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.

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.

EGI is the Most Hack Resistant

Thoughts.

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

Lawrence wrote in his Unz screed:

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

My reply:

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

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

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

HBD leads to race replacement.  EGI supports racial preservation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the EGI Firewall essay:

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

From the second essay:

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

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

Odds and Ends, 11/21/21

In der news.

A “movement” retard writes:

…the social reductionism of Dawkins, Salter, etc., in which human volition melts into the background and the genes compete against each other…

That’s a complete misrepresentation of what Salter wrote, and displays either a complete lack of understanding of that work, or, more likely, that the retard never read Salter’s work and is instead depending upon Asiatic HBD “critiques.”

Which leads us to:

(Btw, Razib Khan and the geneticists at gnxp, among others, debunked the non-scientist Salter's "EGI" many years ago.)

No one there is, or was, a “geneticist” and they “debunked” nothing. Their logically inept and factually incorrect self-interested “criticisms” were REPEATEDLY answered by me, in different forums, and Salter himself answered some of it in the introduction to the second edition of OGI.

Remember this?  Let us consider together. In the Pilleater tape, Greg Johnson claimed that he "vets" Amren conferences, telling Taylor who should be allowed to attend. Although there was some controversy about that (I think Forney or someone claimed that an Amren person told him that was not true), let's take Johnson at his word. If true, that means he went from denouncing the idea of live Amren conferences to vetting those same conferences in a few years time. Similarly, Derbyshire quickly transitioned from "Amren latrine flies" to being a honored speaker to those "latrine flies." And these guys still deny affirmative action? Really? Who are they fooling?

See this.

Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.

That’s exactly the situation with attacks against Salterism. No matter how lengthy detailed and comprehensive my ripostes to those attacks; the retards just repeat them over and over again as if they’ve never been refuted.

The HBDer diet.

For lunch you’re gonna eat Chinese food. Now I don’t want you eating that crappy stuff. You wanna get the stuff with MSG. None of that non-MSG bullshit. I don’t care what you eat but you have to sit down and eat for at least 45 minutes straight. You can’t let go of the fork. Eat until your eyes swell up and become slits and you start to look like the woman behind the counter.

While much support for HBD comes from ethnic self-interest, either directly or from marriage and family, or from particular ideological grounds (Nordicism or some other hostility to pan-Europeanism), in some cases there may well be an aesthetic component to it. Think of the stereotype of the verbally adept, erudite, sophisticated, cosmopolitan Jew. Or, think of the stereotype of the quiet, hard-working, superficially agreeable Asian, with high test scores and violin playing.  From the standpoint of personal aesthetic preferences, an urbane WASP like Taylor may well prefer those types to White ethnics – even highly educated and accomplished ones – who are more rough-edged, uncouth, plain-speaking, with regional urban accents deriving from working class/lower middle class backgrounds.  Particularly, if these aesthetic preferences are combined with certain ideological fixations and/or personal friendships (e.g., Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and mixed race children), this can result in a strong pro-HBD bias.  And we cannot dismiss ethnic resentment against “White ethnic upstarts” (from which Jews are exempted for the reasons explained above and as well their exotic otherness, so that they escape the “narcissism of small differences” effect).

A friend of this blog at Gab posts:

personally think their is a HBD 1.0 and HBD 2.0 and they should be seen differently.

HBD 1.0 are Jensen, Sailer, Levin, Hart, Lynn and Rushton. Cochran and Murray I think are sorta bridges to 2.0.

I think your right that a lot of HBD is motivated by aesthetic preference. All these people were urbane in some way. New York astrophysicist Hart, Berkeley professor Jensen, Cambridge educated Lynn, peace corps Charles Murray etc.

HBD 2.0 are Sean Last, Emil OWK, Ryan Faulk, Cofnas, Anatoly Karlin, Woodley, Gregoire Canlorbe, Davide Piffer and Dutton.

HBD 2.0 are so bizarre and fringy. You have psychics, cryptozoologist, anime feet enthusiast, college dropouts, spiteful mutant theologians, people who want to be uploaded to a computer etc. I am personally confused on what motivates them.

I think their is definitely a strange psychology to the HBDer and it is definitely not "disinterested rationality" like they purport.

