Category: ethnic nepotism

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference – or a difference without distinction – because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.


1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary – do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? – is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.


Cultural Group Selection

Interesting paper. 

Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete, and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is “no,” then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence, including quantitative evidence, that the answer to all of the questions is “yes” and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies, then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

Of course, “non-relatives” is relative (no pun intended).  In an ethnoracially homogeneous society, and focused on that society to the exclusion of the outside world. One can view cooperative social structures as being among “non-relatives” since, in that monoethnic background, non-family = non-relatives.  However, in a demographically diverse state, or when considering the interactions of a monoethnic states with the rest of the world, genetic gradients become salient, and one can view the ethny among which group cooperation may work as a group of relatives.  If “kin selection” is invoked as one explanation for large cooperative societies, then the genetic gradients that exist between groups at levels greater than that of between families must be considered.  Further, as genes and culture exhibit bidirectional feedback, cultural group selection will, by its very nature if practiced by competing genetically distinct groups, will lead to genetic group selection (a form of kin selection) as a matter of course.

Also importantly, the concept of cultural group selection, particularly: “…culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance…” is a tool of social control to repress free-riding (the knee-jerk response of the mendacious who wish to poke holes in group selectionist theories, or even the EGI concept of Salter, which at its most fundamental is not dependent on group selection theory) – never mind my previous argument (made here at this blog) that inter-ethnic free-riding is always ignored by those who foam at the mouth about intra-ethnic free-riding, despite the fact that the inter-ethnic form is more damaging (due to the greater genetic distance between those riding and those being ridden) and also harder to control my social norms (it is easier to control the behavior of culturally similar people of your own group than bizarre aliens who are exploiting you).

The Corruption of American Science

On the scientific method and the corruption of the American scientific enterprise.

I’ve written before on how the late Dr. Harpending defined science in this video; focus in on around the 8:00-9:15 time marks.  Harpending – who was absolutely correct there – was of course talking about the Popperian (*) epistemology – the “scientific method” many of us leaned in school and which many scientists pay superficial lip service to.  That is, come up with a hypothesis, and then try to DISPROVE it, and whatever idea can withstand repeated attempts at falsification is – for the time being, and for the time being only – believed to the extent of “this is the best available hypothesis we have now, but we are prepared to dispose of it if the data say otherwise, at which point a new hypothesis needs to be devised and tested.”  The Kuhnian (**) epistemology, in contrast, considers the scientific enterprise as being subjective, affected by the worldviews and underlying biases of scientists themselves.  In this approach to science, paradigms exist, and scientists attempt to make the data fit into the paradigm, into their already existing preconception.  They attempt to PROVE, rather than disprove, their hypotheses.  Over time, a sort of cognitive dissonance develops, in that trying to fit square pegs into round holes, real data into faulty hypotheses, becomes untenable; then the old paradigm collapses and a new one emerges – the so-called paradigm shift.

Observing how science is actually performed supports Kuhn’s observations and criticisms; in reality, Harpending is being too generous, or naive, in his implication that most scientists are objectively skeptical.  He mentions “true believers” and also “global warming” – isn’t it true that the vast majority of scientists support the idea of anthropomorphic global warming and become hysterical over any criticism about it (***)?

In a sense, we can say that Popper was being prescriptive rather than descriptive; Kuhn the opposite.  Popper was telling us how things should be done; Kuhn how they are actually done.  Although both Popper and Kuhn were Jewish, one could view the more objective Popperian approach as more Western, and thus be tempted to blame the current emphasis on Kunhianism on the influence of Jews and Asians in science.  Truth be told though, White Gentiles are often Kuhnian of their own initiative, and there have always been scientific Kuhnians among Whites even before the Jew-Asian influx.  It is human nature to become enamored by, and defensive of, one’s own hypotheses and theories, to promote one’s ideas, and it is good for career advancement to do so as well.  

A perfect example of Kuhnian science veering into pseudoscience is HBD; have you ever seen an HBDer critically examine, and attempt to falsify, their pet theories?  Or do they hysterically defend failed hypotheses and attempt to shoehorn data where it simply doesn’t fit?  The Lynn-Rushton school is the “poster-boy” for this: the paradigm of IQ-GDP-racial/ethnic differences in intelligence,“estimating” IQ from nationally reported knowledge tests, brain size vs. penis size, r vs. k selection applied to everything from bad weather to the price of milk (a useful concept over-interpreted), etc. – when have any of these guys ever admitted even the remotest possibility of being wrong about anything?

So, I cannot honestly blame Jews and Asians for the Kuhnian approach to science that is extant everywhere, although they certainly enthusiastically practice it themselves.

Where Jews and Asians have corrupted (American) science is through three major mechanisms.  First, we have ethnic nepotism, which is actually more of an issue with Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, than with Jews (who do practice it, but whose career-mongering often conflicts with a degree of collectivist ethnocentrism less pronounced than Asians, so Jews in science sometimes engage in bitter and hateful feuds against each other).  With respect to hiring, grant reviewing, and paper reviewing, Asians in particular favor their own (and will, when necessary, equally disfavor outgroup competitors).  Whites of course reject and eschew ethnic nepotism for themselves; in fact, quite the opposite – I observe that many Whites in science favor Asians over their fellow Whites.  The net result of this is the dispossession of White Americans from the American scientific enterprise, a situation amplified by the fact that the alien influx depresses wages, lowers prestige, and creates hostile environments foreign to the native White ethny.  The ethnic nepotism, corrosive as it is to merit-based advancement, also makes fraud and mediocrity more prevalent, and thus inhibits genuine scientific and technical advancement.

