Russia, Ukraine, and EGI

Thoughts.

Idiots who don’t understand the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) concept, and who do not understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, will use the Russia-Ukraine concept as an excuse to critique EGI. They’ll see these two genetically closely related peoples fighting, with each allied with genetically more distant peoples (Russia with China; Ukraine with Western Europeans [who are of course more closely related to Slavs than the racially different Chinese]) and believe that this somehow invalidates EGI (if anything it is more of a criticism of descriptive genetic similarity theory (GST) than it is of ethnic genetic interests).

And they have made similar arguments with respect to conflicts throughout history, breathlessly stating things like "Germans allied with Japanese against the British,” and then, in a self-satisfied fashion, as it no one has ever considered this point before, smugly proclaim that EGI is “invalidated.” Of course, once again, they don’t understand descriptive vs. prescriptive, and they also don’t understand how the scope of warfare and human conflict has expanded throughout history, being first neighboring tribes fighting, then nation states, then empires and/or alliances of states, and now we are moving more in the direction of a clash of civilizations. Indeed, with respect to the latter point, one could state that Ukraine is a proxy for “the West;” here the conflict is really Russia vs the West, fought indirectly, just like as in the Cold War, conflicts between the USA and the USSR were fought through proxy states rather than directly.

Nation states have various national interests, including geopolitical strategic interests, often based not only on current events, but on issues of history and national identity. These do not always strictly correlate with prescriptive EGI, a descriptive fact that does not invalidate EGI or its prescriptive value. Let’s consider the current conflict, first from the descriptive standpoint and then from the prescriptive. The tragic history of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people is to a large extent directly and indirectly due to Ukraine’s association with Russia.  It is therefore not surprising to observe the reality of a historical tension between closely related Russians and Ukrainians, even though much of the suffering of Ukrainians has been due to Jews and not ethnic Russians (but, still, even then, the problems were mediated through Russia/USSR). Poland also has had an unpleasant history with Russia.  Indeed, Ukrainian and Polish identity is to a large extent associated with hostility to Russia or, if not hostility, then it is defined as being distinct from Russia and Russians (hence, we can see why Putin’s formula of trying to equate Ukraine as an integral part of Russia would be rejected by ethnic Ukrainians as an existential attack on their national identity).  This all being so, it is therefore not surprising that genetically closely related groups like Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles had, and still have, serious conflicts.  After all, we interact with our neighbors more than with those far away, and we typically interact with our family most of all, and with all of these close interactions comes the possibility of competition and conflict.  Aren’t family feuds common, despite blood relations and the adaptive interest we have in the well-being of family? If strong proximate concerns can turn family members against each other, even if it may not be in their strict adaptive interest (unless closer family is set against more distant family), then we cannot be surprised that something similar may occur at the ethny level. In neither case does the descriptive reality delegitimize the prescriptive truth of adaptive interests.

Conversely, Slavic groups like Bulgarians and Serbs, South Slav groups, are genetically more distant from Russians than are Poles and Ukrainians, but because of historical reasons, these more distant groups are typically better disposed toward Russia and Russians than are the groups more genetically similar. These are descriptive realities. So, proximate interests can push groups apart or pull them closer together. Of course, in the global context, there isn’t much of a difference between all of these groups; nevertheless, the pattern still exists.

Also, genetic similarity is not identity, and even with kinship overlap between closely related groups (some members of one group may be actually a bit more closely related to some members of the other group, complicating genetic interests), one can still argue that each national group has its own genetic interests, so if a conflict is geographically focused on neighbors, then conflict between those neighbors is not necessarily incompatible with even a prescriptive view of EGI. So, just like family conflict can be adaptive if one defends the interests of closer kin against those more distant, so can conflict between closely related peoples be adaptive, if the net result of the conflict supports the interests of those with the highest concentration of genetic interest. That said, from the view of long term EGI stability in a global context, amity between closely related ethnies is generally preferable, particularly with the possibility of kinship overlap. We’ll consider prescriptive below but first we will summarize the descriptive.

There are a number of reasons why descriptive reality may not correlate with strict prescriptive EGI. The players may not have an understanding of their genetic interests or understand what their genetic interests are in a particular case. They may not care even if they do know (Salter in On Genetics Interests notes that a “who cares” attitude toward adaptive interests, as an expression of values, may not be objectively answerable [other than to state that people who display such an attitude may eventually be replaced by those who do care about adaptive interests and act accordingly]). It may well be that net genetic interests, at least in the short term, are served by focusing on narrow concentrations of genetic interest even at the cost of more general and dilute interests (this is usually not a sound long term approach, and often backfires even in the short term – see the two world wars, for example).  It may be that history, culture, national identity and other strong proximate interests (that can overlap with EGI) may affect national policy and the actions of a people so strongly that they may pursue “national interests” that run contrary to EGI; the same holds for geopolitical considerations that may seem sound but can be maladaptive in the long run.  Going back to national identity, a fictive civic nationalist identity can certainly harm genetic interests, if one values the interests of a genetically alien co-citizen, and/or a nation full of such alien “fellow citizens," over that of the interests of those genetically closer. Religion, which can cut across genetic lines, fits into the cultural and identity explanations. Certainly, in general, people tend to have more frequent conflicts with their neighbors and, particularly in looking at conflicts in the pre-globalist age, it was infrequent to have conflicts with those on the other side of the globe (although we have been moving in that direction as the “world as gotten smaller”). This is not meant to be a fully comprehensive list, but you get the idea why actual reality may not always fit adaptive prescriptions.

I would like to point out even if you want to look at the current conflict in terms of GST, (not my purpose here), rather than EGI, you can say that the more warm welcome of Ukrainian refugees into European nations compared to that of Colored aliens, is indicative of GST. The idea that the Russians didn’t want into the Ukraine at full force, at least at first, so as to not alienate the native population, but may have been a bit due to GST, but also general “hearts and minds” objectives as well as to display restraint to the international community.

What would be the EGI prescription in the current conflict? It is more or less obvious and accords with what some White nationalists, particularly those without a strong emotional attachment to either side, have suggested. The quicker the conflict ends, the better. National boundaries should follow ethnic boundaries and this can apply even with closely related groups, particularly when the groups have had a difficult history (Russians vs. Ukrainians, Serbs vs Croats, etc.). Closely related groups should try and maintain friendly relations, resolve problems without armed conflict, and try to avoid situations in which they are forced into alliances with the genetically distant against their ethnic close kin.  They should respect each other’s sovereignty. They should engage in fruitful trade and other expressions of amiability, and assist each other to the extent possible (without compromising national interests). It would be helpful if their nations were as homogeneous as possible, and it would be best to avoid having influential minorities who have interests that can lead to conflict between closely related nations. The leadership cadres of nations should come from the majority population and serve majority interests, and these leaders need to have an understanding of biopolitics, including the adaptive interests of EGI. From a prescriptive EGI standpoint, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a maladaptive event and a tragedy. 

