On Salter and Gray, with apologies to Matt

I enjoyed reading Matt’s long and detailed post on Peter Gray’s critique of On Genetic Interests. The growing list of efforts by men such as Gray to refute Salter are an eloquent testimony to the power and truth of his ideas.

Still, even powerful and true ideas have to be defended. To that end I had intended to contribute a few thoughts to Matt’s and Ben’s fine defence. But the more I got into it the more I was shocked by Gray’s desperately poor work. My few thoughts took on a life of their own. With apologies to Matt, then, for developing his theme into a separate post, here’s how they wound up.

Like many critics of Salter, Gray has a problem with the fact that Salter’s work is prescriptive, rather than descriptive. I guess that Gray should be given some credit here - he read at least part of Salter’s book (which most critics obviously have not). So he does acknowledge that Salter himself specifically states that On Genetic Interests is about “what” and not “why”. It is about what people should be doing to act adaptively. It is not an examination of the evolution of altruism, ethnic nepotism or any other “why” hang-ups Salter’s critics tend to obsess about.

However, for some reason, the very fact that Salter is prescriptive bothers Gray. Why that should be remains a mystery. No one would blame a doctor for translating a set of descriptive facts (eg, smoking causes lung cancer … increased fiber is good for the health) into a prescriptive regimen (eg, don’t smoke … eat more fiber).

There is no “naturalistic fallacy” in making recommendations based on data, as long as one doesn’t state that one is logically obligated to pursue a course of action based on said data. After all, a person can, if he chooses, be a chain-smoker and eat deep-fried Twinkies. It is his choice. But one cannot deny the health-promoting benefits of acting otherwise.

Like other critics, Gray then nitpicks over Salter’s use of the word “adaptive.” However, Salter makes very clear in his book how he is using the term. Indeed, he is using it not in the traditional “why” sense, but in the “what”/”should” sense – and to Gray this is turning everything “upside down”.

However, if one has enough intellectual capacity to overcome this terminological nitpicking, there is no such problem. The fundamental foundation of life is the replication of genetic information – something I’ve posted on before in great detail – and thus Salter defines adaptiveness as success in the maintenance and/or expansion of distinctive genetic information. Does Gray believe that the reproduction of an organism and its kin is not adaptive (using both his definition, as well as Salter’s)? From his vaunted “why” evolutionary standpoint, what is more successful – an organism that reproduces or one that does not? An organism whose kin reproduces and sees its distinctive genes carried into the next generation, or one that has its kin genetically replaced by competitors? And if one can so define “adaptive” with respect to hindsight, with what has gone before, why cannot one also define “adaptive” in the future-oriented prescriptive mode of Salter? Do people like Gray have proprietary control over the word “adaptive” and the ways in which this word can be used?

Furthermore, given that Salter is specifically concerned about what rational “fitness maximizers” can do to act “adaptively” (in the future-oriented sense), then the Dawkins vs Wilson argument about level of selection is not directly pertinent here (as Salter states in his book). If we are concerned about what is best for a person based on their genetic interests (and BTW, it is not “confounding” human and genetic interests to state that genetic interests can constitute a fundamental human interest), then we are considering all of their distinctive genes. Once again, we must keep clear that Salter is not concerned with the mechanisms of evolution (ie, Dawkins vs Wilson) but, rather, how should a person behave if they consider their distinctive genome to be an important interest.

As Ben so clearly points out, Gray then spews out two consecutive sentences which are completely contradictory and which, in my opinion, reek of hypocrisy:

“We use evolutionary theory to help us explain why people do what they do, not to decide what they should do. We even use evolutionary theory to help us understand better how to reduce those behaviors that we deem to be morally objectionable.”

Right. Thus, Gray is saying that it is acceptable to use descriptive evolutionary theory to prescribe certain actions (“reduce those behaviors”) as long as people like Gray believe that their
prescription is morally justified (eg, reducing what they “deem to be morally objectionable”). On the other hand, if Salter believes that race replacement is “morally objectionable” and thus uses evolutionary theory to understand how to “reduce those behaviors” leading to replacement, then Gray objects and pokes fun at what he sees as flaws in Salter’s ‘logic’ ( of course, snidely putting logic in quotation marks).

To cut to the chase, Gray’s objection to Salter is not that Salter is wrong, but that he finds Salter’s ideas to be “morally objectionable”.

