Category: EGI

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They’ve supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called “anti-Semitic” WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?


Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.


Friday Follies

“Movement” madness.  In all cases, emphasis added.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles.

Dat right!  Let dem dere Chinese do dat technology, we’ll just hike through the woods, eating twigs and branches.

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. 

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

…In 1961, Tolkien sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin. Tolkien said, “I utterly repudiate any such reading, which angers meTolkien vocally opposed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party before the Second World War, and was known to especially despise Nazi racist and anti-semitic ideology. In 1938, the publishing house Rütten & Loening Verlag was preparing to release The Hobbit in Nazi Germany. To Tolkien’s outrage, he was asked beforehand whether he was of Aryan origin. In a letter to his British publisher Stanley Unwin, he condemned Nazi “race-doctrine” as “wholly pernicious and unscientific”. He added that he had many Jewish friends….

Well, given Johnson’s recent Unzian slant, Tolkien fits in well…a pro-Jewish Christian cuckservative.

His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces…

The provinces, where our snug hobbit hole is located.

For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole…

Some reach for the stars, others burrow into their snug little hole.

And let’s all read about Tolkien and his distrust of technics – yes, read all about it…on a computer, over the Internet. Traditionalists do have a comical lack of self-awareness, don’t they?

By this point I really do believe the Tolkien fetish has an ethnoracial biological dimension.  Traditionalism likely does as well in a related sense – Evola being an extreme outlier.  Or maybe it’s just me?  I don’t know.  This is a topic for further study.  Are there significant intra-European ethnic differences in the appeal of Tolkienite Traditionalism?  Are there different preferences for the snug hobbit hole vs. the spaceship?  And what does this tell us about Spengler and his pontifications about the Faustian Will-to-Power?  Tolkienism seems to be me as anti-Faustian as you can get – de facto anarchy in your hobbit hole.  

Delenda Est Traditionalism!

No, no, a thousand times, no!  A Mediterranean diet is going to double your melanin levels and halve your IQ; it is completely unacceptable for real White men!

Try this one instead.  Eat like a Viking!  “Movement” approved.

Can Strom explain how any of this Keystone cops routine is going to lead to “White renewal?”

Will Williams took over as NA’s third chairman in October 2014. He knew the organization was in financial and organizational disarray and hired accountant Randolph Dilloway to help restore the organization. {snip}

According to the lawsuit, Williams went to confront Dilloway for his shoddy work on May 3, 2015. Both men called the police, and Dilloway fled with a laptop and thumb drives with allegedly stolen documents. On May 20, the SPLC published an article called “Chaos at the Compound,” revealing documents Beirich admitted to receiving from Dilloway on May 6, three days after the confrontation.

I have a mixed opinion on all of this.

One the one hand, Spencer is a terrible spokesman for the Imperium idea, which is not at all incompatible with Salter’s Universal Nationalism or local sovereignty.  Pitching the Imperium idea with the aura of a James Bond villain, with lots of warmed-over Social Darwinism, does not impress. Spencer needs to read On Genetic Interests.  Universal Nationalism does not imply a lack of competition between nations and peoples; it does mean that every people should be allowed genetic continuity and at least some minimal means of existence.  And one must remember that in a world full of high-tech weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction, net EGI would suggest the wisdom of a degree of restraint in great power competition.

Universal Nationalism does not reject large-scale federated EU-like structures – see the discussion centered on Fig. 7.1 in Salter’s  book. However, at other times, “smaller is better” seems to be promoted for maximization of genetic interests.  Splitting the difference would lead to a scenario such as that suggested by a number of pan-European theorists (including myself) in which the federated structure is balanced against a degree of local sovereignty.  These are issues for careful discussion, not bombastic statements and posturing.

On the other hand, Vox Day is even worse.  Our interests are not served by following the ideas of a racially-mixed anti-WN Christian conservative and his bible-thumping followers. Is that ad hominem?  Yes, it is, but their attacks on Spencer are nothing but ad hominem as well.  At least I offer some actual criticism of Spencer’s thoughts and suggest he consult with some of Salter’s ideas (and my own) to broaden his worldview.  His Voxian critics descend to name-calling and the typical “CIA asset” accusations.  In the absence of a real argument, the same tactics can be turned against them. One cannot expect a person who identifies as racially mixed to understand, and promote, the best interests of Whites as a race, and Christian fanatics have long made clear that their priority is religion, not race and civilization.  Thus, Spencer is a misguided potential ally, and these others are opponents.

Spencer needs to seriously engage with Salter’s ideas.

Strom and IE

Der Movement.

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

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

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

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

The Direction of Evolution

Diversification, integration, and cooperation. 

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:


Two great trends are evident in the evolution of life on Earth: towards increasing diversification and towards increasing integration. Diversification has spread living processes across the planet, progressively increasing the range of environments and free energy sources exploited by life. Integration has proceeded through a stepwise process in which living entities at one level are integrated into cooperative groups that become larger-scale entities at the next level, and so on, producing cooperative organizations of increasing scale (for example, cooperative groups of simple cells gave rise to the more complex eukaryote cells, groups of these gave rise to multi-cellular organisms, and cooperative groups of these organisms produced animal societies). The trend towards increasing integration has continued during human evolution with the progressive increase in the scale of human groups and societies. The trends towards increasing diversification and integration are both driven by selection. An understanding of the trajectory and causal drivers of the trends suggests that they are likely to culminate in the emergence of a global entity. This entity would emerge from the integration of the living processes, matter, energy and technology of the planet into a global cooperative organization. Such an integration of the results of previous diversifications would enable the global entity to exploit the widest possible range of resources across the varied circumstances of the planet. This paper demonstrates that it’s case for directionality meets the tests and criticisms that have proven fatal to previous claims for directionality in evolution.

Diversification – consistent with this essay about racial differentiation and the evolutionary benefit of prejudice.

Integration – consistent with the pan-European perspective, which itself is compatible with diversification, since it by no means supports or implies any sort of European panmixia.

As far as any “global entity” goes – even with cooperation, there are differences of interests within the components of that cooperation (yes, even among Europeans) – there needs to be balance.  There is nothing per se wrong with global cooperation – as long as White interests – fundamentally and foremost White survival and genetic continuity – are part of the equation.  Otherwise, no global cooperation should occur, and without Whites – the glue that would hold it all together – such cooperation will not be possible.  Why should Whites participate in a process that leads to their own extinction?  That’s a prescriptive question, because descriptively, that is precisely what Whites are currently doing.

