Category: defending Salterism

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.

Initial Answers to Proofreader

A cursory and somewhat superficial initial answer.

A few comments answering Proofreader’s original comments/questions. This is by no means a comprehensive response or the final word.  Just a few thoughts to open up the discussion of these issues.
Proofreader in italics, my comments in plain font.
I think the following items might be key considerations with regard to promoting and popularizing Frank Salter’s work:
1. A detailed stocktake or study of Salter’s work as it now exists and of its reception among White nationalists.
This can be useful. Most analyses of Salter’s work have been relatively brief positive reviews (mostly written by myself at American Renaissance, The Occidental Quarterly, etc.), some positive reviews that get things drastically wrong (asserting that Salter promotes a “genetic stasis” and is against eugenics), and the negative reviews, which are all ideologically motivated and that exhibit misunderstandings, distortions, subjective “pointing and sputtering,” as well as straw man arguments.
I don’t want to get into the situation of simply repeating what I have already written, so if others want to tackle this, please go ahead.  I certainly can help, if needed.
 2. Summarizing Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations, Scott Berkun observes that “new ideas spread at speeds determined by psychology and sociology, not the abstract merits of those new ideas.” (Scott Berkun, The Myths of Innovation [Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2010], p. 65.) Berkun also notes that Rogers identifies five factors that influence the diffusion of innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. He comments (p. 66): “While there’s a lot to be said for raising bars and pushing envelopes, breakthroughs happen for societies when innovations diffuse, not when they remain forever ‘ahead of their time.’”
Berkun is likely correct. My experience has been that appeal to logic, re: EGI has failed to make a significant impact. On the one hand, I will continue to try and diffuse Salter’s ideas; on the other hand, it is not clear to me what sociological change will trigger greater receptivity to his ideas. Certainly, most clear thinking on race seems to be triggered so far by proximate proxies of genetic interest – for example, the behavior of alien immigrants, crime, cultural incompatibility, triggers native backlash that supports native genetic interests. But the genetic interests are always in the background. Perhaps, as has been suggested by some, a greater interest in genetics, including the popularity of personal genetic analyses, would trigger a greater acceptance of the political value of understanding genetic interests and biological fitness in human interactions.  I wish that genetic testing companies, as well as population geneticists, would focus more on measurements of kinship/relative gene sharing, rather than on the less biopolitically relevant metrics heretofore evaluated.  Perhaps they avoid measuring kinship for ideological reasons, because they understand its potential to alert people of their relatedness to different peoples and hence the relative assimilability of peoples in a polity?  In other words, the “guardians” of genetic information understand what needs to be hidden from people to prevent their acknowledgment of their genetic interests.
3. What factors might advance or retard the spread of Salter’s ideas among White nationalists?
Salter’s ideas would be advanced among WNs by them having a more empirical mindset, valuing kinship and biological fitness, etc. A general increase in interest in genetics among the population will “trickle down” (or up) to WNs. Conversely, Salter’s ideas are impeded by “old school” emphases on “traditional physical anthropology” or an anti-scientific neo-Ludditism. Activists adopt an attitude of not caring about theory or ideology, they think science is irrelevant, or above and beyond them. They shut their minds to new ideas, even when these are worded in ways understandable to the layman. European nationalists think all they need is their narrow ethnic particularisms, and see no need to invoke deeper interests.  These latter issues are all impediments.
What does Salter’s work mean for White nationalism and White nationalists?
It is a quantitative evaluation and identification of ultimate interests. It demonstrates that ethnocentric behavior is adaptive, including at the individual level. It presents a method to determine costs and benefits of different political scenarios by identifying the benefits and costs to society or to any individual actor, based for example on “child equivalents” of genetic interest gained or foregone based on one choice or another. It clarifies thinking on interests, and why ultimate genetic interests are more fundamental than the proximate interests most people – including WNs – value instead. It provides a clear path to racial solutions to problems. Thus, a person who bases policy on culture or IQ or economics or even physical appearance runs the risk of having a “solution” foisted upon them that will lead to their dispossession. But since Salter’s work is based on genetic kinship, on relatedness, following Salter’s prescriptions will necessarily lead to solutions consistent with ethnic and racial preservationism. You can’t sidestep genetic interests by invoking the “high IQ’ of an alien group, or that group’s “economic value” or their cultural assimilability or even appearance (“I saw a fair Kalash, so let’s let them all in, they’re ‘White”).  The genetic data are what they are. You can use the resulting child equivalents as a form of “currency” to determine the relative worth of any decision. Is that Chinaman’s ‘high IQ’ worth the damage he does to your genetic interests?  Salter’s work allows you to ask the question. HBD merely says IQ trumps all and kinship is worthless. Traditional physical anthropology measures kinship indirectly, and often inaccurately, based on traits that show overlap between genetically distinct populations. Salter’s work directly attacks the race problem at its most fundamental level – who is more related to who?
What can it contribute to White nationalism, by itself and in combination with other things?
