EGI Notes

Friday, March 31, 2017

Silk Road News: Crazy Asians and Race-Mixing Roissy

More Asian perfidy.

Yet another Asian consumed by hatred of Whites…or simply, just a typical Asian.

An Asian Cultural Marxist…in other words, an Asian.

The toilet paper looters.  Very cognitive, very elite.

We need some more he-man Slavs to go to the Russian Far East and toss those diseased Chinamen back over the Amur.

If you like female military, then these can be the real border guards of the West, not frog-faced Chinatrices.

Here is a two-for-one deal from Chateau Heartise: it not only exposes Asian sexual degeneracy, but it also once again shows Roissy as an unrepentant race-mixer, an outrageous hypocrite of the first order:

Every Asian girl with whom I’ve lain (small sample set, tbh) has stuck a finger up my ass during a blowjob, or tried to. Talk about HELLO KITTY. One waifu rooted around down there like a tunnel rat in the ‘Nam jungle.

Wassupwitdat? Anyone else notice that Asian girls have an odd fascination with the male anus (manus) as a portal to mutual pleasure? Or so they envision it. Personally, I was not a fan. One Chinese-American girl looked genuinely crestfallen (as best one can discern emotion on an Asian’s face) when I recoiled and retracted from her probings with Kegelian thrusters set to escape velocity. 
I wonder too if this is a fetish peculiar to Asian chicks as an group…or only to Asian chicks making sweet rove to the White Man. What’s the Asian equivalent of a mudshark? Chaddragon? Paleface pirate? Crackerjacker? Ivory poacher? Milk mugger? Frosted Flip? Bang wan wang? Bleached Lee? Fat Man and Little Koi? Ghost in the vajeen? Occiwench? Wog-eater? Epicanthicc? Ah, I see that the slang for it is Potato Queen. Meh. 
Anyhow, maybe Asian girls always feel like they’re batting out of their league with White men, and presumably are compelled by the perceived SMV imbalance to extracarnally impress White men with that attention to physiologic detail only an Asian can grind out when the hind’s out. 
Or Asian girls are magnetically drawn in by the anus region with a force matched only by gay homosexuals. 

That all puts a quite unique spin on the whole “border guards of the West” idea.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Even More Silk Road News

More Asian perfidy.

Derbyshire of all people points out anti-White hate-filled Asiatic judges,.

Remember the EGI Notes paradigm: The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

Note: There are two problems with taking Asian IQ scores at face value. First, the issue of cheating – they cheat on everything else, all sorts of standardized tests, so one must be careful.  Second, and likely more important, is whether the test scores represent the broad population. The Chinese, for example, tend to report selected test scores – so the question remains: is the high, high, high Chinese IQ reflecting the entire population, including all those peasants in the rice fields, or does it predominantly reflect urban elites in Beijing, Shanghai, and other major urban areas?  The same applies to other East Asian nations as well.

Anyone remember Monolid magazine, that anti-White Asian hate fest?

100 megaton nuclear torpedo?  Aim it at the Asian threat, my Russian brothers, aim at the Yellow Peril.

Richard Nixon apparently took the “opening to China” idea a bit too literally. Was Tricky Dick the original Silk Roader?

Future border guards of the West pictured here.

The Silkers should be happy: New Zealand in the jaws of the dragon.  White lands being conquered by the Yellow Peril.





Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Silk Road News: Chinese Hypocrisy and Anti-White Hatred

Asians hate, hate, hate Whites.

Read here, emphasis added:


I ask them what they think about blacks being so far below whites and Asians. Almost without exception, they cite the arguments made by the American Left: “It’s because of white racism,” “It’s because of European colonialism,” “It’s because they have bad nutrition,” or “It’s because they don’t have proper education.” 

I was initially shocked by this. I couldn’t imagine how they’d been trained to say these things when they spent their whole lives in Chinese schools. Many of them say their teachers taught them Africa was poor because white people stole all the natural resources. It seems that racial egalitarianism has spread farther and deeper than most of us would have imagined. 

Part of this can be blamed on Chinese government media (which is almost all media). In an effort to delegitimize American society and inspire nationalism, the authorities portray the United States in a bad light. This includes reporting on gun violence, and constant coverage of “police shootings of young black men,” which they portray as evidence of American “racism.” At the same time, Chinese seem to equate globalism with Western culture and, especially, Americanism. All things American are fashionable and cool. 

Increasing Chinese globalization will probably accentuate these contradictory trends, and the Chinese government is not consistent on race. It teaches that America is evil because of “racism,” while simultaneously making it impossible for non-Chinese foreigners to get permanent residency. Allegedly, there is a way to get it, but no one, to my knowledge, has ever successfully done so. The government condemns Europe for not taking in more refugees while enforcing some of the strictest border controls and visa restrictions in the world. To us foreign residents, this is highly hypocritical. 