As to why he has a moral problem with ethical universal nationalism, one can focus on Gray’s anecdotal, emotion-laden paragraph concerning his family. It is a paragraph absurdly out of place for an academic essay. For Gray, you see, Salterism is a “nightmare world” because Gray has Afro-American grandnieces and an adopted Vietnamese niece. The horror of it all! – where would these fine children go if ethno-states were to be established?

Gray fails to recognize that rights go in all directions, and if his family wishes to experiment with racial admixture and cross-racial adoption, the rest of us should be under no obligation of having to live with the consequences of the Gray family’s experiments. For some of us the “problem” is not Salter’s description of the realities of intermarriage and cross-racial adoption, but the real problems are the life choices of Gray’s niece and sister. As well, Gray’s behavior in this instance proves the validity of Salter’s thesis that intermarriage decreases the organic solidarity of the ethny as people (like Gray) find themselves with conflicting ethnic genetic interests within the same family unit. Yet another reason we would like to opt out of the Gray family experiment.

Furthermore, someone needs to tell Gray that his description of his mulatto grandnieces as “beautiful” is an opinion, totally subjective, and that another person may well have an equally valid (and subjective) opinion that the girls in question are grotesque. What is not subjective are the facts concerning the reduced parental kinship the parents have for these mixed race offspring, and the damage done to the genetic interests of co-ethnics when a person decides to outmarry or adopt a racially alien child.

For those of us who wish to have the freedom from such experiments, we must have separation and ethno-states.

So, to answer Gray’s question as to what happens to his “diverse” family in the “nightmare world” of Salter …

They can live in a multiracial rump America with the other flotsam and jetsam of multiculturalism (which to many of us is the REAL nightmare world), while the rest of us can have our “dream world” of ethno-states.

Such a solution would also solve Gray’s dilemma regarding Salter’s alleged inconsistency in saying that people should have the right to discriminate even if their fellow citizens reject discrimination. Simple solution: they live in separate states.

Gray’s linkage of Salter and rape, which is even more grotesque than David B’s linkage to Huntington’s, is stupidity bordering on mendacity. Did Gray finish Salter’s book? Did he read the last one-third, the part on ethics?

Salter favors a “mixed ethic”, in which concern about one’s genetic interests is not only balanced by reciprocity concerning the interests of others, but also by concern for individual rights. Salterism is defensive, a balance of relative interests and rights, and in practice in boils down to majority rights and ethno-states. Salterism does not “clearly” imply a promotion of rape, and Gray should be ashamed of himself to even obliquely suggest otherwise. However, given the paragraph about his “beautiful” mulatto grandnieces, I assume that a sense of shame is not one of Gray’s strong suits.

Comments about “paltry” genetic differences also hardly impress. On what basis can one say the genetic differences between population groups are “paltry” and thus, presumably, not worthy of consideration? At what point, Peter, does the level of genetic variation cross the magical line separating “paltriness” from “non-paltriness?” How about the “paltry” differences between humans and chimps? Would it be acceptable if your sister adopted a chimp? Why or why not? Are you aware of genetic structure? Are you aware of the complexities of genetic regulation? Are you aware that genetic differences between population groups may be larger, or at least more functionally significant, than the “we are all 99.9% the same” obfuscators admit?

In any case, Gray’s last paragraph is a masterpiece of ad hominem, starting with the negative-laden first sentence and going into his criticism of academics for having the temerity to think that Salter’s work has merit. How dare they! Don’t they know that it is, by Gray’s standards, “morally objectionable”? Don’t they know that we all have to be subjected to the Gray family’s multiracialism, whether we like to or not? Who do these guys think they are?

Thus, does Gray fulminate in his shining, high-moral condemnation of those who view Salterism positively. He is, don’t you know, disappointed in them.

As expected, this “critique” of Salter is as weak and subjective as all previous attempts to refute the irrefutable.

Posted by JW Holliday on Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 09:22 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (20) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by ben tillman on July 21, 2005, 10:35 PM | #

However, for some reason, the very fact that Salter is prescriptive bothers Gray. Why that should be remains a mystery.

Yes—especially when Gray’s proscription of prescription is itself prescriptive!