I'll admit not being very familiar with the 2.0 crowd.  Cofnas I know about, re: MacDonald and of course there's Dutton. Piffer I've commented on and Canlorbe I've mocked.  But I haven't really considered how more juvenile the newest crowd is (other than my comments about Dutton and his crazed antics on his videos).

If we assume that some of the Quota Queens sincerely believe that they are not anti-Med, then they are delusional. They simply do not seem to understand that their toxic brew of Nordicism, HBD Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, Anglocentrism, Germanocentrism, Sallis’ Law, Humphrey hagiography, HBD race realism, etc. alienates Meds. The problem is that even if they do not politically align with Nordicism, they have internalized its belief and memes. Since they believe (even if unconsciously) that Meds are inferior, they don’t, or can’t, grasp that Meds don’t see themselves as inferior and therefore will reject Der Movement for reasons that the Quota Queens don’t see. The Quota Queens, whether they admit it or not, see Meds as second-class, subaltern, borderline Whites (if White at all) and therefore do not understand why Meds react negatively to that “truth.”

Torba:

Christians can and should seize power (legally) of state legislatures in states like West Virginia and Tennessee and start passing Biblical legislation. Let the federal government sue, who cares? Ignore and enforce.

Ban abortion.

Mandate school choice and provide resources for homeschooling parents.

Ban ursury.

Incentivize nuclear family creation and expansion.

Close businesses on Sunday again.

Plenty more we can do. We should think about getting these states and more under Christian control before it's too late.

Anything missing from Andy's policy wish list? How about banning forced racial integration, affirmative action, resettlement of "refugees," etc.? No, instead we need to close businesses on Sunday. That's great. Car breaks down on Sunday - you're shit out of luck. No worries though, your local Negro will help you out, help you out real well. Indeed, once they are finished, you'll never need help with anything else ever again.

According to FOX News, being called a "White supremacist" is slander. Now, we need to understand what is meant by "White supremacist" - essentially, in "normie" lingo, a "White supremacist" is any activist who is, claims to be, or is labelled by others to be, merely "pro-White."  This not only puts an interesting focus on the attitude of FOX News, but also we note how much being a pro-White activist is anathema, even on the populist Right.  Contrary to the cries of the grifters - "we are making great progress, just send me more money" - the fact is that pro-White activism, REAL pro-White activism, isn't accepted by society any more than it was in the days of WN 1.0, which the grifters tell us were so bad compared to the wonderful WN 2.0 successes of today.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.  It's all lies.

Sesame Street goes HBD.

What might have been.  I look forward to their upcoming report.

Listen to this.

Three points:

• 1. Pilleater had no problems attending; this puts into perspective Johnson's claims of vetting the conference.
• 2. All of the comments about Johnson and Counter-Currents were quite interesting.
• 3. The comments about the direction of Amren and the "movement" - Malkin and Asians, America First, American Freedom Party - are consistent with my recent writing on the subject. Of course, Pilleater thinks things that I object to are good, but the trends are what they are, independent of different opinions on whether the trends are good or bad.

Quota Queens on the march.

Lawrence Again, 11/21

A moral turd.

As a preface, I want to say that, to me, anyone who participates at the blog of anti-WN Jewish HBDer Unz is an enemy of the White race and is a moral turd. I have been alerted that Lawrence, over at that selfsame Unz blog, has attacked me; I’ll briefly respond.

Finally, at the risk of trying the reader’s patience, let’s take a look at @FvS (comment 9) who links to the blog of Ted Sallis – basically a glorified comment account in which a rather unhinged…

Just like Greg Johnson with his “mental illness” pathologization of critics. That seems to be a common trope of these types.

…White Nationalist veteran spews the bitterest vitriol against everyone he reads…

Everyone?  Salter?  Lowell?

…only from the safety of a no-comments-allowed blog where his victims cannot take him to task and puncture his delusion of being right about everything.

See my position about comments below.

Follow the first link, and you will Ted’s vehemently insulting reaction to my post on White Nationalism, in which he accused me of being an “ethnic fetishist” for Nordics with an “ethnic animus” to Southern Europeans (both tendencies I despise) on the basis of a single offhand comment about racial admixture that he twisted out of its proper context. 

That reminds me of when Arthur Kemp, in response to some criticism on my old Legion Europa blog, denied that he was a Nordicist. I suppose that Madison Grant wasn’t a Nordicist either. This Lawrence, following Sallis’ Law to the letter, talked about “racial admixture” in Southern Europe (ignoring evidence of such in Northern Europe) in the context of it being superfluous to his (typically long-winded and rambling) “argument,” and is then disturbed about being called out on it.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….I don’t know, if Lawrence “despises” those “tendencies” then he might stop invoking those tendencies in his “writing” – particularly at the blog of someone known to indulge in those “tendencies.” The best way not to enable “tendencies” that you allegedly “despise” is to – surprise! – not enable them.

This led me to conclude that he was intellectually dishonest, but I also speculated – either irreverently, or charitably, depending on your perspective – that he could also be “intoxicated”, “semiliterate”, or “retarded”. This resulted in the outraged huffing and puffing that you see in the second link…

So, Lawrence engages in ad hominem “vitriol” and then is disturbed when there is a response.  Who is a soft, thin-skinned bully?

… – for Ted has developed a soft, thin skin in the padded cell of his insulated blog, and like a stereotypical bully, is not used to being hit back with anything like his own habitual ferocity.

All that Johnson–like pathologization aside, long-time readers of this blog know why I don’t have a comments section on my blogs. I’ll repeat my reasoning for new readers. First, my previous experience at sites such as Majority Rights leads me to have a low opinion of the worth of many, perhaps most, comments, which often lower the tone of the blog and often descend into flamewars (see Lawrence’s own hysterics). Moderated comments I see as somewhat dishonest, as one can always censor effective responses against your position and/or “ban” critics as does Johnson. Second, and more important, there are issues of time and of opportunity costs. Unlike many “movement” freaks, I have a life outside activism. Unlike Quota Queen grifters, I support myself and do not depend on “D’Nations.” I’m not earning anything – much less $340,000 in one year as “executive compensation” – for running my blogs.  I have to budget my time and effort accordingly.  Producing my own material is more time effective than spending time reading and answering comments. Considering how much time is wasted responding to flotsam and jetsam such as Lawrence (who does not lack forums to answer me, as you see), I think my stance on comments is prudent. Call that “the padded cell” of my “insulated blog” if you wish but I’m not changing my policy.

I also have long noted in my 20+ years of commenting on the Internet that when Nordicists behave with "ferocity" and use "vitriol" that is all well and good and often praised, but in my case, I'm "unhinged" and suffering from "insanity" (defamation from Lawrence and Johnson, respectively). You can read into that what you will.

The third linked post on Salter is more reasoned, but still exhibits the same basic intellectual dishonesty (or, if you prefer, “self-deception”). Ted is basically moving the goalposts, setting up a rigid distinction between Salterian prescription and description – i.e. between the theory of EGI-adaptive behaviour, and the reality of actual human behaviour – that is all but impossible to distinguish in most parts of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. 

Not true. Salter usually was careful about that. Did Lawrence read the book? If so, is he challenged with respect to reading comprehension?

Technically, of course, it’s possible to defend Salter in this way – like a Renaissance astronomer before the Inquisition – by saying that theory is theory, reality is reality, and the former just posits more or less accurate hypothetical models of the latter. But this is downright disingenuous if you are Ted Sallis, who has written elsewhere about the need to capitalise EGI into “biopolitics”...

Disingenuous? Not at all. This argument from Lawrence is particularly stupid. The whole purpose of argumentation is to change human behavior to agree with your position. People do one thing today. I want them to do something else tomorrow. The former is descriptive; the latter is prescriptive. What’s the problem?  Even worse for Lawrence's criticism – the behavior that I am trying to change is something that in the past was more in line with what I am prescribing. The behavior is therefore changeable, it is malleable, it can be altered. I want Whites to behave in a more ethnocentric manner (that they have done in the past). That they are currently displaying a different behavior does not invalidate my prescription (to argue otherwise is an error derived from the is-ought fallacy)

What it looks like to me is a classic setup for a motte-and-bailey fallacy. 

No, it is not. I am not conflating more and less controversial positions and defending the former by invoking the latter. I am making distinctions between things that are in fact distinct, and clarifying core concepts from peripheral, sometimes irrelevant comments (e.g., the Bantu issue).  If anything, Lawrence is doing a reverse “motte and bailey” – cherry picking isolated more controversial comments to invalidate the core thesis that is less controversial and that is based on genetic realities and sound evolutionary theory.