The conflict needs to end. Ukraine should maintain its independence, but should cede majority Russian areas to Russia. Alternatively, those ethnic Russians can assimilated (since they are genetically close to the Ukrainian majority) or, if assimilation is not possible for various reasons (including history and culture) then they can be repatriated to Russia. Ukraine should have ethnic Ukrainian leadership, certainly not Jewish leadership, and the nation should not be a pawn in Russian-Western conflicts. Russia needs to understand that the existential threat to is genetic existence (culture and politics are other issues of course) comes from the South and East, not the West, and there needs to be an understanding nor only between Russia and Ukraine but between Russia and the West as well. I’m not saying any of that is likely (descriptive), but that is what should occur (prescriptive).

A Descent into Genetic Descent

More on EGI.

The following analysis is based on autosomal DNA, which constitutes the vast bulk of the genome and is the focus of what we typically consider to be ethnic genetic interests (EGI), and is not concerned with NRY and mitochondrial DNA, which are mostly irrelevant to EGI.

Critics of EGI from the Left and the Right (e.g., HBD) often focus on (unjustified) distinctions between genetic relatedness based on direct genealogical relationships (identity by descent) and genetic relatedness independent of direct genealogy (identify by state), such as belonging to the same ethny. Of course, as I’ve stated previously, identity by state is usually just a form of identity by descent that is based on very distant descent, but for the sake of my initial argument here we can consider them to be separate entities. 

Critics of EGI aver that adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness (what we do to achieve adaptive fitness; e.g., by assisting kin), only applies to (close, familial) kin, thus only applying to identity by descent, and does not at all apply to identity by state (i.e., to unrelated co-ethnics).  Salter refutes this by citing Hamilton’s modification of the original formulation of inclusive fitness, but let us evaluate the problem from another perspective.

Consider the genetic relatedness of a person, such as yourself, with their descendants. How do you relate, in this genetic sense, to your posterity? With each subsequent generation removed from self, not considering effects of independent assortment and recombination in meiosis, genetic relationship (identity by descent) with genealogical kin is halved. Now, properly considering the aforementioned meiotic processes complicates the situation, so actual relatedness may be somewhat greater or lesser than a two-fold change; however, the reality of a continuous diminishment each generation remains. Thus, at some point, after several centuries, genetic relatedness by genealogical kinship descent (identity by descent) will approach zero. That’s assuming your familial line continues; if it does not, obviously identity by descent will be cut down to absolute zero at the point the line of familial descent ends. But, in any case, at some point, identity by descent in the genealogical sense will become vanishingly small (if it exists at all). However, and this a key point, identity by state will remain, assuming your familial line has not suffered significant admixture with genetically alien stocks. And, even more important, this identity by state will be approximately equivalent to that of unrelated co-ethnics (assuming such co-ethnics exist and have also not suffered significant alien admixture, and also taking into account normal processes of genetic drift and selection that are expected events that occur with all evolved organisms).

Thus, if we assume no significant ethnoracial admixture of your genealogical line of descent, or of your ethny, and if we simply consider overall genetic relatedness, now without making any unnecessary distinctions between identity by descent and identity by state (after all, identical gene sequences are identical, regardless of their origin), then, at some point, your genetic relatedness to your distant posterity will be equivalent to that of a random, unrelated (non-kin) co-ethnic. If your line of descent actually suffered from significant admixture (and your ethny did not), then your distant kin may actually be less genetically similar to you than a random co-ethnic. But in either case, a random (unmixed) co-ethnic will not be any less genetically similar to you (in any meaningful sense) than is your distant genealogical kin (if any exist). This endpoint may be delayed by familial inbreeding (which would depress fitness by other mechanisms), but, eventually, this ultimate endpoint will be reached.

So, does adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness, simply “peter out” after several centuries and thus only applies to genealogical kin close to you in time?  Is adaptive fitness therefore self-limited and thus one should only care about a few generations of posterity and ignore what happens after that time (*)?  What justification is there for that view?  What is the specific endpoint?  When kin relatedness reaches that of the background population? Does that mean you have no adaptive interests at all at that point? Really? Why are identical gene sequences from descent at that point privileged over identical gene sequences by state? Does that make objective sense? Or can we dismiss the artificial distinction of identity by descent vs. identity by state and recognize that you would still have adaptive interests (for your posterity and for your co-ethnics) at that time? These would be your interests in (unmixed) co-ethnics to whom you are more genetically similar compared to other populations, and thus this identity by state allows you to exercise inclusive fitness on behalf of these future co-ethnics (that would include any [unmixed] distant kin who would be genetically more or less indistinguishable from the co-ethnics) by engaging in activity in your lifetime that will secure the well-being of your future ethnic kin?  And if the well-being of your ethnic kin in the future is important, then their well-being today certainly is as well (the former depends on the latter, does it not?). Even if today's unrelated ethnic kin are a less concentrated store of genetic similarity than are your immediate kin, there are many more of the former group, and if you want their future well-being to be assured, you need to act on their behalf today.

So, either the critics of EGI have to assert that adaptive fitness only applies to a certain number of generations of kinship, and thereafter is meaningless – which in the long run of evolutionary time means it is completely meaningless (which would go against neo-Darwinian theory and make inclusive fitness activity a long term waste of effort) – and that identical gene sequences are somehow different based on their origin (even though they are identical) OR the critics need to admit the validity of EGI. They need to admit that adaptive fitness, exercised through inclusive fitness mechanisms in pursuit of genetic interests, can apply to co-ethnics (present and future) as well as to genealogical kin. They need to admit that genetic interests apply to genetic identity by distant descent (identity by state) as well as genetic identity by close kin (recent descent; i.e., identity by descent). They need to acknowledge that at some point, genealogical relatedness becomes so dilute that (unmixed) genealogical kinship conflates to co-ethnic relatedness (and if the genealogical kinship is heavily admixed it may exhibit genetic relatedness less than that of unrelated unmixed co-ethnics).

Again, EGI is self-evident. I state that because it is objectively true.

