Category: eugenics

Defending Salterism: Polygeneic Adaption

Polygenic adaption.

With respect to this study reflecting “polygenic adaption,” I would like to comment, in effect pre-empting retarded “arguments” by anti-Salterian (and anti-White) activists asserting that the genetic changes discussed somehow invalidate the EGI concept.
There has been a mistaken belief – from both Right and Left – that the concept of genetic interests supports a form of biologically reactionary genetic stasis/conservatism, in which any change, even positive, is eschewed.  That is false.  In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes clear that replacing maladaptive alleles can boost the fitness of the distinctive genome, hence enhancing genetic interests, and there is also the statement that genetic competition and unequal outcomes must be allowed to continue.
Further, natural processes such as natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc. will occur, will always occur, and, of course, as a sexually reproducing species, independent assortment and recombination during meiosis means that the “genetic deck of cards” get “reshuffled” each generation.  That is part and parcel of sexually reproducing life, natural selection is part and parcel of all life, and so all these phenomenon are also part and parcel of genetic interests.  Of course, there will be change. Indeed, the EGI concept is also compatible with eugenics, and Salter has written on eugenics as stand-alone essays in other forums (for example, see footnote).
What EGI does reject is large scale (and unnecessary) replacement of the genetic information of one people by another, through mass migration, miscegenation, etc.  That a single ethny will change somewhat over time due to natural processes is of course perfectly natural and acceptable, that this ethny will be race replaced or radically altered through mongrelization is neither natural nor acceptable.
It is quite possible to compare the genetics of ancient peoples to that of moderns.  One can observe that, for example, despite thousands of years of genetic differentiation, Otzi the Iceman falls within the European genetic spectrum, and is more similar to modern Europeans than to, say, Nigerians or Chinamen.  In this respect, the genetic interests of Otzi and his co-ethnics of his time are preserved as much as possible in modern Europeans; however, if modern Europeans were to be race-replaced by alien peoples, then this broad genetic continuity would be broken.  Otzi was a form of European, as are the different European peoples of today.  Nigerians and Chinamen are not.  One can compare the native Britons of today with those of the past and note significant genetic differences due to selection (as well as drift); nevertheless, these peoples share a genetic history and are more closely related to each other than to members of other races. 
I trust the point is clear. Indeed, the ability to adapt to changing environments, without large-scale race replacement or mongrelization by truly alien peoples, would help preserve the genetic interests of past Britons in the present population. The genetic interests of those past Britons are not threatened by selection, but instead by the mass immigration that will make Britons a minority in their own homeland in the coming decades.

Footnote:


Our Dysgenic Future

Things fall apart.

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species. What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself. The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention. Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits. Summing up to this point, our current knowledge of the rate and likely effects of mutation in humans suggests a 1% or so decline in the baseline performance of physical and mental attributes in populations with the resources and inclination toward minimizing the fitness consequences of mutations with minor effects. 

Thus, without any compelling counterarguments at this time, it remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate in technologically advanced societies, with notable changes in average preintervention phenotypes expected on a timescale of a few generations, i.e., 100 years, in societies where medical care is widely applied…Determining the genetic contribution to any long-term trend in phenotypic attributes will require the development and implementation of standardized measurement methods that control for historical changes in ascertainment and environmental effects. Given the massive support devoted to biomedical research, surely this is a goal worth pursuing… 

 …A fitness decline of a few percent on the timescale of a century is on the order of the rate of global warming, and that is part of the problem. What will it take to promote serious discourse on the slowly emerging, long-term negative consequences of policies jointly promoted by political, social, and religious factors? Should such a discussion even be pursued or should the process of accelerated genetic change simply be allowed to run its course—a slow walk down the path to what Hamilton (2001) called “the great Planetary Hospital”? Unlike global environmental change, there is no obvious technological fix for the uniquely human goal of intentionally ameliorating the effects of mutation, nor is there a simple ethical imperative for doing otherwise, short of refocusing our ethical goals on future descendants. Unless some altered course is taken, as improved biomedical procedures continue to minimize the cumulative consequences of our genetic (and/or environmentally induced) afflictions, and the associated biomedical industries reap the financial rewards, this will come at a progressively increasing cost for individuals with the resources and/or desires to apply such solutions. 

Forging A New People

Eugenics vs. Durocher.

As part of his leftist screed, anti-White activist Durocher asserts his support of the idea that ethnies should accept what they are, should accept their ethnic “personalities,” and should not better themselves by trying to emulate other, more objectively successful, groups.

Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree.  A people – any people with pride and honor – should never accept being less than what they can be.  They should not turn away from the upward path because it is easier to do so, or because they think the sacrifices required for improvement would be too much to bear.  They should not let themselves be talked into accepting mediocrity, and a subaltern status in their broader civilization, by rambling trolls like the execrable Durocher.

No sacrifice should be too great to achieve ….greatness.  Therefore, as a theoretical example, if it were necessary to exterminate 10-20% of the population of, say, Italy, in order to improve the national stock through eugenics, then that would be a quite appropriate price to pay in order to have a population that is more intelligent, disciplined, productive, and creative. And to those who say that I am picking on the “swarthoids,” one could theorize that northerners could be improved by culling those elements in their populations that exhibit excessive pathological altruism.

Of  course, pitiful weaklings with effete delicate sensibilities may object to these harsh measures, and may wish for more mild methods, such as planned differential reproductive success as well as forced sterilization. An argument can be made that any extensive eugenics program should be undertaken only when we better understand the associations between traits and genes; for example, positive and negative traits may be linked through common gene complexes and changing the one may change the other (e.g., eliminating certain negative traits may have the unwanted side effect of diminishing  some positive traits as well). Of course, cultural changes that are more or less independent of strict biology need to be implemented as well. With all of that, still, at the very least, a program to encourage more reproduction from the better elements, and less reproduction from the worse elements, is a program that seems to have all upside and no real downside.

All of that must be considered; however, in the end, forging a new people is a project worth even the most extreme sacrifices.  The idea that a people – especially any European people – should be content with being inferior trash is disgusting.  In the New Order, there must be no layabouts, everyone must pull their weight.

Thus, a New People for a New Order.

An Ethnonationalist Idiot

Behold an idiot.

An idiot commentator at Counter-Currents states:

Northern Europeans are better than Mediterraneans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

Rephrased to be accurate:

Currently, Northern Europeans are better than Southern Europeans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

There is no such thing as “Mediterraneans.”

Now, comments such as those fall into the category of the Professor Michael Hart school of racial nationalism.  Hart envisions an American White Separatist (sic) State that is essentially exactly the same as the current America (including being multiracial!) except that it would have no Negroes. Retards like the above commentator envision a White Imperium exactly like the current Europe except that the aliens would be gone and nationalists would be in charge.

Well, that’s not what I have in mind.

Any limited amount of internal national sovereignty would be predicated on each nation and people pulling their weight – economically, militarily, culturally, etc.  No one is going to “prop up” anyone else.  If anyone fails in their obligations, they lose their sovereignty until such time that they are straightened out, and during that period they will be run by the external centralized state.

But wait, some would say, these differences in performance are innate biological differences.  What can you do?  To the extent they are innate and biological (some of it is cultural, but then, what creates culture?), then this must be changed as well.  Eugenics is required.  The more degenerate any European stock is, the more dire need it is of the proper ruthless culling and selection for improvement.  Lazy, hedonistic, unproductive “Meds” will have no place in any Imperium; those types will be selected against in favor of their more productive co-ethnics.  The same goes for “Nords” like Merkel and those crying for joy at the sight of arriving refugees.  

Eugenics is compatible with EGI, as Salter clearly stated that sub-optimal alleles should be replaced to boost fitness of the overall distinctive genome.

Why does anyone believe that an Imperium is going to tolerate national incompetence or liberal race cuckery?

In Defense of Prejudice

Greg Johnson essay.


What I found most interesting:

I myself defend a kind of Aristotelian individualism. I hold that the purpose of life is the actualization of our individual potentialities for excellence. In terms of politics, a well-ordered society should encourage individual self-actualization and excellence, as long as it does not undermine the common good of society.


I agree wholeheartedly, as long as we understand that this refers to proximate interests. Genetic continuity/expansion/improvement can be considered the ultimate purpose.  Note that in contrast to those who misunderstand Salter, there is no inconsistency between “genetic continuity” and “genetic improvement” – a point I’ve discussed in detail elsewhere. Absolute perfect genetic continuity is impossible for humans anyway, with genetic drift, genetic shuffling in meiosis, selective pressures, etc. Some change will occur and eugenics can be part of that. However, these are changes to the same overall genepool, changes that may alter the frequency of certain alleles, but changes that still maintain the distinctiveness of the genepool compared to that of other peoples.

One can look at, for example, ancient European genomes. These are somewhat different from that of modern Europeans, but are still European, and still more similar to modern Europeans than they are to other genepools.

The Narrow Bridge

Strom talk.
While I don’t agree with Strom’s veneration of William “Who We Are” Pierce, I wholeheartedly agree with what Strom says in that talk (and with most of what is on his site) and, the Pierceism aside, I’m glad he has returned to making racial commentary.