My students sometimes claim America and Europe are “racist” for not allowing mass immigration, or they suggest I must be “prejudiced” against Mr. Obama because he’s black. When I ask them if they want the Chinese president to be black, or China to invite millions of Japanese immigrants, they react with horror and bewilderment. Their common response is something timid and confused, such as, “That’s just not the Chinese way.”

Well, here is something that is "the Chinese way" - acting like rioting Negroes, expressing the venomous hatred of Whites and the West exhibited by Asians the world over.

Let us never forget one of the major themes - or should we say memes - of this blog:

The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

Without Whites Asians - like the Jews who they resemble in behavior and anti-European bias - would fall onto each other in their own internal hatreds (indeed the Amren article discusses Chinese animus toward the Japanese), but, hey, as long as the hated White man is around, we can have at least a superficial Asian solidarity - at least among the Asian imperialists - so as to attack White interests at every opportunity.

Asians: The greatest long-term threat to "European EGI." 

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

More Silk Road News

Yellow and Brown in stark contrast to deluded White.

Note the lawyer – the Asian-African alliance against “European EGI” continues, as the Silk Road brings more chaos and misery to a long-suffering Europe.  When will we be free of the Yellow Peril?

Meet Doug Chin: anti-White extremist.

The Jew-Asian alliance as represented by two individuals:

Even Derbyshire of all people criticizes the typical racial whining from hate-filled anti-White Asian activists (aka – typical Asians).


The British government persecuting a native to please the Jews.  Keep in mind Israel/Palestine is one stop along the Silk Road – British groveling to Jews is a natural subset of British subservience to Asian interests.  Jews and Asians, Asians and Jews, it is all one.


The Black Hole of Calcutta was a small dungeon in Fort William in Calcutta, India where troops of Siraj ud-Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal, held British prisoners of war after the Bengali army captured the fort on 20 June 1756. 
John Zephaniah Holwell, one of the British prisoners and an employee of the East India Company, said that, after the fall of Fort William, the surviving British soldiers, Anglo-Indian soldiers, and Indian civilians were imprisoned overnight in conditions so cramped that many people died from suffocation and heat exhaustion, and that 123 of 146 prisoners of war died.

Anti-White and anti-British hatred erupts in 1967 Hong Kong, another lesson for the British people about the deadly nature of the Silk Road.



Labels: , , , , , , ,

The Mouse Utopia Mirror

Behold the "West."

Read here.  Emphasis added:


Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.[2] 

After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones." Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.

Sound familiar?


The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

Labels: ,

Sunday, March 26, 2017

The Native American Ploy

Whites as Amerindians.

A comment often made – frequently observed for example on Yahoo comments threads - by leftists in response to complaints about White American dispossession is to raise the issue of Amerindians – “You guys invaded the lands of the Native Americans and pushed them out and now you are being invaded and pushed out, ha ha, too bad” is a typical example of this genre of comment.

We should be gratified when opponents make such arguments – for not only do they reveal their anti-White aggression, but, more importantly, they are admitting that the displacement of Whites in North America is akin to the displacement of the Amerindians, and we all know how “well” that worked out for the Amerindians.  Indeed, the response to such comments should be to thank the commentator for supporting the argument that White Americans are indeed being subjected to genocidal race replacement, and to note that Whites are under no obligation to let themselves be displaced and replaced.  Indeed, the Amerindians did resist as the frontier “Indian wars” demonstrate – the problem for the Amerindians is that they lacked the numbers, organization, intelligence, and technics to resist White expansion. Whites, on the other hand, could resist displacement if only they would demonstrate the same fighting spirit as the Amerindians.  Finally, another point in response to anti-White comments about “Native Americans” is to ask whether the commentator opposes the replacement of Whites in their native homelands of Europe, a situation that very well matches the Amerindian scenario.  If the “they were here first in their homeland” argument is so important to aggrieved leftists, then they should be among the strongest supporters of the European Far-Right.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Ethnonationalism is Atomized Individualism at the Racial-Civilizational Level

Some thoughts.

Listening to this podcast (transcript here) I find that I agree with 95% of what Greg Johnson said.  As per the other 5%, some points are as follows.

There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means just the idea that if you’re white, you belong in the same state. And I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe.

That’s a parody of the pan-European perspective, but very few people actually promote this view.  It’s as much as a strawman argument as saying that ethnonationalists all want to restart WWII.


The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. And, largely, those conflicts came about because these groups were not respecting the autonomy of other white groups

And who wasn’t respecting that autonomy?  Extreme ethnonationalists, each looking out for their perception of what was best for their nation, at the expense of the race as a whole. That explanation is nothing new, Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color said as much about WWI, as he was correct about that.

