Majorityrights Central > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

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.

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.

Jim Giles interviewed James Bowery a couple of days ago on Radio Free Mississippi. The primary territory is the conflict between Jewish interests and the Enlightenment values of truth and freedom—conflict as exemplified by the hostility of Jews toward the laboratory of the states to found discourse on experimentation rather than argumentation. It is 1 hour 48 minutes.

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:

READ MORE...

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.

Better:-

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.

READ MORE...

JW Holliday has produced a revised version of his landmark essay on the work of Frank Salter, originally published in the February 2003 issue of American Renaissance magazine.  It is in PDF form so as to facilitate easy transmission by e-mail.  It has been written accordingly, and is perhaps the clearest, most accessible formulation of Salterism thusfar.

The essay extends over three and a bit pages, and can be downloaded here or by clicking on the EGI.pdf link in the index column, under Important Issues.  It will have a permanent home there.

MR readers will be aware that JW has been promising for some time to start a dedicated site for his extanct body of work on EGI (the bulk of which is here), and to house his further thinking on that and related subjects.  Western Biopolitics is the result, and is now on-line.

You may not be entirely surprised to learn that JW has resisted the temptation to equip the new site with a comments facility.  But comment you may, since his major posts will continue to be “guested” here.  As I write, there are three posts already on the WB page: one an introduction to what it’s all about, of course, another a clarification on a reference to Yockeyism, and the third - the post which appears below.

I hope you will bookmark Western Biopolitics, and gain some new and useful knowledge from the work JW will be doing.
GW

CATON ON SALTER’S “ON GENETIC INTERESTS”

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.

READ MORE...

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

READ MORE...