Category: EGI

The Direction of Evolution

Diversification, integration, and cooperation. 

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Abstract

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?

Yes.

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…

Advertisements

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.

Abstract

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.

Corrections

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 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912005569, 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.

Introduction

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.

AFR NEC EUC NEA ANE AME SEA PAI

Africans0.0

Non-European Caucasoids13400.0

European Caucasoids16561550.0

Northeast Asians19796409380.0

Arctic Northeast Asians20097087474600.0

Amerindians226195610387475770.0

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).

References

 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.”  

IV

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.

EGI Video

Please disseminate far and wide.

Gee, I wonder who wrote the text that video is reading from (*)?  It’s brilliant, brilliant I say; indeed, I couldn’t have done a better job myself!

Seriously though, this is extremely excellent – someone has created a YouTube video summarizing the main arguments of EGI.  If only nationalist politicians would watch and understand, and try incorporating the basic logic into their worldview and making the principles accessible to the masses, utilizing the correct language for that approach.

And the same applies to civic nationalist cucks, who might learn a thing or two.  I mean, this video only requires listening and looking at pictures – even a dullard like Trump probably could handle it.  I realize it is about 12 minutes too long for his attention span, but, still.

*With the slight alteration of the years passed since Salter’s article.  And of course Salter has written On Genetic Interests since that article.

Salter Trad Addendum

More comments.

Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known.  Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis.  I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive.  Forgetting for a moment Barr’s history and ancestry, what do we see?  A crude “acting out,” spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr’s subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses (“it was the Ambien”).  So, “racists” are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology.  In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.

One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests.  This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to “liberal democratic values” (sort of Jobling’s argument when he was running his website).

However, just like the “Amren Gateway Hypothesis,” mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it.  Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.

Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.

There are a number of problems with that.  First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking?  The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around.  Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him.  Orban in Hungary is the same.  Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.

Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center.  So, should the Far Right move toward them?  No, that’s a losing proposition.  Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time.  If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge.  Right-of-center voters will always prefer the “safe” and “electable” mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists “tainted” with a past history of “extremism.”  If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you?  Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right’s credibility regards their right-feint won’t be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you’ve watered down your views so as to become another “conservative.”  You will lose respect and credibility, and “turn off” your own more radical base.

What about the young?  What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth?  Aren’t they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing?  The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring.  But, isn’t that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place?  It’s the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.

There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more “conservative” with age.  Let’s say, more generally, they shift to the right.  We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics.  Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices.  No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.  

As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics.  They will learn that regardless of their “tolerance” that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System.  Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth.  Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?

The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.

In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.

Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI.  Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the “mixed ethic” cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define “human”).  Nevertheless, we should not “mainstream” and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.

If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us.  “Must” does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it.  “Must” does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.

The necessity for “culture warriors” I also agree with.  The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right’s “declare (premature) victory and go home” pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left.  It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald “Alt Right God Emperor” Trump just as it did under Ronald “KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980” Reagan.  Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.

Three practical problems with “cultural warfare” – 

1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I’m talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the “Religious Right”), metapolitics, and serious ideology.  I’m not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.

2. To the extent that “cultural warriors” exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the “movement.”  Now, in America, there really isn’t a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn’t any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism.  However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3).  And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective “jack of all trades” problem discussed next.

3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts.  A truly effective “jack of all trades” – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).

A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited.  There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem.  There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc.  On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in “movement” politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.

Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security.  Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing.  Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts.  We don’t have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can’t work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.

One omission in Salter’s work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.

Like Salter, I support the idea of “democratic multiculturalism,” both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.

In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.

I may have more to say on these topics in the future.

Salter Trad Analysis, II

More.

Once again, a summary and an analysis of excerpts; follow the link to read the whole thing.

(a)

Ethnic nationalism

Ethnic nationalism treats the nation as an extended family. More than other nationalisms it most directly identifies and protects ethnic interests because it seeks to establish a relatively homogeneous, cohesive and independent society.

