Category: defending Salterism

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.

Again Refuting Ethnonationalist Mendacity

Against narrow ethnic nationalism.

“But Vox did seem to be saying that most White Americans would more likely than not identify with a single national-ethnic identity rather than the broader racial identity White”

That’s the sort of nonsense that I’ve spent years refuting over and over again, apparently to no avail.
There are solid reasons for differences in the “success” (*) of ethnoracial nationalism between the USA and Europe, other than the majestic “superiority” of narrow ethnonationalism. These include but are not limited to:
1. The greater professionalism and competence of leadership and membership cadres in Europe.

2. Within Europe itself, continental Europe has always had more developed nationalist parties and movements than the UK, for reasons which are likely deeply rooted in cultural and historical phenomena. The overseas anglosphere, including the USA, have seemed to inherit the more muted propensity for nationalism of the UK.

3. As discussed by Le Brun in a podcast, social pricing is much weaker in Europe than in the USA. Yes, Europe has “hate speech laws” but I believe that social pricing is a far more potent force in stifling dissent. Even with factor #2, if you relieved social pricing in the USA, racial nationalism would flourish. But defeating social pricing would require real leadership (see #1).

4. In America, social pricing is strictly reserved for White racial activism, which is what the System fears.  You want to organize an Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, etc, club at your school or place of business?  No problem!  Looked on benignly.  Organize a European-American club?  Oy vey, the racism!  Then Day’s SJW’s would really come out. Don’t you think people know this?  Don’t you think we need to break that barrier to have success?
*I put “success” in scare quotes because people are grossly overestimating the power of ethnonationalism in Europe where an outright invasion by young NEC and African males is being greeted with the enthusiasm of a sex starved female virgin getting screwed by a lustful alpha male.

Alleles for Altruism, Blah, Blah, Blah

Something to remember.

In many cases, pursuit of EGI correlates with proximate measures that increase fitness, so no altruism is involved. After all, why is pro-immigration and pro-refugee activism termed as (pathological) altruism?  Keeping out immigrants can enhance wages – selfish!  Keeping out immigrants allows for more space and better schools and neighborhoods – better for family formation – selfish!  Ethnocentrism is selfish, not altruistic.  Will free-riders take advantage?  Sure. But what about immigrant free-riders taking advantage of the open-borders altruism of the native population?  That’s s double blow – less overall genetic representation AND decreasing “alleles for altruism” by allowing selfish free-riding immigrants to prosper at the cost of altruistic “let them all in” natives.

Ethnocentric Dominance and the Failure of Free-Riding

Anti-Salterians wrong again.

Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.”  Let’s look at what the data say about that.

The abstract:

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.

 …ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. 

Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work).  That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).

… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…

That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.

Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.

Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure.  Read it and weep, HBDers.

Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.

This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago.  This paper explains it well.

The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders’ own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.

Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians!  The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data.  Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won’t even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.

Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.

This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, “unreliable.” No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.

Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors’ greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.

Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap.  Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.

Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.

Ethics, Pragmatism, and EGI

Refuting retardation.

