Category: defending Salterism

Simon Says and Salter Speaks

Of interest.

First, John Simon posts an “apologia” – emphasis added:

So let me start with the serpentine view of me, most conveniently promulgated on the basis of my satirical remarks about something which the poor actors could not control. But are not performers in shows and movies supposed to be appealing, indeed exemplars of something all of us strive for, or do we go to the theater and cinema to look at unsightliness? Except, of course, where the latter is predicated, or do we want the witches in “Macbeth” played by or acted as gorgeous women?

The old Hollywood dedicated to glamour knew what it was doing all right, even if its notion of beauty wasn’t always of the subtlest kind. This has changed, with populism insisting that it would rather look democratically at a homely Zoe Kazan or Jessica Hecht than romantically at a Laura Osnes, Laura Denanti, or Katrina Lesk. And yes, if we desire sets and costumes—again with meaningful exceptions—to be beautiful, why not the faces and figures of performers? Are they not part of the spectacle? Or do young women aiming for stage or screen careers grow up yearning to be Barbra Streisands? Heaven help us, maybe they do. Still, I would like to think that, however unavowedly, they would rather be a Jane Fonda or a Sharon Stone.

Salter video from 2002 on ethnic kinship. Keep in mind that this was an early permutation of Salter’s thought.   The refined theory of EGI does not require – repeat, not require – “the evolution altruism,” the evolution of ethnic nepotism,” or “group selection.” However, the comments about Hamilton and his 1975 paper though are as relevant today as they were back then.

Genetic clustering is real, but in general genetic boundaries are fuzzy and clinal, not disjunctive. Phenotype as well.  It is when the biological characteristics are merged with genealogical descent from historically defined ethnies, culture, and other aspects of Identity do you achieve a practical disjunctiveness.


Ethnonationalist (Non) Responses to Salterism

Three examples.

I sometimes contact activists – usually ethnonationalist types since they are in the vast majority in the “movement” – in the White world to “proselytize” the EGI concept (“Salterism”); and the “response” typically falls into one of three categories:

1. Completely ignore the contact email.

2. “I’ll take a look at it” – afterwards no further response and of course no indication that the EGI concept was understood or incorporated into nationalist activity.

3. One activist, from a White nation whose name I won’t mention (although you may be able to figure out for yourself what it is, or at least what part of the world it is), answered: “this doesn’t apply to us; all our enemies are White.”

That last comment deserves a brief counter-commentary.  Even if the claim “all our enemies are White” was true (which it is not, I can assure you), it is still irrelevant as far as the basics of EGI go, since genetic interests exist at every level of genetic differentiation, and EGI applies to intra-racial group differences as well as inter-racial. Of course, the intra-racial differences are shallower, and one must be careful of kinship overlap when distinguishing genetic (and other) interests of very closely related groups; however, the basic principles of EGI still hold.  So, the casual dismissal of EGI in point #3 reflects typical ethnonationalist knee-jerk reflexive closemindedness and anti-Whiteism, an automatic rejection of anything which even “smells” as having something to do with White solidarity (whether it actually does or not), and it also reflects typical Type I activist anti-intellectualism and superficial “thinking.”

True enough, I haven’t really found pan-Europeanists who take EGI seriously either, but there are so few genuine pan-Europeanists that the small sample size makes the lack of interest virtually meaningless to form any conclusion.  However, the lack of interest among ethnonationalists is meaningful, and tells us all we need to know about ethnonationalist quality (or the lack thereof).

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defending Salterism: Polygeneic Adaption

Polygenic adaption.