There’s also of course the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if we can have white nations coordinating their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership basically conspiring to replace our population with non-whites from around the world.

There are some positive points in that paragraph.  Yes, the Chinese and South Asians should indeed be grouped with Africans as distinct geopolitical blocs that pose a question for Whites – a question of our very survival.  And, yes, coordination among Whites is good, but “coordination” per se does not go far enough when faced with this Clash of Civilizations.

How to balance coordination with sovereignty?  If a sovereign Ireland decides they want to import one million Negroes for cheap labor, would they have that right?  If England wanted to make an alliance with China against Germany, should we respect English sovereignty?  If so, racial coordination is impossible and White nationalism is a joke.  If not, then there are clear limits to sovereignty, and coordination leads to a certain amount of integration - an integration that still respects national boundaries and ethnocultural preservation.

…is that they’re trying to swindle the native European peoples of all the European lands and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, and others of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and have a country that they feel is like home…

Yes, and the Silk Road Asian imperialists are chief among these swindlers.


Our individualism, our kind of “devil take the hindmost” attitude, and our unwillingness to confront the fact that this game is rigged against us—and that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this—so we’re individualistic, we’re guilty, we try and make our own peace with the system, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change it....

Isn’t ethnonationalism analogous to the type of atomized individualism that is decried by WNs?  In other words, as atomized individualism is to ethnic and racial nationalism, so is (narrow) ethnonationalism to pan-Europeanism. Ethnonationalism is atomized individualism at the racial-civilizational level.  At the national level, we observe selfish atomized individuals who ignore the collective good of the national ethny; at the racial-civilizational level we observe selfish atomized national ethnies and ethnonationalists who ignore the collective good of the overall Race-Culture.

One point brought up in the podcast is that Whites tend to project their own mentality to other peoples.  

And underlying that, though, is the same grandiose notion that really we’re the only people who matter, for good or evil, in the world, and other people are somewhat negligible as agents, and that assumption is very deep and a sort of bedrock assumption in a lot of Leftists.

And really, I stopped the projection and decided I need to try and understand the world as these people see it, and I came at a certain point to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a sort of transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups, and that what’s going on in white countries is we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us; that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.

Quite right, but WNs don’t realize that they do the same thing.  Many WNs believe in “universal nationalism” applicable to all peoples, and they assume that nationalists of other races believe the same, and would allow Europeans to exist in their own homogeneous ethnostates.

This is not the case.  Jewish nationalists are often Jewish supremacists. Asian nationalists are often Asian imperialists, who believe they have a God-given right to colonize White lands. There are also people involved in the “movement” who grovel to Jewish supremacism and Asian imperialism; if “White racialists” are willing to do so, imagine how supine “normies” would be to aggressive Jews/Asians.  These non-European peoples will always be a threat to our race, for as long as we and they both exist, and we’ll need an integrated defense against them for our survival, in addition to the known threats from the general “Global South.”  This goes beyond mere “coordination.”

And in fact their attitude is that we are incredibly weak and naive, and they will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us, but when we want something from them, they’ll say, “Oh yes, yes,” but what they’ll end up doing is practice very ruthless ethnic nepotism.

That describes Asians in a nutshell - both the Silk Roaders and well as “cognitive elitists” who preach atomized individualism for Whites while practicing “very ruthless ethnic nepotism” for themselves.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Two Faces of Trump

The buffoon and the victim.

First, let’s take a look at what Spencer has to say about the floundering moron Touchback Trump (emphasis added):

The fact that Trump allowed himself to be tricked into supporting the current healthcare proposal reveals his own naiveté and reminds us, once again, that the Beltway advisors who have surrounded him are objectively bad at politics. Rather than focus on immigration—the issue that defined his candidacy—Trump got sucked into a whirlpool of regulations, arcane policies, climate-change debates, and taxes. This is a shocking waste of political capital, and it is not why his supporters put him in office.

Looking beyond the hysteria of the past two months, if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had won the presidency instead Trump, each wouldn’t have acted much differently in terms of policy, aside from the “Muslim bans,” which weren’t actually Muslim bans and have been tossed out anyway. Trump’s fights with the media are hilarious—and serve the strategic purpose of delegitimizing these old-line institutions and the Left as a whole—but they do little in terms of concrete change.
More important, the substance of Trump’s healthcare plan is a fucking joke. What Trump partisans call “Ryancare” or “Obamacare 2.0”—but which everyone else calls “Trumpcare”—will increase costs on Trump’s core constituency of White working-class voters, as even Breitbart points out.

The “movement’s” Man on White Horse fetish is collapsing once again as it always does.   I’ve been consistent on Trump.  Thus:

1. I supported Trump and his candidacy because I saw Trumpism as opening the field to right-wing populism and therefore stretching the scope of American politics in ways amenable to racial nationalist ideas and also promoting racial chaos and balkanization.  I also approved of Trump’s overall foreign policy worldview: pro-Russian and anti-Chinese.

