Category: EGI firewall

Mudshift Part II

Salter takes on Kaufmann again.

I have previously discussed Salter’s excellent Part I analysis of Eric Kaufmann’s anti-White screed Whiteshift. I will now evaluate part II of Salter’s analysis. Excerpts (emphasis added) are presented below, with my comments. You are also encouraged to read Salter’s original entire Part I and Part II essays, linked to above. 

I: Introduction

In Part One of this review, published in Quadrant (September 2019), I set out the thesis of Eric Kaufmann’s book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, and connected it to his earlier writings. In this second part I expand on some points of criticism. I noted that Whiteshift repeats the view originally expressed in Kaufmann’s 2004 book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America (2004) that left liberal elites should allow conservative whites to express their identity. In Whiteshift he adds that if whites wish, they should be allowed to huddle together as their societies inexorably become majority non-white and panmix into hybrid populations. “Unmixed whites may persist in rural backwaters, Eastern Europe and a few tight-knit diasporas”.1 

Hey!  Why allow those isolated White populations, Kaufmann?  I’m sure you can do some nice social engineering to make sure the populations of “rural backwaters, Eastern Europe and a few tight-knit diasporas” also become bizarre hybrids such as yourself. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Embittered hybrids, seething with animus toward the original Old World population stocks, particularly those from Europe, can never be at peace with themselves and their inner turmoil, with their constantly warring internal nature, unless they work to make everyone as miserable as they are.

Kaufmann thinks that cosmopolitan values such as non-discriminatory immigration and rule by post-ethnic liberal elites are non-negotiable. 

He thinks that because that is what he wants. Whenever you read or hear someone state that some social, political, or demographic trend is “inevitable” that is because that is what they want to occur. It’s “non-negotiable” after all.  Kaufmann is a mixed-race hybrid with an apparent animus toward unmixed Whites; thus, for him, long-term racial preservation is unacceptable.

But the chains of political correctness should be loosened a bit, at least while white conservatives have the numbers and resources to fight back. Otherwise they could become restless and disrupt the transition to a borderless hybridised global society.

Kaufmann’s genocidal objective is therefore confirmed. His body of work is all about hoodwinking Whites to get them to acquiesce to racial dispossession. A key diagnostic tool to identify anti-White genocidal criminals is this – do they promote memes that delay White response to dispossession so that it will be too late for Whites to save themselves?  For example, that is the key to “race denial” propaganda. After all, the only target for such propaganda are Whites – who else believes such nonsense?  Not the people who peddle that stupidity – do you really think that any educated and informed person really believes that “race is a social construct with no biological basis?”  The whole objective of the “there is no such thing as race” paradigm is simply to confuse gullible Whites, to delay a response to their racial dispossession, to make Whites believe nothing will be lost if they are replaced, to disrupt racial solidarity, etc. – it’s a delaying tactic. Once racial dispossession is irreversible, believe me, the “there is no such thing as race” nonsense will evaporate.  It’s a political tactic with a political objective. The same applies to calling “The Great Replacement” a “conspiracy theory” while at the same time crowing about declining White demographics. Kaufmann’s entire body of work on race is nothing more or less than a delaying tactic to prevent a full-throated White response to dispossession, to ensure that dispossession is irreversible before Whites fully realize what is happening to them.

His message to fellow cosmopolitans is, if you want to avoid future Trumps and Brexits, then take your boot off the neck of white ethnics while they have some kick left in them. But the pressure should only be released symbolically. Whites should on no account be permitted to erect pro-white or pro-Christian immigration policies. Let them preserve some dignity but under no circumstances allow them to remain white.

I am gratified to see that Salter is taking a tougher line with Kaufmann in Part II. That is generally consistent with my own view of Kaufmann – that view being that he is a White-hating genocidal lunatic, guilty of crimes against humanity. Kaufmann should be tried in international court, with the same sanctions on the table for a guilty verdict as existed at the Nuremberg trials post- WWII.

If you think this criticism of Kaufmann is too extreme, or in some other way unfair, consider this from my previous Mudshift essay:

In another publication, Changing Places (2014), he and his co-author Gareth Harris described and attempted to explain the extremely high level of white opposition to immigration in England and Wales (80 per cent).[22] They searched for ways to “remedy” this opposition. In other words, they treated white opposition to mass immigration as a problem to be solved, not as the expression of legitimate ethnic interests or democratic will.  

That is the ENTIRE point of my criticism of Kaufmann. His work is an attempt to “remedy” the “problem” of White opposition of racial extinction.  Whether or not his “remedy” can work or not is immaterial with respect to his moral and legal accountability in promoting White genocide.  By the standards established at international courts, starting at Nuremberg, why is Kaufmann not a criminal?

Back to Salter:

In Part One I also discussed some major implications of Kaufmann’s analysis. The first is his assessment that white ethnics were subordinated by left liberal elites decades ago, a thesis documented in The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Whites’ marginalisation within the establishment allowed their opponents to dismantle pro-white restrictions in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S., Canada and Australasia. Kaufmann’s description of white majorities as “dominant ethnicities” just means they are in the majority, not that they are dominant.

The second implication is that whites still have the possibility to resist their demographic submergence. Why else seek to placate white rebelliousness? As Kaufmann stated in an interview about Whiteshift, the reason progressives should not push against white identity is that doing so only produces more white identity, and this translates into greater support for nationalist populism, such as Trump’s election victory.2

Kaufmann is, in my opinion, guilty of crimes against humanity. He is, in my opinion, a vicious, hateful, anti-White genocidal lunatic. Question – if White “demographic submergence” is so obviously “inevitable” then why do people like Kaufmann work so hard to make sure it occurs?  Why, for example, search for “remedies” to White opposition to immigration to the UK?  I mean, it’s “inevitable,” right?  Does it matter if hapless Whites object?

Even ostensibly conservative governments such as Australia’s Liberal-National coalition have relied on the formalities of citizenship to engender social cohesion. This fallacious approach has become a mainstay of multicultural theory, probably because it helps justify indiscriminate largescale immigration.

Why “ostensibly” conservative?  Conservatism is a defeatist ideology and is certainly not incompatible with mass immigration.

Though Kaufmann is no identitarian, in his own way he adopts some of the cosmopolitan, universalist components of Mill and Bryce. Now some critical remarks.

II: Pop Evolutionary Psychology

Kaufmann’s attempt to connect genetic fitness to policy choices is amateurish. He dips into evolutionary psychology now and then, for example to report twin studies indicating that political orientation has a large genetic component. It is a pity he did not use more of that discipline.

Kaufmann does acknowledge that favouring those who share our genes paid off in the evolutionary past, but contends that in mass societies it pays off, presumably in fitness terms, to “transcend narrow tribalism”.9 A typical scenario, he states, was when a society was conquered and its members confronted with difficult choices: “Those who repressed their tribalism to adapt to these larger units may have been able to pass their genes on more effectively.”10 

Kaufmann is being so mendacious here, it is almost unthinkable that this is not an intentional anti-White display of sophistry.  Expansion of tribalism to large units is adaptive only if the population components of the larger units are relatively genetically similar and if adaption to the large units does not result in genetic dispossession and enormous losses of ethnic genetic interests for the constituent tribes. Consolidation of closely related European tribes into nation states does note equate to creating “nations” based on mixing radically different continental population groups.

