Category: ethics

Against Casey and MacDonald

This needs to be addressed.
An imbecilic and stupid post by another of Counter-Currents’ horrendous new crop of writers.So how should white advocates view abortion and euthanasia? At the very least, with a heavy dose of skepticism. Ideally, we would view them as Hippocrates viewed them, as an insult to life and to holiness. Our people are precious “from cradle to grave,” as the Catholics say.Should we then be working to outlaw abortion and euthanasia? Perhaps. Such affronts to holiness will likely be unthinkable in a white ethnostate.Thus, people dying in agonizing pain, people whose bodies are wrecked to the point that daily life is pointless and holds no meaning for them, people slowly and horribly dying of incurable diseases, people desperate for an end to their pain and suffering, must be kept alive because pathetic religious freaks have to impose their values of “holiness” on the rest of us.
We can give dogs and cats relief from suffering, but we force people to endure a living hell so Jesus freaks can feel good about themselves.  How despicable, how pompous, how deluded in the extremity of narcissism.  Excuse me, you stupid yeastbucket, you ignorant hole, who are you do tell me or anyone else what to do with our lives?  
Women have no business being medical doctors, a profession best left to the adults in the room – men.

Pathetic hand-waving:

MacDonald’s reply:  Again, as noted, I have no quarrel with the idea that the Indo-Europeans were an elite dominating a native indigenous population. My point was that Mycenaean civilization was an Indo-European culture. There is no real evidence for that.And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes. Really – now get this:The most recent samples studied by Mathieson et al. date from 1100 BC, and the most recent samples studied by Lazaridis et al. date from around 1200 BC—toward the end of Mycenaean civilization. Thus the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece—the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture. This is certainly time enough for selection or incursion of steppe-derived genes, but as yet there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period. Doubly mendacious.  First, because there are not (currently) genetic samples from every era of Greek history, particularly “the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture” then MacDonald is free to “posit” and “suggest” and assert “reasonable” comments about his theories in the absence of any real evidence whatsoever.
Second, above he says “And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes” but now it is “the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece…there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period.”
There’s no genetic evidence for the period, which allows him to “posit” whatever he wishes, but, at the same time, there is evidence of “increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes.”  What evidence?  I thought you just said there was no evidence?  All you have now are the previously mentioned Ancient Greek samples as well as modern Greeks, who the HBD Nordicists consider to be cringing subhumans.  So, where’s the evidence for in between those population end points?Further, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the causes of violent collapse of Mycenaean civilization inaugurating the Greek “Dark Age” (~1200BC–~750BC) of “isolation, introversion, and instability” (Hall, 2013, 82). Well, yes, we can “posit” that the Herrenvolk wrecked the Mycenaean civilization and caused a Dark Age the same as they did to the Western Roman Empire…and what their SJW descendants are doing to the West today.More importantly for present purposes is the identity of the people who later formed classical Greek culture. There is a long history of proposing a “Dorian invasion” from the north which altered spoken dialects from Achaean to Dorian as well as aspects of culture (e.g., knowledge of ironworking and a shift to individualized burial practices (Hall, 2013, p. 70; Nagy, 2019), the latter suggesting a more individualist culture. First, details about  the Dorian invasion are questionable, as regards real scholarship.
Second, even if we “posit” a Dorian invasion as MacDonald prefers, the Athenians considered themselves Ionian, not Dorian, and some scholars – to the extent that they take the Dorian hypotheses seriously – explain the Athenian-Spartan conflict as an ethnic one.  The “flowering” of Greek culture was more Athenian than Spartan, wasn’t it?T his began as a literary tradition and persisted for nine centuries, down to the first century AD and remains the “most economical hypothesis,” although the Dorian invasion hypothesis purporting to explain it remains unproven (Hall, 2013, p. 68). Remains unproven!  Well, yes, but that doesn’t stop some from invoking a Kempite Dorian Herrenvolk influx to “posit” and “suggest” “reasonable” explanations, does it?As noted, genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking; however, it is reasonable to posit a shift toward increased steppe contribution, not only during the Mycenaean period (Mathieson et al., 2018), but continuing thereafter given that genetic changes may occur quite quickly (Cochran & Harpending, 2010).“Reasonable to posit” – those weasel words again.  “Genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking” – but he’ll make conclusions regardless, or “posit” conclusions.  Note also how MacDonald’s more conciliatory and equivocal tone differs here in this review response differs from the more dogmatically HBD tone of self-congratulatory certainty at The Occidental Observer when writing on these issues, mirrored by the sweaty amen corner commentariot, who, like with all personality cults centered on gurus (like Jewish movements, eh?), personally attack critics (“Meisenberg is a mendacious Jew”) – attacks that do not receive any rebuke from MacDonald himself.
Further, do I really need to point out that the fact that “genetic changes may occur quite quickly” does not mean that they will occur or, more to the point, in this case did occur in the manner asserted by MacDonald?  The work of Cochran and Harpending is here almost irrelevant in the absence of evidence of the asserted changes.
Indeed, one can use that paradigm to “posit” and “suggest” all sorts of “reasonable” genetic selection. Maybe individualist farmer genes were quickly selected for?  Maybe those last century has seen a “rapid genetic change” in favor of hysterically SJW collectivist xenophilic egalitarianism among NW Europeans?  Who knows?  We can all “posit” anything and cherry pick reasons why it is “reasonable.”
Now, there is of course genetic evidence for a relatively small minority influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Southern Europe, overlaying the majority farmer ancestry. One can find remnants of some steppe ancestry in Southern European areas today. That does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ancestry of the peoples of the Classical Civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome was of farmer derivation.
MacDonald has a clear agenda of disregarding the contribution of farmer ancestry to European history and civilization, privileging instead hunter gatherer and steppe ancestries.  
It seems more “reasonable” to “posit” that the data “suggest” that the majority ancestry had the largest effect; further, civilization did not begin in the Mediterranean basin until the hunter gatherers were predominantly displaced by the farmers.
And, by the way, once again I note the Y axis here.

