Category: Political EGI

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.

I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics.  In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.

There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…

Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests.  Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument.  That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.

…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests.  Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.

Yes, very good.  But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.”  Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban?  The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point.  It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?  

Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions.  But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe? 

That’s the ultimate existential question.  It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.

This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.

Looking ahead, unlike most politicians.  When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction. 

Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration. 

No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue.  It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate.  We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either.  We do not want them at all.

The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.

That’s true even if integration were to be successful.  “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement.  The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples.  The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”

Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.

If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.

I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.

Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does.  How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture?  I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.

Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.

Again, it is better that it does not succeed.  Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes.  There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language.  Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”

…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.

Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?

A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:

1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same

2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights

3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans

Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.

Advertisements

Political EGI VI: Know Your Audience

Calibrate your arguments.

With respect to introducing EGI to political discourse, I am sure the attitude will be: “most people will not be convinced by rational, scientific arguments; instead they will be influenced by emotional arguments instead.  No one will care about EGI.”

This is truth to that – but I also do not believe that ”most people” are going to be influenced by cartoon frogs or screams of “Hail Kek!”– but I’ve never said that “most people” should be addressed by discussions of gene frequencies or of “Hamilton’s Rule.”

Obviously, if you are addressing who Pierce would call “Joe and Jill Sixpack” then you are not going to be invoking “genetic kinship” and explaining the fine points of On Genetic Interests.  You could, however, invoke the language of family and tribe, stoke the “us vs. them” divide and equate face and family to stimulate protective instincts for the group against those threatening it.  

 As one moves up the intellectual hierarchy then one can be more explicit about EGI, although the “full story” is likely going to make complete sense only to scientifically literate and sane individuals with triple-digit IQs (leaving most of the “movement” out of the running).  Along the continuum of human understanding, knowledge, and intelligence one must calibrate the rhetoric and arguments for optimal receptivity.

So, no, I’m not arguing that one should go to a local town hall with charts of Fst values or what have you, but the fundamental principles can be put forth in language understandable to the target audience, even if one must use analogies and rhetorical proxies for some major points.  In past “Political EGI” posts I gave some examples of calibrated arguments: I’m no politician or speechwriter, and I’m sure those that are can do an even better job of formulating EGI-based arguments that can resonate to even Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack.

One can also argue – and it’s likely correct – that the less intellectual Whites, the Sixpacks, are more inherently tribal and will require less prompting to unleash their instincts in that regard. They just need guidance so as to direct that unleashing in the proper political direction (not to GOP cucks or Trumpain frauds, for example) and they need to be inoculated against “we are all the same” leftist rhetoric that, while they may not believe it “in their bones,” may still confuse them.

On the other hand, it are the more intellectually advanced “professionals” among Whites who lead rarefied lives apart from tribal instincts so it are precisely they – the ones best as understanding EGI concepts – would be benefit from more explicit, albeit still carefully calibrated, appeals to more rationalized EGI arguments.

So in that sense it works out well: those Whites least capable of understanding the more explicit EGI arguments are in the least need of them and those Whites most capable of understanding have the most need.

At this point someone will say I’ve missed the original point, which was one of emotion trumping logic, not one of understanding or not.  That’s true, but consider that the “lower class” Whites tend to be more emotional/irrational and the “upper class” Whites are relatively more rational, and hence rationality and understanding go hand-in-hand.  In addition, remember I’m still advocating calibration even for the upper classes; likely pure EGI is suitable for the highest intellectual groups, academics, top intellectual activists, etc. Some “irrational” arguments may need to be made to the rank-and-file upper class, but these would need to be calibrated differently than those used for the Sixpacks.  Perhaps less raw tribalism and more Universal Nationalism? This post is not the place to evaluate this at that level of detail, but to point out that those with rhetorical skills can make EGI-style arguments palatable to specific target audiences.  It’s more a matter of will – wanting to do it – rather than the rhetorical technics.

Political EGI V: The Australian Case

Not properly using the resources at hand.

This analysis is from a left, hostile perspective, but is nevertheless troubling. Thus we read:

It remains to be seen what influence, if any, Salter may have on the further evolution of One Nation thinking on Islam and immigration. This may become more evident in 2017. To date, however, his contribution appears to have been quite modest. One Nation co-founder David Oldfield, once a close confidant to Hanson but now estranged, recently observed that ”She just doesn’t really read. She doesn’t read serious material.” Oldfield went on to claim that “it’s hard enough to get Pauline to read a single paragraph let alone documentation that’s research or scientifically based.” 