This scenario lacks theoretical grounding. Instead of citing authorities on the subject he relies on a non-specialist, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. When discussing evolution he relies on Richard Dawkins, a populariser who throughout his career misrepresented and politicised the evolutionary analysis of ethnicity.11 Ignored is William D. Hamilton, a founder of sociobiology who also developed a theory of ethnic solidarity in the 1960s and 1970s.12 Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness is a mainstream evolutionary approach to understanding altruism among kin. Since ethnic groups show substantial kinship between members, their growth and decline affect members’ fitness. Kaufmann’s genetic argument would have been more convincing if he had compared the aggregate kinship of families and ethnic groups.13 That would have helped him ask a better question. Would conquered individuals pass on more of their gene variants by forsaking their children or their fellow ethnics or striking a balance between the two strategies? Answering that question requires consideration of the number of copies of gene variants carried by families and ethnic groups. Kaufmann also needed to consider the genetic difference between conqueror and conquered. Accepting incorporation of one’s family or tribe into another would have less fitness cost if the conqueror were closely related because a similar gene pool carries many copies of the conquered people’s genes. The same goes for accepting immigration.

Kaufmann’s weakness in evolutionary theory leads him to advocate grossly maladaptive policies, ones that do not preserve group reproductive interests. He does not take seriously the issue of genetic fitness, the ultimate criterion of adaptiveness. Cultural fitness is reduced to retaining a few myths and reminders of Christianity. Kaufmann’s model conservative is someone complacent about the fate of his ethnic kin so long as some cultural markers are passed on.

Salter very effectively summarizes the EGI argument and why Kaufmann is an outrageous liar. The EGI Firewall is a key principle here – the “model conservative is someone complacent about the fate of his ethnic kin so long as some cultural markers are passed on” scenario would be impossible if preservation of EGI was considered an absolute requirement for any political scenario.

III: No Conflicts of Interest

Kaufmann’s poor evolutionary psychology allows him to avoid the tough political and ethical issues that arise when interests collide. He maintains that compromises are possible without describing the various interests of ethnic groups and cosmopolitans. His call for tolerance of white identity is compatible with evolutionary principles. But it is absurd to pretend that ethnic group fitness is unaffected by receiving replacement-level immigration. To acknowledge that mass immigration can be an existential threat necessities discussion of the large store of genetic kinship found within ethnic groups.

I doubt Kaufmann is really unaware of this.  I believe that he simply wants replacement-level immigration to occur.

The reality is that racial diversification of white societies harms their group fitness because it encourages intra-societal conflict and reduces the relative size of their gene pools. In avoiding that loss it can be necessary to cause others to lose out. Win-win outcomes are not always available. Kaufmann expects common descent to continue its path of diminishing importance. National cohesion, he suggests, will be based on cultural more than racial similarity. 

But that of course will apply only to previously White nations.  One cannot but help notice that Kaufmann is not writing books entitled Jewshift or Yellowshift, he doesn’t target other groups for his agenda. A purely cultural definition of “national cohesion” only applies to what used to be the West.

True? Let us examine his argument.

Early in his book Kaufmann defines ethnicity. An ethnic group consists of individuals who believe they descend from the same ancestors, “and differentiate themselves from others through one or more cultural markers: language, racial appearance or religion.” Thus he appears to include racial ethnic markers as cultural, a fundamental error. But a few pages further on he states: “Physical differences likewise erode only over generations, through intermarriage”,14 which implies that racial differences are genetic. To resolve the conflict Kaufmann states: “Cultural tradition, not genes, tells us which markers matter and which don’t.” That is true to a degree.

Only to a degree.  Do we need culture to recognize the important differences between, say, Derbyshire and “Rosie?”

As Kaufmann says, the prominence of different markers can be raised or lowered culturally.

So why can’t we use culture to heighten racial distinctions?

On the other hand, racial recognition is universal to the species, slow to change and in some respects hard wired. 

IV: Ethnic interests undeveloped

Also notable is Kaufmann’s undeveloped the concept of ethnic interests. He does not go much further than a head count. A basic ethnic interest is the welfare and status of fellow ethnics, the driving motive of the civil rights movement in the United States. Another is simply feeling at home among a particular people, usually one’s own. 

A fundamental ethnic interest is control of a territory with which a people identifies. Perhaps the most intractable conflicts are between ethnic groups that lay claim to the same homeland, such as in Palestine. 

And yet Kaufmann is not writing books suggesting that Israeli Jews will – and should – become dispossessed and hybridized out of existence, and that some faint memories of “Jewish culture” can bring “national cohesion” to an Israel in which ethnic Jews no longer exist.

Another ethnic interest is inter-generational ties and traditions, including religion, and their reproduction down the generations. Describing these interests would have reinforced Kaufmann’s assertion that civic nationalism is a weak tie compared to ethno-nationalism.

Someone who is familiar with the sociobiological analysis of ethnicity should have been alert to research into ethnic interests. Kaufmann discusses Pierre van den Berghe’s theory of ethnic nepotism, which is a fine start. Richard Dawkins, who he references more than van den Berghe, is not a serious researcher of ethnicity or race. Unreferenced altogether are biosocial scientists such as Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Robin Fox, William Hamilton, Henry Harpending, Doug Jones, Richard Lynn, Kevin MacDonald, Philippe Rushton, Tatu Vanhanen, Michael Woodley of Menie, and more. 

Some of those are/were frauds and/or incompetents. Others are/were fine people.  Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, William Hamilton, Henry Harpending – those I know are/were good quality academics.  The others are either people I do not know or those that I unfortunately know all too well.

Kaufmann should be informing his readers that ethnic groups are reproductive interests for their members because they are pools of genetic kinship analogous to families. That makes ethnic stratification doubly upsetting and radicalising because it signals that some kin groups have higher status than others.

Due to patchy use of evolutionary psychology, Whiteshift downplays race as an ethnic marker. That was settled decades ago, for example by van den Berghe’s analysis of ethnic identity and J. P. Rushton’s analysis of the sub-conscious attraction of similarity. 

Given Dutton’s work of Rushton, it may not be the best strategy to invoke Rushton here, even if this component of his work was not fraudulent.

In both these theories racial markers are recognised along with cultural and linguistic ones.

Despite agreeing that racial characteristics are genetically inherited, Kaufmann denies that white identity has a genetic component.19 He writes: “Whites are not primarily attached to those of their race because they are genetically closer to these people: there are no discrete biological races so our tribal impulses have no obvious boundaries.”

This is a form of moronic race denial, which has been addressed at this blog many times. Here Kaufmann reveals his cards, since race denial is a typical “delaying tactic” aimed specifically at Whites, to confuse Whites’ sense of racial identity (and solidarity) just long enough for the process of racial dispossession to become irreversible.

This reflects Dawkins. It is muddled in three ways. First, it dodges the question whether there is a genetic component by diverting to whether it is “primary” and clearly demarcated. But ethnic attachment need not be primary in any way to be significant. Ethnic attachment is usually a weak social force compared to family bonds, but influential when multiplied across populations. Kaufmann’s statement is incomplete concerning boundaries. Yes, racial boundaries are often blurred but they are frequently razor sharp. When closely related peoples mingle it can be difficult to tell them apart. But when races and cultures meet that have been separated for many thousands of years and form geographical races, the contrast is usually apparent to all. And recall that race is but one ethnic marker. Cultural boundaries are usually more disjunctive.

