Category: defending Salterism

Salterian Ethics

“We charge you in the name of God, take heed.”

This essay is about the oft-ignored and much-neglected final third of Dr. Frank Salter’s classic work On Genetic Interests, a book that, in my opinion, is of such import that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for this work.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first described what genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are, how they can be measured, and what their import is, and how some objections to these concepts can be answered. The second section studies the political and social ramifications of genetic interests and the EGI concept, and how these concepts could be incorporated into practical biopolitics. The last third of the book deals with the ethics of pursuing genetic interests in opposition to the genetic interests of others and in opposition to the proximate interests (genetic interests being ultimate interests for evolved organisms) of others.

The ethical component of Salter’s work has been ignored by a Left that presents a defamatory strawman representation of EGI as promoting “genocide and rape.”  Obviously then, Salter’s careful arguments, and his advocacy of a “mixed ethic” that incorporates individual rights, is anathema to mendacious trash who wish to misrepresent the contents of Salter’s book. Some on the Far Right either ignore or mock this section of Salter’s book because these people actually do advocate genocide and rape (or at least the former) and they characterize the ethical section of the book as an unnecessary politically correct add-on, something purely subjective, and in some cases they engage in some defamation of their own by characterizing Salter’s ethical concerns as “squid ink” to hide the true “nature red in tooth and claw” agenda of On Genetic Interests (projection, perhaps).

I myself have not paid enough attention to this section of the book.  As a STEM person with an interest in population genetics and in empirical determinations of ethnic and racial interests, obviously I found the first part of the book riveting; as a White nationalist who wants to achieve certain political objectives based on EGI, it is equally obvious that the second part of the book was also of extreme interest to me.  Philosophy and ethics are not my strong suit and although I agree with most of what Salter wrote in that section of the book (unlike some of his foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzi critics), I have heretofore not given that section sufficient attention.  I hope to begin the process of rectifying that error here.

As Salter emphasizes, morality is basically an approach for adjudicating conflicts of interests. E.O. Wilson described human behavior as “…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact.” In relation to that goal, he asserted: “Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”  This is in accord with the view – promoted by Salter and myself – that genetic interests are ultimate interests. How could it be otherwise for evolved organisms whose reproduction – indeed, whose representation among the informational content of reality – is essentially dependent upon and constituted by “genetic material?”  Or more basically by the information encoded in that “genetic material?”

At this point, a brief detour is in order to distinguish “factual truth” from practical truth.” According to D.S. Wilson: “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  As a man of science, I have been trained to value factual truth, and that is part of the Western tradition; indeed, it has antecedents in the Classical Civilization of Europe.  However, there is truth (both factual and practical!) in D.S. Wilson’s comment.  If we merge the assertions of the two Wilsons together, we can say that practical truth is evolutionarily paramount if and when it acts to promote the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.  

An example from “movement activism” can clarify how an example of hypocritical racial cant confuses factual and practical truth, and further, how adherence to the genetic interests of racial aliens uses a denial of factual truth to also impede practical truth. A certain “activist” (*) wrote: “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”  But that criticism falls flat if the motivation in question reflects the practical truths that promote ultimate interests.  This individual himself is proof of this, given his reticence to extend his alleged interest in “emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses” to those ethnies he values and identifies with.  As a Nordicist HBDer who distorts racial science and racial history for his transparent agendas, he is as guilty as anyone else in utilizing practical truth and dismissing factual truth. However, any European-derived person who promotes HBD is acting against, not for, their ultimate interests, as they instead promote the ultimate interests of Jews and Asians. In this case, practical truth is used in the service of someone else’s ultimate interests. Why such genetic treason is practiced is for the traitor to explain. Whatever the reason, this agenda is the denial of factual truth (i.e., dishonesty) in the service of the denial of practical truth for Europeans (i.e., race treason).  

Now we will begin to consider the main points of Salter’s arguments about the ethics of EGI. Salter wrote:

…we make moral judgements of great consequence, and must do so if we are to decide conflicts of interests.  Choices are also forced in the game of life, every day genetic interests being won or squandered. A commentator who fails to advise people on how to defend their most precious assets is, by default, advocating the status quo, with its winner and losers.

One can contrast teleological or consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism with deontological ethics.  In the former, an act is morally right dependent upon its outcome; thus we ask – are its effects desirable?  In the later, acts are moral based on some defined rules or traditions; here the act is considered good or bad in and of itself, independent of its effects.  Teleological ethics are best suited for consideration of EGI, since we need to judge the consequences of various outcomes derived from conflicts involving genetic interests (e.g., competing genetic interests, genetic interests vs. proximate interests, or the specialized case of the latter of genetic interests vs. individual rights).

Obviously, and as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethnics have to have at some point a deontological component; after all, to label an outcome as “desirable” means that this consequence, this effect, has to be judged as morally right, as morally good, on its own merits.  Here we are evaluating the merits of the consequence itself, not the act that led to the consequence.  Thus, at some point in the analysis, a value judgement has to be made. Salter discusses various options for what this morally good consequence should be, including Mill’s idea of the morally optimal act being one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number.  However, “happiness” is a proximate interest that may not be in the best interests of an individual, group, or society; thus, maladaptive acts such as drug use leading to addiction may result in (at least short-term) happiness. Is that morally good?  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, and fitness can be an objective measure of a consequence that an evolutionarily informed individual (or society) can consider morally good.  