When we try to pin Salter down on his statements about Bantu immigrants and drowing children…

What is “drowing?” In any case, the fact that Lawrence keeps on harping on this Bantu thing reinforces my suspicion that he either hasn’t read Salter’s book or read it very superficially and is instead depending on second-hand HBD/leftist criticism, which often focuses on this single cherry picked sentence to invalidate Salter's entire carefully argued book.

I can’t speak for Salter, but it seems to me that he invoked the Bantu example as an extension of Haldane’s comment about saving siblings or cousins from drowning – basically extending Haldane’s family example to an ethnic one. It was a rhetorical device, a single sentence, and to obsessively focus on it suggests that the focuser is being dishonest. 

Ted whisks his guru off to the “motte”, by telling us that Salterian “adaptiveness” is purely theoretical…

Purely theoretical? I never said that. Lawrence is lying. I merely said that the SPECIFIC Bantu example that Lawrence obsesses about is theoretical and not meant by Salter to be something he’s telling people to do. See my comment:

The actual context of the statement is that it follows an intricate discussion of population genetics and genetic kinship and Salter is clearly theoretically (“it would appear to be”) speculating on adaptive behavior in an objective sense. He does not expect, or advise, e.g., that a person will strap a torpedo on their back and swim out to blow up a migrant boat while at the same time ignoring their own child drowning.

This comment about "theoretically" is specifically and only about the Bantu statement (as is clear from the context of that quote). It is not an assertion that "Salterian adaptiveness" as a whole is merely theoretical. As Salter writes, his prescription for "adaptiveness" could be actualized via (bold font in original):

…political activity and inexpensive but repetitive acts of favouritism shown to ingroup members. Favouring many individuals at low per-unit cost also helps overcome the free rider problem.

Back to Lawrence:

…and is mediated through various “proximate proxies” for EGI in practical life. 

I never said that in the sense that it MUST be mediated that way – if often is, but can also be directly (which is optimal) mediated through smaller-scale actions (e.g., anti-immigration activism instead of stopping those Bantus in the water).

Okay…so let’s say we assume that humans have evolved a crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves, which originates as a proxy for EGI as theorised by Salter…

I NEVER stated that. In fact, I have for years argued that there is NO need to argue for the evolution of anything. I have argued endlessly that the evolution of altruism or ethnic nepotism is NOT required.  All you need is conscious rational decision making to pursue genetic interests.  For example - It is an objective fact that Englishmen are genetically more similar to French than to Nigerians.  Now, an Englishman can look at that fact and decide that his interests are served by helping the French to resist African immigration. Another Englishman can state that he doesn’t care, or, in typical High Truster style, he helps the Africans. The former action is adaptive, the latter is not.  No evolution of anything is required. See the addendum below. Salter writes about his prescription for pursuing EGI:

...to think responsibly about ethnic affairs requires more deliberation and systematic fact-finding than is necessary in the personal realm.

That's conscious and rational "deliberation and systematic fact-finding" not some sort of "evolved...crude predilection for people with similar external characteristics to themselves."

The idea that all human behavior is strictly evolved and genetically determined is something out of HBD (that Lawrence apparently believes has validity), not from Salter or myself.

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

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

Back to Lawrence:

And then let’s say we make this the basis for a milquetoast conservative proposal to force non-white immigrants to adopt local language, culture and customs, since as far actual human beings are concerned one type of similarity is more or less as good as another. Presumably, at this point Ted will come storming out into the “bailey”, to tell us why we should be modelling our real-life behaviour on the underlying EGI instead of the non-genetic proxy.

Indeed I will so storm out, because the cultural approach has (directly) nothing to do with EGI. This fellow has a complete misunderstanding of both Salter’s work and of my perspective on it.  Everything that he’s saying is essentially completely wrong.  Strawman arguments everywhere.

Now that we understand these sleazy hand-waving tricks..

Childish ad hominem.

…let’s look at the fourth linked post on MacDonald. Once again, Ted whisks his guru..

I’m actually very critical of MacDonald on my blog, but I believe his work on the Jews is sound.

…off to the safety of the “motte”, this time by expanding the concept of “group evolutionary strategy” to be as nebulous and unfalsifiable as possible. Now, according to his rules, we must include practically any type of group behaviour under the definition of a group evolutionary strategy – whether it is collectivist or individualist, endogamous or exogamous, evolutionarily beneficial or evolutionarily disastrous.

Lawrence apparently does not understand the distinction between a definition and a hypothesis; while the latter needs to be falsifiable, the former does not.  I provided what I see as a perfectly reasonable definition of a GES:

...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. 

You may like that, dislike it, consider it “nebulous,” but it is a definition, not anything that requires falsification.  An example of a falsifiable hypothesis would be, e.g., “Judaism is a GES based on X,Y,Z that enhances the fitness of Jews while depressing the fitness of the host peoples among which Jews live.” That is a hypothesis concerning a defined entity (GES). That hypothesis is falsifiable and not, in my opinion, “nebulous,” but one in any case must distinguish between it and a simple definition. An analogy would be with “military strategy," which is defined as:

...a set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals.

That is a definition, perhaps “nebulous,” but it is not a hypothesis requiring falsification.  On the other hand, stating “A military strategy similar to that of the German strategic approach to WWII will inevitably lead to defeat because of X,Y,Z" is a hypothesis. See the difference?  Lawrence would no doubt tell us that military strategy is “a set of ideas implemented by military organizations that must result in victory” – and since one can easily cite examples of failed military strategies then we must conclude that the concept of a military strategy has been “falsified” and that it doesn’t exist. If you a priori define something as leading to success in all cases, then falsification is essentially guaranteed. His "reasoning" is thus exposed as ludicrous.

Now, to be fair, something like this definition of a group evolutionary strategy is actually provided by MacDonald in PTSDA. I didn’t use it in the post, because it is contradicted elsewhere…

Very convenient. Look, I don’t care what definitions MacDonald uses, and whether or not he contradicted himself. I care about my definition, which I see as more logical and comprehensive.  More importantly, note that Lawrence himself now classified GES as a “definition.”  Attention you idiot – a definition does not have to be falsified.  It merely needs to effectively describe that which is being defined.

One must applaud Mr. Lawrence for his accomplishment - his writing makes, by comparison, Heidegger seem succinct, Greg Johnson honest, and Jim Goad introspectively self-aware.  My sincere congratulations.

Addendum

The whole argument that "ethnic nepotism cannot exist because it could not have evolved" was the same nonsense as what Ingo Brigandt was saying years ago.  It can be answered by pointing out that ethnic nepotism exists and has long existed, and groups that practice it prosper.  Second, see modeling such as this.  

Third, it doesn't have to be a specific behavior that evolved, but a general domain cognitive mechanism (e.g., we didn't evolve to use computers, but our general intelligence allows us to do so, etc.).  Whatever theoretical people make (likely the same as Brigandt and GNXP in more layman's terms), the fact is that ethnic nepotism exists. Even Brigandt admitted it is evolutionarily beneficial to help ethnic kin, he just doesn't think it is possible because it "didn't evolve" - a ludicrous and illogical argument. See my quote below. 

Of interest to the GNXPers is Brigandt’s confused article: “Brigandt, I. (2001) “The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of van den Berghe's sociobiological approach to ethnicity.” Politics and the Life Sciences 20: 203–215.”  There he attempts to explain why ethnic nepotism is not adaptive.  The problem is that it boils down to Brigandt’s definition of a behavior being adaptive if it evolved.  He asserts that ethnic nepotism could not have evolved because various population groups were isolated from each other during their evolution; hence, there was no selective pressure for ethnic nepotism.  Therefore, given that circumstance, ethnic nepotism could not have evolved; thus, it cannot be adaptive.

Putting aside the argument of whether ethnic nepotism could have evolved, the problem here is a semantic one; that is, defining “adaptive.”  If we wish to define “adaptive” in the sense that Brigandt does, then he may be correct, given that caveat of the footnote below.  However, let’s look at this quote by Brigandt from the same paper (Dawkins, Malloy, and all the “cake eaters,”take note):

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.

