|
|
|
David Sloan Wilson, group selection, culture The following is a brief but interesting commentary from JW on a David Sloan Wilson paper (pdf) that, not surprisingly, was criticized by Razib on Gene Expression. A few excerpts from the paper:-
That sound thinking can be compared to Richard Dawkins’ absurd strawman argument against group selection, as quoted in OGI by Salter, in which he asks why lions don’t refrain from eating antelope, “for the good of the mammals” (or something to that idiotic effect). I mean, hello, where is the selective pressure to result in such behavior? Is “the good of the mammals” a selective pressure to out-compete the strong selective pressure on lions to be efficient predators on antelope (never mind that lions, as a group, can cooperate in hunting, but that’s another story)?
Here is where the biopolitical Salterians can find some common ground with the culturalist Yockeyians because Western High Culture may assist in forming the cultural input needed for making white group selection a “significant evolutionary force”.
Does MacDonald’s work describe such a human group-mind? In closing, let’s note that there is some irony in Razib’s complaint that Wilson uses an unrealistic “pipe-dream” model to explain group selection (actually, on a small part of the overall paper). Tame white GNXP blogger David B based his “Salter Intermarriage Fallacy” upon the wildly unrealistic scenario of exactly equal migration and intermarriage between all peoples and all nations – something that has never happened and will never happen. Not that that bothered Razib. Then again, David B’s “work” supports South Asian Diaspora interests. Wilson’s work, if it catches the attention of the “wrong” people, may be understood to oppose those interests. By the way, group selection is not necessary for the pursuit of EGI, it is a “why”, not a “what”. But nevertheless, a study of group selection can inform as to methods to be used to rationally pursue genetic interest objectives. Actually, the reverse may be true; incorporating concepts of EGI may bolster the significance of Wilson’s ideas, and may better explain the actions of those who provide public goods for their group even at some degree of private cost. Comments:2
Posted by MR stinks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:41 | # “I know this sounds a little extreme, and I’m not trying to troll or anything, but after thinking about Salter’s EGI stuff, this is the conclusion I came to. Does Salter himself advocate anything like this? It seems to follow from this theory D: “ Read the book, you stupid bastard. Here, GW, is another example where discusion of the “EGI” talisman runs into trouble, because no one knows what there hell they are talking about. A brief answer: no, moron, Salter doesn’t advocate that, he advocates defensive measures, because every race is vulnerable to the same attack, and the cost//benefit ratio of aggression in a world full of WMD is not exactly good, is it? Is it possible for any one race to “cleanse” the Earth of all others, given for example that several racial groups possess nuclear weapons? Forget about moral/ethical implications, it is not practical; what harm that is done is from immigration and displacement, not from open warfare. If you’d actually read the book, you imbecile, you’d know that a full one third of the book deals with ethics, including questions as to whether it is moral and ethical to pursue EGI even if it harms others. Salter supports a “mixed ethic’ in which the pursuit of EGI is balanced with individual rights as well as the ‘golden rule.’ 3
Posted by Swerdham on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:04 | # Is it possible for any one race to “cleanse” the Earth of all others, given for example that several racial groups possess nuclear weapons? Forget about moral/ethical implications, it is not practical; what harm that is done is from immigration and displacement, not from open warfare. So then racial groups that don’t posess WMDs ought to be fair game, no? Given how easily nations like the U.S and China could decimate most African or South American countries, it would seem rational to exterminate the inhabitants of those areas and divide up the land and resources equitably amongst the various ethnies which are members of the ‘nuclear club.’ From what you’ve told me, though, it seems that Salter actually does have a few “caveats” regarding that. I suppose I’ll check his book out and see what they are… 4
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:09 | # A person with the mental capacity to click the link in the upper left of this blog, and read it, would have come across the following quotes from Salter (and he is even more moderate in his book): “A biologically just world order might be something like the universal nationalism advocated in the nineteenth century by Otto von Bismarck and in the early twentieth century by Woodrow Wilson. In a growingly integrated world, one people’s disaffection is liable to reduce everyone’s interests, so that all stand to benefit from a formula that acknowledges both the need for autonomy and the reality of interdependence by respecting the most basic interest, genetic continuity…. An equally important challenge would be to prevent the double-edged sword of ethnic nepotism from cutting both ways. This will involve such strategies as balance-of-power diplomacy and participation in international institutions that blunt aggressive military nationalism in the international arena. The trick is to advance this agenda while leaving room for other institutions that husband national solidarity and its multiple benefits (Salter 2002; in press-b). This would seem the appropriate domain for constitutional idealism in which abstracted values become a basis for legitimating social arrangements. A principled resolution of class and national conflict could become the basis for a truly universal nationalism.” But, no, those with their own EGI interests in destroying whites through immigration and miscegenation want to invent strawman representations of Salter as a rabid genocidist brooding about new “holocausts.” Hey, why not also portray Salter as like the Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangeglove?” Oh, wait, that’s been done. Thanks, David B, who also lied and said that Salterism requires the preservation of Huntington’s Disease genes. Or how about Peter Gray and his despicable comments about how an interest in genetic interests means a support of rape, even though Salter, in his book, agonizes over possibilities that pursuit of genetic interests may impede someone else’s more proximate interests. Salter in fact is a hell of a lot more liberal than me, and I’m not advocating racial cleansing either. Of course, then we have Ignatiev and Ziv….. 5
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:16 | # “From what you’ve told me, though, it seems that Salter actually does have a few “caveats” regarding that. I suppose I’ll check his book out and see what they are… “ Let’s see. Salter is a scholar, a gentleman, a person sincerely interested in what’s best for humanity as a whole, which would be a defensive balance of genetic interests, with competition between groups limited so as to ensure at least a reasonable degree of continuity for all groups. But - alas! - Salter includes European peoples as those with rights of continuity and homogeneity. Therefore, he MUST be a genocidal racist, right? You know, a classic case of “projection.” Those with real genocidal intentions towards whites like to project their hatred on those who merely want their own people to survive. Right, “Swerdham?” 6
Posted by Swerdham on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:23 | # Could you refrain from putting words in my mouth, please? I never said Salter advocated genocide, I ASKED if he did. He apparently doesn’t, so that’s the answer to my question. Thank you. 7
Posted by tergiv on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:06 | # Tame white GNXP blogger David B… He’s Jewish, isn’t he? Razib does to the English language what his kinfolk have done to many parts of Britain. 8
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:05 | # brief answer: no, moron, Salter doesn’t advocate that, he advocates defensive measures, because every race is vulnerable to the same attack, and the cost//benefit ratio of aggression in a world full of WMD is not exactly good, is it? Dear Mr. Stinks, You seem unfamiliar with the history of science and politics in general, so here’s a free ticket to the cluetrain. It is very common for someone presenting an ideological, political, or scientific worldview to trim the natural conclusions that might be drawn from it, either because such conclusions are repellant to reigning standards of morality OR because the presenter’s goal is in fact to sneak the repellant goal PAST censors, both internal and external. James Bowery calls this second process ‘Vectorism’. The reader above whom you are pillorying, has properly formulated a logical conclusion, if not the logical conclusion, from Salter’s theory. You assume - wrongly - that this conclusion is disproved because Salter says his theory (which he would like to see widescale acceptance of) says no such thing. However, Salter’s denial is about on a par with Sheena Easton’s denial that the song “Inside my Sugar Walls” (written by Prince) was not, in fact, about her vagina. I could think of other examples, but Miss Easton’s should suffice for now. In terms of Salterism, one would have to look at adding the ethical ideals of Beyondism, which positively advocate national heterosity for the mutual benefit of all nation-groups engaged in the world-system, since no such considerations are brought forth by Salter. Nothing like Cattell’s ethical framework is present in Salter’s writing, which, as Swerdham correctly points out, could easily and properly be extrapolated into global ethnic cleansing. That Salter says otherwise is simply an occasion for deeper suspicion. Is it possible for any one race to “cleanse” the Earth of all others, given for example that several racial groups possess nuclear weapons? Forget about moral/ethical implications, it is not practical; what harm that is done is from immigration and displacement, not from open warfare. Here your true voice emerges, Mr. Stink: “forget about moral/ethical implications”. Though you insist it is not “practical” and therefore not to be worried about, you ignore the imminent development of nanoassemblers and therefore nanoweapons, which leads us right back to Swerdham’s question. person with the mental capacity to click the link in the upper left of this blog, and read it, would have come across the following quotes from Salter (and he is even more moderate in his book): “A biologically just world order might be something like the universal nationalism advocated in the nineteenth century by Otto von Bismarck and in the early twentieth century by Woodrow Wilson. I have the mental capacity to click the link in the upper left of this blog, and what I read there confirms Swerdhams’ suspicions. On what basis does Salter propose we adjuticate questions of “biological justice”? Is this a result of his scientific inquiries, or is it merely a little nosegay to make his theories more agreeable? This statement is eminently testable: based on Salter’s ideas ALONE, what might the Chinese or the Israelis make of his ideas? Is his morality really deducible from his science, or is he merely providing a little protective coloration (as a well read person, I’m sure you’ll identify that as a reference to the theory of evolution) for his otherwise morally ticklish theory? Best, WM 9