Obviously, this is a matter of values, and Salter has always admitted that “who cares?” is a riposte to genetic interests that cannot be refuted without addressing values. I’d like to point out though that those interested in promoting their genetic interests will outcompete and replace those who are not. In the long-term, disinterest in genetic interests is not evolutionarily stable. So, such a disinterest would be a quite strange “morally good ethic” in that it dooms itself to extinction. If someone has a value system in which self-destructive values are prized then that is their prerogative; others who value continuity of both their bioculture and their values would be well served to promote their genetic interests.  Salter also notes that proximate interests are best optimized rather than maximized; for example, a person who is “too happy” may become less prudent, jeopardizing well-being.  On the other hand, ultimate interests are different; these interests are adaptive when maximized (note: maximized in the net sense).  Thus, Salter states: “One cannot be too well adapted.” 

Careful readers may believe that quote is inconsistent with my distinction between gross and net genetic interests, and my comments (here and previously) that a too-aggressive pursuit of ever-diminishing returns of genetic interest can be counter-productive.  But there is no inconsistency because Salter’s quote makes being adapted the primary issue, not the mechanisms used to pursue that goal. Adaptiveness here is in terms of net genetic interests. In other words, maximizing adaptiveness is good, but attempting to maximize the pursuit of genetic interests, in every circumstance and regardless of context, can result in sub-optimal adaptiveness if that attempt backfires.  Note that in his book Salter describes certain ultra-nationalist states, like Nazi Germany, as being over-investments in genetic interests that ended up harming the adaptive interests of those states’ ethnies.  Hitler’s attempt to maximize German EGI backfired; look at Germany in 1945, and, worse, look at Germany today. German adaptiveness, their net EGI, would have been maximized by a more prudent, and less aggressive, pursuit of genetic interests. While in many – likely most – cases, maximizing genetic interests would maximize adaptiveness, that is not always the case. 

Note also that a person’s conscious preferences may not lead to adaptive outcomes; this can be from a hyper-investment in genetic interests as with Hitler or, more likely today, in globalist “anonymous mass societies,” people do not understand their genetic interests and thus under-invest in them.  While we cannot force values on people, we can educate them about genetic interests so that their choice of values will be an informed choice.

However, a pure utilitarian ethic – promoting adaptive fitness for the greatest number as the only consideration – has some problems.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

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. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, 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.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  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. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

Thus, Salter asserts that is prudent to eschew the pure ethic – where maximizing genetic interests would always take precedence in every circumstance – in favor of a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of adaptiveness is tempered by a concern for individual rights and minority group rights – or even the rights of other majority groups of other nations that your group may be in conflict with. 

Salter pre-emptively answers some of his Far Right critics by asking whether adding a concern for such rights “threatens incoherence” of an adaptive ethic. Thus, those critics complained that a concern for rights was a subjective “add-on” to EGI that does not logically derive from Salter’s arguments. However, the comments about bounded rationality and kinship overlap, as well as the possibility of maladaptive over-investment in EGI, point in the direction of a mixed ethic actually being coherent and probably more adaptive in the net sense. In addition, given the reality of White behavior, getting large numbers of Whites to agree with the value of EGI would necessitate flexibility about adaptive behavior, so as to include appropriate consideration of (potentially) non-adaptive values such as individual rights.

Note that in my view, proximate interests that temper the pursuit of genetic interests need not be limited to individual (or minority group) rights, but can (and should) include such things as a Yockeyian interest in “actualizing a High Culture” and other civilizational and political pursuits that may not always be perfectly congruent with a single-minded pursuit of genetic interests. But even here, I can argue that such a tempering may have long-term adaptive value.  The groups constituting the Yockeyian view are all European; hence, there will be at least some kinship overlap (at least at the global level).  

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).  The PAU holds EGI as morally good and also holds that adaptive interests must be maximized regardless of means. MAU also holds that EGI is morally good, but that the pursuit of adaptive interests must be constrained by rights.  The RCE does not assert that EGI is either morally good or bad, but this ethic is not teleological like the preceding two, but is deontological; thus, in the RCE the “rightness of means [are] unrelated to consequences.”  Then Salter asks certain questions for each of these ethics. First, can it moral for EGI to frustrate other interests? The PAU says yes, unconditionally; while the MAU also says yes, but only in defense of ethnic interests or in (limited) expansion that preserves the existence of the (defeated) competitor. Since Salter supports the MAU, it puts to lie the accusation that he supports genocide. What about the RCE? This ethic says that it is not moral for EGI to frustrate other interests, because such frustration of other interests causes harm. Should genetic interests have absolute priority?  The PAU says yes, the MAU says no when such interests “conflict with individual rights,” and the RCE says no, “since only means matter” – and only means consistent with individual rights are allowed in RCE.  What to do when genetic interests conflict?  The PAU says “compete within adaptive limits” (I suppose this means net genetic interests), the MAU says “compete but respect rights,” and the RCE says “stop competing, since it entails harm.”