2. I have always considered Trump as an ignorant vulgar buffoon, Negrophilic, Jew-connected, superficial, lacking in an understating of priorities, a juvenile jackass who believes that half-assed tweets can substitute for mature leadership and the pursuit of long-term objectives.

But the “movement” with its Pepe-Kek lulzing and “Trump is the last chance for White America” delusional “thinking” worship the buffoon.

Next, we’ll look at what Pat Buchanan has to say about the Deep State conspiracy against King Tweet:

The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.

We need to know who colluded with the Russians, if anyone did. But more critically, we need to unearth the Deep State conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.
So far, the Russia-connection investigation has proven a dry hole. But an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information to a Trump-hating press to destroy a president they are sworn to serve could prove to be a gusher.
As for the reports of Lynch-White House involvement in this unfolding plot to damage and destroy Trump the real question is: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Herein is the problem: having tied themselves to Trump, the “movement” finds itself having to defend this clueless buffoon from an anti-White System that believes by attacking Trump they harm the Whites these globalists hate so much.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Epistatic EGI

Amplifying the importance of EGI.

How do the papers on social epistasis and social genetic effects affect our understanding of EGI?

This would greatly increase the importance of EGI.  Not only do we need to be concerned with differences in gene frequencies and with genetic structure/integration (this latter concern a significant increase in genetic interest compared to the original formulation) between individuals and groups, but now we need to understand and, if possible, quantify the interests inherent in how these genetic difference interact epistatically in a social genetic fashion.  Thus, not only do we have to compare and contrast distinctive genetic information between, say, groups A,B, and C but we need to understand how the genepools of A,B, and C actually dynamically interact with each other – as described in the social epistasis and social genetic effects papers – to affect the fitness (and hence genetic interests) of these groups. This represents an enormous increase in the importance and impact of genetic interests, and one can speculate that these interactive networks of genes would represent genetic interests that would increase exponentially, and not merely linearly, with increasing genetic distance, given that each unit of distance affects a wide array of overlapping epistatic interactions.  Not only is the original formulation a tip of the iceberg compared to considerations of genetic structure/integration, but even this latter concern is a tip of the iceberg compared to the possible full ramifications of how genetically distinct populations can interact, influencing fitness and hence ultimate interests.

Thus, three levels of genetic interests:

1. The original version involving gene frequencies in isolation ("beanbag genetics").

2. Genetic integration/structure.

3. Social genetic effects including social epistasis.

More analysis to come in future posts.



Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Australia: Another Mainstreaming Fail?

Yet again.


It would appear that Le Pen in France is the last stand - for now - for the mainstreamers.  So far, they have, at least in Western Europe, and now in Australia, an uninterrupted record of failure.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: politically speaking, the mainstreamers are "between a rock and a hard place" - instead of mainstreaming being a "sweet spot" of politics, it is a sour and bitter spot indeed.

On the one hand, by mainstreaming, moderating, and moving to the center, the Mainstream Far-Right (MFR) becomes too similar, too indistinguishable, from the Mainstream Right, hence not giving voters a real, clear-cut choice based on actual policy and rhetoric.  On the other hand, the MFR is still smeared as being "extremist," scaring away voters.  Those same voters, fooled by the Mainstream Right feinting right (which they always do at election time and the rubes keep on falling for it), decide that since the Mainstream Right will (apparently, but of course not in actuality) give them 90% of what the moderating MFR is saying and promising, then why not vote for mainstream conservatives instead of bothering with "extremists?"

If the MFR is going to be labeled as "racist, Fascist, extremist Nazis" whatever they do, they may as well project strength and principle, and clearly distinguish themselves from mainstream conservatives. The Far-Right in electoral politics should take positions which are reasonable and have appeal, but are so far to the "right" that mainstream conservatives will be unable to cop-opt those positions. The Far-Right should be leaders and not followers: instead of following the voters to the center, they need to lead the voters to the hardcore right. This leading will become ever easier as the racial and cultural situations in (previously) White nations continue to deteriorate.

The whole point of mainstreaming was to make the parties electable and achieve power, while shedding the "extremist" label. They have failed, and failed again.  It's time to package hardcore Far-Right memes into articulately presented and attractive political platforms.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 20, 2017

Spencer, Abortion, and Sallis

Thoughts on a video.

Some notes on this:

First, I believe Spencer has a bright future as a spokesman and representative of the Far-Right and, perhaps one day, can ride the tide of right-wing populism to elected office of some type.  But, he is eventually going to need to cut ties with the failed stupidity of Alt Right, Inc. – both the Alt Right “movement” as well as the AltRight.com flotsam and jetsam. Perhaps as he gets older, and reflects back on recent events (including being “thrown under the bus” over “Hailgate” by Alt Right ad Alt Wrong figures), he’ll see the folly in his current path.  A natural evolution of his position would be a pan-European materialist futurism, but articulated in a down-to-earth and Americanized fashion.

