paradigm would be targeted to (potentially) receptive White political and intellectual elites. Second, for more general consumption, the paradigm can be put into the language of family to make the analogy.  Of course, there can be some overlap.  Particularly if the masses are targeted with anti-EGI propaganda, with various pseudoscientific refutations, then some of the more scientific information would have to be dispensed. But with respect to Whites in general that should be kept to the minimum required to effectively make the argument.  The “man in the street” is not going to be particularly interested in questions of genetic distances and “child equivalents.”

A major problem, as is clear from what is written above, is that advocates of EGI have been unable to convince even the “movement” of the importance of the concept; indeed, there has been considerable resistance among those who you would think would be most receptive to the message. Part of this is due to the perfidious HBD infestation of pro-White activism, part of it is just the typical “movement” stupidity and obtuseness; however, EGI advocates it seems have not hit upon the right approach to propagate the message. This problem needs a solution and requires thoughtful analysis.

Third, to encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical activism to pursue their genetic interests. Which means: to ensure their own survival.

Sometimes one wonders if they want to survive. Why must a people need to be endlessly convinced and virtually browbeaten into defending their own interests, their very survival?  There is something seriously wrong there,

What is required is the practice of biopolitics –the fusion of biological, human concerns with political action and public policy initiatives. Westerners need to stop focusing exclusively on secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment opportunities, funding for pensions, and a myriad of other concerns which–while certainly important and certainly worthy of interest and consideration–pale in significance compared to the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.

See above.  The mainstream Right focuses solely on secondary issues that which for the Right are “primary.”  Ultimate issues are “racist” and hence “beyond the pale.”

Survival comes first. All else comes second. Genetic interests come first. Other interests come second. Biopolitics will reorder priorities in the recognition that the well being of the Peoples of the West first requires that these peoples continue to exist. Biopolitics will ensure that they do.

Biopolitics will do so only if the ideas are accepted, which will require those ideas to be formulated in a palatable fashion to the intended audiences and also if attacks on the ideas are effectively refuted.