Posted by Swerdham on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:17 | # Hm. Interesting. Well, thank you for your thoughts, Wintermute (and thank you especially for not resorting to name-calling!) Out of curiosity, if you wouldn’t mind me asking, what do you derive from Salter’s teachings? Do you think a perpetual state of race war with the other races is productive for the white race, and do you think it’s the duty of Whites to work towards the genocide of all other races? Pardon my intrusiveness, of course, like I said, I don’t mean to offend. I’ve just met a few WNs like that in my time, and I was wondering if you were one of them—perhaps I’ve met you before? As an aside, something interesting to think about: Most of the ‘pro-genocide, pro-race war’ WNs I’ve described always seemed to be big fans of a tabletop game called Warhammer 40,000, where the Human Imperium is beset on all sides by aliens, demons, and that sort of thing, and the only hope for mankind is extermination and genocide of all other alien races. Some WNs like that because they draw parallells to real life—i.e the only hope for the White Imperium is the extermination of the negroes, mestizos, and asians assaulting it from all sides. Just something I’ve observed :o 10
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:50 | # A requirement for ethical migration under Salterism is carrying capacity compensation for the natives. It is not the only requirement of course. There is also a requirement that the natives be allowed territorial integrity as well as the increased carrying capacity density. This is about what happened in the territories of the US, Canada and Australia during the cultivation of those countries by North West Europeans. 11
Posted by anon on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:52 | # swerdham, How so? The various races represent attempts by humanity to adapt to their environment. Given enough time, they will speciate - become separate species. This process increases biological diversity and increases the likelihood that at least one branch of humanity will survive into the future. Panmixia does not allow for speciation. 12
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:44 | # Out of curiosity, if you wouldn’t mind me asking, what do you derive from Salter’s teachings? That they are morally neutral, and that Salter gave them a candy coating to make them more palatable. Do you think a perpetual state of race war with the other races is productive for the white race, No, quite the opposite. and do you think it’s the duty of Whites to work towards the genocide of all other races? That’s crazy talk. See below. This process increases biological diversity and increases the likelihood that at least one branch of humanity will survive into the future. Panmixia does not allow for speciation. Here we come very close to Cattell’s “Beyondism”. Only by speciation and guarding against panmixia can cultural experiments be made and studied by other human groups. I think there is a strong ethical argument to be made here out of sheer practicality, and having nothing to do if one of the subspecies dies out. Basically, some degree of isolation is necessary so that new social forms can be tried and found wanting or sucessful, in proper measure. Under panmixia or one world government, any mistake made - genetic or political - will be the last. Pardon my intrusiveness, of course, like I said, I don’t mean to offend. I’ve just met a few WNs like that in my time, and I was wondering if you were one of them—perhaps I’ve met you before? Swerdham, you’ve thanked me for not insulting you - which I would not have been inclined to do anyway - but you have not returned the favor. Pray tell me, why is the fact that I am interested in the preservation of my Race-Culture in any way logically linked to global race-war or some other puerile fantasy? I think you have some prejudices about Whites you need to update, S. If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to ask - and don’t mind Mr. Stinks too much. I don’t know what crawled up his ass and died, but he is hardly representative of the general level of discourse here. 13
Posted by Swerdham on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:01 | # Well, first off, thanks muchly for answering my questions (politely, yet again!). Secondly, ah, I apologize, of course, for lumping you in with people like that—while there’s certainly nothing which logically connects love of one’s own people to hatred of all others, I have had the distinct misfortune to meet far more people (of various races, not merely white) who have made that connection. I used to be a big fan of Warhammer 40k in my younger days, and unfortunately, I met a couple of whites who took the tabletop game to mirror reality a bit more than I thought was reasonable. I suppose that has left something of an impression on me I’ve never quite been able to shake off. My apologies once again for insulting you, ‘twas not intentional. 14
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:15 | # , I have had the distinct misfortune to meet far more people (of various races, not merely white) who have made that connection. Well, there’s your problem. Just stay away from Stormfront and you’ll be fine. My recommendation would be to add http://www.vdare.com www.i,steve.com, and http://www.amren.com to your daily news round-up. If you’re feeling daring, you might add http://www.nationalvanguard.org They’.re a little edgy (in both senses of the word), but a useful source of news, nonetheless. Finally, there’s always good information at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org. You already seem to have discovered Majority Rights, so no need to remind you of that. Out of curiousity, what brings you to our corner of cyberspace? 15
Posted by Swerdham on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:44 | # Curiosity, mainly. I will confess that I’m not a white nationalist myself. Unlike most people in “polite discussion,” however (particularly unlike most non-whites, the group to which I belong) I bear no particular ill will towards whites and certainly no particular animus against the idea of racial separatism—while the genocidal tendencies of the Stormfronters I described above were certainly dismaying, I can’t really find fault with people who just want to live with other members of a particular group (in this case, their own) so long as they hurt no-one else. Live and let live—if you don’t want to associate with non-whites, that’s your business, so long as you’re not trying to put anyone in concentration camps. Thus, I suppose my rather unique tolerance for the basic idea of White Nationalism sparked within me a desire to learn more about it, which resulted in me hearing about Salter here and there, which led me to a post on GNXP decrying his theories, which led me to this post on MR defending it. An interesting intellectual odyssey, I suppose. Well, your links are appreciated, sir. Thanks muchly for your kind reception. 16
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:33 | # “but he is hardly representative of the general level of discourse here. “ And thank god for that. I cannot “speak for” Salter. I would presume he is alarmed by the decline of whites and the immigration problem and that the universal nationalism of which he speaks can be used as a tool to stem that tide. “A requirement for ethical migration under Salterism is carrying capacity compensation for the natives. It is not the only requirement of course. There is also a requirement that the natives be allowed territorial integrity as well as the increased carrying capacity density….This is about what happened in the territories of the US, Canada and Australia during the cultivation of those countries by North West Europeans.” Let’s see. The “native Americans” were displaced as the “owners” of the continent, and most of the benefits of the increase in carrying capacity went to those who increased the capacity, as well as to the later migrants to the country. In fact, Salter uses “native Americans” as an example to show the opposite - that a quicker increase in “the economy” does not justify losing control of one’s territory. And, no, being herded onto reservations, where they consume the increased capacity for alcoholic beverages, is not “compensating” the “native Americans” for having their lands occupied by Europeans. I’m not approaching this as a PC leftist, and I’m not supporting the “native American” claims. It’s just the Salterian view - increasing the carrying capacity is not “helping” the natives if the natives are being displaced by others. We may as well reconsider gnxp’s “cognitive elitism” then. “You seem unfamiliar with the history of science and politics in general, so here’s a free ticket to the cluetrain.” Listening to you made me miss the “cluetrain.” One can always be “suspicious” of writings. But, I don’t know, if someone lends a full one-third of their book to “ethics” in which they, with careful consideration, come to the exact opposite conclusions to Swerdham, what should one think? That’s a hell of a lot of “window dressing” to cover things up, isn’t it? By the way, the Chinese and the Israelis don’t need Salter to engage in ethnic cleansing, they are doing quite well as it is. If there is a “target audience” for Salter’s book, it is certainly westerners, peoples who can hardly be motivated to defend themselves from extinction, much less use “nuclear weapons” or “nanotechnology” to cleanse others. Yes, I’m familiar with science and politics, and understand that the real audience for Salter’s work are precisely those peoples who would benefit from, and pursue, a defensive strategy. The highly ethnocentric don’t need Salter to explain their genetic interests to them. And to underscore the point is Salter’s emphasis on ethics, which would appeal only to a western audience. Do Chinese or Israelis care about ethics? Have you ever talked to a Chinaman? They are congenitally incapable of understanding that non-Chinese have any rights whatsoever, even in America. They don’t need “On Genetic Interests.” We do. 17
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:11 | # Salter: “Even if immigrants always boosted genetic interests, this argument can be taken to absurd lengths. For example, if an immigrant ethnic group is generally more productive than the natives, complete replacement would result in the carrying capacity being greatly increased, though the natives would hardly benefit…Imagine that in 1600, before they sold Manhattan, American Indians had been offered an informed choice between two futures in the year 2000. One future was the present United States with a level of economic development unattainable without the efforts of millions of settlers and immigrants from Europe. The other was one or more Indian nations in possession of the present area of the United States but with economies less developed than at present. Which would they have chosen if they had valued ethnic genetic interests? A temporary delay, even one of decades or centuries, in acquiring some skill or institution would seem a weak excuse for sacrificing the future of all succeeding generations.” 18
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:17 | # By the way, WM, my “pillorying” of the commentator was because he we have yet another person who has NOT read Salter, passing judgement on what the work is, or is not. Here’s an idea: read the book, and if you still come away with the idea that Salter is secretly promoting ethnic cleansing, or that his work can be reasonably construed to do so, then contact Salter about it, and see what’s going on. He may in fact want to alter the text of his second edition to match readers’ concerns. By the way, if you are in fact interested in the continuity of Salter’s targer audience, is it a good idea to start providing ammunition to the anti-Salterites as to reading into Salter’s work ideals that he openly denounces? Where’s the wise knowledge of “science and politics” here? If it is important to have whites digest Salter, do we need to start pontificating that “On Genetic Interests” is really an implicit call to genocide? Who’s being naive now? 19
