Saturday, November 5, 2016

The EGI Firewall

Blocking the maladaptive.

EGI represents so-called “ultimate interests” and therefore a focused and balanced concern for EGI can prevent maladaptive ideologies and fitness-depressing memes to take hold, even within nationalist movements. EGI therefore can serve as a “firewall” preventing adaptive fitness from being sidelined by other memes and concerns. For example, attempts to push a civic nationalism or citizenism will run up against the reality that we must preserve a specific people with a specific genepool.  The same goes for any sort of aracial culturalism or HBD-style cognitive elitism that ignores race in favor of “IQ” or some other metric of phenotypic ranking.  Making EGI fundamental also protects against so-called “racial cuckoldry” that can result from a fixed focus on physical appearance independent of actual ancestry.

If all possibilities for structuring society have to pass the “EGI litmus test” then that can prevent biological race replacement from occurring, despite how such replacement could be “dressed up” in faux-rightist clothing (e.g., citizenism, HBD, etc.). EGI serves – or can and should serve - as a barrier preventing maladaptive ideologies from getting a foothold within nationalist thought.  Civic nationalism?  Fails to preserve EGI, since anyone can become a citizen who believes in the civic creed.  HBD “race realism?”  That fails since it elevates IQ before race; thus, HBD would be fully supportive of Europeans being race replaced by “high IQ Jewish and Asian cognitive elitists.”  As that would devastate European EGI, that fails the EGI test. Caring only about culture?  Fails – genetic aliens can mimic a culture. Economics? Fails – since “economic efficiency” can entail replacement migration and thus diminish EGI. A strict phenotypism?  That fails as well, since phenotypic mimicry can mask genetic distance.  A Samoan and an African may “look similar” to someone, but are highly genetically distinct. Replacing Samoans with genetically distant, but (superficially) phenotypically similar Negroes would obviously be maladaptive to Samoans, and the EGI firewall would prevent that from happening.  If adaptive fitness is all about genetic continuity, then the best way to ensure continuity and fitness is through the use of memes that make genetic interests fundamental – the minimum “ultimate” requirement that must be met before other more “proximate” interests are considered.

As I’ve written before, what’s most important is net EGI – the final accounting of all factors that affect a person’s or group’s ethnic genetic interests. Merkel is an ethnic German, but her effects on German EGI go far beyond the fact of her genetic makeup: through her decisions and actions, she had imposed a genocidal cost on German (and overall European) EGI. Hence, for any German, the net EGI damage done to their interests by Merkel is far worse than that imposed by any given Syrian refugee. That’s why calculating genetic distances is only the first step in an honest accounting of EGI.  One must consider the various costs and benefits of different scenarios and judge what option is the best for EGI when all is said and done.  If person A is 3X units distant from you and person B is 3.3X more distant, that relatively small difference is reversed in net EGI if A is an open borders advocate and B is a nationalist immigration restrictionist.  Of course, when considering large numbers of people, these finer points tend to cancel out, but even then, relatively small differences in gross EGI can be outweighed by very large cultural or other differences, so that the net effect on EGI may need to be adjusted. This by no means goes against the EGI firewall discussed above, but is actually part of it.  The firewall is based on net EGI.  If Merkel is destroying German EGI, then her own ethnic German heritage takes a back seat to her policies and actions; the EGI firewall tells Germans that Merkel is their enemy, her own genetic background notwithstanding.  What’s the end result for EGI?  That’s the question that determines what makes it through the firewall and what is stopped.  The net EGI concept is so obvious that it is embarrassing that it is even necessary to discuss it, but then I do know my audience.  These are the folks who chant “EGI…EGI…” to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk.

Thus culture has importance, since culture affects EGI, not only through the positive feedback between genes and culture, but because culture influences decisions and outlooks that actualize different net EGI outcomes.  Religious belief, for example, is cultural, and whether that religion is universalist or ethnocentric will of course have a huge impact on EGI.  The organic solidarity of the West is cultural as well as biological and together these create an entity that safeguards net EGI for the peoples of European descent worldwide.

All of the non-biological determinants that contribute to Identity affect EGI by influencing decisions of ingroup vs. outgroup.  Political decisions affect EGI as well, as should be obvious.  To stop considerations of EGI at the level of gene frequencies alone is therefore a short-sighted error.

Of course, things like culture have value above and beyond their impact on EGI.  When Yockey wrote about “actualizing a High Culture,” he do not have EGI in mind.  Genetic interests are ultimate interests, but not only interests. Once genetic interests are reasonably (*) are adequately taken care of, then the race, so preserved and revitalized, must face the various life tasks that lay ahead of it.

*Salter wisely noted that we cannot expect a perfect achievement of the pursuit of genetic interests, but instead we should pursue those interests to the fullest extent they are practically possible.  An EGI regime needs to be sustainable over time and it needs to be palatable to the people it purports to serve (of course, said people need to be educated as to the value of EGI). Net EGI is more sustainable because gross EGI carries within it the seeds of its own destruction; e.g., disrupting the organic solidarity of a society in order to pursue increasingly marginal gains in gross EGI can destabilize that society, making it easy prey for invasion by genetically alien peoples.  One can find, for example, genetic gradients between towns within ethnically homogeneous populations – should each small town become its own independent city state?  It’s important to find the “sweet spot” between maximization of EGI in its gross, theoretical sense, and the decisions, incorporating proximate values, that result in the best real-world EGI outcome.