Well, yes. That, in one sentence, is a reasonable summary of Salter’s *prescriptive* argument.  Indeed, herein lies the problem, in that Salter (and I) would define adaptive as “an evolutionarily better strategy” -  a strategy independent of whether or not it has evolved or not.

To add to the confusion, Brigandt follows that sentence with:

But this fact does not indicate that this kind of behavior will evolve (rather than egoism or other behavioral patterns) independent of cost/benefit considerations.

First of all, this is somewhat contradictory, in that cost/benefit considerations come to play in the “evolutionarily better strategy,” so there really is no reason to a priori assume that the behavior is taking place independent of such considerations.  That’s absurd. Brigandt harps on that even the “better strategy” may be “maladaptive” – confusing meanings of adaptive – because of “cost/benefit” considerations.  Again – these considerations are part and parcel of the “better strategy.”  He keeps on talking about the “evolution of altruistic behavior” which is NOT relevant to EGI (see above). 

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.

Ultimate Salter to Proximate Yockey

Up close and proximate, redux.

I have long been interested in melding the work of Salter on ethnic genetic interests – genetic interests being ultimate interests – with the ideas of Yockey, which, with its focus on High Culture, can be viewed as more proximate (issues other than [purely] genetic interests).  For example, see this.

The relationship between ultimate and proximate interests can therefore inform approaches concerning the merger of the Salterian and Yockeyian paradigms. In my analysis of Salterian ethics, I endorsed Salter's mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU):

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds…That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests…in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights…

Note the mention of Yockeyism there. Thus, a prudent MUA, even one that is aggressive, is compatible with broad proximate interests, such as Yockey’s Imperium idea that is based on High Culture. Of course, there is a strong association between ultimate and proximate interests in this case. After all, a Yockeyian Imperium could safeguard the interests, including the ethnic genetic interests, of the constituent European ethnies constituting that Imperium. On the other hand, a focus on ultimate interests can lead to Yockey’s (proximate) Imperium, with the explanation for that stated above. In the last analysis, the reason that the various European ethnies belong to the same High Culture is their membership in the same continental race, hence the fact that those ethnies have related racial ancestries (genetic kinship leading to overlapping ultimate interests). It is therefore difficult to untangle ultimate from proximate interests in this case.  And that entanglement is important for what follows in my analysis.

The last parts of the last section of Salter’s book, the section on ethics, are crucially important in this regard. Salter considers whether it is ethical for the pursuit of ultimate interests to frustrate the proximate interests of others. In those cases where the distinction between ultimate and proximate interests is very clear cut, Salter concludes that it is ethical to prioritize the ultimate over the proximate, it is appropriate to frustrate some proximate interests in favor of ultimate interests, although he also stresses that genetic competition, and the freedom to conduct that competition, should be allowed.

However, as Salter notes, it is often difficult to clearly distinguish what are ultimate interests from proximate interests, and this is particularly true in those cases where the pursuit of ultimate interests is conducted through the pursuit of proximate interests - i.e., proximate interests advance ultimate interests.  Indeed, this is more often the case than not. Thinking about approaches to enhance ultimate interests, we can consider that those approaches typically involve promoting proximate concerns about things such as wealth, status, various other resources, etc. Thus, given all of these considerations, Salter concludes that in such cases, it may be fair to prioritize proximate interests over ultimate interests (after all, again, the line between the two is often blurry). Salter states that this would conflate with a support for individual rights. Now, I wouldn’t go as far as Salter here, but would modify the statement to conclude:

In those cases where proximate interests can be reasonably seen as supporting ultimate interests, it can be appropriate and ethical to privilege those proximate interests over a set of lesser, non-existential ultimate interests.

Putting it another way, proximate interests that support and advance higher-level ultimate interests should be prioritized over lower-level ultimate interests that may conflict with those proximate interests.