I agree with his points about abortion and contraception, some of which overlaps with material on Counter-Currents (by Le Brun I believe).  Is abortion the killing of human beings (or at least of hominids)?  Yes it is.  But so what?  So is capital punishment, so is warfare, so is policing.  So? Huge numbers of high-quality Germans were killed in WWII Allied bombing raids, and I’m supposed to get all worked up over future gangbangers and carjackers being aborted?  I think not.

I think Spencer is going to be disappointed by Lahren, but we’ll see.

While I agree with Spencer on abortion, I do not support Lahren’s feminist “it are the women’s bodies” argument.  Yes, it is the woman’s womb, but the fetus is a shared resource, genetically half the father’s (and not even getting into extended family and ethnic interests).  I’m talking here purely objectively – from a subjective racial standpoint, yes, let’s abort more Blacks and Hispanics and if feminist arguments get that job done, fine, but from a purely objective argument (and one which subjectively can help inform the broader issue of White men’s rights), there is a problem here.

If the father is going to be on the hook for child support if the infant is born, then he sure as hell has the right to participate, as an equal partner, in decisions of abortion (or contraception for that matter). The fetus is not the woman’s to decide what to do with as her estrogenic whims lead her.  Now, some would say – “What if the father wants the child and the mother wants to abort.  Will she be forced to carry it to term?”

To which I say – she should be given a choice.  Either have the child and give it to the father, or have the abortion and pay reparations to the father, a regular payment equal to whatever the father’s child support would have been otherwise.  If the father was to be on the hook for $X per month, then that’s what the woman would have to pay the man in the scenario described above.  Cue the feminist shrieks of outrage.

Spencer is right about the “Deep Cuck” commitment to policing the conservative movement and enforcing conservative (cuckservative) dogma. What I would like to see next is Spencer – or someone else other than me – speak out against the racialist “movement” and its own fossilized dogma and its tendency to police itself (*).

* Don’t kid yourself that the ignoring/opposition to this blog is all about my “crazy, erratic behavior” or “excessive negativism” and that’s for two reasons.  The lesser reason is that the “craziness” is/was not only obviously tongue-in-cheek but I’m on record of openly stating as such.  The more fundamental reason – and this gets to the heart of the “negativism” – is that it puts the cart before the horse, it reverses cause and effect.  It’s not that the “movement” is hostile to my message because my message has always been “negative,” but rather that the message has become increasingly negative because the “movement” – or at least important precincts thereof – have always been hostile to both the message and the messenger. I’ve been involved in this activity in one form or another for over 20 years. Those who remember the early 2000s can remember my work with Legion Europa, Amren, TOQ, etc.  And then with later with MR (when it was more sane). Was that work – presented sans “craziness” and “negativism” - generally well received?  No it was not.  Did it have any lasting impact?  No it did not. Was anyone really paying attention?  No, not that I could see. Then, to say the current opposition is a reasonable response to my “grumpiness” is disingenuous.  

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 19, 2017

The Two-Tiered Threat To European Survival

Two fundamental threat levels.

Let’s take a look at the racial situation from a high point, in its broadest view, and outline, briefly, the dangers facing our people.

The major existential threats to European existence come at two levels – the more immediate and the long-term.  These would be:

1. Immediate: The Jewish-White globalist-Third World alliance subjecting White lands to race replacement migration and the creation of anti-White social and political institutions (i.e., “multiculturalism”) in White lands to oversee this replacement and to stifle dissent. Combined with low White birthrates (which in isolation would be self-correcting over time and not a fundamental existential problem), this problem #1 constitutes the major immediate threat to European peoples worldwide ("the White race”).

2. Long-term: The Yellow Peril, more accurately, The Yellow and Brown Peril, the teeming hordes of Asia, historically enemies of the West, technologically proficient and reasonably intelligent, seething with anti-White hated and denial of the West.  This constitutes the major long-term threat assuming Europeans survive Problem 1.

Now, Problems 1 and 2 are not completely separate, and it is foolish to think of them occurring in a strict order.  Indeed, Asians pose a threat today for a number of reasons including the fact that Asian immigration and anti-White Asian activists living in White lands contribute to Problem #1. Further, even if Problem #1 is solved, we can assume the Global South – and maybe even the Jews – will still be around and can always reemerge as a threat, particularly if these are mobilized against Whites by Asians in a grand Alliance of Color.

That said, as a crude model, one can consider these are separate problems in the sense that we talk about what is the predominant and existential threat at any given time.  Problem 1 is well-known, but what are the broad outlines of Problem 2?

A. The Clash of Civilizations between West and East, between Occident and Orient. Asia is part of the non-Western world that Yockey rightfully claimed exists as “a denial and rejection of the West” – their aim is subjugation of, and destruction of, the West and its peoples. There is an underlying racial hatred underlying this, most – but not all (see “Riki” below) – Asians hate White people.  The pretensions of the Chinese toward preeminence and Middle Kingdom racial superiority were shattered by the facts of European accomplishment and the ability of Europeans to humble the arrogant Chinese; now, seething with hateful feelings of revenge, the Chinese harbor revanchist objectives and wish, out of racial envy, to bring down the hated White man. It’s the West against the Rest, and Asians are part of the Rest.

B. Competition for resources, prestige, land, the space race, etc. Political, military, economic, scientific, and exploratory competition.  

C. As part of solving Problem 1, Whites will need to take action that will antagonize Asians, including and especially expulsion of Asians from White lands and, of course, preventing subsequent Asian immigration.  As the hysterical historic reaction of Asians to America’s Asian exclusion acts show us, Asians believe they have an inherent right to colonize White nations.

Related to Points A and B is the excellent post at Counter-Currents by Riki, a Japanese teaching in China.  I have discussed it here, and some relevant points from Riki are below, emphasis added:

It is also an incontestable fact that China has been working with international Jewry hand-in-glove for decades in order to further their joint objective of compromising, taking down, and eventually finishing off the white race and Western civilization. The Chinese and the Jews, both being races of shrewd and unscrupulous merchants, have long admired and felt affection for each other.  

White people all over the world need to take a clearer and steel-minded approach to China and all its deceitful and flattering propaganda, most especially when they adopt a spuriously friendly, conciliatory, or sympathetic tone to our cause. It’s all subterfuge and intended to serve their own aims of eventually defeating and replacing the white race…While China may not hate whites on the same racial and religious grounds as Jewry does, its vast global ambitions, coupled by an equally supremacist ethnic egotism, derived as it is from a twisted need for vengeance based on the humiliations it has experienced in its past, drives an irresistible and collective national urge to defeat and conquer the West. All these grave and alarming facts behoove me to sound this warning bell to all those who care about the future of the white race, but who are currently in the fog concerning the China question.

That does not sound like the kind of folks Whites would want to form an alliance with. That does not sound like the kind of folks you want to have military colonies in White lands.  And I must say that Riki’s experiences with Chinese in China matches my own experiences with Chinese in America. Even the pro-Asian race-mixer Derbyshire has written about China’s “Sino-Fascism” and even about his own wife’s extreme ethnocentrism (while living in the USA).

Further, in his book Hitler’s War, Irving notes that Hitler was disturbed by the fall of Singapore, and quashed a triumphant German Foreign Ministry announcement praising the victory of Germanys “ally” Japan against the besieged British forces.  As Hitler noted, perhaps the Yellow Peril would one day be the biggest peril for the German people (and for Europe as a whole).

And let us not forget that besides the Asian-Jew alliance there is a more general South-South Tropical Alliance of Coloreds against Whites, with East Asian leadership.

Note the similarities of behavior between Asians and Jews.  Jews adjust their identities as it suits them.  When it is convenient to be “White” then they are “White.” On the other hand, when, more typically, it benefits them to be a whining minority distinct from the White majority, then Jews do that, and they always like to take positions of leadership among anti-White Colored groupings. Similarly, when it suits them, Asians present themselves as a First World “northern” people, akin to Whites and with pro-White attitudes. However, the default position, when more typically convenient, is for Asians to portray themselves as People of Color, opposing Whites and the West, in common cause with the World of Color, and indeed positioning themselves as leaders in the anti-White Colored Alliance.

Solutions?  Dealing effectively with Problem 2 will of course require first solving Problem 1. A multiracial, multicultural West – itself full of White-hating Asians – is not going to be in any way capable of dealing with the Asian threat.  However, while dealing with Problem 1, and focusing on Problem 1, we cannot lose sight on Problem 2, and not only because Asian immigration is part of Problem 1.  Problem 2 always percolates in the background; Asians such as the Chinese (see Riki’s comments above) and the Indians make common cause with Israel and the Jews; and, more concerning, Asians – particularly Chinese “maidens” and Japanese female anime-pseudonyms – are trying to infiltrate into White nationalism and distort its directions to satisfy Asian interests – shades of the Jews!  While dealing with Problem 1 we need to hold the line against Asians: to limit the growth of Asian numbers and influence within the West in general and within the “movement” in particular.  If we don’t do this, we’ll “solve” Problem 1 and then find our societies compromised by Asians and Asian infiltration. We can of course make common cause with folks like Riki who seem more sincere, while opposing with full force the Silk Roaders and all their ilk. And as part of dealing with Problem 1 we need to have rapprochement with Russia (what direction will a post-Putin Russia go in?) and stand fast together against the teeming Yellow and Brown hordes of Asia, and the burgeoning Asia-Jew alliance.

