Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

Yes, The White Race IS ..A Social Construct (Contrary To Jewish And Right-Wing Denial)

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.

Social Constructionism is a European, anti-Cartesian discipline: When conducted properly, Not Jewish

This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:

“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility” 

Say what?

Thus, in background to this essay:


Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureFar RightGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityImmigration and PoliticsJournalismLiberalism & the LeftRace realismSocial SciencesThe American rightThe Proposition Nation
Comments (104) | Tell-a-Friend

A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance


A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance

Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.

While becoming the first geneticist to popularize Mendelism, William Bateson observed puzzlement in his colleagues over a strange morphological phenomenon in crustaceans.

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.”


And from this inquiry he established “Bateson’s rule”, which asserts that when an asymmetrical appendage is regrown after loss, the resulting limb will be symmetrical, in mirror image with the other limb.

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 ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideArt & DesignConservatismDemographicsEnvironmentalism & Global WarmingEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityOrigin of ManSocial SciencesThe Ontology ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Negotiating Problems of Conventional and Non-Standard Grammar of European Identity

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 

We organize our identity as advocates of our people, who are of indigenous European descent, for the maintenance of our distinct genus on the whole and in the maintenance of our distinct species as well.

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 ActivismAnthropologyDemographicsEducationEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityLinguisticsPsychologySocial SciencesThe Ontology ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

Ethnocracy, Sortocracy and the Euro-DNA Nation

The Euro-DNA Nation confronts the Wall Street Wolf

Coordinating three profound concerns of European peoples.


Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 04:08 AM in ActivismDemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean NationalismPolitical PhilosophyWhite Nationalism
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Nazism As Overstated Premise of White Nationalism and False Either/Or

Border changes after World War II

It is a particularly important preliminary note that there is virtually nobody here who had anything to do with events of World War II. That fact is most relevant. Under that rubric, let us begin:

Hitler and Nazism as an overstated premise in representation of White/European nationalism; and Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew as false either/or.


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 DemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean NationalismHistoryMarxism & Culture WarNational SocialismPolitical PhilosophyThat Question AgainThe American rightWhite Nationalism
Comments (77) | Tell-a-Friend

Salter contra homosexual marriage

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:

Even an illiterate peasant from Peru knows the difference between a pair of men and a husband and wife. Even a nomad in the Namib knows that marriage provides society with children and a future, and same-sex unions deprive society of that benefit and place a burden on it.

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:

Homosexuals - 1.5% of men and 0.5% of women - are not well-regarded among normal people.  The male homosexual act is especially reviled.  This is so for evolutionary reasons, and it cannot be changed - it might be papered over a little if that is the fashion.  But there is no real choice in the matter for anyone.

This negative feeling is not without consequences. One such is that homosexuals are not role models for normal people.  The effect of this on marriage, should homosexuals succeed in grabbing title to it, can only be negative.  Specifically, marriage will be cheapened and reduced to the status of a lifestyle choice.

But marriage is not a lifestyle choice but the naturally arising, optimum condition for raising healthy children.  It is, therefore, a genetic interest of our ethnic group and our race.

Homosexuals have the same genetic interests as normal people, so the productive course for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is to increase the status of marriage and not decrease it.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 06:53 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsMarxism & Culture War
Comments (97) | Tell-a-Friend

Genetic interest assortation

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 08:15 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (64) | Tell-a-Friend

Invasive subcon keeps it ‘empirical’

Razib writes the following, in response to a recent paper highlighting the exquisite structure detectable at the village level in Europe:

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.

Good times.

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.

Posted by Dasein on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 05:33 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-Diversity
Comments (47) | Tell-a-Friend

Strange Fruit: Race, Identity Politics, & Ethnic Genetic Interests.

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.
Malik claims that, “Scientific categories need to be consistent, reliable and reproducible. Racial categories are none of these. Races are difficult to define and there are no objective rules for deciding what constitutes a race, to what race an individual belongs or indeed to how many races he or she belongs.” If this assertion were true, then science could not classify any number of things, such as mental illness: every new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM manual) recreates new classifications and divisions with every updated edition. This will probably never change as the research is constantly expanding and becoming more precise. And the same is true of racial classifications except that genetic taxonomies are far easier to classify than mental illness. (The equivalent of the DSM for races would be Cavalli-Sforza’s The History and Geography of Human Genes.)


Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, December 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

The Problematic Nature of Assimilation

By exPF

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:


Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, April 10, 2009 at 06:34 AM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

Updating “On Genetic Interests”

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:-

Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + Functional Genetic Interests.

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.


Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + (Functional Genetic Interests – The Kinship Component of Functional Genetic Interests).

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.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 03:31 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

PDF file on Ethnic Genetic Interests

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 04:06 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Western Biopolitics: Salter and more from JW Holliday

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”

I recently came across a generally favorable review of Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” by Hiram Caton (Twin Research, 7: 306-307, 2004). I would like to examine some quotes from this review.

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:

Thus, it transpires that the one academic journal dedicated to the promotion of biopolitical science is unlikely to take serious notice of the first offering with a credible claim to have achieved that goal.

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:

…political identity may be sustainable only on the basis of a dominant ethny. That this is indeed the case is a key premise of Salter’s biopolitics.

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.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

Some thoughts on genetic similarity.

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
Africa about 50,000 years ago, there would not be enough time for evolution to alter human intelligence enough to create differences between races. No scientific proof for this assertion was made; it was just the prevailing dogma. However, as is pointed out in Family Relationships (henceforth FR), selection on brain development is intense compared to other parts of the system. Human social interaction is far more flexible, changing, and directly acting on other humans, and artificial environments are easily established such as new social niches formed. The changes necessary for new behaviors then change more rapidly. For example, if a rather peaceful tribe finds itself suddenly confronted by neighboring hostile tribes, a rapid cultural/genetic alteration in tribal solidarity, sacrifice, and conformity could save it from annihilation.


Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 07:20 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

War in Human Civilization.

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.


Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 08:15 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Diversity leads to a loss of social capital.

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.”


Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 06:40 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (51) | Tell-a-Friend

JW on van den Berghe on Salter

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.

This is the kind of book which social scientists should read if they ever hope to become literate about human biology and its implications for our social behaviour. For many, if not most social scientists, human sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology, or behavioural ecology, or ethology, or whatever label you want to give to the biology of behaviour) is simply anathema, on both theoretical and ideological grounds. However, increasing minorities of anthropologists, psychologists, economists, political scientists and sociologists are beginning to absorb the social implications of human evolution and genetics. All ideological trends, by the way, are represented among these ‘revisionists’.

Salter’s book is divided into three parts. First, he expands W. D. Hamilton’s ‘inclusive kinship’ theory to ethnies. Then he draws the policy implications of ethnic nepotism. Finally, he concludes with the ethics thereof. No summary can do justice to a work so rich and novel in content, but let me try.

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


Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, April 9, 2007 at 06:43 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. To resolve this apparent conflict, we analyzed the question “How often is a pair of random individuals from two different populations genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population”; We compared this frequency (w) with error rates for classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, diversity of populations, and polymorphism ascertainment strategies. Classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than the individual-based measure, w, because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with one hundred polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but w remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.

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):-


Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 06:07 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

Quorum Sensing in bacteria mirrors peaceful conquest behaviours

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.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (26) | Tell-a-Friend

View from the take-away

MR commenter VanSpeyk suggested that we might put up a thread on European male/Far Eastern female miscegenation.  So here it is:-

I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

Charles Murray

Lawrence Auster takes up the story:-

Derbyshire commented:

Pure Murray—clear, succinct, data-based, no punches pulled. And not a thing I can see to disagree with [emphasis added].

Ok, Murray couldn’t care less if Anglo-European America disappears from the universe. We knew that he’s a libertarian social scientist, and as such is indifferent to cultural and ethnic realities except insofar as they can be reduced to data points. But what about Derbyshire’s agreeing with Murray? Wasn’t Derbyshire a paleoconservative on immigration, meaning someone who is attached to America’s and the West’s historic cultures and peoples? I noted a couple of months ago how he had urged that conservatives refuse to vote for the House Republicans, which, I said, would lead to the passage of Bush’s amnesty and “guest-worker” program. But now Derbyshire has gone much further, explicitly opting for a non-white America. In the past, Derbyshire had said he likes the social company of New York liberals more than that of Red State conservatives. Now he says he prefers a non-white America to white America.