This last part is important and touches upon a point I have made many times here. It is not just race, not just ethnicity, not just culture, not just phenotype. It are all these things together, interacting synergistically, that determine Identity, and when all of these distinctions are considered together, at the same time, boundaries can become disjunctive. Try convincing Chinese vs. Japanese or Israeli Jews vs. Palestinian Arabs that the boundaries between them are fuzzy and “blurred.”  The flim-flam is only targeted to Whites, if you haven’t already noticed.

The concept of genetic relatedness also needs clarification. Ethnicities are descent groups whose members therefore have some degree of genetic similarity. That fact should be explored, not obscured.

Kaufmann wants to obscure the fact, because he has an anti-White genocidal agenda.  By the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention, Kaufmann is a criminal.

V: Ethno-nationalist Intellectuals

Kaufmann’s scholarship is also deficient regarding ethnic nationalism, perhaps explaining his dismissal of related policies. His coverage of conservative thinkers is extensive, but not of ethno-nationalists. For example, he mentions white advocate Jared Taylor, a leader of the ethno-nationalist movement in the U.S., but fails to examine any of his ideas. He does not mention Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist and a leading theoretician of white ethnic nationalism. These two intellectuals’ ideas correspond to two gaps in Kaufmann’s analysis.

The main thread in Jared Taylor’s world view is “race realism”, acceptance of scientific findings on population differences. Related disciplines include physical and evolutionary anthropology, psychometrics, and behavioural endocrinology. 

Readers of this blog are aware of my criticisms of the work of Taylor and MacDonald.  I have outlined numerous logical and factual flaws in “HBD race realism” and have discussed the political motivations behind HBD.  One needs to make a clear distinction between real racial science and HBD.

No subject has been subjected to more intense cultural warfare or stronger taboos than race differences The Marxist left insists on universal equality and elements of the right insist on difference. An associated debate concerns the heritability of IQ differences. Again, the left denies robust heritability and the right accepts the results of mainstream psychometrics on the subject. Taylor argues that racial differences make some populations incompatible, for example due to differences in intelligence and crime.

As Taylor tells us, East Asians are “more intelligent” than Whites, and “have lower crime rates.” Are they then compatible with White societies?  Or should Whites step aside and let themselves be disposed by “high-IQ” “cognitive elites” from Asia and elsewhere? I would argue instead that populations are incompatible when they derive from different continental population groups and different High Cultures (civilizations).  It’s both due to genetic kinship as well as deep culture.

Kaufmann does not discuss any of Taylor’s ideas, despite stating that group differences are important for assessing immigrants. Kaufmann declares about the migrants who entered Europe in 2015: “I am sure they are disproportionately endowed with entrepreneurship, intelligence and grit.”

Even if that was true, so what? Do Europeans have to be race-replaced because the invaders have a lot of “intelligence and grit?”  Besides that, the fact that Kaufmann is so obviously wrong about the main streams of immigration into Europe, his characterization of the migrants is so comically absurd, that it reflects upon his fundamental dishonesty. He sounds just like the Clement Dio character in The Camp of the Saints.

Retired psychology professor Kevin MacDonald is not mentioned by Kaufmann, despite being in the intellectual vanguard of white ethno-nationalism in the United States. In The Culture of Critique, a peer reviewed monograph published in 1998, MacDonald argued that a number of Jewish intellectual movements led the assault on white identity in the twentieth century.22 In Whiteshift Kaufmann denies seeing any systematic evidence of Jewish influence on liberal immigration, a subject MacDonald has extensively researched.23 Kaufmann is aware of this because he publicly debated MacDonald on the subject in 2009.24

I’m not going to repeat my criticisms of MacDonald here. I will say that Kaufmann is part Jewish in ancestry and therefore may have a personal objection to realistically considering what Salter rightfully terms the “Jewish influence on liberal immigration.”

A serious review of ethno-nationalism would have included a broad spectrum of contributions, some inadvertent, to the empirical, theoretical and ethical analysis of the phenomenon. Contributors have included political scientist Jerry Z. Muller (The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism), sociologist Ricardo Duchesne (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization), Jared Taylor, the popular vDare.com website and a number of alt-right intellectuals. 

Isn’t “alt-right intellectuals” an oxymoron?  The work of Salter himself would be better.  Ted Sallis would be better.  Strom would be better.

And that’s only in the U.S. Many more could be chosen from Europe, such as three recently deceased scholars: Guillaume Faye26 in France, Tatu Vanhanen27 in Finland, and Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt in Germany. This would inevitably have raised issues not adequately discussed in Whiteshift, such as the sociobiology of ethnic solidarity. It is disappointing that Kaufmann draws disproportionately on authors who are within the cosmopolitan tent such as Dawkins and ignores better informed conservative analysts.

I wouldn’t necessarily classify those analysts as “conservatives.”  And Kaufmann ignores them because he’s a hack, a fraud, a political soldier fighting for the cause of White genocide.

Weakness of theory might have caused Kaufmann to write-off white nation states. 

Salter is being too charitable here.  Kaufmann writes off “white nation states” because he does not want any to exist.  Ultimately, he does not want Whites to exist.  In a fair world, Kaufmann would be on trial for crimes against humanity.

An example is his prognosis, discussed in Part One of this review, that white ethnic states are impossible because the worldwide white population will decline to become a “speck” by the end of the century. This overlooks a point that any of the aforenamed intellectuals could have provided, that borders can perpetuate national identity.

It’s not “overlooked.”  He does not want White national identities perpetuated.  He wants them destroyed.

VI: The Inevitability of Replacement Migration

Kaufmann portrays immigration as unstoppable, except where it has been stopped. 

Of course.

He explains why he limits his analysis to Western Europe and the Anglosphere. “[I]mmigration is less important outside the West because migrants tend to avoid or pass through Eastern European states.” (Chapter 1) 

That proves that Kaufmann is an incredibly dishonest (and despicably evil) piece of filth. He purposely avoids talking about successful defense against immigration, simply because he does not want Whites to put up such a defense.  This reminds me of Kaufmann’s (partial) co-ethnic Alon Ziv. In his book extolling the wonders of racial admixture, Ziv left out academic studies (e.g., Udry) showing mixed-race youths having all sorts of mental and physical problems. When called out about that on Majority Rights, Ziv engaged in the same sort of swarmy Levantine hand waving dishonesty as Kaufmann, which demonstrates a political agenda and a complete lack of honest academic and intellectual rigor.  Is lying in their blood?

This omits to describe Hungary’s and Poland’s tough border protection policies. It seems that majority white society is doomed only in those societies that fail to control immigration. 

Thus, Kaufmann’s agenda is telling Whites that they cannot control immigration. Once again, Kaufmann WANTS “white society” to be “doomed.”

This blind spot in Kaufmann’s analysis occurs despite his zeroing in on immigration as the central cause of rising white populism.

Oh, he knows very well what he is doing. It is not a “blind spot.”

A cause of white populism, Kaufmann argues, is that for decades the major parties have refused to offer the public the choice of slowing non-white immigration. This has led to rapid ethnic change and created an opening for populist politicians, such as Trump and Nigel Farage. Kaufmann’s suggestion that pro-white politics is limited to populism is condescending. In the past it was normal for white people, like people around the world, to support restricting immigration. In Western democracies that involved voting for centrist politicians. Less than a century ago in Australia and the United States large numbers voted for labour parties that defended the white working class against low-wage non-white immigrants. The immigration issue was central to the early Labor Party in Australia, where the White Australia Policy remained in the Party platform until the 1960s. In the U.S. the great union leader Samuel Gompers was steadfastly restrictionist regarding non-white immigration. From the beginning of the Republic immigrant was limited to free white persons. From the late nineteenth century Asiatic immigration was restricted, and from 1924 to 1965 a quota system was enacted to restrict immigration to traditional European source countries. Expulsion also occurred. In the early 1950s large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants to the U.S. were repatriated, culminating in over a million deportations under Operation Wetback in 1954. That was during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, an establishment conservative.

