Category: ethnocentrism

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.

Thus:

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.

Advertisements

Destructive Amoral Familism

Criminal auto-genocide.

This supports my contention that amoral familism is completely different from ethnocentrism; indeed, it is incompatible with ethnocentrism and is just individualism extended to a narrow kin group.  What can be more individualist and non-ethnocentric than justifying genocide against your own ethny on the grounds that it is profitable?

It’s Der Alt Right: July 2017

Alt Right notes.

But, but, but…dem dere “high trust hunter gatherers!”  Get with the program, son!  Don’t you know there’s an official dogma?  

While I think the essay is mostly on the mark, one point he’s missing is that all those cold and rude Europeans may be cold and rude only to fellow Whites, while worshiping Color. Hasn’t anyone ever had a family member who exhibits disdain for their relatives (no matter how reasonable and helpful you are to them), but loves strangers?  Xenophilia is a (White) defect that operates on all levels of genetic interests.


And actually, it’s not either/or.  It could be both – that certain Whites personally benefit from White Genocide and that Whites are particularly prone to produce such traitors due to lower levels of innate ethnocentrism. What is required here is honest study of the problem – not fossilized dogma nor Alt Right anecdotes.

Those Asians know exactly what they are doing.  Where are all the skinny, buck-toothed, scraggly, male Asian vloggers to try to win over thirsty beta WNs?

Let’s consider the following exchange.

Here is a reasonable and defensible comment:

Evolver1 • a day ago

Japan? Who cares. They’re not White. I practice indifference and non-interference in the business of all non-Whites. They are not my kind. They are not my responsibility. They are not my concern.

Which induced the following hysterical reply (emphasis added):

MarlinLover  Evolver1 • 21 hours ago

They certainly have a right of self determination, nobody is arguing this. But how can you fail to see the value of having the honorary Japanese as an ally? They are ridiculously intelligent, naturally conservative, beauty is clearly evident (culture, architecture, ancestor worship, not to mention the beauty of the people themselves) they absolutely respect European culture and our knight like ancestors; yet you demonstrate nothing but contempt over a people who have a far older and richer history then our own. You sir, are dishonourable.

So, a WN is “dishonorable” for not caring about Japanese.  Also, according to this specimen, Japan had a history that is “far older and richer” than that of Europeans!  Wow! Let’s all thank Japan for creating the modern world! Thank them for their great Classical Civilizations that bequeathed to us philosophy and scholarship, followed by a modern Faustian civilization that has created 99% of the cultural artifacts and technological inventions and scientific discoveries of human history!  Whew!  For a minute there I had thought Europeans did all that, but I stand corrected!

Now tell me, and honestly, if the vlogger was a skinny, buck-toothed, scraggly, male Asian do you really believe that the above absurd comment would have been submitted?  Be honest, really honest. Again, the Asians know exactly what they are doing.

Good Hood essay.  Question: has Hood thrown in his lot with AltRight.com? Will he show up at Counter-Currents?  I hope that credible authors like Hood won’t restrict themselves to one side of this feud.

Roissy thinks the Russian-Trump Jr fiasco was a leftist set-up.  That may well be right.  That still doesn’t excuse Don Jr’s abysmal stupidity – indeed, it underscores it.  During a campaign, do you fall for such an obvious set up? Don Jr as Fredo is correct, but Don Sr is no Vito Corleone.

And will the FBI re-open the Clinton investigation? I note this: looking back, Fat Don’s problems seem to have all started after he said he would not support a Clinton investigation. He displayed weakness and the sharks smelled blood in the water and started really pouring in on with “Russia” and all the rest.  The opposition saw the reality: Trump the beta cuck.


If the Roissy narrative is correct, then the Trump administration needs to do something, act upon this, and prosecute those involved.  Doing something does not mean jackass tweets and/or wresting videos.

Contrasting Ethnocentrisms

Contrasting ethnocentrisms.

One can say that the type of Middle Eastern ethnocentrism noted by many observers as characteristic of that region is formally analogous to the idea of a White ethnostate and the pursuit by Whites of their (very) legitimate racial interests.

