Sunday, August 30, 2015

Salter Interview in Junge Freiheit

Talking good sense.

Read here.

Pathetic Trash Douthat

Surprise!  Cuckservatives don't like third parties. 

In certain ways this narrowing can be good for the republic. Elites can have wisdom that populists lack…
Wisdom about what? How to sacrifice national interests on the altar of elite interests?  How have these elites performed for America?  How are they doing for a Europe being invaded by the Third World?

…certain ideas deserve suppression…

And who decides what these ideas are?  You?  Elites? Jews? NGOs?  Who? One could imagine a KGB agent ripping up a Solzhenitsyn book while asserting “certain ideas deserve suppression.”  What a piece of shit thing to say. How about all the “good" ideas fairly compete in the intellectual marketplace with all the “should be suppressed" ideas?

…and multiparty systems are more likely to hand power to extremists or buffoons…

No worries!  Look at all the high-quality leaders our two-party system has produced! Clinton being fellated in the White House by a Jewess, Bush who started an unnecessary war with the insightful analysis of “Fuck Saddam,” and a purple-lipped mulatto who attended a Black radical church and then tried to defend that by attacking his own White grandmother.  No buffoons or extremists there!

(It’s a good thing for the country that neither Henry Wallace’s effectively pro-Soviet leftism nor George Wallace’s segregationist populism outlived their respective third-party bids.)

And how are we better off today that Wallace wasn’t elected President?

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Book Review: For My Legionaries

Codreanu's Legion - a real movement.

Read here.

Shut Up, Durocher, 8/29/15

Will someone shut this fool up?

Yes, Zeman's idea is good, but for godssakes man, can you stop talking about Orban as if that scum is any sort of nationalist leader?  Hungary has been in the news alot the past couple of days and for two reasons:

1. Budapest's train stations have been turned into refugee camps, so many have entered Hungary recently.

2. Orban's dreaded "razor wire fence" has turned out to be a big joke, with grinning invaders simply climbing over it or tunneling under it, then walking by Hungarian police who just stand around and watch.

Hint, Durocher: Orban's "big talk" is to win right-wing votes away from Jobbik. His "fence" has the same objective. The only thing he's actually accomplished, re: race and nation is to shut down the NPI conference, thus satisfying the real wire-pullers behind the scenes.

Mainstreamers are becoming mockeries of themselves.

And at this point I'm going to anger the extreme anti-Semitic set by suggesting that suicide rather than murder is a better analogy for the Death of the West and the Destruction of the White Race.

Yes, I know: Jews, Jews, Jews.  But I look at Germany, and see that German-hating, genocidal monster Merkel opening her nation up, with great enthusiasm, to the invaders and I ask - isn't Merkel German?  Wasn't she elected with German votes - the same Germans who won't vote for the NPD? Isn't the same true of every other European nation?  Are Jews going to the polls with White voters and forcing their choice?  Yes, I know: "control of the media" and "poisoning the culture."  Anyone who reads this blog knows full well that I do in fact pin much of the blame on the Jews.  But we can't put all the blame there. We can't just say "murder" and "parasitism" and absolve Whites for all responsibility for their fate. The recent "Camp of the Saints" style invasion of Europe is due principally to the pathetic weakness and softness of Whites, and whatever blame you want to put on Jews for that, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Whites themselves.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Trump Hits the Sweet Spot

Donald Trump: Right-Wing Populist.

Contrary to the Beavis-and-Butthead onanistic fanboys and their girlish shrieks of "Trump has tight game," and contrary to the pathetically self-interested "awkward squad" miscegenators and their claim that Trump is the "HBD candidate," the ultimate reality of Trump is that he is running a campaign of unabashed right-wing populism.

Some time ago, on a Counter-Currents podcast, Greg Johnson asserted that "right-wing populism is the sweet spot of American politics," and Trump's popularity has proven Johnson correct. In fact, the American voter is hungry for any kind pf populism, including the left-wing variety (Bernie Sanders), but it is right-wing populism which is the more potent force and which has the Establishment, particularly its Levantine corner ("the goy mobs have their pitchforks out"), so worried.

Thus, whatever happens with Trump's candidacy, even if he collapses into cuckservatism, his value is in unleashing the genie of right-wing populism from the constipated bottle of American politics. Trump is therefore the Bringer of Chaos in American politics, and for that we should all be grateful.

The mettle of White Americans will be demonstrated if the Establishment is unable to get that genie back into the bottle. After all, the Republican Establishment can manipulate things to make sure that a Bush or Rubio is nominated, but can they be confident of a high turnout of the White base (what the Bush family calls the "extra chromosome crowd") to ensure Election Day victory?  And if Trump runs as a third party candidate (which he should, if he is not nominated and if he really is "alpha"), then the chance that the GOP Establishment comes out of all this a winner is ZERO.

Bring on the chaos!

The Lie of GOP Extremism

Lies and more lies.

In the recent media frenzy to link Trump with "racist haters," the usual media liars assert that this is evidence of the continued rightward shift of the Republican party, which is now populated by "extremists."

Yet, real extremists denounce GOP liberalism, the cuckservative phenomenon, the uselessness of "surrender conservatism," and Republican race treason and the continued GOP hatred of their own base. 

These two views are incompatible. Who's right?  Who is lying?

The extremists are right and the media are lying.

Look at the main points of Trump's immigration plan:
1) Enforce the law
2) Illegals are, in fact, illegal, they are invaders, and must be removed
3) Immigration policy must have the well being of Americans as paramount (an aracial "citizenist" approach)
4) National sovereignty must be maintained

Is that radical?  Extreme?  Really?  Or just common sense?  As opposed to a "rightward drift" of the GOP, instead we have a leftward drift of society and the System, a leftward drift of the Republican Establishment.

Proof in point: the moderate Establishment Republican Dwight Eisenhower, he who "integrated" southern schools at bayonet point, the hero of moderate Republicans everywhere, good old Ike, instituted "Operation Wetback" to deport illegal aliens.  In the 1950s, deporting illegals was the height of moderation and not controversial. Today, it is considered "neo-Nazi."

Who drifted?

Counter Currents Riposte Number One, 8/28/15

Different approaches.

The Counter-Currents site is rejecting my comments for being "too fast" (Greg, there's a coding problem there again), thus I post here:

First, I want to re-emphasize that I am critiquing approaches, not people. None of this is a personal critique of any activist, living or dead. By analogy with football: your team quarterback can be a good man, a solid family man, honorable, trustworthy, and hardworking - but if he can't get the job done, if he makes the team lose game after game, he must be replaced. You can thank him for his service, and appreciate his effort, but if you want to win, he must be replaced. 
Second, I approve of different approaches in theory, but two points:
a) that football analogy again - you have to do what works. Having different approaches is fine, but after a while (25-30 years can do nicely), you need to ask: what is working or not working, and why?
b) in Europe particularly, the mainstreamers attack those more radical, to the joy of their cheering squad elsewhere.  It's time to admit that mainstreaming has failed as much as vanguardism. There is no empirical evidence that one works better than the other. 
Now, the Trump case is interesting. If evidence is unearthed that mainstreaming activism has influenced Trump's move to the right, then that is to its credit. 
On the other hand, in the recent media frenzy "linking" Trump to "haters" I note that no distinction is made between, on the one hand, Amren/CCC and on the other hand, Duke, Daily Stormer, Stormfront, etc.  It seems like mainstreaming is lose-lose: on the one hand, the constant attempts to "move center" disgusts core activists and projects weakness to the public; on the other hand, the mainstreamers are not "getting credit" for their moderation but are still lumped with the extremists.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Picture Sums Up Orban's Mainstreaming

Big talk, no action.

Hungarian policemen stand around and  watch, doing nothing,  as NEC filth easily penetrate Hungary's fence to invade that Central European nation.

Hungary's dreaded "fence" is obviously a political ploy by Orban to win votes away from Jobbik, as is his big talk that gets the likes of Durocher all hot and bothered.

The reality is - nothing is being done to stop the invasion of Hungary. Easy talk and an easily penetrated fence, with policemen who just casually stand around and watch.

Mainstreaming is race treason.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Greg Johnson on Trump Deportation Plan

Excellent summary of restrictionist arguments.

See here.

More Mainstreaming Success, 8/26/15

Proving my point.

With respect to recent debates at Counter-Currents, re: mainstreaming, Amren, and related issues, I note two articles at VDARE today.

First, we see that Taylor invites a Jewish (surprise!) journalist to his home, twice, and then expresses surprise (surprise!) that this Levantine scribbler writes a smear job on "White nationalists" (some of whom are merely HBD paleoconservatives) and Donald Trump.  Is Osnos the only one who has "learned nothing?"  Another mainstreaming success, I gather. Twenty-five more years of such success and we'll really be making progress!

And then we have more contributions from the "chosen ones" - is this incitement to violence?  If a WN (real or HBD) wrote something similar about an Establishment candidate, what would be the reaction, I wonder?

On a (of course) completely unrelated note: one argument against affirmative action is that it elevates the less competent over the more competent, thereby decreasing efficiency and accomplishment. Something to consider over the next generation of sterling "movement" success.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

A Real Example of White Privilege

Democratic multiculturalism in action: Whites promoting racial justice to help the Colored.

If diversity is a strength, as we are told by the multiculturalists, then why is such strengthening diversity being monopolized by predominantly White, Western nations?  This is indeed a real example of White Privilege; selfish privileged Whites are hoarding all of this precious diversity for themselves, instead of sharing it with Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Therefore, in the name of social justice, for the cause of racial justice, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand should all strive to reduce their own diversity and instead promote increased diversity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, in order to utilize the wonders of diversity to strengthen and help these Colored areas as much as possible.

Moving the Movement Football

Decades of unending failure from both ends of the spectrum.

I am not much interested in sports, especially Negro-dominated American football, which features simian behemoths colliding on a field in front of cheering crowds of inebriated jock-sniffing White fans.  Nevertheless, football contributes certain phrases that help visualize action, such as "moving the football down field," as an analogy for consistent progress toward a goal.

My cursory knowledge of that sport is that there are two main approaches to "moving the football" - the more aggressive and risky passing game and the more conservative and limited running game. As a "movement" analogy, passing is "vanguardism," and running is "mainstreaming."  Vanguardism is long on vision and long-term goals, but ignores shorter term objectives and is particularly weak on pragmatism; it is all "ends" and no "means." Conversely, mainstreaming lacks vision, confuses means with ends, and lacks any inspiring "the outcome justifies the sacrifices" long-term goals.

One can compare European nationalist groups, but for now, I will focus instead on post-WWII (actually, post-"Civil Rights era") American activism. On the "passing game" side we have the vanguardist National Alliance founded by William Pierce, and on the mainstreaming "running game" side we have Taylor's American Renaissance and associated groupings, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). I argue here that both extremes are sub-optimal, just as any football offense that is too heavily focused on passing or running becomes vulnerable to the defensive strategies of opponents.

Pierce had a vision (albeit one some may consider highly flawed), but zero pragmatics. The history of the National Alliance makes this clear, the lack of any progress for the ~30 years or Pierce's leadership, and the grotesque collapse of even that small-scale "success" after Pierce's death.  Currently, Pierce's extreme vanguard approach has evolved into tragicomedy. A wild passing game, heaving footballs in the air with no plan (and no open receivers) is a recipe for failure.

But has mainstreaming succeeded?  Has the cost of a lack of vision been compensated by some sort of sustained practical success?  In football terms, has the running game ground out those yards, a few at a time, setting us up for the touchdown?  Or must we punt and give the ball to our opponents, time and time again?

Amren started out on C-Span, and ended up being run out of conferences to the indifference or delight of the White masses.  Currently, Amren is a website with no print journal (the ending of which is another "mainstreaming success" I presume), which holds conferences at a government facility protected by police.  The closely associated CCC, which is a "council" of "conservative citizens," primarily a group of white-haired men who wave Confederate flags and decry "Black crime," has had their conference reservations cancelled.

After a full generation, a full quarter-century of such "running game" mainstreaming, it can be argued that the state of the "running game" today is worse than it was in the 1990s.  Yes, the vanguardists have failed but so have the mainstreamers. To point the finger at one while making excuses for the failure of the other ("they just need more time! 25 years is not enough to show even one small success or any progress whatsoever") is laughable special-pleading.  The other side can make the same excuses as well.

One can argue that the mainstreaming failure is even worse than the vanguard failure, because the mainstreamers have failed precisely in that arena that was supposed to be their strength - pragmatic "nuts and bolts" small scale activity and mainstream appeal. The mainstreamers cannot even hold a conference outside of an armed camp government facility, they have less mainstream access than they did during Bill Clinton's presidency, they've gone backward in many aspects (conferences, print journal, quality of writers, the abysmal quality of the commentators on the website) - so what's the payoff?   The vanguardists have their vision and goals coupled to failed pragmatics, and the mainstreamers couple their failed pragmatics with no real vision at all.  It appears that the "mainstreaming quarterback" is "getting sacked" just as often as the "vanguardist quarterback."  If there is no payoff for the sacrifices and compromises of mainstreaming, and if the only riposte is "we need more time" (which is exactly what the vanguardists would say), then where is the empirical evidence in favor of mainstreaming - other than mere personal preference?  And this is no apologia or promotion of the pure vanguardist approach, since I've made clear that has failed as well.

This post is not about making suggestions about what should be done, although I'd strongly suggest the "movement" consider the Codreanu Legionary model for some clues, as well as check out certain modern European nationalist parties, which typically integrate electoral politics with real-life community activism with youth groups with solid propaganda and with useful theorizing. I have also made suggestions here and elsewhere on that blog (see "The Fundamentals" sidebar there).

All of that is just the beginning of the conversation and not "The Answer." One thing I can definitely suggest is that the "movement" really needs leadership that thinks things through, has contingency plans, uses long-term strategic thinking, with a healthy dose of common sense. Do the CCC folks really need to be told that with all the Amren conference cancellations and the controversy of the Roof shooting, that their own meeting may not go as planned?  Do "movement" organizations really need to be told that if they give "the keys to the kingdom" to guys who call themselves on the Internet something like:
that there is a good chance that person will be a defective lunatic?  That he may shoot some place up? That he may walk out with a bunch of files and hand them over to a "watchdog" group?  Do we need to tell "movement" "leaders" that 25 years of failure is probably sufficient to at least prompt serious questions about whether the approach used is sound? 

Ironically enough, both ends of the "movement" spectrum denounce affirmative action. Talk about a lack of self-awareness - a certain biblical passage concerning motes, beams, and eyes comes to mind.  "Movement leadership" should look in the mirror on that.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Monday, August 17, 2015

Global Warming: a Chinese Invention?


Hey!  Trump is criticizing the Chinese here and his immigration plan stands to question the mass import of Chinese and Indian "cognitive elitists" to take over American STEM fields.  For shame!  I wonder if some of Trumps's support in HBD circles will begin to dry up, if he dares to blaspheme against the Holy Orientals, and if he fails to sacrifice American interests on the Altar of Asia.

After all, any slowing down of the Asian influx means fewer live-action China doll sex toys for semi-autistic White nerd types, and we certainly can't have that.

As far as "global warming" goes - in the end, it doesn't matter what it is and what is causing it, we need to switch to a non-fossil fuel energy economy anyway. Instead of giving endless social welfare handouts to chimps and other apes, and instead of endless wars for Israel, a prudent investment in alternative energy research can make a large impact on the human future. And IF man-made global warming is real, this approach would help, and if global warming is a hoax, then this is something we need to do anyway. Does Trump support a strong investment in the American research enterprise?

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Trump's Immigration Plan and Mainstreaming

Radical conservatism.

With respect to what I wrote here, let's look at Trump's latest immigration plan, and the hysterical reaction of the Neocons, who represent the current mainstream of GOP politics.  

Although Trump's plan is somewhat weak by WN standards, by "Republican conservative" standards, it is "radical" and "extremist" - to the extent that the mainstream labels it "White identity politics."  Note Trump's continued popularity and the lack thereof for mainstreaming Jeb Bush.

If we make an analogy between the GOP and the "movement," then Trump is akin to, say, The Turner Diaries, and Jeb Bush is akin to Derbyshire speaking about HBD at an Amren conference. Trump is like Golden Dawn and Jeb Bush is like Marine Le Pen or Orban.

Sure, the Establishment is against Trump and will sabotage his campaign in every way possible. However, looking at personal popularity among base supporters, radical is "in" and mainstream is "out."  

Is Trump Mainstreaming?

In a word: no.

Before mendacious "movement" mainstreamers start pointing at Trump's current popularity as a validation of their approach, let's take a closer look at what's going on.

All of us, including the mainstreamers themselves, will I think agree that what the mainstreaming debate is about is public perception.  Very well. What then is the perception of Trump?

Trump is no racial nationalist. He has not even been much of a "Republican conservative" before this election - he has contributed to, and socialized with, leading Democrats, he has praised legal immigration, he has previously denounced the idea of "self-deportation" as too tough.  He's befriended Negro celebrities on his TV show, and currently has Negro supporters. These things are known to the public. His Republican opponents have publicly pointed out Trump's past political "promiscuity," public love of pop culture has made them familiar with Trump's persona on "Celebrity Apprentice," and the mass media is recently focusing on Negresses supporting Trump (perhaps in a sly fashion to chip away at Trump's support in "implicit Whiteness"). Thus, despite leftist hysteria to the contrary, according to public perception, Trump is merely a boisterous, egocentric businessman and celebrity, at most a "Republican conservative," certainly no racialist or far-right nationalist.

Thus, Trump must be judged according to the public perception of him as some sort of Republican conservative (which is more or less correct, at least as of now if not in the past).  Trump cannot be judged according to the standards of racial nationalists, since he is not such and is not perceived by the public as being such.

In the context of "Republican conservatism," what is Trump? Mainstream?  Hardly!  Mainstreaming in the GOP is best represented by Jeb Bush, whose tepid campaign and centrist platitudes have alienated the base and failed to excite or even interest the general public. Within conservatism, within the GOP, Trump represents a more extreme, populist, "radical" fringe.  Indeed, as Trump has moved further "to the right" politically, become more "extreme," as he has peddled in boisterous "speaking his mind" rather than careful mainstreaming, his popularity has increased. Within the context of conservatism, within the context of public perception of Trump as a Republican candidate, his current popularity is a refutation of mainstreaming, and is more supportive of a public who values radical plain-speaking.  Now, since America is an oligarchy ruled by special interests, and these interests are strongly opposed to Trump and favor Bush, it is very possible that the 2016 GOP candidate will be Bush or some other unexciting mainstreamer whose boring campaign will result in low turnout of the base and another electoral loss. That outcome is irrelevant to the main thesis here, which is that, given context and perception, the rise of Trump is a clear repudiation of mainstreaming and is more supportive of an assertive radicalism. One can note also the enthusiasm, on the Democrat side, for the left-wing populist Sanders, which mirrors that of right-wing populist Trump in the GOP.  The Establishment may eventually get its way, but the populist undercurrents are highly visible nonetheless.