All true.

Kaufmann is open to mainstream parties using immigration policies to court white conservative votes. However, he does not countenance them stopping immigration. The legitimate choice, he thinks, is between moderate and high intakes. 

Basically he wants the parties to hoodwink their constituents.  Kaufmann is evil.  Let’s not avoid moral condemnation where and when moral condemnation is justified.  Kaufmann is, in my opinion, much, much worse than someone who is openly and radically anti-White. There the poison is obvious. Kaufmann wants to sugarcoat then poison so that the victim more readily consumes it.

Repatriation is out of the question partly because this would involve “hunting down those of mixed-race background”.28 

Like Kaufmann himself!  Do we need more evidence that Kaufmann’s ultimate motivation is his inner angst about being mixed-race?  Rather than blame his ancestors, he lashes out against all of us instead.

This leads Kaufmann to envisage the large scale hybridisation he calls whiteshift.

Promote, not just “envisage.”

VII: The Inevitability of White Disappearance

Kaufmann argues that thorough racial mixing is inevitable sooner or later. 

Only for Whites of course.  China can continue being China.

This is a big theme in Whiteshift, inspiring the book’s title. He asks whether white societies will be able to retain their cohesion and escape civil war even as they become highly diverse and then thoroughly hybridised. He thinks they can.

Translation – he wants them to.

Hybridity is essential to Kaufmann’s argument. It helps bridge the gap between relatively homogeneous white societies and their mixed race futures. He proposes that, during the (present) first phase, whites should be able to vent their identity anxieties in harmless ways. In the end-phase, when non-whites are in the majority, the dynamics of hybridity will take over. Kaufmann argues that Western countries’ mixed race populations will identify as white when they become majorities, which he expects to happen by the end of the present century. White ancestry will occupy the foreground of mixed-race identities. When it does, Kaufmann thinks this will allow ethno-traditionalists, conservatives who do not care about race or culture beyond core myths, to feel secure. To them the transformation in genes and culture will not appear threatening.

Kaufmann is an incredibly evil man, a deranged genocidal lunatic.  

This hybridity argument is logical to a point. Naturally some mixing is occurring and will continue. Kaufmann’s ideas about how hybridity will be received are interesting. But he is not convincing when discussing the reaction of ethnic nepotists, individuals who cannot be placated by vestiges of race and culture. He writes them off. For them Kaufmann’s vision is doubly unattractive because he offers no principled way for whites to limit the impact of immigration. He objects to ethnically-based immigration restriction, the only tried and tested method by which national identity can be preserved. Nor does Whiteshift foresee or urge limits to hybridisation. He insists that resistance is hopeless…

Because he wants it to be hopeless.  He wants everyone to be admixed like himself.  Misery loves company.

…declaring that white majorities will become mixed race with or without immigration. 

Interesting thought experiment: Imagine an all-White nation with no immigration.  How will the population become hybridized?  Kaufmann’s wishful thinking?  Or is that that previous influxes have already doomed us even in the absence of further immigration? What about separatism?  Repatriation?

But he then adds that, of course, the degree of admixture will be sensitive to the scale of immigration.

Can we just stop immigration?

This raises interesting questions not adequately treated in Whiteshift. Shall whiteness remain the foreground identity for individuals who are at least, say, half or three quarters white? Or shall ethno-traditionalists be so flexible that they will feel white no matter how marginal their European ancestry and appearance? Kaufmann is unclear. For him there is no line in the sand, no limit to the Third World swamping of white countries, as long as the process is peaceful. In effect he is smoothing the pillow of a dying people. 

He is a genocidal criminal. He needs to put on trial for crimes against humanity.  He is a monster.

He cannot imagine an ethical way for white nations (and only white nations) to continue.

Because he does not want them to continue. White racial preservation is an affront to his mongrel ancestry.

These considerations help us judge Kaufmann’s equanimity in predicting a mixed-race West in one or two centuries. His is a simple extrapolation of population trends over recent decades, a period when cosmopolitan and corporate globalism were triumphant, when European nations were shedding sovereignty to join the European Union super state, when the media’s and universities’ top-down cultural revolutions had taken over the establishment… So we should beware predictions made by a cosmopolitan at the height of cosmopolitan power. Kaufmann admits that linear extrapolations are fallible. Perhaps mass diverse migration will peak and even reverse. We should consider other possibilities. 

Kaufmann opposes those other possibilities.

Another possible future global system might arise from the attractions of social cohesion and belonging. “Normative endogamy” – the expectation of marrying within the group – is universally associated with ethnic identity, though the degree of endogamy varies from culture to culture. Perhaps the mixing of populations will follow the same pattern as that shown within the United States, where ethnic assimilation has occurred much faster within the major races than between them. American sociologist Richard Alba was among the first to notice that white ethnic groups marry each other, as do Blacks, faster than they marry outside their race.31

Many in the “movement” apparently believe we are instead living in 1919 and not 2019, and no intra-White ethnic assimilation has taken place (e.g., in America).

VIII: Naïve Treatment of Anti-white Politics

Kaufmann does not much explore anti-white politics. He attributes the taboo on white identity to left liberal and corporate ideology. There are surely other motives as well. One is religious or racial xenophobia fed by historical grudges…

Like Jews, such as Kaufmann (partially) and Ziv (fully).

…for example due to colonialism in earlier centuries. Another is perception of group competition. Globalist ideologies often portray white nations as obstacles. The United Nations has a long-standing anti-Western bias. Another anti-white motive is feuding among white ethnic groups and nations. The centuries-long conflict between the Irish and the English is an example. These motives were never grounded in reason alone, but in defence of identity, status and homeland. 

And the petty nationalist ethnonationalists admire and promote this “feuding among white ethnic groups and nations.”  They are enemies as well.

Defending whites on the basis of fairness or the common good will not always overcome such intense motivations.

Motivations such as Kaufmann’s personal bitterness over his own ancestry and phenotype.

The same political naivety is evident when Kaufmann tries to answer the excellent question of why white resistance to hostile state elites has been a long time coming, especially in the U.S. He thinks it is due to spontaneous identity processes and the dispersal of immigrants in the U.S., which have not challenged white identity as acutely as in Europe. Nowhere does he connect the delay to hegemonic anti-white cultural elites.

Elites such as Kaufmann himself.  Didn’t he work to attempt to suppress White identity processes? – see the description of Changing Places above.

Elsewhere Kaufmann describes how cosmopolitan elites manipulated public opinion. 

Exactly as Kaufmann himself is trying to do.

The political naivety of Whiteshift is also evident in its weak comparison of policies across states. Kaufmann’s horror repatriation scenario of “hunting down” non-whites does not apply to successful ethnic nations. How do Japan and Israel cope? They are not afflicted by police brutality or mass door-to-door sweeps. They seem untroubled by moral panics, despite the usual dramaturgy from radical left commentators. Neither are they authoritarian states. Their overseas diasporas, free of any coercion, do not condemn their homelands’ immigration policies. It seems that liberalism and ethnic nationalism are not as incompatible as Kaufmann thinks. It is not uncommon for immigrant communities to promote left liberal policies in their adopted societies while simultaneously barracking for ethno-nationalist policies in their home countries. Kaufmann does not discuss the lessons this could teach white majorities.

