Majorityrights Central > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

As my first MR blog entry I think it appropriate to put down some thoughts on how to shore-up a shortcoming of sociobiology theory that results in a significant under-estimation of ethnic nepotism.  I’m doing this here because I ran across some similar thoughts by JW Holliday which he published here some months ago.  Ben Tillman presented the seed of the idea a few months earlier.  It is a credit to MR that these views were first presented here. 

In my way of stating it: Lewotin’s Fallacy has weakened the foundation of sociobiology by ignoring genetic correlation structures that allow us to accurately discern phylogenetic groups such as subspecies or races.

It is my hope that providing a definition of “particle”, as correlation structures of nucleotides, will clarify the application of Price’s equations in W. D. Hamilton’s paper Innate Social Aptitudes of Man and a bioinformatic direction will emerge for sociobiology.  As this direction emerges many critiques of ethnic nepotism theory will be exposed as semantic confusion arising from the historic definitions of heritable particles—such as genes or alleles—definitions that lack sufficient bioinformatic rigor. 

This will be hard work.  For the usual reasons, we cannot expect government-funded scientists to be very cooperative.

READ MORE...

Is ethnicity something merely external to our real nature? Are we essentially creatures who have the capacity to choose our own identity and our own affiliations?

This is the liberal outlook. I believe that this view is mistaken and that ethnicity runs more deeply in our nature than liberals imagine.

I’d like to illustrate this with two small pieces of evidence I’ve come across in recent days. The first is a small item from the Melbourne Herald Sun (11/9/2000) which caught my eye when going through my files.

READ MORE...

This brief, perfectly straightforward post is not aimed at our readers from the political right.  For you guys it presents not the slightest intellectual challenge.  You may as well move on to more interesting things.  I wouldn’t want to waste your time.

No, this is a post for the seemingly growing little band of liberals – mostly, I believe, anti-English Searchlighters, quirks and leather fetishists – who frequent the blog these days.  I think we could throw in to our target audience the occasional passing GNXPer, too (though, as we all know, the GNXP boys are big right-wingers, if you entirely detach “right-wing” from the rest of the carcass and throw it in to the Indian Ocean).

You see, I’m trying to get somebody ... anybody from the left to give a straight answer to this perfectly straight question:-

Do you agree that European Caucasians should seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

Now, how hard to answer is that?  I mean, it’s not as though it demands a lot of post-modern mental acrobatics or the unpicking of super-obfuscatory sociology-speak.  It’s perfectly plain.  It means just what it says.

But so far, despite all my sincerest efforts, I haven’t been able to interest one liberal-minded educational genius, one proto-typical member of the Great and the Good, one morally superior son or daughter of the Enlightenment in giving me an equally sincere, unslippery reply.

So I am making a direct appeal – as always also appealing for civility and good humour, of course.

OK, the hook’s baited.  The line’s cast.  H-e-r-e fishy-fishy.

In the 1970s an advertisement appeared in an English magazine announcing “Pretty Nigerian girl needs new home.” An English woman in the small country town of Midhurst took in the baby girl.

So far the story reads like a liberal romance. But then come the revelations.

READ MORE...

Yes, yes, I know.  The Gene War is still raging elsewhere.  But thus far in this extended discussion with GNXPers, the combined forces of MR contributors and commenters have mostly bearded them with the pursuit of the very EGI’s they deny to us.  I want to tilt the discussion towards the purely political motives of the GNXP boys and since I happen to own this political hoosegow I can do it, too!

Now, the formidable David B has very courageously showed-up on our threads.  For that he has my thanks.  But not political asylum.  I’m throwing in a few observations here about the smoothly fashioned but overt and singular political intent in his Opus Salterium at GNXP.

Just taking as an example the piece to which I have linked, David writes: In its primary, everyday sense, we use the word (interest) to designate the wants and needs of individual sentient beings (usually humans, but sometimes other animals). These may be either subjective wants (such as a desire for food or sex) or objective needs, such as survival, but in general we value the latter only as preconditions for the former. Survival is usually in our interest, but not if we are in constant pain, or being kept alive as a senseless vegetable.

Senseless vegetables?  What price EGIs for senseless vegetables?  Or strawmen.  Let’s, instead, put it this way:  In its primary, everyday sense we use the word (interest) to designate the pleasures and advantages people seek.  Obviously, some of these pleasures and advantages hold no implication for our role in Nature.  But others do, or we would not exist at all (a world of liberals, for example, could not exist at all).

So the question, really, is whether these latter pleasures and advantages are of the individual, as David desires to prove, or not.  They’re not.  Post “Out of Africa”, we didn’t evolve as individuals but as the members of an ethnic group.  So the question we should ask David is: why must you number those pleasures and advantages (such as ideals of attractiveness in the opposite sex and all the striving that goes into attaining that) among the sanctities of individualism, rather than among the commonalities of ethny?

The honest answer would be: It’s my politics.  But we don’t hear it.

READ MORE...