On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration

I just completed reading On Genetic Interests by Frank Salter, 2003. I do not intend to review this book—to see reviews just do an Internet search on <"on genetic interests" Salter>—and you will find excellent reviews.

“The book greatly expands the scope of [William Hamilton’s] ‘kin selection’ by making ethnies [or races] in control of territory the central arena of ‘selfish [genes]’ in a modern world of mass immigration (Pierre van den Berghe).”

Also, “Frank Salter argues in his new book that all humans have a vital interest in genetic continuity—The ethnic component of which he quantifies for the first time—that is threatened by mass migration. Salter advocates non-aggressive ‘universal nationalism’ as part of a balanced ‘fitness portfolio’ that includes investments in three levels of genetic interests—family, ethny, and the species as a whole. The synthesis is persuasive, the policy formulations provocative (Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfedt).”

What I found most interesting about the book is the observation that many in the “race is a social construct” debate seem to have failed to grasp: that interest in promoting one’s race is no different than in promoting one’s close relatives. The term “we are all one race” then could be restated as “we are all one family.” If this were so, then everyone should treat other children no different from their own, nor should they care if they provided more for other children than their own. Salter shows mathematically how the varying distances between races in terms of genes determines the level of destruction of one race over another when one race displaces another. He shows how allowing in 10,000 Bantus from sub-Saharan Africa destroys the genetic interest of Whites in countries like England or the United States. Ethnies are all family, just not quite as closely related as family kin.

From this observation then I would like to compare our reaction—or racial mobilization—after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. In that attack, about 3,000 people died, and a high percentage of them were not White. The impact then on White genetic interests was insignificant compared to immigration and the high birth rate of immigrants over Whites in the United States. Our open borders policy is tantamount to the genocide of the White race. Salter in fact has provided formulas and examples to calculate the losses of the actual number of one’s ethny for the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country, in terms of the immigrants’ race or genetic difference from Whites. Again, 1,000,000 Bantus is far more devastating than 1,000,000 East Europeans.

He also dispels the myth that a population decline (low birthrate) is necessarily bad. For instance, as long as the Japanese maintain closed borders, even if their population declines significantly, they will retain their genetic interest (purity if you will) and can adjust the number of people later through government incentives. He argues therefore that a homogenous population, along with a secure territory to occupy and hold, precludes the possibility of losing genetic interest in the race. Likewise he argues that states, like the United States that have ceased to be nations, should splinter along ethnies and become true nation states once again, where the state secures genetic interests of the nation—its primary political duty.

This book is a continuation of our understanding of family, kin, race and the importance of our genetic diversity that started to turn away from the naïve environmentalism that took over Western thought from about 1930 to about 1990. On the one hand, liberals are generally in favor of stopping projects for people when an endangered subspecies [race] is threatened, and then rejoice that intermarriage may one day make us all brown—just one species with no subspecies. It is ironic that we care more about the genetic diversity of mice than we do about humans. I hope that as the bio-revolution keeps moving forward exponentially, it will become more difficult for the media, academia, and governments to indoctrinate—primarily Whites in the West—that it is the duty of Whites to step aside and allow themselves to be replaced by other less altruistic peoples. East Asians for example are very conscious about their race, and would never allow others to displace them. But there is still some hope for the White race.

The only way that Whites will mobilize in defense of their genetic interests is under a real threat. The basis of coalition building, from our evolutionary tribal past, has primarily been from other tribes. Tribes, in competition and mutual fear and disgust, were in perpetual warfare, especially where humans lived in close proximity. It has been speculated, but far from proven, that Whites have low levels of ethnocentrism or xenophobia in comparison to other races because we evolved over the last 35,000 years in sparsely populated—and glaciated—Northwest Europe. The bitter cold and the barren ecosystem pushed us more towards tribal cooperators rather than tribal warriors, as we see in other parts of the world. We are highly altruistic, and tend to be overly tolerant unless threatened. Thus, more ethnocentric races have used our system of guilt to try to shame us into capitulation to their demands. The recent tsunami originating in Indonesia is a good example. The United States in particular was singled out as being stingy for not providing more aid—then we gave in to them.

