Revisiting Some Old Salter Material

Useful analysis.

Read here.

Abstract

Biological theories of the origin of heroism in warfare and other types of altruism directed towards the tribe or ethnic group have often attributed this to some adaptive function, such as retention of group resources. However, without an estimate of the aggregate kinship at stake within the group, no theory of altruism can be tested using W. D. Hamilton’s rule for adaptive altruism. By “adaptive”, Hamilton meant evolutionarily stable, such that the altruist’s genes are not selected out of the gene pool. Though Hamilton’s 1975 model showed that ethnic kinship could theoretically be large, no evolutionary theory has yet answered the most basic question, whether in fact ethnic kinship—the genetic similarity of co-ethnics who are not genealogical kin—is ever large enough to make ethnic altruism adaptive.

Harpending (2002) derived a population-genetic formula for estimating the aggregate ethnic kinship held by one population in relation to another based on the genetic distance between the two populations. The genetic assay data needed to make this estimate for modern ethnic groups are becoming available. The data used in this present study are provided by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994). Based on those data, aggregate ethnic kinship is much larger than aggregate family kinship. Data on tribal genetic distance are uncertain. But existing evidence indicates that tribal genetic interests vis a vis neighbouring tribes in the Neolithic were already larger than familial kinship. The direction of theory and data strongly indicate that self sacrificial altruism in warfare could have been adaptive from that time.

The Hamilton-Harpending algorithm offers an analytical tool for estimating whether a population was (or is) a fit object for altruism, and thus whether that altruism was (or is) sustainable across evolutionary time.

Corrections

Hamilton’s Fst statement referred to genes coding for altruism, not to the whole genome. However, my point regarding kinship remains valid because I used Fst data based on sampling of the genome, not on altruistic genes.

Also please note that the more accurate data provided by the Human Genome Data Base show somewhat lower racial variation and therefore lower racial kinship. Instead of 9%, the French-Japanese variation is 6% (Salter and Harpending 2013). Because the reduction is not great it does not invalidate the analysis.

Salter, F. K., & Harpending, H. (2013). J. P. Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism. Personality and Individual Differences http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912005569, 55, 256-260. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.014

I also should correct one part of my summary of David Goetze’s insight concerning collective goods, such as big-game hunting and collective defence. From about the 3 minute mark I say that these cooperative activities allow large investments to be made in large populations. Actually, they also allow small investments to make a difference.

This last point is crucial, and is an important riposte to “concern trolls” and their harping bout free-riding and the alleged costs of ethnic nepotism to those practicing it, usually accompanied by absurd outlier scenarios of self-sacrifice: in reality, typically ethnic interests can be promoted by repeated small investments that incur minimal costs to the actor, but with large potential benefits.

Introduction

The key issue in the evolutionary theory of ethnic conflict is whether solidarity towards fellow ethnics has been adaptive. Components of this problem are:

(1) Was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed towards fellow ethnics to have been adaptive?

(2) If the answer to (1) is yes, then what mechanisms were necessary? Answering this question will help locate the stage in political evolution at which ethnic altruism could have become adaptive, thus allowing genes or culture that code for ethnic altruism to spread through the population.

I see it as a mistake to concentrate on the altruism question.

We already know the answer, or much of the answer, to the second question. Proponents of group selection have argued, convincingly I think, that members of bands and tribes can behave altruistically without being selected out by free riders. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) argued from his field observations that mutual monitoring, ubiquitous in small-scale societies, is sufficient to suppress cheating. He pointed to the pronounced group identity and mutual support found in primitive societies, and argued that this originated in kinship bonds. The cohesion of band and tribal societies makes them units of selection, Eibl argued. This point was elaborated by Boyd and Richerson (1992), who argue that monitoring and punishment are so effective in small scale societies that they allow the evolution of cooperation, or any other characteristic that is promoted by a culturally-governed group strategy.

Whether or not one accept that group selection has figured in human evolution, the mechanisms advanced by group selectionists are sufficient to allow a more conservative process, extended kin selection, to occur. In fact this is what Eibl has always meant by his version of group selection.

A final mechanism deserving of mention is collective goods. A criticism of extended kin selection is that it is impossible for an individual effectively to invest in a kin group much larger than a family, because the benefit would be spread so thinly that the payoff would always be greater from investing in close kin, rather than distant ones. Goetze (1998) has dispelled this concern. He draws on economic theory to argue that by contributing to collective goods—such as hunting large game animals or defending the group—allows an individual to confer a large fitness benefit on a large number of individuals.

