What can we say about symbiosis in human interactions?
Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”) is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.
Let’s consider some aspects of symbiosis in human interactions, with an emphasis on inter-ethny relations. This is not meant to be a comprehensive or final determination but merely an introduction, so these paradigms can be applied in future discussions when and where appropriate.
From the standpoint of gross EGI – looking at ethnic genetic interests without doing a full “balancing of the books” with respect to all the costs and benefits that determine the final outcome of adaptive fitness – then the presence of any genetically distinct minority group (no matter how small the genetic distance to the majority group) within a majoritarian state will exhibit parasitism, or at least amensalism, with respect to the majority group. The majority group is always harmed by the presence of the minority group with respect to gross EGI because the fixed carrying capacity of the territory reduces the final number of majority members that can fill that niche space, due to the presence of the minority group. This is akin to Yockey’s “Culture Parasitism” in which the parasitic group (in Yockey’s thesis, the outgroup is defined in terms of culture rather than genetics) reduces the numbers of the host High Culture majority group. If the parasitic group benefits (as is usual) from living in the territory of the majority group that is parasitism; if there is no benefit, it is amensalism. The majority is harmed in all cases. If the majority fights back, then we have competition, which can be harmful to both sides.
This conflict can end once assimilation of the minority group takes place; the minority becomes part of the majority so that symbiosis per se is not relevant. However, the genetic costs to the majority of assimilating the minority is harmful to the EGI of the original majority stock (and is of course harmful to that of the minority stock). Once assimilation is complete however, we have a new people with its own set of genetic (and other) interests.
What about net EGI – the final, adaptive fitness outcome when the “balancing of the books” is complete – as well as proximate interests? We can consider the various types of symbiosis.
Mutualism – both groups benefit. For groups living in different polities it is possible – there can be alliances, cultural or economic exchanges, many possible types of mutualistic interactions, particularly between relatively closely related groups. For groups living in the same polity, this becomes more problematic. One can envision two relatively similar groups supporting each other in competition with more alien competing outgroups – and this alliance become more tenable when the closely related allied groups are undergoing inter-marriage and assimilation. The various European ethnic groups in America are an example of this. Of course, this imposes costs on gross EGI; however, it may, dependent upon context, boost net EGI, if the benefits of the alliance – e.g., outcompeting the more genetically and culturally alien outgroups – outweigh the genetic costs in diluting a more concentrated EGI.
Commensalism – one group benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. Commensalism is common in individual or small scale human interactions. Person A throws out some garbage, while person B finds that garbage useful and derives benefit from it. B is helped, while A is neither helped nor harmed. It is difficult to think of examples – even when disregarding gross EGI – where larger scale human interactions within the same territory are truly commensal. Perhaps, interactions between different separate nations can be commensal – the byproducts (even memetic) of one nation/people/ethny benefit another and the originator of the product is neither helped nor harmed. But if both groups are residing in the same niche space, truly authentic examples of commensalism would be relatively rare. Usually there are at least some benefits or harms, even if relatively marginal, to one group in contrast to the more obvious benefit enjoyed by another group. Unfortunately, many human interactions in the same niche space is zero sum game – parasitism, predation, and competition will be more common than commensalism. Given the relatively rarity of a true lack of effects on large groups, mutualism will be more common than commensalism as well.
Parasitism – one group benefits while harming the other group is harmed. The classic example is of Jews living in White nations, with the Jews benefiting and the Whites being harmed. This has been such a constant paradigm throughout history that a Wikipedia article has been made on it. Of course, in some cases, Jewish parasitism descends into predation and/or if the afflicted host peoples fight back, competition.
Bowery’s ideas about extended phenotypes in human groups – as an extension of some of Dawkins’ work – are relevant here. One group controls the behavior of a second group so that the former benefits and the latter are harmed; here the second group acts as the extended phenotype of the first. Jews controlling the societal milieu so as to modify White gentile behavior for Jewish benefit (and White harm) comes to mind; thus, White gentiles often become the extended phenotypes of Jews. The Whites are unable to control their own behavior and behave self-destructively to serve Jewish interests.
Are White HBDers the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians, particularly East Asians? Were “White ethnic” members of the National Alliance the extended phenotype of William Pierce?
Free-riding also comes into play here. When one group benefits from collective social goods to which they do not contribute, they benefit while the contributing groups are often harmed, since they carry the burden of contributing not only for themselves but for the non-contributing group. That is parasitism.
Predation – one group openly attacks and destroys the other. For example, considering the role Jews play in America controlling sociopolitical systems to benefit themselves at the expense of Whites, that can be considered parasitism; however, considering Jews in the Soviet Union killing millions of Slavs, that is predation. The criminal attacks of Coloreds against Whites in multiracial nations is also predation, although of course parasitism is another key feature of Colored-White relations (typically, Coloreds benefit while Whites are harmed, although Negro slavery can be an example of the reverse). Race replacement, displacement, and White flight are examples of parasitism moving into predation, with undertones of competition when, rarely, Whites resist.
Neutralism – no effects for either group. Neutralism is possible between peoples living in separate nations, but for people living in the same territory, neutralism is extremely unlikely. There will be some types of positive and negative effects for either or both groups. There may be limited examples of very closely related groups living in the same polity that can have, in certain contexts and for certain periods of time, neutralistic relations, but that is rare. More distant groups are unlikely to be neutralistic, even when disregarding gross EGI, because the differences between them will always manifest in proximate frictions that affect net EGI.
Amensalism – one group suffers no benefit or harm, but the other group is harmed. Like commensalism, this is expected to be rare, since it is unlikely that the harm to one group in a polity would not benefit another. Perhaps there can be examples with relatively closely related groups. If the groups are in separate nations it can be possible that the activities of one harms the other without benefiting the one causing the harm. Symbiosis in which both groups are affected in some way would be more common than that in which one or both groups are not affected at all.
Competition – both groups are harmed. Competition is considered harmful to both sides, and often this is the case, at least until one side emerges victorious (if such occurs), after which the relationship may change (to, e.g., assimilation, parasitism, etc.).
Both Yockey and MacDonald have written that the reaction against an intrusive group, even when necessary, can harm the group resisting. If I recall, Yockey invoked the analogy of a fever, which, while helpful in combating the invasive pathogen, also harms, at least in the short run, the invaded host.
On the other hand, one can think of situations where, in the long term, competition could be beneficial to one or both sides even in the absence of a “final victory.” Some would say one reason why Europe had so many advancements was the competition between different European nations – a completion that forced and fostered a constant “arms race” of competitive advantages – as opposed of a centralized massive Chinese state lacking in the dynamism of such constant internal turmoil. Of course, today, the level of competition is global, so the same dynamism could be provoked by a confederation of Europe vs. China.
However, if one defines competition as something which is inherently harmful to both sides, then a situation in which competition is beneficial to one side but not the other would be, for example, parasitism and if beneficial to both sides, mutualism.
The problem in putting predation into the completion category in that sense is that one could argue that predation benefits the predator (although there are risks in predation, sometimes the prey can kill the predator). One could argue that natural selection from predators improves the prey – mutualism? It’s complicated.
It is of course possible for the types of symbiosis to change over time (e.g., from parasitism to predation). In heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage, the typical trajectory is that the relationship starts out as mutualism (both sides benefit) then transitions to commensalism (female benefits, male is neutral), and then ends up as parasitism (female benefits, male is harmed). If the marriage ends up in divorce, female parasitism on the male can become extreme, even moving into predation. Note than even during the mutualism phase, the male can be considered as the extended phenotype of the female, with male behavior controlled through sexual exploitation. Also see this. The man is hormonally domesticated so as to be exploited by the woman in marriage.
Ultimately, the woman is to the man as the Jew is to the gentile.
What is observed in marriage can apply on a broader scale to relations between ethnies.