*Another related issue – consider how the Left and Right would respond to someone who states – “I don’t have children and I don’t care what happens after I die, so I don’t care about the environment or anything else that affects the future of humanity.” The Left and Right would respond that this self-centered person has a common interest in humanity; the person is human and is in this manner linked to the interests of humanity as a whole. Putting aside that this view is inconsistent with Left/Right “song and dance” about identity by descent vs. identity by state, we can ask – if we have common interest in the well-being of humanity as whole, then why don’t we also have a common interest in the well-being of our particular ethny? Why do we agree that we have interests in self, family, and humanity, but are then supposed to skip over our interests at the level of ethny? Are all these anti-EGI arguments simply a tactic to ensure that Whites do not organize to defend and promote their collective group interests? It does seem to be the case. I do not see why Whites need to accept such a transparently obvious attempt to delegitimize their group interests.

In Defense of Group Evolutionary Strategy

An argument in defense of the concept.

This essay is a defense of the concept of a group evolutionary strategy (GES).  In contrast to various long, rambling, and incomprehensible essays unfortunately extant on the Internet, I will be more succinct and comprehensible. I will first define GES, clarify some basic issues, and then discuss implications for MacDonald's idea of a Jewish GES, in toto constituting a general defense of the GES concept.  An addendum will briefly discuss the problem of over-extending the GES idea.

With respect to humans, a GES is simply the manner in which a group of people (however defined) interacts with each other, with other groups, and with the environment, to affect, positively or negatively, the continuity of the group. As humans are evolved biological organisms, and group continuity can imply genetic continuity, a GES has an evolutionary dimension, hence the “E” in “GES.” All of this is (or should be) straightforward and easy to understand, even by non-specialists.

A GES can be stable or unstable, to varying degrees. A GES does not imply stability, hence the “negatively” mentioned above. For example, the Shaker movement was an example of an unstable GES that negatively affected the biological fitness of its members. You will notice that that movement is no longer extant.  In contrast, Amish society is a more stable GES and is still extant today. Thus, a GES does not imply anything about the success of a group; the existence of unstable, maladaptive GES does not invalidate the overall GES concept. One critical response to this definition of GES may be to invoke MacDonald’s comment of:

…in order to qualify as an evolutionary strategy, genetic segregation must be actively maintained by the strategising group.

My own response is that I disagree with MacDonald here. What MacDonald actually refers to in that quote is one component of a stable and adaptive GES.  However, with respect to the broad definition of what a GES could be, genetic segregation is not fundamental.  What about Gypsies?  In the cultural sense they are segregated, and do not typically freely intermarry, but they have absorbed, at least in the past (as have Jews), significant genetic material from outsiders. Historically, in this case, "genetic segregation" was not always “actively maintained.” One can also envision GES that are unstable and maladaptive, encouraging assimilation and panmixia.

Further, a GES could fall anywhere on the individualist-collectivist spectrum. A group being hyper-individualist is not an invalidation of the GES concept; it is not an absence of GES, but is itself a GES. It may be adaptive or maladaptive under particular circumstances. For example, a moderate degree of individualism can be adaptive for a society that is able to safeguard its uniqueness by preventing immigration influx of more collectivist peoples and by defending its territorial integrity from invasion; in this case, individualism could foster innovation and greater achievement and economic productivity, all of which would enhance the competitiveness of the group. Of course, extreme individualism that would lead to an erosion of the defensive measures stated above would likely be maladaptive. 

The point is that not only can individualism be part of a GES, but in certain circumstances it can be adaptive. However, the general MacDonaldite paradigm that collectivists (often) outcompete individualists tends to be valid, particularly in a globalist, “small-world” environment in which different peoples are in constant contact (either within or between states), and that is quite different from the original environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (in which individualism developed and was adaptive). While all of that is true, it does not invalidate the GES concept (even for very individualist Western societies). Indeed, one can even say that a conscious decision to dispense with any pretense of a GES – e.g., a borderless, stateless anarchy of completely atomized individuals – is itself a GES (at least when the decision is originally implemented), albeit a very unstable and maladaptive one.

The Jews, particularly from the original MacDonaldite perspective, have been cited as a prime example of a successful GES.  This has received criticism not only from the Left and/or Jews and/or philo-Semitic cuckservatives, but, interestingly enough, from members of the Gentile Far Right, particularly those who espouse anti-scientific, anti-materialist, anti-evolutionary, and anti-rational paradigms. 

One criticism of the Jewish GES concept is the “high outmarriage rate” of (American) Jews. However, the fact that there is extensive Jewish outmarriage does not invalidate the concept of a Jewish GES. I have long ago pointed out that a Jewish outmarriage rate of ~50% is actually lower than expected when compared to European-American outmarriage rates for groups of similar size. So, this rate of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage is actually reflective of resistance to assimilation, and reflective of at least partial adherence to a Jewish exclusivist GES, rather than a repudiation of it.  As well, the idea of some degree of “permeability” of Jewish society may be beneficial to a Jewish GES if it decreases “anti-Semitism” while at the same time maintaining a more “pure” and ethnocentric Jewish core group. Intermarriage entangles Gentile interests with those of Jews, also decreasing hostility to Jews, and, from a biological standpoint, allows Jews to “steal” Gentile genes of utility, such as those coding for phenotype, to allow for greater mimicry of the host population. Needless to say as well, outmarriage allows the Jewish core to shed less ethnocentric, less committed Jews, increasing the ethnocentric and collectivist nature of the core group. To the extent the core group for the most part rejects hybrids, the intermarriage would be mostly one-way gene flow from Jews to Gentiles.  Note that this is not inconsistent with the idea of “gene stealing,” as I stated that this involved mostly (not completely) one-way gene flow, and those genes obtained from the more limited Gentile to Jewish gene flow could be subject to selection within the Jewish core group, amplifying the frequency of those genes without necessarily reflecting a concomitant increase in overall Gentile genetic ancestry within the Jews core group.

Besides the issue of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage, some will cite various examples of how Jewish behavior does not seem to be in accordance to what we could reasonably assume are long-term Jewish interests (although one wonders if we make an error in interpreting Jewish interests through the lens of a European-derived raciocultural mindset).  Such people would argue - "but actual Jewish behavior in America can be viewed as counter-productive to Jewish interests, such as the importation of people genetically different from, and hostile to, Jews."

I have actually dealt with these issues long ago (as with the breathless attacks on “Salterism” we observe individuals who believe that their “analyses” are somehow something new and fresh, in contrast to the reality that these issues have been repeatedly discussed and debated in the past). It is possible, but not definite, that the Jewish GES is no longer stable and adaptive in the environment of today’s America – an environment in large part created by the Jewish GES itself (so if the Jewish GES is no longer adaptive, it has itself to blame). Even if that is the case, it does not invalidate the general concept of GES (for the reasons explained above; i.e., a GES does not have to be stable or adaptive), nor does it invalidate the idea that the Jewish GES was in fact adaptive for most of its existence (albeit constantly provoking reactions from the host peoples that have had negative impacts on Jewish fitness, possibly compensated for by promoting Jewish continuity by inhibiting assimilation). Further, even if the Jewish GES is currently self-destructing, it will take European-derived peoples and the West down with it. Thus, we observe that many of the attacks against GES conflate to strawman arguments.