Stay tuned for further analyses as well as the ongoing Silk Road News feature here at EGI Notes.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 18, 2017

King Cuck?

Where’s the EGI?

KMacD wrote up something about Steve King’s recent comments, and I have some comments of my own about it.  Emphasis added:

However, in explaining what he meant in a follow-up interview (where super liberal Cuomo states “[America is]known … as a bastion of diversity and it is an unqualified strength for us”), King makes it clear that he is all about cultural and genetic assimilation — that he opposes setting up of isolated ethnic/religious enclaves that remain isolated from the rest of society even after 2 or 3 generations. Indeed he looks forward to the day when all Americans look the same as a result of intermarriage, presumably some shade of brown, with genetically recessive blondness entirely eradicated. 

One can make all sorts of hand-waving excuses for King, but that is really inexcusable. Cuomo we know is a hardcore leftist – the over-rated and unassimilated son of an over-rated and unassimilated father. But for King to say such things is pathetic, and puts the latest “behold the King!” Alt Right hero worship in its proper perspective.  If we are going to have Third Worlders, better they remain in their enclaves than to mix their genes (and their bizarre and alien cultural mores) with White America.  

I’m of a mixed mind with respect to King’s comments with respect to the long-term strategic effects. On the one hand, on balance, his comments are a net positive, shifting the discussion in a more “rightward” direction than anything uttered by the “God Emperor: himself.  On the other hand, King’s cucked Alt Lite culturalism harms European genetic interests and diminishes the positive value of his original comments.  Criticism of King – even with the constraints he no doubt believes he has in speaking his mind – is justified since no one asked him to make the comments to begin with.  He decided to broach the subject and he has the responsibility for the direction he takes those comments, and he is thus responsible if the discussion does into a sterile cul-de-sac of cucked civic nationalism and aracial culturalism.  If he believes he will be “compromised” by going too far, then he could have hedged a bit more artfully, without throwing genetic interests completely out the window.  If he’s not capable of being artful and cagey when discussing these matters, then he should keep his mouth shut and his tweets off the Internet.

Here is where the “EGI Firewall” could have been helpful.  If King (and others) had an understanding of genetic interests and if he – and others – internalized the attitude that genetic interests are ultimate interests and that defense of those interests are fundamental and non-negotiable, then he would not have gone off in the aracial civic nationalist Alt Lite culturalist direction.  The EGI Firewall would have blocked off any temptation to throw race and blood “under the bus.”  He would realize that genetic assimilation, intermarriage, and the “browning” of White America were completely incompatible with the most important and basic considerations for the interests of his people.  He would have the theoretical underpinning to reject maladaptive memes, giving him the confidence and moral courage to defend the primacy of race and blood.  Ultimately, there is why Salter’s work is so important: if one internalizes the EGI worldview, then one will never put culture, economic growth, cognitive elitism, or any other proximate interests above the ultimate interest of biological fitness.  Thus, the “movement’s” relative disregard for Salter’s work proves destructive.  If the “movement” was immersed in EGI, then it would have percolated into the Alt Right and from there 

Perhaps, given his original comments, his views are closer to ours than he dares (publicly) admit; however, if so, he perhaps should have considered whether if it was worth making the comments to begin with if he was not willing to go all the way with them.  As I said, I see it as a net positive, but still, there’s some negativity mixed with the positive and the negativity could have been avoided if King had refrained from commenting to begin with if he was not ready to fully and unconditionally assert the primacy of a biocentric view.  It would seem that this will be the job of someone else, in the future, someone who will take the baton from King and run further (to the “right”) with it.

Cuomo then presses the point, asking if Muslims, Jews, Christians, Italians, etc. are Americans, and asserting that “they are all equal … We don’t need babies from any one of those groups more than from any other of those groups.” Rep. King then seems to say that, although everyone is equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law, not all groups contribute equally to society: “Certain individuals contribute more to society than others, and certain groups of people will do more on the productive side than other groups, that’s just a statistical fact.” Cuomo, being your standard liberal, says that these differences are entirely explained by differences in opportunity, whereas King puts the blame squarely on culture. But in any case, according to King, it has nothing to do with race: “It’s the culture, not the blood … it’s never been about race.” If children from other cultures were adopted into American homes (i.e., assimilated American homes), they would all grow up to be good Americans.