Supporting that Economics is the most appropriate category for Salter’s Nobel Prize (see end).

So there is no mechanical problem with the feasibility of individuals showing altruism to kin groups larger than the extended family. Indeed, all these mechanism—control of free-riders, bonding the group, and choosing or fashioning collective goods—are highly scalable. They can be increased in scale to accommodate a kin group of any size. Admittedly some novel and ingenious social devices are needed to perform these functions for large groups, but humans are ingenious, as is clear from the many experiments in political evolution.

Thus the second problem in understand the evolution of ethnocentrism the second is already solved, or well on its way to being solved. It’s the first problem that remains; indeed, it has hardly been addressed. To reiterate, was the kinship between random members of bands and tribes large enough for altruism directed between them to have been adaptive?

The question should be recast in light of Goetze’s analysis of collective goods. I shall use the term ‘patriotism’ to mean altruism towards a collective good. When collective goods are available to which individuals can contribute, is the aggregate kinship of the whole group sufficiently high to allow patriotism to be adaptive, i.e. evolutionarily stable? Dawkins thinks not. He maintains that only altruism shown to close kin is adaptive. But Hamilton disagreed. In his classic 1975 paper, ‘Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics’, he discarded the notion that inclusive fitness processes can only operate between genealogical kin, and argued that altruism can be adaptive between anonymous, genetically similar individuals.

That the usual suspects ignore Hamilton’s reformulation at the price of displaying their mendacity.  However, I also have to say it is troubling it took Hamilton so long to realize – or at least to publicly state – something that should have been immediately obvious to any reasonably intelligent analyst of this topic.

“[C]onnections which the remote townsman does not so easily know of make up in multiplicity what they lack in close degree” (1975, p. 142).

By townsman Hamilton means the member of a band or tribe. He showed mathematically that even with a steady trickle of migration between populations, relatedness can rise as high as 0.5 between random members. Hamilton concluded that altruism on behalf of the group could then be adaptive, especially if it preserved the group from replacement. The point that inclusive fitness processes can operate between individuals merely on the basis of genetic similarity, without any genealogical information, is critical, and I quote Hamilton’s commentary on this theoretical advance.

“Because of the way it was first explained [by Hamilton], the approach using inclusive fitness has often been identified with “kin selection” and presented strictly as an alternative to “group selection” as a way of establishing altruistic social behaviour by natural selection. But…kinship should be considered just one way of getting positive regression of genotype in the recipient, and that it is this positive regression that is vitally necessary for altruism. Thus the inclusive fitness concept is more general than “kin selection” ” (Hamilton 1975, pp. 140-41; [p. 337 in the 1996 reprint]).

This frees the analyst from the “identical by descent” clause in Hamilton’s original (1964) formulation, allowing the direct measurement of kinship processes using genetic assay data. These data are usually expressed not in terms of kinship coefficients, but genetic variation, for example FST. However, Harpending (1979) provides a formula for converting FST measures to kinship coefficients.

Fine, but we really need direct measures of genetic kinship.

fo = FST + (1 – FST)[ – 1/(2N – 1)]

where fo is the local kinship coefficient, FST the variance of the metapopulation, and N the overall population. Within primordial dialect groups and tribes, where N is approximately 500, the second complex term in this equation is small. When N is large, as it usually is with modern ethnies, a good approximation for the above equation becomes, simply:

fo ≈ FST

(The kinship concept needs clarification. In population genetics the coefficient of kinship, f, between two individuals is defined as the probability that an allele taken randomly from one will be identical to an allele taken at the same locus from another. This definition is close to that of Hamilton’s (1964) original coefficient of relatedness r, which he used in his classic formulation of inclusive-fitness theory, except that in simple cases 2f = r. This means that parental kinship is 0.25, not 0.5. Kinship to self is 0.5, not the familiar 1.0, which refers to relatedness r. A fuller explanation is provided in Salter [in press])

Harpending’s simple formula allows the estimation of average kinship within local populations based on FST measures. The principle can be simply stated thus: variation between two populations is equal to kinship within each of them. As a hypothetical example, if the variation between two groups P and Q is FST = 0.25, then the kinship between two randomly-chosen members of P is likewise 0.25, or that of sibs or parent and child. The same applies to random pairs drawn from Q.

This brings us to the subject of this presentation: Was there sufficient genetic variation between primordial human groups for individual inclusive fitness to be boosted by acts of ethnic solidarity, by patriotism?

Let’s begin with the band, numbering between 30 and 50 individuals, comprised of two or three extended families connected by marriage ties. I could not locate data on inter-band genetic variation, but Harpending (personal communication) reports that inter-band FST is typically small, 0.01 or less. Let us assume, for illustrative purposes, that it is 0.0005. If, apart from extended family, a band numbered, say, 25 individuals, then this group’s aggregate kinship to a random individual is 0.0005 x 25 = 0.0025, which is the equivalent of one hundredth of a child. This number only has meaning in the context of competition with a neighbouring band. It will be much higher in the context of competition with more genetically distant populations. By comparison to this vanishingly small kinship, an individual’s genealogical kin might represent the genetic equivalent of five or six children (3 actual children plus cousins, grandchildren, etc.). The selection advantage of altruism towards nonkin would usually be outweighed by altruism towards kin. Nevertheless, band solidarity might have paid off because the fate of the extended family was inseparably bound up with the fate of the band. 

The last point is an important – and obvious – one that seems to escape the anti-Salterian ideologues.  They can’t be that supuid, so I chalk it up to anti-White mendacity.

The average kinship with the band would have been high relative to the average kinship with members of neighbouring bands. (An approximation: assume that family plus others yield the equivalent of six children within the band, or an aggregate kinship of 1.5. Then average kinship is 1.5/50 = 0.03. Average kinship with neighbouring bands is –0.01.)

Genetic variation grows with the geographic scale of population units, so that dialect and tribal populations have higher kinship between random pairs than do bands. Typical variation between small dialect groups and tribes might be 0.005. FST between clusters of Bantu tribes is much higher, typically about 0.015. Between West African populations Fst varies from 0.0013 (Ewe-Volta) to 0.049 (Volta-Wolof). The average is about 0.02 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 181). Neighbouring American Indian tribes have a typical genetic distance of about 0.025 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 323). The Americas show high genetic variability, with an average FST of 0.070, compared to Australia’s 0.019, Polynesia’s 0.031, New Guinea’s 0.039, sub-Saharan Africa’s 0.035, and Caucasoid’s as a whole of 0.043 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 336).

Genetic variation continues to increase with geographical , though recall that we are discussing autochthonous populations, those that have been resident in an area for many thousands of years. Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994, p. 122) have charted the relationship between FST and distance within large regions.

 Fig. 1  The relationship between genetic distance and geographic distance within continents. Note that the curves are based on pre-colonial populations (from Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 122).

 Between continents genetic variation increases greatly. Table 1 shows the FST distances between geographical races, which can be characterized as continental-scale populations.

AFR NEC EUC NEA ANE AME SEA PAI

Africans 0.0

Non-European Caucasoids 1340 0.0

European Caucasoids 1656 155 0.0

Northeast Asians 1979 640 938 0.0

Arctic Northeast Asians 2009 708 747 460 0.0

Amerindians 2261 956 1038 747 577 0.0

Southeast Asians 2206 940 1240 631 1039 1342 0.0

Pacific Islanders 2505 954 1345 724 1181 1741 437 0.0

New Guineans and Australians 2472 1179 1346 734 1013 1458 1238 809

Table 1. Genetic variation between nine geographical races, measured as FST x 10,000 (From Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 80; rounded to nearest integers; standard errors omitted).

Inter-racial variation is typically as high as 0.125 or even 0.25 (between Pacific Islanders and Africans). In the latter case, intra-racial kinship is the equivalent of parental kinship. Higher variation across greater geographical distances means that populations organized competitively over those distances have higher within-population kinship. At the same time, aggregate kinship will increase due to the larger size of the polity. In other words, other factors being equal, group solidarity becomes more adaptive as the scale of political organization grows. In Table 2 I estimate the aggregate kinship in child-equivalents for different types of populations. The values differ for each continent, but the FST values adopted are realistic.

Child equivalents

N Inter-pop. FST Extended family kinship Non-family group members

Band 50 0.0005 5 –

Dialect group 500 0.005 5 10

Large tribe 5000 0.01 5 200

Modern nation 10 mill. 0.015 5 600,000

Racially different nations 10 mill. 0.125 5 5 mill.

Table 2.  Distribution of aggregate kinship in different sized autochthonous populations based on genetic distance to neighbouring populations of the same kind.

Table 2 indicates that beyond the band, ethnic solidarity could have been adaptive, assuming that competition existed between the larger social units, that free riders were controlled and that collective goods existed in which to invest.

All these assumed conditions definitely exist today, and have existed throughout human history.

From the emergence of tribes in the Neolithic, social organization spanning many miles would have created scope for collective goods that benefited many hundred or thousands of individuals. The positive relationship between geographic and genetic distance would have created an adaptive opportunity for aggressively expansive group strategies, perhaps in the autocatalytic process postulated by E. O. Wilson:

“A band might then dispose of a neighboring band, appropriate its territory, and increase its own genetic representation in the metapopulation, retaining the tribal memory of this successful episode, repeating it, increasing the geographical range of its occurrence, and quickly spreading its influence still further in the metapopulation. Such primitive cultural capacity would be permitted by the possession of certain genes” (E. O. Wilson 1975, p. 573).

Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1982) makes essentially the same point, by emphasizing group cohesion and territorial displacement. Likewise Hamilton combined the factors of aggressive territorial expansion.

“[P]rimate examples suggest the prototype war party as an all-male group, brothers and kin, practised as a team in successful hunting and at last redirecting its skill towards usurping the females or territory of another group. Out of such cells can be built the somewhat less stable organism of the postneolithic army. . . . If the male war party has been adaptive for as long as is surmised here, it is hardly surprising that a similar grouping often reappears spontaneously even in circumstances where its present adaptive value is low or negative, as in modern teenage gangs.” (Hamilton 1975, p. 148)

The key elements in the strategy would have been capturing territory and replacing the conquered population in whole or part. Ethnic nepotism in the form of advancing such a strategy or defending against it would have yielded fitness payoffs much larger, though less regularly, than familial nepotism.

That’s obvious, but don’t tell that to anti-White ideologues, HBDers, etc., and they’ll just mutter “green beard effect” and think that somehow refutes the entirety of Salter’s thesis.

The Hamilton-Harpending algorithm offers an analytical tool for estimating whether a population was (or is) a fit object for altruism, and thus whether that altruism was (or is) sustainable across evolutionary time.

Personally, I think it an error to focus on “altruism” per se, which leads to all sort of nitpicking critiques of EGI.

Combining inclusive fitness theory with gene assay data has implications for the debate regarding group selection of altruism directed towards ethnies. Research attention long focused on the possibilities of group selection of altruism should be widened to look for the preconditions for extended kin selection: ethnic kinship; control of free riders; and the availability of collective goods facilitating ethnic continuity.

Salter should be awarded a Nobel Prize for his work; the most appropriate category is most probably Economics (broadly defined), as EGI can be considered an analysis of costs vs. benefits of specific human behaviors, and how to most efficiently allocate resources so as to maximize a valued objective (i.e., adaptive fitness).

References

 Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1992). Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13: 171-195.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. (1994).  The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1982). Warfare, man’s indoctrinability and group selection. Ethology (Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie), 60: 177-98.

Goetze, D. (1998). Evolution, mobility, and ethnic group formation. Politics and the Life Sciences, 17(1): 59-71.

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetic evolution of social behavior, parts 1 and 2. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7: 1-51.

Hamilton, W. D. (1975). Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics. In Biosocial anthropology, (ed. R. Fox), pp. 133-55. Malaby Press, London.

Harpending, H. (1979). The population genetics of interactions. American Naturalist, 113: 622-30.

Salter, F. K. (2002). Estimating ethnic genetic interests: Is it adaptive to resist replacement migration? Population and Environment, 24(2): 111-40.

Wilson, E. O. (1975).  Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

‏

Pictorial of Derb Ice People

Jews and Asians.

Derbyshire considers Jews and Asians to be Ice People, part of the Arctic Alliance, so let’s play the “movement” game of selecting photos so we can consider examples of these wonderfully depigmented ultra-Arctic peoples from the far north, where the cold winds blow!

Jews

Number one.

Number two.

Number three.

Number four.

Asians

Number one.

Number two.

Number three.

Number four.

Number five.

Number six.

Are only Negroes prognathous?

Not Negroes.

Not a Negro.

More evidence of gracile northerness!

Those Japanese Ice People

"Derb Jr." writes and whines.

Read this as an antidote to despicable scum like Jason Malloy who once (~ 15 years ago) absurdly labeled Japan as a “Western” nation.

If white people are to become minorities in the countries our ancestors built, and if we face a future where we may be ruled over by envious and malevolent non-whites, I would rather my overlords be Japanese than Muslims or sub-Saharan Africans. 

And let’s not forget those Chinese girls with guns.

Of course, if possible I prefer to live free among my own people.

Too late…you made your bed and now lie in it…literally.

But if, by some miracle, white ethno-states become a reality in the West, will I—and my Japanese wife and mixed-race child—be accepted? 

No.

Or would I be rejected as a miscegenating traitor to my race?

Yes, you filthy scum.

My wife has many years of experience living and working in the US, and our child was born there. We agree that life in America is in many ways preferable to living in Japan. 

We don’t want you.

We talk openly and honestly about these issues, and she is as disturbed as I am by what is happening to the native populations in Western countries. 

But….

She is nevertheless quite willing to assimilate to American culture and would be happier living in the US than I am in Japan.

What about the wishes of Americans?  Do we get to have a say whether you get to infest and contaminate this country?

And as far as the real Derb goes, he’s in “fine” form here, in his relentless quest to obfuscate the clear and distinct boundary separating Europeans from Colored Asiatics such as Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.  Hey, Derb, no matter how you “shuck and jive” your wife and children are unassimilable aliens and you are a miscegenating race traitor.

And since Derbyshire likes writing about Bruce Lee, once again let us examine this movie clip of Derbyshire being physically humiliated by Bruce Lee.  Yes, yes, I know - it is "only a movie."  Nevertheless it represents the two major core principles of HBD:

1. Subaltern Whites being dominated and humiliated by their Asian masters.
2. The superiority of a Jeurasian ruling class (Lee apparently was of Asian-White-Jewish ancestry).

The movie is also representative of Silk Road White nationalism, as the plot revolves around a Chinese family living in Rome, Italy, with Lee protecting them against Mafia-style gangsters.  After all, Asians are supposed to colonize the West, and "stand tall" against the no-good natives, eh Silker filth?

(By the way, in that movie clip, the fellow in the short-sleeve dark blue shirt is obviously a Sicilian)

Summer 2018 Alt Right Assessment

Things looking grim, as usual.

Read here.

This is a situation in which both sides are wrong.  Legally and morally, the judge (Is he a wop or hunkie - perhaps Richie and Kev want to chime in about that?) is in the wrong. Simply put, if Group A wants to legally exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly, and a Group B attempts to stop them using any and all means at their disposal, the persons in the wrong are members of Group B, not Group A.  That's a general description of what happened at Charlottesville.  The specifics of the case in question sounds like "lawfare."  The Alt Right, in my opinion, were within their rights to hold their Charlottesville rallies.

Politically and practically, Spencer and company are in the wrong.  All of this was avoidable - predictably avoidable.  This is all a terrible waste – a wasted opportunity. 

Imagine an alternative reality, in which, right after Trump’s election but before Heilgate (and all the Alt Right disasters that followed), Spencer had declared that Trump’s election had put an electoral approach – as one part of an overall strategy – into play, and that, at least for the time being, he was going to focus on explicitly pro-White electoral politics, both exploring running as a candidate himself, as well as promoting, advising, managing, etc. other similar candidates.  In areas in which explicit Whiteness had a fair electoral chance, then explicit it would be, with the aim of competing for the top prize, in other areas, explicit White candidates would be for educational and propaganda purposes, and in yet other areas, more implicit candidates would run with the hope of winning and then shifting right once elected (the opposite of how the mainstream does things).  In this alternate reality, Spencer would not have compromised himself with Heilgate, with Jorjani and AltRight.com, with silly feuds with Johnson, and certainly not with the Charlottesville circus.  He also would not have turned his DC-area apartment into an Alt Right frathouse (alcohol, of course, always present) and would not have been involved in either Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism (no half-drunk podcasts with Greg “pureblood mountain wop, hero of the girls soccer team” Conte; that smug ‘Catholic traditionalist” Frenchman; or Mr. Stolen Valor) or with Cosplay White nationalism (uniforms are bad, bad, bad…but dressing up like Captain America and Batman is good, good, good).  In this alternate reality, Spencer’s buddies in the Alt Wrong would not have to denounce him, or engage in wistful emails with Jewish correspondents on the probability of Spencer being shot by some enraged leftist.  There would be no Unite the Right cloud, no court case, hanging over him.  In other words, if the youthful Alt Right crowd had followed the advice – given at the time and NOT in hindsight – by older activists to stop the Pepe/Kek crap and get serious, none of this would have happened and we’d be in a lot better shape now than we all are.  

Anyone reading this blog over the last few years knows full well such suggestions are not hindsight; I’ve been advising – publicly at this blog - Spencer for a very long time to ditch the Alt Right brand and to consider electoral politics.  Even if that had turned out to be a waste of time (doubtful), he could have remained viable to return as a vanguardist Alt Right pocket fuhrer.  The opposite though is much more difficult, going from “Dastardly Dick” Spencer, Alt Right bogeyman, to viable political candidate seems increasingly unlikely.

They – Spencer and the entire Alt Right - should have known that the System is completely against us, completely against our side (even our wonderfully conservative Attorney General – “America’s Senator" – has turned out to be a de facto Antifa supporter), and the Far Right cannot expect fair, legal, and moral treatment from the System.  Thus, every move by the Far Right needs to be meticulously planned, with an eye toward contingencies, and always with overarching strategic objectives in mind.  The flaws within the System (see below) need to be mercilessly, ruthlessly exploited through carefully planned, assessed, and empirically evaluated approaches.

Now, the Type Is will exclaim: “why do you advocate some activists running for office if the System is completely against us?  It’s fixed, fixed!”  What the Type I droolcups, never noted for comprehending complexity, fail to understand is that while the System controls most things, it does not control all things.  It is powerful, but not omnipotent.  It is flawed, it is staffed by incompetents (for the most part), and, importantly, there are different factions within the System vying for power and who, in their shortsightedness, would expose the machinations of their System rivals without realizing that such an exposure ultimately dooms the exposers and much as the exposees.  Contrary to the “it’s all fixed” predictions of the “march through the woods with your rifles eating twigs and branches” Type I Nutzis, the System did not “fix” the 2016 election as to ensure a Clinton victory.  No doubt, there was cheating: illegal alien voting, dead folks on the rolls, “vote early and often” Chicago style – but a widespread systematic fix did not occur.  There are lines that the System – for now – dares not cross for fear of the repercussions if discovered, if exposed, perhaps, by rivals for System power.  They do not want to endanger long-term goals by taking insane risks (unlike Der Movement).  So, yes, despite the fact that the System is fully against us, there is still some limited room to maneuver, so possibilities exist in the electoral arena, some opportunities to infiltrate the System and co-opt it from within, some opportunities for collaboration between activist moles buried within the System, overt activists engaged in the electoral process, and the vanguardists working outside the System.  The situation is complex and the possibilities are complex, and we need people involved who understand these things, and have an activist toolkit that goes beyond tiki torch rallies, Pepe, and cries of “Hail Kek!”

What to do now?  I am not sure how much can be salvaged at this point, particularly if Spencer and company lose the case, which is likely (the real “fix” seems to be in).  Certainly, Spencer should still ditch the Alt Right brand, cut ties with the droolcup brigade, build proper infrastructures behind the scenes, make alliances with competent people, and set up contingency plans in case the worst comes true and the case is lost.  To the extent possible, he should repair the significant damage to his reputation and judgment his actions (and inactions) have done within Der Movement, and try a “reset” of his overall public image as well (to the extent possible with a biased mass media).  Although the horrific missteps of the last couple of years have drastically curtailed options, there is still some room to maneuver to attempt to rebuild a credible Alt Right faction within the Far Right.  I would also advise someone in his position to forget about petty “movement” feuding – Tricky Dick has more to worry about now than catty sniping coming from the Kali Yuga types.  And, oh yes, shave off that stupid moustache.

SLC News: Sessions, Durocher, Spencer, Roissy, etc.

More stupidity.

Antifa Jeff rides again. Sessions bestirs himself to action.

Read here.

The federal government has quietly revived its investigation into the murder of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African-American boy whose abduction and killing remains, almost 63 years later, among the starkest and most searing examples of racial violence in the South.

The Justice Department said that its renewed inquiry, which it described in a report submitted to Congress in late March, was “based upon the discovery of new information.” 

MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Roissy: “Sessions as Attorney General alone justifies the entire Trump Presidency.”

Question: Is it possible Sessions is a mole, a radical leftist who spent a lifetime posing as a hardcore conservative so as to burrow deep into the mainstream Right, and to then ascend to a position of power and authority in which he can enact leftist tactics to subvert America?  Or is he just another over-rated quota queen cuck?  The end result is the same.  Of course, Der Movement will once again be silent about Sessions; after all, he's "one of the boys."

The despicable Durocher lies once again, this time about Ancient Roman demographics. By the way, that essay proves once again that lies about Ancient Rome are made in large part to make parallels to the modern situation; being dimwitted, Type Is cannot understand today’s peril without being shown historical cartoon comparisons, as if they were mentally retarded five year-olds (which they are the mental equivalent of).  Notice what blog Durocher chooses for this trash - the ultra-Nordicist, anti-White ethnic TOO.

About Rome, see this.  And this.

Copy, copy, steal, steal, steal.  Have Orientals invented anything in the last 1000 years?

Spencer expresses himself:

@RichardBSpencer

Anglo-Saxons were once the American ruling class. We are now a dispossessed elite--symbolized by the fact that the establishment's inner sanctum, #SCOTUS, is Jewish and Catholic.

Don’t worry Richie.  You are still the ruling class in the American “movement.”  We can all sigh with relief over the great competence demonstrated by, say, yourself and your buddy Greg “open borders meeting vetting” Johnson.  

Then we have:

‏ @RichardBSpencer

Just in case there was any misunderstanding--though I, of course, recognize ethnic differences, I do seek broader European unity; though I do lament my people's decline, I take responsibility for it. The WASP death was both suicide and murder.

More suicide than murder.  Let’s consider the 1965 immigration act.  Let’s blame it on the Jews (and Irish).  Very well.  Who let the Jews (and Irish) into the country in the first place?  Who let in the ultra-leftist Scalias and Alitos to displace the red-blooded patriotic White Americans like Earl Warren?  Who let in the Polacks, five of whom are needed to screw in a light bulb?  Forget about Negro slavery, we won’t even mention that.  The Anglo-Saxons should not have let in any other peoples after the Revolution. They can’t blame “the Jews” for that.

Roissy fantasizes:

If an arm of the Deep State was involved with the Rich murder and two government employees were the hired hit men, don’t wake up the next day after the news drops expecting life in America to be the same. It will change everything.

Let’s say the story is correct and Rich was killed by “Deep State” operatives and not by feral Negroes.  That’s a big IF, but let’s assume it is true.  Let’s further assume that the truth comes out and is not buried by the same Deep State.  Very well.  What does it change?  Nothing.  Trump will just post some jackass tweets, demanding that Sessions “do something.”  Antifa Jeff will ignore those pleas and instead focus his (very limited) energies on more “hate crimes” prosecutions of Unite the Right attendees for the “crime” of defending themselves, or on dredging up 60 year-old murders of little Negroes. The media will ignore/scoff/mock and the Alt Right will babble on about Kali Yuga and “the Moops.”  The Right is inept, Trump is a buffoon, Sessions is a far-left cuck, and the media are corrupt.

How’s that mainstreaming working out for you?  Once again, Sallis is right, and Der Movement wrong.

Asinine Huffpost

Stupid even for them.

Read this.

“Antifa” is {snip} a problem only for neo-Nazis. Antifa activists show up as counterprotesters at fascist events, like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year, where thousands of armed white nationalists clashed with antifa members and other protesters.

Antifa groups are distinguished from other organizations that do not like Nazis by their willingness to use violence against Nazis, but most people have little to fear from their local antifa chapter. In more than 30 years of antifa activity, there has been one confirmed fatality caused by an antifa group member ― in 1993, when a Nazi in Portland, Oregon, was shot during a fight at a gas station. Far-right extremists, by contrast, were responsible for 670 fatalities, 3,053 injuries and 4,420 attacks in the United States from 1990 to 2012, according to a report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

I would respond in two ways.

First, unless this semi-retarded writer believes that anyone to the right of John McCain is a neo-Nazi, then the attitude expressed above is factually incorrect.  Antifa (and related groups) have attacked mainstream Trump supporters at rallies and marches, they’ve interfered with or prevented college speeches (including speeches by non-Nazi conservatives as well as by academics), and they rioted at Trump’s inauguration (which they essentially have gotten away with, as they are part of the Corporate-Deep State System).

Second, even if only “neo-Nazis” have the problem, does Huffpost really want to endorse the idea that masked thugs can attack with impunity anyone they think espouses “unacceptable views?”  Does Huffpost really want lawmakers to turn a blind eye to masked political vigilantes using violence against opponents?  If Huffpost really believes System reports that “Far-right extremists” are a violent danger, then don’t they fear that some masked Nutzi may deem Huffpost writers as espousing unacceptable views and take action against them?

Are they really that stupid or are they confident that the “Far-right” practically constitutes no danger at all, except perhaps to abortion clinics?  Which is it?  They can’t have it both ways.  Either the “Far-right” is a terrible violent danger and therefore Huffpost writers should welcome the proposed law or they are confident that the “Far-right” is essentially harmless and so the proposed law is correct in targeting Antifa for their attacks against harmless people whose politics they dislike.  Again: Which is it?

Or does Huffpost tacitly endorse political violence against harmless people they disagree with?  Is Huffpost the media arm of domestic terrorism? Is that it?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Open Borders Sophistry

Comically flimsy arguments from the open borders “braintrust.”

Read here.

When we close borders, we aren’t doing the same thing as putting fences around our houses. Suppose there is a neighborhood made up of 10 landowners. 8 out of 10 of them vote to keep out all foreigners. 1 out of 10, Larry, votes to let them in because he wants to rent his house to them. 1 of them votes to let them in because he’s a decent human being, but he doesn’t himself plan to rent his house. When the 8 put up a fence around the neighborhood, they don’t merely keep immigrants off their own property. Rather, they keep the immigrants off Larry’s property, against his will. 

Far from protecting property rights, immigration restrictions abrogate the rights of property owners who want to rent their property to the excluded migrants, associate with them, or employ them on their land.

Putting aside the judgmental moral posturing that letting immigrants invade your territory makes you a “decent human being” (will Israel become more “decent” and let in the great unwashed from the Third World…or merely some of their Arab neighbors?), this argument can be neatly turned on its head.  Imagine 8 of 10 landowners want to let in migrant invaders, but Larry objects because he doesn’t like aliens, doesn’t want to see them or associate with them, doesn't want to see them employed to drive down local wages, doesn’t want his property values to decline, doesn’t want to be criminally victimized by aliens, doesn’t want his womanfolk groped (or worse) by them, he just doesn’t want them, no sir, no way.  The other landowner objects to immigrants because, as a decent human being, he opposes genocide against his own people, he doesn’t want the carrying capacity of his neighborhood filled with aliens, he wants to preserve the land for his posterity and that of his co-ethnic neighbors, he doesn’t want his ethnic genetic interests abrogated by a genetically alien influx, and he doesn’t want his civilization ruined by culturally incompatible peoples.  But the other eight get their way!  In come the hordes!  Against their will, Larry and the other landowner see their neighborhood, their way of life, everything they hold dear, submerged under the tidal wave of an alien flood. Thus, far from protecting property rights, mass immigration abrogates the rights of property owners who want to keep their property and surrounding land excluded from migrants, not associating with them, or employing them on the common land.  Far from protecting the common social good, the collective goods, the social common, mass immigration fritters away the fruits of social goods to free-riding aliens and selfish, short-sighted natives who (think they) benefit from the invasion.

Looks like we have a conflict of interests, exactly the kind of thing the state is designed to adjudicate.  There are no unlimited “property rights” in any reasonable organized society, and certainly not in the ”liberal democracies” that open borders fanatics lionize.  Taxation, jury duty and the military draft (or merely selective service registration) – isn’t one’s self, one’s life, and one’s time the highest levels of property? - and laws and restrictions of all kinds, including “fair housing laws” and the like. Whither property rights? Interestingly, freedom of association is abrogated within the nation without question from the Left, but open borders now looms as a freedom of association and property rights issue.  What hypocrites!  What low rent, low life scumbags!  What unmitigated sophistry!