The solution to this apparent paradox is simple. To Kaufmann, Israel and Japan can, and should, continue to exist as ethnostates.  He has no problem with Jewish or Asian racial preservationism.  His target is Whites. The existence of Whites as Whites seems to enrage folks like Kaufmann and invoke in them a righteous fury that finds no satisfaction except in the dispossession and destruction of Whites as a distinct race.

Kaufmann contemplates a centuries-long assimilation process without discussing all the risks attending balkanisation. He properly notes some negative effects of ethno-religious diversity, but leaves some big ones unmentioned. Race differences is one omission, as discussed. Neither does he discuss the loyalty of immigrant communities. This is especially relevant to Australia, whose neighbours have much larger populations. Should Australian governments continue building up the Chinese and Indian immigrant communities while China and India become powerful regional military actors? Fifth columns and agents of influence have caused serious problems for democracies in living memory. Already China has been criticised for manipulating its diasporas around the world to advance its goals. The same is true of Turkey and its diaspora in Europe. Both attempt to mobilise their diasporas to bring Western countries to heel. So the loyalty of those diasporas is a legitimate issue of investigation. Yet Kaufmann does not discuss the subject. He does not advise white majorities how to protect themselves. He even disapproves of pro-majority immigration, the default policy for the rest of the world. How can white majorities have a future if non-discriminatory immigration leads to their nations losing independence? Whiteshift’s omission of the links between immigration-induced diversity, foreign policy, and national security is a large hole in its analysis.

Kaufmann does not want them to have a future.

IX: Cosmopolitan Elites’ Right to Rule

It is also naïve to assume that cosmopolitans should rule. In Part One I noted that Kaufmann treats left liberal elites as uniformly motivated by cosmopolitan values. Uniformity is a quality he does not attribute to white conservatives, among whom he discerns psychological and ideological differences. He makes further questionable assumptions around this subject.

Kaufmann is aware of van den Berghe’s theory of ethnic nepotism but thinks that only conservatives, not liberals, generalise their intimate nepotistic ties to the national level. “…Kaufmann’s cosmopolitan bias is to present anti-white elites as immovable givens that must be accommodated. At no point does he signpost the alternate pathway of white rebellion and liberation. For him populist nationalism really is deplorable.

That is because he is mixed-race and therefore cannot stand the continued existence of unmixed Whites. People like him have a deep psychological urge to admix everyone, particularly Whites, so as to reduce the inner pain of their own existence.

Whiteshift would have been improved if it had broadened its audience to include white majorities, not just left liberals. 

Kaufmann’s real audience is left liberals and the instruction he gives them is how to more efficiently and safely exterminate Whites as a distinct race.  

White ethnics need advice on how to handle their left liberal persecutors.

Persecutors like Kaufmann.

From their perspective the question is how to deal with intolerant and powerful opponents…

Like Kaufmann

…how to placate them when necessary and how to dissuade them from their ambition to have whites disappear. 

Can we first dissuade Kaufmann?  Can we assure him there is a place in the world for his own bizarre and grotesque hybridization and reason with him that promoting White genocide through mass migration and hybridization will not, ultimately, really make him comfortable with his own ancestry?  Kaufmann’s real, authentic struggle is an internal, personal one, not an external, political one. Whites are not to blame for Kaufmann being Kaufmann.

Whites need strategic advice. For example, if they defeat their leftist and minority antagonists, which settlement would be most advantageous and durable? Could they emulate the left by shaping education, media and immigration policy to make their victory permanent? Kaufmann does not offer this advice because he sees white ethnic survival as entailing the overthrow of his cosmopolitan values.

And endangering his own mixed-race self.

X: Kaufmann’s Bravery

No offense to Salter, but that’s plain nuts.  Kaufmann is simply a more realistic and cunning System apparatchik.  He is part of the hivemind; ultimately, his genocidal agenda is part and parcel of the anti-White system.

The taboos Kaufmann challenges may be arbitrary but they are very real. He is well positioned to detect them because he is in the belly of the beast…

He IS the beast.

… – the mainstream university system. He knows that the taboos he challenges…

He isn’t challenging them.  That’s the whole point.  He’s trying to reinforce them by making them more palatable to their victims.

The left-authoritarian values of Big Tech were exemplified in 2015 when, at a UN event, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was overheard agreeing with German chancellor Angela Merkel that Facebook users who disagreed with her open-borders immigration policy should be suppressed on his social media website.39 The following year in Berlin, Zuckerberg praised Merkel’s policy and announced that Facebook would censor speech critical of the immigrant influx.41

I cannot forget how it took the “movement” weeks/months to criticize Merkel after I had already been doing so here.

The Atlantic writer hoped the Orwellian measures would be extended further on Instagram to prevent “extremist thought”. Another article in the magazine criticised white baseball players for visiting President Trump when players of colour had refused.43 What is criticised as totalitarianism in the case of Communist China is being promoted by Western cultural elites.

Censorship by social media corporations is a return to the post-WWII establishment liberal consensus that suppressed expressions of white identity. The original consensus involved a monopoly of elite universities, the mainstream press, network television and the popular music industry. This monopoly partially collapsed for about two decades due to the emergence of the internet, but has been largely re-established.

This is the ruthless juggernaut that Kaufmann hopes to deflect with appeals to self-interest. He might appear timid to conservatives but in the present university environment his stance is courageous.

No it is not courageous at all.  He just needs to explain better to the System that his methodology is an approach for managing White dispossession, he just needs to dog whistle to the Left without unduly alarming his White victims. With the entire System backing Kaufmann’s agenda of White genocide, that shouldn’t be too difficult. Kaufmann is not courageous – is a coward and a bully, assisting a powerful System to complete its agenda of racial genocide.

XI: Conclusion

Whiteshift might be part of a trend. The assumption that it is okay to express ethnic pride, that it is not immoral or racist to defend one’s national identity or to preserve society’s ethnic balance, is being extended to whites after many decades in the sin bin. The idea is beginning to appear in other academic works, for example Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin’s National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy, which won the Sunday Times’ book of the year for 2018. Like Kaufmann, Eatwell and Goodwin address a progressive audience when they urge respectful engagement with national populists.

We can view them not as allies but as useful idiots.  We are engaging in a “cat and mouse” game of intricate strategy here. Those guys are our enemies, they want to ensure White destruction by making the process more pleasant and painless. They want to exploit certain aspects of White complaint so as to superficially treat symptoms of dispossession while allowing the underlying disease to spread and kill the victim.  We, on the other hand, should leverage these people as icebreakers, to begin the positive feedback loop in which legitimization of White interests encourages more pro-White activism, which them further legitimizes more radical viewpoints to be considered.

But the multicultural spoils system is so entrenched that the cultural establishment is unlikely to gracefully recant its double ethnic standard. If Eric Kaufmann’s vision of tolerance is to be realised, if it is to become as acceptable to advocate the interests of whites as it is other ethnicities, whites will need to fight for their rights.

Whites fighting for their rights will carry the agenda far past where Kaufmann wants to draw the line.

