A Brief Thought Concerning Economic Individualism

Posted by Graham Lister on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 23:23.

Given the ‘ecological turn’ recently in this corner of cyberspace I recalled a thought that I had some time ago on using ecological concepts heuristically in connection to political analysis.

Some time ago I enjoyed a correspondence with GW about the concept of statistically tracking the possible interactions between specific ideologies and public policies using the ‘scale of competition’ concept from evolutionary ecology.

Recall that from Hamilton’s work we have three zones of evolutionary conflict: between sexes/parents over parental investment in offspring; between parents and offspring over investment of parental resources now and in the future (inter-brood conflict); and lastly between siblings over division of parental investment within a brood (intra-brood conflict) that is also a form of parent-offspring conflict.

All three are really forms of intra-genomic conflict over life-history trade-offs. One cannot have a 1000 offspring and they all receive the same parental investment as a single offspring. Resources are always constrained in biology – not all optimisation criteria can be met – hence trade-offs exist. So an adult’s reproductive fitness maybe maximised by X number of offspring, but as a juvenile an organism’s direct (individual) fitness may be maximised by out-competing and/or the elimination of rivals for parental investment - hence the evolution of sibling rivalry (including fatal sibling rivalry) in both animals and plants (mostly, but not exclusively, in animals - birds and insects mainly). The ‘scale of competition’ in such systems can be both intense and heavily localised resulting in, for juveniles, on a cost/benefit analysis (including relatedness), that it evolutionarily pays to monopolise parental investment over and above the benefits of ‘inclusive fitness’, (particularly if the details of the precise ecologies/developmental biology involved prevents parental interference/control over such behaviours).

OK what does this have do to with multi-culturalism and free-market neo-liberalism etc.?

Well if we take the ‘dog-eat-dog’ world of rampant, cut-throat, individually conceived economic competition as a mechanism that decreases the scale of competition, thus making it more local and more intense, then it could create a broader societal environment that selects against altruists/co-operators and selects for selfish ‘siblicidal’ traits, attitudes and/or behaviour. In fact such behaviours might be entirely rational for those that directly benefit from them. Why be an altruist/co-operator (of any sort) if a hyper-competitive ‘free-rider’ is going to benefit at your expense with no gains for the altruist/co-operator? Free-riding (without mechanisms to punish the ‘selfish’) hollows out social-capital (at what rate is an open question), eventually resulting in a picture of the world in which people can only conceive of themselves as isolated units (the lonely robots in Adam Curtis’ pithy phrase). Atomistic individuals in, more or less, a socio-economic Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’. And with this hyper-individualism inexorably come ideas of fungibility – well we are all equal players in this dismal ‘war of all against all’ why does it really matter as to the identity of my rival? After all if everyone (regardless of identity) are all equally dangerous and potentially cut-throat rivals in this game we ‘must’ play, why would any of your competitors secondary qualities actually matter (ethnic, linguistic, cultural etc.)? If someone, for their own advantage or profit, will metaphorically ‘stab you in the back’ at the first opportune moment does the ethnic background, religion etc., of the competitor really make any substantive difference in this situation? Thus the imaginative scope and empathetic idea of an ‘in-group’ and the collective differentiation with an ‘out-group’ is attenuated, as indeed are ideas of collective social solidarity/political-cultural subjectivities with regard to loyalty, mutuality, recognition and reciprocity towards (and within) your own in-group etc.

A regime of market Hobbesianism is the ‘universal acid’ that dissolves such ties that bind. After all only mugs don’t maximally look out for number one and only number one. Much of this view of the world starts in liberal theory and its implicit social ontology - as seen in Locke and all the other usual suspects etc., with the ‘unencumbered’ economic self which magically exists outside of sociality but enjoys all the possibilities, powers and goods (both personal and public) that the collective life of a particular community brings to it members. Lockeans and those of a liberal sensibility are free-riders in extremis.