Salter’s academic style is not obviously evident in Senator Hanson’s statements or One Nation policy documents published so far. Instead the core elements of One Nation policies, especially the claim that Islam is not a religion, appear to be largely lifted from American far-right writings which have their origins in conservative Christian evangelist attacks on Islam and the intellectual contributions of a handful of far-right ideologues. Although One Nation is stridently in favour of “Buy Australian” policies, its core policy on Islam is a foreign import.

I do not argue that a political leader needs to be a learned academic, nor a “layman” expert on the work of academics (although that would be helpful). But at least the leader must be conversant in the fundamentals of key material that should – no, must – inform their worldview.  If an academic is available, “on site” so to speak, ready to help, and the leader does not take advantage of that help, you have a very serious problem.  How can the Right compete with the Left Leviathan if the Right refuses to take advantage of even those meager resources it has available at hand?  

Some new leadership cadres are required, I think.

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.

Political EGI, Part III

Part III.

In the previous analysis I noted Steve King’s denial of a racial basis for his comments on immigration and civilization, and his assertion that it is only “cultural.”

How would a more honest and EGI-informed individual responded instead? Perhaps like this:

Of course it is about race – race, ethnicity, and demographics.  I can make the argument – and it is a sound argument – that only the people who create a specific culture and civilization are the ones truly capable of carrying it forward, maintaining it, and building upon it. And Western civilization was built by Whites, by people of European extraction. 

But I’ll go further. Any people have an inherent right to exist, even independent of their cultural, or any other, accomplishments.  All life, and all human life, has an interest in its own continuity – and that’s genetic continuity, not just culture.  We do not begrudge a family its interest in its existence and continuity, in its posterity, its children and grandchildren, etc., and any ethnic group or race is like a very large extended family.  No one would condemn Africans or Asians or Latin Americans the right to their existence and continuity, but it is only Whites, Europeans, who are specifically excluded from the most basic rights of existence and self-interest granted all other peoples.  Why is that?  Who exactly are the haters here?

He could have abbreviated that, if space was an issue, but the major points are clear, and could be expressed in non-scientific language understandable by the average person.  And are these comments so “bad?’  If King was condemned for saying this, would that reflect badly on him or those making the condemnation?

The same principles apply to more openly nationalist politicians, such as in Europe or Australia. Stop conflating everything to “culture” and stop tip-toeing around the issue – which is physical biological, demographic, genetic race replacement.  And more fundamentally: White racial interests.  Read Salter’s book, for godssakes.  How can someone call themselves a (White) nationalist leader and not even have the time, interest. Or understanding for something so basic as EGI?

On Genetic Interests is a mine of ideas, a toolkit, for White nationalists and nationalist politicians (actually, of use for those of any race, but it are Whites who are uniquely challenged today).

Part IV will continue this discussion.

Political EGI, Part II

Political EGI, Part II.

Let’s follow up a bit on this previous discussion.

Nationalist politicians of the so-called “Far Right” have consistently failed to incorporate forthright discussion of ultimate interests in their rhetoric, and I suspect that almost all of them never heard of ethnic genetic interests and have zero awareness of, much less understating of, Salter’s On Genetic Interests book. As we are getting close to the 15 year mark since the original publication of that work, this ignorance, and lack of utility, has no excuse, and underscores the intellectual vacuity of much of the Far Right.

Excuses about “hate speech laws” (for those nations where such exist) fail for two reasons: first, it should be possible to formulate EGI memes using language moderate enough to evade such laws (in many, albeit likely not all, cases), and, second, the right for free speech, the battle against such laws, should be a foundational plank in any Far Right political platform, but for the most part, nationalist politicians and activists do not take the issue, so they can hardly be justified in using in for an excuse for their failures.

Indeed, I would say this: any White nationalist politician that neglects the free speech issue is simply not serious.  In places like Europe, with “hate speech laws,” nationalist politicians worth anything will make free speech, and the repudiation of speech restrictions, a core fundamental plank of their worldview and their campaign; in America, the focus should be on (1) preventing any such laws here; and (2) fighting against de facto speech restrictions such as political correctness, private policing of speech, and leftist thuggery.  That’s all essential and one good test of the legitimacy of any nationalist political campaign: anyone who neglects these issues is not serious about significant change and lacks understanding of basic sociopolitical dynamics (it’s real hard to battle issues that are illegal to criticize, for example)

Getting back to EGI itself: the Far Right simply hasn’t made the slightest attempt to use EGI/Universal Nationalism and similar concepts as the foundational basis of nationalist politics.

True enough Le Pen and her supporters did skirt the issue with talk of “replacement.”  That’s a start, no doubt.  However, a few phrases uttered in the heat of a political campaign, designed to (cynically?) appeal to a base of supporters, is hardly any sort of fundamental statement of principle.

In the Netherlands and Austria there has been similar “dog whistling” regarding race and ethnicity, but the language can always be interpreted more in cultural/civilizational terms. Certainly there hasn’t been any talk that even remotely touches on the EGI argument.

“Preserving ethnic homogeneity” is important to Hungary’s economy, according to the prime minister, who said “life has proven that too much mixing causes trouble”.

He insisted the government “cannot risk changing the fundamental ethnic character of the country.

“That would not enhance the value of the country but downgrade it instead, and toss it into chaos.”

That’s good as far as it goes, but doesn’t go far enough.  “Hungary’s economy?”  Well, yes, I’m sure that importing Third Worlders and other aliens into Hungary isn’t going to help their “economy,” but that’s hardly the core of the problem.  Ultimately, from the standpoint of political EGI, Orban fails.

Hanson in Australia is similar to Western Europe with the “swamping” “dog whistling” that can be ascribed to culture but resonates ethnically with at least some supporters.

Brexit in the UK was also completely devoid of any direct racial basis. Alternative for Germany also does the same moderating “dog whistling.”  I guess something is better than nothing, but it’s not a huge degree better than nothing.

Moving in the more Far Right direction, I’m sure groups like Golden Dawn and other more “extreme” organizations take a more direct racial view, but insofar as I know they lack the solid empirical foundation given by an understanding of EGI.

But, look, even allegedly openly racialist groups and blogs in America and the rest of the Anglosphere do not understand EGI.  Even those blogs that pontificate about “European EGI” promote policies that would directly and irreparably harm that EGI, such as Asian colonization of White nations (not only destructive from a gross EGI standpoint but also from a net EGI standpoint – there is absolutely no need to have any Asians around whatsoever [apart from exciting the masochistic instincts of White omega males]).

What about the “God Emperor” and other outspoken mainstream “conservative” politicians in America?

Well, as regards Trump, we know that, besides some of his bombastic campaign rhetoric on immigration, and questioning Europe’s suicidal migration policy, his basic worldview has always been aracial civic nationalism, The idea that Trump would ever understand EGI, would be willing to even attempt understanding it (he may lack the intelligence to even understand the relevance of it), or would act upon EGI if he was aware of it and understood it, is absurd.

And we see Steve King’s ultimate disavowal of an ethnic-racial-genetic component, even though “culture and civilization” really is a proxy for biological demographics. King, like Trump, categorically fails with respect to the explicitly White EGI-focused worldview that is absolutely essential.

However, King clarified his original tweet, saying he made no mention of race and did not intend for his message to be taken in a racial way.

He said he meant to and only did mention “culture and civilization.”

“We are all God’s children. We are all created in his image,” King said, adding that the political left is the group who often characterizes situations by race.

Fail, fail, and fail. No one – repeat no one – on the rightist/nationalist spectrum anywhere in the White world promotes EGI/Universal Nationalism in the slightest degree, for the most part I’m sure they’ve never heard of it, and they wouldn’t understand it or agree with it even if they did understand it. And those elements foaming at the mouth about “European EGI” actually want Europeans to be subaltern cringing serfs to their Asian overlords.  

Again: Fail, fail, and fail.

Part III will continue this discussion when relevant information comes forth that sheds more light on this issue.

Political EGI, Part 1

Political EGI, Part 1.

How can EGI be incorporated into politics and be effectively utilized by nationalist politicians and right-wing populists?  And how have such people heretofore failed to utilize the powerful concept of group genetic interests?

Nationalists and populists unfortunately typically invoke the same type of proximate arguments favored by cuckservatives – e.g., legality, economics, and culture – and so set themselves up for failure even before they begin.

Without a proper consideration of ultimate interests, using EGI as a firewall, even nationalist-minded politicians can get bogged down in arguments that are ultimately irrelevant to real group interests and end up in a maladaptive cul-de-sac.

“Mainstreaming” efforts to move the Far-Right to the center in order to “appeal to the mass of moderate voters” also results in nationalist-populists eschewing “red meat” arguments for group interests in favor or more peripheral issues of economics and (vaguely defined) culture. Aping the positions of cuckservatives has not helped, as the mainstreamers have gone from one disappointing failure to another.

Explanatory arguments about “hate speech laws” as a reason for not tackling ultimate interests fail since a consideration of ultimate interests and the need to defend them would have led nationalist-populist leaders to long ago make promotion of free speech a priority, as I have been advocating for approximately twenty years.  It is only when such leaders accept that ultimate interests are “off the table” as an area of explicit discussion do they also accept that speech defending such interests should and can be outlawed.  This runs up against the EGI Firewall – if the pursuit of EGI is absolutely essential, and if alternative proximate prioritization is blocked by the Firewall, then the defense of, and utilization of, explicit speech in defense of ultimate interests would be prioritized.  Although one could accept a short-term use of implicitly ultimate and explicitly proximate speech in order to get around repressive laws in order to “get things done today,” the easy acquiescence of nationalist-populists to decades of speech control is inexcusable.  It’s not like this situation is a new one and that the leaders are temporarily trying to evade the repressive laws while trying to overturn them – no, the nationalist-populists have more or less accepted the permanence of speech repression and have abdicated a vigorous defense of ultimate interests in response.  This is completely unacceptable.

What then can be done?  Let’s look at my EGI summary and outline the points. This is only a start, but we need to start somewhere.  Let’s give some pointers for an EGI-informed political speech.

“Mainstream” discussions about immigration, race, and the implications of a multiracial society usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity. No rational person would support policies that would, on the one hand, “enrich” their family while, on the other hand, simultaneously replace their family with strangers. And yet we seem to completely ignore the large scale effects of public policies on our greater “extended family”–the racial and ethnic groups to which we belong.

This is the basic introduction – adjusted in tone and language for the specific audience – which nationalist-populist politicians/leaders should make to introduce the concept. One must be clear that economic/cultural/legal-criminal, etc. issues, while important, are secondary to genetic continuity.   The key to reaching a more general audience, one without scientific training but open-minded to issues of (self)-interest is to invoke the analogy between ethny and family, the language of kinship, of belonging, of ties of blood. These sorts of arguments have proved useful in the past to spark loyalty to the nation and self-sacrifice in time of war; properly utilized, without rancor and spite toward the stranger, they could very well work today.  Yes, there is a “hard shell” to crack of modernist cynicism and atomized individualism of today’s mass society.  However, the success of nationalist-populists in Europe, and of Trump in America, suggests there is a mass of the (White) population potentially receptive to this message, but who have heretofore been diverted to implicit, civic nationalist, and proximate-oriented concerns that are, at best “fig leaf cover” and at worst intentional diversions, from the crucial issue of genetic continuity.

Concerned individuals have awaited a comprehensive and honest study of these issues. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter has published just such an analysis in the journal Population and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140), entitled: “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” He has then followed this crucially important article with an even more detailed study in the book, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration , 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2007). The following summarizes Dr. Salter’s work.

Leaders on the Far Right really need to read Salter’s book. There is no excuse not to do so. The idea that you have nationalist-populists running for high office who mostly likely never ever heard of “ethnic genetic interests” is atrocious. Are we surprised that their rhetoric is so confused?

Essentially, life as we know it is ultimately about the propagation of distinctive genetic information from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Family members share many of the same distinctive genetic information, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his or her family. This is true also for population groups, or “ethnies,” a term which can refer to races, ethnic groups, and/or various subgroupings of these. Like families, members of an ethny have more distinctive genetic information in common with each other than they do with people of other populations. Although the genetic relationship of ethny members is more diluted than that of family members, ethnies are larger reservoirs of genetic interests for their members because of their size, which can number in the many millions Therefore, it can be as adaptive, or more so, to support one’s ethnic or racial group as it would be to support one’s own family.

This is the point that needs to be emphasized time and time again – ethnicity and race are family writ large, and all the interests and concerns that all normal people have for their family applies to these larger groups as well.  While the ties of blood and kin are more dilute for these larger groups than for family that is more than compensated by the numbers involved.  We are talking about millions of kin here – distant kin for sure – but millions of them. Is that so difficult to state?  To incorporate into a speech?  I would think only minimal adjustment would be required.  Even quoting me word for word would work, dependent upon context.

A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction–precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. An important part of Dr. Salter’s work is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.

This is clear enough, but may need to be reworded if it seems too “harsh” for mainstream ears.  I do not see it as too harsh, but here’s another example where we need empirical data as to public attitudes and reactions to our rhetoric.

Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying capacity and genetic kinship. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although technology and increased economic efficiency can increase carrying capacity, there is a practical limit above which further population growth is not possible.

This is an important point, but expect pushback from Neocon “economic growth” cuckservatives; let’s not forget John ray and his fantasies that the USA could comfortably house three billion (!!!) people at Western European standards of living.  Which leads us to:

Many ecologists believe we are approaching, or have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity of the Earth. Even if these ecologists are wrong about the Earth as a whole, it is clear that carrying capacity has already been exceeded in those areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources.

This is good in two ways.  First, it introduces the concept of carrying capacity, necessary for a full understanding of the migration threat.  Second, it touches upon “green” environmental memes – always something that resonates with elements of the White population.  True, those elements have heretofore (recently) been hostile to racial preservationist ideas, but that’s not always been the case.  Nordicist preservationist Madison Grant was an early environmentalist of sorts, and one should not blithely dismiss opportunities to reach out to varied White constituencies.

Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually. The same principles apply to any other nation, including the nations of Europe, many of which are more densely populated that is the United States.

These arguments would likely be most appropriate in a debate format, to answer objections from critics.  Raising these details would not be required for a shorter speech or statement; however, in a longer statement of principle, perhaps an abbreviated version of the above could be worked in.

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendants that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that. The other concept central to Dr. Salter’s argument is genetic kinship. Even though all humans share much genetic information, kinship is a measure of the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general genetic sharing.

As in the preceding paragraph, this is detail, secondary to the main points – with respect to laymen and political speaking (for informed activists this is fundamental and not detail).

Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: for any given member of the native population, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his or her genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number of alien peoples? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but genetic equivalents put into the form of the parent-child relationship.

While this also could be construed as technical detail, something along these lines should be worked into a speech, since it underscores the family-ethny connection, and puts the whole idea of EGI into personal terms that would resonate for many people – child equivalents. Equating the worth of co-ethnics with that of children is political dynamite – if utilized properly it can have a positively explosive effect, but if used clumsily, it can blow up on the user.  This needs to be stated calmly and without rancor, in a manner that makes the point effectively but not too harshly that it over-reaches and invites ridicule.  I’m not a political speechwriter; I’m sure that those who are by nature and employment professional wordsmiths can find the right formulation for this idea.

Put differently, the arrival of immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of view of any given member of the native group, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number of children not born to that person. This is putting a number on the replacement of members of one group by members of another. Some examples will make this clearer.

Again, stated succinctly and with the “right touch” this is a powerful statement that can release emotional energies inherent in the close bonds of parenthood and family.

The data that Dr. Salter used for these calculations derives from genetic assays. Please note that these specific studies are somewhat dated, although the most basic findings have been replicated in more recent research. It is very important to note that these data almost certainly underestimate the extent of genetic interests and underestimate the genetic damage done by immigration and multiracialism. That is because not only are the original studies somewhat dated and not as detailed as later work, but the findings do not include differences inherent in higher order genetic structure, which also contribute to genetic interests.

This is detail not required for a political speech, but may be necessary in some form for debate.

Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post-displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.

The general idea must be stated but numbers are not required for a political statement.

Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus–a population very genetically distant from the English–rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations.

Same as above.

What if the levels of immigration were greater, and more in keeping with the massive displacement of Western peoples we observe today? If 12.5 million Englishmen were replaced by an equal number of Danes, the genetic loss to each individual Englishman would be the equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6 million children; if the immigrants were Bantus, 13 million.

The point here is not the numbers, but simply the idea that genetic distance x numbers of people = child equivalents lost.

These figures are not “guesses”; they are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data. As stated above, these figures likely underestimate the real genetic damage.

Just say that these are unavoidable facts of the reality of life.

It is also important to stress that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss in terms of genetic equivalents reflects the change in population from the point of view of every member of the native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the loss of his children and grandchildren, though on a much larger scale.”

This is an important point, Salter’s exact words are good and powerful.

To further illustrate these points Salter then determines the number of immigrants of group y necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of native group x by one child equivalent. For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child equivalent. In other words, using conservative genetic data that likely underestimate these effects, the presence of about one African, or about two Northeast Asians, damages the genetic interests of a typical white (i.e., of European ancestry) person to a degree equivalent to that of losing a child. This is a powerful and personal argument against racially alien immigration and against a multiracial society.

Exact numbers are not so important as the concept – that even a small number of such migrants inflict damage and the damage incurred by mass migration is simply enormous. Bringing up Asians is helpful in this context as well, if for no other reason than to make White folks reconsider their unrequited love for those peoples.

While plunging birthrates may be damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a territory their genes are a permanent addition.

This is an absolutely crucial point that MUST be included in any speech or statement.  Using immigrants to make up a population shortfall (real or imagined) is race replacement; it is causing a (possibly, in the absence of repatriation) permanent problem in order to address a temporary state of affairs.  Now, the term “genetically alien” may need to be reworked so as to avoid offending tender sensibilities (or European “hate speech” laws), but the major point of the paragraph above is one of the major cornerstones of any Political EGI statement.

From the standpoint of genetic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological. The assertion that immigrants must be imported for “economic” reasons, or for some other short-sighted rationale, is therefore exposed as incredibly destructive to the interests of the natives.

This is another incredibly important, and related, point, since that “argument” for mass immigration is often made.  It would seem obvious that replacing a people does not benefit the people being replaced, but for Westerners, obvious truths require constant reinforcement to make them understood and internalized. There is no way of getting around it, and it fits with a “turnabout is fair play” mindset” – after having healthy preservationist impulses pathologized for so long, it is time to point out real pathology, pathology which is objectively determined by identifying behavior that is maladaptive from the standpoint of group (biological) fitness.  Or to put it more crudely to the mass audience: pathological behavior that makes a group into losers in the grand game of life.

Any consideration of the costs vs. benefits of immigration–or of a multiracial society in general–must absolutely consider the costs incurred at the most basic, most personal, and most fundamental human level. After all, humans are living, breathing organisms–”economic growth” or other issues are important only insofar as they influence real, living humans and human interests. A people do not “benefit” from “X” if “X” results in that people’s displacement and their replacement by others to an extent equivalent to mass murder.

Genetically, mass alien immigration is genocide. Similarly, a multicultural, multiracial society that manages the demographic eclipse of its majority population is also practicing genocide. These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.

That needs to be said, and said clearly.  However, to the extent that some nation’s “hate speech laws” may target speech that equate multiculturalism with genocide, it would need to be “toned down” while retaining the fundamental meaning of the message.  That’s what speechwriters and smooth-talking politicians are for.

This is not meant to inspire dislike or anger towards immigrants–or towards any other people. On the contrary, such emotions are self-defeating and counter-productive. After all, these peoples are only taking advantage of the opportunities given to them for a better life and to expand their numbers in other peoples’ lands.

These are important caveats that can help ease concerns about “hate” and White unease and guilt about the pursuit of self-interest, and also can help evade “hate speech” repression (Europeans need to carefully construct their arguments with an eye on such legislation, as long as it exists).

No, the ultimate causes of Western decline are that the governments and “leaders” of the West are openly and actively betraying the interests of their own peoples, and that the peoples of the West themselves, all too comfortable and unconcerned with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests. Or is it that Westerners are grossly uninformed about where their real interests lie?

That needs to be said, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Thus, this essay has three basic purposes. First, to introduce the fundamentally important concept of genetic interests–which are ultimate interests–to Western peoples. Second, to explain, succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire people, with a consequent devastating personal loss for each and every member of that people. Third, to encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical activism to pursue their genetic interests. Which means: to ensure their own survival.

Replace the word “essay” with the word “speech” and that is a good introduction – or a good summary – of the fundamental thesis, what this is all about.

What is required is the practice of biopolitics –the fusion of biological, human concerns with political action and public policy initiatives. Westerners need to stop focusing exclusively on secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment opportunities, funding for pensions, and a myriad of other concerns which–while certainly important and certainly worthy of interest and consideration–pale in significance compared to the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.

Which leads to:

Survival comes first. All else comes second. Genetic interests come first. Other interests come second. Biopolitics will reorder priorities in the recognition that the well being of the Peoples of the West first requires that these peoples continue to exist. Biopolitics will ensure that they do.

That’s the red meat basic statement – some formulation of that needs to be said, and then repeated over and over again.  What matters if survival fails? Someone needs to openly state, clearly and definitively, that economics, culture, legality, or what have you all pale in significance against the gold standard interest of group continuity, of the very existence of a people.  All else must be judged by, and against, that gold standard.

Part 2 will come when there is more to write about, including and particularly examples of failed nationalist-populist memes that have not incorporated EGI.  Meanwhile, I should not be the only one writing about this topic; there should be other analysts trying to get EGI into the nationalist political sphere.