More Defense of the EGI Concept

More on Salterism.

Some critics of so-called “Salterism” and critics of me for defending the EGI concept (Lawrence of Alternative Right as one example) get offended when I mock their (repeatedly refuted) “critiques” and state that the EGI concept is “self-evident.”  That last part really seems to annoy them. But to understand why I say that let’s simply look at the basic premises underlying EGI. These are premises that any honest person, with an objective understanding of genetics, race, and evolutionary biology, must agree with. While we can understand mendacious race-denying leftists screeching incoherently against “racist” facts, one would assume that the allegedly more “race realist” Right would have no problem with the following:

• 1. There are genetic differences between population groups.
• 2. Members of these groups (at least at the racial level and in many, likely most, cases at lower levels as well) are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to other groups (this obvious fact was formally demonstrated at least by the year 2007).
• 3. According to evolutionary biology and the generally accepted neo-Darwinian understanding, it is adaptive to promote the interests of those more genetically similar to you than those more distant. Even academics like Brigandt – trotted out by anti-EGI HBDers in an attempt to refute ethnic nepotism – agree with this general premise.  Apart from hardcore ideological crazies, this really isn’t up for debate any more.
• 4. The concept of genetic relatedness and the pursuit of adaptive fitness (inclusive fitness) is context dependent. Thus, if the entire world was composed of just one ethnic group, there would be no ethnic genetic interests per se (since there is a common ethnic genetic background), but there would be personal and familial genetic interests, as some people within this population are more closely related than others (e.g., family kin).  But in a world of different and competing ethnic and racial groups, in the context of making choices between co-ethnics and others, there are ethnic genetic interests based on the genetic differences between groups (multiplied by their large numbers). Of course, in the latter scenario, personal and familial interests still count, but given ethnic conflict, higher level ethnic interests often must be prioritized. Also, the ever-inventive critics of EGI always come up with fanciful, unrealistic scenarios in which they claim adherence to EGI would not be adaptive. That approach is ludicrous because one can invent any number of bizarre scenarios to invalidate just about any normative behavior. Rational people deal with rules that apply to real-life scenarios that constitute some of the most serious problems of our time, including ethnic conflict and race replacement. Grasping frauds waste time trying to distract us from reality.

I say that EGI is self-evident because it is self-evident.  One can expect the crazed Left – that tells us that there are no differences between Europeans, Africans, and Asians, but that Europeans are uniquely evil and must be replaced – would reject the premises listed above. But the Right?

EGI is truth. That doesn’t change just because you endlessly cite HBD talking points that have been repeatedly refuted for the past twenty years. It also doesn’t change because you repeatedly quote, completely out of context, a single sentence from Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Those behaviors just make you look like a moronic contrarian, a retarded buffoon.

Some links to my various defenses of the EGI concept (“Salterism”) can be found here. Rather than repeat any of that, I’ll link to this piece by Salter. With respect to the free rider objection:

…members of bands and tribes can behave altruistically without being selected out by free riders. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) argued from his field observations that mutual monitoring, ubiquitous in small-scale societies, is sufficient to suppress cheating. He pointed to the pronounced group identity and mutual support found in primitive societies, and argued that this originated in kinship bonds. The cohesion of band and tribal societies makes them units of selection, Eibl argued. This point was elaborated by Boyd and Richerson (1992), who argue that monitoring and punishment are so effective in small scale societies that they allow the evolution of cooperation, or any other characteristic that is promoted by a culturally-governed group strategy.

Whether or not one accept that group selection has figured in human evolution, the mechanisms advanced by group selectionists are sufficient to allow a more conservative process, extended kin selection, to occur. In fact this is what Eibl has always meant by his version of group selection.

A final mechanism deserving of mention is collective goods. A criticism of extended kin selection is that it is impossible for an individual effectively to invest in a kin group much larger than a family, because the benefit would be spread so thinly that the payoff would always be greater from investing in close kin, rather than distant ones. Goetze (1998) has dispelled this concern. He draws on economic theory to argue that by contributing to collective goods—such as hunting large game animals or defending the group—allows an individual to confer a large fitness benefit on a large number of individuals.

So there is no mechanical problem with the feasibility of individuals showing altruism to kin groups larger than the extended family. Indeed, all these mechanism—control of free-riders, bonding the group, and choosing or fashioning collective goods—are highly scalable. They can be increased in scale to accommodate a kin group of any size.

See here for a published analysis, using computer simulations, demonstrating the dominance of ethnocentric behavior over free riding and “humanitarianism.” Salter is of course correct, and his critics wrong. The evidence supporting EGI is so strong, and is repeated throughout so many different domains of analysis, that I believe I am justified is terming the concept self-evident.  I am also justified in ascribing either mendacity or stupidity to its critics.

