Monday, April 9, 2018

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference - or a difference without distinction - because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:
“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”
Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.

Thus:

1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary - do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? - is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.