Category: TOQ

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.

Ted Sallis Interviews Mike Rienzi!

A Memorial Day special.

Millennials and Generation Zers like to pontificate about how very much superior they are to “Boomers” and to Generation Xers, and yet, in reality, the absolutely laughable cluelessness of these younger types is matched only by their overweening attitude of self-importance.

As an example of such cluelessness:

Cornelius • 6 hours ago
I am 25. Can we all just stop and think about how Thomas Jackson, the author of this article, has been writing for American Renaissance…for 20 YEARS. He has been writing articles like this since before AmRen went online. That is very cool. And let me just applaud Thomas Jackson for his persistent work for our people, for laying the groundwork for future generations of Europeans. Bravo!

Yes, indeed, that is “very cool.”  Just like the fine work of Trevor Lynch at Counter-Currents and The Unz Review. Jackson and Lynch are so impressive – so very, very cool – that I’m sure “Cornelius” would like both Thomas Jackson and Trevor Lynch to be interviewed on podcasts about their work and how they got involved with Amren and Counter-Currents, respectively. Bravo!  Hip Hip Hooray!

In like manner, I present here an online interview I conducted with Mike Rienzi of the late lamented Legion Europa site, and who used to write for Amren and TOQ as well.

Sallis: Welcome Mr. Rienzi.  I just want to say how honored I am to be interviewing you; you are a giant among activists, a veritable genius!

Rienzi: I wish I could say the same about you, Ted, but you’re just crazy and bitter, a low information moralizer if I ever saw one.  And are you even White?

Sallis:  Off-White, then.  More of a Beige, I suppose. Now, sir, let’s discuss the failure of Legion Europa.

Rienzi: What is there to discuss? You just can’t compete with affirmative action.  Is there any difference with EGI Notes?

Sallis: It is all one.

Rienzi: Thus and so.

Sallis: And I know that you were interviewed by Robert Griffin for One Sheaf One Vine.  I must say, sir, that your experiences were remarkably similar to mine.

Rienzi: We have much in common, no doubt.

Sallis:  Didn’t you once meet William Pierce, just like I did?

Rienzi:  Yes, indeed, I did meet Pierce.  In fact, I met you there as well.  We met with Pierce together, don’t you remember?

Sallis: Yes, quite right.  You are correct. I think we both made a mighty fine impression on Pierce, although possibly he thought that both of us were full-blooded Negroes, Nigerians straight off the plane.

Rienzi: Is that why he offered both of us bananas to eat?

Sallis: And then Hadley grabbed one and ran off with it.  I didn’t know cats ate bananas.

Rienzi: We are getting off topic here.

Sallis: Well, I guess that means we are at the end of our interview. Perhaps we can follow up in a podcast?

Rienzi: Yes, but only as long as you invite JW Holliday who used to write for Majority Rights.

Sallis: I’ll get right on it. He may be a bit hard to find though.  I’ll ask “Cornelius” for some advice on that.

Support Glen Allen and Other Issues

In der news.

MacDonald and I are in perfect accord here.

Let’s see.  You can donate to support Allen’s suit, a fight against pure evil:

Beirich, Potok, et al. don’t even pretend to engage in honest debate and the free flow of ideas. Atty. Allen quotes Potok: “We see this [as a] political struggle, right? … I mean, we’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head, … we are trying to destroy them.” And in this case, the attempt to destroy Allen goes far beyond ethical and legal norms — not surprising given the SPLC’s sordid history of using smear tactics and hypocrisy (Section 31) as well as their dedication to fund-raising far beyond what they actually use to further their causes (Section 27).

Or you can support this.

Your choice.

The current crop of Counter-Currents writers are so bad, so superficial, so mediocre, that they make John Morgan sound like the voice of reason and maturity in comparison. 

Note also how the site is converging onto an Amren-VDARE HBD conservatism position.  Derb snug in his hobbit hole – with Madame “Rosie” throwing him some crumbs if he behaves.  “White advocates” and their “sweet business deals.”  The Brimelows and their tin cup poster children. What a shame.

More on this.