Also note how race-blindness or race-neutrality never remains as such. Among Murray’s earlier points was that “English should be the only language ... in which the public’s business is conducted.” But then Murray turns around and, backed by Derbyshire, says that he prefers the non-Western communities springing up in America, even when their signs are not in English. In other words, Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) endorsement of an American cultural component that is safely race-neutral, such as the English language, instantly gives way in the face of Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) active preference for non-whites and active dislike of whites.

By the way, Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman, and Murray’s first wife, with whom he had two daughters, is Asian. Not that marriage to a non-white is a necessary basis of race-treason, since race-treason is the prevalent belief system of the contemporary West. But it is virtually impossible for a white married to a nonwhite to maintain a sense of identity with the white race.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 06:49 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (127) | Tell-a-Friend

Cognitive Elitism

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:

China bought bomber secrets

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.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 08:26 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsImmigration
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Salter republished

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:-

From an evolutionary perspective, individuals have a vital interest in the reproduction of their genes. Yet this interest is overlooked by social and political theory at a time when we need to steer an adaptive course through the unnatural modern world of uneven population growth and decline, global mobility, and loss of family and communal ties. In modern Darwinian theory, bearing children is only one way to reproduce. Since we share genes with our families, ethnic groups, and the species as a whole, ethnocentrism and humanism can be adaptive. They can also be hazardous when taken to extremes. On Genetic Interests canvasses strategies and ethics for conserving our genetic interests in an environmentally sustainable manner sensitive to the interests of others.

“[This] is a fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans, combining genetics with social science in original ways.”—Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University

“The book greatly expands Hamiltonian ‘kin selection’ by making ethnies in control of territory the central arena of ‘selfish genery’ in a modern world of mass migration.”—Pierre van den Berghe, University of Washington, Seattle

“Salter argues that all humans have a vital interest in genetic continuity 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.”—Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Max Planck Society

“Five stars for Salter—he has provided us with a deep and compelling explanation of what most people know and what guides much of their behavior, but fear to acknowledge publicly.”—Michael T. McGuire, UCLA

“We are indeed all part of each other, as John Donne insisted even before the help of evolutionary genetics. But we are more part of some than others, and the nature of these boundaries of ethnic kinship has been ignored, avoided or denied. After Salter’s virtuoso synthesis we can no longer duck these issues which become more important daily.”—Robin Fox, Rutgers University

Frank Salter is an Australian political scientist who has been a researcher with the Max Planck Society, Andechs, Germany, since 1991.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, November 12, 2006 at 06:38 AM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests
Comments (44) | Tell-a-Friend

Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv

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 AnthropologyBooksEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityIQ and HeredityPsychologyRace realismThat Question Again
Comments (280) | Tell-a-Friend

Black privilege?

There’s a piece up at Amren linking to this article:
Blacks only welcome in Hill caucus

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:

The Clay letter was written in response to concerns that two Jewish congressional candidates, Tennessee state Rep. Steve Cohen and New York City Councilman David Yassky, both Democrats, would apply for CBC membership if elected from majority-black districts.

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.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Friday, September 8, 2006 at 05:04 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

Fitness vs. Relatedness

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.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, September 3, 2006 at 08:22 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-Diversity
Comments (34) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Thorn commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 07:52 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 06:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 06:08 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 04:23 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/24/14, 03:01 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 02:47 AM. (go) (view)

Trainspotter commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/23/14, 05:01 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/23/14, 04:46 PM. (go) (view)

SunShine commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 04/22/14, 11:02 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:18 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 05:43 PM. (go) (view)

Desmond Jones commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:26 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 04/22/14, 03:45 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:53 PM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:00 PM. (go) (view)

Thorn commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 12:32 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 09:58 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 08:04 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:08 AM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:36 PM. (go) (view)

Arch Hades commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:56 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:38 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:14 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:23 PM. (go) (view)

Septimius Severus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:02 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:53 PM. (go) (view)

Goybbels commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:59 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:39 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

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.


Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media


Controlled Opposition






Nationalist Political Parties


Whites in Africa