One weakness of Salter’s analysis is that he doesn’t include the implications if Suvorov’s Law into his consideration of the implications of Kaufmann’s work.  Thus, as I wrote:

This gets back to a concept I often refer to as “Suvorov’s law”- revolutions do not occur during the time of maximum repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Kaufmann may wish that the acceptance of White identity politics goes only so far and no farther, that it goes only to the extent of narcotizing Whites so they ultimately accept their racial demise. But it is not up to him to determine the extent of reform.  Louis XVI didn’t dream that his initial concessions would lead to the French Revolution and him losing his head.  Gorbachev didn’t have the dissolution of the Soviet Union as his endgame for his own reforms.  Moderate Whites who accepted the initial steps of “civil rights” in the USA in the 1950s and early 60s couldn’t dream how out-of-hand it would get.  No, once you show weakness, once you ease the repression, once you officially legitimize the demands and aspirations of the opposition, once you whet the appetite of the opposition for more concessions and more power, then the direction and momentum of change slips out of the control of the reformers. Kaufmann may wish to slyly manipulate the White Right to acquiesce to “inevitable” racial destruction; however, it may turn out that Kaufmann will be a “useful idiot” paving the way for a more radical, assertive, and aggressive White identity politics. Kaufmann, as the icebreaker for White nationalism, may not foresee the direction his planned pseudo-reformation may go. If he realizes it, he may denounce his own Whiteshift, but the cat is out of the bag now.  

Pro-System sociopolitical technocrats like Kaufmann believe that they can fine tune the level of concessions so as to carefully ease Whites into oblivion, but history demonstrates that it is not that easy.

Note that “The Suvorov Strategy”- trying to force the System to make concessions so as to create momentum in the direction of radical, revolutionary change – is at odds with the “worse is better” approach that forms the foundation of typical terrorist strategy – attack the System to provoke them into increasing repression so as to radicalize the (target) population and alienate them from the System.

Both strategies have potential weaknesses, and the weaknesses of both, in this case (talking about Whites), derive from the particular characteristics of Whites. Whites have become so weak, feckless, and lazy that they may indeed be bought off by a few concessions and therefore Suvorov’s Law won’t come into play.  I have always advocated Democratic Multiculturalism as part of a Suvorov Strategy – and Kaufmann’s ideas, on their face value, can fit into that, but there was always the fear on my part that stupid and naïve Whites would allow fake leaders to co-opt the strategy and lead it into a cul-de-sac. The whole idea of leveraging Kaufmann as the icebreaker of radical change will be a losing proposition if Whites are so pathetic as to be bought off by a few scraps from the multicultural table.

On the other hand, “worse is better” will likely fail because increased repression can simply leave a population completely cowed, fully intimidated and despondent, and here is no evidence that there is any “line” beyond which increased repression would stimulate lazy, indolent, and cowardly Whites to fight back. If Suvorov’s Law is correct, then increased repression would, at least in the short-term, simply strengthen the System.  The long term may be different, but time is running out for White survival.

The Importance of EGI

Race, immigration, and the demographic future.

Read this about the real underlying issues of the immigration debate.

A focus on EGI is absolutely essential in evaluating any debates on, e.g., immigration.  We require a more thorough – and ongoing – analysis of this. We need to effectively ground our understanding of key issues, and our political activism, on a bedrock foundation of ethnic genetic interests and the pursuit of group adaptive fitness. While some proximate interests – for example, actualizing a High Culture – are of fundamental importance, we must always realize that ultimate interests – genetic interests – are paramount. If genetic interests, ultimate interests, must be given precedence over the most important of proximate interests, then this shows us how much more precedence they must be given over less important, less urgent, less fundamental proximate interests.  A further point – genetic interests and the most fundamental proximate interests are typically in accord; thus, actualizing a High Culture is not only compatible with the EGI-conserving objective of racial preservation and advancement, it can be viewed as being actually dependent on it (and, to a lesser extent, vice versa). On the other hand, one can think of many other proximate interests – for example, an emphasis on “economic growth” – that can be incompatible, in many contexts, to the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.

And even though culture and civilization are the most important proximate interests and in many ways overlapping ultimate concerns, they are not themselves ultimate concerns, so one should even be skeptical of comments such as those as Trump bemoaning immigration into Europe because of its pernicious effects on “culture.”  Now, Trump was right, and to be fair, we should appreciate that he went that far – crossing a line other American leaders feared to even approach or, worse, even acknowledge – but it is not enough.  The ultimate issue is demographic replacement, and we await the American leader “alpha” enough to cross that, final, line.  After all, we can always hear ‘spin” about how alien invaders “assimilate into the culture,” but EGI is a “firewall” that prevents discussion from veering too far away from ultimate concerns.

But for the firewall to be an effective one must accept that one’s worldview has a grounding in EGI, and one must have a serious understanding of the concept. I do not advocate the crazed stupidity of Type Is who warp the concept and use “EGI” to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk; idiots who chant “EGI” as a talisman without even understanding what it is about. Instead, I simply say that consideration of EGI must be behind memes and schemes, behind goals and objectives, and even when proposing grand moral orders, sweeping vistas of a White future, one must always remember that EGI must be at least minimally considered in the background.  All schemes, agendas, and objectives must have a pro-EGI foundation upon which the grand structures can be built. This does not mean that EGI is itself the grand structure – I argue against that here – but it has to be the foundation, the firewall, the immutable prerequisite that prevents you from drifting in the direction of maladaptive ideas.

I note the “movement” – despite a small faction that, as noted above, chants “EGI” at every opportunity (typically superfluously) – also doesn’t properly incorporate EGI into its calculations (it if has “calculations” at all, rather than just endlessly regurgitating the same old tired memes, the same old fossilized dogma).

The implications of EGI cannot be responsibly evaded.  We know that the Left and the Mainstream Right, evil and stupid to the core, respectively, are bereft of responsibility to humanity – higher humanity – but the Far Right, in theory, should possess the sense of responsibility to do what is right.  And they cannot do this without having a solid foundation of EGI and its myriad consequences when considering the actualization of ideals into policies.  Only Type II activists are truly capable of doing this.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

Rethinking Horizontal Race

Yockey.
More commentary on this and related topics will be forthcoming, as a major focus of my work will be to formulate a scientifically-informed Yockeyism that incorporates Salterism into Yockeyist thought (and vice versa?).
While I will still deconstruct the “movement” when appropriate, a constant monitoring and critiquing of every single stupidity of Der Movement is a waste of time, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the “movement” is not redeemable, and all of the Type I Nutzis are never going to change their ways. It is time for the Type IIs to plan on making their stand.

Strom and IE

Der Movement.

Kevin Strom talks about racial identity.  That is an excellent contribution by Strom and is consistent with my idea of an “EGI Firewall” – that concerns for EGI should be the minimal foundation for any objective that a society sets for itself.  Whether you call it racial identity, racial interests, EGI, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing.  Indeed, the only significant departure between my views and that expressed by Strom here is his assertion that the National Alliance is a serious vehicle for the promotion of White interests.  It was not that when Pierce was alive, and I don’t see the organization having any long-term viability in the absence of Pierce and the regard (whatever you believe it was justified or not) he was held by the broader “movement.”

Identity Evropa: they seem, at first glance, to be sound.  I wonder if they are for all Europeans, or just (the standard) subset of them.  That will, I assume become clearer over time.  I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt now, but origins in the Old Movement, particularly the Alt Right, does not inspire confidence in this regard.  The HBD-style material at their website does not inspire confidence either.

The community service approach is excellent and something I’ve promoted for a long time, see my interview in Griffin’s book for example.  That needs to be expanded.  The vetting seems so far to be working, and is apparently goes beyond the standard “are you Swedish?” “movement” fare.  The property expansion is good, and I am gratified that the person talking seems to understand the sort of contingencies and problems involved.  I am not as optimistic as this interview as for a positive outcome of the court cases, but we’ll have to wait and see. In general, I do not believe all these people, including Taylor, truly understand the extent to which the System is committed to crushing dissident views to racial orthodoxy.

One question, particularly relevant given the forum at which this interview took place: Does Identity Evropa consider Jews to be European and hence eligible for membership?

Political EGI, Part 1

Political EGI, Part 1.

How can EGI be incorporated into politics and be effectively utilized by nationalist politicians and right-wing populists?  And how have such people heretofore failed to utilize the powerful concept of group genetic interests?

Nationalists and populists unfortunately typically invoke the same type of proximate arguments favored by cuckservatives – e.g., legality, economics, and culture – and so set themselves up for failure even before they begin.

Without a proper consideration of ultimate interests, using EGI as a firewall, even nationalist-minded politicians can get bogged down in arguments that are ultimately irrelevant to real group interests and end up in a maladaptive cul-de-sac.

“Mainstreaming” efforts to move the Far-Right to the center in order to “appeal to the mass of moderate voters” also results in nationalist-populists eschewing “red meat” arguments for group interests in favor or more peripheral issues of economics and (vaguely defined) culture. Aping the positions of cuckservatives has not helped, as the mainstreamers have gone from one disappointing failure to another.

Explanatory arguments about “hate speech laws” as a reason for not tackling ultimate interests fail since a consideration of ultimate interests and the need to defend them would have led nationalist-populist leaders to long ago make promotion of free speech a priority, as I have been advocating for approximately twenty years.  It is only when such leaders accept that ultimate interests are “off the table” as an area of explicit discussion do they also accept that speech defending such interests should and can be outlawed.  This runs up against the EGI Firewall – if the pursuit of EGI is absolutely essential, and if alternative proximate prioritization is blocked by the Firewall, then the defense of, and utilization of, explicit speech in defense of ultimate interests would be prioritized.  Although one could accept a short-term use of implicitly ultimate and explicitly proximate speech in order to get around repressive laws in order to “get things done today,” the easy acquiescence of nationalist-populists to decades of speech control is inexcusable.  It’s not like this situation is a new one and that the leaders are temporarily trying to evade the repressive laws while trying to overturn them – no, the nationalist-populists have more or less accepted the permanence of speech repression and have abdicated a vigorous defense of ultimate interests in response.  This is completely unacceptable.

What then can be done?  Let’s look at my EGI summary and outline the points. This is only a start, but we need to start somewhere.  Let’s give some pointers for an EGI-informed political speech.

“Mainstream” discussions about immigration, race, and the implications of a multiracial society usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity. No rational person would support policies that would, on the one hand, “enrich” their family while, on the other hand, simultaneously replace their family with strangers. And yet we seem to completely ignore the large scale effects of public policies on our greater “extended family”–the racial and ethnic groups to which we belong.

This is the basic introduction – adjusted in tone and language for the specific audience – which nationalist-populist politicians/leaders should make to introduce the concept. One must be clear that economic/cultural/legal-criminal, etc. issues, while important, are secondary to genetic continuity.   The key to reaching a more general audience, one without scientific training but open-minded to issues of (self)-interest is to invoke the analogy between ethny and family, the language of kinship, of belonging, of ties of blood. These sorts of arguments have proved useful in the past to spark loyalty to the nation and self-sacrifice in time of war; properly utilized, without rancor and spite toward the stranger, they could very well work today.  Yes, there is a “hard shell” to crack of modernist cynicism and atomized individualism of today’s mass society.  However, the success of nationalist-populists in Europe, and of Trump in America, suggests there is a mass of the (White) population potentially receptive to this message, but who have heretofore been diverted to implicit, civic nationalist, and proximate-oriented concerns that are, at best “fig leaf cover” and at worst intentional diversions, from the crucial issue of genetic continuity.

Concerned individuals have awaited a comprehensive and honest study of these issues. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter has published just such an analysis in the journal Population and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140), entitled: “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” He has then followed this crucially important article with an even more detailed study in the book, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration , 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2007). The following summarizes Dr. Salter’s work.

Leaders on the Far Right really need to read Salter’s book. There is no excuse not to do so. The idea that you have nationalist-populists running for high office who mostly likely never ever heard of “ethnic genetic interests” is atrocious. Are we surprised that their rhetoric is so confused?

Essentially, life as we know it is ultimately about the propagation of distinctive genetic information from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Family members share many of the same distinctive genetic information, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his or her family. This is true also for population groups, or “ethnies,” a term which can refer to races, ethnic groups, and/or various subgroupings of these. Like families, members of an ethny have more distinctive genetic information in common with each other than they do with people of other populations. Although the genetic relationship of ethny members is more diluted than that of family members, ethnies are larger reservoirs of genetic interests for their members because of their size, which can number in the many millions Therefore, it can be as adaptive, or more so, to support one’s ethnic or racial group as it would be to support one’s own family.

This is the point that needs to be emphasized time and time again – ethnicity and race are family writ large, and all the interests and concerns that all normal people have for their family applies to these larger groups as well.  While the ties of blood and kin are more dilute for these larger groups than for family that is more than compensated by the numbers involved.  We are talking about millions of kin here – distant kin for sure – but millions of them. Is that so difficult to state?  To incorporate into a speech?  I would think only minimal adjustment would be required.  Even quoting me word for word would work, dependent upon context.

A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction–precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. An important part of Dr. Salter’s work is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.

This is clear enough, but may need to be reworded if it seems too “harsh” for mainstream ears.  I do not see it as too harsh, but here’s another example where we need empirical data as to public attitudes and reactions to our rhetoric.

Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying capacity and genetic kinship. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although technology and increased economic efficiency can increase carrying capacity, there is a practical limit above which further population growth is not possible.

This is an important point, but expect pushback from Neocon “economic growth” cuckservatives; let’s not forget John ray and his fantasies that the USA could comfortably house three billion (!!!) people at Western European standards of living.  Which leads us to:

Many ecologists believe we are approaching, or have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity of the Earth. Even if these ecologists are wrong about the Earth as a whole, it is clear that carrying capacity has already been exceeded in those areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources.

This is good in two ways.  First, it introduces the concept of carrying capacity, necessary for a full understanding of the migration threat.  Second, it touches upon “green” environmental memes – always something that resonates with elements of the White population.  True, those elements have heretofore (recently) been hostile to racial preservationist ideas, but that’s not always been the case.  Nordicist preservationist Madison Grant was an early environmentalist of sorts, and one should not blithely dismiss opportunities to reach out to varied White constituencies.

Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually. The same principles apply to any other nation, including the nations of Europe, many of which are more densely populated that is the United States.

These arguments would likely be most appropriate in a debate format, to answer objections from critics.  Raising these details would not be required for a shorter speech or statement; however, in a longer statement of principle, perhaps an abbreviated version of the above could be worked in.

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendants that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that. The other concept central to Dr. Salter’s argument is genetic kinship. Even though all humans share much genetic information, kinship is a measure of the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general genetic sharing.