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:10 | # “Therefore, since the Earth’s resources are finite, shouldn’t Whites seek to not only conquer, but exterminate all other races, in order to free up land and resources which would allow maximum growth of the white race….” Let’s set aside the question of whether the maintenance of human (and other) biodiversity would be beneficial to Whites. Aside from that, a monopolization of the world’s resources would be good for Whites. But the further question is whether seeking that monopolization is a good idea, and the answer is quite likely “no”. Salter has proposed that all nations play by a rule of non-aggression that he terms “universal nationalism”. Even without explicit recognition of such a rule, people, tribes, and nations tend to team up to defeat aggressors, and the life of an aggressor may be unpleasant—and short. I’m sure you’ve heard of the trials and tribulations of the world’s perpetual aggressor nation, the Jews. See, e.g., Benjamin Ginsberg’s book, “The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State “. We’re not interested in that kind of existence. 20
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:13 | # This thread has been hopelessly hijacked. GW, could you perhaps repost this in a few days, so we can discuss the extremely important substance of your post? 21
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:48 | # “Even without explicit recognition of such a rule, people, tribes, and nations tend to team up to defeat aggressors, and the life of an aggressor may be unpleasant—and short.” Ben makes a good point, which is discussed by Salter. Even if you refuse to take Salter’s deep concern for ethics at face value, he seems to recognize - from a practical standpoint - the economic theory of “diminishing marginal returns.” The cost of a loss is considered greater than a potentially equal benefit from a gain. A policy of aggression could, in theory, yield a net fitness benefit (but at a cost some may be unwilling to consider), but what if it fails? The potential loss from failure may be great enough to convince a prudent group that long term genetic continuity can be best achieved by a strategy of “universal nationalism”, whereby group competition exists, but is restrained by the concept of respect for the continuity of other groups, and in which defensive strategies for defending genetic interests are paramount. It would seem that Salter genuinely prefers a situation of international stability and a patchwork of homogenous entities each respecting each other’s basic right to exist, as opposed to a situation in which groups gamble their continuity on the chance of expansion and aggressive behavior. If some think this is all a “smokescreen” for an imperialist Salter, thirsting after lebensraum in the Third World, then some evidence is called for. Even if “ethics” do not follow from Salter’s raw idea, the concept of diminished marginal utility in further expansion and the relative costs vs benefits of adopting an expansionist ethic and mobilizing the world against you, can follow from his work. “This thread has been hopelessly hijacked.” Blame that on “Swerdham”, who took a post on the work of David Sloan Wilson and transformed it into a “that guy Salter’s work implies genocide” strawman detour. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:46 | # ben, I know you are a particular devotee of DSW, and you have waited a heck of a while for his work to form the centrepiece of a post here. I readily defer to JW in that regard, btw. I am merely reporting/repeating the views that he has expressed to me. Rather than simply repeat this present post, it might be more profitable if you were to put together your response to it, mail me and I will either send it to JW for comment or put it up as a new starting point just as it stands. Let me know if you are interested, ben. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:14 | # OK, I’ll bite: I am suspicious of David Sloan Wilson’s work for 4 reasons: 1) He doesn’t seem to understand miosis. He keeps talking about “selection at the level of the individual”. Sexual organisms aren’t replicators. The miotic lottery sees to that. 2) His failure to understand the miotic lottery leads him to ignore truly important group cultures like the Hutterites. The Hutterites hold an actual lottery when a colony reaches a certain size—for the purpose of deciding which families will stay and which will move to the new colony. But they hold the lottery after the new colony is built. 3) His failure to acknowledge that there may be intraspecific extended phenotypics forming “group organisms” treating other members of the species as organs of the germ line replicator members. If he’s going to try to battle Dawkins, he should give the devil his due. 4) Last but not least: His ringing endorsement of Howard Bloom’s book “The Global Brain”, which is some of the sloppiest thinking about group selection imaginable while being transparently Judeophillic. PS: Much as I would like to discuss Salter’s ethics regarding migration and carrying capacity, particularly with regard to the age of exploration, this isn’t the place. 24
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:08 | # “1) He doesn’t seem to understand miosis. He keeps talking about “selection at the level of the individual”. Sexual organisms aren’t replicators. The miotic lottery sees to that.” “selection at the level of the individual” does not imply that individuals are replicators, and DSW doesn’t say that. This issue is directly discussed in Chapter 2 of “Unto Others”, in the section entitled “The Selfish Gene” (which mentions meiosis, BTW). Genes are replicators, individuals and groups are vehicles. A summary quote: Thus, individuals and groups are vehicles, not replicators, and are acknowledged by DSW as such. The question is actually where do differences in fitness exist along the “biological hierarchy.” It is not necessary to postulate higher forms of replicators, merely that fitness outcomes for frequencies of those replicators can occur on different levels - the crux of the DSW argument. “If he’s going to try to battle Dawkins, he should give the devil his due” It’s hard to gibe “his due” to an allegedly intelligent person who makes the most absurd arguments against group selection or kinship connections through identity by state. One may ask why Dawkins himself doesn’t apply his “extended phenotype” model to the human condition, but that’s asking too much of someone who becomes allergic to the words “group selection” or “ethnic nepotism.” 25
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:50 | # Both Dawkins and Hamilton were taken out right at the time their work became dangerous to the dominant elite. Unfortunately, neither Majorityrights.com nor Google.com’s searches will return my messages regarding this and I’m getting tired of repeating myself. 26
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:58 | # Thank you, Stinks. “His failure to understand the miotic lottery leads him to ignore truly important group cultures like the Hutterites.” I don’t know where you’re getting your characterizations of Wilson’s work, but you would do better to read his work and characterize it yourself. The following would be a good place to start (and you will want to read, at the very least, pages 87-98 of Wilson’s Unto Others as well): RE-INTRODUCING GROUP SELECTION TO THE HUMAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/60/bbs00000460-00/bbs.wilson.html The discussion of the Hutterites is many pages—too long to quote here—but here are some excerpts: Moral sentiments and moral social systems may function as “rules of meiosis” that often concentrate fitness differences, and therefore functional organization, at the group level. This is the core of Alexander’s thesis. 27
Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:20 | # “Both Dawkins and Hamilton were taken out right at the time their work became dangerous to the dominant elite.” Explain, re: Dawkins. Is he being forced to say the absurd and illogical things he says? Was he threatened by the establishment? Wasn’t he always denouncing the “National Front” and British nationalists - or do you imply that he was once a more robustly sincere fellow who has been forced to talk like an ass because of fear to the dominant elite? I see Dawkins as a politicized leftist figure who leverages his scientific “pop star” persona to promote ideas hostile to white survival. Is this wrong? 28
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:09 | # Thanks for the quotation, Ben. In particular: “We suggest that there is a causal relationship here, that humans are inclined to adopt selfless behavior in social organizations that provide the functional equivalent of the genetic rules of meiosis. “ I find it interesting that DSW shows such insight into the fundamental importance of meiosis game rules but then doesn’t use that term more. I admit I haven’t read all that much of his stuff, primarily because I would have expected someone who was basically staking his career on group selection to have made Hutterite-type “meotic lottery” arrangement a central theme of his work. By that I do not mean a single mention buried somewhere that says “Meiosis is central to group selection as illustrated by the Hutterites.” I mean mentioning these concepts with the frequency due them. 29
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:24 | # Post “Extended Phenotype” I see Dawkins as a tragic figure, much like the bee he mentions:
That Dawkins would begin to exhibit the extended phenotype of parasite genes after writing about them should be no surprise given he simply would not address the human implications of his extended phenotype paradigm, such the fact that memes can be extended phenotypes of genes. He was wide open to and inviting of attack. The parasites obviously obliged. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:30 | # Forgive me, I don’t see the significance of viewing the way the Hutterites “hive off new groups of Hutterites” as analagous to meiosis. That it can be so viewed, I see, but not why that’s important. Is it because it shows a way Euros can survive racially even when surrounded by an ocean of “vibrant folk” (or “mystery meat,” whichever way you want to phrase it ...—excuse me, that’s a little term I got from the recent entry on Negro serial killers ...)? Notice Hutterites are German and that’s how Germans do things — hive off and form new groups. Little pockets of Germans used to be sprinkled all over East-Central Southeast-Central Europe until Hans Morgenthau and Roosevelt rounded them all up and genocided them after 1945 as part of a plan to kill as many German civilians and POWs as they could get away with killing before they had to stop. They succeeded in killing between three and six million, probably closer to six. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:40 | # You’ll know our side is no longer on the defensive the day you learn that “mystery meat” has become one of the government’s official racial categories ... 32
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:51 | # By the way, WM, my “pillorying” of the commentator was because he we have yet another person who has NOT read Salter, passing judgement on what the work is, or is not. Swerdham asked an interesting and eminently defensible question about Salter’s theories - which were immediately met by you with intimidation tactics and extreme rudeness. You could have answered his question without resorting to personal attacks. Also: he asked a question, and did not pass a judgement. You failed to answer the question, and instead chose to try to shout him down, after which you maliciously misreported his behavior. I can’t respect that.
