Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

3,566 words

Subtitle: Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility in that regard.

To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.

Needless to say, betrayal by those close to us is among the hardest challenges to cope with in life, and the most de-motivating of defending E.G.I.

It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.

As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.

 

.............................................................................................................
Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

As one always concerned thus, always aware somehow that I was among a group of people in disregard, if not under attack, I naturally sought argumentation and cooperation for group defense against those attacks.

Unlike those sold on the WN narrative of late, that we were on the wrong side of WWII, it was all too apparent that Hitler was no reconciler of fratricide in full European terms. On the contrary, it was his over-compensations which stigmatized even normal ethnic genetic defense for Europeans.

Despite him, and especially because I felt no responsibility for his worldview, it made no sense that we should simply die and let racial others have their way. Though such antagonism was apparent as long as I can remember – the mystifying lack of sound explanation as to why we should be looking at urban porches of African American welfare queens and their broods, leering, looming. I hear some saying that Whites were blissfully unaware of what was coming. That was not the case with me, the welling-up of the tidal wave of non-Whites and its mean disposition to Whites, its void of compensatory value, its only offering of destruction was horrifyingly obvious.

Again, I sought cooperation and argumentation in defense.

A stone turned-over in that pursuit was the sociobiology of E.O. Wilson. One thing that jumped-out from him was a significant obstruction to the defense of what would come to be called “ethnic genetic interests.” Specifically, Wilson observed that close genetic relations of peoples were no guarantee of their not fighting the most deadly of battles against each other, let alone a guarantee of their getting along cooperatively. He cited the example of the Jews and their neighbors. His genetic data showed that they were in fairly close relation genetically. Yet what was happening did not bespeak a camaraderie of ethnic genetic interests between those closely related.

But rather than going down the rabbit hole of that example, as the text I am referring to is dated, there are a myriad of supporting examples of people more closely related genetically, being more antagonistic, not less.

One does not have to venture abstract and highly scientific arguments to find examples of people closely related hating each other more than distant relations. While on the whole pattern, there apparently is more cooperation among close relations than not, that does not remove the fact that what I am calling here “fratricidal tendencies” (antagonism to closer genetic relations) is a critical problem, not only as it leaves us susceptible to the most horrific betrayal by those with intimate knowledge and participation of our vital resources, where they can do irreparable harm, but also as it leaves us vulnerable to antagonistic out-groups, who may cooperate better and may take advantage of our lack of cooperation.

Nevertheless, it is complicated, as it is not clear that close relations are going to fight either, nor of course, that they should. It is some combination of genetic and cultural (conditional/circumstantial) factors that make the difference and it is a complexity which makes it so interesting to ponder as a novel puzzle even if so important to solve – as important as anything to solve as social problems go, and as a problem for those concerned for E.G.I.

Dr. Lister has chided we racists, saying our basis is not the most important factor in creating social capital and allegiance, not by a long shot. Though I have not yet been able to find the specific reference as it occurred in a comment of his more than a year ago, he did note this fratricidal tendency as an argument against what he might term “vulgar racism.” But even while fratricidal tendency might argue against vulgar, simplistic organization on the basis of race, in noting this fratricidal tendency under certain circumstances, Graham also alluded to the necessity, perhaps the ought, of “paternal intervention” of its occurrence (again, I am speaking generally, using “fraternal and paternal” to bespeak people who are closely related and their elders).

So we have a geneticist describing the way it is under certain circumstances, and that as a result of the way it is, we ought not perhaps make EGI our platform over communitarianism, while making a cultural argument that fratricidal may be corrected – probably should be.

For me there is no necessary contradiction between the scientific and cultural, rules based inquiry, nor for that matter do Salter or MacDonald see a necessary contradiction.

The problem is that this is such an important issue to leave dangling without further hypotheses for practical understanding and solutions.

Thus, I chide Graham in the title, trusting that he will take it as good natured provocation, made in good will, in hopes that he will participate in solutions to the admittedly challenging argument that he himself has presented to we vulgar racists - White nationalists who may, by contrast, not look upon Graham as White at all, but a pinko! I am having a laugh at Graham, as I have with the subtitle, hoping to provoke him into what could be quite helpful participation.

He is, after all, the one who brought this highly relevant contention to the fore.

Graham cites one of E.O. Wilson’s most important interlocutors – Hamilton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, so far so good to the serious minded and there seems to be plenty of room for practical elaboration. However, at this point in the essay of Graham’s, he goes on to make an argument that if a minimum wage could be established for third world people their quality of life improvement would drastically reduce their need and wish to come to European habitats. If that is true and it would work, fine; nobody here is placing the burden of blame on the immigrants for their coming into the habitats of European peoples anyway. Nevertheless, it is a curiously singular liberal concern and solution coming from a platform that sees liberalism, neo-liberalism anyway, as THE problem.

Cyberneticist Norbert Wiener observed that scientists were susceptible to be dupes, as they think in terms of Augustinian devils - natural problems that do not change the rules in the face of proposed solutions, while they may, in fact, be up against Manichean devils – man made problems subject to rule change in defiance to foil proposed solution. In the case even of competition over EGI, a scientist may think in Augustinian terms.

Indeed, Graham’s solution might have legitimate scientific merit in the Augustinian realm. But in the Manichean it may leave us obsequious dupes for the umpteenth time – having us once again contributing to the well being of outsiders, third worlders in this case, while doing nothing for ourselves; nor dealing sufficiently with those creating third world population explosion and the infliction of it against our EGI.

What is suggested is that we need still more rigorous attention with translation into practical terms in participatory solutions to what is creating our own fratricidal betrayal and what ought to be done to intervene. We need practical solutions as well as more frank acknowledgement that, again, we are in the realm of praxis, not of pure theoria, and in praxis in particular, manichean devils lurk – from powerful and deliberate interests, the YKW and international banksters/corporations, to the defacto, default organization of the fairer sex to maintain the power of their position in the topsy turvey of modernity through incitement to genetic competition, to those who would pander to that base natural tendency to convenient betrayal in narrow self interest, to the mere lowly disaffected, disenfranchised for lack of incentive to cooperate. 

Now again, before I am criticized for proposing myself as a know-it-all beyond my station, I see this as a concern for the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. That is why I half jokingly subtitled the essay, “Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility.”

This is an important concern. We have gone through two world wars now which may be characterized as fratricidal. There are still devotee’s of Friedrich the Great out there presenting themselves as White Nationalist vanguard, who seem to think we need version 3.0, or rather defiantly claiming that 2.0 was never finished and we need to continue, now being done with the ceasefire. David Duke is still saying things like, Nazi “Germany made Britain a very generous offer prior to WWII.” It takes a used car salesman to pitch that angle (yesterday, August 7th) straight faced.

Even so, it is not the most dramatic issue of potential inter-European war that concerns me, but the general and even day-to-day matter of fratricidal/siblicidal antagonisms as they make problems and interfere with effective organization in our defense. What is natural of these tendencies, when, at what level (in the manner Graham discusses); and what are proper cultural, paternal interventions/corrections?

The concern goes beyond outright antagonism and extends to negligence – those who might not care about an adjacent European nation/peoples. Who cares about the French, let them go to hell!

Despite the shortsightedness and blinders of narrow nationalism, Frank Salter confirms the validity of nationalism as a means of defending ethnic genetic interests; culture as an extension of our genetics - particularly for Europeans, albeit a genetic propensity that leaves us susceptible as we are more non-determinist to our genetic interests than other peoples; and, interestingly, Salter confirms one of my favorite arguments, viz. for the non-necessity of supremacism in EGI (supremacism being a habit of racialists, he says, stemming from influences such as Nazism):

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/06/RIR-140604.php

However, I don’t like his abuse of the term “White Left” as a designation of those forces advocating liberal relations with out groups. It would be good to have a talk with Frank about that. I believe the mistake that he makes (mistake in the sense of being a bit misleading with his naming among the enemy, “the white left”) is believing that what the Marxist said and wanted people to believe, viz. that it is all about economic class, was the same as their actual concern - which ultimately came down to racial advocacies, Jewish first, of course, and where they could not have Whites readily agree to otherwise identify with non-Whites in universal humanity, then racial advocacy of other non Whites.

Again, this could be a result of scientific blindness to manichean elements in this realm of praxis that he takes-on from a scientific perspective; or it could be that he is protecting himself from going into areas still taboo at present (criticism of Jewish power and influence); or from criticizing those too powerful but partly necessary either for support or to not antagonize; or it may just be seen as good tact – that by being made to see things aright, the powers that be may see their interests are not being served either by internationalism and integration of sundry peoples.

In any case, if he would appear at Red Ice, it stands to reason that he might, should, speak with us at Majority Rights.

While GW has conceived of MR as discussion site, and wanted to encourage the bringing along of people to a better organon in defense of EGI, the advocates of Jesus, Hitler, Jews and Descartes typically cannot allow for a view that critically rejects their world view. Threads were derailed by them and became unproductive. If we might need, we can invite such proponents for a formal discussion, but the comments need to be reserved for those pursuing means to serve European EGI, and for obvious reasons that requires freedom to be critical of the albatrosses of those world views – views which are served on other sites anyway, whereas European EGI served without those albatrosses would have little recourse and platform save for MR.

Majority Rights has moved beyond informal debates with those determined to promote Christianity, Hitler or the inclusion of Jews in our interest group. Moreover, we are advocating separatism, not supremacism; nor are we, through blind or disingenuous Cartesianism, let alone a tactlessly stated program, implicating to do violence and kill non-Whites who would be willing to leave us alone.

Given that platform, there is no special reason from this time forward for anybody who can agree to those constraints to not talk with us as they might wish. On the other hand, if one is not talking with Majority Rights because they would insist upon the inclusion of Jesus, Hitler and Jews (lets add Descartes to the outlist), then that is correct. This isn’t the place for them except by formal invitation.

Almost all of the acerbic language and atmosphere of MR in previous years had to do with those intransigently promoting those views needing to be fought-off in the free bazaar of the comments.

If, however, one does not participate because they think that I am otherwise doing something wrong, that would be incorrect. They ought to comment in correction, amendment, elaboration. Their ideas may be placed as a main post, further accredited to them in their own right, where they merit; or they might become an interlocutor for a podcast. I have not come into WN advocacy because I see myself as the greatest genius, a leader to shed light upon all fools, but because I saw some things that were not being done correctly, particularly in theoretical matters. Nor do I see it as a highly legitimate criticism to charge that the ideas I propose are not especially “ new”, as that is all the more reason to ask why they are not being implemented correctly, seeing as these ideas are so established. While I have contributed some novel thoughts, it is mostly my concern to coordinate people and information in our ethnic genetic interests, not dazzle people with the originality of my person.

Once again, I am in defiance of the Cartesian model, which would have me as the container informed of pure transcendence, and mere transmitter of information to a passively receiving audience. If someone participates with information better than I have that is far from a problem to me - solving our problems is the goal, not to create a cult of personality or a philosopher king. Though we do appreciate individual personalities and the esteem they are due.

The pressing matter here is fratricidal tendency as it obstructs organization and defense of our E.G.I. from out-groups, both for Augustinian and Manichean reasons.

Though apparently thinking mostly in Augustinian terms, the opinions of Drs. Lister and Salter would be highly relevant. We are looking for scientific description of the what, when, how, where, who and why of “fratricide” (generally speaking, antagonism and betrayal of close EGI, up to and including lethal); and practical solutions. Where these matters may have been discussed, it would not hurt to elaborate and further clarify them, particularly for practical terms of implementation.