Category: free riding

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.

NECs and "Internet Integrity"

They are always a problem.

Chehadé believes the next hurdle for the global internet community doesn’t relate the underlying infrastructure of the internet. Instead, he thinks it’s time to focus on “what happens on the internet.”  

He called this “internet integrity.” 

He went on, “When I see something on the internet written about me … 

How do you know it is a high integrity item? How do you know this is the truth?” Chehadé believes that the next issue to be tackled is not how the internet works (which is the infrastructure that ICANN has been overseeing for decades), but how to create a better way to ensure and protect the content disseminated on the internet.

NECs were a problem at Marathon and Thermopylae, they were, and are, a problem with their 1965 immigration act and its aftermath, they are a problem with their ongoing immigration invasion of Europe and the “clash of civilizations,” and they are a problem with this.
Who is going to decide what is truth and integrity online?   Who is going to “protect” and “ensure” Internet content?  A bunch of NECs with a historical animus toward Europe and the West?  And by NECs I include a certain “high-IQ” tribe much beloved by the HBDers.

Diversity,Trust, Individualism, and Collectivism

Diversity inhibits its own opposition.
For background, read this.
Putnam’s work on diversity revealed that increasing diversity not only lowered levels of between-group trust, but also decreased the levels of trust between individuals of the same group.
If one considers that it is precisely collective group action that is a necessary component of a group’s resistance to the corrosive effects of diversity and multiculturalism, then one observes that diversity has the ability to disarm its own opposition.
One can consider a majority ethny subjected to increasing levels of diversity within their nation-state. This diversity directly damages the interest of the native, majority ethny through negative effects on ultimate interests (e.g., EGI decreased through race replacement immigration, differential birthrates, and miscegenation) as well as important proximate interests (socioeconomic, political, cultural, etc. displacement, as well as legal and illegal acts of aggression by the newcomers against the natives).  
The long term interests of this endangered native ethny will require an organized resistance to diversity.  This organized resistance will require collective action, a sense of group identity, and must be proofed against excessive free riding.  All of this requires reasonably high levels of trust between group members. But the very diversity they wish to oppose erodes inter-group trust and makes a more collectivist mindset ever more difficult to create and maintain. Instead, diversity would tend to promote atomized individualism, derived from a sense of mistrust and alienation (“bowling alone”), that would sap the strength of any organized resistance movement.  
While this process of group disarmament could in theory occur in any group subjected to diversity, it would have the most harmful effects on groups already relatively high on individualism and low on collectivism.  A very collectivist group may well be more resistant to the ingroup mistrust promoted by diversity, and even if diversity caused this group to move in the individualist direction, if they had started high on the collectivist scale, they may be able to maintain a sufficient level of collective group action to protect themselves and their interests.
On the other hand, a group already individualist, with weaker abilities to engage in collective action, such a group would be pushed into pathologically radical atomized individualism by diversity, and lose whatever ability for collective action they had previously possessed.  Europeans are relatively low on collectivism, while being high on individualism, and are thus exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of diversity on ingroup mistrust.  Jews and Asians, being more collectivist, would be far more resistant to diversity; even if they were to move toward a more individualist direction, they may still fall within a “safe” range that maintains the ability for group collective action.
For example, imagine a 0-100 scale, with 0 being maximum individualism, and 100 being maximum collectivism.  Imagine that the position of different groups on this scale is fixed within a range, by both genes and deeply ingrained cultural and historical influences.  A group may have some ability to move around within their range, based on circumstances, becoming a bit more collectivist under threat and a bit more individualist during times of peace and plenty (the magnitude of these shifts may also vary between groups, but we need not concern ourselves with this detail here).
Let’s say that the threshold for collective action is at a rating of 50 or greater. Europeans may fall within the 30-55 range, with the 30-45 range being the default position, and levels of collectivism of 45-55 observed in times of stress (as a historical example, National Socialist collective organizing of the German people against Jews and other enemies).  Jews and Asians would be, normally, in the 65-90 range.  If diversity causes a 10 point slide toward individualism, then Europeans would have their ability for collective action eliminated (they would now have a 20-45 range), while Jews and Asians, now in the 55-80 range, would still maintain the ability to act collectively.
Of course, these numbers are merely for the sake of illustration and are not meant to represent any objective, quantitative reality.  Nevertheless, the point is clear.  Given that it is the White world that is predominantly subjected to increasing diversity, and that is are Whites who are, generally speaking, skewed toward individualism, it is obvious that diversity is a potent memetic-biological weapon in the war to destroy the White world.
This is a large hurdle to overcome.  Enhancing inter-group trust through honorable and ethical behavior, should be a “must” for the “movement” – but I see little evidence of this actually occurring. This underscores why “free-riding” (from everything from politics to vaccination) is so deadly; if one sees others taking advantage of the group’s collective social goods while making no contribution to those goods themselves, this will further erode ingroup trust and make further collective action impossible.
We need to understand our place on the individualism-collectivism continuum, also understand the need for collective action, and further understand the pernicious effects of diversity. To not do so is folly and will lead inevitably to our final defeat.

Oliver’s Fist

A free market libertarian argument for coercive vaccination.

Excerpts, emphasis added:

People who refuse vaccination for themselves and their children are free-riding off herd immunity. Anti-vaccination folks are taking advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen the minimal risk of vaccination, thus acting as a firewall protecting them from disease. But if enough refuse, the firewall comes down and other people get hurt.

 Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a good libertarian principle when he said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Holmes’ observation is particularly salient in the case of whooping cough shots. 

Infants cannot be vaccinated against whooping cough, so their protection against this dangerous disease depends upon the fact that most of the rest of us are immunized against it. Unfortunately, whooping cough incidence rates have been increasing along with the number of people refusing immunization for their kids. The annual number of pertussis cases fell to a low of 1,010 in 1976. Last year, the number of reported cases rose to 48,277, the highest number since 1955. Eighteen infants died of the disease in 2012, and half of the infants who got it were hospitalized.  

I guess some “free market” folks disagree with Ron “sound money for brown people” and Rand “Sharpton’s my buddy” Paul.