The second mechanism of corruption is the Jew-Asian promotion of rampant “careerism” in science – the idea that shameless self-promotion, rent-seeking behavior, and shallow career metrics should trump genuine scientific and technical advancement.  To be fair, careerism has always been present, giant egos among tops scientists have always been present, the desire for advancement, fame, and money has always been present.  But Jews and Asians – led by the Jews but amplified by Asian ethnic nepotism and anti-Faustian Asian greedy materialism – have made an entire entrenched culture out of this.  It’s all about grant money, getting papers published in “big journals,” prestige and status – and the actual science, the actual integrity of the science, and the actual contribution to human progress, be damned.  It’s all shallow and incremental “gains” (taking intellectual risks is frowned upon; why take genuine scientific risks when the entire purpose of careerism is to ensure a safe and steady stream of money and promotion, with prestige built upon an edifice of quantity over quality, shameless self-promotion of incremental progress, and ethnic horn-blowing to trumpet mediocrity as the equivalent of fundamental discoveries?).  In careerism, grants and papers are not means to an end (funding important science and them disseminating the knowledge thus created) but ends in themselves, or, perhaps, means to selfish ends. “Grantsmanship” is a euphemism for Semitic-Asiatic flim-flam, “suggesting reviewers” for papers is a euphemism for ethnic nepotism, and no one really cares for the scientific enterprise as a vehicle for the Faustian urge to overcome, as a means to ascend, as a path to human progress.  You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and the ethnoracial types swarming into American science today come from backgrounds foreign to the entire Faustian impulse.

The third mechanism?  That’s the one that the “movement” talks most about, and which is primarily the responsibility of Jews: the politicalization of science to distort fact, confuse interpretation, and obfuscate reality, in order to promote a leftist (and usually anti-White) agenda.  The “work” of Gould and Lewontin are typical examples of this genre.  Much has been written on this particular subject, so I need not dwell on it further here.

Well, I could actually extend this and cite a fourth mechanism as well, which is related to the second mechanism discussed above.  Jewish/Asian science is inherently anti-Faustian, not surprising coming from ethnies outside of the Western High Culture.  Thus, the Jewish/Asian-influenced American scientific enterprise stresses small, incremental, and “safe” projects, and essentially scorns “high risk/high reward” projects that could, if successful, lead to real conceptual breakthroughs.  Also, American science has become overly descriptive and insufficiently “interventionist” (prescriptive).  For example, a typical successfully funded grant in, say, the field of biomedicine would feature an incremental and narrow project, drilling into (already studied) minute (and almost irrelevant) details on the mechanisms of some disease – description, as opposed to, say, a novel gene therapy approach to actively address the disease by targeting the mechanisms – intervention/prescription.  Further, and a perfect example of anti-Faustianism, there is a knee-jerk reaction of calling extremely revolutionary ideas “impossible” – this would be prevalent, for example, in the realm of physics, energy research, space travel/propulsion, cosmology, etc.  There’s always an inward, navel-gazing, small-minded, “can’t do” attitude with Jewish/Asian-influenced science.  Finally, “who/whom” is emphasized, and not only for ethnic nepotism.  A mediocre idea by a “rock star” scientist is given precedence over a cutting edge idea by a relative unknown. “Appeal to authority” wins every time.

Thus, the corruption of science.


*Popper was a despicable Jew, whose “paradox of intolerance” writings were the archetype of disgusting self-contradictory Orwellian Semitic flim-flam, and his overall political philosophy was anti-“Aryan.” Nevertheless, his views on science were fundamentally sound, although one can always quibble about details, for example, his defense of the Jew Einstein against the European Bohr, re: quantum mechanics (by Popper’s own scientific method, Bohr’s views on the subject have been repeatedly validated, and Einstein’s views refuted).

**Kuhn being another Jew.  It’s disturbing that we had two racial/cultural aliens defining and debating the structure of Western science; is this perhaps another focal point of corruption?

***I’m not expressing an opinion here, one way or the other, about “man-made global warming,” but rather casting doubt about mainstream scientific objectivity on the subject.  However, one must say at this point that there are some facts that have been so reliably and reproducibly verified, and have so strongly resisted falsification, that we can more or less accept their veracity (while always, in theory, being willing to change with new data).  It would be silly to label as a “true believer” someone who accepts that the Earth is (more or less) spherical and not flat.  The reality of biological differences between ethnies, including genetic differences, is of a similar nature.  Being skeptical is one thing, ignoring nature is another.

Ethnic Cartels vs. Rugged Individualism

Those ethnic cartels.

So much for libertarianism, “rugged individualism,” and the “I got mine Jack” mentality.  No, you don’t have yours, Jews and Asians have it.

And, yes, the same applies in the science field, with Chinese and South Asian Indians being far worse than Jews, engaging in the most ruthless ethnic nepotism with respect to grant awards and publications.

Remember the mantra of Asian cogelites: ethnic nepotism for me but not for thee.

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.