|
|
A pinch more SalterA little more, if you can stand it, on “On Genetic Interests” … and, yes, GNXP. But I promise, I’ll give you a break after this. So … One of the most corrosive ideologies for a majority people’s ethnic genetic interests is so-called constitutional patriotism, which can be defined as “the nation as an idea”. Once a state is redefined away from an ethnic basis and toward being a creedal nation little political barrier remains against the genetic displacement of that state’s majority ethny. In his review of Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” Jared Taylor summarizes (emphasis in original) this nicely (with appropriate quotes from Salter’s work):-
Indeed, redefining a nation as an idea, an experiment, a propositional nation, a group of shared values, a culture state or a creedal nation is in essence an aggressive strategy for attacking the ethnic genetic interests of the majority. In his book Salter lists methodologies that can be used to attack ethnic interests, and included are: de-emphasizing ethnicity and confusing group identity - both of which are basic staples of the constitutional patriotism approach. To quote Salter (and this is very important):-
And …
How can this work in practice? An active promoter of constitutional patriotism in America today is the Gene Expression blog. It indulges in the aggressive strategies against America’s Euro-American majority mentioned above. In fact, GNXP is a wellnigh perfect example of an aggressive anti-majority strategy, and this blog introduces a novel twist on constitutional patriotism by introducing the concept of aracial cognitive elitism. This is the idea that intelligent and educated professionals should have a group identity based upon these non-ethny characteristics, while eschewing ethnic and racial loyalties. The principal founders of this blog are ethnic minorities - both of South Asian extraction. Thus, it is not surprising that they oppose ethny-based mobilization by America’s European-derived majority. In his book, Salter makes clear that it is to be expected that genetically distant minorities will likely oppose attempts by the majority ethny to create an ethno-state. One of the founders of GNXP expresses his preferences thus (from the “bio” section of the site):-
Another quote from the same person from the same website:-
Here we see all the classic signs of constitutional patriotism and the aggressive strategies outlined by Salter: an aracial scheme for identity (eg, any ethnic origin), which overtly de-emphasizes ethnicity; a preference for deracinated individuals who have obviously rejected an ethny-based identity; an opposition to racial separation (balkanization); and even an enthusiasm for multiracial admixture - the motivation for which is that the results of such admixture would have loyalty to a de-ethnicized USA (ie, a creedal nation). Furthermore, we see a lean towards the school of thought that America is a proposition nation, and a rejection of America as a nation defined by ethnicity. We see a definition of “American” based on a vague idea of patriotism. Finally, we see the assertion that a person’s allegiance should be to the flag - in other words, to an abstract symbol of the proposition, rather than to flesh-and-blood kinsmen and the distinctive gene frequencies they possess. You can’t get a more perfect match to constitutional patriotism than that. Unfortunately for constitutional patriots, in the real world where - short of panmixia - human difference is a permanent and fundamental fact, the outcome will eventually look like the pictures of this CNN report. There we see, almost exclusively, rioting Asians - and in the British context Asian means South Asians or those of sub-continental origin. Loyalty to the creedal British nation state or its flag does not preclude these people flexing their political, economic or, as here, social and demographic muscles. The lone English youth receiving a unique education in constitutional patriotism has my sympathy. At least he knows its meaning better than anyone at GNXP. Enough of this. Let’s be optimistic. No, I’m not going to argue that if the UK got out of India, then Indians (and other aliens) can get out of the UK - and the same for America, continental Europe etc. That would be unfriendly. Unwelcoming. Let us, then, all join hands and sing old Coca-Cola songs with the boys at GNXP until India and China and Mexico join us in redefining themselves as creedal nations. What’s that? Did somebody say not bloody likely? Posted by JW Holliday on Friday, April 8, 2005 at 07:49 AM in The Proposition Nation Comments:2
Posted by Mark Richardson on April 08, 2005, 08:59 AM | # We make the mistake in the West of thinking that human freedom and happiness can be pursued and achieved at a purely individual level. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 08, 2005, 09:11 AM | # Jim Kalb once pointed out in response to a comment I’d posted that use of the expression “The Founding Fathers” to refer to the men who brought about the U.S. Constitution might in certain contexts lead to confusion, since it could give the impression that these men founded the American nation. That they didn’t do, of course. The American nation was founded some five or six generations earlier by the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock and the Jamestown settlers in Virginia and was thriving very nicely indeed by the time the Constitution was written. Since that potential source of confusion was pointed out to me I’ve not only tried never to use the expression “The Founding Fathers”—whatever else those men did, they didn’t found the American nation—but I’ve realized why the left never attacks that expression, though it ought to be “sexist and racist” in their eyes (a bunch of white guys, including slave-owners; no women or Negroes): they never do because it’s useful to them to have American nationalists duped into thinking the founding of the nation consisted in the writing and adoption of the Constitution, so that what the American nation is is a “proposition nation.” Before there was The United States—before the Constitution—there was a nation, a people, a culture, a tradition, a history, a religion. The Jewish nation wasn’t born in 1948 and if what was born in that year goes out of existence there will still be a Jewish people and nation. The British North American nation was not born in 1787 and if what was born in that year goes out existence there will still be a British North American people and nation. Ben Wattenberg and the non-white who calls himself “Godless Capitalist” are genocide advocates. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 08, 2005, 09:21 AM | # I also want to say what a first-rate essay this log entry is, every single word of it. Thank you! 5
Posted by Effra on April 08, 2005, 01:07 PM | # I don’t agree with Kalb that British-descended colonists had founded one de facto American nation before 1787. It may not even have happened afterwards. The thirteen colonies which banded together then saw themselves as discrete nations, and very jealous they were of their privileges. The fact that they had a language and religion in common does not amount to nationhood, any more than Scotland, Ireland and England were one nation either before the accession of James I and the Acts of Union or today. Kalb’s provocation is a very dangerous if understandable way of refuting the babblings of propositionalists and Lincolnian triumphalists, since it paves the way for the top-down heresy of today’s centralising warfare/welfare feds. They would like to pretend that states’ rights were an afterthought in the USA of Washington and Jefferson; in truth sovereignty was jealously guarded by Virginia, Massachusetts, etc. Federation was felt to be a regrettable ‘military necessity’ (Join Or Die) like Tyrant Lincoln’s pretended emancipation of slaves. The President was supposed to be a weak abitrator and ceremonial figure, like the non-executive chairman of a company. Even Hamilton would be horrified and disgusted by the centre’s grip on the states under today’s imperial president and the overmighty Supremes. 6