In addition, a GES does not have to be some conscious, grand plan – that is another strawman argument.  No one is saying that every Jew gets a pamphlet at birth - a condensed Protocols of the Elders of Zion for example - to guide them in their lives to follow the Jewish GES. In some cases, a GES may be at least in part a conscious planned decision by group leaders; more often it may just be an emergent property of mass group behavior, in some part inherited, in some part due to culture, tradition, history – with flexible strategizing in different contingencies, particularly for the more conscious aspects of the GES. A GES need not be rigid for all time; adaptiveness implies the ability to meet the new requirements and novel challenges of environmental change.

Another issue is that people need to understand that discussion of GES should not be purely descriptive but, more importantly, also prescriptive. Discussing whether or not a people have, or do, follow a particular GES is not as important as discussing what GES our people should pursue.

Addendum

Things can of course be taken too far and that usually occurs when academics fall in love with their own theories and try to shoehorn all of reality into the parameters of a hypothesis or a paradigm. For example, the idea that national GDP should roughly correlate with the intelligence of the national population is fairly straightforward and reasonable, and has some data in support; the problem occurred when Lynn et al. became obsessed with the idea and tried to explain every degree of difference in development and achievement as deriving from heritable IQ differences (in some cases, IQ being wrongly “estimated” rather than directly measured, coupled to factually wrong inventions, re: population genetics) – with of course certain favored populations, like the Chinese, getting a “pass” for a relative lack of achievement through an unprincipled exception invocation of environmental influences (i.e., effects of communism). Likewise, the broad idea of group evolutionary strategies has explanatory power; unfortunately, MacDonald started to extend that idea into bizarre HBD-Nordicism, and stretching facts to fit into some overarching theory of heritable group differences to explain even relatively shallow differences in national behavior.  In both cases, instead of following the scientific method of hypothesis falsification, we instead observe cherry picking, hand waving, obfuscation, and “just so stories” to defend ideas that have run long past supporting data (and in fact have run into a wall of falsifying data).  These errors and excesses however do not invalidate some of the core ideas that in their broadest interpretation have so far survived critical analysis. Just because the idea of group evolutionary differences in intelligence and behavior has been over-interpreted does not invalidate the core concept.

Factual Truth vs. Practical Truth

Live not by lies – Aleksander Solzhenitsyn.

In the last section (“ethics”) of On Genetic Interests, Salter discusses the distinction made by David Sloan Wilson (in reference to religion, but the concept is generally applicable to varied memes, paradigms, and beliefs) of factual truth vs. practical truth. Factual truth is what is in accordance (to the best of our ability to determine) with objective reality, it represents the results of empirical materialist inquiry. Practical truth is what people may believe, often regardless of facts and of objective reality, which may be adaptive to believe even if false. Thus, the relevant quotes from Wilson, in more detail than what was quoted by Salter, can be found reproduced here:

Rational thought is treated as the gold standard against which religious belief is found so wanting that it becomes well-nigh inexplicable. Evolution causes us to think about the subject in a completely different way. Adaptation becomes the gold standard against which rational thought must be measured alongside other modes of thought. In a single stroke, rational thought becomes necessary but not sufficient to explain the length and breadth of human mentality, and the so-called irrational features of religion can be studied respectfully as potential adaptations in their own right rather than as idiot relatives of rational thought…If there is a trade-off between the two forms of realism, such that our beliefs can become more adaptive only by becoming factually less true, then factual realism will be the loser every time...Factual realists detached from practical reality were not among our ancestors. It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.

At first glance, Wilson seems correct. This, of course, as stated above, doesn’t only apply to religion. Yockey’s Imperium is inspiring to many, including myself, and promotes some Whites to act in an adaptive fashion in defense of their Race-Culture, despite the reality that much of the book can be considered “”irrational” practical truth rather than empirical factual truth.  See more here.

Myths about the history of a people, nation, race, etc. may fall into this category, beliefs in the goodness and superiority of your people, even if not based on reality, may fall into this category – indeed, many memes, paradigms, and beliefs could in theory be adaptive even if false and nonsensical.

But if you look at this issue more closely, if you consider net effects, costs vs. benefits, the situation in modern society, and the pitfalls of basing adaptive fitness on irrational beliefs and falsehoods, one begins to see flaws in Wilson’s argument. The initial superficial acceptance of Wilson’s assertion falls into question once one more fully considers its implications.

Consider the following:

• Assume that the adaptive fitness of your people is dependent on practical truth X.
• Practical truth X is false; it is contrary to factual truth.
• Enemies of your people’s adaptive fitness expose this falseness to your people, destroying their faith in X.
• Therefore, with X delegitimized, adaptive fitness suffers and your people are endangered.

Nietzsche’s “God is dead” essentially dealt with the collapse of hardcore Christian religious faith in the West under the concentrating light of science and free intellectual inquiry. The resulting nihilism has in part led to a crisis of confidence in the West, depressed birthrates, and promoting surrender in the face of militant Islam. Some say we need a revival of the Christian faith to battle this, but that is like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.  And there are other problems with Wilson's approach, particularly with respect to religion, as the next section of my essay will illustrate.

Alternatively, an enemy of your adaptive fitness and that of your people may twist practical truth X into a meme that is now openly destructive of that adaptive fitness, a distortion of X made easier by the reality that X is false and has no objective grounding in factual truth. Another possibility is that X was originally based on something truly maladaptive, but was modified by your people to become adaptive, but now is leveraged by enemies of your people's adaptive fitness to be maladaptive once again. Think of how (Christian) religion can be used to promote mass immigration and other maladaptive choices to White populations, even if religion has been in the past adaptive at a national level, and may still influence fitness on the individual and familial levels.

Yet another scenario could be as follows. Imagine that rejection of science leads to short term enhanced fitness; a people that rejects science, and embraces the most irrational religious beliefs, reproduces better than others (there are data supporting higher fecundity for the religious and/or for those less educated and/or for those with lower IQs). Very well. That may work in the short term. But what if the population is faced with some sort of existential catastrophe that could have been prevented, or could be effectively dealt with, by science, and the rejection of science results in the population’s diminishment or possibly even their extinction? What if they are conquered and enslaved, possibly exterminated, by a competing people who accept science and are skilled at technics? 

It would seem therefore best to have practical truth that significantly overlaps with factual truth; it is best for your practical truth to have a firm grounding in objective reality, or at least to be at least minimally defensible based on some degree of concordance with facts. 

Let us again consider Imperium and other work from Yockey. Actually, much of the most “irrational” and nonsensical aspects of that work have minimal effect on the work’s main message; further, the most key aspects of the work could be viewed as defensible in light of objective reality and/or are issues that are independent of truth vs. falsehood and are a matter of choice and will. Thus, I do not believe that support for Yockey’s work necessarily invalidates the points made in this essay. The importance of factual truth remains even with Yockey's work.

Attempting to build an infrastructure of adaptive practical truth on the weak foundation of irrational, objectively untrue, and/or unproven memes leads to an instability that puts adaptive fitness in potential future peril. The danger that discovery of the falsehood of the practical truth can be used to delegitimize the adaptive fitness, the genetic (and other) interests, based on that practical truth, will always exist. That does not seem to be an evolutionarily stable situation.

But what about arguments that a reliance on practical truth has indeed evolved, proving its evolutionary stability and effectiveness? 

We no longer live in the same environment that our ancestors evolved in. Practical truth independent of factual truth becomes more and more unstable in a world full of flexible strategizers, hostile to you adaptive fitness, who have access to the Internet, with facts available instantly and instant global communication to spread those facts and to invalidate your practical truth. Even before the Internet, there were other forms of mass communication and even before that, books, schools, and intellectuals, all of which were targeting the falsehoods possibly inherent in practical truth. 

A major objective of the Sallis Groupuscule is a the formation of a Far Right with a firm basis in objective reality, embracing science and technics, compatible with intellectual inquiry, and striving to get practical truth to converge on factual truth to the extent possible.  I object to rigid dogmas of the Far Right and, in general, the equally rigid identities we have of Right vs. Left (e.g., if you are of the Right, you have to be a “Flubro” hostile to public health measures against covid-19) and of the fixed identity of the "movement" (you have to believe in HBD “race realism” or Nordicism or whatever). I want to promote flexible thinking, evaluating ideas on their own merits, while at the same time still being adaptive.

Thus, the issue of factual truth vs. practical truth is of great importance to my political work in all of these endeavors.

Odds and Ends, 8/11/21

In der news.

Putting aside Cairnsian theories of "induced mutations" and focusing on the accepted neo-Darwinian paradigm, then vaccines, or anything else, is not "causing" mutations. The mutations in covid-19, or anywhere else, occur randomly, and selective pressures affect which of the mutations increase in frequency. To put it in a crude anthromorphic sense, the virus "wants" to replicate its genome and mutations that promote spread will be favored. I note that a vaccine that controls symptoms but doesn't much affect infection and transmission (like covid vaccines with the delta variant) is not going to be selecting for mutation for the most part. The virus does not "want" to cause illness, it merely "wants" to replicate.

In any case, selection for mutation is no more a reason to avoid vaccination than selection for therapy resistance is a reason for a cancer patient to refuse treatment and just sit back and die.

Consider the following. Imagine someone had to bet their life - a life vs. death wager - on whether something they profess to believe is actually true or not. Do you think they'd still insist on moon landing hoax, moon as a hologram, flat Earth, atom bombings being napalm and mustard gas, and all of the anti-vaxx stuff?

The affirmative action ratchet in the American "movement" works thus: Southern and Eastern European activists are willing to accept NW European leaders - indeed all "leaders" of the American "movement" have been such, particularly "WASPs." On the other hand, NW European activists are not, repeat not, willing to have Southern or Eastern European leaders; hence, the leadership pool is restricted only to NW Europeans, especially "Anglos."

Der Movement weeps; Liddell has a nervous breakdown.

Some say that this is a hoax.  Those men familiar with the perfidious yeastbucket know better. Thus:

To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth. Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

On the other hand, the bride’s terror need not be extreme. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it.

It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness cannot be expected from the average man.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency.

Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife’s best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction.

Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the end of the first year of marriage and to once a month by the end of the fifth year of marriage.

By their tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home.

Just as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as possible…

Anything to divide Europeans against each other is grist for the mill for HBDers, including the HBD Nordicists.

The paper that MacDonald is hyper-ventilating about (which is interesting) actually deals with intra-ethnic variation, as it looks at the components of the different ancestries within Estonians (and "Siberian" is a component there...no surprise if you've been reading my material).

Now, the findings likely will apply to the broad European context, fair enough, but full and honest disclosure would be to admit that the paper looks within a single Northern European ethny.

Interesting article by Dr. Frank Salter.

This has to be the perfect YouTube video for Millennial Alt Right jackasses: Who is the manlet?

Racism is Not Mental Illness

A brief argument.

See this.  That Counter-Currents essay is fine as far as it goes (*), but I would like to make two brief further arguments against the latest politicized fad (**) of attempting to equate “racism” with “mental illness.” I make the arguments of (1) adaptive fitness and (2) universalism.

1. Adaptive fitness. The essence of what is traditionally considered “racism” – preference for one’s racial ingroup and hostility to racial outgroups when those outgroups are in competition with the ingroup – is quite obviously adaptive behavior, given the greater genetic similarity of ingroup vs. outgroup (***). Further, “racism” can produce mutually beneficial networks of “ethnic nepotism” among ingroup members, as well as the production and maintenance of a culture congenial to the ingroup, both of which boosts the biological fitness of the ingroup compared to outgroups.  

To label adaptive behavior “pathological” is objectively an oxymoron. Indeed, labeling a group’s adaptive behavior as “pathological” is an act of aggression against that group – serving someone else’s adaptive interests – and, ironically, can itself be considered “racism” against the group so targeted.

See this for more about the genetic interests involved. “Racism” can prevent ingroup genocide, it can prevent the dispossession and displacement of one’s people, and benefit each member of the group whose individual interests are protected by the “racism” that benefits the whole.

2. Universalism. The same standards of mental health vs. mental illness should apply to all peoples, especially if we are to accept the “non-racist” universalism of the System/Left. Then how to explain that the same behaviors that are labeled “pathological racism” in Whites are labeled as “healthy expressions of identity,” “enlightened self-interest,” and/or “justifiable group defense” when applied to non-Whites? How and why is “mental illness” contingent upon the racial identity of those diagnosed?

No doubt the System/Left will trot out their typical sophistry attempting to explain why only Whites can be racist, but this simply exposes their particularism and rejection of Universalist truths – in fact, a rejection of the “anti-racism” they wish to impose specifically and only on White behavior.

When any behavior – much less adaptive behavior! – is labeled as mental illness in one group but labeled as healthy expression in another group, alarm bells should go off. And when that behavior is indeed adaptive, the uneven labeling reflects nothing more or less than a thinly disguised attack on the group whose adaptive behavior is hypocritically pathologized and unfairly stigmatized.