These motives have evolutionary origins in kinship. Cultural similarity mimics kinship, especially shared religion and historical memories and belief in descent from common ancestors. In racially diverse regions, ethnic genetic kinship is typically equivalent to that between first cousins. This makes the ethnic group a large store of each member’s distinctive genes.1 Ethnic kinship facilitates the spread and maintenance of ethnic nepotism, a weak but pervasive social tie.

That is the entire ethnic genetic interests paradigm in a nutshell.

Ethnic sentiment was hinted at and stated outright in early decisions to ban non-European immigration to Australia. Arthur Phillip, the first governor of the Sydney colony, refused the British Home Secretary’s proposal to obtain wives for the convicts by taking women from South Pacific islands. Instead he requested more female convicts be sent from England. Other early governors such as Sir Richard Bourke and Sir George Gipps took a similar stand against the importation of cheap Indian labour. This time the proposal came from squatters facing labour shortages. The Colonial Office concurred with the governors, citing the adverse effect on the wages of white labourers of introducing migrants of “an inferior and servile description”. Notice the concern with the working conditions of people of European descent in particular, not citizens in general. The first is an ethnic category, the second a civic.

Very good, No Asians.  As opposed to Silk Road White nationalism that wants to see the West colonized by Asians and Whites as an enslaved subaltern caste.

…references to the blood of patriots, security of the homeland, portraying the nation as a family (“fatherland”, “motherland”), and so on. As already discussed, “nation” connotes ethnicity and as such is a biological, tribal concept. Such rhetoric has been shown to release patriotic motivation.3 The effect is so pronounced politicians use releaser ideas in order to gain legitimacy. They use terms such as “nation” and “community” and “sovereignty” and “borders” and “homeland defence” incessantly. But the rhetoric is out of kilter with their policies, and the discrepancy is becoming evident to a growingly cynical, distrustful electorate. A competent media or an aroused citizenry would make it difficult for mainstream politicians to use this rhetoric.

Because releaser ideas fit naturally with people’s evolved predispositions, they have greater effect with less effort. They are efficient. Ideas that fit less naturally do not release instinctive fixed action patterns but must be inculcated through repetition, which is costly. Unnatural ideas rely more on power, on monopoly of the media and education curricula. Perhaps that explains the globalist left’s intolerance – they do not tolerate any opposition because their ideas are unpalatable.

The question is how the globalist left obtained all that power to begin with. If their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to be maintained by force, but these ideas did not come into power by force…it is obvious we need some sort of explanatory analysis here.

Ethnic nationalism – and we can place racial nationalism here – is the purest of the forms of nationalism Salter discusses.  It is explicit.  It has as its ends the well-being of the ethny.  This can be contrasted to liberal nationalism:

 (b)

Liberal Nationalism

The notion of liberal nationalism might seem oxymoronic, especially to Americans, in an age when ‘liberal’ has come to mean leftist or socialist. Here the term’s original meaning is adopted, namely rational approaches to policy that emphasise individual rights and individual conscience.

Liberal philosophers inherited cultural leadership from traditionalists. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were reformers and patriots at the same time. They did not question the continuity of their people or civilisation. They were not afflicted with group guilt. Despite being reformers, by modern standards they were conservative in outlook. They represented continuity with traditional patriotism.

Mill posited a connection between national identity, homogeneity and democratic values. He concluded:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart […] One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.6

In Considerations Mill argued that representative institutions are “next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”. Democracy depends on society being educated and cohesive. As Mill thought that ethnic diversity reduced social cohesion, he concluded that diversity should be minimised. His argument concerned ethnicity, of which race is only one component. “The sympathies available for the purpose are those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest.”7

So, in liberal nationalism defense of the ethny is means , not ends.  It is the means toward constructing a polity in which “liberal” values, such as individual rights, can be most effectively actualized.  However:

Strictly speaking, liberal nationalism need contain no national sentiment at all, only policies for making society cohere within the frame of representative democracy and individual liberty. Policy might be ethnically selective but not necessarily the motives for advancing those policies. The starting point of Mill’s analysis of nationality (immigration, domestic affairs) is not loyalty to a particular tribe but universals of social behaviour, conflict avoidance, and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and association. 

Thus, we see the seeds of a problem in relying on liberal nationalism: it van be subverted toward policies hostile to the ethny in such policies can be formulated so as to ostensibly preserve the universal values prized by traditional liberal thinkers.

An example is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent enunciation of libertarianism, which overlaps classical liberalism in emphasing the need for freedom from coercion and conflict. Hoppe concludes that immigration to Western societies should mainly consist of people descended from ethnic Europeans – “Western, white candidate immigrants” – not because of any ethnic preference but in the interests of social harmony, neighbourliness, and economic equity.16 He criticised the goal of white solidarity on the ground that many globalist elites are white.17

That last part is retarded on Hoppe’s part, and indicative of the weak analysis of libertarianism.  Whites have genetic (and proximate) interests in the well-being of Whites, and hence White solidarity is useful.  Are there free riders to such solidarity?  Yes.  Are there what I termed in the past “cross riders” to such solidarity – people who not only utilize the public good of solidarity without contributing to t but actually actively harm it?  Yes, there are.  But such types can be identified and they can be punished by withholding the benefits of such solidarity from them.  White solidarity does not mean solidarity to every single White person on Earth, irrespective of their behavior.  It instead implies solidarity to the group, in general, and those defectors from group solidarity of course should not derive benefits from it.

Genuine liberal nationalism is open to the idea that nationhood is beneficial for all peoples. This is another advantage over unregulated ethnic nationalism, which is prone to chauvinism, resulting in needless conflict. Universal nationalism has the potential to facilitate cooperation among parochialists against global centrists.

It is not clear to me why universal nationalism is not ethnic nationalism.  Well, Salter uses the modifier “unregulated.”  Very well.  But regulated ethnic nationalism is not the same as liberal nationalism. One can directly and explicitly defend ethnic interests without descending into genocidal Hitlerism.

Universalism risks drifting too far from local interests. Stability of liberal nationalism as an ethnic strategy probably depends on more than perceived fairness, privacy and equality before the law. Hoppe’s rejection of ethnic solidarity misses the fact of ethnic kinship. Social divisions do not eliminate the interest we have in the welfare of our peoples. Genetically and civilisationally, class is false consciousness.

Well said.

For these reasons it is rational for ethnic nationalists to join in discussions of liberal nationalism, clarifying matters of fact and reasoning to yield outcomes more amenable to ethnic interests.

Or we can reject liberal nationalism and promote a regulated ethnoracial nationalism.

Salter then discusses the dead ends of economic, republican and civil forms of nationalism.  You can read the details in his original ext.  On civic nationalism (read: Trump), Salter states:

One problem with basing cohesion on values is that the process of political compromise inevitably reduces values to shallow slogans. As the conservative educationalist Kevin Donnelly explained, “even when there is agreement on what constitutes Australian or Western values, […] the list is so vacuous and all-embracing that it’s impossible to identify what makes such values special or unique”.26 Australians are meant to be united by such values as tolerance and inclusion and respecting different points of view. Particular religious and ethnic origins are not even named on the assumption that all cultures are equal.

The tenets of civic nationalism are not altogether new. Empires have universalised the head of state and expanded citizenship to win the loyalty of far-flung provinces. This was an innovation of the Romans, emulated by the British. In neither case did the patrician class believe that provincials were their equals but in both cases they used citizenship to gain loyalty based on equal treatment under the law. Equality included the legal right to migrate around the empire. Omnivorous citizenship in the Roman and British empires resulted in the mass migrations towards the metropolitan society.

Cynicism and shortsightedness are apparent in these imperial ideologies. Of relevance to Australia is the use of the equality doctrine by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, to block the colonies and the new Commonwealth from explicitly selecting ethnically European immigrants. The experience of Chinese immigration during the gold rushes showed that a European country situated beside the large populations of Asia could only retain its identity by systematically favouring European immigrants. But the British government wished to sign a naval agreement with Japan, for which purpose they needed to secure Japan’s favour. Chamberlain wrote to warn Australian leaders that the British government would advise the monarch to refuse the royal assent to any explicitly racial provision.