Posted by Svigor on April 08, 2005, 02:02 PM | # I’m surprised no one has mentioned this: the ideational State is unverifiable. It not only allows “surreptitious” race-replacement, but is unworkable on its face, as stated. There is absolutely no way to verify that the “proposition” has sunk into the newcomers, so not only is the “proposition nation” unworkable in practice, it’s unworkable in theory. Stuka: That isn’t the first step. The first step is a presentation of the facts. The average western mind is resistant to healthy discourse, and a high level of cognitive dissonace must first be cultivated before it can be made healthy. In short, whites must be convinced that everything they’ve been told is lies before they can be converted to a healthy state of mind. The outright stupidity of the ideational State (something supposedly concocted by intelligent, thoughtful, learned people) is a nice bit of ammunition for this shooting match. 7
Posted by DissidentMan on April 08, 2005, 02:59 PM | #
Who exactly felt that way? I have a hard time believing that such words were more than a pretense, since military co-operation between nations does not require a central government any more than economic co-operation between nations requires a powerful transnational body (e.g. the EU). My own present belief is that the founders were proto-tranzis, the forerunner’s of today’s latte-and-mousse set. They liked the idea of being in control of the 13 colonies and many of them took positions in the new federal government as soon as it was constituted. Furthermore since they were part of the mercantile class federalisaion may may have made it easier for them to expand businesses accross state lines (that’s why the interstate commerce clause was included in the constitution). 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 08, 2005, 04:31 PM | # Effra (re your comment of 5:07 PM), I may not have accurately represented Jim Kalb’s point, so for now maybe disregard my reference to him specifically (I’ll see if I can look up his comment at Turnabout ) and just consider the general point I brought up about the potential pitfalls of using the term “The Founding Fathers” where it might tend to reinforce the neocon propaganda about this nation supposedly being a “proposition nation,” one which only came into being in 1787 with the Constitution and because of the Constitution, and one which has no other identity, no other essence, than the Constitution. That’s all a lie, I’m sure you’ll agree. Exactly as Jean Raspaille said of France, we can say of the traditional United States: it’s a nation, not a particular republican system of governance. The latter is a piece of paper. The former is flesh and blood (and soul). 9
Posted by James Bowery on April 08, 2005, 05:54 PM | # The problem isn’t so much whether a society is “creedal” but whether societies are allowed to form barriers to entry. If societies are allowed to form barriers to entry then they can prevent the spread of diseases as well as ideas that are deadly. For example the primary reason ethy has been devalued as a basis for society is the Jewish diaspora’s need to suppress antisemitism responses among their host nations. If the Roman Empire had been prevented from violating natural European barriers, Jews would never have dispersed and would therefore not have needed to come up with such attacks on the ethnic immune systems of Europe. 10
Posted by Andrew L on April 08, 2005, 06:11 PM | # You have to argue, what the hell gives anyone the right to re-order the make up of society, all of this pertains to the International umbilical chord of The supreme Elites playing god. 11
Posted by GFA on April 09, 2005, 06:40 AM | # Before bloviating about the minutia of some ostensible “ethnic genetic interests,” it might be a good idea to examine Salter’s thesis critically. Our blog has a wealth of information on the subject. First things first, eh? 12
Posted by Stuka on April 09, 2005, 07:06 AM | # The British North American nation was not born in 1787 and if what was born in that year goes out existence there will still be a British North American people and nation. How true! I find it a comforting thought, an antidote to pessimistic WNs whose “gloom and doom” predictions tend to have a paralysing effect. By, say, 2050, whites certainly will exist in North America in sufficient numbers, though the political realities most likely will have changed by then. It’s the prospect that the US as we currently know it will fall, and fall hard, that scares mainstream conservatives and their non-white hangers-on, like Razib, the most. Personally, I welcome it. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on April 09, 2005, 09:34 AM | # godless (or GFA, if you prefer), I examined those posts and found them politically very thin indeed. You can read my view of one of them here:- http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/629/ Let’s get this issue out into the open. Our interests run counter to yours and yours to ours. We do not, however, lay claim to some faux-moral right as you and your (temporarily, no doubt) former colleagues do. We do not faux-moralise you out of existence. We are honest about our particularism, which we take to be the right and natural particularism of all peoples of European extraction. Now how about you showing the same committment to honesty - right here on this thread - because if you can accomplish that simple task, you have some chance, at least, of defending your reputation. 14
Posted by James Bowery on April 09, 2005, 03:18 PM | # H-1b and outsourcing has proven to be destructive to the companies most employing them as evidenced by the crash of Sun, Enron, Worldcom, AGI and now Citibank. The Razibs and Godless capitalists of the world are a terminal disease for those employing them. Guys like the gnxp “cognitive elites” are trying to play the Jewish con of separating local elites from their natural constituents and then pushing their own ethnic interests against a disintigrated ethny. The problem for the Razibs and Godless Capitalists of the world is that con has just about run its course already—being quite ancient and ramped up to a fever pitch recently—there really isn’t much left for them to loot before they get booted out. 15
Posted by JW Holliday on April 09, 2005, 04:45 PM | # GFA, 16
Posted by Andrew L on April 09, 2005, 05:02 PM | # JW, The one thing on the subject I find intreeging is, If The racial difference did not exist, Then why do they all congregate and Imigrate to Western world enviroments, If Negroid or Asian, or Arab superiority and compexity exist, Why are we not imigrating to those great societies, and well, heaven Forbid, adopt their cultures, Simple answer is that it is someones verile mentality that commands it to be true, when the exact opposit in reality applies, Sounds more like a new prophet on his way up the ranks, and do not care what they destroy on the way. The truth will always answer the Question, but the answers they give for there reasons is not the truth. Something to do with Postmodernist’s philosophy I suspect than Reality. 17
Posted by Svigor on April 10, 2005, 03:26 PM | # Mr. Holliday, I look forward to your reply to GNXP, DB, et. al. on Salter. Unfortunately, I’ll just be here to judge who is more technical-sounding, since I grokked little of DB’s arcane invocations on the subject (I found his political arguments both understandable and easily-dismissed, of course). I left DB’s post on the matter unchanged, because he failed to address in language I can understand what I view as a a rather simple affair; a race is analogous to a family. I’m afraid it’s going to take something better than jargon to upset that apple cart. 18
Posted by birch barlow on April 10, 2005, 05:12 PM | # I don’t see where the substance is here. It’s not clear to me why I should care what the racial composition of the U.S.A. is, outside of political and economic considerations. I’ll be first to argue that mass low-skill immigration causes severe economic and political problems. However, given an equal or better economic and quality-of-life situation with a greater nonwhite population I see no reason to prefer a whiter population (by “quality of life” I mean no extra barrios, no closed emergency rooms, no extra traffic jams, etc). It seems that the only “argument” here rests on the aesthetic preferences of the posters here. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 10, 2005, 05:24 PM | # “It’s not clear to me why I should care what the racial composition of the U.S.A. is, [...]” (—Birch Barlow) Right. That goes without saying, Birch. If it had been otherwise you’d have stood not a snowball’s chance in hell of being permitted by GC to blog for his site. So ... have you some point to make (other than telling us what we already knew)? 20