With respect to this study reflecting “polygenic adaption,” I would like to comment, in effect pre-empting retarded “arguments” by anti-Salterian (and anti-White) activists asserting that the genetic changes discussed somehow invalidate the EGI concept.
There has been a mistaken belief – from both Right and Left – that the concept of genetic interests supports a form of biologically reactionary genetic stasis/conservatism, in which any change, even positive, is eschewed.  That is false.  In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes clear that replacing maladaptive alleles can boost the fitness of the distinctive genome, hence enhancing genetic interests, and there is also the statement that genetic competition and unequal outcomes must be allowed to continue.
Further, natural processes such as natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. will occur, will always occur, and, of course, as a sexually reproducing species, independent assortment and recombination during meiosis means that the “genetic deck of cards” get “reshuffled” each generation.  That is part and parcel of sexually reproducing life, natural selection is part and parcel of all life, and so all these phenomenon are also part and parcel of genetic interests.  Of course, there will be change. Indeed, the EGI concept is also compatible with eugenics, and Salter has written on eugenics as stand-alone essays in other forums (for example, see footnote).
What EGI does reject is large scale (and unnecessary) replacement of the genetic information of one people by another, through mass migration, miscegenation, etc.  That a single ethny will change somewhat over time due to natural processes is of course perfectly natural and acceptable, that this ethny will be race replaced or radically altered through mongrelization is neither natural nor acceptable.
It is quite possible to compare the genetics of ancient peoples to that of moderns.  One can observe that, for example, despite thousands of years of genetic differentiation, Otzi the Iceman falls within the European genetic spectrum, and is more similar to modern Europeans than to, say, Nigerians or Chinamen.  In this respect, the genetic interests of Otzi and his co-ethnics of his time are preserved as much as possible in modern Europeans; however, if modern Europeans were to be race-replaced by alien peoples, then this broad genetic continuity would be broken.  Otzi was a form of European, as are the different European peoples of today.  Nigerians and Chinamen are not.  One can compare the native Britons of today with those of the past and note significant genetic differences due to selection (as well as drift); nevertheless, these peoples share a genetic history and are more closely related to each other than to members of other races. 
I trust the point is clear. Indeed, the ability to adapt to changing environments, without large-scale race replacement or mongrelization by truly alien peoples, would help preserve the genetic interests of past Britons in the present population. The genetic interests of those past Britons are not threatened by selection, but instead by the mass immigration that will make Britons a minority in their own homeland in the coming decades.


Universal Nationalism vs. National Socialism: Know Your Investments

Arguments for NS.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter’s charts of genetic investment options has Universal Nationalism (UN) as Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity (although things may shift dependent upon context) and National Socialism (NS) as Self=Ethny>Offspring>Humanity=0 (no investment in humanity at all).

I’m not sure that the relatively depressed Offspring investment compared to Self for NS is accurate, as that ideology was pro-natalist, although I would agree that the relative depression of Self, Offspring, and Humanity compared to Ethny is accurate, at least for NS as practiced in Hitler’s Germany. Although the heightened emphasis on Ethny is a fundamental feature of NS, one may consider that this is context-dependent as is UN’s investments. Would the high degree of ethnic mobilization in NS Germany have continued if they had won the war? Or, more fundamentally, is extreme ethnic mobilization (and absence of any investment in humanity whatsoever) an invariant feature of NS, or particular to one regime at one period of time?

I could envision a stabilized NS regime whose genetic investment profile is typically Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity, where Humanity is very low, but greater than zero.  And of course, this investment profile could be flexible, morphing into a more Salterian NS profile in times of ethnic crisis.

The question then is: is my modified “peacetime” NS investment profile better or worse than that typical of UN?  Or, perhaps better: can my NS profile serve as a form of UN that is more ethnocentric than the Self>Offspring>Ethny>Humanity  variety?

This is, I guess, a matter of taste.  One could argue that in the absence of ethnic crisis, even a Self=Offspring=Ethny>Humanity regime exhibits excessive and superfluous ethnic mobilization, that such levels may not be sustainable over time, and/or that having multiple ethnies with such profiles increases the risk of conflict.

Those are reasonable arguments, and food for thought for future discussion.  I would argue in favor of the more moderate NS profile based on my ‘take” that UN may be dangerous for less ethnocentric ethnies that are prone to altruistic humanism (i.e., Whites) and in the absence of sufficient ethnic mobilization, the slide from UN to Humanism may be too easy to occur.  Of course, too much ethnic mobilization may “burn out” less ethnocentric groups, so that some oscillation over time may be required (which would necessitate a managerial regime with long-term strategic vision and social planning on a wide scale, over historical time).  However, knowing how “weak” Whites tend to be, I’m more comfortable erring on the side of more ethnic mobilization, rather than less – for Whites this mobilization could be tempered by humanist impulses (which, admittedly, did not occur in the Hitlerian regime). Bur we are currently dying out due to a complete lack of ethnic mobilization, so I would say, at least for now, worrying about too much mobilization should not be a concern until such time (if ever) that the racial situation is so stabilized over time that a more traditional UN profile can come into being.

Starting with NS and ending up stabilized at UN is better than starting at UN prematurely, when racial dangers abound, and sliding back into Humanism.  If UN is flexible, then flexibility toward the NS direction may be prudent for as long as legitimate racial danger exist (note: it is possible that they may always exist).