There is hope however that may come about due to war or a major recession—or both. If the war on terrorism keeps expanding, and the Middle East becomes destabilized, leading to a major war in the region and perhaps beyond, Western nations may finally grasp the danger of having Muslims in our midst. I have no doubt that there will be a clash of civilizations, and it is taking place on our soil, not theirs. If we can for once understand that diversity and multiculturalism means the death of the West as we know it, people will move to expel these people from our territory. We may begin to see the reemergence of the nation state as the only viable and stable form of government, where nations compete in open markets, rather than races competing for government preferences.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 10:57 PM in Immigration
Comments (9) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Svigor on January 12, 2005, 12:45 AM | #

I see white ethnocentrism as hinging far more on the media than on circumstance. Action depends on perception far more than it does on reality; this is why the media is so very important. The media creates perception irrespective of reality.

This is why I’m so skeptical about the “worse is better” mantra of WNists. Worse ain’t better when no one knows things are worse.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 12, 2005, 03:29 PM | #

“Our open borders policy is tantamount to the genocide of the White race.” (—from the log entry)

One would assume this truth is obvious to everyone whose eyes line up with the holes in his face. It is fair to put this another way: those who push open borders are guilty of favoring genocide. Any whites who may doubt this, considering it unnecessarily alarmist, for the reason that in their country the incompatible peoples only amount to some ten percent or so of the population and “How could that replace the whole white race here? So, stop alarming people!,” must understand that the process being continually pushed and pushed hard by these forces doesn’t end at that ten percent but continues until ten becomes twenty, then twenty becomes forty, then whites become a minority, then whatever happens happens ... Trust that the ten percent in your country won’t remain ten percent, the twenty percent won’t remain twenty percent, the forty percent won’t remain forty percent. You can trust that like you can trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Those pushing this particular form of genocide on us do so for various reasons which a little thought will reveal. These stark truths need to be discussed openly and frankly all over the threatened West starting now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2005, 12:33 AM | #

What is an “ethnie” ("ethny") exactly?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2005, 05:08 AM | #

“We are highly altruistic, and tend to be overly tolerant unless threatened. Thus, more ethnocentric races have used our system of guilt to try to shame us into capitulation to their demands. The recent tsunami originating in Indonesia is a good example. The United States in particular was singled out as being stingy for not providing more aid—then we gave in to them.” (—from the log entry)

Lawrence Auster to an extent touches on the same or a similar idea, here and here:

“At the same time, our supposed moral superiority contains a strong component of altruism that dooms us. These Asians countries, which lack our universal sense of morality and humanity, also don’t keep their borders open to millions of cultural aliens, as we do. In a hundred years, Indonesia will probably still exist in recognizable form. Will America?”

Posted by Clovis on December 20, 2007, 09:48 AM | #

Very interesting.

If you are also curious about what is going on in other white countries, like in Europe, the white genocide goes on under the rules created by our own governments.
France is now populated by 1/4 of Arabs and a little less of Subsahara Africans, resulting in daily ethnic riots and ethnic civil war episodes, of which the most intense where in 2005 and 2007.
Why the international media do not cover more frequently the events that occur regularly in France and other European countries is a mystery, unless we admit that they participate in disinformation.

There is a global scheme of systematic destruction of the anthropological ground of the Caucasian ethnies around the world since the end of the second world war.

Visit the blog http://mondial-socialisme.blogspot.com/ which presents a theory and some analyzes to try to understand this global scheme, and who is behind?