As in the preceding paragraph, this is detail, secondary to the main points – with respect to laymen and political speaking (for informed activists this is fundamental and not detail).

Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: for any given member of the native population, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his or her genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number of alien peoples? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but genetic equivalents put into the form of the parent-child relationship.

While this also could be construed as technical detail, something along these lines should be worked into a speech, since it underscores the family-ethny connection, and puts the whole idea of EGI into personal terms that would resonate for many people – child equivalents. Equating the worth of co-ethnics with that of children is political dynamite – if utilized properly it can have a positively explosive effect, but if used clumsily, it can blow up on the user.  This needs to be stated calmly and without rancor, in a manner that makes the point effectively but not too harshly that it over-reaches and invites ridicule.  I’m not a political speechwriter; I’m sure that those who are by nature and employment professional wordsmiths can find the right formulation for this idea.

Put differently, the arrival of immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of view of any given member of the native group, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number of children not born to that person. This is putting a number on the replacement of members of one group by members of another. Some examples will make this clearer.

Again, stated succinctly and with the “right touch” this is a powerful statement that can release emotional energies inherent in the close bonds of parenthood and family.

The data that Dr. Salter used for these calculations derives from genetic assays. Please note that these specific studies are somewhat dated, although the most basic findings have been replicated in more recent research. It is very important to note that these data almost certainly underestimate the extent of genetic interests and underestimate the genetic damage done by immigration and multiracialism. That is because not only are the original studies somewhat dated and not as detailed as later work, but the findings do not include differences inherent in higher order genetic structure, which also contribute to genetic interests.

This is detail not required for a political speech, but may be necessary in some form for debate.

Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post-displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.

The general idea must be stated but numbers are not required for a political statement.

Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus–a population very genetically distant from the English–rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations.

Same as above.

What if the levels of immigration were greater, and more in keeping with the massive displacement of Western peoples we observe today? If 12.5 million Englishmen were replaced by an equal number of Danes, the genetic loss to each individual Englishman would be the equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6 million children; if the immigrants were Bantus, 13 million.

The point here is not the numbers, but simply the idea that genetic distance x numbers of people = child equivalents lost.

These figures are not “guesses”; they are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data. As stated above, these figures likely underestimate the real genetic damage.

Just say that these are unavoidable facts of the reality of life.

It is also important to stress that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss in terms of genetic equivalents reflects the change in population from the point of view of every member of the native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the loss of his children and grandchildren, though on a much larger scale.”

This is an important point, Salter’s exact words are good and powerful.

To further illustrate these points Salter then determines the number of immigrants of group y necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of native group x by one child equivalent. For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child equivalent. In other words, using conservative genetic data that likely underestimate these effects, the presence of about one African, or about two Northeast Asians, damages the genetic interests of a typical white (i.e., of European ancestry) person to a degree equivalent to that of losing a child. This is a powerful and personal argument against racially alien immigration and against a multiracial society.

Exact numbers are not so important as the concept – that even a small number of such migrants inflict damage and the damage incurred by mass migration is simply enormous. Bringing up Asians is helpful in this context as well, if for no other reason than to make White folks reconsider their unrequited love for those peoples.

While plunging birthrates may be damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a territory their genes are a permanent addition.

This is an absolutely crucial point that MUST be included in any speech or statement.  Using immigrants to make up a population shortfall (real or imagined) is race replacement; it is causing a (possibly, in the absence of repatriation) permanent problem in order to address a temporary state of affairs.  Now, the term “genetically alien” may need to be reworked so as to avoid offending tender sensibilities (or European “hate speech” laws), but the major point of the paragraph above is one of the major cornerstones of any Political EGI statement.

From the standpoint of genetic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological. The assertion that immigrants must be imported for “economic” reasons, or for some other short-sighted rationale, is therefore exposed as incredibly destructive to the interests of the natives.

This is another incredibly important, and related, point, since that “argument” for mass immigration is often made.  It would seem obvious that replacing a people does not benefit the people being replaced, but for Westerners, obvious truths require constant reinforcement to make them understood and internalized. There is no way of getting around it, and it fits with a “turnabout is fair play” mindset” – after having healthy preservationist impulses pathologized for so long, it is time to point out real pathology, pathology which is objectively determined by identifying behavior that is maladaptive from the standpoint of group (biological) fitness.  Or to put it more crudely to the mass audience: pathological behavior that makes a group into losers in the grand game of life.

Any consideration of the costs vs. benefits of immigration–or of a multiracial society in general–must absolutely consider the costs incurred at the most basic, most personal, and most fundamental human level. After all, humans are living, breathing organisms–”economic growth” or other issues are important only insofar as they influence real, living humans and human interests. A people do not “benefit” from “X” if “X” results in that people’s displacement and their replacement by others to an extent equivalent to mass murder.

Genetically, mass alien immigration is genocide. Similarly, a multicultural, multiracial society that manages the demographic eclipse of its majority population is also practicing genocide. These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.

That needs to be said, and said clearly.  However, to the extent that some nation’s “hate speech laws” may target speech that equate multiculturalism with genocide, it would need to be “toned down” while retaining the fundamental meaning of the message.  That’s what speechwriters and smooth-talking politicians are for.

This is not meant to inspire dislike or anger towards immigrants–or towards any other people. On the contrary, such emotions are self-defeating and counter-productive. After all, these peoples are only taking advantage of the opportunities given to them for a better life and to expand their numbers in other peoples’ lands.

These are important caveats that can help ease concerns about “hate” and White unease and guilt about the pursuit of self-interest, and also can help evade “hate speech” repression (Europeans need to carefully construct their arguments with an eye on such legislation, as long as it exists).

No, the ultimate causes of Western decline are that the governments and “leaders” of the West are openly and actively betraying the interests of their own peoples, and that the peoples of the West themselves, all too comfortable and unconcerned with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests. Or is it that Westerners are grossly uninformed about where their real interests lie?

That needs to be said, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Thus, this essay has three basic purposes. First, to introduce the fundamentally important concept of genetic interests–which are ultimate interests–to Western peoples. Second, to explain, succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire people, with a consequent devastating personal loss for each and every member of that people. Third, to encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical activism to pursue their genetic interests. Which means: to ensure their own survival.

Replace the word “essay” with the word “speech” and that is a good introduction – or a good summary – of the fundamental thesis, what this is all about.

What is required is the practice of biopolitics –the fusion of biological, human concerns with political action and public policy initiatives. Westerners need to stop focusing exclusively on secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment opportunities, funding for pensions, and a myriad of other concerns which–while certainly important and certainly worthy of interest and consideration–pale in significance compared to the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.

Which leads to:

Survival comes first. All else comes second. Genetic interests come first. Other interests come second. Biopolitics will reorder priorities in the recognition that the well being of the Peoples of the West first requires that these peoples continue to exist. Biopolitics will ensure that they do.

That’s the red meat basic statement – some formulation of that needs to be said, and then repeated over and over again.  What matters if survival fails? Someone needs to openly state, clearly and definitively, that economics, culture, legality, or what have you all pale in significance against the gold standard interest of group continuity, of the very existence of a people.  All else must be judged by, and against, that gold standard.

Part 2 will come when there is more to write about, including and particularly examples of failed nationalist-populist memes that have not incorporated EGI.  Meanwhile, I should not be the only one writing about this topic; there should be other analysts trying to get EGI into the nationalist political sphere.