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.
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.