Category: Salter

Mudshift: Eric Kaufmann and the Question of Genocide

Salter on Whiteshift.

The UN Genocide Convention (red font emphasis added):

Article I  The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III  The following acts shall be punishable:(a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV  Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Please keep the above in mind when considering the work of Eric Kaufmann and the objectives underlying that work.

Salter and I approach Whiteshift and its author Kaufmann in fundamentally opposite manners. Salter takes a generally positive approach, while citing specific negative aspects and making specific criticisms. On the other hand, I take a generally negative approach, while citing specific positive aspects that might derive from the work. This difference may be chalked up to personality differences – Salter may be a more optimistic “glass half full” type, while I am a pessimistic “glass half empty” person.  Further, Salter may be more charitable to Kaufmann as part of a more scholarly review in a more mainstream publication, while EGI Notes is a polemic blog dedicated to political “extremism.” I possibly also have more experience dealing with the perfidy of folks like Kaufmann sugar-coating memetic poison to make it more palatable to Whites – e.g., I have been observing the HBDers do this for decades.

In any case, it is valuable to comment on Salter’s essay (emphasis added).

In Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, Eric Kaufmann spends 624 pages advancing a version of Senator Pauline Hanson’s motion put to the Parliament in September 2018. Hanson wanted senators to approve the proposition, “It is okay to be white”, an apparently harmless statement that challenged all major parties so much they voted it down. Kaufmann’s version is more consequential. He proposes that it is okay to say you are white. The outrage has been predictably loud.[1]

See my comments toward the end. The Left is so hysterically anti-White that they are attacking one of their own.  Kaufmann’s thesis, after all, is that one needs to search for a formula to make racial dispossession and extinction more palatable to Whites.

Whiteshift aims to explain the white populism that produced Brexit, the presidency of Donald Trump and the rise of nationalist parties across Europe. Kaufmann dismisses economics as the main cause. “Immigration is central. Ethnic change—the size and nature of the immigrant inflow and its capacity to challenge ethnic boundaries—is the story.”[2] Kaufmann argues that the ethnic diversity caused by immigration is roiling Western societies. This already sets him apart because, though well known to many researchers, the social costs of diversity are steadfastly denied or ignored in mainstream social science. That is not new. In the 1990s the Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey was isolated in his warnings about the frequent divisiveness of ethnic diversity. [3]

Salter is perhaps too modest to state that he himself as been researching and writing on this topic for many years.

Kaufmann then strides further into taboo territory by describing how some whites—many whites—suffer from mass non-white immigration. Worse still, he does not resort to the usual progressive explanation that whites are incorrigibly racist or lack legitimate ethnic identity. Instead he treats them like all other ethnic groups, subject to the same motivations found around the world. He thinks it is normal for a people of any descent to feel pride in their identity and aspire to remain their country’s majority population. He rejects the “myth” that people of European heritage do not have ethnic interests, though he does not examine the concept in detail.

But then Kaufmann openly attacks those ethnic interests (see below). This is why I believe it is reasonable to classify him as a criminal – guilty of crimes against humanity.  He needs to tried by a legally convened tribunal.

As Bernard Lane of the Australian has explained, Kaufmann’s book breaks taboos that have for decades constrained discussion of immigration and race. Kaufmann commits a sin just by explicitly and non-judgmentally discussing white identity. 

This is not really true.  He may be explicit but he certainly is judgmental.  See below.

The rules governing contemporary public discourse are harsh enough concerning implicit mention of the subject. But instead of whistling the dog Kaufmann thinks everyone should call it by name.

Call it by name – and then find ways of weakening its power by lulling Whites to sleep with a “cultural Whiteness” that accepts genetic extinction.

The taboo against caring about white numbers greatly constrains rationality and fairness. The multicultural view is that whites should make way for ever greater diversity while celebrating their submersion. In reality, Whiteshift argues, falling white numbers explains the rise of white identitarian politics in Europe and around the Anglosphere. Kaufmann states that it is reasonable and predictable for people to be concerned about their ethnic decline. It is normal for ethnic groups to feel alarm when they see their share of the population plummeting. These sentiments are not manifestations of late-stage capitalism or some uniquely perverse aspect of whiteness, as is often taught in universities. They are part of humanity’s evolutionary inheritance.

Yet, ultimately, Kaufmann rejects the legitimacy and feasibility of Whites defending themselves on an explicitly racial-biological-genetic basis.

Kaufmann’s book is written for those on the Left who oppose white identity. 

Including Kaufmann?

He seeks to moderate their opposition while not challenging other Left-liberal assumptions. 

Indeed.

In an earlier book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America (2004), Kaufmann described the origins of Left-liberalism and its Gramscian march through the institutions. In that book he used the term “cosmopolitanism”, which he defined as opposition to all ethnic exclusivity, and to all national and religious boundaries. He concluded that the ideology rose to a dominant position in elite American culture by the middle of the twentieth century, becoming a major force within the state by the 1960s. Variants had become common in Western universities by the 1930s and 1940s, aided by the new social sciences which stripped human nature out of sociology, anthropology and political studies. The result was ideological opposition to white identity. Many progressives see white ethnics, people who identify as white, as obstacles to a borderless global society. Consequently, they see white decline and eventual disappearance as a moral good.

“They” includes Kaufmann himself.

Four strategies in the white identity culture war

In Whiteshift Kaufmann describes four main strategies that have been adopted by Left-liberals and white ethnics in response to identity challenges. The first has been a white initiative to oppose the introduction of non-white, non-Christian minorities into their societies. “Whites can fight ethnic change by voting for right-wing populists or committing terrorist acts.” 

Is that the only choice?  Activists like Greg Johnson and Kevin Strom think different.  So do I.

With regard to voting, before the 1960s it was normal for pro-white policies to be supported by the electorate, though the politicians championing the policies were not usually populists but members of the establishment. 

That accomplished nothing, because it was a scam. The parties and candidates were simply dog whistling on race (at least in America post-1924; Australia may have been different) and were never serious about White interests.  Eisenhower integrated schools at bayonet point. Post-1960, the scam just got worse. Nixon pushed affirmative action and busing. Reagan gave us illegal alien amnesty and Martin King day. Trump is a fraud

After the 1960s the policy of restricting non-white immigration fell into disuse because the major political parties did not take up the issue, despite opinion polls indicating that the policies would have been popular. 

In America, this tracks with the rise of non-White political power and “civil rights.”

Mainstream politicians have shied away from making immigration an electoral issue, perhaps due to the power wielded by Left-liberal ideology. An example is Malcolm Fraser, Australia’s prime minister from 1975 to 1983 and a champion of multiculturalism. Fraser cautioned against allowing citizens to vote on immigration policy.[4] 

Democracy!

Similar elite attitudes over the last fifty years have contributed to diverse intakes rising across the Anglosphere and Western Europe, though not in Eastern Europe.

Give it time.

Regarding white populist terrorism Kaufmann reports that, according to Europol, in 2016 the Far Right accounted for “virtually none” of the mass murders committed in Europe. Islamic extremists committed 72 per cent, separatists such as the IRA committed 10 per cent, and leftists and anarchists committed 3 per cent.[5] Is Far Right violence trending upwards? The major white nationalist terrorist attacks in Norway in 2011 and recently in New Zealand are consistent with such a trend. In the latter case the alleged killer railed against “the great replacement”, consistent with Kaufmann’s analysis. The phrase was originally the title of a book by the French writer Renaud Camus in which he described the ethnic French population’s rapidly falling share of the French population.

Kaufmann’s agenda to hoodwink Whites into accepting their racial demise will, in the long run, possibly make this violence more likely.

To understand the causes of white fight, Kaufmann relies on the soft social psychology of Karen Stenner, who names two responses to rising ethnic diversity—conservatism and authoritarianism. Conservatives are attached in a nostalgic way to the level of diversity experienced during their youth. According to this definition, conservatives oppose change in any direction, whether towards greater or lower diversity. Authoritarians are different. They feel uncomfortable with diversity because they seek order and security.[6] Kaufmann identifies authoritarians as the main obstacle to the smooth ethnic transformation of Western societies because they cannot be lulled by a lower rate of change.

Time to impose some Frankfurt School style pathologization against them, I suppose.  The Authoritarian Personality!  Defective!  Danger!  Danger!

It is noteworthy that this interpretation of white ethnic behaviour breaks with evolutionary psychology. Stenner sees no role for ethnic nepotism, the most influential evolutionary theory of ethnicity.[7] Instead she adopts a pejorative label reminiscent of the Frankfurt School’s discredited attack on the Christian family, The Authoritarian Personality. 

Believe it or not, I wrote the preceding comment before I got to this part of Salter’s essay (I’m commenting on it as I read it).  Great minds think alike.

Subsequently in Whiteshift Kaufmann qualifies the authoritarian category by emphasising the importance of kith and kin: “white conservatives scale up their ethnic attachments from the intimate community to the national ‘imagined community’”.[8] This interpretation draws on evolutionary psychology, specifically the theory of ethnic nepotism developed by Pierre van den Berghe. Van den Berghe’s theory treats race as an important ethnic marker.

Because it is. Actually, van den Berghe’s theory is, insofar as I remember, fairly weak sauce compared to On Genetic Interests.

The second strategy described by Kaufmann has been one in which Left elites repress expressions of white identity. This strategy, conducted by university-trained white Left-liberals, has become such a prominent part of contemporary politics that it has acquired a popular label, “political correctness”. 

Remember Suvorov’s Law (see below)?  If you let the repression slip, it’s all over for you. The leadership cadres of the Left understand that if they let up, they are in trouble.  This is why an overarching strategy for our side is to give them no choice – to establish a sociopolitical situation in which the “choice” for the Left/System (which is the same thing) is to either let White dissatisfaction spiral out of control with Whites disengaging from the System that absolutely requires their engaged participation OR a series of “reforms” and “compromises” a la Kaufmann that we should never be satisfied with (like the Left, we should always demand more) and that legitimizes White identity and paves the way for radicalization and collapse (look how quickly communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed after Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet system in the vain hope of preserving it).  

Reaction against it helped motivate Trump voters. A 2018 poll in Britain found evidence of widespread intimidation by multicultural zealotry. A third of respondents feared that expressing their views on immigration and other controversial subjects could get them criticised, fired from their jobs, or prosecuted.[9]

Social pricing is even worse in the USA.

Aggressive political correctness is now being enforced wholesale across the Anglosphere by elements of the mainstream media, education system and corporations, especially the large social media companies. In Britain it has become commonplace for police to visit conservatives in their homes and caution them about violations of the progressive speech code. Kaufmann sees political intolerance from Left elites to be motivated by the “progressive” morality tale, in which whites disappear. He characterises this ethnic suppression as being, in reality, “anti-white” attacks by the “cultural left”.

And Kaufmann is part of the “cultural left,” but he’s attempting to mitigate the damage by offering “reform.”

The third strategy has consisted of whites “fleeing” incoming non-whites and non-Christians. This involves “hunkering down”—withdrawing from communal participation as described by Robert Putnam—and white flight—moving to whiter suburbs and schools.

Wherever you flee, they will pursue.  We have plenty of experience with that in the USA.  Europe and Australia (and Canada, New Zealand, etc.) will learn soon. There is no escape without taking your nation back.

The fourth strategy has involved whites joining minorities, for example by marrying them. This is giving rise to growing hybrid populations that Kaufmann believes will become typical throughout much of the West by the end of this century.

Represented by Kaufmann himself. Thus, with the typical “I’m mixed, so you all must become just like me” mindset typical of such people, Kaufmann promotes the mischling future. 

Kaufmann opposes the strategy of repression because it risks a white backlash and thus more of the populist nationalism already being experienced across the West. 

And that is the ONLY reason he opposes it.  He supports the ultimate goals of the repression.

Trump and Brexit and ethnic nationalism endanger Left-liberal power and values. For that reason Kaufmann wants repression of white identity to be moderated:

Moderated, but not eliminated. Can’t have Whitey becoming too rambunctious now, can we?

Repressing white identity as racist and demonising the white past adds insult to [the] injury of this group’s demographic decline. This way lies growing populist discontent or even terrorism. Ethnic majorities need a future.

Actually he means the illusion of a future, because the type of nationalism Kaufmann approves for whites is ethno-traditionalism, nostalgia for the society experienced in childhood. Ethno-traditionalism values only selective cultural markers—some myths, “boundary symbols”, language and reminders of the Christian past. Representatives of this approach in Australia include recent conservative prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott. 

And here Salter hits the nail on the head. Is it unreasonable for people to ask whether Kaufmann is an enemy, a criminal, a genocidal hater?  He wants to peddle empty illusion to Whites, to put them to sleep politically speaking and get them to accept their “inevitable” eclipse. This may backfire on him, but that is his objective. Isn’t it a criminal enterprise, aimed at stealing a people’s future from them, stealing from them their very existence?

It would be wrong, Kaufmann thinks, for whites to perpetuate themselves genetically. He states that common descent, the essence of ethnic identity, is not a legitimate identity marker; especially not race.

Therefore, it follows that Kaufmann believes it is wrong for Whites to survive as a distinct people. He therefore supports White extinction. By his own words, he is a supporter of, and promoter of, genocide, and one day we can hope that a legally convened tribunal holds him accountable for his crimes against humanity.

Kaufmann opposes the very foundation of racial existence. He is an enemy of White preservationism; he attacks our legitimate ethnic genetic interests. His work is sugar-coating genocide. This is why I take an essentially negative view of his work, regardless of what positives may emerge from it.

Only ethno-traditionalism suits Kaufmann’s favoured conservative category. He has no time for recalcitrant authoritarians or ethnic nepotists. Conservatives who cannot be placated by nostalgic flashbacks to their childhood have no place in Kaufmann’s envisaged future. What to do with ethnic nepotists such as Sir Robert Menzies, Australia’s longest-serving prime minister and founder of the Liberal Party, who believed in the unity of family and racial kinship? Menzies maintained that parents see in their children “their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race”.[10] Kaufmann offers no way out or forward for deplorables such as Menzies. They are expected to conveniently disappear without causing a fuss.

“Conveniently disappear.” Not only those individuals, but, we can suppose, also the race to which they belong.  Again, can someone explain why Kaufmann is not a criminal?

Ethno-traditionalists are more amenable to change, Kaufmann thinks, because they support immigration so long as the immigrants assimilate, regardless of the impact on ethnic identity, even if their type eventually disappears:

I contend that today’s white majorities are likely to successfully absorb minority populations while their core myths and boundary symbols endure. This will involve a change in the physical appearance of the median Westerner, hence Whiteshift, though linguistic and religious markers are less likely to be affected. Getting from where we are now, where most Westerners share the racial and religious features of their ethnic archetype, to the situation in a century or two, when most will be what we now term “mixed-race”, is vital to understanding our present condition.[11]

This is genocide.  This is a crime against humanity, promotion of racial genocide. In any fair nation-state, he would be on trial for these crimes against humanity.

Kaufmann seems to dismiss the possibility of sustaining any white ethnic state, one that protects the group interests of its ethnic majority. “Ethnic nationhood, which restricts citizenship to members of the majority, is clearly a non-starter.”[12] In support he points to global demographic trends. The overall white population share is falling: “the West, especially its European-origin population, will be a demographic speck of a few percentage points by the end of the century”.[13] His prognosis is the West’s inevitable racial transformation. He asserts that white Britons and other European-derived peoples have no option but to mix with large numbers of non-whites: “whites can no more hold back demography than Canute could command the tides. In the West, even without immigration, we’re becoming mixed-race.”[14]

China will of course be capable of commanding those tides. Fascinating what one can do without folks like Kaufmann in your country, eh? Inevitability when applied to social, political, cultural, and demographic trends is a myth. However, if enough people believe in such inevitability then it becomes self-fulfilling. Thus, if Whites are made to believe that their demographic eclipse is inevitable, if they believe that demographic transformation and mongrelization is as definite as the tides, if they believe that it is impossible to stop and they must simply accept it, then it will be so. But it is NOT inevitable. It may be likely, but likely and inevitable are not the same. The former describes a relatively greater probability that is subject to change under different circumstances; the latter describes a definite set of future circumstances that cannot be altered. The truth is that the White West can stop – and reverse – these demographic trends today if it so wanted.  What is lacking is the WILL, and activists like Kaufmann are doing their best to prevent such a WILL from being actualized. 


One can of course understand that a botched mongrel, full of resentment toward indigenous Europeans, would want to destroy what he cannot never be. One can understand the burning hatred of the “tragic mulatto” (“mulatto” here describing all types of racial admixtures) toward the unmixed. “Let them all be as botched and miserable as I” cries the inner soul of the mischling. But we are not obligated to accept racial destruction because Kaufmann feels bad about his own lack of racial identity. Indeed, preventing the White race from becoming like Kaufmann should be sufficient motivation to fight “inevitability” and summon the WILL for racial preservationism.

There is no doubt that the present thrust of population change supports Kaufmann’s prognosis. The United States is projected to become minority white in a generation. Most babies there are non-white.[15] White Britons are on track to become a minority in Britain before the end of the century. In 2010 David Coleman, professor of demographics at Oxford University, reported Office for National Statistics projections indicating that white British people will be less than half the population by about 2060, though a further 10 per cent will be “other whites”. By 2100 white British will be about 35 per cent of the population.[16] The rapid rate of change is indicated by the fact that about 30 per cent of British newborns were non-white in 2016, though the overall non-white population was only about 12 per cent.[17]

Have the ethnic fetishists I criticize in the “movement” ever seen a current public school classroom?  A college/university lecture hall?  Have they worked with, or interviewed, or had any interactions with, young people in the 18-30 age range? The shocking thing is not only how many of them are obvious “minorities” – but instead how many of them are actually the hybrids that Kaufmann sees as the White future.  Quadroons and octoroons, hapas of all types, folks who claim Native American ancestry and actually look the part, mostly but not completely White mixed Hispanics of very shade and conformation of face and skull – one is reminded of what Pierce termed “almost Whites.”  While the “movement” tends to use that term to describe Southern and Eastern Europeans, with such attitudes they are essentially arraigning the deck chairs on the Titanic. The future Kaufmann describes is coming into being before your very eyes (if you were not so blind) and soon, very soon, the only relevant division will be that of indigenous European stock vs. all the rest. The differences between Europeans that the “movement” obsesses over today will soon become laughingly irrelevant in a future in which those of European stock (of any kind) are a rarity among the swarm of coloreds, hybrids, and other featherless bipeds of every possible skin shade and phenotypic configuration.

However, demographic projections are strongly influenced by immigration, which is a matter of government policy. Kaufmann’s prognosis places no policy limits on the degree of hybridisation.

He wants everyone to be as genetically botched as he is.  Misery likes company.

He writes as if societies are faced with a choice between remaining totally homogeneous, which he thinks is politically and demographically impossible, or mixed to a large and unspecified degree. No intermediate condition is discussed, only rates of change towards radical admixture. 

Because he WANTS that end result. This cannot be stressed strongly enough.

By the same logic, the prognosis also writes off all but the largest nation-states, at present India and China. Korea, Japan, Israel and Pakistan are already “demographic specks” compared to the world’s non-Korean, non-Japanese, non-Jewish and non-Pakistani populations. Kaufmann’s prognosis discounts the capacity of borders to regulate population flows. This topic is discussed further below.

The flows are “inevitable,” don’t you know.  But, strangely enough, ONLY to majority White nations.  Borders mysteriously retain their power elsewhere.

White subordination

Ethnic hierarchy is an underlying theme of Whiteshift not yet remarked by reviewers or highlighted by Kaufmann. When he refers to whites as “the dominant ethnicity” he simply means that they are in the majority, for now. All four strategies in the culture wars indicate Left supremacy over white majorities. Even “fight-back” assumes an inferior defensive posture. Kaufmann is pleading for whites to be granted some social space in which to express their identity, not for them to overthrow their cultural masters. He accuses liberal elites of driving white identity to extinction and appeals for mercy in the interests of social stability and continued cosmopolitan hegemony. There would be no need to plead unless whites were in trouble. Kaufmann advanced similar ideas as far back as 2004 in a book he edited that year, Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities.

This is consistent with my own previous criticisms of Kaufmann.  Whites are so “dominant” that they are headed for a racial dispossession and extinction that Kaufmann himself terms “inevitable,” and they are so dominant that any expression of their interests are taboo, and Kaufmann has to suggest that Whites be fed a few scraps from the multicultural table to keep them quiet.  Whew!  Imagine if they weren’t so dominant!  They’d be in real trouble then, that’s for sure!

As noted earlier, Kaufmann’s 2004 book The Rise and Fall of Anglo America documented the cosmopolitan Left’s displacement of Anglo loyalists from control of elite culture. The process culminated in the top-down dismantling of pro-European immigration restrictions in 1965, the replacement of assimilationism by multiculturalism and the mopping-up of regional white resistance. In this context of Left-liberal supremacy Kaufmann concluded:

If liberals allow [their] fear of ethnonationalism to carry all before it and demand that national ethnic groups surrender their existence, they risk the very legitimacy of their project … extremist groups playing the fascist card will find their audiences more receptive if liberalism goes unreformed.[18]

Err…isn’t “demand that national ethnic groups surrender their existence” exactly what Kaufmann is doing?  Except he wants to do it more slowly and painlessly (i.e., more dishonestly).  Changing Places indeed.  And I suppose mixed-race mongrels wouldn’t fare too well among all those “fascist cards” being played, eh?

Kaufmann did not explain why refusal to “surrender existence” is extreme or why progressives who seek that surrender are not.

I can explain it.  Kaufmann agrees with the progressives. He wants, and works for, Whites to surrender their existence.  He just thinks that the progressives are doing it in a crude manner that can provoke a backlash.

In any case, by 2004 he was anticipating the rise of populist nationalism in the West in reaction against large-scale suppression and demographic displacement of white populations. By then the United States’ inverted ethnic hierarchy had been in place for decades.

“Inverted ethnic hierarchy” – excellent phrase by Salter.  The reality of American gaslighting is as follows. The groups said to be “dominant” and have “privilege” are those who are being dispossessed from their nations, driven to extinction, not allowed to organize on the basis of group interests, discriminated against by law and custom, mocked by popular culture, suppressed by social pricing and political correctness, have higher rates of opioid addiction and suicide, and have downward mobility while being pessimistic about the future. The groups said to be “oppressed” are those favored by law and custom, encouraged to organize based on group interests, given a myriad of cradle to grave advantages, favored by political correctness, untouched by social pricing, and who are optimistic about the future.  Inverted, indeed.

The idea that white majorities in some countries have been subordinated is yet to catch on in Australia, though conservatives complain about (mainly) minority identity politics. That has not shaken the general assumption that white Australia still rules the roost, even as it sinks towards becoming a minority.

Indeed.

Kaufmann’s background

Eric Kaufmann is something almost unknown in Australia, a scholar who studies ethnicity and nationalism largely outside the iron cage of multicultural taboos. He is more of an analyst than an ideologue. 

Untrue.

He goes where data and theory lead. His students learn that ethnicity has a primordial component based in an evolved psychology that is universal to the species; that people naturally feel their ethnic identities. He teaches them that pro-social ethnocentrism is not the same as aggressive xenophobia, that although the two are connected they are distinct and can appear alone.

Whiteshift was written by someone as comfortable with statistics and evolutionary psychology as with wordy sociology. Kaufmann’s scholarly papers and lectures are peppered with graphs and tables. Compared to this curriculum, the content of typical Australian courses on ethnicity and nationalism comprise a small, dated set of neo-Marxist doctrines, often written by radicals with an axe to grind against the West. The now defunct journal People and Place (1993–2010) was an exception that proves the rule.

Kaufmann comes from the stable of the late Anthony D. Smith, long-time professor of historical sociology at the London School of Economics. Smith’s 1986 book, The Ethnic Origin of Nations, shook up Marxist orthodoxies by showing that nations grow around dominant ethnic cores, the erosion of which undermines national cohesion. Smith was a leading voice in what might be called the London school of ethnic studies, a vibrant clearing house of data and argumentation. The school’s debates span the Atlantic. Journals such as Ethnic and Racial Studies and Nations and Nationalism draw contributions mainly from Europe and the US but also Israel and Japan.

This is interesting.

The Left attacks Kaufmann with accusations of legitimising white nationalism. 

That demonstrates how stupid and self-destructive the Left is.  Kaufmann is one of them, wanting to do their job in a more subtle and efficient manner. On the other hand, maybe the Left is really smart and self-interested, given Suvorov’s Law.  If they know that law then they know that concessions can lead to complete collapse.  It matters how self-aware the Left is. I believe that the rank-and-file leftists are merely stupid and so hysterical in their anti-Whiteness that they are being triggered by any hint of the legitimacy of White interests.  The top leftists, the wire-pullers, may oppose Kaufmann because they do actually see a slippery slope leading from mild White identify to hardcore White nationalism.

In reality, he is a true cosmopolitan and an empirical sociologist who attempts to apply universal values. It is the pro-diversity Left that have forgotten their universalism and turned their classrooms into uncritical purveyors of anti-Western doctrine.

Kaufmann’s cosmopolitan credentials are impeccable. Far from being a knight for whites,[19] he has never expressed ethnic or national loyalty in his published works, though his Canadian upbringing induced an unabashed love of ice hockey. He is comfortable with others perceiving him as white and with his multiracial heritage.[20] 

From Kaufmann’s Wikipedia page we learn:

His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

He may derive some degree of partial European ancestry from his “Latino” background, but Kaufmann is mostly of an ancestry that is not indigenous European.

He has consistently defended universal values. His historical-sociological study of cosmopolitanism, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America, showed some enthusiasm for his subject. 

At least enthusiasm for the “Fall” part.

In it he discussed but never critiqued the new social sciences. But he did criticise late-stage American cosmopolitans for misusing their power to exclude Anglos from the multicultural table, a pattern emulated around the Western world. 

But, according to Kaufmann, the Anglos should be at the “multicultural table” only insofar as they agree to manage their own “inevitable” genetic extinction, right?

He characterised American multiculturalism as “asymmetric” because it excluded whites from the multicultural system and marshalled non-white minorities against them.

Is Kaufmann’s “”remedy” to trick Whites into thinking that their interests are being defended?

Also in Rise and Fall, Kaufmann urged that multiculturalism be reformed so as to “respect the choice of those who prefer an ethnically homogeneous milieu”.

“Milieu.”  How about ethnostates?

He warned against the suppression of white majorities because this alienates them from ethnicity per se, exacerbating their hyper-individualism and deculturation. This was bad for everyone because white elites control mass culture, and thus their atomisation produces “an acidic environment that erodes the structural basis of all ethnic groups”.[21] Kaufmann realised that ethnic identity, traditions and belonging are as important for whites as for non-whites.

So, Kaufmann endorses a form of the “White Man’s Burden” here.  White identify – in a much attenuated form – is acceptable only insofar as it helps maintain the ethnic identities of non-Whites.  Indeed, in the midst of examining their own identity, Whites need to be concerned about how their actions affect non-Whites.  After all, only the latter group really matters, right?

Nevertheless, Kaufmann has not been a champion of strategic white interests. He thinks it is legitimate for whites to seek each other’s company but not to preserve defensible nation-states. 

Proving all my points about Kaufmann and his culpability with respect to White genocide.

In another publication, Changing Places (2014), he and his co-author Gareth Harris described and attempted to explain the extremely high level of white opposition to immigration in England and Wales (80 per cent).[22] They searched for ways to “remedy” this opposition. In other words, they treated white opposition to mass immigration as a problem to be solved, not as the expression of legitimate ethnic interests or democratic will. 

That is the ENTIRE point of my criticism of Kaufmann. His work is an attempt to “remedy” the “problem” of White opposition of racial extinction.  Whether or not his “remedy” can work or not is immaterial with respect to his moral and legal accountability in promoting White genocide.  By the standards established at international courts, starting at Nuremberg, why is Kaufmann not a criminal?

They accepted mass immigration as a given, something beyond civilised opposition. Their deification of immigration allowed them to lump together as “far right” the neo-fascist British National Party and Nigel Farage’s bourgeois UKIP which in 2014 was the main party campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union.

Why is Kaufmann not a criminal? Let’s consider his culpability to genocide.  This is established by his own writings when compared with the UN definition of genocide.  By that definition, Kaufmann is propagandizing in support of genocide.  If someone disagrees with that assessment, then please explain how working to facilitate a people’s dispossession and extinction is not consistent with the UN definition. Note the following, which seals the case for the prosecution: 

Kaufmann and Harris found that the pace of ethnic change in a neighbourhood predicted voter opposition to immigration. They recommended that governments act to reduce opposition to immigration, not by acceding to voter wishes, but by spreading the distribution of immigrants across electorates in order to reduce the speed of ethnic change in particular neighbourhoods.[23]

This is a criminal conspiracy to extinguish European peoples while attempting to hide that fact from them. Supporters of Kaufmann are challenged to explain how his work does not violate the UN Genocide Convention.  If you are convinced of his innocence, then you should have no opposition to a fair trial. That’s all I’m asking for – let’s put Kaufmann on trial.

Please note the pure unbridled hypocrisy of this Kaufmann. On the one hand, we are told that mass immigration and subsequent White dispossession and extinction are “inevitable” and there is nothing Whites can do to stop it.  On the other hand, Kaufmann works to create “remedies” aimed at tricking White voters so as to prevent them from stopping the very thing that he says is “inevitable” and that the voters allegedly have no control over. It is “inevitable” only because advocates of genocide work to make it so by squashing real resistance to these not-inevitable changes. Also note how this trickery is akin to current gaslighting in which the System openly exults in declining White demographics while, at the same time, claims that “the Great Replacement” is just some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.  After all, we don’t want Whites to oppose, for example, the United Nations, which openly calls for “replacement migration.”  That would be fertile ground for Kaufmann to advise, no doubt.

Neither is Kaufmann much attached to Western civilisation…

Because he is not part of it by blood.

…if his views on Islam are a measure. Whiteshift urges politicians to empathise with white ethnic anxieties, but not tolerate anti-Muslim sentiment.[24] For him Islam is just another religion, interchangeable with Christian denominations: “As with perceptions of Islam in the West today, Catholicism was viewed as an alien faith with no place in American civilization.”[25]

What does a mixed-race hybrid care about the West?

Further difficulties

Whiteshift is too influenced by Left-liberal values. Its analysis of ethnic interests avoids biological dimensions despite elsewhere drawing on evolutionary psychology. Some utopianism is evident in the book’s assumption that win-win compromises are always possible. It blithely accepts replacement-level migration as an injury to which insult should not be added, instead of an existential threat needing to be halted or reversed. It wholly discounts ethnic and religious competition as causes of white decline. Kaufmann is concerned about progressives’ hatred for white identity but fails to describe many realities of anti-white politics, such as the anti-Western bias endemic in universities, corporate open-border globalism in general or the censorship of white identitarians by big-tech social media companies in particular.

Whiteshift IS “left-liberal values.”  It WANTS the existential threat of replacement-level migration to occur.  It is a vicious anti-White screed, and we can only speculate on the inner rage of the mongrel who wrote it, a rage against Europeans so overwhelming that only their extinction can assuage it.

The book is not free from political correctness concerning race. Kaufmann’s discounting of racial ethnic markers seems arbitrary, especially when racial self-segregation is so pronounced. Also, though he is concerned with maintaining social stability in diverse societies, he does not mention the problem of socio-economic stratification by race. Stratification is a major cause of ethnic conflict. It occurs to varying extents in every multi-racial society, partly due to psychological group differences. Stratification affects the rate and dynamics of inter-ethnic marriage. No book examining whiteshift can legitimately ignore this difficult subject.

Therefore, Kaufmann’s work is not legitimate; certainly, from the standpoint of international law, as established by the UN Genocide Convention, the work could be reasonably seen as criminal.

As already noted, Kaufmann appears to say that white ethnic states are impossible because “ethnic nationhood” limits citizenship to the majority ethnicity, and that this is out of the question. This misses the point that ethnic states are defined by ethnic control of the state. Ethnic limits on citizenship rights are set by the state and thus indirectly by political elites. In a democracy, the majority ethnicity will generally control ethnic policy, and that was the case from the emergence of nationalism in Continental Europe and white settler countries after about 1800. Since the 1970s, however, multicultural policies in countries such as Australia and the US have made them inverted ethnic states—ones that privilege minorities. Minorities did not have the power to dominate majorities at that time. That was accomplished by an alliance between cultural elites and their minority clients. The reality of multiculturalism in majority white nations is that the majority retains citizenship but minorities are privileged by such policies as affirmative action, a share of immigration far beyond their share of the population, and suppression of white identity by various “human rights” agencies.

The “cultural elites” in question include both Jews and “movement” heroes such as Hubert Humphrey.

The ethnic invertedness of multiculturalism was obvious to Geoffrey Blainey by the 1990s. He thought the ideology “would collapse without an emphasis on racial discrimination”. He continued: “When Anglo-Celtic Australians show the same ethnic preference as minorities they are denounced as racists.”[26] The main differences between minority-dominated and majority-dominated states is that the former are less democratic. They must, after all, block majority ethnic preferences concerning immigration and free speech. 

Ultimately, this is what Kaufmann wants as well.

Multicultural elites often feel distinct from and contemptuous of the majority. These attitudes manifest as a culture of censoriousness—political correctness—running through the bureaucracy and the media. Majoritarian ethnic states are more relaxed because their elites identify with the majority. Also, according to public choice theory, majorities require only a fraction of the ethnic motivation shown by minorities to win control of the democratic process. And they can do so without suppressing other identities.

The question is how America’s previous somewhat “Majoritiarian” state become subverted to what it has become today.  The same applies to Salter’s Australia or any other part of the West.  Majoritarian democracies are not stable unless they actually do suppress other identities – or better yet, not have those other identities within the state to begin with.

Another problem with Kaufmann’s analysis is his use of simplistic categories. An example is his assumption that liberal ideology is genuinely felt, when in reality all ideologies can be used as vehicles for various interests. 

Including the interests of mixed race hybrids like Kaufmann.

There is a long history across many countries of minority ethnics voting for and sometimes leading leftist politics. 

This is true particularly in the USA.

Historically Kaufmann’s Left-liberal category has included minority ethnic nepotists who see their ethnic interests being served by undermining the power of the majority ethnic group. In other words, Left-liberalism has often been motivated by tribalism, its normative polar opposite.

There are always ethnic interests behind political activism.

Kaufmann discusses examples of political vehicles but does not apply the concept to multiculturalism. The vehicular nature of multiculturalism is important to the phenomenon of whiteshift because the ideology is used to legitimise the subordination of white majorities and impose replacement-level immigration. Multiculturalism is an ideology that serves diverging values. Kaufmann sees its liberal but not its ethnic motives, despite the latter providing a significant fraction of the Left’s voting base, funding and political leadership. In the United States the Democratic Party, ostensibly on the Left, has become a vehicle of the multicultural alliance, receiving bloc votes from strongly identified minority ethnics in exchange for favours such as affirmative action, extending welfare and keeping the immigration doors open.

Kaufmann is not stupid. This omission is no doubt intentional.  Salter is probably just being polite in not openly stating this.

Kaufmann also fails to ask whether in a crowded world any population can retain its identity without controlling the state. If multiculturalism succeeded because Left-liberals wrested the state from the majority that had built it, then used the power of the state to open the borders to unrestricted immigration to make the majority “disappear”, why should the majority not respond in kind by conducting its own march through the institutions to reclaim its rightful property and restore an immigration policy that serves its interests? What other strategy could work? What other strategy would be as moral? Even Kaufmann’s preferred version of multiculturalism, in which white cultural identity is respected alongside the identities of minorities and cosmopolitans, is unlikely to be achieved without a majority reconquista of the state.

Reading between the lines – or some of the actual lines themselves – it seems like Kaufmann’s “preferred version of multiculturalism” is one that leads to the extinction of Whites as they currently exist.

Whiteshift is profoundly revisionist regarding the morality of white ethnic behaviour. Kaufmann concludes that whites are entitled to retain their identity and majority status and that it is acceptable for them to live in a “homogeneous milieu”. 

But, reading Salter’s analysis above, that’s not what Kaufmann is really saying at all. Essentially, Whiteshift is about Whites being hoodwinked to accept demographic dispossession and mongrelization while being placated by the surface veneer of “traditional cultural Whiteness”- it’s Ozzie and Harriet, except Ozzie will be a quadroon and Harriet a hapa.  It’s all good!

In doing so he implies that it is all right for them to campaign and vote against replacement-level non-white and non-Christian immigration. 

Implies is a stretch. See the end of my analysis. Also see what is written above.  Kaufmann has openly advocated “remedies” so as to trick White voters to not “vote against replacement-level non-white and non-Christian immigration.”

This message has broader application than simply preventing further increases in non-white numbers towards becoming majorities in Western societies. It also applies retrospectively, because, to borrow from T.S. Eliot, in order to become the majority, you must go by the way of the minority. If Kaufmann is correct, white conservatives with foresight were right to oppose each step of their replacement. They were right to criticise hostile elites and the vilification of national history. Kaufmann’s analysis implies, even while he explicitly denies, that Australia’s founders and leaders up to the 1960s were right to develop Australia as a predominantly European country.

Correct.

The same lessons apply to those intent on revolution through immigration. They were strategically prudent to begin with small steps, to avoid democratic process, to change policy via administrative increments, to persecute and silence white identity when they could. The wide-open door must begin by way of the crack.

Who were and are those people intent on revolution by immigration?  Non-Whites of all types. White leftists like Hubert Humphrey who the “movement” adores for ethnic reasons.

Despite some disagreement with Kaufmann’s analysis, Whiteshift is a huge advance on what passes for the study of ethnicity and nationalism in Australia. It provides a new perspective on the ethnic transformation and associated troubles sweeping the West.

I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with Salter’s relatively positive assessment.  Whiteshift may be a “huge advance” compared to the sorry state of White identify politics in Australia and throughout the West, but at face value it is a huge advance in the wrong direction, a march to oblivion, a cul-de-sac of defeat and despair, of “inevitable” racial eclipse.  However, as promised, I will end my analysis to discuss why the “implies” may have some meaning, perhaps the “stretch” does reach something useful, why “face value” is not the full story.  This gets back to a concept I often refer to as “Suvorov’s law”- revolutions do not occur during the time of maximum repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Kaufmann may wish that the acceptance of White identity politics goes only so far and no farther, that it goes only to the extent of narcotizing Whites so they ultimately accept their racial demise. But it is not up to him to determine the extent of reform.  Louis XVI didn’t dream that his initial concessions would lead to the French Revolution and him losing his head.  Gorbachev didn’t have the dissolution of the Soviet Union as his endgame for his own reforms.  Moderate Whites who accepted the initial steps of “civil rights” in the USA in the 1950s and early 60s couldn’t dream how out-of-hand it would get.  No, once you show weakness, once you ease the repression, once you officially legitimize the demands and aspirations of the opposition, once you whet the appetite of the opposition for more concessions and more power, then the direction and momentum of change slips out of the control of the reformers. Kaufmann may wish to slyly manipulate the White Right to acquiesce to “inevitable” racial destruction; however, it may turn out that Kaufmann will be a “useful idiot” paving the way for a more radical, assertive, and aggressive White identity politics. Kaufmann, as the icebreaker for White nationalism, may not foresee the direction his planned pseudo-reformation may go. If he realizes it, he may denounce his own Whiteshift, but the cat is out of the bag now.  

From a purely pragmatic – and perhaps cynical – perspective, Salter’s positive review of Whiteshift is of more political value than my negative one.  After all, relatively few (White) people are actually going to read the book.  Relatively few people are going to understand Kaufmann’s underlying agenda.  Instead, they’ll mostly hear that a (racially mixed) academic wrote a book legitimizing White identity politics. And given Suvorov’s Law the likely outcome of that – I won’t say the inevitable outcome – is progression of such politics beyond the boundaries Kaufmann hopes to confine it.  Interestingly, it is not only the Right that will misrepresent Kaufmann’s ideas in this manner. The Left will do so as well – and they have already been doing so.  The Left is so hysterically anti-White that ANY work that can be construed as supporting White identity – even when that work’s ultimate goal is the destruction of that identity – is considered anathema. The Left is so triggered by Whiteshift that their denouncing of it overlaps with the Right’s pretense that Kaufmann is legitimizing pro-White politics.  Useful idiots abound.  If only White racial activism was not itself full of idiots, then productive progress could be made on the basis of all of this. Regardless, the multicultural consensus will continue to unravel.  Sit back and enjoy the show.

Meanwhile, re-read the UN Genocide Convention and consider that in the context of Kaufmann and his “work.”  If the shoe fits wear it, no?

The shoe does fit.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Kaufmann understands that mass migration will lead to race replacement of Whites and that racial admixture will permanently alter the racial character of the resulting mixed population, eliminating Whites as they currently exist. That will lead to the physical destruction of Whites as a race “in whole or in part.”  Kaufmann’s work is focused on ensuring that this happens, pursuing “remedies” to prevent Whites from stopping their physical destruction.  Therefore, there can be no doubt of his guilt here.

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Kaufmann’s work achieves this is two ways.  First, dispossession, race replacement, and the crowding out of White carrying capacity will by necessity “prevent births within the group.”  Second, the promotion of admixture prevents births within the group, since “the group” is defined by Whites as they exist, and the hybrid offspring will not be of that group, but of another. So, White births are prevented in favor of the births of mixed race mongrels. By analogy, a conservationist who wants to preserve, say, the endangered red wolf will do all they can to prevent red wolves form mating with gray wolves or with other canines. They want to preserve the red wolf as a distinct species. Promoting hybridization can lead to extinction.  Kaufmann wants the same fate for Whites – extinction.  He is guilty here as well.

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide

Kaufmann is also guilty here – his work is designed to lead to White dispossession and he schemes on how to trick White voters (“remedies”) so they will not support measures to prevent this dispossession.

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide

Whiteshift for example. Changing Places for example. Counseling the System to trick Whites into underestimating their dispossession so they do not oppose it – this is direct and public incitement to commit genocide.  Kaufmann advised elites on how to more effectively pursue policies leading to the dispossession of Whites and their eventual submergence of Whites into a non-White, mixed-race population.

e) Complicity in genocide.

Yes, see above.

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals

Private individuals – Eric Kaufmann.  

Two final thoughts for this post.  First, despite some areas of disagreement, I believe Salter has done an excellent job in his review of Whiteshift, and should be commended for creating a respectful evaluation of the work from a rightist academic perspective. Second, the hypocrisy of Kaufmann is underscored by the fundamental inconsistency of Whiteshift.  On the one hand, the underlying ostensible paradigm being promoted in the work is that Whites have legitimate interests, Whites should be allowed to express those interests, the leftist hectoring of Whites is counter-productive, Whites have an identity, and Whites should be able to express their interests by having a seat at the multicultural table.  Then, Kaufmann – who himself is NOT White – turns around and hectors Whites by defining for them the limits and terms by which they will be allowed to express their identity, interests, and opinions.  If that’s the case, who needs it?  In the end, the difference between Kaufmann and some hysterical SJW babbling about “White Privilege” (imagine the scowling face of a Greta Thunberg or an Elizabeth Warren) is just one of tone and of degree.  Granted, Kaufmann’s agenda allows Suvorov’s Law to come into play, so maybe we should play his game (by our own rules), but that’s not his intention.


And one addendum to end this post. From the standpoint of racial envy, consider that what we may be observing with Kaufmann is a form of an inverted “narcissism of small differences.”  It is often those closest to Europeans, racially speaking, but who fall short of the mark, who are most resentful and hateful toward Europeans because, being so close yet so far, they feel (and resent) the difference all the more keenly. Think of Kaufmann, South Asians (Zakaria, Saini, the GNXPers), hybrids of all sorts, consider that part-White light-skinned Blacks are often more radical and anti-White than their darker-skinned, more racially Negro, counterparts.  Beware of such people and the ever-so-helpful advice they give you, for they hate you far more than any unmixed Nigerian or Chinaman does.

Advertisements

Hypocrisy vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Salter right, Counter-Currents wrong.

First, please note the hypocrisy of Counter-Currents here (yes, I know – using “hypocrisy” and “Counter-Currents” in the same sentence is a perfect example of redundancy). That site is the premier focal point of ethnonationalism in Der Movement, strongly promoting atomized ethnic identities.  Then they run an article criticizing Irish and Italians for identifying ethnically instead of racially.  Inconsistent much?  Oh, they’ll argue that they refer to Europe with respect to ethnonationalism and Cuomo lives in America, not Italy – but so what?  Isn’t the basic principle the same?  And what about Gerry Adams?  He’s an Irishman from Belfast. According to ethnonationalism, he’s Irish, period.  Why critique him then for eschewing some sort of pan-European “Whiteness?’’  Or is it that the ethnonationalism of Counter-Currents has a purely personal, and not ideological, basis and thus has no underlying political consistency?  

Second, if we consider approaches to “democratic multiculturalism” then we can say that what Cuomo did was not 100% wrong.  Maybe 90% wrong, but not 100%.  First, he was in error in making an issue out of a non-issue: “Fredo” is not an ethnic slur; indeed, Don Trump, Jr. is labeled as such, and he’s of German-Scottish-Czech ancestry.  Second, Cuomo was even more in error in making it an ethnic rather than a racial issue – instead of complaining about an Italian-specific grievance, it should have been put into the context of being attacked for being a member of an European ethny, an anti-White attack, or at least, an attack against White ethnics.  Or, even if it was put in the language of an ethnic-specific grievance, race could have been introduced in the context of (truthfully) asserting that similar remarks (if we assume the remark actually was offensive, which it was not) would not be made to Blacks and Jews, etc. There are many approaches to a strategy of democratic multiculturalism that benefits Whites as a whole, and not just making it a narrow ethnic appeal to victimhood. Of course, this gets back to the first paragraph above – race-based approaches ultimately have to reject petty nationalism and the whole ethnonationalist mindset.

The key to “democratic multiculturalism” is to delegitimize multiculturalism by making it a tool for majority interests.  As Salter states, multiculturalism as practiced in the West consists of minority group mobilization coupled to majority group atomization and the complete neglect of, and opposition, to majority group interests. Thus, any move toward majority group mobilization runs counter to the entire underlying premise of “Western” multiculturalism.

I have detailed a number of approaches, and responses to leftist reactions, with respect to “democratic multiculturalism.” I urge serious and strategic thinkers – by definition, not individuals who are committed members of Der Movement, Inc. – to consider the overall strategy as well as the specific tactics described to help achieve the goals of that strategy. Remember the saying – “if everyone is my brother I have no brother.” By analogy, if everyone, particularly the majority, partakes of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism. By that point, it is pure sociopolitical chaos, heightening the contradictions of the System, which is what we want (or should want). The key is for people to participate specifically and openly as Whites, to make it clear that this is majoritarian multiculturalism, and not merely atomized White ethnies pretending to be non-White grievance groups. There’s nothing wrong with noting a specifically ethnic component of your complaint, as long as it is in the context of it being a White ethnic group.  Again, a pro-White Cuomo, in response to a real (and not imagined) ethnic slight, could call out the slight as an anti-Italian slur BUT at the same time note that the reason why such slurs are acceptable to the Left is because Italians are a White ethnic group (contra the Nordicists, but that’s another issue), and that Italians are attacked as part of the System’s anti-White bias.  And the same holds for the Irish or any other European-derived ethny. So, the problem is not an ethnic-based complaint, the problem is when the complaint begins and ends with ethnicity, and is not broadened to include race. Ethnicity should simply be a wedge to leverage the issue of race into the conversation. It’s not anti-Italian or anti-Irish bias that is to be presented as the real issue, but anti-White bias manifesting in particular cases as attacks against Italians or the Irish.

By the way, as an aside, this is what Hampton believes “looks very White.” Now, there are of course some Hispanics who are White – people who have no New World admixture and are essentially the same as their European ancestors, as well as some people with very low levels of New World admixture that is not significantly higher than those White Americans whose “Indian Princess” stories are in fact true. So, “White Hispanics” do indeed exist; unfortunately for Hampton, Jessica Alba obviously is not one of them (or at least, does not look like one of them – and it is by physical appearance that Hampton made his comment to begin with).

The Importance of EGI

Race, immigration, and the demographic future.

Read this about the real underlying issues of the immigration debate.

A focus on EGI is absolutely essential in evaluating any debates on, e.g., immigration.  We require a more thorough – and ongoing – analysis of this. We need to effectively ground our understanding of key issues, and our political activism, on a bedrock foundation of ethnic genetic interests and the pursuit of group adaptive fitness. While some proximate interests – for example, actualizing a High Culture – are of fundamental importance, we must always realize that ultimate interests – genetic interests – are paramount. If genetic interests, ultimate interests, must be given precedence over the most important of proximate interests, then this shows us how much more precedence they must be given over less important, less urgent, less fundamental proximate interests.  A further point – genetic interests and the most fundamental proximate interests are typically in accord; thus, actualizing a High Culture is not only compatible with the EGI-conserving objective of racial preservation and advancement, it can be viewed as being actually dependent on it (and, to a lesser extent, vice versa). On the other hand, one can think of many other proximate interests – for example, an emphasis on “economic growth” – that can be incompatible, in many contexts, to the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.

And even though culture and civilization are the most important proximate interests and in many ways overlapping ultimate concerns, they are not themselves ultimate concerns, so one should even be skeptical of comments such as those as Trump bemoaning immigration into Europe because of its pernicious effects on “culture.”  Now, Trump was right, and to be fair, we should appreciate that he went that far – crossing a line other American leaders feared to even approach or, worse, even acknowledge – but it is not enough.  The ultimate issue is demographic replacement, and we await the American leader “alpha” enough to cross that, final, line.  After all, we can always hear ‘spin” about how alien invaders “assimilate into the culture,” but EGI is a “firewall” that prevents discussion from veering too far away from ultimate concerns.

But for the firewall to be an effective one must accept that one’s worldview has a grounding in EGI, and one must have a serious understanding of the concept. I do not advocate the crazed stupidity of Type Is who warp the concept and use “EGI” to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk; idiots who chant “EGI” as a talisman without even understanding what it is about. Instead, I simply say that consideration of EGI must be behind memes and schemes, behind goals and objectives, and even when proposing grand moral orders, sweeping vistas of a White future, one must always remember that EGI must be at least minimally considered in the background.  All schemes, agendas, and objectives must have a pro-EGI foundation upon which the grand structures can be built. This does not mean that EGI is itself the grand structure – I argue against that here – but it has to be the foundation, the firewall, the immutable prerequisite that prevents you from drifting in the direction of maladaptive ideas.

I note the “movement” – despite a small faction that, as noted above, chants “EGI” at every opportunity (typically superfluously) – also doesn’t properly incorporate EGI into its calculations (it if has “calculations” at all, rather than just endlessly regurgitating the same old tired memes, the same old fossilized dogma).

The implications of EGI cannot be responsibly evaded.  We know that the Left and the Mainstream Right, evil and stupid to the core, respectively, are bereft of responsibility to humanity – higher humanity – but the Far Right, in theory, should possess the sense of responsibility to do what is right.  And they cannot do this without having a solid foundation of EGI and its myriad consequences when considering the actualization of ideals into policies.  Only Type II activists are truly capable of doing this.

The Salterian Ethics of Imperium

Analyzing the worldview of Francis Parker Yockey through the prism of Salterian ethics.

Previously, I discussed the ethics of EGI and of genetic interests in general (“Salterian ethics”) and would now like to discuss how those ethics can be utilized to judge a proposed biopolitical project – Francis Parker Yockey’s  idea of Imperium (a pan-European empire), as outlined in his book by that name. I had, some years ago, attempted to synthesize the world views of Salter and Yockey with respect to the genetic/biological and political considerations – essentially tracking with the first two sections of Salter’s On Genetic Interests, and now I will focus on ethical considerations, which was the topic of the last third of Salter’s book.

In my previous TOQ essay focusing on Salter and Yockey, I explained the difference between gross and net genetic interests, although I did not use those terms:

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctiveness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of narrow regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disruption of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vulnerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic interest.

The “…very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest” that “may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates” would be an example of a pursuit of gross genetic interests – a naïve attempt to maximize EGI without consideration of costs vs. benefits. Taking a broader view, and considering that larger entities may be able to better defend the genetic interests of the populace can lead to optimization of net genetic interests – maximization of EGI when costs and benefits are balanced out.

Yockey’s words…in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . .

If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterdaynationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

Yockey argues that dividing Europeans against themselves, which in the context of an EGI perspective would be an unfettered pursuit of gross genetic interests regardless of the costs, would benefit only the enemies of Europe (and of Europeans) – hence, again from an EGI perspective, net genetic interests would be damaged. Thus, even though Yockey was arguing form a High Culture (and geopolitical) perspective, his comments can be reinterpreted as being consistent with a concern for net EGI as opposed to a blind pursuit of gross EGI.  From the standpoint of Salterian ethics, a focus on net EGI is reasonable, particularly from a “mixed ethic” perspective that also includes concerns for proximate interests (e.g., actualizing a High Culture).

See this for more on Yockey’s racial views, a topic that is relevant to the current analysis. Yockey’s views on race, taken at literal face value, are not very compatible with EGI. If, however, we interpret Yockey as being concerned with eschewing overly disjunctive divisions among (Western) Europeans, and if we view that in the context of preservation of net generic interests by fostering pan-European solidarity vs. outside threats, the seemingly stark incompatibility between Yockey and EGI essentially vanishes.  

My concept of “The EGI Firewall” is useful in these discussions. The firewall establishes the “floor” – the minimum acceptable EGI (or genetic interests more generally) consideration that absolutely must be incorporated into any sociopolitical scenario.  Thus, there is an absolute boundary beyond which one cannot cross without so seriously compromising EGI that the relevant proposal must be rejected.  For example, any scheme that would flood Europe with large numbers of non-Europeans would be completely unacceptable from any reasonable scenario that considers EGI as important and that incorporates Salterian ethics.  There has to be some foundation of EGI for any political project. The question is – where should this boundary be? There is of course no purely objective answer to that question, although the scenario just given does provide an example where most adaptively-minded Europeans would agree that the boundary has clearly been crossed. Of course, the scenario given is precisely the situation being actualized into reality today with the globalist EU and mass migration; it is certainly not merely some theoretical exercise.

From my essay on Salterian ethics:

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).

Obviously, the RCE would reject both Yockeyism and a biopolitical system based on EGI as damaging “individual rights.”  But the focus of this essay is to evaluate how Yockeyism can be incorporated into Salterian ethics (and vice versa), so the RCE, which is incompatible with Salterian ethics, is irrelevant. We are therefore left with the PAU and MAU ethics.

We can now consider the PAU and MAU.  From the perspective of gross genetic interests, one may question the appropriateness of Yockeyism for the PAU, as the PAU would lead one to favor “smaller is better” micro-states, independent of the effects of that choice on the long term stability of the genetic continuity of the peoples involved.  However, from the perspective of net genetic interests, if Yockeyism maximizes the power of the peoples involved through the establishment of a European Imperium, thus protecting these peoples from outside threats, then Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU. That would hold IF the system set up can safeguard the uniqueness of its constituent peoples. This safeguarding could be accomplished via the acceptance of a degree of local sovereignty (that Yockey agreed with) and the preservation of borders, with the Imperium being a confederation of nations and regions, each preserving their particular biological and cultural characteristics. One would in this case reject a single borderless state in which national and regional identities are erased and in which ethnic distinctiveness is lost via panmixia.  In order for this scenario to be stable long term, this characteristic of the Imperium – the preservation of the unique characteristics of its constituent parts – would need to be considered an absolutely fundamental and unalterable keystone of the state’s raison d’etre.  This is the EGI Firewall discussed above – a minimum absolute requirement for preservation of EGI, even at “lower” levels, as part of any political and social projects that are actualized.  I note that civilizational blocs are proposed by Salter in his book as one approach for protecting EGI, so the idea is not by its nature incompatible with EGI; it is a question of implementation.

Thus, Yockeyism could be compatible with PAU ethics under conditions such as described above, and with a firm understanding of net vs. gross genetic interests.

If Yockeyism could be compatible with the PAU, then it certainly can be compatible with the MAU, since the latter allows for other (proximate) interests, besides the ultimate interests of genetic interests, to be considered and actualized into policy, as long as the fundamental rights of genetic continuity are not abrogated. Here we see that an enlightened PAU that considers net genetic interests begins to converge onto the MAU, if the proximate interests under consideration are such that could actually contribute to EGI in some manner (e.g., actualizing a High Culture, as opposed to a mere concern for “individual rights).

So Yockeyism, with the proper caveats, and from the net genetic interests respective, could indeed be compatible with Salterian ethics.

Where to Donate?

A thought experiment.

Imagine an extremely wealthy White individual who wanted to donate money to causes that promoted the interests of European-derived peoples.

Where could they donate so that the money would be effectively used?

Apart from helping out with Salter’s research, always a noble cause, I cannot think of a single activity, group, blog, political party, or “movement leader” worth investing in, either here in America or abroad.  Not one. The moderately wealthy Regnery has funded certain activities, but, I myself do not see any of those activities as worthy.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, a terrible indictment of Der Movement and its failed leadership.

Are we then surprised that some individuals, in desperation, likely feeling abandoned by the Quota Queen Tin Cup Brigade and their shameless panhandling for “D’Nations,” destroy themselves with foolish activities?

So, this thought experiment confirms what this blog has been saying for a long time – Der Movement is a pathetic failure and a complete waste, and, hence, there is currently nothing in the “movement” really worth investing in. Supporting certain aspects of relevant academic research would be good, as mentioned above, but as regards direct political and metapolitical activism, there is nothing.

Frankennutzi

Building the ideal activist.

Imagine trying to build the ideal White racial nationalist out of the attributes of different individuals, akin to how the Frankenstein monster was built out of the body parts of different individuals. We can call this creation Frankennutzi.

We can mix the pan-Europeanism of Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Mosley, Norman Lowell, and Ted Sallis; the futurism of Marinetti; the radicalism of William Pierce; the intelligence of Kevin Strom; the optics of Jared Taylor; the gravitas and seriousness of Revilo Oliver; the scientific understanding of Ted Sallis; the ethnological insights of Frank Salter; the prescience and judgment of Ted Sallis; the JQ attitude of MacDonald; and the sexual realism of Roger Devlin.

We can also consider the reverse.

Frankennutcase:

The humility of Richard Spencer; the tolerance of criticism, ethnonationalism, judgment, and traditionalism of Greg Johnson; the class, elegance, and sexual restraint of Donald Trump; the trustworthiness of Silver; the rampant masculinity of James O’Meara, the fiscal responsibility of David Duke; the maturity and optics of Anglin, TRS, and the cosplay crowd; the science of Greg Cochran and Richard Lynn; the Nordicism of Hans Gunther, William Pierce, and Richard McCulloch; the gravitas of Parrott and Heimbach; the racial science of Durocher; the seriousness of Roissy; the attitude toward Asians of Majority Rights; the intelligence of the current crop of Counter-Currents writers; the racial loyalty of John Derbyshire; the JQ attitude of Zman; and, well, you get the picture.

Salterian Ethics

“We charge you in the name of God, take heed.”

This essay is about the oft-ignored and much-neglected final third of Dr. Frank Salter’s classic work On Genetic Interests, a book that, in my opinion, is of such import that Salter should win a Nobel Prize for this work.

The book is divided into three major sections. The first described what genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests (EGI) are, how they can be measured, and what their import is, and how some objections to these concepts can be answered. The second section studies the political and social ramifications of genetic interests and the EGI concept, and how these concepts could be incorporated into practical biopolitics. The last third of the book deals with the ethics of pursuing genetic interests in opposition to the genetic interests of others and in opposition to the proximate interests (genetic interests being ultimate interests for evolved organisms) of others.

The ethical component of Salter’s work has been ignored by a Left that presents a defamatory strawman representation of EGI as promoting “genocide and rape.”  Obviously then, Salter’s careful arguments, and his advocacy of a “mixed ethic” that incorporates individual rights, is anathema to mendacious trash who wish to misrepresent the contents of Salter’s book. Some on the Far Right either ignore or mock this section of Salter’s book because these people actually do advocate genocide and rape (or at least the former) and they characterize the ethical section of the book as an unnecessary politically correct add-on, something purely subjective, and in some cases they engage in some defamation of their own by characterizing Salter’s ethical concerns as “squid ink” to hide the true “nature red in tooth and claw” agenda of On Genetic Interests (projection, perhaps).

I myself have not paid enough attention to this section of the book.  As a STEM person with an interest in population genetics and in empirical determinations of ethnic and racial interests, obviously I found the first part of the book riveting; as a White nationalist who wants to achieve certain political objectives based on EGI, it is equally obvious that the second part of the book was also of extreme interest to me.  Philosophy and ethics are not my strong suit and although I agree with most of what Salter wrote in that section of the book (unlike some of his foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzi critics), I have heretofore not given that section sufficient attention.  I hope to begin the process of rectifying that error here.

As Salter emphasizes, morality is basically an approach for adjudicating conflicts of interests. E.O. Wilson described human behavior as “…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact.” In relation to that goal, he asserted: “Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”  This is in accord with the view – promoted by Salter and myself – that genetic interests are ultimate interests. How could it be otherwise for evolved organisms whose reproduction – indeed, whose representation among the informational content of reality – is essentially dependent upon and constituted by “genetic material?”  Or more basically by the information encoded in that “genetic material?”

At this point, a brief detour is in order to distinguish “factual truth” from practical truth.” According to D.S. Wilson: “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  As a man of science, I have been trained to value factual truth, and that is part of the Western tradition; indeed, it has antecedents in the Classical Civilization of Europe.  However, there is truth (both factual and practical!) in D.S. Wilson’s comment.  If we merge the assertions of the two Wilsons together, we can say that practical truth is evolutionarily paramount if and when it acts to promote the ultimate interest of genetic continuity.  

An example from “movement activism” can clarify how an example of hypocritical racial cant confuses factual and practical truth, and further, how adherence to the genetic interests of racial aliens uses a denial of factual truth to also impede practical truth. A certain “activist” (*) wrote: “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”  But that criticism falls flat if the motivation in question reflects the practical truths that promote ultimate interests.  This individual himself is proof of this, given his reticence to extend his alleged interest in “emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses” to those ethnies he values and identifies with.  As a Nordicist HBDer who distorts racial science and racial history for his transparent agendas, he is as guilty as anyone else in utilizing practical truth and dismissing factual truth. However, any European-derived person who promotes HBD is acting against, not for, their ultimate interests, as they instead promote the ultimate interests of Jews and Asians. In this case, practical truth is used in the service of someone else’s ultimate interests. Why such genetic treason is practiced is for the traitor to explain. Whatever the reason, this agenda is the denial of factual truth (i.e., dishonesty) in the service of the denial of practical truth for Europeans (i.e., race treason).  

Now we will begin to consider the main points of Salter’s arguments about the ethics of EGI. Salter wrote:

…we make moral judgements of great consequence, and must do so if we are to decide conflicts of interests.  Choices are also forced in the game of life, every day genetic interests being won or squandered. A commentator who fails to advise people on how to defend their most precious assets is, by default, advocating the status quo, with its winner and losers.

One can contrast teleological or consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism with deontological ethics.  In the former, an act is morally right dependent upon its outcome; thus we ask – are its effects desirable?  In the later, acts are moral based on some defined rules or traditions; here the act is considered good or bad in and of itself, independent of its effects.  Teleological ethics are best suited for consideration of EGI, since we need to judge the consequences of various outcomes derived from conflicts involving genetic interests (e.g., competing genetic interests, genetic interests vs. proximate interests, or the specialized case of the latter of genetic interests vs. individual rights).

Obviously, and as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethnics have to have at some point a deontological component; after all, to label an outcome as “desirable” means that this consequence, this effect, has to be judged as morally right, as morally good, on its own merits.  Here we are evaluating the merits of the consequence itself, not the act that led to the consequence.  Thus, at some point in the analysis, a value judgement has to be made. Salter discusses various options for what this morally good consequence should be, including Mill’s idea of the morally optimal act being one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number.  However, “happiness” is a proximate interest that may not be in the best interests of an individual, group, or society; thus, maladaptive acts such as drug use leading to addiction may result in (at least short-term) happiness. Is that morally good?  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, and fitness can be an objective measure of a consequence that an evolutionarily informed individual (or society) can consider morally good.  

Obviously, this is a matter of values, and Salter has always admitted that “who cares?” is a riposte to genetic interests that cannot be refuted without addressing values. I’d like to point out though that those interested in promoting their genetic interests will outcompete and replace those who are not. In the long-term, disinterest in genetic interests is not evolutionarily stable. So, such a disinterest would be a quite strange “morally good ethic” in that it dooms itself to extinction. If someone has a value system in which self-destructive values are prized then that is their prerogative; others who value continuity of both their bioculture and their values would be well served to promote their genetic interests.  Salter also notes that proximate interests are best optimized rather than maximized; for example, a person who is “too happy” may become less prudent, jeopardizing well-being.  On the other hand, ultimate interests are different; these interests are adaptive when maximized (note: maximized in the net sense).  Thus, Salter states: “One cannot be too well adapted.” 

Careful readers may believe that quote is inconsistent with my distinction between gross and net genetic interests, and my comments (here and previously) that a too-aggressive pursuit of ever-diminishing returns of genetic interest can be counter-productive.  But there is no inconsistency because Salter’s quote makes being adapted the primary issue, not the mechanisms used to pursue that goal. Adaptiveness here is in terms of net genetic interests. In other words, maximizing adaptiveness is good, but attempting to maximize the pursuit of genetic interests, in every circumstance and regardless of context, can result in sub-optimal adaptiveness if that attempt backfires.  Note that in his book Salter describes certain ultra-nationalist states, like Nazi Germany, as being over-investments in genetic interests that ended up harming the adaptive interests of those states’ ethnies.  Hitler’s attempt to maximize German EGI backfired; look at Germany in 1945, and, worse, look at Germany today. German adaptiveness, their net EGI, would have been maximized by a more prudent, and less aggressive, pursuit of genetic interests. While in many – likely most – cases, maximizing genetic interests would maximize adaptiveness, that is not always the case. 

Note also that a person’s conscious preferences may not lead to adaptive outcomes; this can be from a hyper-investment in genetic interests as with Hitler or, more likely today, in globalist “anonymous mass societies,” people do not understand their genetic interests and thus under-invest in them.  While we cannot force values on people, we can educate them about genetic interests so that their choice of values will be an informed choice.

However, a pure utilitarian ethic – promoting adaptive fitness for the greatest number as the only consideration – has some problems.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

Salter notes that “bounded rationality” – our inability to ever know everything necessary about a problem or issue – is a good reason not to advocate for the pure ethic of unbridled pursuit of genetic interests. This is because we may be in error about what those genetic interests actually are and about how best to achieve them.  In the absence of unbounded rationality, in the absence of absolute certainty, a degree of prudence and restraint is called for, and is likely to be more adaptive in the long run. I have always distinguished gross genetic interests from net – the former being a naïve attempt to maximize a perceived set of genetic interests to the ultimate degree possible, while the latter takes into account costs and benefits and attempts to ascertain what the long-term genetic interest net benefit will be after all the varied costs are accounted for.  It may be that a less radical pursuit of (ever-diminishing) genetic interest returns would be most beneficial; the marginal gains of genetic interests inherent in an “all or nothing” approach toward adaptive behavior may not be worth the costs incurred. For example, dividing a larger nation into smaller micro-states of more concentrated kinship may be seen as maximizing EGI, but if this division weakens the ability of the populations involved to defend their interests against aggressors (or achieve some other beneficial goal that requires a certain size threshold), then net adaptive interests would suffer. Maximizing EGI, trying to squeeze every last drop of genetic interest from a situation, may backfire. In addition, the possibility of kinship overlap between populations is another reason not to be too radical in the pursuit of EGI, particularly within continents, since some people on “their side” may be more genetically similar to you than those on “your side.”  Even if that degree of kinship overlap is not the case, if the two sides are relatively genetically similar to each other, then he costs of conflict may outweigh the benefits.  The bounded rationality problem, coupled to the possibility of kinship overlap, therefore suggests that a degree of flexibility in the pursuit of EGI is optimal, since errors in interpreting kinship and the best methods for pursuing adaptiveness may result in serious, perhaps irreversible, damage to adaptive interests. Prudence and restraint are therefore warranted to constrain reckless behavior in support of (assumed) genetic interests.

Thus, Salter asserts that is prudent to eschew the pure ethic – where maximizing genetic interests would always take precedence in every circumstance – in favor of a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of adaptiveness is tempered by a concern for individual rights and minority group rights – or even the rights of other majority groups of other nations that your group may be in conflict with. 

Salter pre-emptively answers some of his Far Right critics by asking whether adding a concern for such rights “threatens incoherence” of an adaptive ethic. Thus, those critics complained that a concern for rights was a subjective “add-on” to EGI that does not logically derive from Salter’s arguments. However, the comments about bounded rationality and kinship overlap, as well as the possibility of maladaptive over-investment in EGI, point in the direction of a mixed ethic actually being coherent and probably more adaptive in the net sense. In addition, given the reality of White behavior, getting large numbers of Whites to agree with the value of EGI would necessitate flexibility about adaptive behavior, so as to include appropriate consideration of (potentially) non-adaptive values such as individual rights.

Note that in my view, proximate interests that temper the pursuit of genetic interests need not be limited to individual (or minority group) rights, but can (and should) include such things as a Yockeyian interest in “actualizing a High Culture” and other civilizational and political pursuits that may not always be perfectly congruent with a single-minded pursuit of genetic interests. But even here, I can argue that such a tempering may have long-term adaptive value.  The groups constituting the Yockeyian view are all European; hence, there will be at least some kinship overlap (at least at the global level).  

Salter compares three ethics – pure adaptive utilitarianism (PAU), mixed adaptive utilitarianism (MAU), and the rights-centered ethic (RCE).  The PAU holds EGI as morally good and also holds that adaptive interests must be maximized regardless of means. MAU also holds that EGI is morally good, but that the pursuit of adaptive interests must be constrained by rights.  The RCE does not assert that EGI is either morally good or bad, but this ethic is not teleological like the preceding two, but is deontological; thus, in the RCE the “rightness of means [are] unrelated to consequences.”  Then Salter asks certain questions for each of these ethics. First, can it moral for EGI to frustrate other interests? The PAU says yes, unconditionally; while the MAU also says yes, but only in defense of ethnic interests or in (limited) expansion that preserves the existence of the (defeated) competitor. Since Salter supports the MAU, it puts to lie the accusation that he supports genocide. What about the RCE? This ethic says that it is not moral for EGI to frustrate other interests, because such frustration of other interests causes harm. Should genetic interests have absolute priority?  The PAU says yes, the MAU says no when such interests “conflict with individual rights,” and the RCE says no, “since only means matter” – and only means consistent with individual rights are allowed in RCE.  What to do when genetic interests conflict?  The PAU says “compete within adaptive limits” (I suppose this means net genetic interests), the MAU says “compete but respect rights,” and the RCE says “stop competing, since it entails harm.”

I’d like to say at this point that the RCE is, practical terms, not really followed by anyone in the multicultural ex-West. Those who claim to support the RCE essentially support it only for Whites, while non-Whites are allowed to essentially follow a PAU ethics.  Consider – do supporters of the RCE really take an agnostic view of EGI independent of rights?  Or is the very idea of White EGI anathema?  I suppose the argument would be that any expression of White genetic interests harms the rights of non-Whites, so consideration of White EGI independent of rights is not possible.  That being so, the fact that non-White PAU harms White EGI is a feature, not a bug, of modern RCE hypocrisy.

Salter further discusses the ethics of the PAU and MAU approaches, making analogies between ethny and family.  If we allow people to favor their families, then why shouldn’t ethnocentrism be tolerated, or even celebrated (I’m talking about Whites here; as we all know, non-White ethnocentrism is already strongly promoted by the System)?  Salter goes further – if parents have a duty to care for their children, then perhaps people “have a similar duty to nurture” their ethnies.  Indeed, perhaps one rationale for race-denial propaganda is to prevent (White) people from making these “dangerous” (but accurate) analogies between ethny and family. Salter states that tribal feelings and ethnic identification are both necessary to produce “feelings of ethnic obligation” – so it should be no surprise to us that those two elements are attacked by the System with respect to Whites (but promoted for non-Whites).  

Salter discusses methods used to undermine these components of ethnic obligations, including “fictive ethnicity” (e.g., civic nationalism) and/or fictive non-ethnicity (e.g., race-denial).  Thus, Whites in America, for example, are told that their racial group does not exist, and that they should simply identify as “Americans,” considering any featherless biped infesting American territory as their civic “kin.” If protecting one’s genetic survival is a fundamental right (and it should be so for evolved organisms like humans), then these methods are immoral and unethical. Further, holding that genetic continuity is a fundamental right brings the MAU closer to the PAU, thus undermining Salter’s critics on the Far Right. Indeed, further undermining those rightist critics, Salter puts forth that advancement, and not merely defense, of genetic interests can be moral and ethical. The idea, consistent with the MAU, is to allow for the continued existence of the (defeated) competitor, albeit with reduced (but not fatally diminished) resources.

Salter then briefly discusses altruism and morality, citing one so-called “leading evolutionary theorist” who claims “that only non-fitness-enhancing behavior can be moral.”  Amusingly, Salter then mentions that a healthier theorist made the comment that these types of ideas are such “that this is an unconsciously self-serving moral sentiment that, when expressed, influences some susceptible individuals to show indiscriminate altruism that benefits the moralist.” Indeed, calls for universalism and pathological altruism can be a competitive tactic; thus, non-Whites manipulate White behavior so that Whites sacrifice their own interests to promote those of others. This is of course maladaptive for Whites; indeed, evolved organisms are not expected to be, and should not be, purely disinterested in their morals and ethics (including altruism).  And, sometimes, ultimate and proximate interests converge and the distinctions are blurred (as I often state)l however, when distinctions between the two sets of interests are clear, the ultimate should usually be given precedence over the proximate (note: a precedence constrained by a concern for rights).

Salter notes that people “who do not consider peaceful genetic replacement to be a moral issue will have no moral objection to their own painless genetic extinction.” Well, there are Whites with pathological altruism who do not personally reproduce as as to “save the planet” (and who advocate the same to other Whites, but typically not to non-Whites), but typically the situation is that of a targeted attack against White interests. Especially, non-White activists will be among those who attempt to convince Whites to accept genetic extinction, while these non-Whites themselves continue their own genetic lines.  

And if people genuinely do not care about genetic interests, then why do many of them so strenuously argue against those who do so care?  I wrote about this previously:

The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  

Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.

A few concluding comments are appropriate at this point.  Salter believes that “evolved organisms” will not for long accept a “social order that weeds out their lineages.” Well, so far, Whites have been generally accepting of such a social order; we shall see how things evolve (no pun intended).  It is part of the proper ethics of EGI to educate people on the important of adaptive behavior; one can view Salter’s book, and my current post, as part of such efforts.

Salter also discusses “socially imposed monogamy” as an effective method for resolving conflicting genetic interests in societies, and this leads us to the idea that atomized individuals are unlikely to be able to effectively strategize and act on behalf of their genetic interests; collective action, including state power, is necessary. Salter mentions the ethical implications of having a state that is an interested promoter of national interests in the global arena, but “a disinterested arbiter of family interests within the nation.”  [Note that socially imposed monogamy may be an exception to the latter, depending upon your point of view]. There are different levels of genetic interests that would need to be handled in different manners.  Just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests, those that appeal to the universal human interest in genetic continuity and adaptiveness (whether consciously recognized or not), would be more stable than unjust and unreasonable approaches.  It is in the interests of any adaptively-minded state to promote such just solutions to conflicts of genetic interests,

Finally, while the MAU puts limits on the degree to which genetic interests can be pursued, people and ethnies must still have the freedom to advance (not merely defend) their interests within reasonable bounds. We cannot expect equal fitness outcomes as enforced equalized fitness would lead to an increased mutation load and would be so totalitarian in its application as to be unpalatable to reasonable people. Salter argues that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to defend (and advance) one’s genetic interests, which are ultimate interests. That this can be done via the MAU has been argued in Salter’s book and also in my comments above; I would promote a rather aggressive version of the MAU, but one that still incorporates limits and which respects certain proximate interests. However, in my case, I would value society-wide proximate interests, such as Yockey’s call to actualize a High Culture, over mere individual rights, although, certainly, individual rights are important and should be respected.

Let us finish with the following Shakespearean quote that Salter includes in this section of his book, with respect to conflicts between sets of genetic interests:

KING HARRY

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake our sleeping sword of war.

We charge you in the name of God, take heed,

For never two such kingdoms did contend

Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops

Are every one a woe, a sore complaint

‘Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords

That make such waste in brief mortality.

May I with right and conscience make this claim?

Shakespeare, Henry V, 1500, Act I, Scene I

Note:

*I want this post to emphasize ideas and theory, not personal feuding, so I’m not going to mention such people by name here.