Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.
This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Conservatism, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Origin of Man, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation
The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.
There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.
We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.
Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.
Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.
This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 07:47 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Demographics, Education, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Psychology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The Euro-DNA Nation confronts the Wall Street Wolf
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 04:08 AM in Activism, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Political Philosophy, White Nationalism
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:
As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test. A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”. Hugh did not answer. But any Salterian could have, and one did:
The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture. The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature.
I’ve been working for the most part on Telegraph threads over the last several days, taking advantage of the recent flood of articles following David Cameron’s perfectly uninteresting utterences last week. One of the conversations I got myself involved in led to an explanation of ethnic genetic interests of the non-gene variety, as they are arranged in order of significance.
Whether I got the ordering right I don’t know. But I thought I would repeat the idea here and take my punishment if not.
So ... we know that the highest or ultimate interest for a people is a gene interest ... the gene interest, literally the number of copies of its shared distinctive genes in the world. Given our parlous situation and the strength of force aligned against us as European peoples, this really netts down to a single word: continuity. Just to secure our existence and a future for our children would be enough, and a mighty step forward from where we are now.
I am not concerned here with genetic similarity and the concentricities of interest which exist in the wider human family and beyond. It is the material and sociobiological and cultural artifacts that appear in our life that I’m trying to order.
Beneath continuity, in the layer of secondary interests, are surely the things which materially guarantee that continuity - territory and water, food and fuel resources for example. And guarantee is the word. At this level an interest is an essential of life without which survival as such is cast under the law of hazard. A people which finds itself living in hazard, without guarantee, must fashion guarantees from other interests or die. The pre-eminent fashioners, of course, are the Ashkenazim which has made its host its environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, and developed guarantees in hyper-ethnocentricity, hyper-competitiveness and intelligence, among others.
In the next layer, beneath the guarantee interests, I would place the bio-cultural promptings to adaptive life choices such as morality, custom and tradition, memory, religion. While these are not essential in the same immediate way that land and food and water are, their product of adaptive life choices certainly is. If the people become demoralised and forget their customs and traditions, or if the religion falls into disrepair and disuse, then the resultant maladaptiveness will adversely affect survival chances.
Beneath this layer I can just about envisage a fourth consisting of the cultural goods such as education, law, technology and skill levels, art, a stable and effective power structure, wise leadership, a strong protective arm, and so on.
And that’s about it. Can’t see anything that merits the name “interest” beyond that.
The utility of this sort of data collection and analysis in the modern world is an empirical question. On the one hand many Europeans are relatively less inclined to move in comparison to Americans. And yet the breaking down of borders with the European Union and the likely need for a more productive economic sector on that continent because of changing demographics point to greater mobility, migration and mixing, which would make these sorts of studies of only near-term use. Of more interest to me are going to be fine-grained analyses of social groups. For example the Indian caste system. Last fall in the Reich et al. paper the authors seemed to be indicating the likelihood of a lot of between population variance groups these groups. It doesn’t matter if a particular Bania sub-caste from Gujarat is scattered across the world, from Kenya to England to the United States. They may all still marry amongst a set of individuals who hale [sic] from the same original few villages.
No, an empirical question is one which can be answered by direct observation. The direct observation here is the exquisite genetic structure of Europeans. By this leap of illogic he can quickly arrive at the conclusion that such studies are ‘only of near-term use.’ Razib wants to keep things ‘empirical’ so people don’t ask important questions, like “Is this worth preserving?”. This way, Razib can celebrate the ‘good times’ that are the detection of village-level structure of subcons in White countries that are being transformed by 3rd world immigration. But people will wake up to this arrogant, invasive subcon. The conservationist instinct is one of the strengths of Europeans. Making the case for returning invasive species to their lands of origin will be one part of doing what me must to remain who we are.
Is race biological? Or is it a social construct ? The “debate” continues because it is political. As a scientific classification, race is one of the simplest issues to resolve. Those denying the biology of race cannot stop relying on the straw man denotations: discrete groups, fixed set of traits, distinct subspecies, pure races, unique features or genes, clearly delineated categories, eternal entities, etc., because without these they would not even have the pretense of a case. In Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong In The Race Debate, Kenan Malik is careful to include the above examples of dividing races into discrete groupings to show that race is not biological. Of course, any scientific taxonomy of racial groups uses the concept of “a community of common descent” that results in varying frequencies of genetic alleles to place people into an arbitrary number of categories—depending on what the classification is to be used for.