This paper presents a case for directionality in evolution that does not suffer from the deficiencies that have undermined other claims.

I’m not convinced by the mechanistic arguments (or even the main thesis of directionality) – but neither do I reject them – but there are other points of interest here.

It should be emphasized from the outset that the claim outlined here is made in relation to the evolution of all living processes on Earth, including humans and human organizations. As the paper will demonstrate, the trajectory of evolution can only be properly understood if the evolution of all living processes is taken into account, ultimately as a whole. In particular, the full nature of the trajectory cannot be identified and understood by focusing on, for example, only biological evolution. As we shall see, human cultural evolution and the evolution of human organisations and technology (including artificial intelligence) play a critically important role in driving the trajectory beyond a certain point. 

That is all consistent with MacDonald’s “group evolutionary strategies” (which Derbyshire pretended not to understand – after all, we can’t get “Rosie” upset now, can we?).

The nature of the evolutionary mechanisms that explore possibility space prove to be far less important in driving the trajectory than is the structure of the possibility space. In particular, the trajectory is shaped primarily by the nature and location of evolutionary attractors in possibility space.

Thus, by altering the environment, we can change the “possibility space” and the “evolutionary attractors” to shift “directionality” where we wish it to go, no?  More racist Whites, please.

Other parts of paper:

Section 2 of the paper begins to outline the case for a particular form of overall directionality. It identifies a large-scale pattern that is evident in the evolution of life on Earth.

Section 3 provides the pattern with micro-foundations by presenting a model which demonstrates that this pattern is driven by natural selection and other accepted evolutionary processes.

Section 4 subjects the model and its key predictions to appropriate tests, including those that have been failed by other claims for overall directionality.

Section 5 concludes the paper by providing an overview of the trajectory of evolution and discussing some of its key implications.2. A large-scale pattern

If we stand back from the evolution of life on Earth and view it as a whole, a number of patterns are apparent.

An obvious trend is that living processes have diversified as evolution proceeded. When life first began on Earth, it was limited to exploiting only a tiny proportion of available free energy sources under a very restricted range of environmental conditions. From there living processes have diversified progressively as evolution unfolded, spreading across the planet, adapting to an ever-widening range of environmental conditions and exploiting more and more sources of free energy. This trend towards increasing diversification has continued up until the present with the emergence of humans, albeit now mainly through the processes of cultural evolution, rather than through gene-based adaptation and speciation.

Racial differentiation.  The cultural part is consistent with MacDonald’s theses.  However, while change today may be mainly cultural, it is not exclusively so.  Genetic adaption continues.

But a less obvious trend that moves in a very different direction is also apparent. As well as the trajectory towards increasing diversification, there is also a trend towards increasing integration. As the evolution of life on Earth has unfolded, living processes have increasingly come to be integrated into cooperative organizations of larger and larger scale.

Imperium Europa.

This progressive integration of organisms into cooperative organizations of increasing scale is not limited to evolution driven by gene-based natural selection. The trend has continued in human evolution where cultural evolutionary processes now predominate: small kin groups were integrated into bands, bands were integrated into tribes, these formed the constituents of kingdoms and city states, and these in turn have been integrated into nation states (Stewart, 2000, Turchin, 1977).

And Imperiums?

At each step in this process of integration, smaller-scale entities are integrated into cooperative organizations that become larger-scale entities at the next level of organization. Typically the larger-scale entities undergo a relatively rapid diversification and adaptive radiation (e.g. see Knoll and Bambach, 2000). As evolution unfolds, this step-wise process repeats itself, producing cooperative organizations of living processes of greater and greater scale. At each step, a new level of nesting of entities within larger-scale entities arises. And as evolution proceeds, entities with greater levels of nestedness emerge. The result is the familiar nested-hierarchical structure of living processes.

If the idea of nested, hierarchical structures sounds familiar with respect to EGI, then you have been paying attention; for example, read this.  There are concentric circles of racial and ethnic interests, which ultimately conflate to nested circles of genetic interest.  Race-based levels of interest and ethnic-based circles can be compatible.

Like the trend towards diversification, the trend towards integration seems to be continuing apace at present. Humans are increasingly integrating other living processes into its organizations through activities such as farming, aquaculture and broader ecosystem management. And human organization itself seems likely to continue to increase in scale. Although rudimentary, the League of Nations and the United Nations were early attempts to build supra-national organizations on a global scale. 

And they have been gross failures, for not taking into account those nested interests; with the UN today waging war against the most fundamental interests of the European peoples.

Some forms of economic organization are already global, and regional cooperatives of nation states such as the European Union have emerged. Global crises such as human-induced climate change seem to be increasingly evoking coordinated responses across nation states. 

Yes, Whites will do the solving, while China will continue to pollute.  A coordinated response?

The idea that some form of global governance is essential for human survival and flourishing is now strongly supported by many leading international relations researchers (e.g. see Craig, 2008) and economists (e.g. see Walker et al., 2009).

Shilling for globalism. The nationalist-populist response extant today suggests that the lower levels of nested interests are not being properly cared for by global managers, and in the absence of such care, and in the absence of a mechanism to fairly adjudicate competing interests, you cannot expect lower level nests to stick with the program. Global solutions are not meant to be a White racial suicide pact.

That cooperation can produce significant fitness advantages is not controversial (e.g. see Corning, 1983, Dugatkin, 1999, Miller, 1978, Ridley, 1996, Stewart, 2000). Cooperative organizations have the potential to be more successful than isolated individuals. Whatever the evolutionary challenges, living processes can respond to them more effectively if they form cooperative organizations and if their actions are coordinated. In part this is because cooperation enables the exploitation of synergies, including through specialization and division of labour (Corning, 1983). Furthermore, the larger the scale of any cooperative organization, the more resources are commanded by it, the greater its power, the larger the impact and scale of its actions, the greater the potential for collective adaptation and intelligence, and therefore the wider the range of environmental challenges that it can meet. 

Pan-European cooperation.  Group selection.

But cooperation does not evolve easily (e.g. see Boyd and Richerson, 2005, Buss, 1987, Olson, 1965, Williams, 1966). The reasons for this are well understood. Consider a population of living entities that compete for limited resources. Entities that invest resources in beneficial cooperation but fail to capture sufficient benefits of that cooperation, will tend to be out-competed. Other entities that take the benefits of cooperation without investing in the cooperation (free riders) will tend to do better than co-operators. Free riders undermine the capacity of co-operators to capture the benefits created by their cooperation.