Clovis

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2007, 02:12 PM | #

Clovis has got it down exactly. Race-replacement of whites, everywhere they exist as a majority, is planned, not at all happening by accident or through some “unstoppable demographic force that we might as well adjust to, since we can’t fight it” (the interpretation we’re given by those in control). It’s planned, deliberate, aggressive, and very strongly and carefully fortified against counterattack. As Clovis says, it’s been underway since the end of World War II which means it must have been in the planning stage at least several years before that, and therefore it is not a reaction to the claimed “Holocaust.” On the contrary, it and the Holocaust myth likely have a common genesis. Clovis’s web-site, which I just looked at briefly, appears highly interesting and I’ll be browsing it later when I have more time. Thanks for the link, Clovis. In this struggle Anglo-Saxons and Frenchmen are brothers-in-arms, camrade!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2007, 11:29 PM | #

Race-replacement. Don’t leave home without it.

(OK, but ... without it, who would want to? Especially if “home” has a climate like LA’s.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2007, 11:40 PM | #

Important correction: change what I wrote a couple of posts above to the following:

On the contrary, it, the Holocaust myth, and Roosevelt’s deliberate maneuvering in search of a pretext for entering World War II all likely have a common genesis.

Posted by Clovis on December 23, 2007, 04:23 PM | #

Yes Fred, and I come with these questions to which I still have no answers:

1) Is the white race replacement a vengence because of the Hitler episode?
2) Is it not a replacement but a reduction so that the white race gets under control, does not represent a threat to the other human races anymore?
3) Is it to drive the white race to an excessive reaction and take one again where Hitler stopped as a natural policy accepted by all as a mandatory program to save ourselves?
4) In the scheme of globalism, is there some kind of harvesting to be done soon?

You are most welcome, whoever you are, to enter the debate and help making sense of this nonsense.

Whatever the answer will be, one thing is for sure: The people are no longer ruling their own destinies in these fake modern democracies.

Who is ruling?

Let me give you more information as a testimony about what is happening in France.

I am now a foreigner in my own country, which some authors consider to be on the edge to become Afro-Arabic very soon.

Officially, 10 million of North African Arabs (for a population of 60 to 65 million) would live in France.

However, the French government is not able to give valid numbers because there are a lot of flaws in the census process, so we get a scale: Between 60 and 70, or 65 and 70 million.

An estimation, considering that since 30 years a lot of new flats have been continuously built, that it is still very difficult and expensive to find an appartment in French cities, that many migrant families live at 6 or 10 people in a 2 bedrooms appartment, that every year between 500’000 and 800’000 new immigrants arrive in the country, that white people hardly get 1 child because it is economically difficult and because they prefer to enjoy life, that migrants have 3 or 4 or more wives and get 4 or 5 or 6 children per wife because the government gives them money in proportion to the amount of kids they have (paid with our taxes), and taking into account an unofficial ethnic count that everybody can make by himself when he is in the streets or in any public place, I come to the conclusion that the French population is probably 80 millions, if not more, and is populated with almost 50% of non Caucasians (therefore, the amount of real French is even less than 50% if we consider European migrations).

The amount of real French people is estimated by some sociologists to be the same as it was after the end of the second world war: 40 millions. Furthermore, this population is composed of old babyboomers, while the replacing population of Afro-Arabs is young and very fertile.

My unofficial count, that I did in 10 of the main cities of France, is that 1/4th of the French population is Arabic (North Africa), a little less is from subsahara Africa, and I skip the Asians.

Why is our own government killing its people? Who is behind this genocide? What is the reason for it?

What do you think will happen, when these people take control over one of the nuclear powers of the world ?

What do you think will happen to the other countries of Europe and to the USA when France will fall in foreign hands?

Do you think that these invaders of ours were able to get integrated in the occidental way of life ? They don’t even learn to speak our language correctly. They hate us, they kill us, they break everything and our government and media protect them and continue to give them money for their crimes and destruction of France. All this is insane but is organised and follows a plan. After leaving in the USA, I acquired the certitude that there is a global plan when I saw that the same occurs to this white country. All this is done in the name of the human rights and global brotherhood in the small village earth. It is so stupid and ridiculous !

Will the people not wake up?

Our civilisation is in danger because our blood is in danger, and the last one who leaves the scene will switch off the light, be sure about that.

Clovis

Next entry: The education crime

Previous entry: How good of them!

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa