Category: Salter

The Ethics of EGI

The ethics of pursuing genetic interests.

In On Genetic Interests (OGI), Salter devotes the last third of the book to a discussion of the ethics of pursuing genetic interests, including ethnic genetic interests (EGI).  This has been the most ignored, and undervalued, section of the book by both “friend” and foe alike.  The “movement” is unsurprisingly relatively uninterested in ethics so they ignore it; while the anti-EGI mainstream pretend that Salter proposes wild ideas of rapine and pillage, so any acknowledgment that there is serious and morally sound ethical discussion there is ignored because it conflicts with the mendacious narratives of the left.

We on the other hand can look at this section of the book, consider the arguments, and take those arguments seriously (whether we agree with them or not).  In my previous writings, I had first concentrated on the population genetics aspect (first third of OGI) – of which there is not much more to say until if and when we get global genetic kinship data and data on human genetic structure/integration (at which point there will be much new to say – and then, more recently, have started evaluating the political aspects (second third of OGI), of which no doubt there will always be more to say, but I have relatively neglected ethics, a deficit I will now begin to correct.

Salter defines “adaptive utilitarianism” as the paradigm in which “a good act is one that increases or protects the fitness of the greater number.”  Salter then examines this in the light of different ethical schemes and in the context of individual and group rights.  What can we make of all of this?

Salter stresses that genetic continuity is certainly compatible with peace between ethnies and with equality of opportunity within ethnies, but not with equality of fitness outcomes, since the latter is evolutionarily unstable.  One cannot “force” equal outcomes with respect to biological fitness, there should be no “affirmative action” with respect to equal genetic representation across generations (*).  Evolution is about unequal fitness outcomes, selection, and, contrary to those who misread Salter, he is NOT calling for any sort of “genetic stasis” – there is, and should be, unequal outcomes in the biological sense, but that does not mean that entire groups should have their fitness radically lowered. Unequal outcomes can be tempered with preservation of genetic diversity (which is good for those preserved but also good for us all, since we cannot predict when this genetic diversity may one day be need/useful for the entire humanity).  Thus, just like competition between individuals in society has its limits – one is not allowed to murder one’s rivals to increase one’s personal fitness – so too does the completive struggles between ethnies have limits in which every group is assured its genetic continuity, but not necessarily at predetermined perfectly equal outcomes assured by some sort of powerful genetic arbiter.

Talking about ethics – what do we mean?  In other words, what are the major types of ethical frameworks from which to view EGI?

Teleological ethics – also known as consequentialist ethics – judge an act right depending on its effects; as Salter points out, circular reasoning (e.g., “an act is moral because it increases moral behavior”) is avoided by examining the non-moral consequences of the act, such as increasing well-being.  Utilitarianism – the greatest benefit for the greatest number – is therefore teleological.   Deontological ethics ae those that are judged based on its “intrinsic characteristics”- as established by “intuition or religion” – rather on its consequences.  It is more “rule based.”  Note that as Salter rightly points out, teleological ethics have a deontological components, since some consequence (e.g. increased well-being) is judged to be more based on an intrinsic understanding of the worth of that consequence.

Of course, one can judge pursuit as EGI as both teleological as well as deontological.  It is definitely teleological if we consider the consequence of enhancing fitness for the greatest number (at least of our on ethny); however, it is deontological to the extent that – if we eschew the “is/ought problem” – we are defining adaptive behavior as an intrinsically good moral value (and others may disagree).  So, it is a teleological ethic with strong deontological undertone, as many (all?) teleological ethics are. Note that when I above specify “our own ethny” this implies that teleological ethics must consider exactly who we are talking about – whose well-being are we concerned with?  Or as Sailer would harp on: who? Whom? 

One can therefore view pursuit of EGI as fundamentally being, at its core, teleological, with possibly – or possibly not, depending on how this pursuit is actualized – some deontological aspects as well.  It is utilitarian in that sense. 

We can ask though – should pursuit of EGI, and of genetic interests in general, actually be the focus of any utilitarian teleological ethic?  How about “happiness?”

If utilitarianism is about “maximizing the greatest good,” then what should the “greatest good” mean?  Happiness?  Salter points put that people in objectively bad conditions (drug addicts getting a “fix”) may be “happy,” the mentally deranged may be “happy,” and then we have the problem: does utilitarian benefit have to be based on conscious preferences?  If someone is unaware of an interest, does that mean it does not exist?  A muskrat has, from the biological perspective, an interest in its own genetic continuity, and will behave from instinct to preserve itself, and presumably a mother muskrat will protect is young using the same instinctive impulse, but there is no conscious preference involved.  The muskrat does not so act because acting in this way “makes it happy.”  Looking at how evolution works, looking at the innate instincts of life, we as evolved organisms may decide – and this is admittedly a conscious preference, but the interests remain whether or not we are aware of them – that adaptive behavior can be a criterion for utilitarian benefit.  Is this the naturalistic fallacy them?

There is the Is/ought problem, of which the naturalistic fallacy is a part – “something is good because it exists, because it is found in nature” (anti-Salterians accuse Salter of this, although he is clear that making adaptive fitness a desirable goal is a conscious choice for humans); on the other hand, the moralistic fallacy (often characteristic of leftist thinking) – “something must be true and exist in reality/nature because it is good” – is typically more prevalent in today’s society, but typically never identified as such (perhaps because it is so widespread none of the hypocrites who ant about the “naturalist fallacy” are aware of their own logical inconsistencies).

So, no, we are not saying we MUST accept adaptiveness as the criterion; however, if we decide that genetic continuity is better than not, that existence is better than non-existence, ten adaptive utilitarianism is a prudent choice – note it is a choice, a scientifically informed choice, but still a choice.  We are not “mandated” by nature to choose to act adaptively (although I note that those who act adaptively will replace those that do not, whether you consider that as a “naturalistic fallacy” is a topic for the philosophers). The point is that we can decide to pick the adaptiveness criterion, it has many arguments in its favor, it is self-perpetuating in the sense that those who so choose will be more likely to have continuity of their existence, but, once identified as a legitimate interest by anyone (and this has obviously already occurred!), we can state that the interest exists for all humans (indeed, for all evolve life forms) whether they are aware of it or not.  This seems to be a rather long-winded and complicated argument in favor of a somewhat obvious point, but it is necessary, since enemies of White survival engage in the most outrageous sophistry, and denial of objective fact and clear logic, as well as basic fairness and fundamental human rights, to deny Whites their rights of existence, preservation, and group interests. [I’ll pass over Salter’s arguments about Singer and “animal liberation.”  The targeted readers of this essay hopefully not only value their genetic interests over that of other humans, but over non-human animals as well].

So what we have is: adaptive utilitarianism: we choose to value adaptive fitness as the good to be maximized.

But should the pursuit of EGI (and genetic interests in general) be purely teleological?  Should we engage in pure adaptive utilitarianism in pursuit of genetic interests – concerned with ends only, with no concern for means whatsoever?  Do rights and justice count for nothing?

Salter provides a hypothetical example illustrating the limits of pure utilitarianism from the standpoint of standard notions of justice.  I’ll paraphrase a bit.  Consider a town, with an economy heavily based on tourism and its image as a “good” place.  Some horrific (and we can assume heavily publicized) murder takes place there, endangering the town’s image.  A vagabond petty thief – a constant troublemaker who has been harming the town’s image and damaging its tourist industry – is suspected of the murder.  The townspeople are howling for “justice” – they want the vagabond tried, convicted, and hanged, and their town’s reputation restored.  However, the sheriff discovers the vagabond is innocent – the murder was actually committed by the town’s mayor, a person of previously impeccable character and high standing, the very image of the town ad its “goodness.“ Further, this murder was a “one-time crime of passion” – it is almost certain that the mayor would never do anything like this again.  Arresting the mayor for the murder would, as Salter rightly points out, ravage the town’s social order, ruin its image, harm its tourist industry, and damage its economy, putting people out of work.  A pure utilitarian view – the greatest benefit for the greatest number – would suggest letting the vagabond hang and letting the mayor go free.  But Salter points out this would offend our sense of justice, a common weakness for pure utilitarian schemes.  Even if you would be willing to bend the rules here, what if this scenario was extended and expanded to a decision involving millions of people?  Entire ethnies?  Nations?  Is justice so easily foregone?  The “hard men” of the “movement” may bluster that they would sacrifice everything for their EGI, and who knows maybe they are right, but Whites in general, with their intense sense of Universalist justice, would be unlikely to go along.  Utilitarianism must be tempered by fairness and justice to create a long-term, evolutionarily stable system amenable to Whites.  Thus, one must introduce concepts of justice – procedural justice according to establish protocols – based on the concepts of fairness, morality, and individual rights, all of which have a strong deontological component and which conflict with the “pure ethic” of unrestrained (teleological) utilitarianism.  In this specific case, the vagabond is set free, and the mayor is arrested, “consequences be damned.”  Note there is no utilitarian justification for this, unless one invokes as a possible teleological argument that the concept of justice benefits everyone since who knows when any individual will one day be faced with a situation similar to the vagabond.  Although justice for the individual in the face of “greater good utilitarian arguments would seem to be pure deontological argumentation, of one argues that, since we are all individuals, a doctrine of individual rights benefits the greatest number (all of us) in the greatest number of possible circumstances (almost infinite), then we come full circle and are faced in a sense by conflicting utilitarianisms: the greatest good for the greatest number, with “number”  as viewed as a collective vs. the greatest good for the greatest number, with “number” viewed as a collection of autonomous individuals.  Collectivists may favor the first, individualists, the second; a “mixed ethic” favors both, by weighing the relative merits of each case (in a manner inevitably deontological).

Salter therefore supports a form of adaptive utilitarianism restrained by a respect for individual rights and for the rights of other ethnies to have the same preservationist opportunities (‘the mixed ethic”) – which is consistent with “universal nationalism”.  Some Nutzi types – who fantasize about “nature red in tooth and claw” and pine away for visions of genocide of “the other” mock Salter’s mixed ethic and claim it is inconsistent with the logical conclusions of EGI (anti-Salterians make similar arguments from an anti-White perspective).  But, Salter I think understands the difference between gross and net genetic interests, and that attempts to maximize genetic interest to an extreme extent (gross calculations) will backfire and end up costing more than any potential benefit (net loss of genetic interest).  The mixed ethic is likely more stable over time, less risky, less of a gamble of an ethny’s precious genetic interest.  One need not “go for broke” with respect to genetic interests.  At times, prudent restraint yields the greatest payoff over time.

Salter admits the possibility of “incoherence” with the mixed ethic – one that interjects rights into the adaptive utilitarian scheme – bit I have argued against it by pointing out that since we are all “others” to someone else, we all benefit by putting limits to the extent that both we  and that someone else can pursue their adaptive interests.  I note that Salter himself makes a similar argument, more on individual and family lines, in that the rule of law provides the stability for everyone to “raise a family and acquire resources” as opposed to an arbitrary law free-for-all where every hand is raised against another.  Thus, the mixed ethnic allows for competition and the core pursuit of genetic interests (equal opportunity but not equal outcomes), but puts limits on this pursuit through a “mantle of rights” that would restrain excesses.  Salter also points out the problem of “bounded rationality” (**) for “classic utilitarianism” – how can we really know, really predict, the ultimate consequences of our acts?  Getting back to my previously states (in other posts) principle of net vs. gross genetic interests, how do we know that a “free-for-all” grasping for maximizing gross genetic interests wouldn’t backfire and harm ourselves, diminishing the final, net accounting of genetic interests?  One could invoke the Hitler case here.  The mixed ethic, by retraining adaptive utilitarianism within reasonable limits, would reduce the risk of wild gambles that place net genetic interests in extreme jeopardy.  Salter’s Table 9.1 summarizes some of these differences. Both pure adaptive utilitarianism and the mixed ethic consider EGI to be morally good, while a rights-centered ethic has no opinion on the subject.  Do ends justify the means for EGI?  The pure adaptive ethnic says yes, the mixed says yes, BUT “constrained by rights,” and the ethic concerned only by rights says no.

It should be clear that I generally support the mixed ethic, and make my own argument in its favor (a variation of Salter’s argument) above.  That said, I am a bit more toward the “pure” side of the spectrum than is Salter. The mixed ethic is good in the vast majority of circumstances, but if one is faced with an existential crisis of genetic interests, then rights must go out the window and the pure ethic applied (whether the current racial crisis for Whites currently merits designation as such an existential crisis I will for now leave to the reader to decide).  Now, one can point out a problem here; going back to my “we’re all in the same boat” argument, what if another group decides that they are in an existential racial genetic interest crisis, and then applies the pure ethic in competition against us Whites?  Two replies.  First, we should always be prepared to defend ourselves against any eventuality (realistically, apart from ourselves and our own tendencies for self-destruction, including ethnonationalist lunacies, the only real long-term threat comes from certain Asiatics); second, if we practice universal nationalism, then we shouldn’t provoke other groups into viewing us as pushing them into an existential crisis (these other groups should have equal awareness not to push us, but they do not seem to have that awareness, taking advantage of current White [mental] weakness to bully our genetic interests).

Let us move on. Salter then considers three important questions, the answers to which are summarized in his Table 9.2, and can thus be discussed with equal brevity here.  Can it be moral for EGI to frustrate other interests?  The pure adaptive utilitarian ethic says yes.  The mixed ethic says yes, but only in defense of EGI or in a competitive expansion that preserves the existence and the genetic continuity of the competitor.  The rights-centered ethic says no.  Should genetic interests, including EGI have absolute priority? The pure ethic: yes. Mixed: no, if EGI conflicts with individual rights (here a compromise needs to be made; this does not mean foregoing EGI, but pursuing EGI, and other genetic interests, in a manner reasonably constrained by other considerations).  The rights ethic: no (only “means” matter, not the consequences). What is the right action when genetic interests conflict?  Pure adaptive utilitarianism: compete within adaptive limits; tights can be ignored, but do not engage in conflict that would destroy yourself as well (net genetic interests!).  Mixed ethic: compete but respect rights. “Live and let live.”  Rights: stop competing, because you are causing harm.  Salter then considers freedom and EGI: the ultimate freedom is that of being allowed to pursue genetic interests, including EGI, equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  This last part is important, as, again, some of Salter’s critics lie about his alleged support for “genetic stasis” – here Salter agrees with Hamilton’s blunt statement that equality of fitness is impossible.  That of course does not entail genocide against others, or allowing genocide to your own group, or engaging in wild transhumanist schemes to radically change genomes over short time periods, but some genetic change, including eugenics, is consistent with EGI, and completion between groups, constrained by adaptive limits and by basic right, is also legitimate.  If we then accept adaptive utilitarianism, we must accept competition, unequal outcomes, and the fact that, unlike some utopian and non-biological versions of utilitarianism, we realize that “not all utilities are in harmony.”

But we must have the freedom to pursue genetic interests, including EGI, and resist those who would deny us that freedom.  After all, it’s ethical to so pursue, and it is ethical to resist those who would prevent that pursuit.

Notes:

*Likewise, a fair society would have equality of opportunity for education and career advancement, but should not force equality of outcome (which racial and sexual affirmative action attempts); this attempt at social engineering is incompatible with real social and technical progress.  The same principle applies, in evolutionary terms, with attempts to engineer equal fitness outcomes.

**While Salter frames his arguments within the framework of rationality and the Anglosphere empiricist tradition, he also approvingly quotes D.S. Wilson, who concludes:

“It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.”  

That comes after Wilson stated: “Adaption is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought.”

Indeed, if “irrational’ calls to “national greatness,” palingenetic ultra-nationalism, or Yockey’s “actualizing a High Culture” and Imperium idea motivates for defense of EGI, so be it.  We cannot at the same time praise Wilson’s comments and then, for example, criticize aspects of “fascism” for not always following “objective truths” in ever nitpicking detail.

Advertisements

EGI and National Socialism, Part II

Further analysis of this issue.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes some comments about National Socialism, and fascism more generally, from the standpoint of EGI.  It’s worth looking at those.

Salter has some positive things to say about National Socialism: “…a revitalized social policy, full employment, rapid economic growth, an egalitarian class structure, and the salvaging of national pride…” as well as “economic and health benefits” that flowed from its “biological orientation.” But the “crimes” of National Socialism are such that OGI suggests that “an ethnicised constitution” should be abandoned if it necessarily led to such “crimes.”

National Socialism is criticized by Salter for having a sort of “mystical” conception of ethnic and racial differences, a non-scientific and non-statistical belief of completely disjunctive ethnic distinctions – considering (closely related) groups akin to different species.  Thus, Germans are Aryan supermen while Poles are subhumans, even though, particularly on the global scale, these two groups are actually quite similar (albeit not identical, there are differences at the group level – albeit with individual overlap).  Salter instead suggests a “demystified set of propositions based on objective truths revealed by science, truths concerning group identity and group interests, equally valid for all ethnies”  While I essentially agree with Salter, three points: (1) the “movement” as it currently exists really does not care much for such scientific “objective truths;” (2) related to point one, people are often motivated to act – including in their genetic interest  by more irrational ideals; and (3) noting stops an enlightened fascism from incorporating scientific objective truths, if it has the right leadership (although irrational emotion may also be used to motivate the masses…and perhaps the elites as well).

Salter criticizes fascism in general had having defective political institutions, which failed to prevent elite free-riding or constrained ethnic mobilization.  Thus, fascist elites used the escalation of ethnic and national tensions to consolidate their own power, selfishly putting the long-term genetic continuity and social stability of their people at risk for personal gain – or so Salter asserts. That fascist – especially National Socialist – regimes perhaps went too far with ethnic mobilization, overshooting the mark and starting wars with genetically similar neighboring ethnies, is a historical fact.  Salter considers fascism to be a “mass strategic blunder” – a “misdirected and overblown investment by citizens in their ethnies that forced other nations to unite against them.”  There’s some truth to that, but it’s really particularly rue only of Hitler’s Germany, not of fascist movements in general. Salter criticizes Hitler’s quixotic and destructive military adventures, to steal land from others to recreate some sort of Aryan medieval peasant society; without, as Salter asserts, democratic restraints, Hitler was able to force through his vision to the long-term detriment of his own people (and closely related European ethnies).

Essentially, Hitler’s regime was, according to Salter, a genetic interest over-inflated “bubble” (just like an over-heated stock market “bubble”) that burst, leaving Germans (and all other Europeans) worse off than before.  Salter writes: “an economic analogy is the speculative bubble, which can occur anywhere in the fitness portfolio, though risk rises steeply as fitness concentration declines.”  Salter identifies the historic manifestations of fascism in Germany and Italy as such bubbles: “Fascism is an over-investment in national interests at the cost of individual and foreign group interests.”

Salter’s graphs of alternative fitness portfolios shows National Socialism as sacrificing individual and human interests for an inflated investment in ethny; radial Christianity and communism sacrifice all for “humanity” – while of course we know that multiculturalism sacrifices the majority for minority interests.

Thus, while Salter criticizes fascism, he of course has perhaps even more harsh words for Marxism, which sacrificed the blood of its peoples not even to pursue group ethnic interests, but in the service of an anti-biological crazed humanism gone beyond any sane and reasonable limits.  It’s that same impulse that is destroying the West and tis peoples today.  And of course Salter would disapprove of a radical Christianity that ignores EGI; his opposition to multiculturalism as it is practiced by the System is of course well known.

There is some truth to Salter’s criticisms.  However, there is more to “fascism” than the bellicose policies of a Hitler or Mussolini. Other fascisms were more concentrated on improving native interests on the home front, without grant military adventuress abroad.  One could cite Codreanu’s movement in Romania, or fascist manifestations in, say, Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Norway, and the Baltic States.  Even the fascist movements of France and Britain more, at most, concerned with preserving already existing empire built by non-fascist (and even democratic) regimes; those fascisms had no grand schemes of fresh foreign conquests, particularly not against closely related European ethnies.  Thus, one need not correlate fascism with any speculative bubble defined by over-investment in narrow ethny resulting in individual sacrifices in wars to despoil other peoples.  I also note that democracies are not shy about mobilizing individuals to fight for the greater glory of both “principles” (typically humanistic) as well as the class interests of the wealthy.  One can find speculative bubbles in many ideologies, and, indeed as Salter states, throughout the fitness portfolio.

One could easily envision “fascism” that is scientifically accurate, based on objective truths (perhaps spiced up with some mass-mobilizing “irrationality”), so that’s not a major impediment to actualizing such regimes in a manner consistent with long term stability of genetic interests.  More to the point is the problem of defective political institutions, manifested in elite free-riding and runaway ethnic mobilization unrestrained by so-called “democratic checks and balances.”

Democratic institutions, which are favored in OGI, are hardly immune to some of the other defects attributed to fascist regimes.  Elite free-riding is a permanent fixture in liberal democracies, and is in fact one major driving force for the dispossession of Western peoples.  The elite Right globalists want cheap labor at the expense of the majority ethny, while the Left globalists essentially want to “elect a new people” based on mass immigration, so as to consolidate their own hold on power. In multicultural democracies, minority groups free ride on the majority; in more homogenous democratic nations, elite free-riding is both political and socioeconomic.  Runaway ethnic mobilization?  Certainly for minorities in multicultural states.  When the same elites – both native and alien – control all major political parties and control all the major levers of power, then “democratic institutions” are useless.  One could speculate that an “ethnic constitution” could obviate some of these difficulties – but good luck getting that done in the current “democratic” System.  Even so, if there is something fundamentally corrupt about democracy that causes elite free-riding (mendaciously masked as “free elections”), then perhaps an “ethnic constitution” or an “ethnic culture” (another option in OGI) would not be sufficient.

Getting back to national socialist-style fascist regimes, one can ask: can the problem of defective political institutions be solved?  I think yes, if we presume that the “fuhrer principle” is not an essential feature of such regimes.  One could them consider authoritarian/totalitarian political structures that can have checks and balances (e.g. the Soviet regime had power split between Party, KGB, and Army –with Stalin being an aberration) and be responsive to the (properly informed) will of the people.  I have always been intrigued by Fest’s talk of “totalitarian democracy” in his book on Hitler; point is, we can consider “fascism” broadly conceived as a flexible, living ideology and not as a fossilized, history artifact.  In this way, national socialist political structures can be envisioned that can control elite free-riders and constrain ethnic mobilization within reasonable limits. One need not resort to democracy – which has been discredited with the destructive evil of multiculturalism and mass migration – to ensure the stability of any future EGI-based regime.

The Alt Fail

Navel-gazing ideological contortions.

One wonders how Andrew Joyce squares his recent series on homosexuality (*) with this expression of tolerance.

It would seem that AltRight.com’s current crusade against homosexuality is to a large extent informed by their feud with Counter-Currents.  But let’s give the other side equal attention.  Greg Johnson’s crusade for ethnonationalism, and crusade against pan-Europeanism, which came as an unpleasant surprise to me (who considered him to have been a pan-Europeanist), mysteriously coincided with the deterioration in his relations with Richard Spencer.  Memes in the service of personal animus, it seems.

Feuds between “movement” leaders is a “grand tradition” – one can remember Pierce-Carto and Pierce-Covington, but in those cases, the disagreements were personal/tactical.  The situation in which “movement leaders” actually take ideological stands on important issues merely to spite each other is totally unprecedented.  Yes, it seems that “youth culture” is indeed a key component of the Alt Right scene: narcissistic, feckless, and juvenile.

On a related note (emphasis added):

However, more important is understanding how a far-right movement operates, organizes and functions. This is invaluable for finding the most effective strategies for opposing and undermining them. I spent hundreds of hours with these people and came away with a real understanding of what drives their activism, the tactics they seek to use, and what they were planning to do. This allows Hope Not Hate to always be one step ahead, and to plan responses and opposition earlier than anyone else.

But don’t forget…the problem is not with the outrageously irresponsible, feckless, imprudent, failed leadership that allowed an effeminate homosexual anti-racist infiltrator to joyride through the “movement” for a year with a tragicomically flimsy cover story while legitimate activists were frozen out of meetings because of “extreme vetting.”  No, the problem is with anyone who states that there should be some accountability for this pathetic failure of common sense and good judgment – or so say our “betters” among “movement leadership.”  I guess when faced with the possibility of the panhandling donations running dry, hysteria ensues.  Too bad they weren’t more hysterical with basic operational security.

*Before someone accuses me of being “queer,” I’ll say I’m in general agreement with Joyce (excepting the Christian apologetics and the idea that Tacitus was a historian in the modern sense, instead of in the ancient sense – a story-telling propagandist), but more nuanced.  However, my view remains that if someone is homosexual but is pro-White, and if they acknowledge that homosexuality is a defect, and if they “stay in the closet,” then tolerance could be given.  In On Genetic Interests, Salter asserts that homosexuals should actually be very pro-extended family and pro-ethny, given they have a greater genetic interest investment in broader circles of relatedness, as most of them do not have children of their own.  If a homosexual actually behaved in that fashion (most do not, including some “anti-natalists” masquerading as WNs), then some degree of societal tolerance could be acceptable.  That doesn’t preclude personal disgust and the acknowledgment that overt homosexuality, celebrated by society, has the pernicious effects described by Joyce.

EGI and National Socialism, Part I

Several definitions and an analysis.

Defining national socialism (small “n” small “s”): A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.


A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.


Note that, contrary to those who misread Salter’s work, a pursuit of genetic interests is wholly compatible with eugenics (which is traditionally important in national socialism), since a population’s fitness can be enhanced by replacing maladaptive, or even merely less adaptive, alleles with those more optimal. They key in preserving genetic interests in a manner compatible with eugenics is to avoid unnecessarily large and rapid genetic changes; when directed (eugenic) change occurs it should be “just enough” to get achieve the desired goal (and no further)  Superfluous changes and, certainly, large-scale genetic replacement, must be avoided.


In On Genetic Interests, Salter is critical of historical National Socialism and Fascism as vehicles for genetic interests, and his criticisms have some validity.  In particular, Hitler was a reckless gambler with the genetic interests of the German people, endangering long-term stability in a quixotic quest to colonize Eastern Europe and set up a Germanic archaeo-futurist peasant society on the lands of Russia and Ukraine.


However, the historical actualization , in a given place in a given time, by flawed leadership, of particular political philosophies does not logically lead one to conclude that the underlying political philosophy itself is either good or bad for a specific purpose. What political philosophy extant since WWII has proven itself capable of preserving Western genetic interests?  None.  One can also point out that certain inter-war fascisms, such as Condreanu’s Legionary movement, were not based in a foundation of hegemonic militarism, but were rather focused on internal renewal and thus did not characterize reckless gambling with national genetic interests.  So to my mind national socialism/fascism, correctly implemented, are still “in the running” as political systems capable of promoting EGI.

What about the argument that these “extreme” political philosophies are unrealistic, that “the average White person won’t accept them.”   Let’s be realistic, and not the crazed dreamers mocked by Roger Griffin in his works on fascism.  The most minimal objectives of racial nationalism – even stringent ethnonationalism – are today completely unrealistic and would be rejected by the large majority of Whites.  However, if – and that is a big if – these objectives could ever be realized, it would be during and after a period of extreme crisis, a collapse (slow or fast, partial or complete) of the System, a situation in which Whites driven to the wall by dispossession and the hostility of the now-decaying System, would be willing to listen to reason.  At this time, the sheeple will be considerably less picky about what forms of government they would, or would not, be willing to accept.  Also keep in mind Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” admonition – if the tenets of national socialism are actualized under some other name, fine, if it’s called Futurist Collectivism or Western Patriotism or Klassen’s Racial Socialism, or something else entirely, all well and good.  And if the lemmings are at such a condition they would not care if they rallied behind overtly named national socialism, all well and good as well.


This discussion will most likely continue in future posts.

Defending Universal Nationalism

Typical “movement” stupidity.

“The universal nationalist believes that one can make a case for White Nationalism that would be compelling enough, “reasonable” enough, “fair” enough to garner support from each of these biologically distinct groups.

This is absolute, unfettered nonsense.  Universal nationalism is meant as a meme for Whites, not an attempt to plead with others for our right to exist. That many – most? – Whites are so Universalist in their natural mindset that they require universalism to intrude into nationalism is a fact that needs to be dealt with.  Blame all those “high trust hunter gatherers” that the HBD faction is so fond of babbling about.  But don’t blame those who understand that the rhetoric of universal nationalism has an appeal to the innate fair mindedness of White folks.

Universal nationalism is fully compatible with “doing what it takes” to secure racial survival.  There is nothing in Salter’s book that suggests we need to care what happens to Burma or invest any energy in fighting their battles. Salterism says we need to invest in OURSELVES, while, at the same time, granting the Burmese the same right to do so. We are under no obligation to help them.  Of course, “universal nationalism” would tell us that attempts to genocide the Burmese, to colonize them, etc. is morally wrong, so, yes, On Genetic Interests is not compatible with The Turner Diaries – but I thought that the “American New Right” eschewed Pierce’s genocidal fantasies, even independent of Salter?

If the author of this piece (did he actually read Salter’s book?) is so exercised over WNs wasting their time worrying about others, then go over to the Alt Right and chastise them about their obsession with Assad of Syria.  I for one – a “universal nationalist” – really could care less about Syrians – apart from that they do not belong in White nations and that the West should not interfere with whatever civil war goes on there.  They can all kill each other off, for all I care. That’s my version of “universal nationalism.”

See the sensible comments by “Leon” in the comments thread as well.

I can’t speak for Salter, but he has every right to be annoyed at the typically doltish reception his work has received from the imbecilic “movement.”  Also interesting is that when self-styled “racial preservationists” make (in my opinion transparently disingenuous) appeals for a Universalist approach for “preserving all peoples’ no one bats an eye or utters a word of criticism. Let an academic write a book on genetic interests in which “universal nationalism” is suggested as a broad operating principle, and then it is all some sort of big problem.  In reality, “universal nationalism” is merely giving others the opportunity to defend their interests, whether they successfully do so or not is their problem.  Now, if helping others can be done without harming your own interests, fine, we can all afford to be generous, but there is no obligation to help others at your own expense.

Salter-Woodley Podcast

Troubling dysgenic decline.

This video is a very interesting podcast from 2016 between Drs. Salter and Woodley concerning the real trends in changing population IQ.  While IQ is not a topic I often discuss, it is important, and is a topic that is tainted by pseudoscience from both the Left as well as the Right.  I do not know much about Woodley, but he sounds like a solid and honest academic from this podcast, so let’s consider some major points (as an aside – I wish more such excellent podcasts like this would be made by Salter).

First, we are in the midst of a troubling dysgenic decline in real IQ – perhaps as much as approximately one IQ point per decade.

Second, it is interesting that some of the more “culture-loaded” IQ tests are the most heritable, suggesting gene-culture ties.

Third, the Flynn effect mantra of the Left is put into its proper perspective, as something not measuring raw heritable g-loaded IQ, and in fact obscuring the reality of a dysgenic loss of IQ that is causing a relative decline in the production of geniuses, scientific/technical innovations, and important cultural artifacts.

Fourth, allegedly “fair” IQ tests like Raven’s are not so “fair” at all, and not as g-loaded as presumed. Although not mentioned in this podcast, if Raven’s is not “fair” do you suppose PISA test scores are?  The pseudoscience is, as mentioned above, from the Right as well as the Left.

Fifth, although I’m not much interested in sports, the fact that reaction times have been slowing over the past century provides food for thought – thought indirectly linked to racial activism since the “bread and circuses” masses love sports, and thus sports, as part of mass pop culture, affects the race-culture problem.

I note there is a rough correlation between sociopolitical views and ideas about athletic performance over time.  Those on the Left are more prone to “overrate the present” and lionize (mostly Colored) modern athletes as far superior to the (mostly White) athletes of the past. Those on the Right are less likely to casually dismiss the “traditional sports heroes” of the past.

Now, if reaction times are really slowing, then what can we say about athletic performance in sports in which reaction time is important – hitting a baseball for example (or boxing or hockey)? It puts into question leftist assumptions rooted in jock sniffing the Negro athlete. The components of performance related to reaction time – fundamental for some sports – would seem to be declining, not improving, over time.

Indeed, reaction times differ by race, with Negroes being the slowest, which again makes one question whether the Negro athlete of today is superior to the White athlete of the past (and, of course, intra-racial White-White cross-era comparisons of declining reaction time question leftist assumptions about sports as well).  One can make counter-arguments that athletes do not represent the overall population, and that Victorian England was one specific sample, and that of course other factors than reaction time are important in athletic performance, etc. but still, the idea is provocative.  The Caste Football pro-White sports types probably need to look into the implications of declining reaction times in making cross-era sports comparisons, implications favorable to a narrative of a Golden Age of White American sports.

In any case, getting back to the main topic, the loss of IQ, coupled with the worsening racial situation (increases in the population of the dumbest races) means that dark (in all meanings of that word) times are ahead for humanity, unless these trends can be arrested and then reversed.