So, free riders constitute the “cooperation problem.”  This has been discussed in detail at this blog, reflecting the large amount of analysis of the free rider problem by Salter and MacDonald.  The author continues:

If co-operators within a group of entities were able to capture all the benefits of their cooperation, cooperative organization would self-organize (in more general terms, the cooperation problem would be solved comprehensively if all the entities in a group capture the impacts of their actions on the group as a whole, whether the impacts are beneficial or harmful) (Stewart, 2000). Cooperation in which the benefits to the individual exceed the costs to the individual would be selected at the individual level (unless some alternative, more effective cooperation emerged). If this fundamental condition for cooperative self-organization were met, individual entities that engage in cooperation would out-compete non-co-operators. It would be in the evolutionary/adaptive interests of individuals to cooperate. As a consequence, the group would be able to explore the possibility space for cooperative organization, and any form of cooperation that was discovered and which was more advantageous would be able to persist in the population. 

One has to suppress free riding and ensure that cooperation benefits the cooperator more than it harms.  This has all been discussed here in great detail, and studies have shown that ethnocentric cooperation can outcompete free riding.  Leftists and HBDers may not want to hear that, but that is the reality, nevertheless.  Also see this.

…are there circumstances in which co-operators can capture sufficient of the benefits of cooperation to enable some simpler forms of cooperation to persist?


Co-operators will capture proportionately more of the benefits of cooperation if they interact cooperatively with other co-operators more often than if all cooperative interactions are random. This will ensure that the benefits of cooperation are more likely to be shared amongst co-operators than leak to free-riders. If this condition is met, co-operators will capture a disproportionate share of the benefits of cooperation, and may capture sufficient to outweigh the costs of cooperation and the benefits that ‘leak’ to free riders. To the extent that this condition is met, co-operators will be collectively autocatalytic (they will collectively facilitate each other’s success), and cooperative organization will be able to persist and be a target of selection (Ulanowicz, 2009).

And the aforementioned analysis has determined that, yes, properly constructed cooperative structures can defeat and outcompete free riding.  The next time an HBDer engages in rants about “free riding makes ethnic nepotism impossible” – they are lying to you, and they have an agenda.  They want to convince Whites not to engage in ethnic nepotism, so that Jews and Asians can have the whole field to themselves, sans competition.

It is conceivable that this condition could be met stochastically at times in a population. But it is likely to be met far more reliably if the cooperative interactions within the population are biased in some way. 

Two main ways in which this bias can occur are:

1) Population structure: cooperative interactions may be biased because the population of entities is structured in ways that increase the likelihood that co-operators interact with other co-operators…Or the population may be formed into groups that tend to concentrate co-operators and restrict invasion by free-riders (e.g. Okasha, 2006).

Exclude parasitic ethnies.

2) Active selection: interactions may also be biased because co-operators selectively choose to interact with other entities that are more likely to be co-operators (conversely, they may also selectively exclude or punish entities that are more likely to be non-co-operators). 

Punish White traitors.  No ethnostate for you!

If the cooperation problem is to be overcome comprehensively, free-riding must be prevented, and as far as possible, the benefits of cooperation must go to the co-operators that create them. If this is to be achieved consistently and comprehensively in relation to a group of entities, special arrangements that have three key characteristics need to be in place (Stewart, 2000): 

1) Power: the arrangements must have power over the entities in the group (including over co-operators and free riders), and the power to re-distribute the benefits of cooperation amongst members of the group in favour of co-operators. Power means the ability to influence or constrain without being influenced in return. If the arrangements could be influenced in return by those they need to control, control would break down. For example, free riders would be able to escape effective suppression by the arrangements.

We must have the technology of the state, and impose social controls against free riding.  Libertarianism is poison.  Hyper-individualism is poison.  There must be the power to enforce reciprocity in cooperation for genetic interests.

2) Evolvability: the arrangements must be evolvable/adaptable. This enables the arrangements to explore the space of possibilities for supressing free-riders and for supporting beneficial cooperation. It gives the arrangements the capacity to optimize their use of power over entities, and to adapt their control as free-riders and other non-co-operators evolve and adapt to escape their control.

Fossilized dogma is no good.  The power structures – the “arrangements” for suppressing free riding and facilitating cooperation – must evolve.  No doubt free riding will evolve in an attempt to evade detection and suppression.  There will be an ‘arms race.”

3) Alignment of interests: the evolutionary/adaptive interests of the arrangements must be aligned with the overall evolutionary/adaptive interests of the group of entities that it manages. Evolvability/adaptability per se is not enough. Unless interests are aligned in this way, the arrangements will not necessarily evolve/adapt in the direction needed to solve the cooperation problem. They will not necessarily use their power and evolvability to suppress free-riders and to support cooperation.

This is crucial. The “arrangements” must have the same interests as the managed entities, or else the “arrangements” themselves will be free riders. Consider the global elites of today who have – or at least perceive themselves to have – a different set of interests as the populations they manage.  This is a dystopian scenario for genetic interests.  The system must be set up so it is reinforcing a common set of interests between manager and the managed, so that the evolvability of managers is in the direction of more effective management and away from exploitive free-riding.  We want symbiosis, not parasitism.

The problem is how to achieve this, and there are no easy answers.  Throughout human history, managerial elites – even when they started out as sincere and authentic representatives of group interests – have become isolated from the managed group and have descended into rent-seeking, exploitative, free-riding behavior. This is virtually a law of human nature, an inevitability – in the absence of some sort of powerful counter-balance this trend.  One can say – “make the arrangements, the managers, answerable “to the people” via “democratic processes.”  But, of course, the managers have the power to subvert those “democratic processes” to their advantage, which is happening in the West today. This post is not the place to delve into this problem, but it is a problem that needs to be solved.

It is useful to classify the constraints applied by management processes into two categories, although the categories represent extremes on a continuum: 

1) Prescriptive constraints: these specify more or less precisely the particular outcomes that occur in the managed group. For example, DNA determines the specific proteins that are produced in a cell, including the quantities. And in a human command economy, the central authority prescribes specific economic outcomes, such as the nature and volume of the consumer goods that are to be produced. Where constraints are prescriptive, evolvability resides primarily in the manager, not in the other entities in the group.

Note the last part – “evolvability resides primarily in the manager” – in this case DNA.  Anyone remember the insanity of J Richards and his claim that selection works ultimately at the level of the phenotype, not the genotype?  More “movement” madness.  Of course, it’s DNA, the genotype, not the phenotype.