Posted by Guessedworker on April 10, 2005, 05:35 PM | # bb, Somewhere along the line, if you are a man of European extraction, your sense of kinship and nation has been “liberated” from its place in your heart. Were it not so you could not demean the principle of love of kind as “aesthetic preferences”. That you can do so speaks of a certain lightness of being which no words of mine can redress. Quite simply, you lack the requisite psychological data to contemplate our meaning. I have debated with many liberals - including those on the right of conventional politics - who think as you. You are not alone. That is the frightening thing. Liberalism replicates itself through the spreading of all manner of instability, and the victims never rise to the understanding that they are not the equals, never mind the betters, of those who instinctively know the truth of kind and of family, of manhood and the rest. If you lack understanding, at least have the humility to ask yourself why. Do not demean those who may know more than you. 21
Posted by birch barlow on April 10, 2005, 05:40 PM | # My point is that the argument for a whiter America is based solely on the personal aesthetic preferences of some writers here—one that apparently few people share. I’d even go farther to add that sites like VDARE would probably have zero traction if Hispanic immigrants were as successful as East and South Asians in the U.S. are. People don’t like blighted neighborhoods, rising taxes and deficits, declining schools, closed emergency rooms, and the like (and they hate it even more when they’re called racist for caring about their quality of life), but I don’t think most care at all about race per se. 22
Posted by James Bowery on April 10, 2005, 05:59 PM | # Birch Barlow and the rest of the “creedals” have a point. What we need to remember is that creeds are hypotheses. THE QUESTION is which hypotheses get tested? Clearly, from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and Title VII of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, combined with the United Nations’ “Universal” declaration of human rights that denies self-determination to any “people” if that “people” identifies in a way that might be called “racist”—we have our answer: Our hypothesis is banned from being considered by anything but the venue that theocrats prefer force-backed “debate”. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on April 10, 2005, 06:07 PM | # bb, Again you do not know that of which you speak. It is (advanced) liberalism which causes a void to form where love of kin and kind should reside. We are living in unprecedented times and all you are telling me is 1) that these times have damaged something in Western Man, and But until you can there is no hope of us debating the liberal view of race. You are locked into a subjective world view. 24
Posted by Effra on April 10, 2005, 06:28 PM | # birch barlow: “People don’t like blighted neighborhoods, rising taxes and deficits, declining schools, closed emergency rooms, and the like (and they hate it even more when they’re called racist for caring about their quality of life), but I don’t think most care at all about race per se.” They do, but they know they are not supposed to say so. Specifically, they are supposed to pretend that there is no causal connection between the reckless admission of people whose intelligence, morality and motivation is lower than their own and the consequences you enumerate. Even if white trash are also to blame for some of these non-desiderata, compounding the problems by allowing poor-quality strangers to flood the land is no solution. They live alongside the rednecks and teach them bad habits, while the community leaders of yore flee to exurbs and gated communities. Whites seldom protest overtly; they observe the long-nurtured post-1865 political etiquette of their parlously united federated state, by keeping mum or paying verbal tribute to ‘diversity’ , meanwhile moving as far as they can from the infection. But the time is fast coming when for most whites, except the cognitive elite which can afford to live like the ruling classes of Brazil or Mexico, there will be nowhere left to hide. Fight, not flight—or be extinguished. 25
Posted by ben tillman on April 10, 2005, 07:31 PM | # I see no reason to prefer a whiter population (by “quality of life” I mean no extra barrios, no closed emergency rooms, no extra traffic jams, etc). It seems that the only “argument” here rests on the aesthetic preferences of the posters here. If that is so, then you likewise see no reason to prefer a population that includes a “Birch Barlow” to one that does not. In other words, you are arguing that living things have no interest in remaining alive. Do you really wish to make such an argument? We do not prefer a white population because of aesthetics; we prefer a white population because it is us, and its death is our death. To put it in terms that a GNXPer should understand, the white population is every bit as much a living vehicle for the survival of genes (as well as related sub- and supragenetic structures) into the future as is the vehicle known as an individual human being. 26
Posted by bb on April 10, 2005, 07:39 PM | # Let me point out that I wouldn’t put myself with most of the proposition nation types. All too many believe that one is fully American simply by choosing to come here (when the only reasons many immigrants come here are better infrastruture and a generous welfare stystem). Where I differ from many posters here is that I don’t think being nonwhite automatically excludes one from being fully American. With a skills/education-based immigration syste (meaning a stop to all illegal as well as legal low-skill immigration), immigration can become a net good. Immigration could become even more beneficial with a cutback in the welfare state and a beating back of the multicultural left as well as the multicultural “right” (GWB and many of the neocons). 27
Posted by ben tillman on April 10, 2005, 07:39 PM | # I’d even go farther to add that sites like VDARE would probably have zero traction if Hispanic immigrants were as successful as East and South Asians in the U.S. are. Despite incessant propaganda, the white populations of the Anglosphere and Continental Europe continue to oppose the mass immigration forced upon them by their rulers. The reason for this is simple: Immigration is genocide. Deep down, we know this, and—fortunately—it appears that this understanding cannot be eradicated through propaganda. 28
Posted by bb on April 10, 2005, 07:46 PM | # If that is so, then you likewise see no reason to prefer a population that includes a “Birch Barlow” to one that does not. In other words, you are arguing that living things have no interest in remaining alive. Do you really wish to make such an argument? Certainly everyone (besides the handful of people who are suicidal) wants to live. But people live through their own brains and bodies (or souls if one prefers), not through their race. Sure, I can *relate* more to people who think like I do, but the correlation between one’s race and one’s way of thinking is far from one to one. 29
Posted by ben tillman on April 10, 2005, 07:56 PM | # Certainly everyone (besides the handful of people who are suicidal) wants to live. But people live through their own brains and bodies (or souls if one prefers), not through their race. I understand that that is your contention. The point is that your contention is false, and we all know it. This knowledge that you lack informs our political viewpoint. To quote GW: If you lack understanding, at least have the humility to ask yourself why. Do not demean those who may know more than you. 30
Posted by bb on April 10, 2005, 08:21 PM | # The point is that your contention is false, and we all know it. This knowledge that you lack informs our political viewpoint. What makes my contention false? How does one live through their race? I’m honestly curious where this mystical connection between one and all members of one’s race is. I’m not denying that I am near certain to share a greater number of DNA sequences with others of primarily European descent than with those of primarily non-European descent, but DNA and conciousness are not the same thing. 31