If the System/Left wants to be exercise particularism, rather than universalism, on this subject, in opposition to their oft-stated alleged fundamental Universalist beliefs, then they expose both their hypocrisy and their anti-White animus. If Whites are “special” in the negative sense in that only their “racism” is a symptom of “mental illness,” then why shouldn’t pro-Whites adopt a positive particularism in defense of their race?  

Particularism is inexorably linked to “racism” – thus, if the System/Left supports particularism, then this gives moral legitimacy to “racism,” and if they fall back on universalism, then their attacks against a specifically White form of “racism” is hypocritical and illegitimate.  

Note that my arguments can also be turned around to support the idea (asserted in the Counter-Currents article) that xenophilia is true mental illness, as xenophilia  works against adaptive fitness; further, the (Universalist) human norm is to be ethnocentric, which, to the System/Left, is acceptable and healthy for all groups except Whites.

Notes:

*However, given that Greg Johnson is in the habit of ascribing “insanity” to his critics, that essay is hypocritical.

**That homosexuality was first a mental illness and then not, purely on the basis of sociopolitical trends, indicates the biases involved, which the Counter-Currents essay rightfully mentions.

***When individuals use the “relative finder” function of whatever personal genetic ancestry test that they have taken – a reasonably objective feature of such tests as it compares genetic kinship (similarity) between different customers – what do they find?  Almost always they find matches to people from the same race as them, many deriving from the same or similar ethnic ancestry.  And why not?  Race and ethnicity are akin to large scale extended families, and ethnic nepotism is just a broader and more diluted version of familial nepotism – with the adaptive value of the broadness (the numbers involved) more than compensating (by several orders of magnitude) the dilution of the relatedness.

Human Symbiosis

What can we say about symbiosis in human interactions?

Read this.

Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις "living together", from σύν "together" and βίωσις "living")[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.

See the diagram.

Let’s consider some aspects of symbiosis in human interactions, with an emphasis on inter-ethny relations.  This is not meant to be a comprehensive or final determination but merely an introduction, so these paradigms can be applied in future discussions when and where appropriate.

From the standpoint of gross EGI - looking at ethnic genetic interests without doing a full “balancing of the books” with respect to all the costs and benefits that determine the final outcome of adaptive fitness – then the presence of any genetically distinct minority group (no matter how small the genetic distance to the majority group) within a majoritarian state will exhibit parasitism, or at least amensalism, with respect to the majority group. The majority group is always harmed by the presence of the minority group with respect to gross EGI because the fixed carrying capacity of the territory reduces the final number of majority members that can fill that niche space, due to the presence of the minority group. This is akin to Yockey’s “Culture Parasitism” in which the parasitic group (in Yockey’s thesis, the outgroup is defined in terms of culture rather than genetics) reduces the numbers of the host High Culture majority group.  If the parasitic group benefits (as is usual) from living in the territory of the majority group that is parasitism; if there is no benefit, it is amensalism. The majority is harmed in all cases.  If the majority fights back, then we have competition, which can be harmful to both sides.

This conflict can end once assimilation of the minority group takes place; the minority becomes part of the majority so that symbiosis per se is not relevant.  However, the genetic costs to the majority of assimilating the minority is harmful to the EGI of the original majority stock (and is of course harmful to that of the minority stock). Once assimilation is complete however, we have a new people with its own set of genetic (and other) interests.

What about net EGI - the final, adaptive fitness outcome when the “balancing of the books” is complete – as well as proximate interests?  We can consider the various types of symbiosis.

Mutualism – both groups benefit.  For groups living in different polities it is possible - there can be alliances, cultural or economic exchanges, many possible types of mutualistic interactions, particularly between relatively closely related groups. For groups living in the same polity, this becomes more problematic.  One can envision two relatively similar groups supporting each other in competition with more alien competing outgroups – and this alliance become more tenable when the closely related allied groups are undergoing inter-marriage and assimilation. The various European ethnic groups in America are an example of this. Of course, this imposes costs on gross EGI; however, it may, dependent upon context, boost net EGI, if the benefits of the alliance - e.g., outcompeting the more genetically and culturally alien outgroups – outweigh the genetic costs in diluting a more concentrated EGI.

Commensalism – one group benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. Commensalism is common in individual or small scale human interactions.  Person A throws out some garbage, while person B finds that garbage useful and derives benefit from it. B is helped, while A is neither helped nor harmed.  It is difficult to think of examples – even when disregarding gross EGI – where larger scale human interactions within the same territory are truly commensal.  Perhaps, interactions between different separate nations can be commensal – the byproducts (even memetic) of one nation/people/ethny benefit another and the originator of the product is neither helped nor harmed.  But if both groups are residing in the same niche space, truly authentic examples of commensalism would be relatively rare.  Usually there are at least some benefits or harms, even if relatively marginal, to one group in contrast to the more obvious benefit enjoyed by another group. Unfortunately, many human interactions in the same niche space is zero sum game – parasitism, predation, and competition will be more common than commensalism. Given the relatively rarity of a true lack of effects on large groups, mutualism will be more common than commensalism as well.

Parasitism – one group benefits while harming the other group is harmed. The classic example is of Jews living in White nations, with the Jews benefiting and the Whites being harmed. This has been such a constant paradigm throughout history that a Wikipedia article has been made on it.  Of course, in some cases, Jewish parasitism descends into predation and/or if the afflicted host peoples fight back, competition.

Bowery’s ideas about extended phenotypes in human groups - as an extension of some of Dawkins’ work – are relevant here. One group controls the behavior of a second group so that the former benefits and the latter are harmed; here the second group acts as the extended phenotype of the first.  Jews controlling the societal milieu so as to modify White gentile behavior for Jewish benefit (and White harm) comes to mind; thus, White gentiles often become the extended phenotypes of Jews. The Whites are unable to control their own behavior and behave self-destructively to serve Jewish interests.

Are White HBDers the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians, particularly East Asians?  Were “White ethnic” members of the National Alliance the extended phenotype of William Pierce? 

Free-riding also comes into play here. When one group benefits from collective social goods to which they do not contribute, they benefit while the contributing groups are often harmed, since they carry the burden of contributing not only for themselves but for the non-contributing group. That is parasitism.

Predation – one group openly attacks and destroys the other.  For example, considering the role Jews play in America controlling sociopolitical systems to benefit themselves at the expense of Whites, that can be considered parasitism; however, considering Jews in the Soviet Union killing millions of Slavs, that is predation. The criminal attacks of Coloreds against Whites in multiracial nations is also predation, although of course parasitism is another key feature of Colored-White relations (typically, Coloreds benefit while Whites are harmed, although Negro slavery can be an example of the reverse). Race replacement, displacement, and White flight are examples of parasitism moving into predation, with undertones of competition when, rarely, Whites resist.

Neutralism – no effects for either group. Neutralism is possible between peoples living in separate nations, but for people living in the same territory, neutralism is extremely unlikely. There will be some types of positive and negative effects for either or both groups. There may be limited examples of very closely related groups living in the same polity that can have, in certain contexts and for certain periods of time, neutralistic relations, but that is rare.  More distant groups are unlikely to be neutralistic, even when disregarding gross EGI, because the differences between them will always manifest in proximate frictions that affect net EGI.

Amensalism – one group suffers no benefit or harm, but the other group is harmed.  Like commensalism, this is expected to be rare, since it is unlikely that the harm to one group in a polity would not benefit another. Perhaps there can be examples with relatively closely related groups.  If the groups are in separate nations it can be possible that the activities of one harms the other without benefiting the one causing the harm.  Symbiosis in which both groups are affected in some way would be more common than that in which one or both groups are not affected at all.

Competition – both groups are harmed. Competition is considered harmful to both sides, and often this is the case, at least until one side emerges victorious (if such occurs), after which the relationship may change (to, e.g., assimilation, parasitism, etc.).  

Both Yockey and MacDonald have written that the reaction against an intrusive group, even when necessary, can harm the group resisting.  If I recall, Yockey invoked the analogy of a fever, which, while helpful in combating the invasive pathogen, also harms, at least in the short run, the invaded host.

On the other hand, one can think of situations where, in the long term, competition could be beneficial to one or both sides even in the absence of a “final victory.”  Some would say one reason why Europe had so many advancements was the competition between different European nations – a completion that forced and fostered a constant “arms race” of competitive advantages – as opposed of a centralized massive Chinese state lacking in the dynamism of such constant internal turmoil. Of course, today, the level of competition is global, so the same dynamism could be provoked by a confederation of Europe vs. China.  

However, if one defines competition as something which is inherently harmful to both sides, then a situation in which competition is beneficial to one side but not the other would be, for example, parasitism and if beneficial to both sides, mutualism.  

The problem in putting predation into the completion category in that sense is that one could argue that predation benefits the predator (although there are risks in predation, sometimes the prey can kill the predator). One could argue that natural selection from predators improves the prey – mutualism?  It’s complicated.

It is of course possible for the types of symbiosis to change over time (e.g., from parasitism to predation). In heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage, the typical trajectory is that the relationship starts out as mutualism (both sides benefit) then transitions to commensalism (female benefits, male is neutral), and then ends up as parasitism (female benefits, male is harmed).  If the marriage ends up in divorce, female parasitism on the male can become extreme, even moving into predation. Note than even during the mutualism phase, the male can be considered as the extended phenotype of the female, with male behavior controlled through sexual exploitation. Also see this. The man is hormonally domesticated so as to be exploited by the woman in marriage.

Ultimately, the woman is to the man as the Jew is to the gentile.

What is observed in marriage can apply on a broader scale to relations between ethnies.

Welfare Chauvinism?

Various issues.

Laugh at this.

“Welfare chauvinism” has been a particularly potent trend among far-right parties in recent years, combining xenophobic rhetoric with promises of lavish social safety nets. Such parties often claim, for instance, that too much immigration puts a strain on welfare resources and they promise more spending on “deserving native” voters if borders can be closed to “non-deserving” migrants. Our findings lead us to think that neurotic voters could end up being a key target for such tactics. Neurotics, after all, do seem to take social policy very personally.

That's typical leftist pathologization of rightist dissent and nationalist-populist politics.

How about this – leftist politics is a real psychological pathology since it is objectively maladaptive from the standpoint of biological fitness, causing Whites to be demographically replaced by other peoples, destroying the genetic continuity of the ethny of the White leftist while increasing the fitness of genetically distant competitors. That’s suicidal masochism – let's have some studies on that.

Let’s see – what is more biologically adaptive – to use your state’s resources to support the well-being, continuity, and reproduction of your own people, or to import genetic aliens and to use the resources to support them at your own expense?  The Left thinks that the former is ”neurotic” why the latter is perfectly normal and admirable.

And do you know who else uses “neuroticism” to pathologize opponents – HBDers like Dutton (e.g., re: “Vegan Gains” [*] - my own labelling of Dutton as “neurotic” is mocking him for his antics in that regard).

Isn’t it nice to have all these “Arctic Alliance” “cognitive elitists” living amongst us?

The subjects of the checks appear to be members of the public who were unlucky and got too close to the man, a 30-something local resident who went to Wuhan to visit relatives.

But, hey, a vast pandemic is a small price to pay so that “awkward squad” omega White males can get laid with Asiatic females who have the secondary sexual characteristics of prepubescent boys.

Not a lot of sexual dimorphism there, huh?

How to stay safe from the Wuhan Plague?  Quarantine China.  Repatriate all individuals of Chinese descent living outside China to China. Derbyshire weeps.

Criticizing the Alt Right diet from 15:47 to 17:30.  Pepe weeps.  Kek puts down the milk jug.

The short-sighted:

Greg Johnson

Posted January 23, 2020 at 5:23 am | Permalink

I think the internet has largely made printed pamphlets obsolete, and online censorship is not so severe that people cannot find our sites with a little effort.

Yeah…those printed pamphlets are obsolete up until the point that online censorship reaches the same point payment processing deplatforming is today.  Having a hard copy analog capability is simply sound contingency planning (something the Quota Queens are abysmal at) and, even today, demonstrates a real world presence that tells folks that the “Far Right” is not just a bunch of guys sniggering like Beavis-and-Butthead in podcasts.

*I do not support veganism nor “Vegan Gains” but that’s not the point.  The language used by 'Vegan Gains" is just typical Millennial posturing.  If that’s “neuroticism” then the majority of your wonderful Alt Righters are neurotic as well. Also, no doubt, the fellow was (justifiably) triggered by Dutton’s typical HBDer behavior – obnoxious arrogance, absolute moral certitude while stating factually incorrect nonsense, insulting comments, and the pathologization of opposing opinions and ideas.

Misleading Immigration Study, Italian Cucks, Alt Right Grifters, Mason Paternity, and Other News

In der news.  Emphasis added.

While Unz should be happy about this, in reality it is misleading nonsense for several reasons:

1.  With respect to illegal aliens, as the name implies, their very presence in this country is a violation of law, so they have a “criminal rate” of 100%, which is higher than that of any grouping of natives (even Blacks, believe it or not).

2. Comparing immigrants to natives is misleading from a racial basis. How about comparing immigrants to White Americans?  How about comparing immigrants to Black “Americans?” Hispanic “Americans?” And, I suppose Asians and Jews as well.  Let’s have the full data.