I’ve been reading various retarded arguments against Salterism. One particularly stupid and dishonest argument is that Salterism implies that men should rape women so as to spread their genes and increase their fitness, or that if a person has a sick grandmother, they should eschew helping her in any way, since she is past reproductive age and so why waste your resources and thus depress your fitness. Thus, the critics assert that genetic interests must lead to a vicious “nature red in tooth and claw” Darwinian scenario in which people are raping and killing each other for a genetic advantage, and in which the elderly are allowed to “rot” if they don’t enhance one’s immediate genetic fitness. Unfortunately, some “friends” of EGI make analogous arguments; they use “EGI” as some sort of talisman to explain everything from the price of milk to bad weather, and assert that every human interaction is explained, or should be, by “EGI.”
Now, Salter has the last 1/3 of his book devoted to the ethics of EGI.  Critics (and a few “friends”) either ignore that section, or casually dismiss it as “add-on hand-waving” – as if many pages of carefully reasoned arguments based on ethical philosophy is mere “hand-waving.”  But, very well. I’ll make two major practical, pragmatic arguments why the “red in tooth and claw” assertions are wrong-headed and/or fundamentally dishonest, and why attempts to maximize genetic interests to the “nth degree” are doomed to be counter-productive.
1. It is simply not practical or pragmatic. Salter himself acknowledges that a very fine-grained pursuit of genetic interests is likely not possible and that the best that can be hoped for is to prevent large-scale maladaptive outcomes, such as mass migration and ethnoracial displacement/replacement.  What is a person to do?  Make every person they come into contact with take a genetic test, measure the genetic distances, and then calibrate every behavior in accordance to these distances?  To do this even with co-ethnics, with everyone?  For what? To gain an advantage of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a “child equivalent?”  The effort and resources wasted on such nonsense can be better applied to serious efforts in enhancing personal/familial genetic interests by raising a family in a stable society and in enhancing ethnic genetic interests by opposing mass migration.  An Irishman who, say, prevents 1000 Nigerians from immigrating to Ireland, has done orders of magnitude more for his genetic interests than any microscopic advantages to be gained by maximizing every passing personal interaction with his co-ethnics. The idea that the Irishman would be better served spending his time “raping women” (and avoiding arrest and imprisonment) rather than working, raising a family, and engaging in nationalist politics is so ludicrous that any intelligent person should be ashamed to even bring that up as an argument.
2. There is a difference between “gross genetic interests” – trying to maximize as much as possible genetic interests “to the last drop” no matter the cost, and “net genetic interests” – decisions that maximize the net genetic payoff in the end when all the costs vs. benefits are accounted for.  It is clear that these two are not equivalent. An example would be a population that attempted to maximize their genetic interests by rapid population expansion. That’s great – until they outstrip their carrying capacity, ruin the environment, and see their population crash, or attempt to relocate to another group’s territory, resulting in conflict that can turn deadly and result in genocide. Net genetic interests are better served by a more prudent policy of managing the population-environment equation and preserving the ethny from threats such as mass migration. Or, what if an ethny decides to start nitpicking on minor genetic gradients within the ethny and decides to maximize genetic interests by breaking their nation apart into small micro-states, each with an increased genetic relatedness? Perhaps every town and village can be a separate nation! And then a more integrated larger ethny comes along and more easily conquers (militarily or simply through mass migration or other tactics) each of these small micro-states in turn. The costs of destroying a historic nation, eliminating the organic solidarity of an established people, reducing the resources and power of the state, leading to defeat and destruction, would more than outweigh any putative gain by some slight increase in genetic relatedness of the population.
Going back to the original retarded arguments: any individual will have a greater genetic interest stake in their ethny, with its large population, than in their own individual fitness. On a smaller scale, familial fitness outweighs that of the individual. In civilized societies, ethnies and the families that make up these ethnies prosper by social stability, a proper degree of law and order, and distribution of positive social goods to family members and to co-ethnics. A society in which the population are savagely raping and killing each other to gain some incredibly tiny gain in fitness is not one in which any ethny will prosper. A family in which the elders can expect to be treated harshly is not one that will prosper and have the older generations helping to care for the younger. Even if we wish to ignore ethics, there are sound practical reasons to follow a more civilized, prudent, and conservative personal and familial lifestyle, because if everyone behaved in like bad fashion, everyone’s fitness (including yours) suffers in the long run. And free-riders are inevitably punished by a civilized society: being thrown into prison for rape or abusing elders will hardly boost long-term genetic fitness. In other words, attempts to maximize genetic interests to absurd levels meet with diminishing returns and eventually become self-destructive: beyond a certain level (reasonably defined by Salter’s ethics), one loses more genetic interests than one gains.
And here we come full circle with the ethics.  Even IF we were to agree that EGI could be optimized by rape, murder, and throwing grandma on the rubbish heap, what civilized society would accept that?  Europeans certainly would not. Even IF you consider ethics a sham, if those ethics make EGI more palatable for acceptance by the population, then ethics you must have. A 90% efficient policy of genetic interests that is acceptable to the population is infinitely more valuable for maximizing fitness than a 100% efficient policy that is rejected, for the rejected policy, by definition, will have a net efficiency of ZERO.

Of course, all my arguments are simple common sense, and it is hard to believe that the critics are so stupid not to realize all of this. They simply have ethnic and/or ideological agendas to delegitimize EGI. So they make retarded arguments, brashly declare that they have “killed Salterism,” and hope that the rubes believe them. It’s quite…unethical.