Posted by ben tillman on April 10, 2005, 08:25 PM | # ...but DNA and conciousness are not the same thing. Indeed. But neither are life and consciousness the same thing. 32
Posted by ben tillman on April 10, 2005, 08:36 PM | # How does one live through their race? In the same way that a human cell lives through a human organism. Does GNXP not stand for “gene expression”? Genes express themselves through human groups (including races) just as they express themselves through human “individuals”. A race, in fact, is nothing more than an “individual” at a higher level of complexity or organization. The principles of multilevel organization are expressed most centrally by David Sloan Wilson, but also by, inter alia, John Maynard Smith & Eors Szathmary: 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 10, 2005, 08:48 PM | # The way to argue with someone like Barlow, GC, and Jason Soon is to ask, “All right, if race-replacement immigration is perfectly OK, what race is next on the list to be replaced? And what non-white race may whites replace first, before moving on to replace every single one of the rest of them with whites?” You’ll see them start hemming and hawing ... DAS IST STRENG VERBOTEN, talking about all that other stuff, don’t you see ... Only whites are supposed to get replaced and not question it .... 34
Posted by albion on April 10, 2005, 11:23 PM | # It needs to be said: Non-white settlers need to be expelled from the West, just as they expelled whites from Asia and Africa (does this get me labeled a ‘racist thug’? Possibly. I don’t care). At any rate, the first step for whites is to eliminate any so-called moral “qualms” about such a program; we can argue about details, i.e. logistics, later. Hold on. Just so am I clear here. Is the position of this blog the same as that of the people here like Stuka and Holliday? The people who want to forcibly deport Razib and GC and Jason Soon from the country in which they are citizens simply because they are nonwhite - and nothing else? The fact that they are law abiding scientists and professionals born and LEGALLY resident in the West means nothing. And James Bowery is now calling them “looters” simply for making a living in the West. I can see why they would react with hostility to this line of “argument”, such as it is. Someone - maybe someone like Stuka, the one who proudly calls himself a “racist thug” - threatened violence against Razib’s girlfriend recently in the GNXP comments section because she is a “race traitor”. This is not an aesthetic choice! This is not a Christian choice! This is madness. There is every reason to be angry about anti-white sentiment and illegal immigration and black crime rates and a million other things - a million million other things. But for this anger to boil over into a racialized excuse for simple thuggery and robbery would make America no better than Zimbabwe. And let us be frank - there is more than a hint of envy amidst the hatred here. If immigration of the type that is making Los Angeles unlivable is ceased, I can’t say there is much else in the political sphere that is agitating me and mine. As an engineer in California I have seen both the good and bad of immigration. I have seen neighborhoods in Los Angeles destroyed by Mexican gangs. But I have also worked with intelligent, God-fearing Hindus and Chinese, men who love their wives and children and who work very hard indeed. And many of the Mexicans and blacks are not bad sorts on an individual basis, especially those who are still Christian and God-fearing. The idea that we should rend this country apart for the aesthetics of “racist thugs” like Stuka is unimaginable. The idea that constitutional patriotism is somehow a weakness of the West is astonishing. All in all, I see here a race fetishism and atavism that goes far Far FAR beyond the necessary to repudiate God, country, citizenship, and decency itself for raw race. I also do not see Gene Expression as a cheerleader for “race replacement”. This seems a breathtaking distortion of their actual writings on the topic of immigration, which are solidly towards the restrictionist end of the scale. Please fetch an article from Gene Expression which cheers on “race replacement” and I will reconsider. Regardless, this whole series of broadsides against GNXP does not advance the mission of taking down the multicult. It seems aimed to alienate a group which has done much to promote rightist truths in the blogosphere, at the expense of much mud and persecution slung towards them by Marxists. In all, an excellent deconstruction of the GNXP blog. It is a deconstruction of the Majority Rights blog, if anything at all. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 11, 2005, 12:20 AM | # You’ve made some legitimate points that needed making, Albion. As far as I’m concerned, this is the take-home point: There is every reason to be angry about anti-white sentiment and illegal immigration and black crime rates and a million other things - a million million other things. That’s the point I’m left with, and the one I think we should get back to, now that you’ve spoken your peace. What do you suggest doing about the problems you yourself have just summarized?: 1) anti-white sentiment; 2) illegal immigration; 3) black crime rates; 4) and a million, million other things (one of them being excessive incompatible <objections the game would be up because there was no way we’d be able to restore the demographic by sending them back. What do you propose to do about any of those, Albion? “And let us be frank - there is more than a hint of envy amidst the hatred here.” “Envy”? Speak for yourself, Albion. As for hatred, the biggest haters are they who took it upon themselves to seek the elimination of the white racial majority here, together with they who cheer that project on, not they who have been stealthily targeted and who seek only to defend themselves. “But I have also worked with intelligent, God-fearing Hindus and Chinese, [...]” So have I, Albion. So, I dare say, have most of us. You wanna trade stories and anecdotes about the really wonderful, great Subcontinentals and Chinamen we’ve all known and worked alongside of? That’s not the point. The point is this isn’t India, Pakistan, or China. Why must it be changed into those? You think for one instant they would look favorably on their countries being changed into Anglo-Saxon North America? “And many of the Mexicans and blacks are not bad sorts on an individual basis, [...]” Not a person here would disagree with that. But this isn’t Mexico or Black Africa. We have a country here ya know, Albion. Or haven’t you heard? If you want to give property away to the Third World give away your own please, not the rest of ours ... not our country. “The idea that constitutional patriotism is somehow a weakness of the West is astonishing. All in all, I see here a race fetishism and atavism that goes far Far FAR beyond the necessary to repudiate God, country, citizenship, and decency itself for raw race.” No it doesn’t. We’re entitled to have our racial majority, our country, our nation, just as anyone else is. Clinton and Bush have together changed California from white to Mexican and Bush has every intention of doing the same to every other state in the Union. Can we change Mexico to white then, Albion? Do we have that right? Would that be Christian of us to do that against the wishes of their people as the reverse is being done to us against the wishes of ours? No one wants to put race first. We all want to put other things first, Christian things, like kindness toward our fellow man,and so on. But the other side won’t permit us to do that and keep our nation’s race too. They force us to put race first lest they take it away from us. Let them stop, and we’ll stop. I assure you I have better things to do—GW does, Phil does, we all do—than typing out messages on a computer in an effort to head off the genocide planned by the side GC supports. “I also do not see Gene Expression as a cheerleader for ‘race replacement.’ Please fetch an article from Gene Expression which cheers on ‘race replacement’ and I will reconsider.” Race replacement is happening right in front of your face—if you can’t see it you’re blind, Albion—and GC’s habit of squelching-plus-libeling any white who questions it while praising those non-whites who do openly and explicitly cheer it on—amounts to cheering it on. 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 11, 2005, 12:53 AM | # Part of the middle of my post got cut off. I had put that one of the “millions of other problems” was excessive incompatible immigration of the legal variety, which is as bad as the illegal variety where race-replacement is concerned. As for humanely sending people back with financial compensation, there’s nothing wrong with that: it’s called good ethnic cleansing and it’s better than a race war. Besides, at present it’s whites who are being ethnically-cleansed. The other side can dish it out but they can’t take it? They can’t stand the taste of their own medicine? Furthermore, the Bush administration has already begun deporting Moslems (including whole families) judged to be insufficiently loyal during this state of war, or to have foreign connections deemed suspicious in wartime. Thousands of Pakistanis have already been sent out of the country. The Marxist/Wall-Street/Country-Club-Republican alliance pushing white race-replacement thought if it could flood the U.S. quickly enough with a sufficiently large volume of non-white Third-Worlders before the white majority being ethnically cleansed out of existence had time to organize and mount effective opposition, the game would be up, because there would be no way politically to send the new masses of people back, and by their numbers here they would politically assure continued non-white influx without limit. But that’s not how the game is going to be played: continuing to hold repatriation as a goal is a necessity forced on us by the other side’s dirty tactics—sorry to shock you, Albion (maybe you should’ve been shocked instead when the other side was trying to predetermine the outcome by flooding the place with excessive numbers of incompatibles in advance of all public debate regarding whether or not that was wanted). 37
Posted by James Bowery on April 11, 2005, 01:01 AM | # The public debate did occur. It was decided in 1965 that the Congress and the American people wanted to keep the ethnic makeup of the US approximately the same. That was the statement made by the _supporters_ of the immigration liberalization act of 1965. Since then the only thing that has changed is the way the laws have been executed and interpreted by the executive and judicial branches of the government—with Congress going along with powerful lobbies. There hasn’t been a single poll that has shown public support for the policies that have been executed. That’s why Razib and “Godless Capitalist” and the rest of the immigration crowd, including their employers and bought politicians, are looters. 38
Posted by seelow heights on April 11, 2005, 01:20 AM | # I was chastised at GNXP for simply documenting(with links) the AA benefits received by Asians,and for questioning a leftist who asserted that discrimination against non-Whites was still pervasive. This was not meant as a personal attack on Razib, but he seemed to take it as one. I saw others attacked more strongly simply for taking a pro-White position. 39
Posted by JW Holliday on April 11, 2005, 06:07 AM | # Barlow and Albion with their comments just don’t get it: ethnic genetic interests are not an aesthetic choice. That’s sort of like saying that a parent’s preference for their own children is an aesthetic choice; truly stupid. If these GNXPers don’t agree about EGI, fine, but they should at least understand the concept and acknowledge the fact that this is a motivating factor. And, yes, please indicate to me where I said that Godless and Razib should be *deported.* I instead advocated breaking America up into ethnostates - G and R don’t have to go anyway. I should instead ask why must they *force* other people to live in the same nation as them? Do they love guys like me, Stuka, and Svigor so much? Need us so much? 40
Posted by GFA on April 11, 2005, 09:14 AM | # I don’t think *you* get it, JW. Salter’s “theory” is not an adaptive account of ethnic nepotism, as he himself says (e.g. its “mainly an exercise in political theory dealing with what people are able to do if they want to behave adaptively.”) Instead, its essentially a theory of normative ethics. Either way, its bunk. Coethnic-directed altruism is really only possible if its a green beard effect. As a theory of one ought to do, its an abysmal failure. Guessedworker: My name is GFA…as in God Fearing Atheist…as in not Godless Capitalist. Thanks. I honestly don’t know why you linked me to your comments. Am I (or anyone else) supposed to be impressed by your whining about “liberalism” and “false moral high-ground”? With rebuttals as substanceless as that, is it any wonder we don’t let your ilk join our discussions? 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 11, 2005, 09:56 AM | # The intricacies of your word-splitting over whether Salter meant this or meant that are one-hundred-percent irrelevant to whether or not peoples, communities, races, ethnocultures, nations, and nation-states have a right to oppose their own race-replacement. I’ve not read Salter or Kevin McDonald. If they say it’s OK to oppose race replacement they’re right, and I don’t have to argue against your “refutation of them” any more than I need to read some race-denier’s sophistry-laden account of why there are no such things as races and spend time arguing over that simply because he has proposed it, or some flat-earther’s of why the world is flat and spend time arguing over that simply because he has proposed it, or some leftist education expert’s who believes it’s racist to teach schoolchildren that 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4, and spend time arguing over that simply because he has proposed it. I think you’ll understand me when I say I can come up with better ways to spend my time than devoting literally my entire life to arguing against supposed “refutations” of glaringly obvious truth. Tell me, GFA, if race-replacement is perfectly OK—if there’s not a thing anyone can imagine that can legitimately be considered wrong with it—surely the white-Euro populations of North America and Europe aren’t the only places where it’s OK to carry it out! Tell everyone, please, what places are next on the list of those slated to undergo this blessing. In order to be consistent, GFA, you must now affirm that it would be perfectly OK to impose the replacement of all the Jews in Israel with Chinamen, Nigerian Negroes, Red Indians, Pakistanis, or Christian Lithuanians. When you’ve affirmed that, or its equivalent in regard to any other country or ethnic group—Bangladesh, the Hindu Brahmin caste in India, the country of Mexico, and so on, you may continue shooting your mouth off. China would be hard to ethnically cleanse by replacing its population with another race—say, with Hindus, Japs, or whites. But it’s theoretically possible to do. May we hear your approval of exactly that project, GFA? May we have it here, on record? Last I heard, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander—no? Maybe Jason Soon, the self-described latté-libertarian snob, will also sign off on that particular race-replacement project? 42
Posted by - on April 11, 2005, 10:03 AM | # Salter’s “theory” is not an adaptive account of ethnic nepotism, Was such a claim made? 43