Another point: it may be "illogical," but the importance of public perception means that two different candidates, coming from two different political pedigrees, can promote exactly the same policies but be perceived and received by the public in completely different manners.  Thus, it will not serve mainstreaming nationalists to mirror Trump's aracial rightist populism.  When a Republican conservative comes out strongly against illegal immigration, that is perceived as radical, cutting edge, populist, and exciting. If the same policies and talking points are expounded by a far-right racialist/nationalist, the perception will be of weakness, mainstreaming compromise, unexciting centrism, and being untrustworthy.  It is not only the political positions that matter, but the public perception of how a candidate is moving towards those positions.  If a candidate sticks with their principles - that's great.  If a candidate moves in a more radical direction - great too. However, if those same positions are taken by a candidate moving towards the center - that's not good at all, that's the "beta/omega male" attitude toward politics - it will disgust and alienate the candidate's base of supporters, make the candidate lose the respect of friend and foe alike, and also most probably fail to win over many of the targeted centrist voters, who may not at all trust this sudden lurch to the center. Indeed, one often sees the opposite, as centrists like Sarkozy and McCain win elections or primaries by moving to the right (which is more successful since rightist voters are more naive and/or desperate and believe that these shifts to the right are real, in contrast to centrist or leftist voters who are more mature and skeptical. Is Trump feinting to the right as well?).

Friday, August 14, 2015

Opinion Polling and a Conservative View from the NY Post


To summarize:

1. Supporting amnesty is a good thing for the GOP nomination.

2. Side implication: getting the GOP nomination is more important than the well-being of the American people.

3. The most important thing for a GOP candidate is winning that small fraction of the vote that is "Latino."  White voters can be taken for granted and simply ignored.

4. The popularity of Trump - wrongly perceived by the electorate as being anti-immigration - has no bearing whatsoever. Rigged "opinion polls" should be listed to instead.

5. One should follow the lead of McCain in these matters, who, after all, did so well in the 2008 general election, and who got re-elected in Arizona only after dishonestly tricking gullible White Arizonans to think he was "tough on illegal immigration" by squinting into the camera and muttering about "build the damn fence."

Some realities:

1. Opinion polls do not exist to measure opinion. They exist to CREATE opinion. Combine a deceptively worded question, with a (in reality) non-random poll sample, with a deceptive "interpretation" of the "data," and you get the "spin" that influences the conformist sheeple to go along with the program.

Polling questions on "immigration reform" that I have seen tend to emphasize enforcement, and couch language about amnesty in tough terms, usually counter-posed with some straw man alternative. Support for strict enforcement coupled with "hard-love" legalization is then equated to a "pro-amnesty" position.

The following would be typical:

Do you support immigration reform that would, once and for all, forever and ever, enforce immigration law, close the borders, end all illegal immigration, 100% permanently, coupled with allowing illegals presently in the country to stay if they pay a fine of ten million dollars apiece, speak English better than a British butler, and graduate from Harvard with a medical degree, OR do you support herding up all illegal aliens, killing them, and turning them into Soylent Green?

If more than 50% of Republican voters choose the "support immigration reform" option then that is construed as support for amnesty. Well done!

2. The current enthusiasm for Trump, and pitifully low numbers for Jeb and Miss Lindsey casts a pall over the chances of a GOP victory in 2016. Assuming the establishment will never let Trump be nominated, and given that the establishment would like to foist a pro-amnesty candidate, optimally Jeb, on us, this suggests that the base will be so "turned off" and unenthused in the general election that the Democrats could run a donkey as their candidate and still win. The base despises Jeb and pink-frilled Graham and the rest of the amnesty freaks.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

A Jewish Perspective on the POW/MIA Issue

The HBDers favorite group strikes again.

You'd think that with the Jewish under-representation in Vietnam, and their history of having the dumb goyim fight wars the chosen ones start (***cough***Iraq***cough***), they'd tread lightly in this area. But, no. When you're in charge, the chutzpah flows freely.

Who I really blame are the White HBDers. No punishment one can think of would be sufficient for them in the event of the establishment of a White ethnostate. No place on Earth should be safe for them from White vengeance, thirsting for justice against the HBD scum.

System Hypocrisy on Immigration

And leucosa Whites continue with their heads in the sand.

Now, when a state like Arizona decides it wants to enforce immigration law ignored by the federal government, that federal government then sues Arizona to prevent enforcement, on the premise that: "immigration law and its enforcement, or lack thereof, is a federal, not state, policy and prerogative."

Very well. What then happens when a state like California decides to also decide its own immigration policy, in this case by promoting illegal immigration through the give-away of goodies, thus blatantly defying federal immigration law?  Nothing, no lawsuits, no government officials and smug commentators asserting the primacy of federal jurisdiction.

Thus, when a state wants to enforce federal law it gets sued to stop it by the same federal government whose laws it is trying to enforce, and when a state openly defies federal law, the feds look on benignly.

The retarded cuckservatives braying about "immigration reform" with the idea that "first we will secure the borders" are delusional.  Hint: the System does not want to "secure the borders." The leadership of "both" political parties do not want to "secure the borders."  If "immigration reform" takes place, there will be no long term enforcement.

Repeat for the naive and the retarded: 

If there is amnesty, there will be no enforcement.

And what will weak, pathetic, leucosa cuckservatives do then? Nothing. They'll just move on to other "important" issues like the "capital gains tax rate" and other heavy breathing over the concerns of wealthy open-borders billionaires.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Ethnocentric Dominance and the Failure of Free-Riding

Anti-Salterians wrong again.

Yet another block in the crumbling edifice of anti-Salterism has been overturned, see this article, which is discussed by Kevin MacDonald here. This paper is particularly important to address one oft-cited anti-Salterian stupidity – that ethnocentric behavior is not “evolutionarily stable” because it gets hijacked by “free-riders.”  Let’s look at what the data say about that.

The abstract:

Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

I’ll like to comment on relevant excerpts from the abstract as well as the paper.
 …ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. 

Now, as I’ve stated many times, the utility of EGI does NOT depend on the evolution of any behavior, including ethnocentrism. It simply requires that ethnocentrism, which can be acted upon by rational thought mechanisms, be adaptive, which it is (as emphasized by this work).  That said, it is interesting to note that ethnocentrism, being evolutionarily stable once enacted, may in fact be an evolved behavior (likely to varying extents in different population groups).

… ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies…

That should come to no surprise to any honest person with a triple-digit IQ.

Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes.

Free-riding in its typical form (selfish) and its most virulent form (traitorous) is an evolutionary failure.  Read it and weep, HBDers.

Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.

This applies not only to White leftists and globalist humanitarians, but to cuckservatives and, yes indeed, to White HBDers, who are exploited by Asiatics (including Jews) to betray the European race and Western civilization and sacrifice their racial-cultural patrimony on the Altar of Asia. There is good reason why some of us were calling White GNXPers “the extended phenotypes of Asiatics” a decade ago.  This paper explains it well.

The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders' own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used.

Take home point: free-riding strategies are the worst possible, so bad that they perform badly even compared to humanitarians!  The idea that ethnic nepotism is “not stable” because of free-riding is not supported by the data.  Quite the opposite: it are the free-riders and their genes that will be weeded out; they can’t even prosper against humanitarian milksops. Free-riders will be so few in number that they won't even be efficiently exploited by non-ethnic ethnocentrists. Free-riding is a genetic dead-end.

Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.

This is an important point, because the anti-Salterian HBDers would have attempted to discredit these data by suggesting they are wholly dependent on group selection and, thus, "unreliable." No, sorry, individual selection is sufficient to explain the dominance of ethnocentrism and the pathetic failure of free-riding.

Unlike selfish free-riders, traitorous agents have the additional problem of being exploited by the very out-groups they cooperate with. This explains why traitorous genotypes typically do even worse than selfish genotypes, despite the traitors' greater capacity for cooperation…strategies that fail to cooperate with their own kind (selfish and traitorous) never gained much of a foothold.

Treason never prospers. White leftists, White cuckservatives, White “race-realist” HBDers are all headed for the genetic rubbish heap.  Unfortunately, due to their social and political power, they will drag ethnocentric Whites along with them, unless we leverage our ethnocentrism against the System and save ourselves.

Ultimate take-home message: anti-Salterians are liars and ignorant frauds. HBD – hostile to (White) ethnocentrism – is an anti-scientific fraud. Concern trolling about free-riding is politically/ethnically-motivated mendacity. Salter is proven correct once again.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Ethics, Pragmatism, and EGI

Refuting retardation.

I’ve been reading various retarded arguments against Salterism. One particularly stupid and dishonest argument is that Salterism implies that men should rape women so as to spread their genes and increase their fitness, or that if a person has a sick grandmother, they should eschew helping her in any way, since she is past reproductive age and so why waste your resources and thus depress your fitness. Thus, the critics assert that genetic interests must lead to a vicious “nature red in tooth and claw” Darwinian scenario in which people are raping and killing each other for a genetic advantage, and in which the elderly are allowed to “rot” if they don’t enhance one’s immediate genetic fitness. Unfortunately, some “friends” of EGI make analogous arguments; they use “EGI” as some sort of talisman to explain everything from the price of milk to bad weather, and assert that every human interaction is explained, or should be, by “EGI.”

Now, Salter has the last 1/3 of his book devoted to the ethics of EGI.  Critics (and a few “friends”) either ignore that section, or casually dismiss it as “add-on hand-waving” – as if many pages of carefully reasoned arguments based on ethical philosophy is mere “hand-waving.”  But, very well. I’ll make two major practical, pragmatic arguments why the “red in tooth and claw” assertions are wrong-headed and/or fundamentally dishonest, and why attempts to maximize genetic interests to the “nth degree” are doomed to be counter-productive.

1. It is simply not practical or pragmatic. Salter himself acknowledges that a very fine-grained pursuit of genetic interests is likely not possible and that the best that can be hoped for is to prevent large-scale maladaptive outcomes, such as mass migration and ethnoracial displacement/replacement.  What is a person to do?  Make every person they come into contact with take a genetic test, measure the genetic distances, and then calibrate every behavior in accordance to these distances?  To do this even with co-ethnics, with everyone?  For what? To gain an advantage of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a “child equivalent?”  The effort and resources wasted on such nonsense can be better applied to serious efforts in enhancing personal/familial genetic interests by raising a family in a stable society and in enhancing ethnic genetic interests by opposing mass migration.  An Irishman who, say, prevents 1000 Nigerians from immigrating to Ireland, has done orders of magnitude more for his genetic interests than any microscopic advantages to be gained by maximizing every passing personal interaction with his co-ethnics. The idea that the Irishman would be better served spending his time “raping women” (and avoiding arrest and imprisonment) rather than working, raising a family, and engaging in nationalist politics is so ludicrous that any intelligent person should be ashamed to even bring that up as an argument.

2. There is a difference between “gross genetic interests” – trying to maximize as much as possible genetic interests “to the last drop” no matter the cost, and “net genetic interests” – decisions that maximize the net genetic payoff in the end when all the costs vs. benefits are accounted for.  It is clear that these two are not equivalent. An example would be a population that attempted to maximize their genetic interests by rapid population expansion. That’s great – until they outstrip their carrying capacity, ruin the environment, and see their population crash, or attempt to relocate to another group’s territory, resulting in conflict that can turn deadly and result in genocide. Net genetic interests are better served by a more prudent policy of managing the population-environment equation and preserving the ethny from threats such as mass migration. Or, what if an ethny decides to start nitpicking on minor genetic gradients within the ethny and decides to maximize genetic interests by breaking their nation apart into small micro-states, each with an increased genetic relatedness? Perhaps every town and village can be a separate nation! And then a more integrated larger ethny comes along and more easily conquers (militarily or simply through mass migration or other tactics) each of these small micro-states in turn. The costs of destroying a historic nation, eliminating the organic solidarity of an established people, reducing the resources and power of the state, leading to defeat and destruction, would more than outweigh any putative gain by some slight increase in genetic relatedness of the population.

Going back to the original retarded arguments: any individual will have a greater genetic interest stake in their ethny, with its large population, than in their own individual fitness. On a smaller scale, familial fitness outweighs that of the individual. In civilized societies, ethnies and the families that make up these ethnies prosper by social stability, a proper degree of law and order, and distribution of positive social goods to family members and to co-ethnics. A society in which the population are savagely raping and killing each other to gain some incredibly tiny gain in fitness is not one in which any ethny will prosper. A family in which the elders can expect to be treated harshly is not one that will prosper and have the older generations helping to care for the younger. Even if we wish to ignore ethics, there are sound practical reasons to follow a more civilized, prudent, and conservative personal and familial lifestyle, because if everyone behaved in like bad fashion, everyone’s fitness (including yours) suffers in the long run. And free-riders are inevitably punished by a civilized society: being thrown into prison for rape or abusing elders will hardly boost long-term genetic fitness. In other words, attempts to maximize genetic interests to absurd levels meet with diminishing returns and eventually become self-destructive: beyond a certain level (reasonably defined by Salter’s ethics), one loses more genetic interests than one gains.

And here we come full circle with the ethics.  Even IF we were to agree that EGI could be optimized by rape, murder, and throwing grandma on the rubbish heap, what civilized society would accept that?  Europeans certainly would not. Even IF you consider ethics a sham, if those ethics make EGI more palatable for acceptance by the population, then ethics you must have. A 90% efficient policy of genetic interests that is acceptable to the population is infinitely more valuable for maximizing fitness than a 100% efficient policy that is rejected, for the rejected policy, by definition, will have a net efficiency of ZERO.

Of course, all my arguments are simple common sense, and it is hard to believe that the critics are so stupid not to realize all of this. They simply have ethnic and/or ideological agendas to delegitimize EGI. So they make retarded arguments, brashly declare that they have “killed Salterism,” and hope that the rubes believe them. It’s quite…unethical.

Saturday, August 8, 2015

HBD Realities

The facts of the case.

As recent posts here make clear, I like to use "over-the-top" rhetoric and personal invective when discussing HBD. That assists in drawing attention to the problem and alerting others to the danger. I suspect that Trump uses "bombast" in his campaign for similar reasons. Heated rhetoric aside, there are important points to make about HBD and the obvious syndicate-clique cooperation of inter-connected HBD bloggers, authors, etc. who assist each other in promoting their worldview.

HBD is a political movement.  It is openly hostile to: (White) racial nationalism, (White) racial loyalty, adherence to a (Western) civilizational core, the importance of kinship and genetic interests, European-derived peoples working together and creating a sense of pan-European Identity, the work of Salter (never mind Yockey) and the whole EGI concept. Instead, HBD revolves around a (ultimately aracial) constellation of human traits and a hierarchical ranking of humans by these traits that inevitably puts Jews and East Asians on top.  HBD is subversive of the kind of racial identity and pursuit of racial interests required for White preservationism and ascendancy.  It instead favors the long-term interests of Jews and Asians, and of Whites who have "thrown their lot in" with Jews and Asians. HBD is also a useful tool for people of all backgrounds who simply hate Whites and would like to see Whites fragmented, defeated, and diminished.

So, to those who ask: "Come on, do you really believe HBDers want to enslave Whites to Jews and Asians?" - my reply is, well, many of them may not have that conscious intention, but it doesn't matter: the long-term inevitable consequence of a HBD culture is the rise of a Jeurasian elite with a White underclass serving as "cannon fodder" and proletarian labor beneath them. Not all HBDers are seething with anti-White hatred (but I can think of some who are); nevertheless, it is clear they put loyalty to a predominantly Jewish/Asian "cognitive elite" above all else; HBDers who are racially White are therefore clearly race traitors. They may deceive themselves (and others!) that they are merely "politically incorrect truth tellers" but, in the last analysis, they are just another cog in the anti-White System machine.  

In the last analysis, all comes down to race and civilization, not IQ or behavior.

An Incredibly Evil Piece of Despicable Filth

The Derb.

See my recent post on Jayman's pathetic attempt to delegitimize Salter's work.  The triracial mongrel Jayman is, like Derbyshire, a HBDer, and, thus, is part of the HBD political agenda to enslave Whites to Asians and Jews. "Awkward squad" Derbyshire, whose life revolves his self-admitted "measured groveling"  to an alien Asiatic, of course praises the anti-White, part-Chinese HBD fanatic who espouses the same insane creed as does Derbyshire himself. That Jayman is now going to blog at the site of a wealthy Jews, who is hostile to White nationalism, and who also hosts the likes of Breezy Steve and "actor on the stage of history" Frost, is also no surprise.

By the way, trolling trash who promote "moderation" also support "racialist (sic) conferences" which give a forum to Derbyshire to spew his anti-Salterian, anti-racialist garbage to an audience he previously referred to as "latrine flies."

The Codreanu quote here  comes to my mind when I consider how a future White ethnostate should treat all of the aforementioned excrement.

Two Wonderful Quotes

From Romania.

I've started reading For My Legionaries and I'd like to note two very wonderful quotes that I've just come across there.

First, by Codreanu himself:

This betrayal by these politicians of their people is so frightening that, if they are still alive, the people should gouge out their eyes; if they are dead, their bones should be disinterred and burnt in public squares. Their children and grandchildren should be prosecuted, their wealth confiscated and they should be stigmatized with the epithet of "traitors' children."

That beautiful passage, sublime in its power and elegance, should be a guiding light to how a future White ethnostate should deal with whatever traitors, HBDers, anti-White Internet trolls, "movement" wreckers, and other absolute scum fall into its hands.

Then we have Professor Ion Gavanescul talking about the Jewish influence in Romania of the past:

...inadmissible, inconceivable monstrosities of ethnic biology...

Also to the point and brimming with truthful vigor. 

Friday, August 7, 2015

More Dissection of anti-Salterism

Behold the imbeciles.

The stupidity of the anti-Salter argument can be further dissected through the following scenario.  Let us assume that the native Irish population of Ireland is being rapidly race replaced by a mass migration of Nigerians (not much different from the current situation).  Let us consider Irishman Kevin O’Brien, sitting in a Dublin pub, drinking beer and brooding about this situation.

The anti-Salterites would claim that:

1.  Kevin should cheer up since he is suffering no loss of personal fitness whatsoever due to the alien influx and the consequent diminishment of his ethny in their own territory.

To assert this, they must believe that there are no genetic differences between population groups (false), that Irishmen are not more genetically alike than they are to Nigerians (false), or that biological fitness has no connection with genetic continuity (laughably false).

2. Kevin can take advantage of the influx and enhance his fitness. For example, he is a businessman who can exploit cheap Nigerian labor.

Yes sir!  Kevin will be so successful, he will be able to father several million children to compensate for the loss of an entire ethny. Let’s hope he has a cast iron prostate!  What nonsense.

Just because short-sighted businessmen favor profits over biological fitness doesn’t mean they are not losing fitness, are losers in the biological game of life, or that Kevin shouldn’t defend his own genetic interests.

3. Kevin is losing fitness, but he can’t do anything about it, since the behaviors to act thus “have not evolved.”  (And as we know, throughout history, people have never defended their group, because that behavior “hasn’t evolved!”).

Sure!  Starting a blog to inform his co-ethnics of the threat can’t be done, because it hasn’t evolved. Kevin can’t get involved in politics, such as anti-immigration political activism, because that behavior hasn’t evolved.  He certainly can’t contact his nationalist brother Seamus in Cork and coordinate resistance, perhaps forming a new political party or nationalist organization, because, you know, the ability to behave in that manner just hasn’t evolved. On the other hand, sitting in a pub, drinking beer, and allowing your nation to be over-run by aliens - that is an evolved behavior!  No doubt.

The mendacity of the anti-Salterites comes into sharper focus.

4. No wait!  Kevin can act, but if he does, he will be outcompeted by a non-altruistic, free-riding Irishman and so the (as of yet unidentified) “alleles for altruism” will be diminished in the population. 

Yes sir!  As if: (1) any and all actions Kevin could take are going to significantly diminish his personal fitness, (2) the cost of losing an entire ethny is not orders of magnitude greater than some theoretically possible loss of personal fitness, and (3) the replacement of altruistic Irishmen, who are so universalist they allow their nation to be colonized, by the more ethnocentric expanding Nigerians is not going to reduce “alleles for altruism” to a far greater extent than any possible personal loss by individual Irishmen.  Never mind that “self-sacrificing altruism,” to the extent that it may be genetic, is likely coded by a number of genes, acting in conjunction, with a frequency distribution throughout an entire population, and that the actions to preserve that population from replacement will in fact, overall, preserve the altruistic alleles distributed among that total population.

5. Who cares?  Kevin may lose fitness, he could act, acting would preserve the population and its “altruism,” but what does it matter?  Why does race matter?  Kevin simply doesn’t care. 

Indeed. And if brother Seamus becomes an Irish Hitler, and exterminates all non-Irish living in Ireland, then, who cares?  Kevin doesn't care!  If Seamus is a scientific genius who creates a “genetic targeted virus” that exterminates all non-Europeans world-wide, then, who cares?  “There is no such thing as race,” and “we are all genetically the same,” and “if the White race dies off, who cares,” so, equally, if all non-Whites die off, there is “no loss” and “who cares?”  If it all doesn’t matter, then let Kevin and Seamus be anti-immigrant activists if they feel like it.  Who cares?  Or would you suddenly “care” at that point?

All this anti-Salterism is thinly disguised ethnic, personal, and/or ideological agendas (the same as “race does not exist”), spouting ludicrous anti-logic and patent falsehoods in the hope of fooling weak-minded people. To put it in the perspective of this scenario: some people don’t want Kevin to act because they WANT (for whatever reason) Irishmen to be race replaced by Nigerians.

The following would be a typical casual conversation between a normal man and an anti-Salterian imbecile:

Man: It is important to put your money in safe and proper investments, you don’t want to give it all away to someone scamming you by trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Imbecile: No, that’s not right. Humans have not evolved a special instinctual behavioral module to avoid scams involving New York bridges. Therefore it is impossible – impossible I say! – for anyone to avoid such a scam. In fact, since there is no evolved behavior against such scams, the scams do not exist. 

Man: Err…are you serious?

Imbecile: Green beard.

Man: What does that mean?

Imbecile: Hey, I throw around phrases such as “green beard effect” so that third party observers think I’m so very well informed!  In fact, all I have to do is say “green beard effect” or “red queen” or “Hamilton” and all your arguments mysteriously vanish. It’s a good trick.

Man: Hey!  That panhandler just attacked that man who gave him a dollar. He killed him! I’m calling the police!

Imbecile: Why call?

Man: He killed him!  And if he gets away he’ll kill someone else probably, maybe even me.

Imbecile: Don’t do that. Don’t call. The costs incurred to you by your act of altruism, contributing to collective social goods, will depress your fitness so you’ll be outcompeted by a selfish free rider benefiting by your civic mindedness. That will decrease “alleles for altruism” in the population.

Man: That panhandler just killed a giving altruist, if he gets away, he’ll do it again. Letting him kill will really decrease your mythical discrete “alleles for altruism.”  You really are a stupid bastard.

Imbecile: Incorrect. There is no evolved behavioral mechanism for identifying people as “stupid bastards,” hence, I am not one. There can be no such thing as a stupid bastard.

Man: Jump off a building, moron.

Imbecile: If I did, I would come to no harm. After all, there is no evolved behavioral mechanism for activating anti-gravity protection; thus, gravity does not exist and I can jump with impunity.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

More Defense of Salterism

More of the same.

It has come to my attention that “Salterism” is now being debated online, with, for example, mixed-race HBD blogger “Jayman” criticizing Salter, while others, including “n/a” of Race History Notes, have defended Salter’s EGI thesis. Here, I join in (again) with a defense of Salter's work.

Back in the years 2003-2008 I spent considerable effort promoting and defending Salter’s work, particularly in the journal American Renaissance and in the blog Majority Rights. Virtually all the arguments now being (once again) asserted against EGI had already been dissected, analyzed, and refuted back then.  But like some sort of drug-resistant infection, the mendacity brigade returns with the tired old arguments.

The whole situation is somewhat bizarre. Given that population groups differ genetically, and that individuals within such groups (at least when comparing relatively distant groups) are always genetically more similar to others of the same ethny than to aliens, and given the importance of the relative prevalence of distinctive genes and of genetic continuity in measures of biological fitness, technical criticisms of the fundamentals of EGI are sort of like questioning whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is a strangely quixotic quest, it is similar to King Canute ordering the tide not to come in. Even liberal "academic" Ingo Brigandt admits: "it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them." Which, is, of course, the main thesis of Salter's argument (more on Brigandt below).

The only real critique possible is one of values – i.e., genetic interests are real, but, who cares?  However, I find the values argument hypocritical and mendacious as well. Imagine two co-ethnics, Jim and Mark. Jim highly values his genetic interests, genetic continuity, and racial survival. Mark is indifferent to all of that, he “doesn’t care” about it. Very well. But if Jim cares deeply and Mark not at all, then common sense and fundamental ethics tell us that Mark, who asserts he doesn’t care one way or the other, should let Jim have his way. Why not?  If one believes Mark then he’s fine either way – the race prospers or it does not. Mark’s indifference should then make way for Jim’s deep concern and concentrated activism. Of course, Mark may be a liar, he may have other interests which conflict with Jim’s concerns with race and EGI; if so, Mark should be honest about these interests. If Jim and Mark are of different ethnies, and if Mark opposes Jim’s pursuit of EGI, Jim should be wary of Mark’s claims to be a disinterested commentator.  Mark’s interests do not bestow upon him the right to delegitimize Jim’s pursuit of his ultimate interests through the misuse of pseudoscientific sophistry.  

Getting back to the issue of values, it is indeed amusing when people who claim “they do not care” about race get so upset with scenarios in which Europeans survive and prosper. If race is “irrelevant” then it should be “irrelevant” if non-Europeans become extinct and an expanding European population colonizes the entire Earth. Why not?  “Nothing matters.”  Except of course, in reality, it all matters. Attacks against “Salterism” are not disinterested science, but hyper-interested ethnic activism and/or political ideology.

Further, the existence and utility of EGI do not - repeat NOT - depend upon any of the following anti-White/HBD/GNXP/Desi obsessions: evolution of altruism, alleles for altruism, evolution of ethnic nepotism, green beard effect, etc.  Individuals making such arguments either have not read Salter’s work and are responding to what they assume is there, or, if they have read the work, are too stupid or self-interested to understand and/or truthfully report what the content actually is.

The concept of EGI, while on one level complex and subtle is, on another level, simple and powerful.  In a relative sense, individuals are more closely related (share more distinctive genetic information) with co-ethnics than with non-ethnics (this is a biological reality that cannot be refuted); therefore, those individuals' biological fitness is reduced by the replacement/diminishment of that co-ethnic genetic information by that of non-ethnics, with the extent of the reduction being directly related to the numbers involved. The “evolution of behavior X” has nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing. The past histories of groups are also irrelevant; the point is: what are the genetic “facts on the ground” today, and what behavior, including and especially rational thought mechanisms and not “instinct,” will best preserve current and future biological fitness? The only thing that was required to “evolve” is rational thought (such evolution may not have occurred for Salter’s critics).

Thus, a parent will suffer a loss of biological fitness if their biological children are replaced by that of strangers (do the HBDers deny that a Cuckoo-parasitized bird loses fitness?). That this loss has NOTHING to do with “the evolution of parental care instincts” can be easily discerned by considering the case of a man who does not know he has fathered a son.  If the son dies without reproducing, does the man suffer a loss of fitness?  Of course he does, regardless of his awareness of the loss. The loss occurs simply by virtue of the change in the relative representation of genetic information in the population, not due to awareness of the loss, actions taken to prevent or promote the loss, or any "evolved behavior" that influences that loss (see Salter’s distinction between genetic interests and inclusive fitness, and also consider that inclusive fitness – which is influenced by actions/behavior – can be actualized in humans by rational thought mechanisms; it does not require any “evolved behaviors” or “altruism alleles” for its execution).  Thus – and this is key – “Salterism” is based upon rational thought mechanisms, not the mythical “alleles for altruism” (which, unlike EGI, is mere conjecture and not biological reality), or any “evolved behavior.”

Also, criticisms in this direction are the height of hypocrisy – since the same types who critique Salter for invoking “the naturalistic fallacy” or “appeal to nature” are the same ones who deny the validity of pursuing EGI because they assert that such behavior did not evolve in nature!

Salter also spends time dealing with the “free-rider” problem, and the importance of proofing against free-riders. It needs to be pointed out, however, that in an age of mass migration, any putative short-term “benefit” from free-riding to enhance personal/familial genetic interests at the cost of ethnic interests will be more than wiped out by the massive losses of genetic interest at the ethnoracial level. 

Concern trolling about “free-riding” is also hypocritical, for it is always invoked for intra-racial scenarios, but never for inter-racial ones, even though the costs of inter-racial free-riding will be greater than for intra-racial, due to the greater genetic differences of the actors involved. Further, even if one wants to restrict free-riding concerns to the issue of “genes for altruism” the inter-racial situation also is of greater import. Individuals from radically different ethnies, population groups that have evolved under different environmental pressures and cultural histories, are more likely to differ in these putative “genes for altruism” than are co-ethnics. Therefore, when those from ethnies (e.g., White Gentiles) with higher levels of universalist altruism co-mingle with those from less universally altruistic ethnies (e.g., Desi cognitive elitists, Jamaican HBD bloggers, or ethnocentric Jews), the latter individuals will free-ride on the altruism, and on the collective social goods, of the former individuals. This will reduce the prevalence of those ever-so-important “alleles for altruism” in the population; a dastardly scenario that could be avoided with some Salterian Universal Nationalism.  For some mysterious reason, that sort of free-riding problem is not discussed by critics of Salter.

Now, next I will reproduce some of old material on this subject, in edited form, and then there is not much else to say. I can of course find and reproduce even more of my old material and engage in endless debate, but the best person to make these arguments is Salter himself. And, truth be told, the likely outcome is that in a few years another nitwit will surface to make the same anti-EGI arguments all over again.

This is an edited excerpt from one of my old blogs; Ingo Brigandt is a liberal "academic" hostile to the EGI idea, but note his admission about an "evolutionarily better strategy":

Of interest to the GNXPers is Brigandt’s confused article: “Brigandt, I. (2001) “The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of van den Berghe's sociobiological approach to ethnicity.” Politics and the Life Sciences 20: 203–215.”  There he attempts to explain why ethnic nepotism is not adaptive.  The problem is that it boils down to Brigandt’s definition of a behavior being adaptive if it evolved.  He asserts that ethnic nepotism could not have evolved because various population groups were isolated from each other during their evolution; hence, there was no selective pressure for ethnic nepotism.  Therefore, given that circumstance, ethnic nepotism could not have evolved; thus, it cannot be adaptive.

Putting aside the argument of whether ethnic nepotism could have evolved (*), the problem here is a semantic one; that is, defining “adaptive.”  If we wish to define “adaptive” in the sense that Brigandt does, then he may be correct, given that caveat of the footnote below.  However, let’s look at this quote by Brigandt from the same paper (Dawkins, Malloy, and all the “cake eaters,”take note):

“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.”

Well, yes.  That, in one sentence, is a reasonable summary of Salter’s *prescriptive* argument.  Indeed, herein lies the problem, in that Salter (and I) would define adaptive as “an evolutionarily better strategy” -  a strategy independent of whether or not it has evolved or not.

To add to the confusion, Brigandt follows that sentence with:

“But this fact does not indicate that this kind of behavior will evolve (rather than egoism or other behavioral patterns) independent of cost/benefit considerations.”

First of all, this is somewhat contradictory, in that cost/benefit considerations come to play in the “evolutionarily better strategy,” so there really is no reason to a priori assume that the behavior is taking place independent of such considerations.  That’s absurd. Brigandt harps on that even the “better strategy” may be “maladaptive” – confusing meanings of adaptive – because of “cost/benefit” considerations.  Again – these considerations are part and parcel of the “better strategy.”  He keeps on talking about the “evolution of altruistic behavior” which is NOT relevant to EGI (see above).  

The edited Majority Rights essay:

Frank Salter has given us a new understanding of the relationships of individuals to ethnies and ethnies to each other.  But being the pursuit of the freedom of the individual, liberalism must cast down and, in the end, destroy ethnicity.  Salter, therefore, is useful to those who would oppose this outcome; in the hands of our people the notion of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) would go a long way to awaken our ethny to itself and to its circumstance.  Liberalism cannot allow this and must, if it is to complete its purpose of “freeing” Western Man, falsify Salter’s notion or, failing that, render it morally illegitimate.

David B and GNXP have fallen in line with the attempt to falsify EGI.  Therefore, both from the point of view of resisting this attempt and of disseminating the idea of EGI into public life, it is necessary to intrude once again - and at some length - upon the goodwill and intellectual appetite of MR’s readers.

Please note all references to Salter’s work are from his first edition of On Genetic Interests.  I strongly advise you to pull up the appropriate pages and have them to hand on your screen while you peruse the following.

Part I: Philosophy concerns “quasi-philosophical issues.”

There is a practical way of translating David’s disinterest in genetic continuity (e.g., not caring about the fate of one’s own children).  If someone cares about his children or his ethny (or nation, etc.), then this is a value not subject to rational critique - unless the entity of attachment does not exist.  But, as we know, all these categories do have an objective existence.  If David wishes to maintain the nihilistic idea that “life has no interests” that is his right and we will not be able to convince him otherwise.  However, those who believe that life indeed does have interests will find Salter’s arguments more compelling than those of David.

As regards the nonsense that Salter is anti-eugenic, see below (response to Part II, points 3 and 5).  In point of fact, looking at some of the arguments David makes, particularly in Part II (and to some extent, Part III) and looking also at his constant harping about eugenics, I am led to wonder if all of these ideas and arguments really originated with David himself.  Ultimately though, other than in the important consideration of motivation, it matters not - because the arguments put forth by David, whatever their origin, fail to convince.

Part II: Technical Comments is revealing since the main answers to David’s comments are to be found in Salter’s book itself.  My main aim here is to demonstrate that fact to third party readers, who should obtain that work for themselves and carefully compare it to GNXP’s misrepresentations.

Point 1: If it is not clear in Salter’s work, he is referring to distinctive gene frequencies rather than distinctive genes per se.  David’s assertion about the relative non-importance of human genetic variation is an opinion, which mirrors the “we are all the same” arguments of race-deniers.  Salter deals with this in section 4e of his book (pages 89-93).  Given that genetic information is arraigned in a hierarchical fashion, with small changes in control genes and promoter/enhancer regions having significant downstream effects on total gene expression and resultant phenotypes (on which selection operates), the “differences are too small” argument falls flat.  Ironically, many of the non-political posts in GNXP’s own archives underline the importance of human genetic variation and thus contradict David’s assertions of the Universalist genetic identity of humanity.  The idea that we are all essentially clones of each other is undermined by new data that shows variation between individuals (the Nature Genetics paper described below concentrates on groups, btw).  The “we are 99.9% the same” commentaries may soon become undermined by reality.  Does David deny that individuals belonging to the same population group have more common/recent ancestors than persons belonging to different groups and thus share more distinctive gene frequencies?

Of interest as well as Salter’s point (page 91) that the politically-correct minimization of human genetic variation is an inversion of scientific reasoning, in that it attempts to obscure rather than “explain and predict facts” such as gene-caused phenotypic differences between population groups.  If human biodiversity results from that genetic variation which David says is so small, then this stresses rather than diminishes the importance of these small differences.  In addition, genetic interests are relative and even siblings - whose genetic differences are small compared to those that characterize population groups - have differences in interests (“sibling rivalry”).  Furthermore, genetic interests are the product of the extent of relative genetic variation multiplied by the numbers of people involved. The genetic interest inherent in ethnies is very large because of population size.

I am gratified to see that David B mentions combinations of genes in his critique, for that is, in my opinion, the only real flaw in Salter’s work - that Dr. Salter does not consider patterns/combinations of gene frequencies as a genetic interest, even though such patterns are in fact a genetic interest.  What this does, of course, is increase the importance of genetic interests, and adds to the refutation of David’s critique.

Point 2: With respect to the broad scope of genetic interests, this section by David is essentially nit-picking as well as a repetition of his previous argument.  Nevertheless, it is worth analyzing in detail to clarify some of Salter’s points.

First, Salter’s comment (page 326) about “...ever more complete genetic maps” suggests he realizes that more genetic data is needed (also see page 54 and page 265).  It may also be noted that (neutral) gene assays are based upon the statistical method of sampling; these assays are used by Salter to provide estimates of the probability of persons sharing the same distinctive functional alleles that Salter is primarily concerned with.  Regardless how genetic variation is assayed, David will ultimately be disappointed that his “we are all the same” mantra is not supported.

For example, Nature Genetics 5, 598-609, 2004 asked, “What proportion of SNPs and haplotypes are shared among groups if alleles are ascertained in an unbiased fashion?”  African-Americans and European-Americans were compared.  The conclusion: “...most of the common SNPs in this data set are either private or common in only a single population.”  Haplotype analysis gave similar results.  More to the point, even many of those SNPs common to both groups had markedly different frequencies (i.e., their frequencies were population distinctive).  And these were derived from functional DNA sequences, relevant because Salter stresses functional genes in his work.  However, the functional/non-functional divide doesn’t really alter anything, since this paper also states that “...ancestry inferences are robust using a modest number of polymorphisms in either coding or non-coding regions.” 

Second, since Salter is indeed concerned with functional genes (see point 4), it does make sense to examine gene/allele frequency.  David’s complaint about “function and fitness” is somewhat contradictory since he then suggests that total genomic similarity be considered, which is not really concerned with “function and fitness”.

Third, the main body of point 2 is essentially just a restatement of point 1, and can be answered the same as above for point 1.

Fourth, the argument against the importance of general “genetic similarity” is even more fundamental. Just as natural selection is dependent upon genetic variation and works upon genetic differences, by analogy, so do relative differences in genetic interests depend on distinctive gene frequencies.  Thus, genetic interests are not concerned with absolute levels of genetic similarity.  Mice share ~ 90% of their gene sequences with humans, but this does not mean that two (or more) mice constitute a greater genetic interest for you than does one other single human.

Salter clearly states in his book (page 95) that it is only distinctive genes [frequencies] that are important (not total genetic similarity).  Harpending also makes this point in his onion analogy in the Appendix (page 327).  Genetic variation that is randomly distributed among populations does not constitute ethnic genetic interest because the gene (and gene sequence) frequencies remain the same regardless of the outcome of ethnic competition.  

Thus, it is not overall genetic similarity that is the point per se, but distinctive genetic information, in a relative sense.  Salter (page 47) illustrates the relative nature of genetic interests with his “a world made up of cousins” analogy.

The bulk of human genetic variation is within populations, randomly distributed among the groups; in fact, as Sarich and Miele state in their book “Race”, because humans are diploid a significant fraction of human genetic variation is found within each individual person.  

Genetic information that does not differ in frequency between groups is not the stuff upon which inter-group competition and genetic interests are built.  For most but not all (!) of the human genome it would not matter if all humans except for Bushmen were killed, because the genetic variation in Bushmen is at least as great as that of any other human population and composes the bulk of total human genetic variation.  However, for those distinctive gene sequences, for which there is considerable inter-group variability, much would indeed be lost if specific populations are diminished or eliminated.  Members of groups thus have interests (ethnic genetic interests) in the frequencies of those distinctive genes/gene sequences, which is what in fact distinguishes one human group from another at the genetic level.  Furthermore, those gene frequencies that result in the phenotypic differences between population groups are concentrated in the genetic variation between groups.  Therefore, not only is this lesser level of variation more valuable because of its uniqueness and distinctiveness but also because of its functional information. 

This is why it is not important that an Irishman may theoretically share more similarity in his overall genome to a Nigerian than to another Irishman, for that similarity is based upon randomly distributed genetic variation that, because it is ubiquitous, has no value as a genetic interest.  However, the Irishman in question will in fact share more similarity with another Irishman than with a Nigerian for that genetic information that is not randomly distributed, but distinctive.

This is also why it would be more adaptive for an Irishman to support his fellow Irishman in competition with a Nigerian who may be more similar to the Irishman in the entire genome.  The bulk of the similarity between the Irishman and the Nigerian is based upon gene sequences randomly distributed among all humans and thus this similarity does not constitute meaningful information in distinguishing intra-human genetic interests; e.g., between those of Irishmen and Nigerians.

If all Nigerians became extinct, this would not change the worldwide frequencies of this randomly distributed genetic information.  It will still be found in similar proportions in all other populations, and thus the Irishman would lose no genetic interest.  However, if all Irishmen except for our Irish person of interest became extinct, then there would be a diminishment in unique and distinctive genetic information, and therefore a significant loss of genetic interest for our subject.  An incorrect emphasis on absolute numbers of similar gene sequences, rather on the relative nature of distinctive genetic information, would result in the absurd conclusion that a person has a greater genetic interest in a vegetable garden (or any other organic mass containing a large number of similar [potentially] replicating gene sequences) than in their own child.  Selection, competition, and conflicting biological interests are based upon distinctions in genetic information, not upon randomly distributed genetic similarity, genetic information that retains the same representation in the population regardless of outcome. (See also Salter’s book, pages 45-48, 95, and 327-333).

OK, on to points 3 and 5.  Here we observe a serious problem in which Salter’s views are being grossly misrepresented, and clearly written statements in his book are being completely ignored.  Salter’s views are not “anti-eugenic”, and the Huntington’s example is vulgar and absurd.  Salter openly and clearly states (Section 4d, page 89) that it would be adaptive, in a net sense for the entire distinctive genome, for maladaptive alleles to be sacrificed. Salter also makes a similar point about possible adaptive changes in genetic structure in section 4g, page 109, in which he states that specific positive genetic characteristics could be spread throughout a population via “inter-marriage or reproductive technologies”.  Salter also makes the point in his ethics section (page 319) that genetic competition must be allowed to continue, but within limits - total displacement, or severe diminishment, of ethnies is to be avoided. Salter approvingly discusses Hamilton’s point that “social systems must leave room for adaptive genetic replacement”.  However, Salter stresses, again, that ethnic displacement is wrong, and that adaptive changes in gene frequencies can take place without such displacement.  Indeed, for most of human history, selective pressures have been acting on isolated, relatively homogenous populations.  Eugenics can be practiced within the ethny, and, yes, without the “intermarriage” that Salter mentions, and it is completely compatible with a strong commitment to ethnic genetic interests.

Eugenic modulation within the ethny is best, since it preserves kinship genetic interests while boosting adaptive genetic interests.  Intermarriage between widely separated groups would destroy genetic interest to a far greater extent than any putative increase in a positively valued trait, as my IQ example illustrates.

In summary, I see points 3 and 5 as gross distortions of Salter’s openly stated views. Essentially David lifts from Salter’s book the possible objections, but neglects to give Salter’s answers.  These distortions are a plain warning sign to third parties NOT to depend on GNXP for honest analyses of Salterism.

With regard to point 4 please see my answers to 3 and 5 above.  Also, please bear in mind that this criticism is again a gross distortion of Salter, who makes clear again and again that he is talking about functional genes: e.g., he mentions the importance of this on pages 87-88; on page 88 he clearly states that he has relegated non-functional DNA sequences to “non-interest status”.

Actually the distinction between functional and non-functional genes is, I think, going to be worn down over time, given increasing evidence that “non-functional” genes actually do have regulatory functions.  Furthermore, I argue that even some real non-functional genes constitute part of genetic interests, because they can embody distinctive genetic information.  Functional genes may constitute both kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests, while non-functional genes may constitute kinship genetic interests only.  On a per codon basis, the functional genes are of course, a greater interest but the non-functional genes are an interest as well.  While Deutsch, like Salter, stresses the importance of functional genes, he admits (pages 173-174 in “Fabric of Reality”) that this is a matter of degree.  The information of functional genes fills their “niche” better than non-functional genes, since the functional genes actively contribute to their own replication.  But, non-functional genes carry information as well, even if it is of lesser value.  For example, I suggest that DNA sequences relevant to kinship (e.g., ancestral markers) are a form of information and if information is fundamental to reality (with genetic information being fundamental to life), then it has value.

My assertion that true non-functional genes can constitute genetic interest does not obviate the points made in response to point 2 regarding Salter’s stress on functional genes in his analysis of genetic interest. The key here is information - distinctive genetic information. Deutsch stresses that genes embody knowledge; e.g., he states that life “is about the physical embodiment of knowledge” (page 181 of Fabric of Reality).  Functional genes (including so-called “non-functional” genes that have real regulatory roles) embody knowledge of their niches and contribute to their own replication in a real way.  Certain true non-functional genes embody knowledge of kinship between living organisms, and these distinctive non-functional gene markers can be considered analogous to the gene alleles discussed in point 2.

I cannot ignore the fact that that a portion of the non-functional genome that is distinctive contains information.  I see information as being fundamental.  After all, there is a choice - there can be non-functional sequences “A” or non-functional sequences “B”.  Those that are randomly shared between all groups are not interests between humans, since they give no information.  Those ancestral markers that distinguish ethnies represent information, and thus, I argue, represent interest (since there is competition for which of these distinctive gene sequences will be represented in the next generation).

Do please note that these thoughts on the importance of (true) non-functional genes are my own.  Salter - contrary to David’s implication - focuses on functional genes.  Furthermore, the historical development of the gene frequency differences that Salter is concerned with is not relevant to current consideration of genetic interests.  The main question with respect to genetic interest is “what”, not “why.”  Thus, whether selection or drift (or any other mechanism) is responsible for observed gene frequencies does not change the interests in question.

As a side note, I’d suggest that in any future update of “On Genetic Interests” Dr. Salter should not only clarify these points further, but should also add sections on:
-      Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests
-      Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests
-      Intrinsic value of genetic information; compare and contrast roles of functional and non-functional genes
-      Do dominant alleles have greater influence (positive or negative) on genetic interests than do recessive alleles?
-      Discussion on how ethnic and meta-ethnic identities can boost adaptive behavior with respect to genetic interests even in light of potential kinship overlap between closely related groups

Part III: Intermarriage Fallacy David presents a two-group (English-Bantu) population model to demonstrate that the proportions of distinctive genes remain the same after intermarriage.  He also asserts that the loss of kinship on one side of the intermarriage divide is counterbalanced by an equal loss on the other side; given the relative nature of genetic interests, intermarriage would thus result in no loss of genetic interest.  Discuss.
Putting aside for the moment questions about patterns of gene frequencies (below), David’s analysis does not take into proper consideration the following two essential factors:
1) The fixed carrying capacity of each nation (an integral part of Salter’s thesis discussed, for example, on pages 61-63 of his book), and
2) The effects of unidirectional migration.

So, for #1 we can talk about the number of “English gene equivalents” in an English population at any given time.  However, England has a fixed carrying capacity.  Let us say for example it is 150 million.  Whether those 150 million are of pure English stock or of mixed English-Bantu stock makes an enormous difference to the genetic interests of the current English population and to each individual Englishman.  Population cannot increase infinitely.  If the 150 million people are “pure” English (and of course diploid), then that’s 300 million sets of “English” genes (300M/2 = 150M).  If the 150 million are English-Bantu hybrids, then there are 150M “English” genes and 150M “Bantu” genes.  If we say that the carrying capacity is 300 million, or 1 billion, or any number short of infinity, the same holds.

As regards #2 there is one-way gene flow from non-white nations to England.  So, it is NOT the case that a miscegenating Englishman is boosting his fitness by “preventing” the births of pure Bantus in a reciprocal fashion.  In Africa, pure Bantus are still being born without the threat of immigration and genetic dilution, and these will fill the carrying capacity of their territory in sub-Saharan Africa.  Meanwhile, there is unidirectional migration of Africans to the UK, where they dilute the genetic interests of the native English ethny.  Intermarriage in the UK may prevent the birth of pure Bantus in the UK, but the presence of Bantus in the UK represents an excess of Bantu genetic interests above and beyond the store of undiluted genetic interests in their homeland.  In other words - and this is crucial - intermarriage in the UK represents a positive net expansion of Bantu genes.  They are not being prevented from producing pure Bantus - they have every opportunity to pursue a national ethnic strategy in Africa.  The people who are really being prevented from producing “pure offspring” are the English, for it is their territory that is being invaded.

Since the flow of people (and genes) is not reciprocal, then the effects of intermarriage are not reciprocal. It is the native ethny of the mixed state who are being prevented from maintaining their representation of the world-wide population.  The alien ethny both maintains their representation in their homelands and expands their genes in someone else’s territory.  Ultimately, the Bantu genes are, on a world-wide basis, expanding, while those of the English are declining.  How on earth is there any reciprocity in that?

As regards the interests of an individual Englishman, the same holds.  By intermarriage, he loses parental kinship compared to endogamy, and he also loses relative genetic interest not only compared to endogamous co-ethnics and non-ethnics but also to exogamous non-ethnics, because of the asymmetrical nature of gene flow as described above.

Let us use another simple model of population and immigration to summarize these points. Take two populations A and B who live in their respective nations AX and BX.  Let us assume that AX and BX both have a carrying capacity of “12 genetic-population units”.  We start with the condition that AX has 4 A units and BX has 8 B units.  Two B units migrate from BX to AX; typical unidirectional migration.  Both nations now have 6 population units; BX is “pure” 6 B, while AX is 4A and 2 B.  Let us assume no further immigration, and that in AX both ethnies have ~ equal growth rates (a very conservative assumption).  Both nations then reach carrying capacity.  BX will have 12 B units.  Given proportional growth, AX will have 8 A and 4 B units.

Obviously, this unidirectional migration has harmed A’s interests, in that they have suffered a decline in their population compared to what it would have been (12A) without the migration of B.  The worldwide genetic representation of A has been diminished, while B has benefited by increasing its genetic representation over and beyond the capacity of BX alone, from 12B to 16B.

According to classical Salterism, the damage to A will be the same, in a strictly genetic basis, regardless of whether the two groups in AX had remained endogamous after the B migration event, or whether there was intermarriage.  The same number of individual “genetic units” from each group would be present.  However:
1) An interest in patterns/combinations of genes and gene frequencies yields a gross decrease in fitness comparing exogamy over endogamy.  On a worldwide basis, A suffers more than B, because B is still present in undiluted form in BX.
2) Even given classical Salterism, exogamy hurts A’s interests by decreasing the organic solidarity of the A group.  Imagine that endogamy was maintained.  Group A could rally around a historical A identity and pursue group interests vs. B.  They could promote repatriation of B, separation, or some other political-social movement to attempt to restore/maximize A’s interests over that of the B newcomers.  They could attempt to out-breed (e.g., going against the assumption above), maximizing A gene frequencies.

But once admixture occurs, a heavily hybridized population cannot extricate A interests away from that of B.  Families would be mixed, genomes would be mixed, and whatever pure A’s remain would have a limited potential to recruit sufficient numbers of other pure A’s to their side in the struggle against B interests.  Some pure A’s would have admixed family members, etc.  Given sufficient intermarriage, the interests of the two groups would become so intertwined that it would be impossible for the original interests of group A to be pursued.

Thus, even with classical Salterian theory, endogamy is to be preferred because it allows the native ethny to strategize on a group-centered basis to salvage genetic interests. Group B, secure in their original homeland, can afford to dilute A’s interests and group solidarity via intermarriage.  The effects - genetic and socio-political - of intermarriage are not reciprocal because the migration is not reciprocal.  This holds regardless of whether the migration was voluntary (immigration) or involuntary (slave trade).

David B is also a bit inconsistent about all of this.  Salter considers intermarriage from both the familial and ethnic dimension.  If we focus on the family, it is clear that endogamy is superior, in that it boosts relative parental kinship.  But ah! … We are told by David that we must also consider the effects of mate choice on others.  Very well.  Why stop at the “spare English woman” or the local Bantu immigrant “prevented” from producing pure Bantu offspring?  If we need to consider the effects on others, in the context of ethnic genetic interests, then we need to consider effects on the entire ethnies, no?  And given realities of unidirectional immigration, the effects on others of intermarriage is always to lower the fitness of the net receiving ethny and to boost that of the net “contributing” immigrant ethny.

You can’t have it both ways, indeed!  If you wish to consider “effects on others” you cannot arbitrarily stop the analysis at the point that is convenient for your argument.  You must consider the proportional representation of ethnic genes and gene frequencies both within the entire nation and within the world-wide human population, and you must consider the time dimension as well – “effects on others” include future generations (who will be faced with a maxed-out carrying capacity) as well as the current one.  After all, consideration of the genetic relationship between generations is what the intermarriage/genetic interests idea is all about.

To summarize the classical Salterian view:-
Regardless of intermarriage, the mere presence of alien peoples (e.g., immigrants and their descendants) harms the genetic interests of every member of the native ethny.  If some natives out-marry with the aliens, they also suffer a loss of parental kinship with their offspring relative to what they would have obtained with endogamy and they also lose genetic interest relative to those co-ethnics who do not out-marry.  Alien ethnics who out-marry, of course, also lose relative genetic interest compared to their endogamous co-ethnics. However, even the out-marrying alien ethnics gain a genetic advantage over all of the native ethnics, because of the asymmetrical nature of unidirectional immigration flow.  Even though they lose relative genetic interest compared to endogamous alien co-ethnics, they “help” displace native genes and gene frequencies while their own homelands maintain a reservoir of undiluted ethnic interests. 

Thus, for the native ethnics, “diversity” is always a net loss of genetic interests, with exogamous natives losing more than endogamous ones.  For the aliens, it is a net gain as they are expanding their genes and gene frequencies into someone else’s territory (assuming that the flow is not reciprocal, which it never is).  Out-marrying aliens gain less than endogamous aliens, but all gain
relative to the natives.

The end result of all of these demographic shifts is a net loss of native genes and gene frequencies and a net gain for the aliens.  Out-marrying also constitutes a dilution of the genetic interests that every member of an ethny has in the other.  This not only decreases co-ethnic genetic interest (one can consider out-marriage as decreasing the genetic interests of other co-ethnics) but it undermines the organic solidarity of the group, making the pursuit of group interests less feasible.  Thus, the ability of the group to compete is decreased relative to other groups.  People who out-marry genetically distant others can be viewed as “free riders” on their group’s continuity.  They benefit from the existence of their group, but “contribute” negatively to it.  All this undermines the group’s position in global competition.

But classical Salterian theory is limited. Of course, there is a real Salterian “fallacy” - but one that underestimates, not overestimates, the genetic loss via intermarriage and that undercuts the critique analyzed here.  Thus, patterns of gene frequencies is a piece of information destroyed by intermarriage independent of the number of specific alleles in the general population.