Humanity vs. Ethny: Know Your Investments

System hypocrisy laid bare.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter provides some impressionistic (qualitative) graphs interpreting how different ideologies distribute interests along the continuum of Self-Family-Offspring-Humanity.  Putting aside minor quibbles (both offspring and ethny can be more fine-grained categories with different levels of relatedness – offspring can be extended to the entire family, including distinctions such as brother vs. cousin; ethny can have ethnic group vs. race, etc.) this is a quite useful instrument to think about the relationship between memes and genes, and how cultural artifacts and social technologies affect our genetic interests. These charts are an underestimated and under discussed part of the book; besides myself, the only other person I know of who tried to discuss this in a useful fashion is Bowery on a blog post from several years ago.
I’ll likely have more to say about this in the future – including a defense of the national socialist interest distribution – but for now I would like to comment on a key feature of System-approved ideologies – that they skip over ethny as a legitimate focus of interest.  Included in the ideologies that Salter (justifiably) claims do this are: (radical) Christianity, Humanism, and Communism, as well as Multiculturalism as practiced by majority groups (Capitalism he has as skipping both ethny and humanity and it will not be a topic of this discussion).
One can attempt to look at this from a logical, objective standpoint, a standpoint that values consistency and a fair distribution of interests along the chain of biological relatedness.
Salter has (radical) Christianity not only eliminating all interest in ethny, but also suppressing interest in self and offspring, consistent with the life-denying, masochistic nature of the creed.  Communism depresses interest in offspring while eliminating it for ethny, also demonstrating maladaptive aspects.  Even so, for both, they at least pay lip service to a minimal investment in self and offspring (it is low, but not zero) – even the most radical of the System’s approved ideologies (yes, Marxism is approved – compare how a Marxist academic is treated compared to a “Fascist” one; and the form of Christianity most valued by the System is the most self-effacing and maladaptive kind) dare not completely eliminate self and offspring as categories of interest.  They may wish to do so, but that is a “bridge too far,” so to speak.  