See answer above. It can complement other activist memes, such as Yockeyian High Culture or traditional phenotypism, by identifying and quantifying ultimate interests, and allowing for a comparison as to how these other proximate issues affect and/or overlap with ultimate interests. Also, Salter’s work can help identify – what needs to be done to ensure a general pursuit of ultimate interests so that, once this is satisfied, we can move on to other issues (such as actualizing a High Culture).
Salter’s work helps us cut through “movement” bullshit and focus on what’s most important – genetic kinship, NOT Kali Yuga or cephalic measurements or admixture percentages or Ostara-like racial histories or any form of civic nationalism.  It is instead – how similar or different are individuals and groups based on the relative sharing of distinctive genetic information, and how does that affect their biological fitness, which is based on gene sharing and genetic continuity. Salter’s work allows us to determine if and when we have at least minimally satisfied our adaptive fitness, after which we may concentrate on the bullshit, or, better still, on proximate issues that are not bullshit, such as those things that concerned Yockey.
What is the scope of Salter’s work, and to what degree is it compatible and interoperable, so to speak, with that of others? What would be its proper place in White nationalism? What does it challenge and what resistance (in the largest sense of the term) might it generate?
The scope of the work is that it is a universally applicable (for all people, actually for all evolved organisms, but of course acting upon it requires sentience) description and prescription to how to act adaptively in a complex world.  The work covers science, politics, and ethics, and while by no means the comprehensive final word (as Salter himself admits at the end), it is a comprehensive first word on the subject.  What are our ultimate interests?  What scientifically objective and quantifiable argument can be made in favor of racial preservation (the argument is objective, whether or not anyone values acting adaptively is subjective, a matter of values).  It is compatible with works that utilize empiricism to answer racially relevant questions. It could even be compatible with ostensibly unrelated “cultural” works such as that of Yockey, who eschews or even dies the significant value of “zoological” biological racism – if one is willing to take a critical view of Yockey’s flaws and agree that the Yockeyian view needs modification by biological realities. Salter’s work is not consistent with race denial, with those who concentrate solely on proximate biological issues such as IQ, and/or the mendacious who deny the existence of genetic interests for political reasons. Salter’s work challenges the mindset that empirical science is not important for activism, it challenges the existential/spiritual description of “race” as independent of “zoological” considerations, and it challenges and opposes viewpoints that exalt proximate interests and ignore the primacy of the ultimate.  Salter’s work has definitely generated resistance in those who oppose Whites defending their interests. It has also generated mild resistance from pro-White activists who mistakenly believe Salter rejects eugenics in favor of a racial-genetic stasis, and among those uninterested in genetic kinship because it distracts from their obsessive fetishes.
I have the impression that you see the work of Salter and Yockey as having an architectonic function and value (i.e., “of or pertaining to construction; directive, controlling; pertaining to the systematization of knowledge”).
Not sure what this means exactly. I view Salter as describing what our ultimate interests are (genetic continuity), while Yockey describes our primary proximate interests (actualizing a High Culture and engaging in High Politics [the Empire of the West – Imperium]).  Salter provides the fundamental foundation, the essentials that need to be taken care of first. Yockey describes to us what we should be doing after we have secured our genetic interests. The two are synergistic: without racial survival (Salter), there will be no one to build Yockey’s Imperium.  In turn, that Imperium will help secure, maintain, and advance our genetic interests.
Are we dealing with C. P. Snow’s “two cultures” here (i.e., a split between the humanities and the sciences)? You referred above to a split between “the more scientific and empirical Anglosphere tradition and the more existentialist and ‘spiritual’ continental European tradition.”
In a sense, yes. Salter represents an empirical, objective, materialist, rational, and scientific quantitative perspective well developed in the Anglosphere. Yockey represents a more subjective, irrational, spiritual-cultural-political “existential” viewpoint (“humanities” oriented) more at home in continental Europe. Although usually antagonistic, I believe the two worldviews should be compatible and cooperative.
I think the ideal would be to create a tradition that can draw upon both traditions you refer to, and that would have a thoroughly political teleology and teleonomy. (By the way, both Lothrop Stoddard and Dominique Venner advocated a humanism informed by the life sciences, which they respectively dubbed “scientific humanism” and “virile humanism.” Their humanism was secular, civilizational, and racial, rather than religious or universalist.)
I agree.
This is off-topic, but I wonder to what degree the prestige accorded to Thomas S. Kuhn’s celebrated work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is attributable to (1) the merits of Kuhn’s works; (2) the fact that Kuhn was a Jew and could therefore benefit from Jewish ethnic networking; and (3) the utility of Kuhn’s thesis for rewriting the narrative (one might say that the narrative is rewritten from right to left, just like Hebrew).
All three, I think.
4. What changes does Salter’s work call for with regard to White nationalist ideology and discourse?
I believe I have discussed this above. The “movement” needs to drop all the fossilized dogma, all the old obsessions and fetishes, all the fake “racial histories,” all the old connections to HBD and other proximate measures, and adopt a more empirical and kinship-based view toward ultimate interests.  Of course, genetic interests are not everything. They are necessary, but not sufficient. First, we take care of EGI. Then we can move on to the objectives of Yockey.