With respect to inclusive fitness extending beyond the family into ethnic kin and moving beyond simple genealogical identity by descent to identity by state (that is a deeper level of identity by descent, after all, at least when talking about ethny) with respect to genetic similarity, see this from Salter:

The point that inclusive fitness processes can operate between individuals merely on the basis of genetic similarity, without any genealogical information, is critical, and I quote Hamilton’s commentary on this theoretical advance.

“Because of the way it was first explained [by Hamilton], the approach using inclusive fitness has often been identified with “kin selection” and presented strictly as an alternative to “group selection” as a way of establishing altruistic social behaviour by natural selection. But…kinship should be considered just one way of getting positive regression of genotype in the recipient, and that it is this positive regression that is vitally necessary for altruism. Thus the inclusive fitness concept is more general than “kin selection” ” (Hamilton 1975, pp. 140-41; [p. 337 in the 1996 reprint]).

This frees the analyst from the “identical by descent” clause in Hamilton’s original (1964) formulation, allowing the direct measurement of kinship processes using genetic assay data…

In response to HBD-inspired lies that kinship is not significant past immediate family, and is irrelevant to ethny, here is Harpending's paper describing the basic fundamentals Salter used (with Harpending's assistance) in On Genetic Interests.

The coefficient of kinship between two diploid organisms describes their overall genetic similarity to each other relative to some base population. For example, kinship between parent and offspring of 1/4 describes gene sharing in excess of random sharing in a random mating population. In a subdivided population the statistic Fst describes gene sharing within subdivisions in the same way. Since Fst among human populations on a world scale is reliably 10 to 15%, kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined.

Now, with respect to Brigandt-like arguments about “the evolution of…XYZ” I have stated many times that EGI is a rational prescriptive argument has no need for the “evolution” of anything – general domain behavior can be applied to pursuing ethnic interests (genetic or otherwise).  Just as humans did not have to evolve a specific ability to use a computer but rather just evolved the cognitive and behavioral traits that make such use possible, nor is it necessary to evolve specific behaviors to pursue particular approaches to the pursuit of personal and group interests.  Having said that, any reasonable look at human history does support the idea of a descriptive validity of EGI to a considerable extent, particularly when we understand that various proxies for genetic relatedness (e.g., national identity and loyalty) have been used to mobilize human behavior. Salter writes:

Thus the second problem in understand the evolution of ethnocentrism the second is already solved, or well on its way to being solved. It’s the first problem that remains; indeed, it has hardly been addressed. To reiterate, was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed between them to have been adaptive?

Since, as stated, I don’t believe that the “evolution of…” argument has merit, I won’t reproduce any more of Salter’s riposte here; you can read what he wrote in the original article as well as, of course, in On Genetic Interests.

It is clear then that the EGI concept has survived repeated attempts at refutation. Again, the description of self-evident seems valid. Why then the opposition?  Well, it is quite clear why the Left would oppose the idea, people who deny the existence of race, who obfuscate genetic differences between groups, who object to Whites defending their group interests, and who promote an EGI-destroying multiracialism for White nations, will of course object to any paradigm that stands against their most fervent desires and most fundamental objectives. EGI is a threat to the entire globalist, multicultural experiment. But what about the Right?  Certainly, we can understand that the civic nationalists will also object to anything that disrupts the fictional “identity” of a multiracial nation and that stands against aracial constitutional patriotism. The religious Right tell us that all people are “children are God” and thus they would reject EGI for that reason. The Right is also anti-science, so that influences negative attitudes to EGI.  The Far Right has been infected by the HBD virus, so let’s look at why HBD opposes EGI and thus dissolves the natural affinity one would assume pro-White activists would have for EGI.

The idea that HBDers oppose Salterism because they sincerely believe it is wrong can be dismissed based on what is written above. HBDers may be mendacious, they may be evil, but they are not stupid. Obviously, they must know Salter is correct. When their own poster boy for opposition to ethnic nepotism – Brigandt – admitted in writing that favoring ethnic kin is adaptive (the essence of EGI), then, really, the mask is torn off. That leaves us to consider their motivation for lying to their followers by attacking an idea that they know is correct. 

The most charitable explanation is that they believe that their alternative view of society – aracial cognitive elitism – is the best option and they are willing to do anything, including engaging in the most outrageous fundamental dishonesty, in order to achieve their dream of “IQ nationalism” where “high IQ” Jews, Asians, and Whites (and whatever intelligent fractions of other groups) live in “Jeurasian” harmony.” A less charitable, but more realistic, interpretation is that HBD is a political movement of naked ethnic and personal self-interest by Jews, Asians, and Whites who have thrown in their lot with Jews and Asians for various reasons (intermarriage, “race realist” ideology, aesthetic preferences, or simply being traitors who help the enemy in exchange for something). Thus, the objective is a society dominated by “high IQ” Jews and Asians, with subaltern Whites as helots and a mixed-race Jeurasian managerial elite between the upper and lower strata of this “cognitive elitist” society. In essence, they want a society modeled after the family of a certain race-mixing White HBDer – ethnocentric Asians (and Jews) in charge, Whites engaging in “measured groveling” to their overlords, and Whites losing their racial integrity through “Jeuraisan” admixture, with of course Asians maintaining their racial integrity in their homogeneous homelands and a core of Jew maintaining themselves, in both Israel and in the Diaspora. Further, individuals (including Negroes – even though Negroes are typically denigrated by HBD) who have an agenda specifically against White nationalism, particularly the pan-European variety of White nationalism, will strategically support HBD in order to prevent the rise of “Whites only” kinship-based movements. 

Something else needs to be said. The same buffoons on the Right (Lawrence, for example) who attack EGI also attack MacDonald's term "group evolutionary strategies." That's interesting because the HBDers also attack that idea as well as EGI. Those with long memories recall Derbyshire's hit piece on MacDonald where Derbyshire mocked the idea of what a group evolutionary strategy is. After all, why would a White HBDer, married to a Chinese woman, and with half-Chinese children, have a problem with racial groups (like Whites and Asians, for example) being in competition, each with their own group evolutionary strategy?  A mystery it all is!  Just like it is a mystery why the South Asians of GNXP, and their White fellow travelers, would oppose the idea of Salter's EGI. All very mysterious indeed! Equally mysterious is why an ostensibly pro-White individual would follow the lead of transparently self-interested HBDers.

What about the potential accusation that I'm engaging in a logical fallacy by questioning the motivations of my opponents rather than engaging their ideas?  That is laughably false since I have been engaging with those ideas for the past twenty years, writing one long treatise after another defending EGI and group evolutionary strategies, and thoroughly refuting the criticisms of those paradigms. I think that after two decades of "engaging with their ideas" I'm now entitled to speculate on the motivations of those that continue to peddle the same nonsense (and for the most part refuse to engage with my ideas, by the way).

It should be obvious, however, that whatever the motivation of the HBDers, their anti-White ideology and agenda should be unalterably opposed by those who claim to be pro-White nationalists of one sort or another. That much of the “movement” supports HBD, and attacks EGI, clearly demonstrates how intellectually, politically, morally and spiritually bankrupt the “movement” really is.

Indeed, if one was to rationally criticize EGI, one could state that it does not go far enough – the original analysis depends on “beanbag genetics” – considering genes in an atomized fashion – and neglects genetic structure and genetic integration.  I’ve written about this previously and one can find that work on this blog so I need not get into that here, beyond repeating that the basic problem with EGI is not that it is wrong, but quite the opposite – it is so right that even its originator didn’t realize the full scope of its implications.

We should not let the critics of EGI off the hook by allowing them to simply regurgitate nonsense refuted years ago or quote individual Salter sentences out of context. If they believe EGI is wrong, they need to point out which of the four premises listed above are wrong. The Left no doubt would reject points one and two, demonstrating how they dabble in pseudoscientific "woke" nonsense. Those on the Right would (I hope) accept premises one and two. That leaves rightist EGI critics to target premises three and four. But if they say premises three and four are wrong, then they must believe that (a) making no distinction between genetically similar co-ethnics and genetically distant others is adaptive, or (b) it is more adaptive to favor genetically distant others than genetically similar co-ethnics.  Which is it? These idiots need to be held to account and they need to be put on the spot and tell us if they, like the Left, reject genetic science (premises one and two), or if they reject premises three and four and instead believe in (a) or (b). It has to be one of those choices. Being a contrarian buffoon or a gullible idiot who mindlessly swallows HBD swill is not sufficient. They have to make a stand about the four premises and point out what alternatives they support if they believe that those premises are wrong.

In any case, EGI-denial is, in my opinion, on par with Flat Earth, viruses don’t exist, and other example of rank stupidity. It is also equivalent to race denial, and is actually ideologically associated with that, since a denial of a biological basis for race would lead one to reject EGI as well. I have previously written that the “movement” attitude toward Salter’s work is perhaps my biggest disappointment in all my years of activism.  After all, I always knew that Nordicism was “baked into the cake” of the “movement,” but the idea that pro-White advocates would ignore and even attack an intellectual paradigm, produced by an academic, that is both manifestly true and also provides support for pro-White politics, is simply astonishing. If one thing demonstrates the utter depraved and retarded vacuity of the “movement,” well, that is it.

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference - or a difference without distinction - because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.

Thus:

1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary - do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? - is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.