People, even elite multiculturalists, seem to understand that groups of human beings undergo various “trials and tribulations” - which test their loyalty to each other, their toughness in struggle, and their willingness to sacrifice and undergo hardship for one another. I hope we can assert here, without it being merely a facile truism, that nations, groups, peoples undergo periods of prolonged struggle and disorder which require some stronger allegiance or internal reference point - if said nation is to hold together and persist, rather than be broken by circumstance.
Put bluntly, it won’t always be days of wine and roses. Even the Blitz, even the Great Depression, don’t represent the putative low-point of communal existence: harder things may yet be demanded of us.
And there is still a lingering intuitive understanding that the only groups to actually persist through such difficulties, the only groups to survive, are those which will sacrifice for one another and bear hardship, following Hamilton’s rule, these groups are those sharing familial relationship.
That’s why they want us to assimilate. So that one day, the strife will end. One day, the controversies and debates and inflammatory denouncements and hate-speech measures will end. We will have become one. Even multiculturalists understand, in a somnambulatory way, the importance that we become family. So they posit that as their horizon:
By JW Holliday
Leading on from this MR essay, where I asked some questions that needed to be addressed in future updates of Salter’s work, I now repeat and, in some cases, expand upon these here:-
1. Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests
This refers to genetic structure, and this has been discussed in detail already – e.g, here. This is a crucially important point that needs to be expanded. It can certainly be done theoretically and qualitatively based upon the known facts. A quantitative examination would require the services of an objective/sympathetic population geneticist (if such exists - doubtful today) and/or further studies about genetic structure and population differences in said structure. In any case, this topic needs to be addressed in future editions of On Genetic Interests.
2. Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests
Adaptive genetic interests can be renamed functional genetic interests, since the pursuit of kinship genetic interests IS , of course, adaptive and there is no clear distinction here.
Functional genetic interests are a subset of total genetic interests. A simplistic view would be:-
That is simplistic because of overlap – some portion of functional genetic interests are also kinship genetic interests, since important functional genes can vary in ways correlated to kinship.
Simply put, kinship genetic interests are those genetic interests based upon relative kinship, independent upon the functional consequences of the gene sequences in question, while functional genetic interests focuses on how the gene sequences influence phenotype to make the individual and/or group more competitive, and more likely to pass on distinctive genetic information to the next generation.
JW Holliday has produced a revised version of his landmark essay on the work of Frank Salter, originally published in the February 2003 issue of American Renaissance magazine. It is in PDF form so as to facilitate easy transmission by e-mail. It has been written accordingly, and is perhaps the clearest, most accessible formulation of Salterism thusfar.
The essay extends over three and a bit pages, and can be downloaded here or by clicking on the EGI.pdf link in the index column, under Important Issues. It will have a permanent home there.
MR readers will be aware that JW has been promising for some time to start a dedicated site for his extanct body of work on EGI (the bulk of which is here), and to house his further thinking on that and related subjects. Western Biopolitics is the result, and is now on-line.
You may not be entirely surprised to learn that JW has resisted the temptation to equip the new site with a comments facility. But comment you may, since his major posts will continue to be “guested” here. As I write, there are three posts already on the WB page: one an introduction to what it’s all about, of course, another a clarification on a reference to Yockeyism, and the third - the post which appears below.
I hope you will bookmark Western Biopolitics, and gain some new and useful knowledge from the work JW will be doing.
Hiram Caton reviews “On Genetic Interests”
Caton begins the review by giving a relatively brief historical background to the development of “biopolitics” by the “Politics and Life Sciences Association” with their journal Politics and the Life Sciences. After stating the importance of Salter’s work with respect to the ostensible interests of this group, Caton notes that this journal’s “new management” eschews dealing with the controversial, including an in-depth examination of Salter’s book. Caton writes:
Caton is correct. However, what does it say about the racialist nationalist “movement” – obviously not constrained by such considerations of “political correctness” – that it has heretofore, with minimal exceptions, also refrained from taking “serious notice” of Salter’s groundbreaking analysis? What does it say about European nationalist parties that they have also heretofore essentially ignored a highly significant biopolitical analysis that gets to the fundamental core of these parties’ concerns about alien immigration and demographic change?
