Animal Rights, Humanism, and Universal Altruism

In a previous article I discussed Frank Salter’s recent book, On Genetic Interests. Salter makes the observation that societies everywhere expect families to care more about themselves than non-family members. It is expected that parents for example will leave their money to their children, pay for their children’s education in addition to what the state provides, and are expected to treat their children with greater care than other children. Humans everywhere understand that we protect and support our children more than other children because our children carry more of our genes than do other children. That is, our own children are closer to us genetically than other children—and virtually everywhere one observes preference for one’s own children—never are these parents accused of ethnocentrism, xenophobia, or racism.

That is not the case with what Salter calls preference for one’s own ethny, which is merely a smaller circle of genetic interests than that of one’s race. There is no clear differentiation however between an ethny and a race when it comes to genetic similarity—an ethny just includes cultural attributes like a common religion, language, customs, etc. For this reason I will use the term race, because I am only looking at genetic similarity.

That is not the case with what Salter calls preference for one’s own ethny, which is merely a smaller circle of genetic interests than that of one’s race. There is no clear differentiation however between an ethny and a race when it comes to genetic similarity—an ethny just includes cultural attributes like a common religion, language, customs, etc. For this reason I will use the term race, because I am only looking at genetic similarity.

For millions of years humans have understood racial solidarity or the importance of the band, the tribe, chiefdoms, monarchies, and nation-states based on race. Where races mix, they understood that different races would naturally promote their own racial advantage over other competing races. This was never questioned up until about 1930 when the confluence of Marxism, anti-nationalism, and anti-racism was used to attack the very concept of racial genetic interests. Since then, the controlling elite have embraced this new dogma and have used every means of indoctrination to spread diversity, multiculturalism, and to downplay racial differences.

Well, as dogmas and religion goes, especially new age religions, there are a lot of competing groups promoting all kinds of universal altruism—extending it beyond humans to embrace an every widening circle of various species that need to be protected from the evils of human encroachment on the Earth’s delicate state. So, what should a racial realist’s response be towards empathy towards animals?

Let me digress with my own experience with animals. I grew up in a household that had a constant flow of dogs, cats, birds, hamsters, etc. running around. The dogs and cats slept where they liked, went outdoors as they pleased, and were generally just around. After I left home, I never settled down in what was a significantly large extended family where I felt pets would be well cared for. It was just my wife and I, we both worked, and it was unfair I felt to leave dogs alone all day. Eventually however, after a great deal of nagging, my wife talked me into getting a very large German shepherd, and a year later she ordered another one from the same breeder. I now was fully devoted to my mutts, took them to the park daily, cooked for them, and the second one who was the younger female was on my lap every night. The older dominate one would lie next to my wife.

I have always loved dogs, and I didn’t realize the chemical attachments that can be formed over a long period of time not only between members of a species but between species. When my dog developed a spinal chord compression, and the operation did not take, I stayed with her for three days until she finally died. For the next few months, I went into a severe depression, unable to understand how I had become so attached to a dog. When my father died, a brother, and several relatives, I was unaffected—I have always prided myself on being tough.

That happened five years ago, and subsequently I came across the answer, which I will only touch upon. All higher animals have chemicals that are responsible for bonding with others, and these chemicals can equally bond a human to a pet if they are in friendly contact enough. I had overly bonded to my lap dog over a ten-year period. So I can state that for me at least, I have far more compassion and caring for my canine friends than I do for members of other races—on a sliding scale of course. Is this a violation of my “genetic interests?”

As Salter points out, humans as part of self, family, race and the human species, we are all in competition with each other, but especially other races. Whole races who are downtrodden would like for the West to give them handouts, or better yet they would like to move to Western nations and eventually displace the White race. Human groups are competitors; however we are not competing with other higher species. Dogs, cats, cows, and chickens do not try to harm humans as a group. Our most worrisome organisms are the small ones—deadly pathogens.

As a race realist then I think it is logical to have more compassion for some animals while withholding any compassion for unrelated humans, especially those who are antagonistic towards my people. As an inegalitarian, it is important for me not to be sucked into the humanist dogma that all people should care equally for each other—nature does not work that way. I would happily displace humans so that I could be around more animals that I love. So to the animal rights activists I say fine—which humans do you want to eliminate so that fewer cows will end up at McDonalds for lunch?

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 at 07:09 PM in Race realism
Comments (3) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: I’m afraid he’s correct

Previous entry: Never Renounce Your Heritage