Category: ethnocentrism

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.

Another Creative Genius Fail

Dumb Cochran.

Before defending Jews (*) as innocent and naïve waifs who foolishly actually believe in the extreme egalitarianism they preach to the Gentile rubes, the “creative genius” unburdens himself thus:

gcochran9 says:
June 2, 2016 at 11:05 am
Considering that I have gone and on and about the lack of any built-in instinct to favor your own race, and explained why no such tendency is likely to evolve, I am hurt. But there is a simple solution to that.


Well, OK, that’s computer work.  What about Greg’s “real-life” examples?  Cherry picked?  Didn’t the Indians (dot, not feather) eventually work together to eject the British, for example?  Groups like Jews and Chinese are known to be high on ethnocentrism. Jews view themselves as akin to a race and there are more Chinese alive than all the Whites combined; Chinese are more or less a race as well.  And, certainly, East Asians living in other people’s nations have developed a very nice racial solidarity.

More to the point, contra Cochran and the rest of the HBD scum, IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER.  As those of us with intellectual honesty (and common sense) have stated over and over again, the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests has nothing to do with the “evolution” of anything, but rather with rational thought mechanisms (that is beside the point that [evolved] ethnocentrism actually does exist, more in some groups than others; however, the fact remains that such innate ethnocentrism is not required for EGI).

But Cochran and the HBDers always either insinuate or openly state that “genetic interests cannot exist because we have not evolved X,Y,Z.”

They are frauds and liars, knocking down straw men.

But, let us turn it around.  Have humans evolved a preference for “high IQ” or any other of the ranked phenotypic traits so beloved of the HBDers?  Let’s look at the verdict of history, let us look at the experiment of real life!

Fact is, Greg, folks prefer dumb athletes, moronic celebrities, alpha male blowhard leaders, dark triad pick up artists, etc. over brainy scientists, academics, inventors, and HBD bloggers. That’s the evolved preference, from human evolution, to prefer the muscular hunter, the successful leader, the charismatic individual, the sexually attractive and successful, and to scorn the spindly brainy nerds unable to kill the mammoth, unable to inspire men into battle, and unable to excite the ardor of the opposite sex.

Folks prefer Babe Ruth over Albert Einstein, Kim Kardashian over Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Muhammed Ali over Bruce Lahn, Donald Trump over nebbish policy wonk Jeb Bush, and dim-witted and violent Negro athletes over balding and unattractive (and artery-clogged) New Mexican HBD bloggers.

That’s the way of the world, that’s our evolved preferences, so give it up Greg!  HBD is useless!  Who cares about IQ?

Oh wait, we will be told, we need to use rational thought mechanisms to decide what preferences are best, are most adaptive, and are better for us and for society, in the modern world.  Very good, very good.  Genetic continuity, including at the ethny level, is better for us in the modern world as well, you mendacious jackasses; in fact, genetic continuity is the very definition of biological adaptive fitness – more so than favoring some racial alien with a “high IQ.”

Once again, we are really getting tired of Cochran’s tiresome shtick as the “misanthropic, foul-mouthed, lovably ill-tempered creative genius.”  You’re boring Greg, a big YAWNfor you, and with increasing tribalism, the days of aracial HBD are numbered.  Unfortunately, the days of White survival are numbered as well, and the longer Whites waste time with the HBD cult, the less of a chance Whites have of out-living it.

Speaking of out-living: the unfortunate reality is that the wrong one died; in a just universe, Henry Harpending would still be alive and Greg Cochran would be the one dead. Well, it’s too late for the former, but we can still hold out hope for the latter.  How’s the ticker doing these days, Greggy?  Wouldn’t want you to get all worked up over at the blog you know.  Sudden heart attacks do happen, especially to those prone to them.  EGI Notes betting pool: who will drop dead first, Tricky Dick Lynn or Ticker Temper Cochran?  Dick is older, but Greg seems rather unhealthy.  Place your bets!

* A Judeophilic HBDer!  Who has ever heard of that?

Group Reliance in Japan

Only telling half the story.
“Group reliance” = a relatively racially homogeneous nation (important point one), with few “vibrant” minorities (important point two), populated by a conformist, ethnocentric Asian people (important point three).

Alleles for Altruism, Blah, Blah, Blah

Something to remember.

In many cases, pursuit of EGI correlates with proximate measures that increase fitness, so no altruism is involved. After all, why is pro-immigration and pro-refugee activism termed as (pathological) altruism?  Keeping out immigrants can enhance wages – selfish!  Keeping out immigrants allows for more space and better schools and neighborhoods – better for family formation – selfish!  Ethnocentrism is selfish, not altruistic.  Will free-riders take advantage?  Sure. But what about immigrant free-riders taking advantage of the open-borders altruism of the native population?  That’s s double blow – less overall genetic representation AND decreasing “alleles for altruism” by allowing selfish free-riding immigrants to prosper at the cost of altruistic “let them all in” natives.

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.