One aim of this blog [WB - Ed] is to bring Salter’s work to the attention of those who would most profit from an understanding of it.
Later, Caton writes:
That is correct. And, this certainly doesn’t bode well for an America headed for a situation in which no single major ethny will constitute a majority of the population.
The book Family Relationships: An Evolutionary Perspective, edited by Salmon and Shackelford, 2007, has some interesting insights into genetic interests, social and sexual selection, and directed evolution. With many contributors, the content is rather eclectic with a few gems scattered here and there.
One of Gould’s main arguments years ago was that if humans only left
The book War in Human Civilization by Azar Gat, 2006, is 700 plus pages of the history and causes of warfare from the Paleolithic to the present. What makes this book so relevant to current warfare and terrorism is that Gat addresses the cultural changes in warfare along with evolutionary psychology—an often-ignored aspect of why humans behave the way they do. “In fact, historians and social scientists are much more prone to disregard the biological element in human culture than are proponents of evolutionary theory to neglect the cultural. The latter emphatically do not believe in biological determinism.”
War can be an objective in itself according to Gat, “…the primary motives and drives that trigger aggression are emotionally underpinned not merely by feelings such as fear and animosity; the fighting activity itself is stimulated by individual and communal thrill, enjoyment in the competitive exercise of spiritual and physical faculties, and even cruelty, blood lust, and killing ecstasy. These are all emotional mechanisms intended to fuel and sustain aggression…. Torture and humiliation of captured enemies were another widespread practice among the Indians, as elsewhere, cross-culturally. This behavior can also be explained partly as an expression of the craving for domination and superiority. To be sure, as we shall see, torture and humiliation were sometimes administered in revenge, for their deterrence effect, or to extract information.” Humans naturally like aggression and war for reasons that just feel good—but there are emotions that keep us from acting on our “blood lust” such as fear of death or injury or loss of property.
Months ago it was announced that Robert D. Putnam had accumulated data on diversity and its impact on social capital, but it may not see the light of day due to political incorrectness. Well, he did manage to insert some politically correct assertions to make this first report of the research palatable. (It is easily found on the Internet in PDF format.)
Entitled: E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century, Putnam summarizes: “Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.”
In May 2005 a generally good review of Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests appeared here. It is by Pierre van den Berghe, the Congolese-born Belgian sociologist who coined the term, ethnic nepotism. I hope that the following reproduction of that review will interest and inform MR readers. It is interspersed with a brief commentary by JW.
Of course, appeal to authority is not a logical argument. But it is encouraging that guys like van den Berghe and E.O.Wilson have commented favorably on Salter’s work and have not, for example, compared it to Jack D Ripper ranting about “precious bodily fluids” in the movie Dr. Strangelove
This is the cautiously-worded Abstract to a Universtity of Utah paper downloadable in full here.
And this is what JW takes from it:-
This is crucially important, especially since it validates, essentially, EGI, while it is possible that a cursory examination of the paper by the “usual suspects” would lead them to an opposite, totally erroneous conclusion.
Reading the paper to its conclusion, the major finding is this: the idea that individuals from different (highly) distinct races could be more genetically similar than they would be to members of their own group is an illusion due to insufficient numbers of markers.
When 1000+ markers are used, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%.
It is true that the authors found, when “admixed” and “intermediate” groups are included, that the overlap does not quite reach zero, even with up to 10,000 markers, although the overlap does become very small.
However, three points (in increasing order of importance):-
Here is the second of the two essays sent to us by PF: a thought-provoking extrapolation from bacterial population strategy into the modern method of majority population conquest by a minority - GW
Quorum Sensing is a kin-recognition mechanism which bacteria use to implement density-dependent strategies. Each bacteria that utilizes Quorum Sensing produces a small molecule specific to its species called an Autoinducer. Each bacteria cell both produces and is sensitive to this chemical. If many cells of one species are living in a certain area, then there will be a large build-up of autoinducer molecules in that space; if only a few cells are living there, then there will be few autoinducer molecules. The receptors of each cell are capable of measuring how much autoinducer is present in their environment - and this is how they determine the density of their own species’ cells. When one bacterial species reaches a certain cell density, and hence its autoinducer reaches a certain concentration, the behavior of the bacterial population changes.