KMacD admits the Trump cheerleading – but where is the accountability?  Spencer is correct that the Republican Party is the major enemy and must be destroyed in order to break the logjam of cul-de-sac stagnation politics.  He is dishonest, or ignorant, when he says we were ALL on the Trump bandwagon, as readers of this blog know full well.  But, his overall instinct here is better than GOP-lover Quinn (see above) at the HBD-Conservative mainstreaming Counter-Currents site. The Sallis Strategy – destroy the cuckservative GOP. I laugh at the delusion of these Alt Righters that they are somehow responsible for Trump’s victory.  It’s exactly the opposite – the Trump campaign energized the idiotic Pepe-Kek brigade.

On the one hand, I agree with some of what Spencer said about optics.  But, on the other hand, his arrogance about his critics is just too much.  Yes, Rich, you are taller and a more successful womanizer than Anglin, better-looking than Weev, and more heroic than Vaughn.  Now, please concentrate on wisdom, maturity, judgment, and persistence, to complete the picture. Also a better understanding of the link between prominence and responsibility/accountability would help as well.

Another thing – according to Greg Johnson, Spencer is a terrible human being, unethical, destructive to the “movement,” etc., and he has no patience for supporters and enablers of Spencer.  So, what does he have to say about Edwards and MacDonald positively engaging Spencer in this podcast?

This is not “Sallis being a troublemaker.”  This is an important question of character and moral ethics.  Consider a group of prominent dissidents.  Person A publicly and repeatedly reviles Person B, attacking B’s morals, character, behavior, and contributions to the cause; Person A also accuses Person B of being involved in personal smears against A.  Thus, A is 100% against B.  Very well.  But then Persons C, D, etc. come in, freely associate with B, give B a platform, and take B seriously as a leader, fully enabling B and what B stands for. Now, what is going to be Person A’s position vis-à-vis Persons C and D, etc.?  Consider further Person A establishing a record of being intolerant of criticism, even from third parties who have no connection whatsoever to Person B.  Is A going to look the other way regarding the B-C-D association?  Is it all “politics” with no ethical considerations involved?  I realize that I may be an overly idealistic, and non-pragmatically apolitical moralpath, but how can anyone take A and his attitude toward B seriously if A ignores all of the above?

I see this as an important issue.  

Sallis right gain: I’ve been saying for years that Trump needs to stop the jackass tweets and do televised addresses.  The good news is that he did it and, surprisingly, didn’t make a total fool of himself.  The bad news is that he, expectedly, did a mediocre job of it.

A very true statement:

China, for example, doesn’t develop weapons; it copies designs stolen from others.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, and steal.  Steal and copy, copy and steal.

But the Chinese can do a lot with that stolen and copied technology, particularly as the West collapses under the weight of “diversity” and moral qualms about using the technology. Further, the West is hobbled by the attitudes of Luddite freaks like Tolkien and all those who fetishize “traditionalism.”

The Zman:

Eric Hoffer made the observation that people involved in causes never reach a point where they say the cause has achieved its goals and therefore can disband and cease its activities. For example, anti-smoking zealots have accomplished all that can be accomplished, yet they persist.

Yes, because as we know, no one smokes any more.  As we know, no one is ever again going to die of smoking-affected disease.  As we know, you can never again have that wonderful experience of walking down the street after someone smoking and be asphyxiated by their noxious fumes.

More of the Marching Movement

In all cases, emphasis added.

Traditionalism:

HungarianFashionista

Posted January 5, 2019 at 6:08 am | Permalink

Lajos Kassai, one of the intellectual leaders of the Hungarian Right says this: someone’s true race is shown by the kind of archetypal image that stirs his soul. So true. Show me a sandy beach with palm trees, or an image of a rainforest, and to me, it could be on another planet. Show me Mediterranean or Nordic images, and I say, “Hm, nice”. But when I see an image of the steppe, it feels like coming home. I’m a descendant of White people who did not migrate to the West.

Hey, I like outer space images; hence, I’m a Martian.