What work does it call for?
Besides the obvious: how to popularize his ideas, I see the following follow-on projects:

1. An update/revision of the work to account for genetic structure.
2. A comprehensive defense of the work from critics.
3. A more detailed analysis of the practical consequences: how would a real-world polity incorporate Salterism in its policy?
4. How is Salterism compatible with Yockeyism?
5. Long range future of Salterism through the projected future of human existence/evolution/advanced technology.
Some of these things I  have already commented on in different forums; that material, added by new work, can be integrated and expanded.
By what means could and should Salter’s work be developed and popularized among White nationalists, inside and outside the English-speaking world?
I’m at a loss here. I have so far failed in my attempts. Anyone else have ideas?
What does it call for with regard to theoretical development, doctrinal articulation, and cultural diffusion? How might Salter’s work be adapted to discourse (which can range from complex theoretical systems to simple slogans and soundbites)?
I’ve commented on some of this above; but to a large extent these are questions that I do not have the answer to, since my attempts so far have failed to excite interest. Fresh ideas, anyone?
The distinctions between theory, doctrine, and discourse are worth noting. At present, Salter’s work is effectively a theory, not a doctrine or a discourse that one can readily encounter and easily assimilate, and On Genetic Interests is just one book among many.
True in a sense, but Salter’s position on universal nationalism forms the basis of a doctrine, and we cannot forget that the last third of OGI was on ethics.
5. What exactly do you mean when you refer to “the nationalist leadership”? Adapting Salter’s work is more metapolitical than political, which means that the relevant leaders and cadres will consist more of thinkers, writers, translators, editors, and publishers than the leaders of nationalist political organizations.
It might be better to focus more on the receivers and amplifiers, so to speak, than the loudspeakers.
Perhaps. My meaning is that it would be helpful if, for example, the leadership of European nationalist parties became acquainted with Salter’s thesis, and began to formulate policy, and utilize rhetoric, to promote racial interests in ultimate terms (genetic interests).  Putting ethnic and racial interests in proximate terms risks being manipulated in aracial ways.
6. What does it mean to weaponize doctrines and discourse? I should outline my considerations on this matter later, addressing discourse in static and dynamic terms.
I hope to see this analysis. I would think that one meaning is that one designs memes to achieve specific policy objectives. For example, discussion of EGI is not for polite academic interest, but to promote the idea that ethnic and racial interests are important, are fundamental to each individual’s interests, and can be (approximately) quantified in a genetic sense to represent a “biological currency” that constitutes value for individuals and groups.

In the end, other people need to step up to defend and extend Salter’s work, as well as to popularize it. If it is just me, along with a few other people here and there, that won’t do, and exposes a problem – a problem either in the work itself or in the “movement.”  The methodological and scientific aspect of the work is sound, the only “problem” it would have is that it may be too “dry,” too academic, not inspiring enough to interest the broad range of relevant activists. The problems of the ‘movement” are all to well known.

More on the Stupid Altruism Argument

Some generalized common sense.

One needs to also move on from abstract theory about putative “alleles for altruism” (which insofar as I know have not been discovered) and ask practical questions.

Joe votes for an anti-immigration political party. Jim votes for a pro-immigration political party. Jim and Joe are both native co-ethnics. In what way are ‘alleles for altruism’ being selected against?
Better yet and a bit more generalized: why is activism in favor of EGI necessarily altruistic?  Why is activism in favor of non-ethnics called “pathological altruism.”
My point and this is important: talking about “altruism” can favor a EGI standpoint, since it seems defending EGI is more “selfish” and surrendering genetic interests to help the unrelated is altruism.

In today’s Germany who is showing altruism – leftists who want more refugees or rightists who do not want them?

To put it simply: non-ethnics can free-ride on altruism as much, or more, than co-ethnics. Altruism in favor of free-riding non-ethnics imposes a double cost: counter-selection to all these majestic yet completely theoretical “alleles for altruism” AND the loss of genetic interests due to less representation of the entire genome. Altruism in favor of co-ethnics – in the context of ethnic competition (which is THE WHOLE POINT of Salter’s work) – at most may impose a cost on these “alleles for altruism” may is adaptive for the entire genome.

One can argue that favoring non-ethnics is more of a “sacrificial altruism” than favoring co-ethnics in any case.

And why does support for genetic interests have to be conflated with “self-sacrificial altruism” in any case.  In the Joe/Jim example above, how is Joe “self-sacrificing?”

This is all missing the forest (genetic interests) for the trees (theoretical arguments about putative “alleles for altruism”).

EGI in the News and Some Advice for Saint Viktor

Several items.

Salter describes the need for an Australian Ministry of Emigration.

You’d think that with recent published scientific work, the anti-Whites would stop their anti-Salterian song-and-dance about “evolution of altruism,” “ethnocentrism is maladaptive” and such patent nonsense.  The scientific approach is to analyze the data and try and refute it, while proposing alternative models.  In reality, they cannot refute it, since the mathematical modeling matches the results of the entire spectrum of human history, and makes logical sense as well.

We have reached the point that critics of Salterism have run out of excuses. Their opposition is clearly political and not scientific. They have no scientific argument, other than to endlessly repeat already refuted assertions over and over again.

At the current time, the only thing that can be done is to debate these liars, expose their mendacity, and hope third party observes discern the truth – the truth in this case meaning not only the validity of EGI but also the sociopolitical motivations of the liars opposing Salter’s thesis.

In a future White ethnostate?  This scum should be captured, put on trial to expose their perfidy to the public, and then executed to the delight of the watching, cheering crowds.
Then we have the patron saint of mainstreaming nationalism, Viktor Orban, whining like a baby.

Some free advice for you Vik.  This is what you need to do. Send the Hungarian army to the border and shoot anyone invading your country. Men, women, children, it doesn’t matter, shoot and kill, kill them all. Once word gets out, they’ll stop coming. Who knows?  Do that and you may win all those Jobbik votes you’ve been lusting after.

Oh, yes, the EU and Germany will complain.  Leave the EU and tell Germany to go stuff it. Haven’t Hungarians been bullied by Germans throughout their history long enough?  If the US mouths off, say the same to them. What business does a country that can’t control its own borders have dictating to a nation that acts on behalf of its sovereignty?  Oh, yes, someone at “the Hague” will accuse you of “crimes against humanity.” Answer to that: send some Hungarian commandos to capture that person, and bring them back to Budapest for trial. Hey, if it worked for the Israelis with Eichmann, why not for you?  And do you think the EU or the USA will “have the balls” to bomb Budapest if you shoot the invaders?   I doubt it. Anyway, how about Hungary develops its own nuclear weapons? I’m sure you have the scientific expertise. Have some nice ICBMs on your soil, tipped with thermonuclear warheads, and see if attitudes toward Hungary change. I bet they’d change real fast.  That’s my advice, Vik. You’re welcome.