Perhaps the most well-studied examples are in the expression of virulence factors. These are proteins that help the bacteria to manipulate and evade its host. Expressing a virulence factor antagonizes the host immune system, and makes it more probable that the bacterial population will come under attack, since host immune systems tend to evolve recognition of virulence factors. If the bacterial population expresses virulence factors when it is small, it is easily overwhelmed by the immune response. But if the bacteria population waits until it has sufficient numbers, it can overwhelm the host by switching en masse to the new pathogenic form, with its much greater effect.
MR commenter VanSpeyk suggested that we might put up a thread on European male/Far Eastern female miscegenation. So here it is:-
Lawrence Auster takes up the story:-
I had a crack a getting at the root of race consciousness<>race blindness here. But race treason is something else. It has a finality to it. Our arguments cannot reach it, and I agree with Lawrence Auster that that is most especially so where mixed-race progeny complicate the situation. The battle is lost.
Treason through liberalism - real, thorough-going ideological treason - is largely an elites issue. But anybody can marry an East Asian girl and bring her to the West, and frequently does. For the loving couple, of course, there are attractions either way that I do not need to describe here. But the resultant gene flow is for ever. In the aggregate and old John Maynard’s long run it changes us, and we did not ask for that. We have the collective right to apply social stigma at an individual level. Albeit it a blunt object, it is a true one.
Murray and Derbyshire light the way for what will become of our ethnic solidarity if sufficient white men take the Silk Road. Of all the other troubles we have with securing our racial future the loss of the white male to white womanhood is by no means the least.
Noshir Gowadia has been charged with selling our stealth aircraft technology and God knows what else to the Chinese, the Israelis, the Germans, and the Swiss:
I guess this is what they mean by cognitive elitism: non-whites are smart enough to figure out that whites are dumb enough to trust them.
Funny how most of the Anglophone press concerning this is non-white; it’s bigger news in the countries that screwed us than it is here.
Transaction, a social sciences publisher, has republished Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests, Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration”.
The blurb states:-
This edition has a new introduction. It would be very interesting to know the differences, and how - if they are substantive - Salter arrived at them.
This is a book review of “Breeding between the lines: Why interracial people are healthier and more attractive,” by Alon Ziv, 184 pp., Barricade Books, 2006, ISBN: 1569803064. My preliminary impression that the book most likely doesn’t have decent data in it is confirmed.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:06 AM in Anthropology, Books, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, IQ and Heredity, Psychology, Race realism, That Question Again
There’s a piece up at Amren linking to this article:
Since it touches on the JQ I can’t trust Amren to accurately reflect commentary, so I’m posting it here. Aside from the Orwellian headline (it should read Only blacks welcome in Hill caucus, which relays a quite different meaning), a couple of points spring to mind. First is the obvious, that racial exclusion is just fine, even laudable, for protected classes like blacks, not a hideous evil as it is for second-class citizens like whites. The second is not much less obvious to WNs:
I find it very odd that these candidates are identified as Jews. Typically they’d be identified as “white” in this context. A quick Google image search suggests that DeBose is Caucasoid, which if true tends to rule out black political concerns trumping the Jewish taboo (blacks are allowed to criticize Jews to a far greater extent than whites are).
This is made more odd by the fact (well-known to WNs) that Jews provided the brains for black movements throughout the 20th century, and that relations between the two groups have “deteriorated” in more recent years; this identification seems to be playing into that “deterioration.”
I’m at a loss to explain it. The Reverend Moon has often displayed less reverence for the self-chosen than is typical of the media, less in fact than any major media baron in America in my experience, but still this is a bit much.
In writing this I’ve been able to think it over and my guess is that the Jewish identification exists in the source material (the Clay letter), and that there might be more to this story and a dust-up to follow.
Karl Magnus made a good point in a previous thread about how an organism’s interest in fitness for its offspring can conflict with its interest in relatedness in its offspring. Strictly speaking it isn’t in an organism’s interest to worry about fitness except insofar as it impacts propagation (i.e., an organism’s genes will propagate more widely given fitter offspring)*, but we’re flexible strategizers and social animals so I’d like to hear the arguments. Also, I think transhumanism is our future and as it’ll allow vastly greater success for our interests, proximate and ultimate, Karl’s point about fitness struck home.
*As far as I can tell, I’m certainly not well-versed in genetics or evolutionary theory; the point here is to solicit opinion, not make statements.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa