TA and the JQ

Lessons from the world of bacteria for answering the Jewish Question (JQ).

Can the following hypothesis be part of the solution to the Cofnas conundrum, the issue of “right-wing” Jews and the idea that not all Jews go into anti-White activity? True enough, the "good Jews" are relatively few in number, and there are many, many more anti-White, leftist Jews (even controlling for “anti-Semitism”), but the Stephen Miller types demand an explanation. Therefore, what can we say about Cofnas' idea that as long as an entity is not explicitly "anti-Semitic," high-IQ Jews will rise to prominence solely due to their ability, not because of any Kevin MacDonald-style explanation? If one rejects Cofnas' hypothesis, as I do, given the tropism of most Jews toward destructive behavior, and the self-interested nature of (relatively rare) Jewish "good" behavior, is there an alternative? Is there another possibility, one that rejects Cofnas' perspective, but which also looks at the JQ from a fresh evolutionary perspective, using an example from biology that MacDonald did not consider in his work on this subject? Can we look to nature for a model to explain why Jews get involved in different sides of every issue, and why some Jews seem to oppose the destructive activities of their co-ethnics? Let us consider together.

See this, on the toxin-antitoxin (TA) system in bacteria. Bacteria can carry plasmids, which are circular, extrachromosomal pieces of DNA that encode genes. In the TA system, consider a plasmid that carries one gene that codes for a stable toxin protein that can kill the bacteria and another gene that codes for an unstable antitoxin protein that prevents the toxin from killing the bacteria. As long as the plasmid replicates and is inherited into bacterial daughter cells (bacterial cells produced when the original bacteria replicate), all is well for the bacteria. The unstable antitoxin, being continuously produced by the plasmid, protects the plasmid-carrying bacteria from the stable toxin. But if the plasmid is not inherited by the bacterial daughter cells, those daughter cells will not have the protective antitoxin produced by the plasmid, since the plasmid is no longer present. Since the antitoxin is unstable, and thus rapidly degraded, if there is no plasmid present continuously producing it, the antitoxin is not there to protect the bacteria from the toxin. Why is the toxin still there when there is no plasmid present to produce it?  Remember - it is stable. Thus, even though the toxin is also not being produced in daughter cells that lack plasmids, because it is stable, it will still be present in those cells at levels that are high enough to kill the bacteria (i.e., when the original plasmid-containing bacteria replicate, the stable toxin is still there to be passed down to the daughter cells even if those daughter cells do not inherit the plasmid).

Any bacterial daughter cell that does not contain the plasmid will be killed by the left-over stable toxin. This ensures that the plasmid must be present; there is selective pressure for the plasmid to be retained because without it the bacteria die. Thus, the TA system forces the bacteria to become “addicted” to the plasmid; by producing the stable toxin, the plasmid ensures that only through its (genetic) continuity can the bacteria survive.

Likewise, Jews produce stable cultural and biopolitical toxins (memes, multiracialism, etc.) for their host societies. Thus, the continuous presence of “right-wing” Jews, with their unstable efforts to detoxify the destructive culture produced by their co-ethnics, is required; their efforts are required for societal survival.  Jews in general produce the stable toxins, while a subset of Jews produce the unstable anti-toxins that attempt to mitigate the effects of the toxins produced by Jewry, toxins produced by what James Bowery termed “Jewish virulence.” For example, Jews as a group promote mass migration into White lands, which is a stable toxin manifested through long-term sustained Jewish efforts, while a few "right-wing" Jews then step in, as does Miller, providing a short-term effort (anti-toxin) to address the demographic and cultural damage of the Jewish toxins.

As long as the toxins are present, the anti-toxins are needed; hence, Jews force the host to maintain a Jewish presence in the hope that one set of Jews can at least temporarily mitigate the damage done by other Jews. Thus, “right-wing” Jews are a temporary solution to the stable, intractable problem caused by Jews in general. Of course one does not have to assert that all of this is always planned and intentional; in some cases, it can be an emergent property of complex Jewish behavior. However, in some cases it may in fact be intentional (even if only at some generalized, incoherent, "hive mind" level).

Therefore, Jews ensure their continuity in their host societies because the host believes it requires one set of Jews to deal with the problems from another set of Jews. Further, the host society, or at least its elite class, becomes “addicted” to the abilities and expertise of Jews and does not wish to deal with the problem by simply ridding itself of the parasite. Indeed, the host may wrongly consider the parasite to be a beneficial, mutualistic symbiont. In addition, even if the parasite is removed, if the cultural toxins are stable they may still remain in the host society even after the parasite is gone. Therefore, the cultural and biopolitical damage done by Jews may remain even if Jews are expelled from society; the question remains if the host alone can repair the damage. If they cannot, or merely believe that they cannot, then the host will maintain the Jewish parasite in the hopes that the parasite, or one fraction thereof, will undo (at least some) of the damage it created.

And if the host does decide to get rid of the parasite, and even if they can, by themselves alone, repair the parasite's damage, then they may be attacked by another host desperate to defend its own faux-"beneficial" parasites (World War II can be viewed through this lens). Of course, the extended phenotype paradigm comes into play here as well; host behavior can be viewed as the extended phenotype of the parasite and the parasite’s genome. Indeed, the various behaviors at play here are too complex to be modeled by just one biological paradigm.

There is no doubt that there can be different permutations of this scenario, and as stated, the TA scenario itself is only one part of the problem.  And, even when looking at the human TA-like scenario itself, there can be some differences to the bacterial situation, human societies are much more complex. One can argue that Gentiles can provide their own anti-toxins – is National Socialism an example?  But then we go back to the issue of multiple paradigms - National Socialism in the Hitlerian sense was destroyed by the Allies acting as extended phenotypes of the Jews. There is a lot going on here. 

Let us consider National Socialist Germany again from the TA hypothesis perspective. One could argue that the assistance of Jewish atomic scientists (anti-toxin) could have helped Germany win the world war ultimately caused, in the last analysis, by the pernicious effects of the Jewish presence in Germany and in the White world as a whole (toxin). What about other examples? Jews brought the toxin of communism to Russia - a stable toxin that lasted for decades and resulted in incredible levels of suffering and death - while providing unstable anti-toxin assistance to the USSR via continuing attempts to subvert the West during the Cold War (complicated by the defection of some Jews to American neoconservatism). In addition, Jewish atom bomb spies provided some help (anti-toxin) to the Soviet Union that their co-ethnics helped to create (toxin). We have already considered the situation in America, as "right-wing" Jews are considered by some Whites to be anti-toxin "allies" in the fight against the problems (mass immigration, the "civil rights" agenda, "woke" ideology, multiculturalism, cultural anti-Whiteness, etc.) caused by the toxic Jewish presence in America.

Throughout history, Jews were expelled from one nation after another, because of the stable toxicity they created, and because that toxicity continued after they left, foolish elites, "addicted" to the presence of Jews, would invite the Jews to return, in order to provide unstable anti-toxin help to undo the toxic damage originally done ("help" typically performed, for example, by attempts to revitalize the economy through Jewish banking and money-lending, which created even more toxic problems, and thus requiring even more attempts at anti-toxic "remedies"). We observe the historical narrative of Jews always being on both sides of an issue, with the preponderance of effort toward activities harmful to the host society and a few Jews attempting to be "helpful" - toxin and anti-toxin. We always observe one set of Jews providing "solutions" to intractable problems introduced by the overall Jewish presence in the host society.

Therefore, there is utility for the TA=JQ analogy. Scientists state that host-parasite co-evolution is fundamental to life. The evolution of the White host has been significantly altered and deformed (Yockey's culture pathology) by the Jewish parasite.

Hopefully, others can comment on this hypothesis, attempt to test it, to either falsify it or defend and extend it if it survives attempts at falsification, and if it proves useful, with explanatory power, students of the Jewish problem can incorporate it into a greater understanding of the JQ.

Rockwell Redux Again

More on the same issue.

For another perspective on this, please see this, re: Rockwell, Patler, Patler's wife, and other related issues. Subsequent pages of that book, as well as other sources, speculate about an alleged Koehl-Pierce conspiracy to kill Rockwell, to make Rockwell into a martyr and take over the organization as an explicitly Nordicist-Germanic-Old School Nazi outfit. I make no judgment about the truth or falseness of that, just reporting about the various hypotheses put forth in that book and elsewhere. Indeed, the book suggests that Rockwell was just as much at odds with Koehl (and Pierce) as he was with Patler, and some sources suggest that Rockwell was going to expel Koehl and Pierce as he did with Patler.  Again, I do not know the relative truth of these speculations, of this reporting, but it would appear that the situation may have been more complex than "movement" dogma that a "greasy little Greek turd" killed Rockwell while the heroic Koehl and Pierce strived to keep Rockwell's political vision alive. I don't pretend to know whether that dogma, or revisionist theories, are correct, but at least I admit I do not know, in contrast to others who claim a definitive knowledge about events that are far from clear.

That shifts the focus away from a Rockwell-Patler conflict to a Rockwell-Patler-Koehl-Pierce conflict, and adds the dimension of moral responsibility for Rockwell’s death in addition to the actual legal responsibility. Regardless of who pulled the trigger and whether or not a Koehl-Pierce conspiracy existed, it seems to me that at the very least Koehl and Pierce have significant moral responsibility for Rockwell's death. This episode also underscores the extreme Nordicism of Pierce – one could only imagine his subsequent contempt for non-Nordic National Alliance members.

The whole thing with the alleged affair between Rockwell and Patler's wife, and Patler's alleged submissive support for that affair, is disturbing and disgusting, and certainly puts a fresh perspective on "genetic omnidominance," cuckoldry, and extended phenotypes. It would seem that sometimes people "closer to human origins" are the extended phenotypes of people "farther from human origins."

This additional information also puts into a different perspective the following comments from Pierce from The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce by Robert S. Griffin:

The guy in charge of the print shop--and remember this name --was John Patler. While I was around there, I had a chance to observe Patler. His real name was Yanacki Patsalos. He was this dark, greasy- looking little guy from New York, and he felt bad he was Greek instead of Swedish or German. It really bugged him. He tried to disguise his origin by changing his name. He had this feeling of inferiority, and he had an envy and hatred for people with light eyes, hair, and complexion. I don't know exactly where this came from. Maybe it was because he had grown up in New York and he was from a poor immigrant family and was at the bottom of the pecking order, and at the top around where he was from were the English, Irish, and Germans. Anyway, he was organizing the darker members of the party against what he called the blue-eyed devils. He was a very aggressive little turd. It was wild, surreal. Patler was sort of talented, though. Besides the printing, he was an artist. He did cartoons for Rockwell. He was smart and had a lot of willpower and drive. The other people in the print shop were real losers of one sort or another, and they did the grunt work for him. "When it came time to print the magazine, I stayed down by the print shop. I ate my meals in a little kitchen in one end of the chicken coop and slept in a station wagon I had at the time. Rockwell had told me that I had better stay down there all the time because he suspected that Patler was going to sabotage the whole damn thing. Patler hates you, Rockwell said. Rockwell said Patler doesn't want this magazine produced because he looks upon it as a competitor to his own magazine, the one he edited, called Stormtrooper. And it did turn out that Patler and I were in constant warfare during that time.

That's very convenient, putting all the blame on Patler and ignoring the overall context. Note some things other there.  Pierce denigrates the "turd" Patler while at the same time that "turd" was "smart and had a lot of willpower and drive." Why was he a "turd" then? Pierce also is outrageously disingenuous here. He states about Patler: "He had this feeling of inferiority, and he had an envy and hatred for people with light eyes, hair, and complexion. I don't know exactly where this came from." That's after describing Patler as "this dark, greasy- looking little guy from New York." If that was the attitude of Patler's "comrades" then, well, is it any surprise Patler had certain negative attitudes toward them?  According to all sources I have seen, Pierce was denigrating Patler - you know, the smart guy with a lot of drive - as a racially inferior greaser, and then he says about Patler's reaction to that: "I don't know exactly where this came from."

