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.
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.
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.