3. If you want to know the full impact of immigration on crime, you cannot stop the analysis with the immigrants themselves, but we must consider their descendants.  What does the next generation look like?

4. Most important of all, the immigration problem is not really about crime, or “the economy,” or any other such thing, but the genetic and cultural displacement and replacement of native populations.  Let’s assume that immigrants really have lower crime rates.  Very well.  I suppose then we can lower crime in America by replacing the entire native population with immigrants. That would lower the crime rate real well.  And the natives benefit how, by that?

5. By the way, although immigration will eventually replace the native population, given carrying capacity and differential birthrates, etc. – the immediate situation, at the national level, is not so much replacement as mere addition.  So, even if the crime rate among (legal) immigrants is a bit lower, we are adding that population, and all of its criminal element, to that of natives, are we not?  And what about at the city level?  If you argue that increased immigration into a city is lowering the crime rate, you logically imply that the immigrants are replacing natives (who are being pushed out) – supporting the “replacement narrative.”  You can’t have it both ways.  If immigrants are actually lowering crime in an area, rather than just adding criminals at a slightly lower rate, then population replacement is occurring.  Or do you claim that immigrants increase total crime, but that the rate is less per capita?  Which is it?

Zman:

I’ve also been asked by other content creators to join the merchant right, because it helps reinforce the notion that a culture war is not won on love. It takes money to run these sites and many of the people doing it have no other way to make a living. 

Let’s translate that:

I’ve also been asked by Alt Right grifters who live off of “D’Nations” to join them in their parasitical lifestyle, because when folks like me offer free content, it makes the tin cup panhandlers look bad.  If everyone is out for the shekels, then no one stands out as a money-grubbing useless exploiter of the rank-and-file.  It takes money to run these sites – except for the people who somehow do it for nothing - and many of the people doing it have no other way to make a living, which is precisely why they are doing it in the first place.

A HBD commentator writes:

Puzzled by this blind acceptance of natural selection. While it seems logical that the fittest will survive to reproduce, just take a look at our species. Do the fittest have the most children?

Excuse me, idiot, but since “fitness” in biological terms means genetic representation in the next generation, and not any of the proximate traits that HBDers and Nutzis hyperventilate over, then, yes, by definition, the “fittest” will have the most children (who survive and themselves reproduce).  Having the most children is what makes them “fit.” If you want to make criticisms about circular reasoning, fine, that can be debated among philosophers of scientific discourse, but please stop with the ignorant drivel on how “natural selection is wrong because stupid and useless people have more children.” That’s not how it works.

Welcome to Asia.

Welcome to MGTOW.

Italian cucks.

While the anti-Jewish laws of 1938 had been "a mistake, a shame"...

Based Caio!

More recently Matteo Salvini, leader of the League and Italy's interior minister, has said that "a lot of things got done" under Italy's Fascist government, hailing Mussolini's infrastructure projects and pension system while dismissing his race laws as "madness".

Based Salvini!  Cuckadoodledoo!  Note picture at bottom.  Dem dere Viking Northern Italians.  The ultimate Nordic phenotype exemplified in that photo.  

Based Italy!

Cucked by a Jew?

Mrs Mason’s had insisted that each son should have a Jewish middle name and her former husband, who now lives with his new wife in Rhos, North Wales, believes this detail could provide a clue to the biological father’s identity.

Now, for the infertile Mason, the damage was emotional and financial.  But imagine a fertile man who is tricked into raising another man’s children, while actually having none of his own. That is murder of his genetic continuity; in my opinion, any woman guilty of deceiving about paternity should be subject to the death penalty. The biological father cuckolder should also be subject to that ultimate sanction if he was a willing participant in the deception (however, it is always possible that the woman tricked him into believing she was unmarried and he may not know he fathered a child).

Nice woman, eh?  Joan of Arc, eh Greg?

The yeastbuckets are all the same. All “fathers” should genetically test their paternity one way or another. And while 23andMe tests stink for ancestry, they do chromosome matching, so they can be used to confirm paternity if you want to do it in a more indirect, discreet fashion. Indeed, for any SJW polities that outlaw paternity testing, men should see if 23andMe is still available.  If the child is yours, you’ll match 50% of chromosomes – if that match does not occur, get a good lawyer, my friends.

IQ in the military in Vietnam.

Nazi ideology trumped military practicality.  Note Japanese betrayal with respect to the USSR (remember my debate with “Kumiko” about that – Sallis right, once again).

Well, who would do better?  Brimelow?

A Weak Religious Argument

A religious HBDer: the worst of both worlds.

Read this.

The existence of God, gods or some supernatural force that animates the universe is unknowable. The big religions get that, which is why it is at the core of those faiths. For that matter, what we understand to be the universe could just be a kid’s science experiment in another dimension. Our world exists in a terrarium on the desk of some kid in the lizard people dimension. These are things we cannot know. That is the nature of faith.

That is nonsense.  It is part of the Western intellectual and legal tradition – actually going back as far as the Classical civilization – that the burden of proof rests on those making the assertion.  To argue that something – no matter how ludicrous – may be true just because we lack 100% definitive evidence that it is not true is no argument at all. That is true sophistry.  If you want to make such an “argument” why not invent a religion worshiping the lizard boy who has our world in a “terrarium” on his desk?  Why not?  What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Why not a religion centered on an omnipotent rodent who can control the weather?  

Well, we'll be told it is "faith" and no proof is required.  Very well, but then again, why not faith in Lizard Boy or the Cult of Phil?

If the argument goes that Christianity specifically has been part of Western culture and has been adaptive, then “has” is past tense.  We can argue whether Christianity made the West, or the reverse, but as far as adaptive fitness goes, that is dependent on context.  One phenotype may be adaptive in one environment and not in another. The phenotype may be altered by the environment and be no longer adaptive; one cannot project adaptive fitness of one context to another.  A religion whose main figure literally – not figuratively but literally – grovels at the feet of alien invaders is not a religion fit for a people at risk for genocidal race replacement.  Sterner stuff than “turn the other cheek” is required.

And as far as the argument that “we need to retake the religion of our ancestors” – well, it is up to religious Christian believers to get it done.  Why expect us “crazy” atheists to do your work for you?  If Christianity is such a powerful toolkit of Western adaptive fitness then surely the sane and powerful Christian believers should be able to seize their religion back from the radical Left, no?  

Of course, if the present self-destructive cult of masochistic Christ-Insanity is not a perversion of the “one true faith,” but actually is the underlying premises of that faith taken to their natural conclusions, then no renaissance of “muscular Western Christianity” is going to be possible.