Category: EGI

The Effects of Trump on White American EGI

Short, medium, and long terms.

Let’s consider the effects of Trump on the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of White Americans. As always, I’m talking about net EGI – what’s the final outcome after all of the costs and benefits have been tallied up. I will (briefly) discuss the political, social, and demographic ramifications – I trust the reader knows enough about EGI to understand how these effects of Trump influence EGI.

short term, simple, straightforward, perhaps superficial view, is that having Trump as President as opposed to a Democrat (or a mainstream Neocon Republican) has been better for White American EGI since, regardless of how useless and fraudulent Trump is, Democrats/Neocons would have been even worse, e.g., upregulating non-White immigration flows. Democrats/Neocons would have also promoted other policies detrimental for White interests, thus negatively affecting White American EGI. There are of course short-term negatives to the Trump Presidency. Trump hasn’t done any of the things promised regarding immigration, and although “activist judges” are partly at fault, much of the blame likes squarely on Trump himself.  He hasn’t done those things within his power, he blusters and bluffs and then backs down (his “troops at the border” was a spectacular example of this), he’s done nothing on birthright citizenship – not even bringing the subject up in any meaningful way, he’s spent his political capital on prison reform for Negroes, tax breaks for the wealthy, and feuding with Sweden on behalf of a Black rapper. Trump’s own DOJ persecutes his supporters while protecting his enemies. The man is a disaster, but, again, given what we may have had in his stead, the immediate, short-term net effect is positive – we could have had more non-Whites in the country and more spectacularly crazy anti-White policies.

A deeper, more analytical view looks more long term. Let’s look at the medium term effect of Trump on White American EGI. Even if Trump is re-elected, by 2024, we’ll be looking forward to the non-Trump era then.  It could be in 2020.  Next year or four years after that, the Trumpian status quo will end.  What will be the effect on White American EGI moving forward in the years after that?

It will be a disaster.

What we have, and will not doubt continue to have for the remainder of the Trump Presidency, is this:

1. Squandering of years, of the opportunities inherent in the rise of right-wing populism in 2016.  Squandering of the opportunity by Trump – exposed as the fraud and the buffoon I always said he was – and squandering of these opportunities by a defective “movement” led by comically inept affirmative action cases. These are lost years that can never be regained. A more serious right wing populist would not have wasted this time.  If the “movement” was not derailed by Trumpism, even the incompetent Quota Queens could have achieved more than what they did. This wasted time positions White interests badly in the post-Trump era. If a Democrat and Neocon were in charge, at least that may have “lit a fire” under the lazy and moronic Right to make some progress in some direction of utility. 

2. It was Trumpism that enabled the rise of the Alt Right/WN 2.0 (not the other way around as the gaslighters claim) and the Alt Right has been an utter disaster for serious White racial activism.  The cul-de-sac of Beavis-and-Buthead White nationalism, the stupidities of WN 2.0, has done more damage to the “movement” than anything its enemies have ever achieved. The Alt Right metastasized throughout the American scene, sucking the vitality (whatever little there was) out of American activism, leaving a wasteland behind.  Whether or not American activism can ever recover from the Alt Right is questionable.  The failure of the Millennial Movement – WN 2.0 – has to be put at the feet of Trump.

3. Trump energized the Left, he got them to accelerate anti-White repression, he pushed them, and the country as a whole, much further to the Left on race and immigration than what would have occurred without Trump and his stupid blustering. The problem here is that the leftist response was not to any Trumpain action, but just to his empty rhetoric, and to the perception that Trump represents “White racism.”  If the hysteria of the Left was in response to actual Trumpian accomplishments, then these side effects would be worth it (indeed, would be beneficial in promoting racial chaos and balkanization).  But, alas, that is not the case.  Trump has managed to incite and energize the Left without having actually done anything to warrant that reaction – a lose-lose scenario. The chaos and balkanization accomplishes little since Trump’s dispirited base does not respond (see next).

4. At the same time, by doing nothing for his base, and actually working against his own base, supporting their persecution, and by doing nothing about their censorship and deplatforming, by always losing, by always backing down, he has dispirited his base, he has dispirited White America, he has delegitimized right-wing populism.  And since it all has been about Trump the man, since he selfishly cares only for himself and not spreading the ideals he campaigned on, there hasn’t been any real grass-roots organizing for right-wing populism. He’s done nothing to create a movement based on his 2016 campaign; that is not surprising, since his entire Presidency has effectively repudiated that campaign and its promises. There isn’t any real movement of right-wing populism moving forward. Trump has not only energized the Left, and united them even more firmly against White interests, he has sabotaged the growth of any sort of rightist political insurgency that can fight the Left and firmly establish pro-White right-wing populism as a permanent force in the American political scene.

