Category: ethnic nepotism

The Free-Riding/Social Pricing Paradox

If free-riding makes ethnic nepotism “impossible” than why are social pricing and anti-discrimination laws felt to be necessary?

Question:  If free-riding is such a problem for ethnic nepotism and various forms of ethnic activism, if it is all so “impossible” and “unrealistic” then why, pray tell, is there an intricate system of social pricing – never mind actual anti-discrimination laws – designed to dissuade people from engaging in such “impossible” and “unrealistic” behavior?  If everyone would just free-ride on the ethnic altruism of a small number of naive saps, then where is the problem?  Social pricing would seem superfluous, and anti-discrimination laws even more superfluous.  Why, people would just like, you know, spontaneously engage in aracial behavior, right?
No, they would not.  That fact than a repressive “carrot-and-stick” regime of de jure laws and de facto social pricing has to be in place to punish (for Whites only, of course) ethnic altruism/ethnic nepotism while incentivizing (for Whites only, of course) neutral or even pro-alien behavior is practical prima facie evidence that people – including many Whites – would naturally engage in ethnic altruism and ethnic nepotism in a “free marketplace” system lacking in coercive laws and social controls.  There is no other reason for all these laws and social strictures except the very real fear that in the “free marketplace” of ideas and actions people would act in a more ethny-based fashion and discrimination (pro-ethny and anti-alien) would be commonplace.

The Social Dilemma of Autonomous Vehicles

A free-riding social dilemma.

In all cases, emphasis added:

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but they will sometimes have to choose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians or sacrificing themselves and their passenger to save the pedestrians. Defining the algorithms that will help AVs make these moral decisions is a formidable challenge. We found that participants in six Amazon Mechanical Turk studies approved of utilitarian AVs (that is, AVs that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good) and would like others to buy them, but they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect their passengers at all costs. The study participants disapprove of enforcing utilitarian regulations for AVs and would be less willing to buy such an AV. Accordingly, regulating for utilitarian algorithms may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology.


In summary, people think that in theory it’s great to have self-driving cars that would sacrifice the driver in order to save a greater number of strangers in a potential accident situation. But they want other folks to have such cars; for themselves, they want a self-driving car that would safeguard their own personal safety (and that of other Passengers, particularly family members) “at all costs.”
People, being what they are, are also dishonest about this:

Participants’ approval of passenger sacrifice was even robust to treatments in which they had to imagine themselves and another person, particularly a family member, in the AV (study three, n = 259 participants). Imagining that a family member was in the AV negatively affected the morality of the sacrifice, as compared with imagining oneself alone in the AV (P = 0.003). But even in that strongly aversive situation, the morality of the sacrifice was still rated above the midpoint of the scale, with a 95% CI of 54 to 66.

In theory they say they can imagine themselves sacrificing their life to save a greater number of others, and although this willingness is decreased if family members were also to be sacrificed, the “morality of sacrifice” was still there. (Note would this be the same for all ethnies? Der Movement would assert that those of “high-trust hunter gatherer” ancestry would likely be more willing to self-sacrifice. Likely, in general, Gentiles of European descent would be more likely to theoretically endorse such sacrifice than other races). But – alas! – there is a catch. Despite this moral posturing, these same people would be unwilling to actually buy a self-driving car programmed to sacrifice passengers for a greater number of, e.g., pedestrians. Thus:

This is the classic signature of a social dilemma, in which everyone has a temptation to free-ride instead of adopting the behavior that would lead to the best global outcome. One typical solution in this case is for regulators to enforce the behavior leading to the best global outcome. Indeed, there are many similar societal examples involving trade-off of harm by people and governments (15–17). For example, some citizens object to regulations that require children to be immunized before starting school. In this case, the parental decision-makers choose to minimize the perceived risk of harm to their child while increasing the risk to others. Likewise, recognition of the threats of environmental degradation have prompted government regulations aimed at curtailing harmful behaviors for the greater good. But would people approve of government regulations imposing utilitarian algorithms in AVs, and would they be more likely to buy AVs under such regulations?

Free-riding! Not only for ethnic nepotism, it seems! Could it be regulated? However:

Our findings suggest that regulation for AVs may be necessary but also counterproductive. Moral algorithms for AVs create a social dilemma (18, 19). Although people tend to agree that everyone would be better off if AVs were utilitarian (in the sense of minimizing the number of casualties on the road), these same people have a personal incentive to ride in AVs that will protect them at all costs. Accordingly, if both self-protective and utilitarian AVs were allowed on the market, few people would be willing to ride in utilitarian AVs, even though they would prefer others to do so. Regulation may provide a solution to this problem, but regulators will be faced with two difficulties: First, most people seem to disapprove of a regulation that would enforce utilitarian AVs. Second—and a more serious problem—our results suggest that such regulation could substantially delay the adoption of AVs, which means that the lives saved by making AVs utilitarian may be outnumbered by the deaths caused by delaying the adoption of AVs altogether. Thus, car-makers and regulators alike should be considering solutions to these obstacles.

This is a model for self-sacrifice (in theory) vs, self-preservation (in realty), as well as greater concerns when relatives are involved (familial genetic interests), and the free-riding/tragedy of the commons problem. All food for thought.
And here’s a final question: would people be less willing to “self-sacrifice” in a self-driving car (in theory, only in theory!) if those strangers to be saved were of a different ethny?

Worship the Jews

Breezy grovels before the Altar of the Yarmulke.


Worship the Jews…after all, that’s what HBD is all about.

“Affirmative action for the Russian majority.”  Is that supposed to be a joke? How about ethnic nepotism for Jews, Sailer, you lousy bastard?  Or, if you want to talk about Jewish over-representation, how about as commissars under Lenin and Stalin, murdering millions of Slavs?

Oh, but Sailer and the HBDers are so very much interested in the science of human differences.  How about admitting that the 2016 Presidential campaign, at least on the Republican side, is supporting the Lind Hypothesis?  That they cannot do. Their interest in those human differences has its limits, after all.

Immigration Insurance

Breezy still doesn’t get it.

Read this nonsense.  Yeah, great idea – which completely ignores damage done to EGI. Typical HBD – all about the proximate; ultimate interests are completely ignored. But, then, they have to be ignored don’t they?  If we started worrying about kinship, that means no Chinese sexbots for the “awkward squad” nerds, no Jamaican mongrels pontificating about race, no mendacious Desis practicing ethnic nepotism while telling Whites that such ethnic nepotism “is not adaptive,”

With kinship and EGI, the whole HBD house of cards comes tumbling down, eh Breezy?

Ethnocentric Dominance and the Failure of Free-Riding

Anti-Salterians wrong again.

Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.”  Let’s look at what the data say about that.

The abstract:

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.

 …ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. 


Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work).  That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).

… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…

That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.

Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.

Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure.  Read it and weep, HBDers.

Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.


This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago.  This paper explains it well.


The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders’ own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.

Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians!  The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data.  Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won’t even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.

Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.

This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, “unreliable.” No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.

Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors’ greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.

Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap.  Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.

Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.

Meet Daniel Lin

Typical ethnocentric Asiatic.
Lin has no problem shilling for co-ethnic immigration in the most shameless ethnocentric fashion. And yet, the HBDers tell us “ethnic nepotism” is not adaptive.  HBD = White-hating Asian supremacism.

Another Two Conservative Fails, 4/4/15

Buchanan doesn’t get it.

Stand up for Indiana.  That’s great. Pat.  But as you no doubt know by today, Indiana is unwilling to stand up for itself.  Let’s be honest. The law was passed to protect private individuals and businesses, etc. who do not want to serve potential clients whose lifestyles conflict with the beliefs of those providing those services.  Essentially, the law was to allow religious Christians to discriminate against those practicing alternative sexual lifestyles – the paradigm being refusing to provide a wedding cake to a “gay marriage.”  Now, why such a law is necessary to begin with is baffling to me, since I had thought that private individuals and businesses had freedom of association.  Well, that’s not strictly true, since businesses over a certain size are forced to practice “non discrimination” in hiring, but I had foolishly thought that businesses could choose whether or not they want to provide a service.  My naivete about the New America is therefore exposed – mea culpa.  So, it seems the law is necessary.  So, very well, that was the law and that was its intent, so much is obvious to everyone.

But, conservatives are defensive cowards with no backbone, no staying power, who “cave” under the slightest, the lightest, of pressure.  So, after the hysterical squeals from the SJWs, Indiana’s resistance collapsed, and now the law will be “amended” to prevent religious-based discrimination against gays. But that was the entire point of the law!  It’s like if a polity decides to pass a law allowing “right turns on red” for drivers, but they then amend the law to say that any turning on red is prohibited.  Can we then agree that the law is now meaningless, and that the proponents of the law have been defeated?

Doesn’t Buchanan understand the nature of conservatism by now, after a lifetime in politics and political commentating?  Conservatism is the ideology of surrender, it is the ideology of always ceding ground to the Left, it is the ideology of re-inventing the liberal status quo as the new thing to conserve. And the Left continues to push forward.  The new status quo is non-discrimination against gays, and that religious Christians must tolerate gays. This is now the new “line in the sand” conservatives will defend, when the Left comes up with their next demand (*): all heterosexual religious conservatives must themselves engage in homosexual acts at least once per week.  Mandatory homosexuality!  And we’ll see the conservatives pass laws prohibiting that, and strongly defending the “traditionalist” view that everyone can do as they please, and we certainly can’t discriminate, and we all should “celebrate our differences,” but that it is unreasonable to force people to be gay.  But, no worries, after being accused of homophobia, the Christian conservatives will be the first to pull down their pants and bend over, while proclaiming that enforced homosexuality is the new conservatism to defend.  After all, next they’ll have to fight against mandatory sex change operations…

*Tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but then we shouldn’t be surprised by anything.

Defending Asians.  Here we see a HBD-style Buchanan, agonizing over the possibility that precious high-IQ Asians may be discriminated against. Heaven forbid!  Blasphemy!  Horror and Terror! Terror and Horror!  But, don’t worry Pat – those Asians with their relentless ethnic nepotism and hate-filled anti-White discrimination will do alright for themselves.  It’s the atomized Whites, beset on all sides, who’ll really suffer – but who cares about them, when a “model minority” is made to feel uncomfortable for a microsecond. Conservatism is ultimately aracial, and Buchanan apparently doesn’t consider these Asians to be enemies, which would be right and proper.