This applies to the Salter-Yockey axis thus:

• The Yockeyian High Culture Imperium is a proximate interest that may (from the ethnonationalist perspective) conflict with claims of ultimate interests from “petty nationalist” ethnonationalists who insist on maintaining exclusive smaller state entities of more concentrated genetic interests.
• However, proximate Yockeyian interests are not clearly distinguished from ultimate interests, since the pursuit of Yockeyian ideals can advance a broader, higher-level, set of ultimate interests – the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans as a whole.
• Pursuing European-wide genetic interests against those of competing racial-civilizational blocs also protects the genetic interests of the narrower national ethnies that constitute the broad European peoples – narrower ethnies that by themselves would be unable to effectively compete with those other racial-civilizational blocs.
• Thus, the proximate interests of Yockeyism could, and in my opinion, should be privileged over the alleged ultimate interests of petty nationalists who favor smaller and more exclusive concentrations of genetic interests, and thus it is appropriate and ethical for Yockeyian proximate interests to frustrate ethnonationalist ultimate interests.

As an addendum to that argument, I state that it is possible to pursue a Yockeyian solution without necessarily damaging the narrower interests of individual European ethnies; the Yockeyian solution does not need to entail panmixia or any other real damage to smaller concentrations of genetic interests.  Indeed, those small concentrations may end up being better preserved, in the long run, by the Yockeyian solution.  On the other hand, a relentless pursuit of petty nationalism would make the Yockeyian solution of Imperium untenable, endangering all Europeans. Thus, not only is the ethnonationalist claim to their narrow genetic interests not existential – their ultimate interests can still exist within the Yockeyian framework – but one can argue that long-term genetic continuity is best assured by being part of a larger power bloc.

Thus, it is ethical to frustrate non-existential petty nationalist ultimate interests in favor of Yockeyian proximate interests that have as their net result advancing both the broader and the narrower sets of genetic interests.

The Salter-Yockey tension of ultimate vs. proximate interests is therefore dissipated and a more coherent whole emerges.  Critics may claim that this coherence is contingent on certain caveats (such as a commitment to preserve smaller-scale ethnic particularisms), but this is the case for every biopolitical scenario, including those promoted by those same critics.

Salter follows the ultimate vs. proximate question with the issue of competing ultimate interests.  Of note is the section on how competing ultimate interests relate to kinship overlap. When the competing ethnies are closely related, then the competition should conflate to cooperation. In those cases where ethnies are closely related, with significant kinship overlap, such as members of the same continental race, then “mutually beneficial strategies” are optimal. I agree, and I suggest that the Yockeyian solution – a Western Imperium based on High Culture – is one such strategy, a strategy that I advocate.

Note that Salter’s concern with “bounded rationality” is related to this; thus, I summarized:

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests…dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side”…The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests…

Given kinship overlap between Europeans, the extreme ethnonationalism championed by the petty nationalists "may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests." Of course, one can question whether these petty nationalists have any rationality at all, forget about "bounded rationality." This also relates to my distinction between a pursuit of “gross genetic interests” – attempting to maximize genetic interests without consideration of costs and benefits and what the ultimate outcomes are – and “net genetic interests” – pursuit of optimizing benefits vs. costs with respect to genetic interests so as to provide the best final outcome when all factors are properly considered.

Note that in On Genetic Interests, at different parts of the book, Salter advocates for smaller states and also for larger civilizational blocs, so advocates of each approach can find quotes supporting each of those alternatives. My analysis is of course my own; Salter himself may agree or disagree with my views on this issue, I do not know.

There are some other quotes in On Genetic Interests of relevance here. Thus:

But in the modern context individuals are defenceless unless they participate in powerful group strategies, foremost being the state.

That could be re-written (also with American spelling) as:

But in the globalist context individual ethnies are defenseless unless they participate in powerful group strategies, foremost being the Imperium.

Also, see this: 

There are profound ethical implications in making the state simultaneously the champion of a nation's interests in the international scene and a disinterested arbitrator of family interests within the nation.

Re-writing:

There are profound ethical implications in making the Imperium simultaneously the champion of a civilizational bloc's interests in the international scene and a disinterested arbitrator of national interests within the Imperium.

So, on a larger scale, what applies to an individual nation protecting genetic interests can also apply to the Imperium.  This included being an arbiter of competing national interests within the Imperium, although, remember, given kinship overlap, that internal competition should be muted, particularly compared to competition between more genetically divergent civilizational blocs. That is, again, my view; I do not speak for Salter.

In summary, I believe that the Salterian and Yockeyian perspectives are compatible, particularly when one considers the ethics of balancing ultimate and proximate interests. Hence, Imperium can support the ultimate interests of all persons of European descent worldwide.