Despite continuing far-left attempts to promote (White) self-abasement and to deconstruct (traditional) families, the natural impulses to preserve and protect self and offspring (even if Whites are not reproducing themselves) are still too strong.  Hence, the general lack of interest in radical Christianity and, even more importantly, the movement of the Left Core away from doctrinaire Marxism toward a more “cultural Marxist” memetic structure that emphasizes humanist and multiculturalist values that target ethnic interests for attack while for the most part preserving interest in self and offspring (*)
Thus, of greater interest for this discussion are “Humanism” and “Multiculturalism as practiced by majorities” as the major vehicles for the System’s Left Core ideology (apart from atomized Capitalism; see footnote*). Here, we see an acceptance of basic human nature regarding self and offspring (the most intense repositories of genetic interest – note, NOT the largest repositories, but most concentrated, intense, and linked to emotional responses). Instead, the target is specifically ethnic interests.  It is accepted that a (White) person should invest in self and offspring and also take a strong interest in humanity; but any interest in ethny is viciously attacked by social pricing, “hate” and “racism” laws, and social engineering to completely delegitimize the pursuit of group interests by European-descended peoples.
Given that we all agree on the importance of self and offspring, we need not talk about those any more now.  Instead, let us focus on the System’s meme that pursuit of ethnic interests is illegitimate but pursuit of pan-human interests is perfectly legitimate and, indeed, laudable.
We can consider a thought experiment that underscores the hypocrisy – and the ethnic aggression – underlying such arguments by demonstrating that there is no logical, objective reason for making this distinction.  Virtually every argument used to attack ethnic genetic interests can also be invoked, given the correct context, for human genetic interests.
Imagine an alien invasion of Earth, with these outer space aliens intent on displacing (demographically, socially, politically, in every way) humans as the dominant sentient species on Earth.  Imagine these aliens want to use some humans, particularly human elites, to assist them in their agenda of conquest.  Other humans fight the aliens; indeed, some sacrifice themselves in order to save humanity.  How would this scenario be viewed?
I guarantee that there would be near-unanimous agreement across the political spectrum: the traitors are despicable, the altruists are honorable, and “of course” we must fight for humanity and preserve the Earth for our patrimony.  Indeed, some may even say fighting for humanity is not truly altruism, since we as humans have a strong vested interest in the survival and prospering of our species.
Further, I assert that this position would be held as well by HBDers, Desi “cognitive elitists” and their White extended phenotypes, Salter-hating Jamaican mongrel bloggers, and all the rest, including the Left.
But we can ask: how is this different from the case of defense of ethny?  Why can’t we say that the self-sacrificing fighters for humanity will be outcompeted by free-riding traitors?  Why is preserving humanity adaptive?  Why, we may even have folks muttering about “green beard effects” and parsing the difference between “identical by descent” and “identical by state” (identical is not identical according to HBDers, you see) – all sorts of rationales.  Indeed, preserving humanity is simply “a preference” not more salient than a taste for toffee or an admiration for Mahler – right?  
The same people who argue against EGI on the basis that “human groups are virtually genetically the same” would probably be unconvinced by alien claims that dispossession of humans is no problem given that the great apes will be left unmolested and, by alien standards, humans and chimps are virtually genetically identical.  Further, if the aliens claim that there is “greater genetic variation within the human family than there is between humans and aliens” would that make the dispossession of the human race any more palatable to the same humanist-multiculturalist-HBD types who use all these same arguments to delegitimize Eurocentric activism?
Of course, the Left-HBD faction need to get their memes straight.  Take the argument that “there is more genetic variation within than between groups and there is virtually no real biological differences between human groups.”  Very well.  But, doesn’t that mean that investing in a single ethny has a great cost-benefit ratio?  After all, according to the anti-EGI crowd, a single ethny contains more genetic variation than that found between groups; indeed, we are told that the vast bulk of human genetic variation is found within single population groups.  So!  All you need to do is preserve one group and you have virtually all the genetic variation right there.  No need to preserve all humanity.  Why, after all, groups are all the same, aren’t they?  And isn’t it easier to invest in a single ethny, concentrating your investment there, than to dilute it over all humanity?  Indeed, if we are all the same, then investing in humanity is a superfluous waste of resources.  Save a single group, reap the benefits of all that internal genetic variation and diversity, and if the rest of humanity is lost, no problem – no differences between groups anyway.  QED.
However, that argument would never be made by the anti-White Left and the anti-White HBDers.  Instead, we’ll get talk about the “rich and diverse tapestry of humanity” – but when that tapestry is interpreted as including Europeans, watch the cognitive dissonance unfold and suddenly we are all the same and why be so concerned about individual groups.  Genetic and diversity arguments shift back and forth and the only unifying theme is that whatever bolsters investing in humanity over ethny, and more specifically, whatever delegitimizes the pursuit of White interests, is the meme promoted.
Getting back to the arguments supporting betraying humanity to aliens, of course, I doubt any of these Left-HBD specimens would dare make such arguments.  Therefore, we see a clear case of the legitimacy of the defense of ethny being specifically disregarded, specifically targeted.  For some reason – one that cannot be based on logic or objectivity – self, family, and humanity are considered worthwhile for defense, but the other link in the chain of interests – ethny – is somehow considered an illegitimate focus of interest or concern.  Well, let’s be honest – that’s not the case for everyone.  For most peoples, a concern for ethny is acceptable – it is ONLY for European-derived peoples that the ethny part of the chain of interests is skipped over, not legitimate, not considered as valid.  It is ONLY and SPECIFICALLY White ethnic interests that form a gap of interest, it is only for Whites that the chain goes self-offspring-humanity, while for every other group it is self-offspring-ethny-humanity.  This is proof positive that the delegitimization of White ethnic self-defense is not only illogical, but is an open attack against White interests, it is form of memetic warfare against the entire race as part of inter-group competition and as part of free-riding by White traitors.
Of course, the same arguments against ethnic genetic interests can be applied, following the course of “Left Logic,” to delegitimize pursuit of the interests of self and offspring, bringing us back to radical Christianity, extreme Communism, etc. – which promote decreased investment in those categories in favor of an indiscriminate humanism.  There is a consistency in leftist memes in which, ultimately, carried to their “logical” conclusions, every human distinction is eliminated (**)
To summarize: pursuit of genetic interests at every level of one’s continuum of relatedness is objectively and logically legitimate, and can be adaptive, particularly dependent upon context.  There is absolutely no objective or logical reason to pick one chain in the link, in this case ethny, to be specifically disregarded.  Arguments against the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests could just as easily be used, dependent upon context, against humanist universalism. Indeed, many of the same arguments can be made against the interests of self and offspring (a child that uses so much resources that it prevents its parents from producing more children – egads! – interfamilial free riding!).  Arguments that the pursuit of ethnic interests is wrong because of “wars, conflict, and bloodshed” ignore that the bloodiest ideologies in human history have been egalitarian humanist ones (starting with Communism at the top of the list), that multicultural diversity leads to conflict, and that even at the level of self and offspring, people have been historically violent (how many murders are committed for selfish and familial reasons?).  The hysterical denunciation of, specifically, ethnic genetic interests is illogical.  Given that this attack on EGI is most often targeted to Whites (usually implicitly, but sometimes explicitly – “Whites acting as Whites have caused unique oppression in human history, blah, blah, blah”), anti-Salterian attitudes are revealed to have an inner core of ethnic aggression against Whites and White interests.
*While Capitalism is not part of my analysis at this time, I note that the System likes to promote hedonistic, selfish, atomized individualism for Whites to the extent that Whites are not consumed by humanist values.  In other words, either be a Humanist who disregards ethny in favor of humanity, or be a libertarian Capitalist who disregards ethny and humanity (and to some extent interest in having children) in favor of self. 
**Which makes one wonder about human-alien distinctions – who would be overrepresented among the pro-space alien traitors to humanity – Leftists who deny the importance of human-alien differences, or atomized, hyper-individualistic Capitalists eager for their thirty pieces of silver?

More on Salter/Proofreader, 10/26/15

A few more comments.

A major advantage of Salterism, and one that can help bridge the gap between racial nationalists and more healthy elements of immigration-skeptic mainstream paleoconservatives is the ability to identify ultimate interests and cut through the morass of self-defeating arguments on immigration (or any other issue).
For example see this, which is informed by my understanding of, and acceptance of, the EGI concept.  Even vocal immigration skeptics, such as Saint Viktor Orban or Pat Buchanan put the issue in cultural and civilizational terms. That’s fine as far as it goes, but that’s not the underlying problem. If you concentrate on that, you get the likes of Richard Lynn proclaiming the death of Europe with his calm confidence that, why it’ll be all right, since East Asians will carry on our culture for us (actually, they won’t, but that’s not really the point, is it?). Then we also have the likes of Lynn with the IQ fetish, others who talk about “law abiding and productive immigrants,” leading to arguments that put immigration in starkly economic terms, viewing peoples as fungible economic units.  We have American conservatives who care only about “legality,” painting themselves in a corner since, if the only issue is legality, then genocidal race replacement can be made A-OK simply by the stroke of  a pen, signing a new law into existence (see 1965 for an example).  Even people in the “movement” get confused, and get all hot and bothered over some rare fair-complexioned Kalash or Iranian or Turk or Hapa and believe that genetic extinction is fine as long as their replacements sort of “look like us.”
Putting the issue in the context of kinship goes beyond all of that.  Putting a Salterian argument forward absolutelyforces ethnicity, race, and racial preservation to be at the forefront of any argument. You cannot preserve genetic kinship, genetic interests, through any sort of aracial scheme. Civic nationalism and a “shared culture” does not work. Economics are irrelevant. Phenotype has no meaning without a genetic foundation to back it up. Surely, all these other things are important and must be considered, after the genetic foundation is taken care of.
A real Movement based on a reasonable Salterism (and not the idiots who use chants of “EGI” as a talisman to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk) can promote memes that have real explanatory power, and satisfy the deep yearnings of people for demographic preservation without mealy-mouthed “implicit” “dog-whistling” on race. 
Weaponizing discourse empowers our side. Salterism gives racial activists a form of discourse lacking in other areas on the Right, on a subject which reaches deep into peoples’ sense of identity, and a half-realized, dimly acknowledged sense of ethny=extended family. The “movement’s” blithe dismissal of Salter’s work is highly destructive, as an important memetic weapon is discarded without a proper consideration of its potential. Never mind that Salterism has fundamental importance beyond its instrumental use in politics: how can we understand how different sociopolitical options affect our ultimate interests if we have no idea that these ultimate interests even exist, much less be able to (at least approximately) quantify them?
A real Movement needs to distinguish itself from the aracial Right while, at the same time, offering those on the aracial Right some insights that they obviously lack. Salterism has vast potential for clarifying issues and focusing attention in the right direction. Espousing Salterism also “separates the men from the boys” and allows healthy-minded but as-of-yet ill-informed Whites to see exactly who it is who has the answers to the deep questions that these Whites didn’t even know they were supposed to be asking.