Salterian Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

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

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

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


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

The Ethics of EGI

The ethics of pursuing genetic interests.

In On Genetic Interests (OGI), Salter devotes the last third of the book to a discussion of the ethics of pursuing genetic interests, including ethnic genetic interests (EGI).  This has been the most ignored, and undervalued, section of the book by both “friend” and foe alike.  The “movement” is unsurprisingly relatively uninterested in ethics so they ignore it; while the anti-EGI mainstream pretend that Salter proposes wild ideas of rapine and pillage, so any acknowledgment that there is serious and morally sound ethical discussion there is ignored because it conflicts with the mendacious narratives of the left.

We on the other hand can look at this section of the book, consider the arguments, and take those arguments seriously (whether we agree with them or not).  In my previous writings, I had first concentrated on the population genetics aspect (first third of OGI) – of which there is not much more to say until if and when we get global genetic kinship data and data on human genetic structure/integration (at which point there will be much new to say – and then, more recently, have started evaluating the political aspects (second third of OGI), of which no doubt there will always be more to say, but I have relatively neglected ethics, a deficit I will now begin to correct.

Salter defines “adaptive utilitarianism” as the paradigm in which “a good act is one that increases or protects the fitness of the greater number.”  Salter then examines this in the light of different ethical schemes and in the context of individual and group rights.  What can we make of all of this?

Salter stresses that genetic continuity is certainly compatible with peace between ethnies and with equality of opportunity within ethnies, but not with equality of fitness outcomes, since the latter is evolutionarily unstable.  One cannot “force” equal outcomes with respect to biological fitness, there should be no “affirmative action” with respect to equal genetic representation across generations (*).  Evolution is about unequal fitness outcomes, selection, and, contrary to those who misread Salter, he is NOT calling for any sort of “genetic stasis” – there is, and should be, unequal outcomes in the biological sense, but that does not mean that entire groups should have their fitness radically lowered. Unequal outcomes can be tempered with preservation of genetic diversity (which is good for those preserved but also good for us all, since we cannot predict when this genetic diversity may one day be need/useful for the entire humanity).  Thus, just like competition between individuals in society has its limits – one is not allowed to murder one’s rivals to increase one’s personal fitness – so too does the completive struggles between ethnies have limits in which every group is assured its genetic continuity, but not necessarily at predetermined perfectly equal outcomes assured by some sort of powerful genetic arbiter.