Posted by JW Holiday on April 11, 2005, 10:07 AM | # GFA, Forgive Guessedworker. Obviously Godless Capitalist, God Fearing Atheist, and Tango Man are three different people. Obviously. A quote from your god Richard Dawkins is below. Salter explicitely notes that what he is talking about is not the “green beard effect.” What you label “bunk” is folks like Salter reaching beyond Dawkins’ leftist political motivations (as so clearly shown by Sailer) and demonstrating that differences between gene frequencies between populations lead to differences in genetic interests. Salter is not concerned with the evolution of ethnic nepotism or altruism. Adaptive behavior toward co-ethnics is not dependent upon evolved mechanisms of nepotism nor recognition of altruism genes. And, by the way, Salter deals with the “free rider” problem as well. Funny though that the free rider problem is never defined as Godless and Razib being free-riders on the immigration altruism of white Americans and the infrastructures built by white Americans. No. Richard and Ingo say that isn’t so, and since we have to worship these “experts” as the great gods of evolutionary theory, what they say goes. Again Dawkins: “The Green Beard Effect is a way in which a would-be selectively altruistic gene can recognize copies of itself in other individuals. That means that the gene can propagate itself by looking after copies of itself when it has the opportunity to do so. That’s relatively easy to understand.” I really don’t know how else to say the same thing over again, other than state that Salter is talking about all the distinctive genes, not just altruism genes that need to be identified by a “green beard” label. Genetic assays can determine relative genetic similarities or differences between peoples. What is “bunk” is GNXP’s cowardly run from genetics when there are unpleasant political ramifications of such. Also “bunk” is Dawkins’ ideological twisting of concepts to match his left agenda. And good old Ingo is in the same boat. Dawkins: I use The Green Beard Effect as a way of explaining kin selection. If you imagine a gene that has two pleiotropic effects that apparently have nothing to do with each other (and in practice that’s common enough), if one of its effects is to give somebody a label, such as the Green Beard, and the other is to give somebody a propensity to act altruistically towards individuals so labeled (that is, Green-Bearded individuals), then theoretically that gene will spread. The Green Beard Effect is a way in which a would-be selectively altruistic gene can recognize copies of itself in other individuals. That means that the gene can propagate itself by looking after copies of itself when it has the opportunity to do so. That’s relatively easy to understand. But as far as I know, in practice Green Beards don’t exist. But kinship is a kind of statistical Green Beard. Although your brother is not guaranteed to contain the gene that’s making you practice “fraternal” behavior towards him, the odds that he has that gene are statistically higher than the odds that a random member of the population has it. Kinship is therefore a statistically watered down version of the Green Beard Effect that actually works. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on April 11, 2005, 10:17 AM | # Sorry, GFA, for mixing you up with godless, given to camouflage as he is. I’m just riding shotgun for JW politically - not that he needs me. But you know how it is. Hours of waiting. Hair trigger. Boom. Oops, wrong man. 45
Posted by JW Holliday on April 11, 2005, 11:04 AM | # Here is the Dawkins interview in its entirety:- Interesting points:- a) besides explaining “green beard” (which is not what Salter refers to), Dawkins says he doesn’t believe the green beard effect really exists. If adaptive ethnic nepotism is dependent upon green beard, then…how convenient then! It doesn’t exist! b) Dawkins mentions kin though as a rough substitute for green beard. Interesting that in Salter’s book, there is a quote by Dawkins himself saying that kinship is probalistic, and there is no “cut-off” as to where kin ends. What’s kin? Your brother? Second c) Note also that when Miele brings up the possibility that people can have the attitude of treating the genetically close altruistically, Dawkins says it is a possibility. Of course, that is because Miele sweetens the pot by suggesting that non-genetic attributes can be used to “trick” the altruism response. “Cognitive elitism”, anyone? d) Note Dawkins’ overt political agenda - VERY overt. e) Note that he conflates color with racial similarities. Kin selection doesn’t mean everyone the same color as you, the King of Strawmen pontificates. Yes, but what about genetic similarities? Or is Dawkins like Ken Kidd, who dismisses human biodiversity by mentioning color only? Do Englishmen share anything other than color? I can spend all day deconstructing Dawkins. But his own words condemn him. He is concerned with “racism”, as is Brigandt. If Salter must “disclose” his political preferences in his work, as some think, what about Dawkins and Brigandt? Or do they have a special dispensation for objectivity, because their views on non-existant “green beard” effects mean that South Asians can continue to batten on white America? 46
Posted by JW Holliday on April 11, 2005, 11:08 AM | # Now, if it were possible for someone with an “altruism” gene to ascertain the presence of that gene within another person without a linked “green beard”, wouldn’t that work? What if the gene variant could be detected by genetic assays? Or, what if, instead of Let’s expand. Why only altruism genes? If one were studying the evolution of altruism/ethnic nepotism that would be one thing. But…is the genetic interests that parents have in their children dependent upon them sharing the same “altruism genes?” No. It is dependent upon them sharing a large number of distinctive genes. If one parent has an altruism gene, and their child lacked it, would it be adaptive for the parent to throw the infant in a dumpster? What about organisms that do not behave altruistically; reptiles for example. Do they then lack genetic interests? Does a non-altruistic species lack such interests? Does a non-altruistic reptile have no genetic interest in their offspring? If 99% of the world’s Komodo Dragons were wiped out, would that not decrease the relative representation of KD gene frequencies in the world’s genepool and thus represent a blow to the genetic interests of those reptiles? Assuming that dinosaurs did not act altruistically to each other, do we say that their extinction was then meaningless, from the “standpoint” of the dinosaurs and their distinctive gene frequencies? Doesn’t all life (except for white folks) strive to reproduce, and increase its genetic representation, regardless of altruism? Of course, Dawkins doesn’t like being scolded by the United Nations, and he doesn’t like the “National Front”, so let’s all talk about “color” and leave it at that ....... 47
Posted by JW Holliday on April 11, 2005, 04:29 PM | # Let’s take a quick look at a few extracts from Ingo Brigandt’s “The Homeopathy of Kin Selection”, publicly online at:- Brigandt is in italics. My comments follow his quotes Van den Berghe and Rushton certainly do not want to further a racist view, but what they state as facts (an alleged evolutionary explanation) shares the same intuition that these racists used. Er..what does a scientific critique of kin selection have to do with racism, racists, and whether various evolutionary theorists are, or are not, promoting racism? Objectively nothing. Subjectively, it demonstrates a leftist anti-racist political orientation on the part of the person who wrote the comment. Like Dawkins, Brigandt seems concerned about racists promoting their views. Since he wants to assure the reader that the Van den Berghe and Rushton are not racist, Brigandt seems to be making a value judgment about racism. Do these value judgments color his views on these subjects? Perhaps. Dawkins, e.g. the Miele interview, makes his political views clear. He says he would be against racial nationalist politics regardless of science and that he views racism as bad. In this interview, Dawkins accepts the comment that he has voted leftist:- If Richard Dawkins is not an anti-racist and not a leftist, he should then state this, because obviously he has given people the impression that he is a leftist. Please note that I do NOT endorse the rudeness and insults of the individual who wrote the “live journal” piece. I believe in critiquing the opinions and motivations of people, not the people themselves. I am merely showing that Dawkins’ politics are considered to be on the left, which he himself did not deny in his interview. On this reading (of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory), behaving preferentially towards a genetically similar individual would yield more copies of one’s genes. However, the question is how a gene that causes such a behavior can evolve. This is clear from a correct understanding of the selfish gene perspective and exactly here lies the problem for genetic similarity theory. Note that it makes reference to overall genetic similarity, what Rushton and his colleagues tried to show is that humans treat other individuals preferentially according to their overall genetic similarity (based on measurements on several genetic markers). Evolution by natural selection concerns the change of the frequency of a specific allele at a given locus. In this sense, an allele competes with other alleles at this locus. It does not matter whether the effects of an allele increase the frequency of some alleles at other loci, a gene simply has to augment its own frequency to be evolutionary successful. For this reason, an allele that influences an organism in a manner that this individual behaves altruistically towards other individuals which are genetically similar to it with respect to other loci is neither selected for nor against. But genetic similarity theory focuses on overall genetic similarity, which basically includes all these irrelevant genes or loci. Instead, the question should be whether a gene is able to detect (based on phenotypic effects) whether another organism also has this allele at the same locus, then preferential behavior towards this organism is actually a better strategy than towards other organisms. But this scenario is simply the green beard effect, which as above said is usually excluded as a real possibility. This may, in fact, be a real problem with Rushton’s theory - which I could care less about. It has absolutely nothing to do with Salter’s thesis. Salter is not concerned about how behaviors evolve, evolution of ethnic nepotism, altruism, etc. The above comments concerning green beard is just completely irrelevant to Salter’s thesis. Salter says it is generally adaptive to prefer co-ethnics relative to non-ethnics. Brigandt himself agrees with this (see below)!!! People with limited cognitive abilities are confusing Rushton with Salter. Perhaps they need to eat more fish (brain food) as to stimulate their mental functioning. (Cont) 48
Posted by JW Holliday on April 11, 2005, 04:30 PM | # (Cont) Key sentences from the above paragraph that show it has nothing to do with Salter:- However, the question is how a gene that causes such a behavior can evolve. Evolution by natural selection concerns the change of the frequency of a specific allele at a given locus. …an allele that influences an organism in a manner that this individual behaves altruistically towards other individuals which are genetically similar to it with respect to other loci is neither selected for nor against. Selection, evolution .. . irrelevant to Salter’s thesis. The whole green beard problem is something for Rushton to deal with. Forward complaints to him, not to Salter. The second problem for the alleged evolutionary explanation of preferential behavior towards genetically similar individuals stems from the fact that the account does not include cost/benefit considerations. First, evolutionary explanations are irrelevant to Salter’s work; his thesis is independent of that. Second, as regards the current adaptiveness of actions, Salter does explicitly discuss cost/benefit. True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them. This is EXACTLY Salter’s fundamental point! Brigandt says it is “true enough”. Brigandt here essentially endorses ethnic genetic interests whether he knows it or not. Where, then, is the problem? IB then says:- But this fact as such does not indicate that this kind of behavior will evolve (rather than egoism or other behavioral patterns) independent of cost/benefit considerations. Completely irrelevant, as stated above. Salter is not concerned whether a particular behavior has evolved or not. He is concerned about what sentient rational fitness maximizers should be doing. All I see from this is a critique of Rushton, which may or may not be correct, and a tacit (unconscious) endorsement of Salter. I also see politically-motivated concern about racism. 49
Posted by GFA on April 11, 2005, 09:38 PM | # JW, You really ought to work on your reading comprehension. I never said that 1) Salter was advocating a green beard effect (my exact words were “coethnic-directed altruism is really ONLY POSSIBLE if its a green beard effect”), or 2) that Salter was arguing ethnic nepotism was an adaptation (I said exactly the opposite in response to your analogy between it and obviously kin-selected phenotypes like parental investment). I’ll respond to your other confusions some time tomorrow. 50
Posted by ben tillman on April 11, 2005, 10:48 PM | # my exact words were “coethnic-directed altruism is really ONLY POSSIBLE if its a green beard effect” ...which is much sillier than anything that may have been inaccurately attributed to you. 51
Posted by JW Holliday on April 12, 2005, 06:12 AM | # GFA, You really ought to work on your reading comprehension. Yes, well I know, we are not all as fluent in English as you, nor as technically competent. But given that Salter is busy with a second edition to answer the kind of politically-motivated idiocies you assert, we here at MR will just do our best. I never said that 1) Salter was advocating a green beard effect (my exact words were “coethnic-directed altruism is really ONLY POSSIBLE if its a green beard effect”) Semantics. Salter pointedly distanced himself from green beard (Dawkins’ biological joke) because it has nothing to do with his thesis. It has nothing to do with ethnic altruism either. Ethnic altruism does not entail the green beard effect, which is a special case of pleitropy. Just because you and your politically motivated heroes (who sometimes slip and admit the opposite) assert that ethnic altruism is dependent on green-beard doesn’t make it so. There is no logic there. Ethnic altruism is not dependent upon identification of altruism genes in the recipient of the altruism; ethnic altruism can be evolutionarily stable as long as the free-rider problem is dealt with - and the free rider problem is a problem in all societies. This being so - no green beard. Maybe white Americans need to identify immigration altruism genes amongst potential immigrants. Yellow or brown skin - it isn’t there. I call it: the yellowbrownxenophobicunidirectionalimmigration effect. or 2) that Salter was arguing ethnic nepotism was an adaptation (I said exactly the opposite in response to your analogy between it and obviously kin-selected phenotypes like parental investment). I’ll respond to your other confusions some time tomorrow. Do you need to consult with someone? The GNXP strategy is this: refuse to admit you are wrong, endlessly grind on to waste everyone’s time - instead of argumentation, use exhaustion. 52
Posted by GFA on April 12, 2005, 09:26 PM | # “This is EXACTLY Salter’s fundamental point! Brigandt says it is “true enough”. Brigandt here essentially endorses ethnic genetic interests whether he knows it or not. Where, then, is the problem?” Uhhhh, no JW. Brigandt *is not* agreeing with Salter. In what sense is favoring coethnics “better”? To Brigandt, individuals more closely related to each other by DESCENT will, depending on relative costs and benefits, increase their inclusive fitness more or decrease it less relative to altruism directed at outgroups. Both he and I agree its actually the latter. Salter’s “better,” on the other hand, is more in-line with Rushton’s theory, and in particular the data he uses to support it. That is, genetic similarity, or the overall amount of genes identical in STATE. These concepts are NOT THE SAME THING. Even more importantly, the authors are attempting to explain two totally different things. Brigandt is exploring how gene(s) involved in ethnic nepotism might evolve. In other words, he’s exploring whether or not ethnic nepotism can be said to be adaptive in the standard sense of the word; if, via ethnic-directed altruism, these genes might be maintained and spread in a population. It is not “better” in that one OUGHT to behave in any particular manner, it is better because it is more likely to evolve. Here again, Salter argues something different. As we both agree, Salter is not arguing that ethnic nepotism is more likely to evolve. He’s saying one SHOULD act this way IF one WANTS to send more copies of every allele into the future. And this is the real problem that has never been addressed. Why SHOULD I want to maximize the total number of copies of each allele I posses? Why should I want to behave “adaptively” sensu Salter? Who knows. Let me also repeat my last points: 1) You were arguing as if I said Salter endorsed green beard ethnic nepotism. I never said that. All those Dawkins quotes were perfectly irrelevant. 2) You were arguing as if I said Salter was arguing for ethnic nepotism being adaptive (sensu every biologist other than Salter). I said exactly the opposite. All that work, including bringing up Brigandt (who was addressing its evolution) was for naught. With that, im done wasting my time on you. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 12, 2005, 10:49 PM | # “Why SHOULD I want to maximize the total number of copies of each allele I possess?” (—GFA) I can’t think of any reason you should, GFA. In fact, I see every reason why you shouldn’t. More guys like you is something we don’t need. “With that, im done wasting my time on you.” Does that mean we’re done reading your clap-trap, GFA? THAAAAAANK GODDDDD! In arguing with GFA one is arguing with Robert Lindsay but in scientific jargon. There’s no difference. No one will ever get either of them to admit that opposition to race-replacement genocide against whites is legitimate. Bye-bye, GFA! Toodle-pip! 54
Posted by ben tillman on April 12, 2005, 10:51 PM | # As we both agree, Salter is not arguing that ethnic nepotism is more likely to evolve. Huh? One cannot debate whether ethnic nepotism is “likely to evolve.” It has evolved; that’s a matter of empirical fact. 55
Posted by JW Holliday on April 13, 2005, 08:50 AM | # Uhhhh, no JW. Brigandt is not agreeing with Salter. I am not saying Brigandt will agree with Salter, I am saying that back in 2001, he claimed that helping co-ethnics was evolutionarily better, which is fundamental to Salter’s thesis, is it not? In what sense is favoring coethnics “better”? Hmm … I think Salter just wrote a 300+ page book explaining that, which Jared Taylor just reviewed. And Brigandt, as I quoted, gave the answer as well. To Brigandt, individuals more closely related to each other by DESCENT will, depending on relative costs and benefits, increase their inclusive fitness more or decrease it less relative to altruism directed at out-groups. Both he and I agree its actually the latter. Salter’s better, on the other hand, is more in-line with Rushton’s theory, and in particular the data he uses to support it. That is, genetic similarity, or the overall amount of genes identical in STATE. These concepts are NOT THE SAME THING. Can you read? Brigandt openly stated in 2001 that helping co-ethnics was better than helping others. Now, I know there are some folks that wish to argue that *identical* by descent is not the same as “identical” by state. In their mind, “identical” is not the same as “identical”. To me, Salter and others, identical is identical, and a particular gene sequence is what it is. If a specific gene sequence is CCGGTTAATTGC then that’s what it is, regardless of whether it is found in your Uncle Harry or a co-ethnic. As Harpending points out, you can share genes with an onion as well. That_s why we are talking about gene sharing greater or lesser than that of the average; in other words, distinctive gene frequencies. Quotes from Salter’s book:- Grafen: “..Hamilton’s rule is true no matter how genetic similarity arises.” Pepper: “...nder certain simplifying assumptions the two definitions coincide, but when they do not it is the modern statistical definition rather than the original genealogical version that makes inclusive fitness theory work…” Page 42 of Salter’s book, Hamilton’s 1975 quote redefines relatedness as a statistical measure of genetic similarity. Genetic similarity as regards adaptive behavior is valid. Another important point: co-ethnics can be viewed as being related by common distant descent. Who shares more most common recent (in population genetics, And this is the real problem that has never been addressed. Why SHOULD I want to maximize the total number of copies of each allele I posses? Why should I want to behave adaptively sensu Salter? Who knows? First, it is NOT each allele that is important. You still don’t get it, and never will. The important thing is maximizing distinctive genes and gene frequencies. Salter explains the importance of genetic interests in his book. Genes are the ultimate OK … do us all a favour. Do NOT replicate your genes. Have you read David Deutsch’s Fabric of Reality? I suspect that DD is politically similar to Dawkins, and so I would expect him to not agree with Salterism (“racist” and all that), but, hey, maybe I’m wrong. DD can speak for himself. In any case, DD points out that genetic information is one of the cornerstones of reality, in that it constitutes one of the largest structures that span multiverses. DD’s multiverse theory may or may not be correct, but DD and his specific ideas are not the point here. The point IS that the fundamental importance of genetic information is recognized seemingly by all bio-minded intellectuals, except those from GENE EXPRESSION. 56
Posted by JW Holliday on April 13, 2005, 08:51 AM | # Let me also repeat my last points: 1) You were arguing as if I said Salter endorsed green beard ethnic nepotism. I never said that. All those Dawkins quotes were perfectly irrelevant. Yes, but green beard has nothing to do with Salter, so why mention it at all were you hoping that folks would not know what it was and just shrug their shoulders and say Salter is wrong? Thus, your initial comment about green beard was irrelevant. If you agree that Salter is not talking about evolution of ethnic altruism/nepotism, and if green beard is related to that, what was your point? Of course no point. 2) You were arguing as if I said Salter was arguing for ethnic nepotism being adaptive (sensu every biologist other than Salter). I said exactly the opposite. All that work, including bringing up Brigandt (who was addressing its evolution) was for naught. Awww, trying to make me feel bad? All for naught. No, not at all, it exposed you as the cognitively challenged pseudo-intellectual that you are, as well as:- a) uncovering Brigandt’s admission that helping co-ethnics is “better”, b) clearly demonstrating that green beard has nothing to do with Salter. With that, I’m done wasting my time on you. Is microcephaly a prerequisite for GNXPers? What are the skull measurements of GNXP bloggers? Can we have this information? Given GFA, I think it is important that we know this. 57
Posted by ben tillman on March 02, 2010, 10:35 AM | #
Let’s not forget that immigration policy is itself a form of affirmative action. Affirmative action in citizenship. And the very presence of people like Razib in our midst marks them as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Next entry: NYC prefers Satanism to Christianity Previous entry: A New Oil Crisis? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. buy deca durabolin commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on 05/24/12, 04:38 AM. (go) (view) Red Bottom Shoes commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on 05/24/12, 04:33 AM. (go) (view) http://www.christianlouboutindiscountsell.com/ commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on 05/24/12, 04:31 AM. (go) (view) alvin sunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 03:45 AM. (go) (view) PMP Preparation commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/24/12, 03:15 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Stuka on April 08, 2005, 08:18 AM | #
No, I’m not going to argue that if the UK got out of India, then Indians (and other aliens) can get out of the UK - and the same for America, continental Europe etc. That would be unfriendly. Unwelcoming.
Go ahead, argue it. Say it. I won’t tell anyone. In fact, I’ll join you in saying it. It needs to be said: Non-white settlers need to be expelled from the West, just as they expelled whites from Asia and Africa (does this get me labeled a ‘racist thug’? Possibly. I don’t care). At any rate, the first step for whites is to eliminate any so-called moral “qualms” about such a program; we can argue about details, i.e. logistics, later.
In all, an excellent deconstruction of the GNXP blog.