Note how the reverse is never true; for example, Japan never felt required to make racial concessions to Whites.

(f)

Reactive Nationalism

The reactive type has been influential. It will be briefly discussed, though it is not animated by a consistent ideology. Instead it is a manifestation of anxiety with rapid change and resulting frustration with and suspicion of the authorities.

Reactive nationalism carries bits and pieces of ideologies and policies propelled by emotion. Common denominators of national identity remain largely implicit and unanalyzed.

These are negative features because emotionally-driven politics tends to be inchoate, leaderless, episodic as it reacts to overreach by elites, including oppressive social controls.

In other words, Bunkerism and to a large extent some of the more lowbrow Type I “activists” one finds on ‘movement” comments threads in online forums.

The Trump and Brexit revolts were based on passionate rejection of globalist social transformation and stifling social controls. The same reactions have propelled Pauline Hanson’s electoral success.

And without analysis, without Type II activists preaching reason and rational strategizing, all of that has come to naught.

Comparing Types of Nationalism

The six types of Australian nationalism have been combined in various ways over two centuries, concluding in the 1970s with a relatively disjunctive break with the ethnic-liberal combination that had shaped the nation from the First Fleet.

All types of nationalism have encompassed bad decisions and unrealistic assumptions. But overall, ethnic and liberal nationalisms have proven less susceptible to elite free riding. The liberal type has the added advantage of retaining political forms developed over centuries that help the formation of public goods.

There is no reason why a regulated and rational ethnic nationalism cannot utilize the political and social technologies of liberal nationalism without going “full liberal” and making ethnic preservation merely proximate means rather than ultimate ends.

Australia’s current mix of civic nationalism and multiculturalism constitutes a top-down elite agenda. It co-exists in antagonistic tension with latent ethnic nationalism, as demonstrated by the recent success of minor parties. The antagonism is caused by the multicultural establishment seeking to transform the original nation. Their dominance of the culture industries has not eliminated popular nationalism, which remains a sleeping giant.

Elites are traitors who will one day need to be held accountable.

Liberal nationalism has the advantage of self-criticism. We all operate with imperfect knowledge. By opening our beliefs to rational inspection we increase the chance of avoiding ill-informed ingrained assumptions, including those concerning goals and methods. A moderate culture of self-criticism allows a movement to adapt to changing conditions, including new tactics and strategy by opponents and potential allies. This nimbleness will be indispensible in defeating more powerful opponents.

I fail to see why a sane and reasonable ethnic nationalism cannot have self-criticism.  I realize that Der Movement is congenitally resistant to self-criticism and accountability; however, liberal nationalism has been equally so, which is why it has collapsed into globalist multiculturalism.

Liberal nationalism’s main weakness compared to ethnic nationalism is its tendency to collapse into the civic kind. The weakness lies in its reliance on ideas transmitted by higher education, at a time when universities have been captured by the West-hating left. Ethnic nationalism is less vulnerable in this respect because it has a stronger emotional basis in ethnic nepotism. It would remain loyal to the nation even if diversity were found not to have multiple negative impacts, because ethnic nationalists are willing to pay a price to live among their people in a relatively homogeneous self-governing society. The weakness of this doctrine is cultural, leading to rigidity of policy and ideas. The end result is compromise of the representative democratic system.

That system SHOULD be compromised.  Bring it on!

Ethnic nationalism, and certainly the reactive type, are insufficient credentials for an individual or party to assume government, unless ethnic identity is taken to include the political traditions inherited from England. One way or another, nationalist voters are advised to elect only those politicians who have demonstrated competence, character and tradition in the broad sweep of government duties in the tradition of representative democracy. 

Err…these latter things we need to get rid of.

One marked weakness of unqualified ethnic politics is that it risks emulating multiculturalism’s effect of fragmenting society along ethnic and religious lines. 

But this is precisely what we need!  The road to freedom passes through racial balkanization and chaos, there is likely no other way.  We NEED to be fragmented.

This has a direct human cost in social conflict and an indirect economic cost due to policy being diverted from serving public goods to serving particular group interests. 