Talking about ethics – what do we mean?  In other words, what are the major types of ethical frameworks from which to view EGI?

Teleological ethics – also known as consequentialist ethics – judge an act right depending on its effects; as Salter points out, circular reasoning (e.g., “an act is moral because it increases moral behavior”) is avoided by examining the non-moral consequences of the act, such as increasing well-being.  Utilitarianism – the greatest benefit for the greatest number – is therefore teleological.   Deontological ethics ae those that are judged based on its “intrinsic characteristics”- as established by “intuition or religion” – rather on its consequences.  It is more “rule based.”  Note that as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethics have a deontological components, since some consequence (e.g. increased well-being) is judged to be more based on an intrinsic understanding of the worth of that consequence.

Of course, one can judge pursuit as EGI as both teleological as well as deontological.  It is definitely teleological if we consider the consequence of enhancing fitness for the greatest number (at least of our on ethny); however, it is deontological to the extent that – if we eschew the “is/ought problem” – we are defining adaptive behavior as an intrinsically good moral value (and others may disagree).  So, it is a teleological ethic with strong deontological undertone, as many (all?) teleological ethics are. Note that when I above specify “our own ethny” this implies that teleological ethics must consider exactly who we are talking about – whose well-being are we concerned with?  Or as Sailer would harp on: who? Whom? 

One can therefore view pursuit of EGI as fundamentally being, at its core, teleological, with possibly – or possibly not, depending on how this pursuit is actualized – some deontological aspects as well.  It is utilitarian in that sense. 

We can ask though – should pursuit of EGI, and of genetic interests in general, actually be the focus of any utilitarian teleological ethic?  How about “happiness?”

If utilitarianism is about “maximizing the greatest good,” then what should the “greatest good” mean?  Happiness?  Salter points put that people in objectively bad conditions (drug addicts getting a “fix”) may be “happy,” the mentally deranged may be “happy,” and then we have the problem: does utilitarian benefit have to be based on conscious preferences?  If someone is unaware of an interest, does that mean it does not exist?  A muskrat has, from the biological perspective, an interest in its own genetic continuity, and will behave from instinct to preserve itself, and presumably a mother muskrat will protect is young using the same instinctive impulse, but there is no conscious preference involved.  The muskrat does not so act because acting in this way “makes it happy.”  Looking at how evolution works, looking at the innate instincts of life, we as evolved organisms may decide – and this is admittedly a conscious preference, but the interests remain whether or not we are aware of them – that adaptive behavior can be a criterion for utilitarian benefit.  Is this the naturalistic fallacy them?

There is the Is/ought problem, of which the naturalistic fallacy is a part – “something is good because it exists, because it is found in nature” (anti-Salterians accuse Salter of this, although he is clear that making adaptive fitness a desirable goal is a conscious choice for humans); on the other hand, the moralistic fallacy (often characteristic of leftist thinking) – “something must be true and exist in reality/nature because it is good” – is typically more prevalent in today’s society, but typically never identified as such (perhaps because it is so widespread none of the hypocrites who ant about the “naturalist fallacy” are aware of their own logical inconsistencies).