And, we can ask – are there any hobbit holes on the steppe?  Well, hamsters and gerbils live on the steppe, with their snug burrows, so I suppose a Hungarian traditionalist can be snug in his steppe hobbit hole as well.

The Zman:

The Greeks are a bit different. I think it is because the West has so much more respect for the Greeks than the Romans. Maybe it is the fact the Greeks never conquered the world, like the Romans.

The history books I have read have left out the Roman conquest of Germania, Scandinavia, Scotland and Ireland, Eastern Europe, the rest of Asia other than the Near East, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas, the Pacific Islands, etc.  Perhaps Mr. Zman can recommend a history text to us where those events are properly chronicled.

And the West will respect people who conquered less?  Maybe the West should have done a bit less colonization then?

I think we should have Carlson 2020 rather than anyone else.  But, hey, Tuck, it’s race and civilization, not “happiness.”

I recently watched the 1998 Moby Dick miniseries starring Patrick Stewart.  Very well done – it is recommended. Ahab is the ultimate Moralpath, and the story is a warning that pure moralpathy unleavened with pragmatism can lead to disaster.  On the other hand, pure pragmatism is doomed to failure and utter stagnation – it is worthless. Even further on the other hand, however destructive Ahab’s obsession turned out to be, it is much better than cowardly hiding from life and from the inexorable march to the future by hiding “snug in one’s hobbit hole,” letting other races do what Whites once dared.

I essentially agree with this.  The memes are more important than the source.  And that’s something the thin-skinned, hysterically womanish quota queens can never understand with their cordon sanitaire around EGI Notes.

An expert on female behavior tells us what’s what.  Next – commentary from Pee Wee Herman about weightlifting.

Maybe this is explained by all those “British Asians,” eh, Silkers?  I don’t understand why the HBD VDARE site has any problem with this.  Isn’t the lowly White subaltern race supposed to serve their “high, high-IQ” Oriental masters?  Maybe throw in some “measured groveling,” as well – right Derb?

The answer: Either Trump is the most incompetent, lazy, and low-energy President in US history, or he simply doesn’t care (or actually secretly supports the invasion).

But, hey, let’s not forget the Quota Kings (Coulter) and Queens: In Trump We Trust, the God Emperor, the last chance for White America, an American Caesar who will save White demographics.

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Sallis in 2015: Trump is a fraud and a vulgar, ignorant buffoon.

Sallis – right, right, he’s always right.

How does a bearded man in a red pickup truck transform into a red-bearded man?

Can TOQ Live host Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson together?  Seriously.  Let them actually debate, instead of sniping.  Also, if TOQ is interested in “academic” style material, my recent refutation of leftist misinterpretations of Lewontin would fit the bill.  Ball in your court, gentlemen.  

Three Times Sallis Has Been Wrong

Three errors of judgment.

I criticize the quota queens for never admitting when they are (constantly) wrong, and long time readers of this blog know that, in contrast, I openly admit when I am (very rarely) wrong.

For newer readers, I will now openly admit three examples of Sallisian error.

1. I was wrong about Trump’s election; I freely admit that I paid too much attention to Establishment opinion polling and “spin.” Mea culpa.

2. I was also wrong in thinking that Der Movement could be a vehicle for pursuing White racial interests: I was proven very wrong in this, as discussed in my “After Twenty Years” post.  In my defense, I had realized that the “movement” had serious problems as far back as around the year 2000 (or even earlier),and the Legion Europa project of the early 2000s was an attempt to offer an alternative, but that failed.  I was foolish in retrospect, however, to think that, after this failure, Der Movement could be reformed from within.  It is beyond redemption.

3. I was wrong as well to believe that various “movement” “isms” could be compatible, so that ethnonationalists and Nordicists could also be, at the same time, pan-European, with a nested set of interests – focusing primarily on their more narrow ingroup if they so chose, but still showing interest in, and solidarity with, the broader European population.  Subsequent history has proven me to be in error.  This was a mistake on my part, an error in judgment.

In my defense with respect to this, in theory it is possible for ethnonationalists and Nordicists to also be pan-European, if they are rational in their “isms” and view relatedness in a concentric manner.

But that’s theory.  In reality, in the real world, with irrational people, with fetishists and their dogma, it is practically not possible.  If I was less naive, I would have realized that, so that is another black mark against my judgment.

Now, if you believe that these errors of judgment disqualify me as a dependable commentator, that is certainly your right, but you must then also admit that:

A. I, unlike Der Movement’s “leadership,” am at least able to admit when I’m wrong.

B. If my rare errors are disqualifying, then the quota queens’ constant errors must be an order of magnitude more disqualifying, unless of course they have affirmative action protections in this regard.


Fundamental difference: the rare times I am wrong, I openly admit it; the endless times Der Movement is wrong, its “activists” and “leaders” won’t admit it, not one single time.

Genetic Variation and Environmental Interactions

Genetic variation and environment.

Of interest, re: genetics, culture, and race, I note this methodology paper:

Identifying interactions between genetics and the environment (GxE) remains challenging. We have developed EAGLE, a hierarchical Bayesian model for identifying GxE interactions based on associations between environmental variables and allele-specific expression. Combining whole-blood RNA-seq with extensive environmental annotations collected from 922 human individuals, we identified 35 GxE interactions, compared with only four using standard GxE interaction testing. EAGLE provides new opportunities for researchers to identify GxE interactions using functional genomic data.                    

Basic findings were that environmental risk factors (e.g., substance abuse, exercise, BMI) can interact with genetic variation and affect gene expression. But the effects were modest, these were not large influences compared to other possible (e.g., additive) effects, and may have been affected by confounding factors (a possible problem when probing interactions for which there can be many variables).  In addition, some of the observed effects may have been in part epigenetic, presumably modifications due to environmental factors, rather than interactions between those factors and gene sequence variation itself.

On the one hand, the effects, being modest, cannot plausibly be invoked by anti-genetic determinists to prop up environment as the primary factor affecting gene expression (and, hence, eventual phenotype).  On the other hand, effects were observed, and these cannot be dismissed.  Of interest would be effects and interactions due to environmental factors other than those cited above.

Can culture, through its many manifestations, shaping the environment, interact with genetic variation to affect gene expression and, thus, phenotypic outcomes?  Would different ethnic and racial groups, characterized by group-specific genetic variation, exhibit variable gene expression when immersed in the same cultural environment?  Conversely, would genetically similar individuals and groups exhibit altered gene expression when placed in radically different cultural environments?  

And this goes beyond the more fundamental observation that genes affect culture (through the different phenotypes of culture creators, maintainers, or destroyers) and, conversely, culture can actually affect genetic variation itself (rather than just interact with it) by exerting selective pressure favoring one genotype over another.  Gene-culture cross-talk, if you will. See this old TOQ paper I wrote some time ago for more on that topic. Also, epigenetic effects, mentioned above, are another way in which culture can affect gene expression, but not to the extent, or in the manner, than the anti-determinists fervently hope.  The basic foundation for all of this is genetic variation; there is no evading that inconvenient (for some people) truth.

In summary, all of this bolsters the importance of genetic variation and, hence, genetic interests.  It also shows how reckless the globalists are in their indiscriminate mixing of genes and cultures (in Western nations).

Social Epistasis

This ranks among the most important sets of work I have reviewed.

I do not want to be churlish, so I’ll admit that I was alerted about this paper through the website Chateau Heartiste (ironically, since the nihilistic hedonism of “game” contributes to the problems outlined in the paper).

The paper is more of a HBD-style analysis, not my usual “cup of tea,” but is nevertheless useful since it an effective counter to atomized individualism of all types – the rightist libertarian form, the anti-Salterian HBD form that asserts that (for Whites) only individual and family interests matter and that the ethny is irrelevant, the leftist form in which extreme individualism is promoted with respect to ethny but hypocritically collectivism is promoted with respect to humanity as a whole.

I have read the paper, which can be seen to have a rightist perspective, and even cites the work of Kevin MacDonald.  Indeed, with sections on “pathological altruism” and “free-riding” it almost reads as something one would find at The Occidental Observer or EGI Notes, or perhaps something written by Frank Salter.  What are its major points?

Mutational load increases from generation to generation as a consequence of normal biological processes, and this is exacerbated by the tendency, in Western populations, for people to become parents later in age, since gamete mutations increase with age. Note that when these mutations exert a phenotypic effect, in the great majority of cases the effects will be negative. In order to avoid “mutational meltdown” as a consequence of accumulation of deleterious alleles, purifying selection is required, and in theory such selection would require that the vast majority of the population not reproduce (with the more genetically healthy remainder making up the population shortfall via increased reproduction).  The authors suggest that a numerically more realistic solution would be a form of “cryptic” purifying selection, in which those who have a greater mutational load are less likely to reproduce and/or have less children if they do reproduce, than those with fewer mutations (not necessarily and “all or nothing” situation but more of relatively suppressed fitness consequent to a heavier mutational load).  The authors cite evidence that increasing parental age – resulting in increased numbers of mutations carried by sperm – result in offspring more likely to have behavioral defects or decreased physical attractiveness.  Given that the authors suggest that sexual selection in mate choice can be a honest assessment of genetic quality (one can quibble with this in modern society in which women sometimes prefer low-IQ colored “alpha male” brutes, but this quibble may actually be consistent with the authors’ belief that selection has been compromised in modern society), then over time higher mutational load would be selected out.  

Given that many genes – including mutated alleles – have pleiotropic effects (influencing multiple traits at the same time), this could be quite efficient, since selection exerted on any of the various traits would affect selection on those alleles causing a wide variety of negative phenotypes and selecting against all those phenotypes simultaneously. Conversely, I might add, this also helps by having the mutated alleles being targeted by selection at any one of several traits, increasing the probability of the allele in question being selected against, targeted as it is by convergent selective pressures generated by the interaction of the phenotypes with the environment.

In this scenario, only a minority of the population would have to go childless for this to work, and in the past, Western populations demonstrated a reproductive pattern (who mates, what children survive to adulthood), consistent with selection against excessive mutational load. However, the authors assert that this process has become short-circuited in modern society, in which most people mate and reproduce, and most children survive to adulthood, and that environmental, social, and cultural factors can alleviate some of the negative effects of mutational load (e.g., medications, medical care, cosmetics, etc.).  Thus, modern society does not effectively select against mutational load, but merely reduces the cost of that load on the affected individual.  Thus, a high-loaded person is not selected out of the population but is instead “propped up” by society’s infrastructure, reproducing, and adding to the load in the next generation.  This is not unexpected.  After all, the authors cite work with fruit flies that show that those strains with higher mutational load can suffer up to a 10-fold decrease in fitness in competitive environments compared to a lack of competition that selects against mutation. In modern society, in which “all life is valued,” which do you think holds?

On a purely anecdotal personal note, I’m amazed how frequently I see individuals derived from “Western populations” – usually younger people – who seem to reflect a high mutational load. I often observe individuals of ostensibly normal or even high intelligence who have the physical appearance of Down syndrome and who at the same time display semi-autistic behavior.  Also, the whole SJW “snowflake” phenomenon, particularly on college campuses, perhaps reflects behavioral aberrations derived from mutational loading. Extrapolating this genetic deterioration into the future leads one straight to idiocracy.  Even more extreme, a complete biological collapse, leading to human extinction, is possible.

What costs to society accrue based on this?  The authors cite suggestive evidence for declining quality of Western populations, including increases in the prevalence of autism and ADHD, increased skeletal asymmetry and left-handedness, the rise of obesity, and various medical abnormalities. Intriguingly, they also suggest that the “demographic transition” – the below replacement fertility of Western populations – may be not only due to cultural factors and “rational choice” mechanisms, but also due to changes in the “fitness characteristics of the group-level extended phenotype of modern populations” (emphasis in the original, and a phrase not out of place at this blog or the work of similarly-minded individuals) so that deleterious mutations accumulating from “ecological mildness” cause  =(directly or indirectly) “fertility transition” resulting in a “very rapid fitness collapse in Western populations…”  To put in bluntly: we created an advanced “ecologically mild” society that relaxed selection against the botched and unfit, resulting an aberrant extended phenotype at the group level, causing group extinction and race replacement.  

Since the authors bring up group selection, they then briefly discuss the “selfish gene” (Dawkins-HBDer view) vs. the “group selection” view, citing the issue of “free-riding” oft-discussed at this blog and also in the work of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald.  The authors reasonably support the idea of “multilevel selection” – in that in some cases selection works at the individual level (e.g.., in peacetime) and at other times at the group level (e.g., in warfare).  In today’s globalist world with a Clash of Civilizations, mass migration, and race replacement, guess which level is more relevant? Even though group selection is not required for EGI, the fact is that the world environment is such that group selection must be the predominant fitness mechanism extant today.

Next, the topic of social epistasis.  Epistasis typically describes gene-gene interactions within a single organism, while social epistasis describes such interactions taking place between organisms.  After a discussion of eusocial insects, the authors speculate on the human situation, and the possibility that human societies require particular forms of social epistasis for optimal function and maximal fitness. In healthy societies, high-status individuals generate and promote free-rider controls – e.g., religions and/or ideological systems that promote behavior that benefits the group and repress behaviors that selfishly benefit only the individual.  Behavior so cited include “ethnocentrism, martyrdom, and displays of commitment.”  Also important is so-called “effortful control” – the ability of humans to control their behavior and impulses so as to act to benefit the group.  On the other hand, mutations can break down the affinity of high-status individuals for the group – which I note we see today in the West with the complete treason of the elites against their own ethnies – thus “causing dysregulation of the group’s reproductive ecology” – hence the demographic trends we see today.  And although I myself am no fan of religion, I note the authors cite religion as a positive controlling force and postmodernist “individualistic, secular, and antihierarchical values” as negative. 

Of great importance is the emphasis the authors place on control of free-riding as a component of a healthy society exhibiting optimal function and fitness, and how breakdown of free-riding control, perhaps through mutational loading, reduces societal function and fitness.  Consider the importance given control of free–riding in the work of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald, and my support of their work, and draw your own conclusions as to the great validity of that work compared to its deluded or mendacious critics.

I also note that the authors mention “spiteful mutations” – having effects that harm others while not benefiting the individual possessing the mutation or even also harming that individual – as those which may act to remove constraints on free-riding.  Indeed, it is possible that the person with the free riding-enabling mutation is not the actual free-rider, and in fact the mutant individual may be harmed by the free-rider.  One can speculate here about White mutants that harbor spiteful mutations that enable Jewish/Colored/atomized White free-riding, thus harming all Whites, including the mutant Whites themselves.

Next on the agenda is a topic near and dear to our hearts: pathological altruism.  The authors state that “cultural disturbance” (i.e., the modern “West”) can promote “maladaptive personality traits” leading to pathological altruism and/or the removal of constraints on free-riding. Cited as examples are self-righteousness (cue the SJWs) and narcissism (indeed, the Dark Triad is invoked here as a problem, ironic given the forum from which this paper came to my attention).  One behavior in particular cited by the authors is the “clever silly phenomenon” of “virtue signaling” utilizing “counterfactual beliefs,” including the moralistic fallacy of “the conflation of moral equality among individuals, sexes, and populations with biological equality” (and the related moralistic fallacy of race denial).  

Indeed, the authors speculate that there may be an increased number of individuals in modern Western societies prone to spreading such silliness, and that “Machiavellians and narcissists” seem uniquely advantaged to achieve elite status in today’s world, thus further promoting memetic flotsam and jetsam. Thus we observe “elite egoists” encouraging “selfish behaviors” previously restrained by belief systems (e.g., religion).  Indeed, a feedback loop may exist where mutation directly or indirectly increases egoism; the egoists rise to influence, and then use their power to alter the sociocultural environment to “foster norms that are friendly to egoism and thus magnify opportunities for other egoists to obtain cultural capital.”  Sound familiar? (And we can cite an ethnic dimension to his – cue the work of Kevin MacDonald).  Included in this cultural capital are anti-natalistic memes (also found in the “movement”) and the related “morality of self-fulfillment.”  We can of course more directly cite the pathological altruism of cucked xenophilia, leading to mass migration and race replacement  Related to all of this is a loss of “effortful control,” so people lack the ability to retrain their destructive behavior.  

The authors include a figure at this point; the figure legend includes:

Flowchart illustrating the pathways through which accumulating deleterious mutations can suppress fitness. Mutations can reduce (as the minus sign indicates) intrinsic/genetic fitness directly, in addition to promoting (as the plus sign indicates) behavioral change. Behavioral change can further directly suppress individual-level fitness while simultaneously promoting the degradation of group-level regulatory processes (e.g., free-rider controls), via social epistasis. This degradation feeds back into fitness, both directly (via its direct effects on group-level fitness) and indirectly (via facilitation of further behavioral change) imposing additional costs on fitness. Behavioral change, resulting either directly from mutations or the breakdown of group-level regulatory processes, can also rebound on intrinsic fitness via its promotion of mutation accumulation.

This is followed by mathematical modeling demonstrating how the sizes of different populations can be altered as a result of carrying deleterious mutations.

Finally, in the Discussion, the authors quote another researcher who stated that “the brain is a particularly large mutational target” so that behavioral changes due to mutation are to be expected. Social epistasis is a vulnerable target for spiteful mutations, leading to significant depression of society fitness, as demonstrated by Western demographic decline, particularly among high-status, high-IQ individuals (remember that spiteful mutations can harm the fitness of those that carry them and not only harm others).  Modern society and its advancements have reduced selective pressure, allowing the spread of deleterious mutations and the consequent release of constraints on free-riding, reducing the optimal function of the group and greatly reducing group fitness.

The authors relate their thesis to Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments, and the parallels between the collapse of the mouse utopia and the collapse of the modern “West” are striking.  For example, the “decline phase” of the mouse utopia was characterized by the emergence of animals called the “beautiful ones” that exhibited “apparently bizarre behaviors” including “obsessive grooming, hyposociality, and asexuality.”  Let’s consider the human equivalents: metrosexuals, atomized Whites and the even more extreme anti-social autistic spectrum, and the rise of transgenderism and celibate beta males.  

The authors quote Calhoun concerning the spiritual and then physical death of the mouse utopia:

Autistic-like creatures, capable only of the most simple behaviors compatible with physiological survival, emerge out of this process. Their spirit has died (“the first death”). They are no longer capable of executing the more complex behaviors compatible with species survival. The species in such settings dies.

Behold the Death of the West.

The authors conclude that the issue of mutational load is a serious problem worthy of further study.  Indeed, it is, but is not the only problem that one can derive from a close reading of the paper.  

Related to the above is this paper, summarized here (*), the author summary of which is as follows (emphasis added, and you can read both papers yourself, as I am going to only very briefly discuss there here):

Daily interactions between individuals can influence their health both in positive and negative ways. Often the mechanisms mediating social effects are unknown, so current approaches to study social effects are limited to a few phenotypes for which the mediating mechanisms are known a priori or suspected. Here we propose to leverage the fact that most traits are genetically controlled to investigate the influence of the social environment. To do so, we study associations between genotypes of one individual and phenotype of another individual (social genetic effects, SGE, also called indirect genetic effects). Importantly, SGE can be studied even when the traits that mediate the influence of the social environment are not known. For the first time we quantified the contribution of SGE to more than 100 organismal phenotypes and genome-wide gene expression measured in laboratory mice. We find that genetic variation in cage mates (i.e. SGE) explains up to 29% of the variation in anxiety, wound healing, immune function, and body weight. Hence our study uncovers an unexpectedly large influence of the social environment. Additionally, we show that ignoring SGE can severely bias estimates of direct genetic effects (effects of an individual’s genotypes on its own phenotype), which has important implications for the study of the genetic basis of complex traits.

Thus, the genetic makeup of those in your environment can affect your phenotype – that is the expression of your own genes in response to the environment, said environment also consisting of the genetic makeup of those around you.  To say this finding is remarkable would be a gross understatement.  And why not extend this paradigm to the group level? – the genetic makeup of one group in a territory can affect the phenotypic expression of another group’s genepool.  Perhaps James Bowery and I (with Bowery being the one who should be given credit for introducing the paradigm) were correct in using extended phenotypes to explain various human behaviors, including the White extended phenotypes of Jews and Coloreds.  The implications should be obvious – one group’s genetic structure can be a weapon through which a second group’s fitness is depressed by manipulation of that second group’s phenotype, e.g., by promoting maladaptive behavior on the part of the second group.  Examples can include Jewish and Asian manipulation of the behavior of Whites.

This synergizes with the social epistasis paper, since mutational load – resulting in, e.g., pathological altruism – can make one population vulnerable to the social genetic effects of another population.

*Key points of the summary:


These experiments with mice highlight opportunities and challenges for social genetic research in humans. One opportunity is to investigate social genotypes as environmental measures. There is already human research investigating social phenotypic effects, e.g., the social “contagion” of obesity (“Are your friends making you fat?”)…In addition to direct effects of the social environment/genome, synergies between social and personal genetics are possible. Specifically, social genotyping could be used to study interactions between a person’s genes and the genes of socially proximate individuals…A primary issue is the extent to which social genotypes are independently determined. Individuals who share traits may be more likely to sort into social units together, a phenomenon called homophily…Thus, while SGEs may shape an individual’s phenotype or modify the phenotypic effects of that individual’s genes, reverse causation is also possible; i.e., an individual’s phenotype and/or genotype may shape the genetic composition of their social environment…

That is also all remarkable and again something one would expect coming from Kevin MacDonald, Frank Salter, or myself.  Homophily – the foundation of the ethnostate?  The reverse causation reminds one of this article, written by a very sagacious individual.

Thus, the summary underscores the points about social genetic effects, and also underscores the basic meaning behind the social epistasis paper – that is, no man (or woman) is an island.  We – and by “we” I mean on both an individual and group level – affect each other on the most basic levels of genotype and phenotype.  Atomized individualism is exposed as a fraud, a mockery, a pipe-dream, a fantasy, with the reality being one of deep connections between the genotypes and phenotypes of various individuals and groups, modified by the mutational landscape, driven by social epistasis, and resulting in shifts in the relative fitness of individuals and groups.  Further, the interactions between genes and the “social environment” are bidirectional; hence not only does the environment shape the demographic composition of the population within it, but that population shapes the environment, making that environment more or less congenial for certain types of individuals and groups compared to others. In the end, all the “who cares” arguments with respect to race and EGI are exposed as either deception or self-deception. In a social species such as humans, “rugged individualism” (OK as far as it goes, within limits, as a concept for personal self-improvement) cannot be inflated into social policy, as it goes against scientific fact and objective reality.  That reality may be harsh to those who wish to hold onto cherished illusions – or to those who have a vested interested in peddling those illusions to others – but harsh or not, that reality is what we have to deal with. Failure to deal with reality will result in replacement by those unencumbered by illusion and less susceptible to being fooled by the deceptions of others.

The sort of policy initiatives to combat the problems outlined in these papers – initiatives that would actually work – would tend to fall on the, let us say, right of the political spectrum.  A complete biocentric reordering of society is required.  Following current trends will not only lead to cultural and social collapse, but genetic-biological collapse as well.  The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Finally, these papers support the ideas and the work of the following individuals: Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald, James Bowery, and Ted Sallis. On the other hand, the anti-Salterian HBDers are once again soundly refuted, although they will of course not have the good grace to admit error.  And while I do not want to engage in Frankfurt School-style pathologization of the other side, these works raise the question whether critics of EGI are suffering from a heavy mutational load and/or are trying to influence others so afflicted.

It are the aforementioned four individuals who are on the side of human progress and who are moving to the light, while those others peddle a recipe for death, decay, destruction, and darkness.

Which side are you on?