2) Enabling constraints: these achieve outcomes that are best for the group without specifying what those outcomes are. They accomplish this by aligning the interests of group members with the interests of the group as a whole, and then letting the entities adapt freely in pursuit of those aligned interests. 

Problem: large numbers of Whites today do not perceive that their individual interests align with group – racial – interests.  That perception is incorrect, but how can it be corrected?  Certainly not by the stupidity of Der Movement, Inc.

Of course, enabling constraints became more effective once evolution produced entities that were highly evolvable and capable of pursuing their own interests adaptively. The potential advantages of having evolvable entities managed by enabling rather than prescriptive constraints were demonstrated by the competitive superiority of free market economies over command economies in the 20th century. 

Well, maybe.  But given how the “free market economies” have become subverted by globalist elites and middleman minorities, I’m not sanguine for the long term future of the alleged superiority of the “free market” in an age of increasingly militant populism.

It is not difficult to identify scenarios in which selection would favour entities that develop power over others. For example, their power may enable them to monopolize resources (including access to reproductive opportunities), or to predate others. But exercising power in these ways does not necessarily align their evolutionary/adaptive interests with those they have power over.

Right, but they may not care.  Jews have been successful – at least in the short-term in any given locale, but possibly long-term for their entire evolutionary history being predators on their host societies.

However, interests begin to be aligned to some extent if the powerful entities discover ways in which they can harvest an on-going stream of benefits from those they control. Once this occurs, they may do better if they use their power to help the group survive and thrive, and thereby produce a larger stream of harvestable benefits, not just a once-off dividend.

OK, agreed, but this requires (a) that the managing entities have innate interests aligned with the managed, and (b) the managers are capable of rational long-term thinking and strategizing.

In some circumstances, proto-managers that solve the cooperation problem and harvest an on-going stream of benefits may be able to do better than if they move between groups, exploiting them as they go. 

Bowery’s concept of Jewish virulence.

Where this is the case, selection operating at the level of individual proto-managers will tend to favour those that remain with a group and use their power to increase the stream of benefits that they harvest from it (Stewart, 1995, Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Jewish virulence is decreased when they are forced to stay local and suffer the same fate as the host population.

Salthe (1985) demonstrates that constraints that can control a dynamic of interacting entities may arise in either of two ways: 

1) Upper-level constraints: these arise external to the dynamic of entities. They can influence the dynamic without being influenced in return. This is often because they are larger in scale than the entities they constrain, and are constituted by processes that operate significantly more slowly than the interactions in the dynamic. Examples of abiotic upper-level constraints that act on a population of entities include features of the environment that are relatively unchanging from the perspective of the interacting entities, such as large-scale physical structure in the environment. The external managers referred to in this paper are evolvable systems of upper-level constraints. It is worth emphasizing here that they are often constituted by processes rather than entities.

In human affairs, processes and entities become intertwined.  Can we separate out the human factor?  You have the “process” of “democracy”- and this process becomes subverted by human entities with conflicting interests.

2)  Lower-level constraints: these arise within the entities themselves. These constraints are relatively fixed, internal features of the interacting entities that can influence how entities behave in interactions, but are not influenced in return. In effect, they hardwire entities. Examples of lower level constraints in living entities include genetic elements, and internalized norms, customs and beliefs.

In humans, the genes and the “customs and beliefs” are related via cross-talk.

Importantly, the evolutionary interests of a distributed internal manager tend to be aligned with the interests of the group that it manages. The manager will capture the benefits of any cooperative activities within the group, because it exists in each of the members of the group. Selection will therefore favour any variant internal manager that constrains the members of the group in ways that promote beneficial cooperation. 

Group selection theory.  But this has to be proofed against free riders, particularly against either native or alien elites who have – or believe they have – interests that are in conflict with that of the broader group.  Note that “because it exists in each of the members of the group” directly implies that the managerial processes are inherent in all the members of the group.  That sounds nice in theory, but managerial elites always form in practice. You will need the “upper-level constraints” to control their behavior, and dependable constrains have not yet been devised.

But the potential of cooperation can be realized only to the extent that the cooperation problem is overcome. Unless the cooperation problem is solved, complex cooperative organization will not arise. It will not come into existence while individual entities fail to capture sufficient of the benefits of their cooperation. Selection at the group level, no matter how powerful, cannot call it into existence.

Free riding is the deadly enemy of group selection, ethnoracial nepotism, and inclusive fitness in defense of genetic interests.  Free riding must be fought at all costs.

We have seen that evolvable management, whether external or internal, can overcome the cooperation problem. It can manage a group of entities to ensure that beneficial cooperation can be sustained within the group and can therefore be the target of selection. This massively expands the possibility space that can be explored as the group evolves.

This is straightforward evolutionary biology, but applied to – in the case of humans – political, social, and cultural organization. An objective is to build a managerial structure that is characterized by an inherent trait of evolvability.  Just like devising methods to prevent rent-seeking free riding, devising processes and constraints that ensure that the management can evolve is no easy task (and this ability to evolve will, as the author suggests above, help solve the free riding problem- the cooperation problem).  I suggest that the management will resist such evolvability, or hijack it for selfish interests – to evolve (or devolve) toward parasitism.  Making positive pro-group evolvability “baked into the cake” of managerial entities and processes is a task of fundamental importance. There are no easy answers.  Somehow, there has to be self-perpetuating upper-level and lower-level constraints that exhibit positive feedback and self-reinforcement. It may be prudent to have “separation of powers” with multiple entities and/or processes so that competition between them is channeled in the direction, paradoxically, of increasing cooperation in defense of the broader group’s interests.

Where a powerful manager is able to harvest an on-going stream of benefits from the group it manages, it will be able to capture the benefits of any management that increases the productivity of the group. 

This assumes a congruence between interests of manager and group, and also assumes a long-term strategy and vision. This is because it is very possible for alien parasitical managers to “harvest an in-going stream of benefits” through destructive exploitation of the managed group. One has only to look at the globalist capitalist elites and/or Jewish control of White societies for examples of this.

It will therefore be able to advance its own evolutionary/adaptive interests by promoting cooperation within the managed group. 

Again, only when manager and managed have similar or identical interests, if the manager knows this, and acts long-term.  The managers of the West today, with their own selfish interests, act to advance non-cooperation, atomization, and hyper-individualism among the managed White populations.

If managed groups compete with each other, and if a manager is less successful if it lives independently of its group, the most effective way in which it will be able to advance its interests will be to advance those of the managed group. In these circumstances the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the managed group as a whole (Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Not necessarily.  Parasitical managers can wreck a group and then move elsewhere – e.g., Bowery’s Jewish virulence thesis.

Because the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the group, selection acting on the manager will favour management which aligns the interests of the entities it manages with the interests of the group. As a result, all the members of the group, manager and managed entities alike, will adapt cooperatively to serve the group as a whole. Members of the group will be favoured by selection only insofar as they serve the adaptive interests of the group as a whole. As a consequence, the group will increasingly come to be organized and adapted to function as an entity in its own right. 

So, manager and group really need to be more or less genetically similar so that interests will correctly align. A Jewish-Asian overclass and a White underclass is not going to work out, HBDers.  Then, once biological homogeneity is established, cultural and social alignment must follow – we cannot have a managerial class that is a free riding parasite, even if it is composed of the co-ethnics of those managed.  We need to have social, political, and economic controls on managerial behavior, to suppress free riding and rent seeking behaviors.  Wealth disparity definitely needs to be suppressed soaps to eliminate the possibility of an exploitative plutocracy.

However, while ever cooperative organizations of the largest-scale are smaller than the planet, they will constitute a population of organizations that compete with each other. This will produce the cooperation problem. Organizations that act cooperatively towards others will tend to be out-competed. This dynamic is currently evident at the level of nation states. Global warming and international war are both manifestations of the cooperation problem. The existence of the cooperation problem at this level means that potential benefits can be realized through the emergence of global management (including global governance). Global management has the potential to overcome the cooperation problem at the level of nation states.

Effective global management would not only suppress destructive competition between nations. 

If genuine differences of interests exist, competition is inevitable.  What is “destructive?”  Yes, mutually annihilating war should be avoided, and, yes, I generally support Salter’s “universal nationalism.”  But the recent history of “global management” suggests that the ONLY competition that will be suppressed is that of Whites competing against Coloreds in order to secure legitimate White interests.

Ultimately it would also have the potential to realize the benefits of integrating all lower level entities into the global organization, including by supporting entities that contribute positively to the global organization. A global manager that is sufficiently powerful and evolvable has the potential to control a hierarchy of management that integrates the living and non-living processes of the planet into a cooperative and unified global entity(for more detailed discussion, see Stewart, 2000).

And this global manager is acceptable only insofar as it respect the rights and interests of lower levels of nested interests.  

When we stand back from the evolutionary process on this planet and consider it as a coherent whole, we see that there are two great trends within evolution. One is towards diversification. The other is towards integration and cooperation. As we have seen in some detail, both trends are driven by selection processes that are consistent with mainstream evolutionary theory.

And both are consistent with pan-European racial nationalism that preserves ethnic differences.

As the global entity emerges, it can be expected to increasingly manage the living processes, energy, matter and technology of the entire planet into a coordinated whole. As it develops, it will optimize all the processes on which it depends (including large-scale ecological systems) in order to create the most effective platform for its future evolution. 

“Future evolution: will be compromised by a racial panmixia that frustrates the evolutionary path toward increasing diversification by erasing all the evolved differences of population groups that contribute to human genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Of course, this is not likely to be the end of the evolutionary trajectory. The trajectory is likely to have unfolded elsewhere…

Endless Debunking

Taking out the trash is good, no doubt, but there’s more to life than trash.

Let’s see now – a HBD “race realist” is opposed to pan-Europeanism and is hostile to White ethnics.  Will wonders never cease?  New breaking news: the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.  Shocking! Unprecedented!

Seriously though, see this.  That goes into the whole problem of confusing descriptive and prescriptive memes, as well as the problem in getting descriptives wrong in the first place.

And it goes deeper than this, to the very heart of the issue: EGI vs. HBD; Salter stressing genetic kinship (i.e., EGI) over some sort of hierarchical ranking of phenotypic traits (i.e., HBD).

Not surprisingly, HBDers are typically hostile to “Salterism.”  HBD is a political movement dedicated to destroying White nationalism, with a long term goal of establishing polities ruled by Jews and Asians, with “First World White strains” as a subaltern stepandfetchit caste (and their woman as concubines for Jews and Asians).  Now, that’s not what the HBDers overtly preach of course, and many of them would genuinely reject that proposition – but it doesn’t matter if the outcome is intentional or not; regardless, the eventual outcome of HBD politics will be the same whether it is from mendacity or just plain stupidity.

Interestingly, despite the fact that HBD is incompatible with WN, the “movement” has a strong HBD faction.  Why so?  Well, first, Der Movement activists are not too bright.  Second, HBDers try to appeal to “First World strain” WNs by, essentially, patting them on the head and telling them how very, very Hajnal they all are.  You’re part of the cogelite crowd, my friends!  Ego-stroking is a powerful tool of memetic seduction.  Third, many so-called WNs are not really racial nationalists at all, not in the way it is properly defined.  These people support Whites only because they view Whites as the embodiment of certain traits; one can remember Jobling being a “pro-White activist” because Whites actualize Rawlsian liberalism.

So, there’s a lot of confusion and ideological incoherence in Der Movement (expected given the predominance of brain-addled Type I activists). Further, given the presence of a strong HBD faction along with a strong Nordicist faction (with some overlap between those groups), we have a situation that Der Movement really has not much of anything to offer to White ethnics.  Racial nationalism however does indeed have much to offer to those groups; indeed, everything to offer, if survival is the ultimate interest (i.e., genetic continuity).

It is important not to confuse Der Movement with the concept of racial nationalism.  An analogy would be the error of confusing the Republican Party has being the same as conservatism.  No, the former is merely a vehicle for the latter, and a poor vehicle at that.  Similarly, Der Movement is a pitifully pathetic vehicle for genuine racial nationalism, and a new vehicle is desperately required.

And, really, the amount of digital ink spilled over this tragicomic freak Faulk is disturbing.  There are so any other things of importance to discuss and analyze that to waste time and effort on someone who is essentially speaking a different language, with a different and incompatible worldview is, frankly, disgusting.  Why not tackle some of Salter’s more recent writings and analyses, for example?

Or, formulate your own worldview, instead of constantly “debunking” every memetic trash spewed forth from every and piece of flotsam and jetsam with an Internet connection.

There comes a time to advance and defend a strongly held position, a concrete and substantial worldview, instead of merely critiquing strawman misrepresentations of what others misconstrue what your position is (or should be).  I’m guilty of this as well, to be honest.  Certainly, this blog can benefit from more “what should be done” posts instead of “don’t do this.”

One final point for this post.  It is a strawman representation of White nationalism to assert that WNs consider all Whites as part of their ingroup, they want every single White person as part of their erthnostate.  No, every White person is potentially a part of the ingroup, but that depends on the people themselves as well. I’m not interested in SJW Whites, and am certainly not interested in White HBDers and other trash.  Yes, we can try and convince, but in the end, why should we want to accept enemies?  The idea is ludicrous.

Revisiting Some Old Salter Material

Useful analysis.


Biological theories of the origin of heroism in warfare and other types of altruism directed towards the tribe or ethnic group have often attributed this to some adaptive function, such as retention of group resources. However, without an estimate of the aggregate kinship at stake within the group, no theory of altruism can be tested using W. D. Hamilton’s rule for adaptive altruism. By “adaptive”, Hamilton meant evolutionarily stable, such that the altruist’s genes are not selected out of the gene pool. Though Hamilton’s 1975 model showed that ethnic kinship could theoretically be large, no evolutionary theory has yet answered the most basic question, whether in fact ethnic kinship—the genetic similarity of co-ethnics who are not genealogical kin—is ever large enough to make ethnic altruism adaptive.

Harpending (2002) derived a population-genetic formula for estimating the aggregate ethnic kinship held by one population in relation to another based on the genetic distance between the two populations. The genetic assay data needed to make this estimate for modern ethnic groups are becoming available. The data used in this present study are provided by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994). Based on those data, aggregate ethnic kinship is much larger than aggregate family kinship. Data on tribal genetic distance are uncertain. But existing evidence indicates that tribal genetic interests vis a vis neighbouring tribes in the Neolithic were already larger than familial kinship. The direction of theory and data strongly indicate that self sacrificial altruism in warfare could have been adaptive from that time.

The Hamilton-Harpending algorithm offers an analytical tool for estimating whether a population was (or is) a fit object for altruism, and thus whether that altruism was (or is) sustainable across evolutionary time.


Hamilton’s Fst statement referred to genes coding for altruism, not to the whole genome. However, my point regarding kinship remains valid because I used Fst data based on sampling of the genome, not on altruistic genes.

Also please note that the more accurate data provided by the Human Genome Data Base show somewhat lower racial variation and therefore lower racial kinship. Instead of 9%, the French-Japanese variation is 6% (Salter and Harpending 2013). Because the reduction is not great it does not invalidate the analysis.

Salter, F. K., & Harpending, H. (2013). J. P. Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 256-260. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.014

I also should correct one part of my summary of David Goetze’s insight concerning collective goods, such as big-game hunting and collective defence. From about the 3 minute mark I say that these cooperative activities allow large investments to be made in large populations. Actually, they also allow small investments to make a difference.

This last point is crucial, and is an important riposte to “concern trolls” and their harping bout free-riding and the alleged costs of ethnic nepotism to those practicing it, usually accompanied by absurd outlier scenarios of self-sacrifice: in reality, typically ethnic interests can be promoted by repeated small investments that incur minimal costs to the actor, but with large potential benefits.


The key issue in the evolutionary theory of ethnic conflict is whether solidarity towards fellow ethnics has been adaptive. Components of this problem are:

(1) Was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed towards fellow ethnics to have been adaptive?

(2) If the answer to (1) is yes, then what mechanisms were necessary? Answering this question will help locate the stage in political evolution at which ethnic altruism could have become adaptive, thus allowing genes or culture that code for ethnic altruism to spread through the population.

I see it as a mistake to concentrate on the altruism question.

We already know the answer, or much of the answer, to the second question. Proponents of group selection have argued, convincingly I think, that members of bands and tribes can behave altruistically without being selected out by free riders. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) argued from his field observations that mutual monitoring, ubiquitous in small-scale societies, is sufficient to suppress cheating. He pointed to the pronounced group identity and mutual support found in primitive societies, and argued that this originated in kinship bonds. The cohesion of band and tribal societies makes them units of selection, Eibl argued. This point was elaborated by Boyd and Richerson (1992), who argue that monitoring and punishment are so effective in small scale societies that they allow the evolution of cooperation, or any other characteristic that is promoted by a culturally-governed group strategy.

Whether or not one accept that group selection has figured in human evolution, the mechanisms advanced by group selectionists are sufficient to allow a more conservative process, extended kin selection, to occur. In fact this is what Eibl has always meant by his version of group selection.

A final mechanism deserving of mention is collective goods. A criticism of extended kin selection is that it is impossible for an individual effectively to invest in a kin group much larger than a family, because the benefit would be spread so thinly that the payoff would always be greater from investing in close kin, rather than distant ones. Goetze (1998) has dispelled this concern. He draws on economic theory to argue that by contributing to collective goods—such as hunting large game animals or defending the group—allows an individual to confer a large fitness benefit on a large number of individuals.

Supporting that Economics is the most appropriate category for Salter’s Nobel Prize (see end).

So there is no mechanical problem with the feasibility of individuals showing altruism to kin groups larger than the extended family. Indeed, all these mechanism—control of free-riders, bonding the group, and choosing or fashioning collective goods—are highly scalable. They can be increased in scale to accommodate a kin group of any size. Admittedly some novel and ingenious social devices are needed to perform these functions for large groups, but humans are ingenious, as is clear from the many experiments in political evolution.

Thus the second problem in understand the evolution of ethnocentrism the second is already solved, or well on its way to being solved. It’s the first problem that remains; indeed, it has hardly been addressed. To reiterate, was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed between them to have been adaptive?

The question should be recast in light of Goetze’s analysis of collective goods. I shall use the term ‘patriotism’ to mean altruism towards a collective good. When collective goods are available to which individuals can contribute, is the aggregate kinship of the whole group sufficiently high to allow patriotism to be adaptive, i.e. evolutionarily stable? Dawkins thinks not. He maintains that only altruism shown to close kin is adaptive. But Hamilton disagreed. In his classic 1975 paper, ‘Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics’, he discarded the notion that inclusive fitness processes can only operate between genealogical kin, and argued that altruism can be adaptive between anonymous, genetically similar individuals.

That the usual suspects ignore Hamilton’s reformulation at the price of displaying their mendacity.  However, I also have to say it is troubling it took Hamilton so long to realize – or at least to publicly state – something that should have been immediately obvious to any reasonably intelligent analyst of this topic.

“[C]onnections which the remote townsman does not so easily know of make up in multiplicity what they lack in close degree” (1975, p. 142).

By townsman Hamilton means the member of a band or tribe. He showed mathematically that even with a steady trickle of migration between populations, relatedness can rise as high as 0.5 between random members. Hamilton concluded that altruism on behalf of the group could then be adaptive, especially if it preserved the group from replacement. The point that inclusive fitness processes can operate between individuals merely on the basis of genetic similarity, without any genealogical information, is critical, and I quote Hamilton’s commentary on this theoretical advance.

“Because of the way it was first explained [by Hamilton], the approach using inclusive fitness has often been identified with “kin selection” and presented strictly as an alternative to “group selection” as a way of establishing altruistic social behaviour by natural selection. But…kinship should be considered just one way of getting positive regression of genotype in the recipient, and that it is this positive regression that is vitally necessary for altruism. Thus the inclusive fitness concept is more general than “kin selection” ” (Hamilton 1975, pp. 140-41; [p. 337 in the 1996 reprint]).

This frees the analyst from the “identical by descent” clause in Hamilton’s original (1964) formulation, allowing the direct measurement of kinship processes using genetic assay data. These data are usually expressed not in terms of kinship coefficients, but genetic variation, for example FST. However, Harpending (1979) provides a formula for converting FST measures to kinship coefficients.

Fine, but we really need direct measures of genetic kinship.

fo = FST + (1 – FST)[ – 1/(2N – 1)]

where fo is the local kinship coefficient, FST the variance of the metapopulation, and N the overall population. Within primordial dialect groups and tribes, where N is approximately 500, the second complex term in this equation is small. When N is large, as it usually is with modern ethnies, a good approximation for the above equation becomes, simply:

fo ≈ FST

(The kinship concept needs clarification. In population genetics the coefficient of kinship, f, between two individuals is defined as the probability that an allele taken randomly from one will be identical to an allele taken at the same locus from another. This definition is close to that of Hamilton’s (1964) original coefficient of relatedness r, which he used in his classic formulation of inclusive-fitness theory, except that in simple cases 2f = r. This means that parental kinship is 0.25, not 0.5. Kinship to self is 0.5, not the familiar 1.0, which refers to relatedness r. A fuller explanation is provided in Salter [in press])

Harpending’s simple formula allows the estimation of average kinship within local populations based on FST measures. The principle can be simply stated thus: variation between two populations is equal to kinship within each of them. As a hypothetical example, if the variation between two groups P and Q is FST = 0.25, then the kinship between two randomly-chosen members of P is likewise 0.25, or that of sibs or parent and child. The same applies to random pairs drawn from Q.

This brings us to the subject of this presentation: Was there sufficient genetic variation between primordial human groups for individual inclusive fitness to be boosted by acts of ethnic solidarity, by patriotism?

Let’s begin with the band, numbering between 30 and 50 individuals, comprised of two or three extended families connected by marriage ties. I could not locate data on inter-band genetic variation, but Harpending (personal communication) reports that inter-band FST is typically small, 0.01 or less. Let us assume, for illustrative purposes, that it is 0.0005. If, apart from extended family, a band numbered, say, 25 individuals, then this group’s aggregate kinship to a random individual is 0.0005 x 25 = 0.0025, which is the equivalent of one hundredth of a child. This number only has meaning in the context of competition with a neighbouring band. It will be much higher in the context of competition with more genetically distant populations. By comparison to this vanishingly small kinship, an individual’s genealogical kin might represent the genetic equivalent of five or six children (3 actual children plus cousins, grandchildren, etc.). The selection advantage of altruism towards nonkin would usually be outweighed by altruism towards kin. Nevertheless, band solidarity might have paid off because the fate of the extended family was inseparably bound up with the fate of the band. 

The last point is an important – and obvious – one that seems to escape the anti-Salterian ideologues.  They can’t be that supuid, so I chalk it up to anti-White mendacity.

The average kinship with the band would have been high relative to the average kinship with members of neighbouring bands. (An approximation: assume that family plus others yield the equivalent of six children within the band, or an aggregate kinship of 1.5. Then average kinship is 1.5/50 = 0.03. Average kinship with neighbouring bands is –0.01.)

Genetic variation grows with the geographic scale of population units, so that dialect and tribal populations have higher kinship between random pairs than do bands. Typical variation between small dialect groups and tribes might be 0.005. FST between clusters of Bantu tribes is much higher, typically about 0.015. Between West African populations Fst varies from 0.0013 (Ewe-Volta) to 0.049 (Volta-Wolof). The average is about 0.02 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 181). Neighbouring American Indian tribes have a typical genetic distance of about 0.025 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 323). The Americas show high genetic variability, with an average FST of 0.070, compared to Australia’s 0.019, Polynesia’s 0.031, New Guinea’s 0.039, sub-Saharan Africa’s 0.035, and Caucasoid’s as a whole of 0.043 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 336).

Genetic variation continues to increase with geographical , though recall that we are discussing autochthonous populations, those that have been resident in an area for many thousands of years. Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994, p. 122) have charted the relationship between FST and distance within large regions.

 Fig. 1  The relationship between genetic distance and geographic distance within continents. Note that the curves are based on pre-colonial populations (from Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 122).

 Between continents genetic variation increases greatly. Table 1 shows the FST distances between geographical races, which can be characterized as continental-scale populations.



Non-European Caucasoids13400.0

European Caucasoids16561550.0

Northeast Asians19796409380.0

Arctic Northeast Asians20097087474600.0


Southeast Asians22069401240631103913420.0

Pacific Islanders 2505 954 1345 724 1181 1741 437 0.0

New Guineans and Australians 2472 1179 1346 734 1013 1458 1238 809


Table 1. Genetic variation between nine geographical races, measured as FST x 10,000 (From Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 80; rounded to nearest integers; standard errors omitted).

Inter-racial variation is typically as high as 0.125 or even 0.25 (between Pacific Islanders and Africans). In the latter case, intra-racial kinship is the equivalent of parental kinship. Higher variation across greater geographical distances means that populations organized competitively over those distances have higher within-population kinship. At the same time, aggregate kinship will increase due to the larger size of the polity. In other words, other factors being equal, group solidarity becomes more adaptive as the scale of political organization grows. In Table 2 I estimate the aggregate kinship in child-equivalents for different types of populations. The values differ for each continent, but the FST values adopted are realistic.

Child equivalents

N Inter-pop. FST Extended family kinship Non-family group members

Band 50 0.0005 5 –

Dialect group 500 0.005 5 10

Large tribe 5000 0.01 5 200

Modern nation 10 mill. 0.015 5 600,000

Racially different nations 10 mill. 0.125 5 5 mill.

Table 2.  Distribution of aggregate kinship in different sized autochthonous populations based on genetic distance to neighbouring populations of the same kind.


Table 2 indicates that beyond the band, ethnic solidarity could have been adaptive, assuming that competition existed between the larger social units, that free riders were controlled and that collective goods existed in which to invest.

All these assumed conditions definitely exist today, and have existed throughout human history.

From the emergence of tribes in the Neolithic, social organization spanning many miles would have created scope for collective goods that benefited many hundred or thousands of individuals. The positive relationship between geographic and genetic distance would have created an adaptive opportunity for aggressively expansive group strategies, perhaps in the autocatalytic process postulated by E. O. Wilson:

“A band might then dispose of a neighboring band, appropriate its territory, and increase its own genetic representation in the metapopulation, retaining the tribal memory of this successful episode, repeating it, increasing the geographical range of its occurrence, and quickly spreading its influence still further in the metapopulation. Such primitive cultural capacity would be permitted by the possession of certain genes” (E. O. Wilson 1975, p. 573).

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) makes essentially the same point, by emphasizing group cohesion and territorial displacement. Likewise Hamilton combined the factors of aggressive territorial expansion.

“[P]rimate examples suggest the prototype war party as an all-male group, brothers and kin, practised as a team in successful hunting and at last redirecting its skill towards usurping the females or territory of another group. Out of such cells can be built the somewhat less stable organism of the postneolithic army. . . . If the male war party has been adaptive for as long as is surmised here, it is hardly surprising that a similar grouping often reappears spontaneously even in circumstances where its present adaptive value is low or negative, as in modern teenage gangs.” (Hamilton 1975, p. 148)

The key elements in the strategy would have been capturing territory and replacing the conquered population in whole or part. Ethnic nepotism in the form of advancing such a strategy or defending against it would have yielded fitness payoffs much larger, though less regularly, than familial nepotism.

That’s obvious, but don’t tell that to anti-White ideologues, HBDers, etc., and they’ll just mutter “green beard effect” and think that somehow refutes the entirety of Salter’s thesis.

The Hamilton-Harpending algorithm offers an analytical tool for estimating whether a population was (or is) a fit object for altruism, and thus whether that altruism was (or is) sustainable across evolutionary time.

Personally, I think it an error to focus on “altruism” per se, which leads to all sort of nitpicking critiques of EGI.

Combining inclusive fitness theory with gene assay data has implications for the debate regarding group selection of altruism directed towards ethnies. Research attention long focused on the possibilities of group selection of altruism should be widened to look for the preconditions for extended kin selection: ethnic kinship; control of free riders; and the availability of collective goods facilitating ethnic continuity.

Salter should be awarded a Nobel Prize for his work; the most appropriate category is most probably Economics (broadly defined), as EGI can be considered an analysis of costs vs. benefits of specific human behaviors, and how to most efficiently allocate resources so as to maximize a valued objective (i.e., adaptive fitness).


 Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1992). Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13: 171-195.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. (1994).  The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1982). Warfare, man’s indoctrinability and group selection. Ethology (Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie), 60: 177-98.

Goetze, D. (1998). Evolution, mobility, and ethnic group formation. Politics and the Life Sciences, 17(1): 59-71.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetic evolution of social behavior, parts 1 and 2. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7: 1-51.

Hamilton, W. D. (1975). Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics. In Biosocial anthropology, (ed. R. Fox), pp. 133-55. Malaby Press, London.

Harpending, H. (1979). The population genetics of interactions. American Naturalist, 113: 622-30.

Salter, F. K. (2002). Estimating ethnic genetic interests: Is it adaptive to resist replacement migration? Population and Environment, 24(2): 111-40.

Wilson, E. O. (1975).  Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism

More Salter analysis.

I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.

This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century. 

Here, I look behind the program’s glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program’s four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.

That’s what Salter’s essay is about.  Let’s look at certain important excerpts.

Prof. Dunn’s publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the “new racism” is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments “disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses.” 

This account resembles Dunn’s view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.

This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues.  The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of “Anglo” (i.e., White) racism!  Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a “fraud” because it “benefits” the very group it viciously oppresses.  The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of “White racism” and “White Privilege.”

The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society.  In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority’s selfish racism!  By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.

By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad.  But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred.  The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them.  Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are “privileged.”

To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples.  No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.

Jakubowicz also shares Dunn’s assumption that Anglos dominate Australia’s racial hierarchy. “In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.

Case in point.  By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz.  That’s some strange dominance, I’ll tell you that for nothing.

In Jakubowicz’s view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.

Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.

It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard’s loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government’s attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes. 

That last part: Oh, no; just…NO.  Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers.  But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point.  Even the loyalty issue is not the point.  The point IS Salter’s own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.

But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world’s second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia’s founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?

True, but how about squandering the genetic capital?  One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that’s one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.

Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?

The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia. 

And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the “capitalist exploiters?”” What did they do once coming to power?  That’s what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.

Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter’s identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.

An ethnic lobby for “Chinese Australians” would no doubt be welcomed by the “HBD race realists.”

Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt’s death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel’s universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel’s strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel’s. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy.2

Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed.  But some on the “Far Right” tell us that Jews are “White Men of the West.”  Do you, dear reader, really believe that?

Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance. 

How did that alliance become triumphant?  One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings.  The failure of the “movement and its inept “leadership” must also be held accountable.

…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, “Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s.”14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.

And yet they are “dominant” and “privileged.”  


Conclusion and Policy Implications

One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of “professor” can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.

But how?  We need concrete proposals.

The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27

And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about “tax cuts” and “economic growth” while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the “men who can’t tell time,” cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and “being snug in your hobbit hole.”  Plenty of blame to go around, no?

The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.

How to dismantle this?  How to build Rightist equivalents?  And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action “infrastructures” were built within the “movement.”

Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy. 

A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.

There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left’s dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left’s takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31

And all doing this time the Right did nothing.  In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis).  Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another.  The Right is not serious.  After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.

As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program’s attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.

But what to do about it?  We all know this is true.  What now?

It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.

But how exactly to get started?  We can never “get over the hump” from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress.  We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.

Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin’s should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.

You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such.  Given the current inept “leadership” any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.

However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.

Another good analysis by Salter.  Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide.  If you want to contribute to Salter’s work, do so as described here.  Give generously.