So, no, we are not saying we MUST accept adaptiveness as the criterion; however, if we decide that genetic continuity is better than not, that existence is better than non-existence, ten adaptive utilitarianism is a prudent choice – note it is a choice, a scientifically informed choice, but still a choice.  We are not “mandated” by nature to choose to act adaptively (although I note that those who act adaptively will replace those that do not, whether you consider that as a “naturalistic fallacy” is a topic for the philosophers). The point is that we can decide to pick the adaptiveness criterion, it has many arguments in its favor, it is self-perpetuating in the sense that those who so choose will be more likely to have continuity of their existence, but, once identified as a legitimate interest by anyone (and this has obviously already occurred!), we can state that the interest exists for all humans (indeed, for all evolve life forms) whether they are aware of it or not.  This seems to be a rather long-winded and complicated argument in favor of a somewhat obvious point, but it is necessary, since enemies of White survival engage in the most outrageous sophistry, and denial of objective fact and clear logic, as well as basic fairness and fundamental human rights, to deny Whites their rights of existence, preservation, and group interests. [I’ll pass over Salter’s arguments about Singer and “animal liberation.”  The targeted readers of this essay hopefully not only value their genetic interests over that of other humans, but over non-human animals as well].

So what we have is: adaptive utilitarianism: we choose to value adaptive fitness as the good to be maximized.

But should the pursuit of EGI (and genetic interests in general) be purely teleological?  Should we engage in pure adaptive utilitarianism in pursuit of genetic interests – concerned with ends only, with no concern for means whatsoever?  Do rights and justice count for nothing?

Salter provides a hypothetical example illustrating the limits of pure utilitarianism from the standpoint of standard notions of justice.  I’ll paraphrase a bit.  Consider a town, with an economy heavily based on tourism and its image as a “good” place.  Some horrific (and we can assume heavily publicized) murder takes place there, endangering the town’s image.  A vagabond petty thief – a constant troublemaker who has been harming the town’s image and damaging its tourist industry – is suspected of the murder.  The townspeople are howling for “justice” – they want the vagabond tried, convicted, and hanged, and their town’s reputation restored.  However, the sheriff discovers the vagabond is innocent – the murder was actually committed by the town’s mayor, a person of previously impeccable character and high standing, the very image of the town ad its “goodness.“ Further, this murder was a “one-time crime of passion” – it is almost certain that the mayor would never do anything like this again.  Arresting the mayor for the murder would, as Salter rightly points out, ravage the town’s social order, ruin its image, harm its tourist industry, and damage its economy, putting people out of work.  A pure utilitarian view – the greatest benefit for the greatest number – would suggest letting the vagabond hang and letting the mayor go free.  But Salter points out this would offend our sense of justice, a common weakness for pure utilitarian schemes.  Even if you would be willing to bend the rules here, what if this scenario was extended and expanded to a decision involving millions of people?  Entire ethnies?  Nations?  Is justice so easily foregone?  The “hard men” of the “movement” may bluster that they would sacrifice everything for their EGI, and who knows maybe they are right, but Whites in general, with their intense sense of Universalist justice, would be unlikely to go along.  Utilitarianism must be tempered by fairness and justice to create a long-term, evolutionarily stable system amenable to Whites.  Thus, one must introduce concepts of justice – procedural justice according to establish protocols – based on the concepts of fairness, morality, and individual rights, all of which have a strong deontological component and which conflict with the “pure ethic” of unrestrained (teleological) utilitarianism.  In this specific case, the vagabond is set free, and the mayor is arrested, “consequences be damned.”  Note there is no utilitarian justification for this, unless one invokes as a possible teleological argument that the concept of justice benefits everyone since who knows when any individual will one day be faced with a situation similar to the vagabond.  Although justice for the individual in the face of “greater good utilitarian arguments would seem to be pure deontological argumentation, of one argues that, since we are all individuals, a doctrine of individual rights benefits the greatest number (all of us) in the greatest number of possible circumstances (almost infinite), then we come full circle and are faced in a sense by conflicting utilitarianisms: the greatest good for the greatest number, with “number”  as viewed as a collective vs. the greatest good for the greatest number, with “number” viewed as a collection of autonomous individuals.  Collectivists may favor the first, individualists, the second; a “mixed ethic” favors both, by weighing the relative merits of each case (in a manner inevitably deontological).

Salter therefore supports a form of adaptive utilitarianism restrained by a respect for individual rights and for the rights of other ethnies to have the same preservationist opportunities (‘the mixed ethic”) – which is consistent with “universal nationalism”.  Some Nutzi types – who fantasize about “nature red in tooth and claw” and pine away for visions of genocide of “the other” mock Salter’s mixed ethic and claim it is inconsistent with the logical conclusions of EGI (anti-Salterians make similar arguments from an anti-White perspective).  But, Salter I think understands the difference between gross and net genetic interests, and that attempts to maximize genetic interest to an extreme extent (gross calculations) will backfire and end up costing more than any potential benefit (net loss of genetic interest).  The mixed ethic is likely more stable over time, less risky, less of a gamble of an ethny’s precious genetic interest.  One need not “go for broke” with respect to genetic interests.  At times, prudent restraint yields the greatest payoff over time.

Salter admits the possibility of “incoherence” with the mixed ethic – one that interjects rights into the adaptive utilitarian scheme – bit I have argued against it by pointing out that since we are all “others” to someone else, we all benefit by putting limits to the extent that both we  and that someone else can pursue their adaptive interests.  I note that Salter himself makes a similar argument, more on individual and family lines, in that the rule of law provides the stability for everyone to “raise a family and acquire resources” as opposed to an arbitrary law free-for-all where every hand is raised against another.  Thus, the mixed ethnic allows for competition and the core pursuit of genetic interests (equal opportunity but not equal outcomes), but puts limits on this pursuit through a “mantle of rights” that would restrain excesses.  Salter also points out the problem of “bounded rationality” (**) for “classic utilitarianism” – how can we really know, really predict, the ultimate consequences of our acts?  Getting back to my previously states (in other posts) principle of net vs. gross genetic interests, how do we know that a “free-for-all” grasping for maximizing gross genetic interests wouldn’t backfire and harm ourselves, diminishing the final, net accounting of genetic interests?  One could invoke the Hitler case here.  The mixed ethic, by retraining adaptive utilitarianism within reasonable limits, would reduce the risk of wild gambles that place net genetic interests in extreme jeopardy.  Salter’s Table 9.1 summarizes some of these differences. Both pure adaptive utilitarianism and the mixed ethic consider EGI to be morally good, while a rights-centered ethic has no opinion on the subject.  Do ends justify the means for EGI?  The pure adaptive ethnic says yes, the mixed says yes, BUT “constrained by rights,” and the ethic concerned only by rights says no.

It should be clear that I generally support the mixed ethic, and make my own argument in its favor (a variation of Salter’s argument) above.  That said, I am a bit more toward the “pure” side of the spectrum than is Salter. The mixed ethic is good in the vast majority of circumstances, but if one is faced with an existential crisis of genetic interests, then rights must go out the window and the pure ethic applied (whether the current racial crisis for Whites currently merits designation as such an existential crisis I will for now leave to the reader to decide).  Now, one can point out a problem here; going back to my “we’re all in the same boat” argument, what if another group decides that they are in an existential racial genetic interest crisis, and then applies the pure ethic in competition against us Whites?  Two replies.  First, we should always be prepared to defend ourselves against any eventuality (realistically, apart from ourselves and our own tendencies for self-destruction, including ethnonationalist lunacies, the only real long-term threat comes from certain Asiatics); second, if we practice universal nationalism, then we shouldn’t provoke other groups into viewing us as pushing them into an existential crisis (these other groups should have equal awareness not to push us, but they do not seem to have that awareness, taking advantage of current White [mental] weakness to bully our genetic interests).

Let us move on. Salter then considers three important questions, the answers to which are summarized in his Table 9.2, and can thus be discussed with equal brevity here.  Can it be moral for EGI to frustrate other interests?  The pure adaptive utilitarian ethic says yes.  The mixed ethic says yes, but only in defense of EGI or in a competitive expansion that preserves the existence and the genetic continuity of the competitor.  The rights-centered ethic says no.  Should genetic interests, including EGI have absolute priority? The pure ethic: yes. Mixed: no, if EGI conflicts with individual rights (here a compromise needs to be made; this does not mean foregoing EGI, but pursuing EGI, and other genetic interests, in a manner reasonably constrained by other considerations).  The rights ethic: no (only “means” matter, not the consequences). What is the right action when genetic interests conflict?  Pure adaptive utilitarianism: compete within adaptive limits; tights can be ignored, but do not engage in conflict that would destroy yourself as well (net genetic interests!).  Mixed ethic: compete but respect rights. “Live and let live.”  Rights: stop competing, because you are causing harm.  Salter then considers freedom and EGI: the ultimate freedom is that of being allowed to pursue genetic interests, including EGI, equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  This last part is important, as, again, some of Salter’s critics lie about his alleged support for “genetic stasis” – here Salter agrees with Hamilton’s blunt statement that equality of fitness is impossible.  That of course does not entail genocide against others, or allowing genocide to your own group, or engaging in wild transhumanist schemes to radically change genomes over short time periods, but some genetic change, including eugenics, is consistent with EGI, and completion between groups, constrained by adaptive limits and by basic right, is also legitimate.  If we then accept adaptive utilitarianism, we must accept competition, unequal outcomes, and the fact that, unlike some utopian and non-biological versions of utilitarianism, we realize that “not all utilities are in harmony.”

But we must have the freedom to pursue genetic interests, including EGI, and resist those who would deny us that freedom.  After all, it’s ethical to so pursue, and it is ethical to resist those who would prevent that pursuit.


*Likewise, a fair society would have equality of opportunity for education and career advancement, but should not force equality of outcome (which racial and sexual affirmative action attempts); this attempt at social engineering is incompatible with real social and technical progress.  The same principle applies, in evolutionary terms, with attempts to engineer equal fitness outcomes.

**While Salter frames his arguments within the framework of rationality and the Anglosphere empiricist tradition, he also approvingly quotes D.S. Wilson, who concludes:

“It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  

That comes after Wilson stated: “Adaption is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought.”

Indeed, if “irrational’ calls to “national greatness,” palingenetic ultra-nationalism, or Yockey’s “actualizing a High Culture” and Imperium idea motivates for defense of EGI, so be it.  We cannot at the same time praise Wilson’s comments and then, for example, criticize aspects of “fascism” for not always following “objective truths” in ever nitpicking detail.

Ethics, Pragmatism, and EGI

Refuting retardation.

I’ve been reading various retarded arguments against Salterism. One particularly stupid and dishonest argument is that Salterism implies that men should rape women so as to spread their genes and increase their fitness, or that if a person has a sick grandmother, they should eschew helping her in any way, since she is past reproductive age and so why waste your resources and thus depress your fitness. Thus, the critics assert that genetic interests must lead to a vicious “nature red in tooth and claw” Darwinian scenario in which people are raping and killing each other for a genetic advantage, and in which the elderly are allowed to “rot” if they don’t enhance one’s immediate genetic fitness. Unfortunately, some “friends” of EGI make analogous arguments; they use “EGI” as some sort of talisman to explain everything from the price of milk to bad weather, and assert that every human interaction is explained, or should be, by “EGI.”
Now, Salter has the last 1/3 of his book devoted to the ethics of EGI.  Critics (and a few “friends”) either ignore that section, or casually dismiss it as “add-on hand-waving” – as if many pages of carefully reasoned arguments based on ethical philosophy is mere “hand-waving.”  But, very well. I’ll make two major practical, pragmatic arguments why the “red in tooth and claw” assertions are wrong-headed and/or fundamentally dishonest, and why attempts to maximize genetic interests to the “nth degree” are doomed to be counter-productive.
1. It is simply not practical or pragmatic. Salter himself acknowledges that a very fine-grained pursuit of genetic interests is likely not possible and that the best that can be hoped for is to prevent large-scale maladaptive outcomes, such as mass migration and ethnoracial displacement/replacement.  What is a person to do?  Make every person they come into contact with take a genetic test, measure the genetic distances, and then calibrate every behavior in accordance to these distances?  To do this even with co-ethnics, with everyone?  For what? To gain an advantage of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a “child equivalent?”  The effort and resources wasted on such nonsense can be better applied to serious efforts in enhancing personal/familial genetic interests by raising a family in a stable society and in enhancing ethnic genetic interests by opposing mass migration.  An Irishman who, say, prevents 1000 Nigerians from immigrating to Ireland, has done orders of magnitude more for his genetic interests than any microscopic advantages to be gained by maximizing every passing personal interaction with his co-ethnics. The idea that the Irishman would be better served spending his time “raping women” (and avoiding arrest and imprisonment) rather than working, raising a family, and engaging in nationalist politics is so ludicrous that any intelligent person should be ashamed to even bring that up as an argument.
2. There is a difference between “gross genetic interests” – trying to maximize as much as possible genetic interests “to the last drop” no matter the cost, and “net genetic interests” – decisions that maximize the net genetic payoff in the end when all the costs vs. benefits are accounted for.  It is clear that these two are not equivalent. An example would be a population that attempted to maximize their genetic interests by rapid population expansion. That’s great – until they outstrip their carrying capacity, ruin the environment, and see their population crash, or attempt to relocate to another group’s territory, resulting in conflict that can turn deadly and result in genocide. Net genetic interests are better served by a more prudent policy of managing the population-environment equation and preserving the ethny from threats such as mass migration. Or, what if an ethny decides to start nitpicking on minor genetic gradients within the ethny and decides to maximize genetic interests by breaking their nation apart into small micro-states, each with an increased genetic relatedness? Perhaps every town and village can be a separate nation! And then a more integrated larger ethny comes along and more easily conquers (militarily or simply through mass migration or other tactics) each of these small micro-states in turn. The costs of destroying a historic nation, eliminating the organic solidarity of an established people, reducing the resources and power of the state, leading to defeat and destruction, would more than outweigh any putative gain by some slight increase in genetic relatedness of the population.
Going back to the original retarded arguments: any individual will have a greater genetic interest stake in their ethny, with its large population, than in their own individual fitness. On a smaller scale, familial fitness outweighs that of the individual. In civilized societies, ethnies and the families that make up these ethnies prosper by social stability, a proper degree of law and order, and distribution of positive social goods to family members and to co-ethnics. A society in which the population are savagely raping and killing each other to gain some incredibly tiny gain in fitness is not one in which any ethny will prosper. A family in which the elders can expect to be treated harshly is not one that will prosper and have the older generations helping to care for the younger. Even if we wish to ignore ethics, there are sound practical reasons to follow a more civilized, prudent, and conservative personal and familial lifestyle, because if everyone behaved in like bad fashion, everyone’s fitness (including yours) suffers in the long run. And free-riders are inevitably punished by a civilized society: being thrown into prison for rape or abusing elders will hardly boost long-term genetic fitness. In other words, attempts to maximize genetic interests to absurd levels meet with diminishing returns and eventually become self-destructive: beyond a certain level (reasonably defined by Salter’s ethics), one loses more genetic interests than one gains.
And here we come full circle with the ethics.  Even IF we were to agree that EGI could be optimized by rape, murder, and throwing grandma on the rubbish heap, what civilized society would accept that?  Europeans certainly would not. Even IF you consider ethics a sham, if those ethics make EGI more palatable for acceptance by the population, then ethics you must have. A 90% efficient policy of genetic interests that is acceptable to the population is infinitely more valuable for maximizing fitness than a 100% efficient policy that is rejected, for the rejected policy, by definition, will have a net efficiency of ZERO.

Of course, all my arguments are simple common sense, and it is hard to believe that the critics are so stupid not to realize all of this. They simply have ethnic and/or ideological agendas to delegitimize EGI. So they make retarded arguments, brashly declare that they have “killed Salterism,” and hope that the rubes believe them. It’s quite…unethical.