That an ought cannot be derived from an is. That’s a hell of a lot of “window dressing” to cover things up, isn’t it? Nine tenths of everything you have ever read, heard, thought, or spoken in this lifetime is “window dressing”. If anything, Salter is more sparing than most. Here’s an idea: read the book, and if you still come away with the idea that Salter is secretly promoting ethnic cleansing, You misread me. I am not saying that Salter is advocating global ethnic cleansing - or that he isn’t. There simply isn’t anything in his work which precludes that interpretation. And by in the work, I mean the work itself - not the “moral appendix”, which in any case is not derived from a formal description of a natural system. Though I am open to correction, it seems to me that his work is consistent with this interpretation - let’s call this the “Turner Diaries” interpretation. You write, “By the way, the Chinese and the Israelis don’t need Salter to engage in ethnic cleansing, they are doing quite well as it is. “ Can you explain to me how either group is failing to advance its EGI in so doing? Again, I am not saying that Salter is personally in favor of cleansing the whole Earth of nonwhites. I am trying to point out that his work, insofar as it is science, will not have any ethical implications that are a necessary concomitant. E=mc2 does not demand that a bomb be built, but neither does it preclude the construction of one. It is morally innocent. Inasmuch as any science partakes of scientific materialism solely as its background matrix, no morality worthy of the term can be derived from it. Even the imperative for survival is a value-term smuggled into Salter’s “On Genetic Interests”. His work holds IF one believes that any group, including one’s own, should survive. It is a “how to” book, not a “you should” one. Scientists are always smuggling moral imperatives from other domains into their work, attempting to bathe them in the glow that science currently enjoys. I am more than happy to act as a customs agent in such a situation. No amount of handwaving on the part of a particular scientist is ever going to erase the implications of his work. There is a direct line from metallurgy to the blade, and no amount of make-nice chat from the fellow who forged the first horseshoe is going to change the fact that there is now an open and direct line to the broadsword. In fact, circumstances being what they always are, the broadsword is the easiest of inventions to predict, given certain breakthroughs in metal technology. Look at the objections from readers here, like Bowery and Tillman, who would eat me for lunch any day in a detailed discussion of Salterian minutiae. What do they say? First Tillman: Let’s set aside the question of whether the maintenance of human (and other) biodiversity would be beneficial to Whites. Aside from that, a monopolization of the world’s resources would be good for Whites. But the further question is whether seeking that monopolization is a good idea, and the answer is quite likely “no”. What do we see in his reading of Salter (which I will take to be emblematic of the best, most informed, and most honest reading available)? Firstly, that we “set aside . . . whether the maintenance of human . . . biodiversity would be beneficial to Whites”. OK. Now, the meat of the nut: “monopolization of the world’s resources would be good for Whites”. I disagree, wildly, both because such wealth is corrupting and because access to natural resources slows the pace of scientific research. All of which is not to say that the existence of a separate Race-Culture, such as the Japanese, the Chinese, or the Indians, are in the long run OF FAR MORE VALUE TO US than any amount of tungsten or “lebensraum”. Lebensraum was a legitimate goal for the Germans, because they lacked sufficient arable land to support their own population, as was deciseively proved by Great Britain’s starvation blockades at the end of the First World War, resulting in the deaths of approximately 100,000 people. So, it’s a good thing to have what you need, but too much of it will drive you insane - witness America. Great wealth is more fatal than botulism. Cf. King Midas. Lastly, Tillman argues, “But the further question is whether seeking that monopolization is a good idea, and the answer is quite likely “no”. There are a number of points of interest here. Firstly, his evaluation of whether seeking absolutist unipolarity is based primarily on practical considerations: is “seeking monopoloization” a good idea? The answer is revealing: Quite likely, no. This opens up two more questions: what if seeking monopolization were a good idea? (“Quite likely no” is worlds away from “definitely not”). Is there is something in Salter that would prevent it? Secondly, is Tillman pulling from Salter’s genetic reasoning to arrive at his conclusions? Or is he pulling in supplementary reasoning to render Salter safe from Swerdham’s interesting questions? Which is to say, is Tillman’s reasoning taken from Salter or is it added thereto? If the latter, then we are where we began: Salter’s work is in itself morally innocent, but has no internal logic that necessarily precludes the conclusions that Swerdham has drawn from it. Hence he is undeserving of the outrage which Mr. Stinks has subjected him to. A requirement for ethical migration under Salterism is carrying capacity compensation for the natives. It is not the only requirement of course. There is also a requirement that the natives be allowed territorial integrity as well as the increased carrying capacity density. I don’t completely understand what Bowery is saying here, but I can make out parts of it that are germane to this discussion: The phrase “a requirement for ethical migration” presupposes an ethics. Tell me James, is this ethical standpoint inherent to Salter’s calculations, or has it been imported from the outside? If it is intrinsic in his reasoning about genetic advantage, it will have been the first time in history that an ethical imperative has arisen spontaneously from a neutral description of a physical system. This is about what happened in the territories of the US, Canada and Australia during the cultivation of those countries by North West Europeans. Hence “ethical Salterism” = the Grand Army of the Republic and its extermination of the Plains Indians. Why, then, are we pillorying poor Swerdham? Even without reading the book, he has arrived at the same conclusion as Bowery, whose knowledge of Salter, on this board at least, must be regarded as definitive. Swerdham should be congratulated on his insight. A bit more about the “cultivation” of the US by North West Europeans: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html
Will someone here explain to me how this is in anyway at odds with Salter’s EGI hypothesis, to the degree that it is understood as a manifesto of some kind? When Ben Tillman says, “we don’t want to be known as an aggressor race”, I am forced to ask: what corner of the Earth does not know us as such - accurately? Africa? China? India? Not wanting to be known as an “aggressor race” at this late date is like the town prostitute - at age 50 - deciding she doesn’t want to be thought of as a strumpet. I think Swerdham is owed an apology: asking an interesting question based on accurate interpretation of the materials presented here, he is dismissed and attacked. I submit that, not only has his question not been answered, but that even the best interpreters of Salter on this site have not grappled with his question in its depths. Has Mr. Salter - for the first time in human history - derived a moral ‘ought’ from a scientific ‘is’ - or are we simply taking his word that his calculations will not add scientific validity to the last chapter’s of Pierce’s lamentable “Turner Diaries”, where China is gratuitously nuked? I am sorry to say that the answers I have seen here do not carry a great deal of weight. One can imagine an expanded version of EGI, which includes the insights of Cattell’s ‘Beyondism’, which would at least have the advantage of giving solid EGI reasons for not exterminating other ethnys, but I don’t think we have that yet. Salter is a work in progress, and I think Swerdham has identified an unsettling implication in the equations. Rather than denying it, it might be more advantageous to think about ways it might be corrected for. 33
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:08 | # Fred, the reason meiosis is so central is that it is the way genes get together to construct vehicles. What we are talking about, as individual vehicles presumably (but not always—witness Dawkins for example) representing our genes, is how to get together to construct vehicles that are not individuals. As someone who values individualism and Europeans as a particularly individualistic “species”, I think this is very important. Engineering our social organisms so they can preserve our individualism within a world filled to the brim with group-oriented genotypes is our challenge. I think the Hutterites, as well as pre-Christian traditions of single combat that I have alluded to previously, have more to teach us about how to preserve our individualistic genes than many may believe. BTW: I wonder how Jews go about expanding into new territory… 34
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:19 | # Wintermute, I don’t think Salter is arguing “ought from is”. As with any ethical system he is trying to base his reasoning on reality understanding that reality has not been well represented within political science due precisely to failures of scientific ethics. Witness the conflicts of ethnic genetic interest that are never addressed by Jews when they get into areas like sociology, genetics and economics not to mention political science. Discussing ethnic genetic interests in this context is a bit like discussing food and hunger. If someone is hungry it might be good ethics to discuss that if you are putting him charge of the allocation of food. Having said that I’m not sure how you relate what happened with the railroads to David Sloan-Wilson here. I see the transition as a more extreme case of what happened in Europe millenia before during the transition from hunting/fishing-gathering to agriculture—made more extreme by the presence of more advanced mechanization and greater genetic distances between the paleolithics and the neolithics. This isn’t to say there weren’t lots of Amerindian tribes that suffered net ethnic genetic interest loss—it is merely to say that these transitions are not without their casualties and there are circumstances that make them better or worse than others. No one can reasonably argue that the immigrant waves subsequent to the cultivation of the Anglosphere frontiers (which was the primary purpose of the railroads in any case) have been anything but a net EGI loss to the pioneers first cultivating the lands they opened up. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:26 | # Wm, You are assuming, then, that a strategy of extermination of one people (or all peoples) by another must necessarily and in all circumstances tend to increase the sum of the aggressor’s ethnic genetic interests. I might ask you what evidence you have for that? Only in the presence of conventional inter-ethnic conflict does a direct advantage obviously accrue to the victor. But what, specifically, is adaptive in a strategy of endless warfare? Obviously, we do not endlessly war. Therefore the avoidance of conflict is a more evolutionarily stable strategy, ie it increases the sum of our EGI. 36
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:46 | # Wintermute, I don’t think Salter is arguing “ought from is”. I don’t recall what he said in this regard, exactly, but I know that in discussing his work, I have argued “ought” from “is”. Morality is reciprocal; if everyone else is particularist, you ought to be particularist as well. 37
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:20 | # You are assuming, then, that a strategy of extermination of one people (or all peoples) by another must necessarily and in all circumstances tend to increase the sum of the aggressor’s ethnic genetic interests. No. I am saying that nothing in Salter’s work contradicts that interpretation. Examining the posts above, you will find that it is Ben’s opinion that “monopolization of the world’s resources would be good for Whites”. My response, which I reprint in full because you seem to have missed it, was:
No-one here has been able to derive these principles from Salter’s work, in fact. I submit that this is because they do not occur there. In other words, Swerdham’s question remains unanswered. James and Bill have heroically shored it up with outside materials and sources - but I must insist that these materials are not native to Salter’s actual work and conclusions - they’re extraneous. Both meek and mild “White Separatists” and rough and ready “Turner Diaryites” can take the same comfort from Salter’s work - and there is nothing in the work proper to prevent that. Every reply above that swerves away from the hard implication of Swerdhams’ question does so without recourse to Salter’s actual work. They’re importing considerations from outside it. I myself think that Salter’s work will have to be mated with Cattell’s before we begin to approach something genuinely moral - and practical. However, since it is impossible to quantify the advantage of cultural innovation, I predict that this line of inquiry will not be of much interest to ev psych types, who, like psychologists and sociologists, have always struck me as suffering from ‘physics envy’. Obviously, we do not endlessly war. I disagree with this, but that is a discussion for another day. That most warfare has been - to borrow a modifier from Nietzche - “spiritualized” does not make it any the less war. Would you deny that Jews are pursuing a war to the death against our race, or not? If fact, in light of Ben’s observation above - that we don’t want to become like Jews (which I wholeheartedly agree with) - is itself exactly the sort of denial of evolutionary advantage that we hear too little of at this site. Because if perpetual aggression is an ‘evolutionary unstable’ approach, will someone explain how it is that our history is nothing but a vast concatenation of losses while the Jews go from strength to strength? Why they move towards global dominion as we beg and whine for the government - or even our fellow citizens - to please do something about the mountain of niggers and mexigrants we’re being buried alive under? They have a State Department Office on Anti-Semitism, which monitors and reports on global incidents annually. We have a weblog entry called ‘Caucasophobia’ or something. If their strategy of perpetual and omnidirectional aggression is so ‘unstable’, why is half the world’s circulating capital under their direction? Why are all movie scripts greenlit by Tribe members, and not Ayrans? Why do they decide when and where our armies shall move, and not us? Unlike you, Ben, and James, I do not confuse Darwin with the sun and stars. He is a minor figure of marginal utility, useful in this struggle chiefly to bamboozle the over-educated. I regard that as a useful tactical function, not the telos of the our Race. Indeed, I find the whole idea of EGI-as-telos as being rather sordid and grubby. I do not think it will motivate large groups of people, though I wish its proponents well, as they are engaged in the same struggle as I, even if we privately tell ourselves different stories regarding what we are guarding and hoping for. As Desmond Jones pointed out to me on another thread, Darwin’s morality is not one inch removed from that of Moses: perfect in-group amity combined with a policy of absolute predation equals ‘evoluationary success’. Now, neither you nor I really belive that - hence, Darwin or his stand-in Salter, has made a mistake somewhere. My question is: what is the nature of his mistake and by what faculty do we detect its presence? Look there for our means of victory - not appeals to our “genetic worth” as being equal to “two siblings or four cousins” or somesuch. No one respects natural law more than myself - but I remain adamant that our lives and our struggle are in reference to much higher laws, and that to ignore them is to invite disaster. “two siblings or four cousins” . . . doesn’t any of the rhetoric derived from these aggressively materialistic fields ever strike you as somewhat lunatic? The soundest bite from a naturalist I know of is Haldane’s opinion of Beetles, which is probably very accurate. As for the rest - use it when useful, but don’t be taken in by it. Scientism is a very serious modern psychiatric disorder - once called hybris - and I should hate to see our Dear Leader come down with a bad case of it. 38
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03 | # wintermute can I have your address for some private correspondence? 39
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53 | # wintermute can I have your address for some private correspondence? You can send me email by going to ‘forums’, selecting ‘member lists’, and then pressing the email buttton next to my username. If that doesn’t work, let me know. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:13 | # Wm, Perhaps my point was not plainly made. Here it is again:- Salter says we should maximise our EGI. Since conflict-avoidance is a maximising strategy and endless war is not, why do you think there is “nothing” in Salterism to gainsay endless war? 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:17 | #
You make a fundamental mistake regarding Darwin and Salter and Moses and that is the fact that out group sympathy is the logical extension of in group amity, in Western Europeans. Western man’s altruism, i.e the reason he’s knee-deep in negroes and mestizos, is the fundamental problem of his evolution. Moses=tribe/ethnicity Salter (in the European framework, the US/Canada etc. is unique) = tribe/ethnicity Darwin=tribe/ethnicity/race/other races/all sentient beings. Europeans have been dominant for the last 500 years because of outgroup sympathy, not just pure agression but a concomittment to a white man’s burden, an evolved trait reinforced by Christianity (Hellenic Judaism). Now because of outgroup sympathy, re-inforced by public opinion, it appears they face extinction unless outgroup sympathy, altruism beyond the nation, enhances fitness. If it enhances fitness, how or how can it be mitigated? Sherman’s burden was turned not only against an inferior race, but equally viciously against his own people.
42
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:41 | # -wm my account is not activated here… hence my inability to obtain your email address… here is mine if you prefer to send it to me: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 43
Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:34 | # The latest from Lawrence Auster. Make of it what you will: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007509.html “And what are Jacoby’s pro-immigration arguments? That the percentage of immigrants now is no greater than it was 100 years ago. Yes, but that was at the height of immigration. Should that be the standard? In any case, it doesn’t tell us anything about the actual effect of the present immigration on America. He doesn’t know and doesn’t pretend to know anything about how immigration is changing America. He just sings the Jewish open borders song, making the immigration of a hundred years ago that brought his own ancestors here the argument for open immigration today. As I’ve said before, if America had known, when it admitted all those Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century (including my ancestors), that their descendants would insist that the immigration into America of their ancestors meant that America must leave its borders open forever, would America have let those Jews in? The basic problem is that many American Jews—and Jacoby habitually puts his own Jewishness front and foremost in his columns—do not look at immigration in terms of how it affects America; they look at immigration as a symbol affirming their own worth as Jews in America.” 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:33 | # Sherman sounds very like a twenty-two carat psychopath, of whom there are countless examples in the pages of history. Psychopathic leaders may sometimes act in such a way as to maximise EGI. But they are far more likely to be led not by that consideration, even at an instinctual level, but by the lust for destruction - the adaptivity of which is highly improbable. Further to my comment at 07.13 today, Salter writes on page 154 of OGI (and, unusually, does so with bold print):-
It is inappropriate to construe ethnic genetic interest as other than a tool for strengthening the ethny through a constant investment in home-building. One could make a case that given a secure, even unassailable homeland a powerful ethny could easily afford the risk and immediate losses to EGI of far-flung warfare. But that isn’t what Salter is saying, any more than he is saying that landless parasitism is an adaptive strategy for ethnies not evolved to that end. In both cases - endless warfare and parasitism - maladaptiveness will out. More likely, then, one may argue that European Man tried expansionism but now that is revealed to have been maladaptive (a la Tom Sunic’s Homo americanus), since he ceased investing at home and will likely suffer its loss to his children. 45
Posted by MR stinks on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:40 | # I was originally going to waste my time writing a more in-depth response to many of the comments here but since I doubt that the only useful outcome of this exchange – GW changing his mind about the importance of understanding in reference to the utility of EGI – I’ll make it shorter. I won’t bother further justifying my response to “I’m not a troll, but doesn’t EGI imply genocide, and I haven’t read Salter” Swerdham; I’ll just have to “suffer” from Wintermute’s “lack of respect” in dignified silence… Essentially, the problem is that WM has decided to redefine “Salter’s work” to fit his argument. Some background perhaps for those out there (WM?) who have not read Salter’s book and are perhaps unfamiliar with his academic specialty. Salter is a political scientist, not a population geneticist. His aim in writing his book (of course, some will say it is just “window dressing”) in his own words: “While I have done my best to write a book that is free of error, constructing a political theory from basic evolutionary premises is probably too large a task to be achieved flawlessly in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, the effort will have been worthwhile if the book contributes to the integration of behavioural biology and the policy disciplines.” In other words, the book is not a treatise on population genetics with some “moral appendix” attached; it is a book on political theory and philosophy – a book based on science, but not about science. What the book is “about” is the political and ethical two-thirds of the work, with the scientific one-third being the introduction to that, laying the foundation for the latter section. The “appendix” is integral. One cannot dismiss the political and ethical portion of Salter’s work as “window dressing” and an “appendix” since this is reversing the order of importance of these themes in his work. Salter (who needed to be extensively “coached” by Harpending on the science, and who missed important implications about genetic structure) did not write a book whose main purpose was to define and quantitiate genetic interests. The defining and quantification is done to lay the groundwork for moving into that part of the work where Salter is clearly more comfortable: political theory and ethics, attempting to reconstruct those fields through the integration of biological considerations. The political-ethical parts of the book are actually the purpose of the book, the reason that the science was brought up in the first place. “On Genetic Interests” is a book of political theory, ethics, and policy based on science; it is not a book about science to which some “window dressing” was affixed. One can of course disagree with Salter’s conclusions. But it seems to me manifestly unfair to conclude that the major part of Salter’s work, the purpose to which he states the work is about, is merely a “smokescreen.” On the other hand, we are to accept Swerdham’s “sincerity” as given…..If any part of the work is an “appendix” to the other, then the science is the “appendix” to the political theory, and, in fact, Harpending’s own paper on the equations are included in a real appendix in the work. One can continue to insist it is all “window dressing”….. What if one though wishes to ignore Salter’s concern for ethics and concentrate on the implications of the genetics? In “theory”, the best way to get a return on $10,000 is to buy 10,000 lottery tickets, or gamble the money in other ways in Las Vegas. Or, a more prudent person may decide on more conservative investments. “In theory”, the EGI concept would seem to suggest “ethnic cleansing” as the best way to promote EGI – but this is not good accounting since it looks at the benefits without counting the costs. As stated here previously, Salter also takes a moral-neutral approach in defending defensive EGI from the “diminishing marginal returns” approach: “The individual is prudent to make greater sacrifices to prevent losses to group fitness than to exploit opportunities for ethnic expansion” Given the real-life audience for Salter’s work, a race heading toward extinction, a race which would find itself lucky to achieve the miracle of survival in its own lands, we can obtain more utility understanding the realistic implications of Salter’s work, including his recommendations, than engage in theoretical speculation of what someone may take away from it. Virtually ANY political theory can be used to justify mass murder, and this has occurred in human history. That Salter’s biopolitical theory may be so construed does not mean it, by logic, inevitably leads to such a direction, since the case can be made that long-term genetic continuity is better served by international stability, and is ill-served by reckless gambles for expansion that may cost the adventurous ethny more in the long-run then what may be possibly gained. 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:18 | # To Swerdham, Would you care to tell our readers who exactly you have signed yourself as since 17th March? I think that information would interest WM, in particular. 47