Also see this about Rockwell:

“Link,” as Rockwell was nicknamed, was regarded as a selfish and lazy commander. “[He] would usually sit around and read or sleep away most of the day while the rest of us would work or look for work,” one former Nazi said in a typescript memoir acquired by the Arlington Public Library. “Many sympathizers would bring food over to the headquarters during the winter months, and Link would take the choicest food and hog it up and leave the scraps for everyone else.”

Der Movement has always been a defective joke.

In any case, the Nordicist view of the Rockwell-Patler scenario: "You can't trust those swathoids and thar'ts what happens when you include swarthoids in the movement" doesn't necessarily capture the full story that occurred in this case. This goes back to the major point in my last post on this issue. If your group claims to be pan-European, for all Whites, and accepts people like Greeks, then a Greek member who is "smart and had a lot of willpower and drive" is someone who should be valued and allowed to rise as far as their abilities allow. If your attitude toward such a person is that he's a "turd" and "this dark, greasy- looking little guy" then be explicitly Nordicist and don't allow Greeks in your group in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Decide what your ingroup is and then move on from that.

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.

Arctic or Tropical?

Consider.

Evaluate the characteristics of a people and their nation, and decide whether the phenotype so described is more Arctic and Northern or more Tropical and Southern.

Uniformly black haired

Uniformly with dark brown or black eyes

Typically yellow or yellow-brown skinned

Typically broad-nosed

Frequently mildly prognathous

Overpopulated

High rates of hepatitis and tuberculosis

Nation is an originator of worldwide viral pandemics

Wet markets where wild animals are sold for food

Eat animals alive

Documented history of cannibalism, not because of starvation, but for symbolic humiliation of defeated enemies

Refuse to take responsibility for actions and errors

Lying and corruption

Hatred of Whites

Whining about discrimination, use the “race card” to escape accountability, crying about racism

Extreme ethnocentrism 

Not only is this profile Tropical and Southern – it is an EXTREME example of a Tropical/Southern life history. That’s the Chinese, by the way, an extreme, extreme, extreme, example of a Tropical ethny, and an extreme example of a Southern Colored people.  Derbyshire weeps.

Read this.  Gee…and where does influenza originate each year?  That’s right…China, The Land of Biological Warfare Against Humanity.  Every non-Chinese who dies of influenza can be reasonably seen as having been murdered by the Chinese people. Every non-Chinese who dies of the coronavirus can be reasonably seen as having been murdered by the Chinese people. These are acts of mass murder; these are acts of war. These viral attacks are biological warfare, the use of WMD, and the civilized nations of the Earth not only passively accept these murderous attacks without a scaled response (how about at least permanently quarantining that nation?), but they accept Chinese criticisms that the victim nations are “truly mean” and “scare-mongering” when they scramble to at least do the minimum to stop the immediate spread of these viruses.

Basically, the non-Chinese peoples of the Earth are the extended phenotypes of the Chinese, they all cower and grovel - "measured groveling," eh? - passively accepting these WMD attacks, these constant worldwide pandemics.  We are all the hapless consumers of cheap, poisoned Chinese products, stolidly standing by as our national productive capacity is outsourced, allowing the Chinese to build their infrastructure and their military, we do nothing as unfair trading practices and currency manipulation leads to trade imbalances that make them richer and us poorer, we allow them to displace our people in academia and the professions and spy on us with near impunity, we allow them to steal and copy our inventions ad discoveries, and we allow their surplus population to colonize our lands. Extended phenotype is an understatement.

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They've supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called "anti-Semitic" WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?

Note:

Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.