But there is a fundamental difference.  Salter has proposed, and I endorse, the idea of Universal Nationalism – that every people have the right to preserve their own uniqueness, both biological and cultural, and this applies to non-Whites as well as Whites.  That’s an enlightened ethnocentrism.

However, on the other hand, Middle Eastern ethnocentrism is characterized by an aggressive dual morality and an expansionist, imperialist mindset.  Thus, one Middle Eastern people strive to be at the top of the human energy pyramid, both parasites and manipulators, those who oppose all nationalism except their own, and those who promote multiracialism and multiculturalism to destroy the West and the White race. Another group of Middle Easterners – and other non-Whites who follow a Middle Eastern High Culture – wish to colonize the West through their mass migration and impose their own civilization on Westerners, both a demographic and a cultural form of colonizing imperialism.  Thus, in contrast to Europeans, the well-known ethnocentrism of the Middle Eastern High Culture is aggressively particularistic and definitely not universal.  Universalism it seems is a trait of the West and of the West only.

Stability of Collective Welfare Systems

HBDers weep.

I have previously written about computational analyses that support the stability of ethnocentric cooperative strategies and the instability of atomized individualistic free-riding strategies.

In doing further online searches on the topic of collectivism vs. individualism as group strategies, I came across this interesting theoretical paper (emphasis added):

We propose quantization relationships which would let us describe and solution problems originated by conflicting or cooperative behaviors among the members of a system from the point of view of quantum mechanical interactions. The quantum analogue of the replicator dynamics is the equation of evolution of mixed states from quantum statistical mechanics. A system and all its members will cooperate and rearrange its states to improve their present condition. They strive to reach the best possible state for each of them which is also the best possible state for the whole system. This led us to propose a quantum equilibrium in which a system is stable only if it maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. If it is maximized the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the collective the system gets unstable and eventually it collapses.

“…maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. “  Sounds rather National Socialist, doesn’t it?

Now, this paper describes theoretical proposals and not “evidence” per se, but it is still thought-provoking, and the fact that collective well-being ends up as more stable than individualism is consistent with the more biologically-relevant computer modeling linked to above.  Of course, in this latter paper, one could define “collective” in leftist (any aracial group) as well as rightist (a defined biocultural group) terms.  However, when one combines the proposals of the latter paper with the stability of kinship-based ethnocentrism in the computational study, the conclusion must be that inherently rightist collectives based on race, ethnicity, and culture will be those that are most stable.

This is another blow to the anti-White/anti-racist/anti-Salterian/HBD school of thought and their “ethnocentrism for me but not for thee” self-interested memetic flim-flam.

On a more general basis, I have been unaware of lines of study that attempt to describe biological phenomena using the language of physics (and vice versa?), but this would seem to be a fruitful area of analysis that I need to look more into.  Viewing the major areas of science as disjunctive/orthogonal is, it seems, short-sighted and in error.

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.

Following Through on the High Trust Premise

The wages of affirmative action: doing the job for the quota queens.

I would like to follow up my post from yesterday.