We have sacrificed ethnic interests for “the economy” long enough.  That smacks of economic nationalism.  And public goods SHOULD serve majority interests.

Given its mixed history, liberal nationalism might appear to be unreliable. One sign that it could be reclaimed is that every instance of it serving hostile goals has entailed fraud, the compromise of Enlightenment values of rationality and liberty. 

I would say its inability to recognize and combat such fraud indicates a fatal weakness of liberal nationalism.

Australia’s historical experience – of liberal nationalism giving way to globalism – indicates that liberal nationalism is sustainable only when it respects majority ethnic and religious identity as legitimate values. Liberal nationalism’s divorce from ethnic identity in the decades before 1970 opened it to intellectual corruption and left-authoritarianism. 

I suggest that liberal nationalism always has within it this inherent trend toward anti-majoritarian multiculturalism. Therefore it cannot be trusted and should be replaced by a sane and balanced ethnic nationalism (which includes racial nationalism).

Ethnic and liberal nationalism have different strengths in relation to multiculturalism. The growth of an ethnic nationalist movement would be accelerated by the strategy of democratic multiculturalism described earlier, due to rising Anglo consciousness. However, the doctrine does not provide a political framework for accommodating other identities when the state is retaken. At that point a liberal frame would make an emerging ethnic state more governable, more stable, by providing political processes for managing diversity.

Err…we should not have to “manage diversity” – we need to end it. I suppose there can be an intermediate period as the ethnic state is “emerging” in which the remnants of diversity would need to be managed, but a regulated and sane ethnic nationalism can handle that, and “keep the eyes on the prize.”  I simply do not trust liberal nationalism or any other approach that dose not have ethnic interests and the endpoint of analysis.

Informed liberal nationalism can be an effective, though partial, defence of majority ethnicity against globalists and multiculturalists. That is because it converges on ethnic nationalism at the policy level. Historically, liberal nationalism respected ethnic sentiment. Together the liberal and ethnic types encompassed motives rational and civic on the one hand, and nepotistic on the other. Together they promoted the national bio-culture.

The fusion of liberal and ethnic nationalism that shaped Australia for two centuries is better equipped with releaser memes than competing doctrines. On the liberal side, that is because institutions such as representative democracy and rule of law are part of Anglo identity, and therefore add another cultural layer to markers of descent.

This fusion is akin to the “mixed ethic” that Salter promotes in On Genetic Interests.  The pure ethic would be analogous to unregulated ethnic nationalism and then we have all the ethics that treat ethnic interests as secondary or irrelevant.  The mixed ethic fuses primacy of ethnic interests with a doctrine of rights, similar to what is suggested here.

The main disadvantage of this approach is when its identitarianism is implicit. Only an explicit appeal to the historic nation can establish a nationalist rhetoric able to fully mobilise Anglo Australians.

Yes, this is the case. Unfortunately, the next paragraph promotes the alleged positives of the failed implicit approach.

Implicit ethnicity also has advantages. Decades of indoctrination by media and education bureaucracies have made Anglo ethnic nepotism taboo. Liberal nationalism advances ethnic interests indirectly. Indirect ethnic preservation has the additional attraction of conforming more with the non-ideological tradition of Anglophone cultures. English-derived politics is famously divorced from theory compared to the Continental tradition. People distrust theory in politics, as much as they do theory in art. They perceive both as pretentious. Like conceptual art, a political position won’t appeal to the common-sense public if it relies on abstruse theory. But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.

Implicit politics have ALWAYS failed.  Mainstreaming has failed in Europe again and again.  Even Orban, under EU constraints to modify his language, sometimes drifts from more implicit culturalist talk to that of ethny.  Now, Salter here talks about Australia, and contrasts “English-derived politics” from that of “the Continental tradition.”  But even in “English-derived” traditions, implicit politics and mainstreaming has failed.  Has One Nation succeeded?  No.  Brexit has led to a current UK where Polish immigrants are driven out by racist anti-White Negroes and South Asians; native Britons are a non-factor in their own nation.  Thatcher co-opted anti-immigration angst to end up being a fraud.  Then in America there is a long tradition of Republican dog whistling on race that leads nowhere: Nixon-Reagan-Trump. I most strongly disagree with Salter here.  “But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.”  The other side will construe “true liberal nationalism” as akin to fascism and social strife.

To put this another way, the choice of types of nationalism is not only an intellectual exercise. It is also one of self-examination. The choice must feel right to the majority now or in the foreseeable future. And that depends on who we are psychologically, who we are in terms of shared memories, and who we could feasibly become as new memories slowly accumulate and the culture changes. Multicultural critics portray Anglo-Australians as uniquely driven by racial identity. In fact Anglo Australians are among the least collectivist of peoples, much less so than multicultural activists. They are so tolerant of foreigners to have retained their composure while being inundated by immigrants.

I do not fully agree here. We should not let the herd, with their psychological comfort level, define for us the limits of our choice of nationalism.  They need to be led by the nose, ultimately.  The sheeple are a herd of lemmings (if I may mix metaphors and analogies) and the vanguard need to set the tone.

In reality ethnic activism by and for the majority is awkward in the present political climate. That does not make it inappropriate. In a healthy political culture, one not distorted by a hostile culture industry, positive majority ethnocentrism would seem natural. And it is important that it be so again, because individuals with heightened ethnocentrism are their peoples’ natural guardians, the passionate counterpoint to cold utilitarianism. Like a mother alert to her baby’s cry, ethnocentric individuals of all backgrounds are the first to feel estranged and besieged by social trends that are adverse for their people. 

But how do we protect these protectors?  How do we defeat social pricing?  There is a number of references and implications in these two essays to feed forward positive feedback loops favoring activism on behalf of the ethny.  I agree, but with one caveat – how to get it started?  We are at a sticking point.  It is like a biochemical reaction with an enormous energy of activation to overcome to get it started.  We need an enzymatic catalyst.  From where?  What will it be?

Majority ethnocentrists’ expression of concern for their people makes them prime targets of the “human rights” apparatus, part-and-parcel of big-state globalism. Those who chant “all love is equal” excoriate anyone who loves the wrong race. Beginning with the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, a powerful strand of left ideology has sought to suppress human nature to create a communist utopia. The civilised response is the liberal one: society should respect ethnic activists of all stripes, including the red white and blue of the founding people. Attacks on ethnic nepotism are unacceptable in a liberal society.

Ethnic nepotism is also strongly attacked by the Alt Wrong/HBD/race realists.  Actually, it is only White ethnic nepotism that is, in practice, attacked.  Always remember that the Alt Wrong is a vehicle to promote Jewish-Asian ethnic interests.

In particular liberal nationalists worthy of the name should accept individuals who profess the interests of the nation. They should accept as comrades those who do so in liberal terms, something civic nationalists and minority chauvinists can never allow. In practical terms that does not mean allowing national activists to make policy in general, because they represent one interest among many. But it does mean protecting the right to free speech and party membership of those who stand up for the historic nation. Liberal nationalists should do that not only as an expression of civil liberties but as a means of ensuring the multiple public goods that flow from a secure national identity and sovereignty.

OK, but as a racial nationalist I don’t view my position as “one interest among many” – maybe liberal nationalism itself should be so viewed.

This paper has argued that Anglo patriots should use a dual political-cultural strategy to defend the historic Australian nation and reestablish the liberal nationalist state built by the founders. The recent success of nationalist protest parties in many Western societies, including Australia, indicates that voters are ready to confer significant political and cultural niches on leaders who are willing to challenge the dominant culture. There are ways forward.

There are ways forward but apparently no one available (and ethnically acceptable to the “movement” rank-and-file) to step and perform those steps.

In summary, Salter’s two-part essay is interesting and useful, but readers can observe key differences between his positions and mine.  We agree on the fundamentals, and on the weaknesses of reactive nationalism and of nationalism lacking in proper analysis.  I understand why he in his position advocates more moderate positions.  But I will continue to assert the primacy of explicit racial nationalism and the irrefutable fact that mainstreaming has failed.