5. The private (censorship, deplatforming, etc.) and governmental (DOJ, etc.) persecution of pro-White activists during the Trump era has laid out the blueprint for the Left to do even worse in the future. Instead of rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies, Trump has done the exact opposite.  There’s a big bill due on that, and it will be called in once Trump is gone.  His supporters will be paying it, not him. He’ll go on with his life, while his supporters suffer.

Once Trump is out of office, all of these things will come back to haunt White America.

With all of this, in the medium term, Trump will prove to be an utter disaster for White American EGI – expect more and more non-Whites entering the country, both legally and illegally (the distinction will soon cease to have any meaning, even legally, forget about practically, a point we’ve rapidly been reaching), more anti-White policies, and more difficulties for rightist activists.  The picture looks grim, indeed.

Long-term?  Who knows? Unlike the Quota Queens, I do not bombastically make predictions with absolute certitude, only to backtrack later when proven wrong – and never admitting being wrong.  It can go either way. The damage done by Trump may be irreversible and of such magnitude that he has doomed White American EGI; on the other hand, the semi-retarded buffoon Trump may have unwittingly unleashed forces of right-wing populism so that although right-wing populism may suffer in the short and medium terms,  it may resurge in the long term, to White benefit.  In this later case, it would ultimately be the racial chaos and balkanization created by perceptions of Trump and his rhetoric (not anything he’s actually done) that may have started a feed-forward process undermining the multicultural system and its consensus.  That’s really the only good Trump has done (again, unwittingly), and as I’ve always said,the only reason to ave supported him in the first place.  It may not be enough to compensate for the damage he’s done to us all.

As a pessimist, I’ll lean to the more grim possibilities, while making no definitive long term predictions. Ultimately, the epitaph for Trump may well be a phrase that well represents his attitude toward his race and nation:

Après moi, le déluge

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.

Salterian Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

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

KING HARRY

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

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

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

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

Note:

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

Rackete is Guilty of Crimes against Humanity

And what did they to such criminals at Nuremberg?

First Norwegians were doing it, now Germans (emphasis added):

German captain Carola Rackete, who sparked international headlines by forcibly docking in an Italian port with rescued migrants, faces questioning by an Italian prosecutor on Thursday over allegedly aiding illegal immigration.

The captain of the Sea-Watch 3 is expected to be questioned in the southern Sicilian town of Agrigento from 10 am (0800 GMT).

Rackete was arrested on June 29 for entering Italy’s Lampedusa port despite a veto imposed by far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, and knocking a coast guard boat out of the way to land 40 migrants after over two weeks blocked at sea.

If this scum was so worried about the poor delicate migrants, she could have taken them to Libya or, perhaps more fittingly, instead of floating in the Mediterranean for two weeks, sailed past Gibraltar, up the Atlantic coast, then around to the North Sea, and disembarked at Hamburg.  Why not? 

Really, when is the rest of Europe finally going to stand up to these endlessly pushy, arrogant, and annoying Germans? First, they wrecked Europe with their fanatical hegemonic ultra-nationalism, and now they are doing it with their fanatical, hegemonic, pathological altruism. Enough is enough. That entire nation is in dire need of psychotherapy.

And can you imagine if this was the reverse? The fetishists of Der Movement would be screeching about an “omnidominant Med plot” – but with this, it is “move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”

Rackete should be put on trial for crimes against humanity – promoting genocide against the Italian people through the forced settlement of alien invaders. Since she is obviously guilty – no one (even Rackete herself) disputes what she has done as described above – after a guilty verdict, she should be publicly hanged in Rome by Italian officials.

The sheer arrogance of these types is incredible and no different in its fundamental origin than the behavior of Deasy, Munro, and Farrell. Deasy is traumatized by Bulgarian faces (“they take getting used to”) – in Bulgaria. Munro oozes with racial contempt for Romanians – while living in Romania with sexual access to a Romanian woman.  Farrell, while living in Italy with an Italian woman, mocks what he perceives as Italian ineptitude. You see, your NW Euro “ethnonationalist” lords and masters will live where they damn please, in your countries, with your women, while mocking you, defaming you, and criticizing the way you look (again, in your own country). Just like Norwegians and Germans who view Italy as a dumping ground for their migrant pets.

I know I have some readers from Italy.  Can someone there please – please – get Salvini to read Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests?  Or at least read this.  If you can make a better translation of the original, please do so.

How about someone in Italy inviting Salter to give a talk about EGI and migration – and make sure Salvini is in the audience?  These guys need to know what’s really at stake, and they need to know why scum like Rackete are guilty of crimes worthy of the supreme penalty.

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.