Posted by the rude and non-respected Mr. Stinks on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:17 | # “That Dawkins would begin to exhibit the extended phenotype of parasite genes after writing about them should be no surprise given he simply would not address the human implications of his extended phenotype paradigm, such the fact that memes can be extended phenotypes of genes.” Reading accounts of people who’ve attended the great man’s lectures, etc. he is described as having “charisma” and “force”, etc. He also has a personal cult following that seems out of proportion to actual accomplishment. He would seem to me a more likely candidate to be an inducer of extended phenotypes in others, rather than being an extended phenotype himself (unless you have some reason that would make Mr. Dawkins incapable of being an “inducer” rather than a “victim.”). A provocative theory: the seed of the extended phenotype idea came to Dawkins, perhaps subconsciously, after observing the effects his “charisma” had on others. Here’s a female with an interesting surname on the subject: “He was wide open to and inviting of attack. The parasites obviously obliged.” If it’s obvious, can you provide some clear evidence that Dawkins was attacked, as against the alternative theory that he is an over-rated leftist wiseass, with a personal agenda to delegitimize the genetic interests of others? “To Swerdham, Would you care to tell our readers who exactly you have signed yourself as since 17th March? I think that information would interest WM, in particular” If no answer is forthcoming, perhaps GW can tell us is ideas here? After all, I’ve been pilloried for being “rude” to the good and sincere Swerdham…. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:20 | # “He was wide open to and inviting of attack. The parasites obviously obliged.” If it’s obvious, can you provide some clear evidence that Dawkins was attacked, as against the alternative theory that he is an over-rated leftist wiseass, with a personal agenda to delegitimize the genetic interests of others? How many children do you think Dawkins has sired? 49
Posted by jlh on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:49 | # Wintermute, How do you explain the bantu radiation with attendant genocide of koisan/hottentot/bushmen types (to cite but one example)? Wasn’t that done without reference to Joshua or other Old Testament materials? 50
Posted by Mr. Stinks on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:50 | # “How many children do you think Dawkins has sired?” According to the following, one child, unfortunately not unusual for most European populations, which seem to be at a 1.2-1.4 offspring per person ratio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins In addition, it is common for highly educated white professionals to have few, or no, children. This doesn’t mean that these people need to then go on and mock group selection, or extended kinship. I also note that he is a serial monogamist, consistent with an aggressive, “charismatic”, “hoard the women” approach to his personal life. I don’t see though how his number of children, no different from large numbers of other people, including those on the “right”, somehow explains his leftist ideas, or is “evidence” that he is acting as someone’s “extended phenotype.” 51
Posted by stink on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:45 | # “if his best readers were unaware of it?” That’s you saying that those are his best readers. Evidence? “And from where I’m sitting, it took an awful lot of replies to get a single Salter maven to open his book to the relevant Psalm…” An exchange of currency can put the “psalm” in the palm of the hand…the book is now available. Is this free-riding or free-loading? I assume from your comments that you yourself do not have the book. Are you paying attention yet, GW? “away by peronsal unpleasantness and attempts at intimidation - just doesn’t sit well with me. “ OK, stop the whining already. If “Swerdham” had said, “look guys, I’ve read Salter and I understand his caveats, but still, I’m having problems with some of the implications”, that’s one thing. Someone coming here, not having read any of the work, saying, “I’m not a troll, but doesn’t Salter’s work advocate genocide”, is something else. It’s not “innocent” or “defensible.” “This is not exactly a crack intellectual outfit..” No, it’s a blog full of self-important members who think they are all “creative geniuses” and a “droolcup” commentariat. “they are NOT going to found in books of population genetics or molecular biology. “ certainly. They’ll be found instead in ‘tantric’ introspection of “male and female nostrils”, “red roasting rodents”, and theosophic insanity about “root races” masquerading as “tradition.” what a waste of time this goddamn blog is. MR does stink… 52
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:06 | # I’m not necessarily one of Salter’s best readers. I was, at least according to Salter’s communique to me, the first person review in detail Harpending’s mathematical derivation of EGI but that’s the extent of my claim to exceptional reading of Salter. Indeed, I gave away my copy of the book during a recent trip to Russia. I don’t think Salter’s come up with that much original thinking outside of the demand for something like Harpending’s derivation—which was an important insight by a political scientist. He, himself, references a tradition of universal nationalist thought going back quite some time. Rather than getting caught up in “Salter said this”... “Salter said that”... which sounds all too much like one of those Judaized disciplines (like philosophy or psychology), where charismatic personalities dominate the discourse, might I suggest presenting the arguments themselves with perhaps footnotes where cites are necessary? Stinks: As for the “creative geniuses”, etc. it is rather difficult to moderate a blog. How would you go about it? 53
Posted by Stimk on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:34 | # First, my harsh reply to “Swerdham” was because he didn’t pass the “smell test” for sincerity, and, according to GW, my instincts were correct. If you find nothing suspicious about the wording of his question, more power to you. Swerdham: “Sounds good, right?” Implying that he has “discovered” the unsavory aspects.. “All other races would be morally obligated by EGI to do the same” Morally obligated? “...of course, since the purpose of their lives is to encourage the growth of their race as much as possible.” Is that what the EGI theory really says? What about other levels of fitness? But, that’s right, Swerdy hasn’t read any of it, and although WM’s eyes may have scanned the words, I would doubt that was “reading”.... “Therefore, isn’t the logical conclusion one would reach from Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interest hypothesis that it is necessary for a state of perpetual race war to exist between all peoples, which ends only when one race has successfully exterminated all the other ones and can now fulfill its “purpose” by reproducing itself as much as possible through access to ALL of Earth’s land and resources?” Is that the “logical conclusion”, or is it only one interpretation, of many, none of which is a “logical conclusion.” Note the word “purpose” in quotes as well. I thought it was a “moral obligation?” Wintermute wishes us to “admit” the obvious - yes, the EGI concept could, in theory, be used to justify a racial expansion at the expense of other groups. Yes, in theory, it could be used to justify genocide. But, then, so could virtually ANY political theory. If I am not mistaken, even the gnxpers like David B didn’t bring “genocide” up as an objection. After all, can’t “cognitive elitism” be used to justify genocide? Why does a biopolitical gene based idea need to defend itself against every theoretical “logical conclusion” when history teaches us that egalitarianism has resulted in more genocide than anything else. 54
Posted by Swerdham on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:54 | # Would you care to tell our readers who exactly you have signed yourself as since 17th March? I think that information would interest WM, in particular. Swerdham only, at least to my knowledge. Why, are there other posts here with my IP? I share it with a bunch of other people. It’s very annoying, to be honest. Everytime I try to use a file transfer site like Megaupload or Rapidshare, I get a message like, “Your IP address is already downloading a file. Please wait until it has finished.” :( In any case, like I said, I didn’t intend to troll, I just thought that Salter’s point concerning non-white utilization of resources in White lands could be construed as advocating genocide if ‘White lands’ were construed as ‘the entire world.’ Mr. Tillman, Wintermute, Anon, et. al have already discussed why that isn’t a valid interpretation, so thanks to them for clearing that up. Uh, sorry for dragging this off-topic, I was satisfied when I read Anon and Tillman’s responses, I didn’t mean for the discussion to go on like this. My apologies 55
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:41 | # a personal agenda to delegitimize the genetic interests of others? Dawkins failure to have more than one child indicates he has bought into his own material. However, it is important to note that the one child he did have, he had just after his last book of any serious merit, “The Extended Phenotype” and just before he took off into fighting the wrong war (against traditional religion while ignoring the Holocaustian theocracy currently ruling), starting with “The Blind Watchmaker”. I don’t know the details of what happened with the mother of his child, but I know he isn’t about to talk about it with anyone and has requested that others not try to investigate or even report on her name. This is evidence of a biological attack of some kind. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:39 | #
You’re rude and insulting. Go hang around a blog that’s better — at least we can all take our ear plugs out then. You’re obnoxious. Not one thousandth of this blog’s traffic and influence are any thanks to your non-stop grating control-freak histrionics about Salter. Grow up please, and get some manners while you’re at it. You’re the bossy little kid in the sandbox who throws fits every time the others do something their way instead of his. Start your own blog and just do Salter in just the precise way you insist it be done, nothing else allowed, letting it be known you’ll brook “no error,” and see what your traffic and influence are. Or take away everything MR.com discusses except Salter, and not just any Salter but Salter just the way you like it and insist on it — make this site all Salter, all the time, and only for those who make sure they get it right because otherwise you-know-who’s going to go into hysterics and we have to put our ear plugs back in — and see how much contribution MR’ll make with that format. Oh and, uhhh .... grow a brain, will you? 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:06 | # Fred, You should cut JW Holliday [Mr. Stinks] some slack. In fact it would be great to hear him on MR radio. Cheers, 58
Posted by Andy Wooster on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:29 | # I agree with Desmond. We need more of “Stinks”, not less. It’s my opinion that more of “Stinks” would be the best thing that could possibly happen to this blog. 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:40 | # Wintermute, How do arrive at your interpretation of Cattell’s Beyondism? According to Richard Lynn’s review of the book, Darwin is Ray’s go to guy. It’s a drop dead, fall down, all Darwin all the time extravaganza. If you don’t confuse Darwin with the sun and the stars, certainly Ray Catell does.
Catell, you, and Western Man in general, are unable to address the issue of altruism. Whether morality is based on science or religion, as man advances in civilization, it is logical that altruism, since it enhances fitness, for one’s family, for one’s tribe and for one’s nation, will ultimately become altruism for the poor, the infirm, the disabled and then logically extend to men of other nations, other races and ultimately, all sentient beings. And once established, the number of altruistic men will grow and the sentiment will be re-enforced by public opinion. How does Cantrell propose to discourage the poor, infirm, handicapped and unintelligent from breeding. Sterilization? How to encourage the rich and intelligent to produce more offspring. Concubining? If we allow competition to reign fully, and the rich to advance unrestricted, won’t they replace their compatriots with others who will enhance their wealth. What genetic allegiance would they have? 60
Posted by Bohnson Jailey on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:20 | # Cognitive elitism does have a niche somewhere in this world, technology being what it is. For example, if one were to make Hawaii a sort of controlled free-for-all, one could derive the benefits of having the globe’s best minds cooperating without genetic pollution entering the main body. 61
Posted by Bohnson Jailey on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:07 | # OTOH, zones for mischlinge have always figured prominently in compassionate and farsighted plans for the political devolution of North America. Why create a mischlinge zone? That’s what Brazil and Africa are good for—ship ‘em there. I mean a geographical locale for firms/research requiring physical co-location of the world’s brainiest (or whatever-ist). MSFT’s a legitimate example—generic 120 IQ engineers can’t program the latest version of Windows, they truly need 140+IQ engineers. 62
Posted by jlh on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:24 | # Wintermute, Your account of 3-22 6:45 pm sounds like another version of noble savageism. That when doing what you admit is within the natural order of things, whites are so much worse than savages simply because our aggression is buttressed by ancient writings and theirs only by darwinian imperative. As if by stripping away the trappings of civilization we will return to some long-lost idyll where the relations of men are characterized by benevolence, rather than acquisitiveness and suspicion. The general conclusion of biblical scripture is that natural man is sinful and wicked without any help from hateful narratives. If you reject biblical morality you are left with the darwinian state, which is what the OT narratives seem to be describing. I don’t doubt your description of the settlers thinking of themselves as Israel in Canaan; I would point out that the natives practiced gruesome torture and raids of extermination on the white settlers, and once again without reference to Abrahamic dictates. 63
Posted by wintermute on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:08 | # That when doing what you admit is within the natural order of things, whites are so much worse than savages simply because our aggression is buttressed by ancient writings and theirs only by darwinian imperative. That is a gross misrepresentation. I argue that the Bible makes people morally worse than they would be otherwise, and think the bulk of European history, both ancient and modern, bears this out. The Romans encountered human sacrifice in Gaul and put an end to it, but left a functional society which persists to this day. The Church is still using Mesoamerican human sacrifice as an excuse for one of the most shocking acts of cultural rapine and destruciton in the world’s history. Mexico will never be functional, happy, whole: they are ruined in body and mind. France is a prosporous, organized country that celebrates its Roman heritage. Here we have the difference between the Christian and the Pagan: one leaves gratitude and organization; the other grinding poverty and hatred. And really, it must: where are the new Christians going to come from if the world works smoothly? Why would you go to such trouble to make your neighbor miserable unless you are miserable yourself? God holds us all over an open cauldron, we are a loathsome spider in his sight - Edwards says this - at nauseating length - in one of his awful sermons. Plotinus says that we become what we behold, therefore we must contemplate what is Beautiful. Do the observed historical effect of Christianity require any further explanation? The longer one contemplates the God of Hate, the uglier one grows. The Jews, morally the ugliest of the races of man, are the ultima ratio of this process. The very detailed portrait we have of America’s settlement, and the particular effect of the Old Testament therein, both in action and self-conception is pretty well set out. The Bad Book aggravated the violence necessary in both the conquest of the continent, and the Civil War, by its provision - via process described by Gottfried and Sunic, among others - for the creation of the modern ‘Yankee’ type: avaricious, self-righteous, murderously hostile, incapable of measured agression, mean-spirited, self-righteous, etc. “I am my brother’s jailer” - do you know whether this quote originally applied to Yankees or Jews? And does it matter? As Heine observes, what is a Protestant but a Jew who eats pork? Sunic draws parallels, just as the Jews do, between anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism - quite justified in my view. Pound called the compound entity America - Great Britian, Yankee-Judea, an accurate enough name. All have the idea that their “goodness” is the only conceivable goodness in all of existence, and which must be extended to the whole world - “the shining city on a hill” - that any means may be used to this end, since the enemy is evil incarnate - and show an unhealthy interest in moneygetting, and an unfortunate tendency to subordinate all other goals and values to this end. This tendency has also been called the ‘hubraic puritan’ strain in American life. You could just as well call it “Annointedness”, “Chosenness” or “Communism” - you see the same behaviors again and again in populations that have been psychologically “Abrahamized”. As to people being spoiled by the Bad Book to the point where they are a thousand times more savage than an unspoiled human being, we need not examine noble savages - the Greeks and Romans will do. And as for savages, yes, the Bible has made most Whites (who take the book seriously) much worse than most.I certainly do acknowledge that some primitive societies become exceptionally violent, but would point out that variation is the rule here. The North American tribes will serve as an example. I will admit that for some groups, like the Yanomamo and the Mongols, they have achieved the same level of violence and senselessness that Christians have, though Muslims give them all a run for their money, though of course they are using a variation of the Bad Book Christians spoil their mind with. What is your point? Mine is that the Bible makes whites worse than they otherwise would be, without the added advantage of evolutionary fitness. Nietzche thought Paul had concocted the whole mess to achieve the devastation we see around us now: and I don’t doubt it. It did seem to follow upon the widespread availability of the Bible as reading matter for Europeans. When they were told it was just a ‘Good Book’, and religion was Mass in the mornings, I think Europeans were marginally better off. Jews behave themselves, mostly, because they are outnumbered. But when they are in power they are absolutely inhuman. No Briton, American, Yanomamo, Mongol, Muslim, or Apache can match them. In them, the true power of that “book” - the horrendous filth half the world worships as ‘religion’ - emerges in full force. Activities of the Eastern European ruling Communist cabals (Jewish) are instructive in this regard, as are studies of the Cheka and other depredations. The Jews seem quite well adapted to viciousness and deception, on a scale the Earth has never seen before. To this, I attribute the effects of the Book, but since it was they who wrote it, there is certainly a chicken-egg question here, one that interests me very little. I care only to separate human beings from this most inhuman - ANTIhuman - of all works. As if by stripping away the trappings of civilization we will return to some long-lost idyll where the relations of men are characterized by benevolence, rather than acquisitiveness and suspicion. A correction: the Bible is not “the trappings of civilization”. It is a text parasititical ON a civilization, which it drives to insanity, murder, and ruin. Please see the Iraq war for (merely the most recent) details. The inability to rid ourselves of Jews is also a direct result of your little Hebrew pamphlet . . . but I sense this won’t bother many Christians here. Indeed, the sense of shame seems to be the first item removed from the soul of the practicing Christian. Having spoken to thousands online about the substance of their belief, it is my judgement that Christ devours the intellect first and the conscience at his leisure. That not all savages are ‘noble’ in the Rosseauan sense does not mean that all are ignoble. I would direct you to Columbus’ own diary entries regarding the encounters with natives. He found them peaceful, friendly, happy, and very much as man might have been in Eden. The observation is followed by the chilling sentence, “They will make excellent slaves.” I can do no better than to quote Thomas Paine in this matter, as I do not wish to appear to be presenting novelties. I am neither the first nor the last person who will hold these opinions. Paine:
“A history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind” . . . never were truer words spoken. 64