Again, I’m of two views here.  I can see the benefit of King stretching the bounds of discourse and making things easier for the next person to make more explicitly racial assertions.  But, still…to make such racially destructive comments, it’s not clear whether King perhaps should have not said anything at all if he couldn’t come out and support the primacy of race and blood.  You see, his comments are a double-edged sword – on the one hand, yes, it possibly eases the way for some future public figure to be more explicitly “racist,” but on the other hand, this scenario can be viewed as setting limits to discourse in that one can only broach these topics if one disavows explicitly biological arguments.  It is not clear, when all is said and done, which interpretation will win out – is King opening the door for race/blood/genetics or is he shutting the door?  I hope the former.  Given my oft-cited note that revolutions more typically occur when repression is suddenly relaxed, rather than when repression is greatest, if King can survive and prosper from his “controversial” comments, that can be viewed as a relaxation of repression making even more “extreme” public comments that much more plausible.

Rep. King is certainly pushing the limits of acceptable discourse in mainstream America. His talk about “other people’s babies” certainly does sound like he is referring to DNA, but he deftly dodged the bullet by framing it in terms of cultural assimilation.

One can give him the benefit of the doubt if we assume his intention is to stretch the discourse in a direction supportive of European racial survival. One wonders what would have happened had he pushed the limits past the boundary of race and DNA.  In the Trump era, it is not clear that the repercussions would be what they could have been before.  After all, the Left views his comments as they currently are as “racist White nationalism” – would their reaction would that much worse if he had gone “full racist?”  Maybe, maybe not…but we’ll need to wait for another incident to test those boundaries.

In the wake of the election, even some liberals, finally realizing this, began to call for an end to identity politics. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind. Identity politics is profoundly antithetical to the liberal traditions of the West based on individualism.

This is why they are so intent on shutting down any hint of White Identity.  It is also why the Sallis Strategy of chaos and balkanization is as realistic now than it has ever been,

On the other hand, from an Alt Right perspective Rep. King’s comments fall short of the mark. 

Yes, indeed.


And neither King nor Cuomo deal with the reality of race differences in IQ and impulse control which are so essential to success in navigating the complexities of contemporary society. Within American society, the racial gap in academic achievement continues, unaffected by the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on uplift programs for low-achieving minorities. European societies are now seeing the same pattern with African and Muslim immigrants.

But kinship differences trump (no pun intended) these proximate HBD-style concerns. EGI is more important than levels of achievement, IQ, and impulse control.

Does anyone seriously think that importing millions of Black African converts to Judaism would maintain Israel as a Jewish state?

Despite King’s disclaimers, he seems quite aware that the left is eagerly awaiting the demise of White America. In a radio interview, he stated, referring to people like Latino activist Jorge Ramos, “Their effort here is to be celebrating because the United States is moving towards becoming, the whites becoming a minority, a majority-minority within the country according to what their plan is.”King also recommended that listeners read the novel, The Camp of the Saints, by French author Jean Raspail, “a book about Europe being overcome by immigrants which has also frequently been referenced by top Trump adviser Steve Bannon. The book has been criticized as presenting a racist view of immigration.”

That at least is quite positive.  Note in that book Asians lead the way to the dispossession of Whites. Life follows fiction, as always.

On the whole, then, King would seem to be at least implicitly White and probably, if you got into his heart of hearts, he really does get it. Realizing that non-Whites are eagerly awaiting Whites becoming a minority has a way of doing that.


Also, King’s saying that Western culture is superior does flirt with the possibility that something about European genetic uniqueness fed into the triumph of the West. And if there is indeed something genetically unique about the peoples who created Western society — a genetic basis for Western individualism, then of course one could not recreate European civilization with peoples from a different gene pool. What’s so amazing is that liberals like Cuomo believe with absolute certainty that this could not be the case. It’s an a priori  moral certainty, not subject to debate and immune to all the data from behavior genetics and the long history of ethnic and religious conflict. And if you don’t subscribe to such ideas, you are an evil person — a moral cretin rightly outside of the morally defined ingroup.

This is all true.

Although I’m critical of a strictly “culturalist” view, I certainly am not one of those people who say: “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.”  However, culture is not enough. Indeed, genetic interests are ultimate interests, so that race is more fundamental than culture.  No doubt culture is important, the most important proximate interest.  One cay crudely say: race with culture is vulgar; culture without race is effete.  More to the point is the realty that race and culture, genes and culture, are intertwined. A culture is the product of a specific genepool; however, that genepool is obviously influenced by culture, since the environment, of which culture is one prime component for humans, exerts selective pressure on the genes, hence shaping racial development and ethnogenesis.  It’s foolish for King and the Alt Right to pretend that a culture can thrive and grow with assimilated aliens; on the other hand, Nutzis act like vulgar barbarians when they dismiss out of hand the value of culture.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 17, 2017

Social Epistasis, Social Genetic Effects, and Harsh Reality

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?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,