So how could we measure the degree to which a society is a ‘dog-eat-dog’ one? Let’s assume the more ‘free-market’ forces are unrestricted the wider the distribution of wealth will be – that if there is more economic inequality (a proxy for the intensity/scale of intra-societal competition). Economic inequalities are measured by Gini co-efficients. Now if we could get the data it might be possible to explore the interaction between Gini co-efficients and levels of immigration both comparing different societies and the dynamics of such within recent history – say post-war or the start of 20th century until now. Of course there are subtleties involved. One might argue that immigration initially creates people ‘at the bottom’ so inherently ups the level of inequality in a society – but it might be possible to get Gini co-efficients corrected for such factors (that is a Gini co-efficient for the majority population) – if that was not possible too bad, but a statistical cross-societal and historical within-societal investigation might prove to be useful anyway. How does individualism, particularly of an economic sort, inequality and resistance (or not) to mass-immigration/multi-culturalism play out in the real world?

Both time and high quality data are required and a basic knowledge of how to use SPSS. Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree. But maybe not. Maybe such analyses are already out there in some form?

Perhaps the Gini co-efficient of nations that have had (or do have) high levels of migrants leaving them might also be part of the story?

In some policy circles the idea of a global minimal wage is being discussed by serious and well informed people. Firstly, it would boost overall global demand (the poor - in this context people existing on incomes as low as $1-$2 per day - nearly always spend any additional income on goods - the plutocrat typically, and unproductively, hoards increased income and/or buys assets like gold). But secondly is global poverty actually in anyone’s real interests? Most people are small-c conservative in their sensibilities and attitudes - if their material circumstances allow them to be. I seriously doubt that Mr. Ghanaian and his cohorts really want to come to London because of its wonderful weather, the fine English cuisine, or the aesthetic qualities of our capital city. Rather it’s predominantly to secure a much better standard of living. Ditto Mexicans in the ‘land of the free’. It is the economy that is attractive and the key motivating factor at work.

A baseline global minimal wage, with appropriately set regional minima, might - just might - take some pressure out of the scramble to get into the developed world from those in the developing world. Notice that not many South Koreans really have a burning desire to pitch up on mass in Sidcup and ‘destroy’ Europe. If the Miracle on the Han River hadn’t occurred the situation might be quite different. Obviously in terms of the really ‘poorest of the poor’ the precise level at which a ‘reasonable’ income needs to be pitched in order to change the incentives involved might be relatively small beer. Again if, in there own terms, Africans, Arabs, and yes even Mexicans could enjoy a reasonable, and reasonably secure, standard of living ‘at home’ many more would be inclined (indeed happy) to precisely do that and stay put.

Then again that’s the ‘greedy leftist’ in me coming out and any such interference in the Holy of Holies - the global ‘free-market’ - is but pie in the sky and might well be too ideologically difficult and/or impractical to successfully coordinate, implement and enforce. If nothing else, rhetorically, such a policy stance would disorientate the usual political narratives. (“What? I didn’t expect that type of outlook from those nasty scum – maybe they aren’t quite such ‘scum’ after all.”) As well as starting to chip away at the nebulous feeling that somehow mass-migration from the developing world to the developed world represents ‘justice’ for the any of societies involved in the exchange.

In fact, on reflection forgot all that ‘scale of competition’ stuff - let alone global minimal wages etc., it would be much better to eschew any thinking of that sort in favour of much more realistically grounded objectives such as getting a “this applies only to whites” clause in the US Constitution, or restoring the absolutist temporal authority of the Papacy. Yes that’s hard-headed realism at work, for real!



Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:16 | #

If it gets them the hell out of here that would be fine. Perhaps it could be packaged along with a deportation agreement? Otherwise, you know how these things usually work out. They get money alright, but little else changes in anyway but for the worse for Whites. That is, our good-will is not reciprocated. Their populations continue to overflow, generate poverty, sympathy and arrogation of our resources (and women).

I liked very much the early part of the discussion on sibling rivalry. My siblings are going to hear about it, to be sure, especially the next time in their denial they defend our parents.

Another really interesting idea is applying the free-rider notion to right-wing individualists. Are you saying that they are free-riding on social capital?

That’s great.





Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:32 | #


Right-wing liberals (posing as conservatives) individualists (Hayekians and their ilk) ‘free-riding’ on social-capital.

Yes you got it in one.

Something that the average (that is cretinous) ‘WN’ thinks, for some very odd reason, is the exclusive preserve of ‘leftists’ and/or the J-lizards.

A star pupil today Danny - have a gold star!


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:05 | #

Thanks   gulp


Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:40 | #

Inasmuch as “White” corresponds with indigenous European, what is supposed to be wrong with “White Nationalism”? Some observe important reasons for placing emphasis on smaller political units such as the regions, the county or the community but it seems pursuit is coherent irrespective of the scale.


Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:11 | #

I should / I should not read this post ... I should / I should NOT ... I’m going to leave my blood pressure alone today.

On another note, I should think Dr. Lister might be interested in the work of his countryman Raymond Tallis - scientist/novelist/philosopher, atheist/humanist, anti-postmodernist (not sure of his politics, however). What’s your ‘take’? (I think some in these parts could benefit from a book like this one.)


Author(s): Raymond Tallis
ISBN: 1844652734
ISBN-13: 9781844652730
Publication Date: 30 Jun 2011
Pages: 400 (234 x 156mm)
Format: Paperback
Published Price: £15.00
Discount Price: £12.00


In a devastating critique Raymond Tallis exposes the exaggerated claims made for the ability of neuroscience and evolutionary theory to explain human consciousness, behaviour, culture and society.

While readily acknowledging the astounding progress neuroscience has made in helping us understand how the brain works, Tallis directs his guns at neuroscience’s dark companion – “Neuromania” as he describes it – the belief that brain activity is not merely a necessary but a sufficient condition for human consciousness and that consequently our everyday behaviour can be entirely understood in neural terms.

With the formidable acuity and precision of both clinician and philosopher, Tallis dismantles the idea that “we are our brains”, which has given rise to a plethora of neuro-prefixed pseudo-disciplines laying claim to explain everything from art and literature to criminality and religious belief, and shows it to be confused and fallacious, and an abuse of the prestige of science, one that sidesteps a whole range of mind–body problems.

The belief that human beings can be understood essentially in biological terms is a serious obstacle, argues Tallis, to clear thinking about what human beings are and what they might become. To explain everyday behaviour in Darwinian terms and to identify human consciousness with the activity of the evolved brain denies human uniqueness, and by minimising the differences between us and our nearest animal kin, misrepresents what we are, offering a grotesquely simplified and degrading account of humanity. We are, shows Tallis, infinitely more interesting and complex than we appear in the mirror of biologism.

Combative, fearless and always thought-provoking, Aping Mankind is an important book, one that scientists, cultural commentators and policy-makers cannot ignore.


Posted by The Fog Horn on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:57 | #

I used to live in a muslim ghetto in Leicester as a student and was religiously cleansed from the area. You can find an account of my experiences on my blog.

I ran God Help Britain as Britney British for years until death threats put an end to it.

I have spent two decades trying to find the silver bullet….and finally found it.

God/Allah was an imaginery volcano god. The ancient Hebrews worshipped volcanoes. I have spent three years collating evidence for this theory. Please take the time to go through it properly before dismissing this undeniable idea.


Please link to me and I will link back.

Good luck.


Posted by The Fog Horn on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24 | #

Nahum 1:5-6 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Yes, Yahweh was a volcano god.


No God…No Allah.


Posted by Bill on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 04:48 | #

Another stonking thread over at VFR.

Beyond surrender, beyond death 28 February 2013.