If we want to take all this talk about “high trust hunter-gatherers” and “differences in ethnocentrism among Europeans” seriously, then what suggestions can be made about racial nationalist activism (at least in America)?  Now, no doubt, some will disagree with my opinions and suggestions, and I of course can be wrong and my reasoning flawed.  But at least I’m trying to practically follow through on the premises of HBD-oriented racialism (and I do not believe I am wrong).
How to get the less ethnocentric majority of Whites (we can focus on White Americans here) activated to be a more ethnocentric outlook?
1. Use memes that can be viewed as at least partially compatible with moral universalism, while avoiding civic nationalism and citizenism.  Salter’s concepts of universal nationalism and democratic multiculturalism (aimed at majority interests) are good fits for this approach, although one would expect that more ethnocentric Whites would be more rapidly attracted to any such ethny-based strategies than the less ethnocentric (see next two points). 
2. Make racial nationalism more socially acceptable – which includes defusing social pricing and making the major points of racial nationalism viewed as justifiable (this point overlaps with number one above).  First, the freaks, defectives, and Nutzis (which make up the bulk of Der Movement) need to be eschewed.  Attempting to build a more socially acceptable and social pricing-proof movement is not going to work if the builders are intellectually, morally, and behaviorally compromised.  Second, to put the herd effect to good use, we need a critical mass of a minority of the White population to be overtly ethnocentric – and this includes a solid minority of White elites as well.  One must remember that not so long ago even the less ethnocentric of America’s White ethnies were quite “racist” by today’s standards.  At that time, having such views was socially acceptable; a critical mass of general population as well as of elite opinion was “racist” and so there was an underlying mild ethnocentric milieu that allowed stability of such opinions. Societal changes over time (thanks, Jews) destroyed this mild ethnocentric consensus, and without the foundation of this consensus less ethnocentric Whites have been easily pried away from pursuing their racial interests.
Thus, to rebuild at least a critical mass of a minority of the White population to be ethnocentric, role models to encourage the majority of the White population to follow, it stands to reason one must start with the most ethnocentric Whites.  One must start with those Whites who are not so dependent on a pre-existing racialist societal consensus.  After all, these are the people who need to build (or rebuild) that consensus; it presently does not exist.  The human material (both mass and elite) for such an endeavor is most probably predominantly represented by those people supportive of (the public perception of) “Trump the Bigot”: Southern Whites, Northeast White ethnics, and the non-defective portion of “movement” “activists.”
Concomitant with this effort, building of alternative socioeconomic infrastructures will be necessary to fight social pricing.  Here things get tricky, for recruitment of these “founding ethocentrics” will be hampered by social pricing; yet, to build the infrastructures necessary to defeat social pricing, you need some critical mass, some threshold, of people and resources.  It’s a “catch-22” – you need the people to defeat social pricing, but getting those people will be difficult until such time that social pricing is defeated.  We can see the damage done by “movement” quota queens who wasted decades that could have been used building the beginning of the anti-social pricing infrastructure.  Even if Der Movement never had the critical mass of people required to set this up in a reasonable time frame, if one considers the decades that have been available, even a relatively small number of people could have jump-started the required infrastructures.
So, perhaps the only way around the “catch-22” is to start now what Der Movement should have done long ago – slowly building the infrastructures even without the necessary critical mass of people.  The problem is that this will take a very long time, perhaps longer than we realistically have.  In other words, the “catch-22” exists because the time is late, and to build what is required in a reasonable time frame will require many people.  If it was started in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s, it could have been successful by leveraging time even with few people and resources. 
Thus, today, needing to get things done more quickly, we need more people and resources to defeat social pricing, but getting the people to begin with will be difficult because of the very same social pricing we need them to defeat.  If the process had been started long ago, the same result could have been accomplished with a small number of people, working persistently over time.  The “catch-22” would not have existed, because the necessary numbers required back then would have been realistic to achieve (and social pricing was weaker the farther back you go in time – it existed no doubt, but less than today).  But Der Movement wasted that opportunity, as it wasted so many others.
However, better late than never.  We don’t want to create a situation in which activists of the future criticize us in the same manner we (or I) do those of the past.
Of course, point two requires an appeal to more ethnocentric White ethnies, something Der Movement does not want to do.

Indeed, if you accept these memes about ethnic differences in ethnocentrism, then Der Movement actively and enthusiastically rejects and repels the more ethnocentric European types, while focusing on the least ethnocentric and most “anti-racist.”  Then Der Movement, like a hamster on a wheel, goes nowhere and wonders why.
3. If we can “heighten the contradictions” through chaotic balkanization, hastening the inherent raciocultural decline of America, and make multiculturalism painfully unworkable for the White American majority, then this may trigger the latent ethnocentric impulses of the “high trust” groups.  This would of course require some already-ethnocentric Whites to get the process started.  The more radical and dynamic elements of Trump’s supporters – with the correct leadership – can help in this regard (regardless of the outcome of the election; the proper memes can be adjusted for each outcome).  This again would require Der Movement to work with the types of Whites they dislike, despise, and eschew.  That does not seem likely.  No doubt – more failure ahead.