I’d like to say at this point that the RCE is, practical terms, not really followed by anyone in the multicultural ex-West. Those who claim to support the RCE essentially support it only for Whites, while non-Whites are allowed to essentially follow a PAU ethics.  Consider – do supporters of the RCE really take an agnostic view of EGI independent of rights?  Or is the very idea of White EGI anathema?  I suppose the argument would be that any expression of White genetic interests harms the rights of non-Whites, so consideration of White EGI independent of rights is not possible.  That being so, the fact that non-White PAU harms White EGI is a feature, not a bug, of modern RCE hypocrisy.

Salter further discusses the ethics of the PAU and MAU approaches, making analogies between ethny and family.  If we allow people to favor their families, then why shouldn’t ethnocentrism be tolerated, or even celebrated (I’m talking about Whites here; as we all know, non-White ethnocentrism is already strongly promoted by the System)?  Salter goes further – if parents have a duty to care for their children, then perhaps people “have a similar duty to nurture” their ethnies.  Indeed, perhaps one rationale for race-denial propaganda is to prevent (White) people from making these “dangerous” (but accurate) analogies between ethny and family. Salter states that tribal feelings and ethnic identification are both necessary to produce “feelings of ethnic obligation” – so it should be no surprise to us that those two elements are attacked by the System with respect to Whites (but promoted for non-Whites).  

Salter discusses methods used to undermine these components of ethnic obligations, including “fictive ethnicity” (e.g., civic nationalism) and/or fictive non-ethnicity (e.g., race-denial).  Thus, Whites in America, for example, are told that their racial group does not exist, and that they should simply identify as “Americans,” considering any featherless biped infesting American territory as their civic “kin.” If protecting one’s genetic survival is a fundamental right (and it should be so for evolved organisms like humans), then these methods are immoral and unethical. Further, holding that genetic continuity is a fundamental right brings the MAU closer to the PAU, thus undermining Salter’s critics on the Far Right. Indeed, further undermining those rightist critics, Salter puts forth that advancement, and not merely defense, of genetic interests can be moral and ethical. The idea, consistent with the MAU, is to allow for the continued existence of the (defeated) competitor, albeit with reduced (but not fatally diminished) resources.

Salter then briefly discusses altruism and morality, citing one so-called “leading evolutionary theorist” who claims “that only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Amusingly, Salter then mentions that a healthier theorist made the comment that these types of ideas are such “that this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Indeed, calls for universalism and pathological altruism can be a competitive tactic; thus, non-Whites manipulate White behavior so that Whites sacrifice their own interests to promote those of others. This is of course maladaptive for Whites; indeed, evolved organisms are not expected to be, and should not be, purely disinterested in their morals and ethics (including altruism).  And, sometimes, ultimate and proximate interests converge and the distinctions are blurred (as I often state)l however, when distinctions between the two sets of interests are clear, the ultimate should usually be given precedence over the proximate (note: a precedence constrained by a concern for rights).

Salter notes that people “who do not consider peaceful genetic replacement to be a moral issue will have no moral objection to their own painless genetic extinction.” Well, there are Whites with pathological altruism who do not personally reproduce as as to “save the planet” (and who advocate the same to other Whites, but typically not to non-Whites), but typically the situation is that of a targeted attack against White interests. Especially, non-White activists will be among those who attempt to convince Whites to accept genetic extinction, while these non-Whites themselves continue their own genetic lines.  

And if people genuinely do not care about genetic interests, then why do many of them so strenuously argue against those who do so care?  I wrote about this previously:

The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  

Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.

A few concluding comments are appropriate at this point.  Salter believes that “evolved organisms” will not for long accept a “social order that weeds out their lineages.” Well, so far, Whites have been generally accepting of such a social order; we shall see how things evolve (no pun intended).  It is part of the proper ethics of EGI to educate people on the important of adaptive behavior; one can view Salter’s book, and my current post, as part of such efforts.

Salter also discusses “socially imposed monogamy” as an effective method for resolving conflicting genetic interests in societies, and this leads us to the idea that atomized individuals are unlikely to be able to effectively strategize and act on behalf of their genetic interests; collective action, including state power, is necessary. Salter mentions the ethical implications of having a state that is an interested promoter of national interests in the global arena, but “a disinterested arbiter of family interests within the nation.”  [Note that socially imposed monogamy may be an exception to the latter, depending upon your point of view]. There are different levels of genetic interests that would need to be handled in different manners.  Just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests, those that appeal to the universal human interest in genetic continuity and adaptiveness (whether consciously recognized or not), would be more stable than unjust and unreasonable approaches.  It is in the interests of any adaptively-minded state to promote such just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests,

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. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. 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. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

Let us finish with the following Shakespearean quote that Salter includes in this section of his book, with respect to conflicts between sets of genetic interests:


Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

We charge you in the name of God, take heed,

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

Shakespeare, Henry V, 1500, Act I, Scene I


*I want this post to emphasize ideas and theory, not personal feuding, so I’m not going to mention such people by name here.


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?