Posted by ben tillman on July 21, 2005, 11:00 PM | #

There is no “naturalistic fallacy” in making recommendations based on data, as long as one doesn’t state that one is logically obligated to pursue a course of action based on said data.

Precisely, JW. The linchpin of morality is reciprocity; thus, “is” does determine “ought”. The rules one “ought” to follow in dealing with another are simply the rules that other follows in dealing with you. Salter’s sin is to inject the fundamental principle of reciprocity into a zeitgeist that pretends that one group—and only one group—has no rights.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 11:39 PM | #

The only thing Salterism requires is the slightest shred of respect for the universe.

Knowing that everything we are and everything we do is fundamentally in service of gene propagation, we should at least take the issue somewhat seriously, rather than only as a cosmic boon to be enjoyed for its wonderful perks.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 11:42 PM | #

As expected, this “critique” of Salter is as weak and subjective as all previous attempts to refute the irrefutable.

That’s what I say about KMac; such a great percentage of the criticism is bad criticism that it strengthens the credibility of his work.

Posted by anon on July 22, 2005, 12:46 AM | #

A more practical concern is the book is not available for sale. None of the bookstores have it save Amren, which most people don’t know about.

Posted by Amman on July 22, 2005, 03:54 AM | #

I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t read the book, so I’ll ask this: Does Salter, at any point in the entire tome, address the “why” of human behavior rather than the “what”? Judging from what I’ve heard, Salter demonstrates that people “should” mate with their own kind, stay away from other races, and generally think like most WNs, but at any point, does he actually ask “why” whites don’t, and “why” many of them marry inter-racially, fraternize with non-whites, and generally commit suicide from the EGI standpoint? That, if you ask me, is the million-dollar question, and if he can answer that, I just might be convinced to mosey over to amren.com and buy a copy of his book.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 22, 2005, 06:07 AM | #

Amman,

The answer to your question can be got at not through what white people do today but through the fact that they did not do such things within even my memory (I was born in 1951). They changed because their former communal attitudes and behaviours on issues of race were debased. This has happened, obviously, very recently and with alarming swiftness.

The change itself is not an EGI issue because of that swiftness, though at its deepest level it must involve issues of altruism and morality which are particulars of, generally, a European EGI. One could, for example, argue for the existence of a curiously supportive, clannish interdependence among northern Europeans (most strongly evident, I think, in Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway). That might be a basis from which whites’ out-group altruism is developed.

The development, however, is pressaged from an external, consistent moral programme. This brings us to the issue of suggestibility, which is a common facet of all homo sapiens, not just Europeans. The key consideration in suggestibility is aspirational morality. People can be convinced of any path in life if it appears to them to lead to “good”. It’s propaganda, really, bereft of sharp edges and general crudeness, and it arises out of liberalism like steam from a kettle.

Lineralism, however, is not just the politics of the left. Now, you might know already that I have a peculiar view of politics. My starting point is that a single political generality colours the greater zeitgeist in which our moral and political lives are lived. In the West, since the fall of Rome, we have had ancient tribalism, feudalism, Conservatism and, roughly for the last two centuries, liberalism.

Liberalism, in particular, is not a fixed entity. It is a dynamic. As an ideology it is centred on the pursuit of one unattainable human need - freedom. In its present advanced manifestation liberalism has developed to the point where it is effecting the dissolution of Western Man and his civilisation. Sin is ours - and, through liberalism, freedom thereform!

Now, within this terrible human dissolution are many currents and places where advantage can be taken by non-Western peoples. We see the evidence for that everyday. According to their natures and capacities these peoples pursue their own EGI. One of them, the Jews of course, is central to the post-war course of advanced liberalism, and much unhappiness it may bring them if things ever turn around as they have throughout our common past. The dissolution of Western Man is a game somebody must lose.

I’ll leave it there for now. Perhaps others will improve on this or suggest better alternatives.

Posted by Amman on July 22, 2005, 06:31 AM | #

That’s great thinking, GW, but it lends itself to one question: If Salter’s not including theories like that in his work, why’re you letting him write all the books?!

Posted by JW Holliday on July 22, 2005, 11:14 AM | #

Amman,

Salter briefly describes the current environment people find themselves in today as quite different from the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness. In other words, whites evolved in homogenous societies in which ultimate and proximate interests were naturally linked. Modern society poses challenges that whites are not fully evolved to deal with via “instinctive” behavior; thus, the response has to be rational and learned. If EGI is not an “evolved” preference, because of our evolutionaty history, it is nonetheless crucial for survival NOW.

See also Kevin MacDonald’s “what makes western culture unique” article in TOQ, contrasting European evolutionary history with that of other peoples. Non-whites may be naturally more ethnocentric, and prone to value EGI based on their own histories in different environments.

Posted by ben tillman on July 22, 2005, 04:10 PM | #

Salter has already addressed the why, and MacDonald cites Salter’s work in the final chapter of his trilogy:

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/whither.htm

Salter (1998b) provides a theoretically based assessment of Jewish influence relative to African Americans and gentile European Americans based on Blalock’s (1967, 1989) model of group power as a function of resources multiplied by mobilization. Jews are far more mobilized than these other ethnic populations (one hesitates calling gentile European Americans a “group").... Salter has adopted a preliminary conservative estimate of Jewish ethnic mobilization as four times that of white gentiles, based on comparison of per capita donations to non-religious ethnic causes.... In the Blalock equation influence is affected not only by mobilization but also by the resources held by the group. Salter estimates that Jews control approximately 26 percent of the “cybernetic resources” of the United States (i.e., resources as measured by representation in key areas such as government, media, finance, academia, corporations, and entertainment). This average level of resource control reflects both areas of high (> 40 percent) Jewish representation (e.g., mass media, high finance, the legal profession, the intellectual elite, entertainment) and low (< 10 percent) Jewish representation (e.g., corporate elite, military leaders, religious leaders, legislators).

Salter’s (unpublished) paper was supposed to turn into a book—Ethnic infrastructures and elite ethnic competition in America: An evolutionary-Blalock analysis—which has been listed as “in preparation” for years now at Salter’s web site. But Salter lost his nerve and has put the project on hold indefinitely. I stopped emailing him about his progress several years ago.

Posted by ben tillman on July 22, 2005, 04:58 PM | #

The importance of the MacDonald article that JWH mentioned seems underrated. He covers a lot of territory, including a very subtle explanation of the good sort of individualism that inheres in Western culture even during periods of high cohesiveness and group-orientedness (i.e., the Middle Age). But more to the point, he discusses the tendency toward “altruistic” punishment that arises out of that culture:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html

Europeans are thus exactly the sort of groups modeled by this research: They are groups with high levels of cooperation with strangers rather than with extended family members, and they are prone to market relations and individualism.

This suggests the fascinating possibility that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency toward altruistic punishment by convincing them of the moral blameworthiness of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy—a manifestation of their stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter gatherers. In making judgments of altruistic punishment, relative genetic distance is irrelevant. Free-riders are seen as strangers in a market situation; i.e., they have no familial or tribal connection with the altruistic punisher....

Thus the current altruistic punishment so characteristic of contemporary Western civilization: Once Europeans were convinced that their own people were morally bankrupt, any and all means of punishment should be used against their own people. Rather than see other Europeans as part of an encompassing ethnic and tribal community, fellow Europeans were seen as morally blameworthy and the appropriate target of altruistic punishment. For Westerners, morality is individualistic—violations of communal norms by free riders are punished by altruistic aggression....

The best strategy to destroy Europeans, therefore, is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. A major theme of my book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, is that this is exactly what Jewish intellectual movements have done. They have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of altruistic punishment. The consequence is that once Europeans are convinced of their own moral depravity, they will destroy their own people in a fit of altruistic punishment. The general dismantling of the culture of the West, and eventually its demise as anything resembling an ethnic entity, will occur as a result of a moral onslaught triggering a paroxysm of altruistic punishment.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 22, 2005, 06:22 PM | #

Does purusit of EGI lead to consanguinous marriage? Does Salter provide limits for pursuit of genetic interests? It appears that EGI may impact ideological allegiance, for instance to a nation state or democracy, one of the reasons Sailer puts forth for ultimate failure in Iraq. Has the development of an allegiance to ideology versus ethny led to Western world dominance?

Posted by JW Holliday on July 22, 2005, 06:42 PM | #

Ben,

I can’t speak for Salter, but it is possible that since the EGI work has been done, he’ll now have the time to complete the Blalock study. We’ll have to wait and see, but I suspect that this will eventually be done.

Like you, I am very eager to read Salter’s analysis on this subject - not only for possible evidence supporting KMacD’s thesis, but, in my opinion even more important, as a “guide” of sorts to chart how possibly white gentile Americans can win out in this “elite ethnic competition.”

In any case, both Salter and KMacD are at the top of intellectual ethnic studies. Their work is priceless.

Posted by Svigor on July 22, 2005, 08:20 PM | #

Who is this Blalock fellow?

Posted by Svigor on July 22, 2005, 08:39 PM | #

Blalock

Posted by Amman on July 22, 2005, 09:01 PM | #

Ben, JW, thanks very much for your input. I already plan to pick up KMac’s work, I might add Salter’s book to my wish list now.

I just have one more question, though, which occured to me at literally just this moment:

From my understanding, Salter’s saying that from the perspective of EGIs, inter-racial mingling is “bad” because it reduces a parent’s kinship with their children--for instance, a white parent who mated with an Asian would be less “related” to their offspring than he would be if he mated with a white.

Now, this is Salter’s point, from what I gather. So my question is, does he cite any studies which so that mixed-race children are generally brought up worse than single-race children? From what I understand, the whole reason parents love their children is because their children have their genes. So if Salter’s thesis is true, the parents of mixed-race children should treat their offspring worse than the parents of single-race children. Has this been proven?

Posted by JW Holliday on July 22, 2005, 10:38 PM | #

Desmond,

I encourage you to obtain Salter’s book while it is still available from Amren. Hopefully it will be back in print again as well.

The same suggestion goes for anyone here interested in Salterism and full of questions about it. There is a limit to what we here can answer about the 300+ page book. (Salter’s Nov. 2002 Population and Environment paper on EGI is a cheaper option, if you can obtain it from a university - of course the book is an order of magnitude more informative than the paper).

To be brief: Salter suggests that co-ethnic marriage is better than outmarrying (all else being equal). Or - the more ethnically similar the mates, the greater the parental kinship to the offspring.

My own opinion of western dominance - which markedly differs from that promoted by the NEC Jared Diamond - is that it is primarily due to innate biological characteristics of the European peoples, which are manifested in cultural attributes and abilities that led to said dominance.

Posted by ben tillman on July 22, 2005, 10:51 PM | #

Not quite. You’re confusing “ethnic genetic interests” with personal genetic interests. From the standpoint of ethnic genetic interests, miscegenation is bad only if it consumes resources that would otherwise have been devoted to full-blooded members of the ethny. As a practical matter, this means it is bad for whites to have mixed offspring in their historical homelands.

So my question is, does he cite any studies which [say] that mixed-race children are generally brought up worse than single-race children?

This is not an issue of EGI’s but rather of personal genetic interests. Your point would seem to follow, but I am not aware of studies. Obviously, black/white mixes would involve other factors, such as the fact that the father would often contribute no resources to child-rearing. And one must keep in mind that our devotion to our children largely follows from “proximate” mechanisms that induce us to do what we may not consciously recognize as being in our eolutionary interest. Few parents care for their children with a conscious intent to maximize their inclusive fitness.

From what I understand, the whole reason parents love their children is because their children have their genes. So if Salter’s thesis is true, the parents of mixed-race children should treat their offspring worse than the parents of single-race children.

Salter’s thesis is true. Nothing empirical—other than the existence of genetic interests and axioms of logic—is needed to establish its truth. What you are talking about is identifying implications of the fact that we are designed (imperfectly, of course) to propagate our genetic structures. That line of inquiry is interesting and worthwhile but immaterial.

Posted by ben tillman on July 22, 2005, 10:56 PM | #

Remember, Amman, Salter is not talking about what people do; he’s talking about what they should do if they want to maximize their inclusive fitness without committing aggression against other groups. This is why your interesting query (one which I’ve wondered about myself) is not relevant to an evaluation of his recommendation of “universal nationalism”.

Posted by Amman on July 22, 2005, 11:29 PM | #

Thanks again for your input, Ben. Judging from what you and JW have told me, there’s quite a bit more to Salter’s theories than can be accessed from just discussion. I have to wonder, are amazon.com’s stocks of his books completely sold out to amren? Maybe I can find a used copy floating about somewhere…

Next entry: Is inefficient farming a virtue?

Previous entry: Perverted Norwegians

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