Discuscussion on - anarcho-tyranny

But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea. Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief. [end of quote]


Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: Anti-politics and entryism to UKIP
Previous entry: Mike Thwait: Stategic Insights into Mass Mind Psychology

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


Henry commented in entry 'TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.' on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:31. (View)

(((Weev))) commented in entry 'TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.' on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:47. (View)

(((MikeEnoch Peinovich))) commented in entry 'TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.' on Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:41. (View)

fuller list: Trump's (((cabal))) courtesy (((JP))) commented in entry 'Trump's Jewish Cabal' on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 08:40. (View)

Trump's stance on Russia & China commented in entry 'The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in 2016 election to help Trump win the White House' on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:00. (View)

Some churches aligned 2return 2natural religion commented in entry 'Solstice in the Deep of European Rebirth' on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:08. (View)

Fund the destruction of my family line commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:24. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:24. (View)

Completion of the Post commented in entry 'Being-Of: Group Identity’s Ontology' on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:56. (View)

Ruby advised to keep quiet commented in entry 'We Told You So: Prediction Of Trump's Victory Comes True - By A Hair-Line' on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:24. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'We can no longer allow liberals and brackets to co-opt issues of environment and species diversity' on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 02:32. (View)

Meimou commented in entry 'We can no longer allow liberals and brackets to co-opt issues of environment and species diversity' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:27. (View)

Trump: global warming concept created by Chinese commented in entry 'We can no longer allow liberals and brackets to co-opt issues of environment and species diversity' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:36. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:33. (View)

Mair inflamed by his mother's miscegenation commented in entry 'Hate-Crimes: affirmative action for Whites to compensate for over-representation of black crime' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:12. (View)

China Sold High-Speed Trains to Czech commented in entry 'Intermarium Update: 16+1 Summit - China is betting on Central Europe' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 04:46. (View)

Orban targeting foreign backed NGO's commented in entry 'NGOs are smuggling immigrants into Europe on an industrial scale' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 04:31. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:54. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:51. (View)

Trump's tautologies commented in entry 'Donald Trump wastes 77 minutes of everyone's time.' on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:53. (View)

(((Jared Kushner))) Senior Adviser to President commented in entry 'Trump's Cabinet Appointments - The List Updated Until Complete' on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:29. (View)

(((David Shulkin))), Secretary of Veterans Affairs commented in entry 'Trump's Cabinet Appointments - The List Updated Until Complete' on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:05. (View)

6/12/70 Dock Ellis pitches no-hitter on L.S.D. commented in entry 'It Ain't So, Joe, And Sports Statistics Didn't Stay Objective Despite Your Unjust Banishment' on Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:50. (View)

Clock Boy Loses in Court commented in entry 'Now Introducing: The Islamic Clock Boy' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:25. (View)

Dylan Roof sentenced to death commented in entry 'Hate-Crimes: affirmative action for Whites to compensate for over-representation of black crime' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:44. (View)

2016 Invasion as Big as 2015 commented in entry 'German Council of Economic Experts: The 5 "wise men" of mass migrant integration' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:13. (View)

(((Ike Perlmutter))) commented in entry 'Trump's Cabinet Appointments - The List Updated Until Complete' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:41. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Millennial Woes Doxed' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:07. (View)

K commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle continued for comments after 1000' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:05. (View)

Millennial Woes doxed commented in entry 'Solstice in the Deep of European Rebirth' on Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:32. (View)

John Ziegler commented in entry 'Hate-Crimes: affirmative action for Whites to compensate for over-representation of black crime' on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 16:45. (View)

Small Faces coming from the East End commented in entry 'Pursuit of Authentic "Soul" Takes Wrong Turn From White Soul: Eat It - Humble Pie & Black Coffee' on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:17. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Sun, 08 Jan 2017 13:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Sun, 08 Jan 2017 12:40. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Being in kind – part 1' on Sun, 08 Jan 2017 11:29. (View)