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:48 | # wintermute wrote: I would direct you to Columbus’ own diary entries regarding the encounters with natives. He found them peaceful, friendly, happy, and very much as man might have been in Eden. The observation is followed by the chilling sentence, “They will make excellent slaves.” That would be a useful anecdote for anyone working as a tour guide at the Tolerance Museum. It’s a good way of getting at whitey, and in fact Columbus does merit inclusion in Rabbi Hier’s House of the Shoah. He is one of those many bad Whites we’re all supposed to feel guilty about, like Hitler and the Pilgrim Fathers. But the sentence is “chilling” only when viewed from within _our_ moral system, which on the issue of slavery has been shaped by the activism of evangelical Christian abolitionists. Slavery became wrong, or was discovered to have always been wrong, about three centuries after Columbus wrote his diary entry. Columbus had no way of knowing that slavery was terribly wrong and that his diary entry would later appear chilling, since the wrongness of slavery had not yet been discovered. That discovery was made and (more important) propagated by White Christians, not by Blacks or noble savages. Both groups were likely incapable of making moral discoveries, but even if they did make them, the effects could only have been local. Columbus’ sentence indicates not, as Wintermute suggests, that our White Christian forefathers were an especially savage bunch, but rather that slavery was rarely a subject of serious moral concern until the late 1700s. Columbus matter-of-factly observes a useful resource, just as he might have observed that various mineral resources could also be put to useful purposes. Enlightened Athenian pagans two millennia earlier would not have found his comment chilling. Aristotle assumes that slavery is a normal institution. The Code of Hammurabi, innocent of Christianity’s “hate book,” also assumes that slavery is a normal institution, which it was before the era of Wilberforce. The moral stigma that now attaches to slavery was once interpreted as part of a growing moral enlightenment, so that we, unlike our ancestors, can now see that slavery has always been wrong. Someone less convinced of moral progress would put it differently. In either case Christianity became an enemy of slavery, and if principled opposition to slavery is regarded as evidence of moral enlightenment, it was an enlightenment that occurred within Western Christendom and was enforced by Western power. We should feel entitled to boast about it as one of our civilization’s many accomplishments. *** The staggering sweep of slavery over thousands of years, and the enormous variety of forms it assumed at different times and places, are almost as remarkable as the scant amount of moral concern it aroused until the late eighteenth century in Britain and the United States. How and why this particular juncture in history produced a moral revulsion against slavery is much less clear than the confluence of circumstances which permitted this moral revulsion to drive a policy which resulted in the stamping out of slavery across most of the planet in a period of a century and a half. The mobilization of this moral concern into a political force that was both powerful and tenacious was historic in its consequences because of the military predominance of the countries in which these anti-slavery movements developed. More specifically, it was European imperialism which stamped out slavery over most of the world. Even in parts of the world which retained their independence or autonomy, the indelible stigma that slavery acquired in European eyes made abolition a policy to be pursued for the sake of national respectability, even in societies which had no strong feelings against slavery itself. The irony of our times is that the destruction of slavery around the world, which some once considered the supreme moral act in history, is little known and less discussed among intellectuals in either Western or non-Western countries, while the enslavement of Africans by Europeans is treated as unique - and due to unique moral deficiencies in the West. Thomas Sowell, _Race and Culture: A World View_ (New York: Basic Books, 1994), 221-222. 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:55 | #
And under the current migration scheme they’ll get neither territorial integrity nor defense of the land’s carrying capacity: VIEW FROM LODI, CALIFORNIA: GOLDEN STATE FARMLAND DISAPPEARING UNDER IMMIGRATION-DRIVEN CONSTRUCTION By Joe Guzzardi On February 14th, the Associated Press reported that during the last two years developers gobbled up irreplaceable California agricultural land for the purposes of new home and strip mall construction. [“San Joaquin Farmland Disappearing At A Record Rate,” Associated Press, February 14, 2007] Specifically, according to Molly Penbreth, manager of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation:
Penbreth added that Fresno County, the nation’s No.1 agriculture county in production value, lost the most farmland. Sadly, parking lots at California State University, Fresno, new schools and 100 acres of new homes in Selma replaced crops. Bridgett Luther, the Conservation Department’s Director, reminded Californians that:
Preliminary data from the program that tracks land development found roughly 26 acres of farmland were removed from production each day in the two-year period. Given this grim background, it is not surprising that the Lodi City Council approved by a 3-1 vote the Stockton-based FBC Homes Westside development project. [“Westside Project OK’d,” Lodi News-Sentinel, Matt Brown, March 22, 2007] According to the News-Sentinel, the 151-acre development will include 745 homes and a new school. Despite mounting foreclosures, plunging prices and an increase in unsold homes inventory in the San Joaquin Valley, these projects are never voted down. Sprawl is an insidious problem that slowly but inevitably takes over communities like Lodi most often without the support of the general population. [...] As long as growth is California’s mantra, sprawl will grind on ... no matter what you or I may want. With no end in sight to urban sprawl, here’s a reminder to those who support more development and to those who sit passively by and let it change our lifestyles: Whether it’s soil, sunshine or water, the earth provides only so much. We need to protect what we have while we can. When natural resources are gone, they’re gone for good. 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:55 | # New paper by David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson, said to be important (haven’t read it). (Hat tip) 67
Posted by Kenneth Anderson on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:39 | # Here is our recent take on Cattell and Beyondism, from the blog ECC, Beyondism, and Science The Evolutionary Christian Church (ECC) follows the rational path, but also moves into unempirical areas, as Hegel and others did. Yet we hope later that empirical facts validate the intellectual intuition and mysticism of ECC. This mysticism defines ECC more legitimately as a religion than Beyondism, the excellent religion from science of the great Raymond Cattell. I agree with Cattell that science can help mold spiritual values, but unlike the stricter science of Beyondism, we do affirm a form of “progressivism” in evolution. Life is evolving to Godhood, and with this unempirical statement we do not wait to see the results of evolution—success or failure—before we define a goal to evolution. But we certainly apply the more scientific and natural pragmatism as well. Cattell’s hope for evolution is to avoid stagnation which creates obsolescence, this could be called his base for Beyondism, minus the unempirical religious goal of life evolving to Godhood. It it true that the direction of evolution must remain approximate—even science usually can only deal in probabilities. We can say that we, and evolution, are on the path to Godhood and that we seek higher intelligence, higher consciousness, and more beauty, but these will require more precise science. As Cattell points out, even medicine is seen as an art, but the benefit of working with imprecise goals in medicine can be far better than without medicine. However, we don’t forget, during the ongoing process of scientific developments in sociobiology, that Godhood is the goal of our evolution, and that Godhood is the divine place where we reach the Absolutes of intelligence, consciousness, beauty and power. Unlike Beyondism we are attached to the Revealed Religions in retaining the Involutionary Inward Path to the God-Within—-this Twofold Path gives us a conservative base. We add the Evolutionary Outward Path of evolution to Godhood, which was first seen inwardly in the Revealed Religions. This seems to give us a better psychological position to advance than Beyondism, as well as providing the order of conservatism that allows us to better retain any positive mutations and advances in evolution—-we call this Ordered Evolution. Meanwhile a social organization needs to be built so that we can move beyond temperamentally individualistic thinkers. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Bear’s Lair: Breaking the BRICs
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Swerdham on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14 | #
Since this is an EGI related post, would anyone mind if I asked an EGI related question?
See, after reading some Salter and reading some posts here, I think I’ve gotten the gist of why people think EGI is important:
“The purpose of life, in so far as it can be said to have a purpose, is to replicate its genes. Since fellow co-ethnics share their genes with you, you are obligated to ensure the growth and prosperity of your ethnic group as much as possible.”
Sounds good, right? Now, another point Salter made is how we should forbid entirely, or at least severely curtail, non-white immigration into white countries because non-whites would be taking up (finite) resources that would otherwise be used by whites, correct?
Here’s the thing, though—doesn’t that apply on a global scale as well as a country-wide scale? Negro Africans, mestizos in South America, Oriental people in Asia, all occupy land and space that could otherwise be used by whites, and all use resources that could otherwise be utilized by whites. Therefore, since the Earth’s resources are finite, shouldn’t Whites seek to not only conquer, but exterminate all other races, in order to free up land and resources which would allow maximum growth of the white race (which is the purpose of life, in genetic terms). All other races would be morally obligated by EGI to do the same, of course, since the purpose of their lives is to encourage the growth of their race as much as possible. Therefore, isn’t the logical conclusion one would reach from Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interest hypothesis that it is necessary for a state of perpetual race war to exist between all peoples, which ends only when one race has successfully exterminated all the other ones and can now fulfill its “purpose” by reproducing itself as much as possible through access to ALL of Earth’s land and resources?
I know this sounds a little extreme, and I’m not trying to troll or anything, but after thinking about Salter’s EGI stuff, this is the conclusion I came to. Does Salter himself advocate anything like this? It seems to follow from this theory D: