Western Biopolitics: Salter and more from JW Holliday

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 29 February 2008 16:44.

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

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

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

CATON ON SALTER’S “ON GENETIC INTERESTS”

Hiram Caton reviews “On Genetic Interests”

I recently came across a generally favorable review of Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” by Hiram Caton (Twin Research, 7: 306-307, 2004). I would like to examine some quotes from this review.

Caton begins the review by giving a relatively brief historical background to the development of “biopolitics” by the “Politics and Life Sciences Association” with their journal Politics and the Life Sciences. After stating the importance of Salter’s work with respect to the ostensible interests of this group, Caton notes that this journal’s “new management” eschews dealing with the controversial, including an in-depth examination of Salter’s book. Caton writes:

Thus, it transpires that the one academic journal dedicated to the promotion of biopolitical science is unlikely to take serious notice of the first offering with a credible claim to have achieved that goal.

Caton is correct. However, what does it say about the racialist nationalist “movement” – obviously not constrained by such considerations of “political correctness” – that it has heretofore, with minimal exceptions, also refrained from taking “serious notice” of Salter’s groundbreaking analysis? What does it say about European nationalist parties that they have also heretofore essentially ignored a highly significant biopolitical analysis that gets to the fundamental core of these parties’ concerns about alien immigration and demographic change?

One aim of this blog [WB - Ed] is to bring Salter’s work to the attention of those who would most profit from an understanding of it.

Later, Caton writes:

…political identity may be sustainable only on the basis of a dominant ethny. That this is indeed the case is a key premise of Salter’s biopolitics.

That is correct. And, this certainly doesn’t bode well for an America headed for a situation in which no single major ethny will constitute a majority of the population.

Caton then discusses the basic neo-Darwinian principles of sociobiology and biological definitions of “fitness” and writes:

From this premise Salter extracts his controlling normative principle that the ultimate interest (or “good,” in moral idiom) of individuals is the continuity of their genes in successive generations…

I would instead state, “the continuity of their distinctive genetic information,” but the point is clear. However, one doesn’t want to accuse Salter of the (in my opinion, over-rated) “is-ought” fallacy; Salter does state that values intercede in determining the “goodness” of pursuing genetic interests. He does not directly derive the normative principle from biological realities.

After discussing Salter’s methods and some basic implications of the analysis, Caton contrasts how Salter’s work can be utilized dependent upon different “value choices.”

The first choice is to:

….[enable] ethnic majorities to preserve their competitive advantage while respecting the rights of minorities and preserving international cooperation. This is Salter’s option, which he styles “universal nationalism.”

The alternative, according to Caton, is to use Salter’s work to formulate methods for undermining, or even eliminating, “the ethnic impulse,” presumably to shore up the multicultural state.

Of course a problem with the latter possibility is that those who are hostile to Salter’s “universal nationalism” lack the understanding, and the willingness to acquire the understanding, of Salter’s work. Negative reviews and critiques of Salter’s work have heretofore exhibited a hysterical “there’s nothing here, move on, move on” attitude, in which illogical, mendacious, and/or juvenile “arguments” are made in an attempt to (unsuccessfully) delegitimize Salter’s work and undercut Salter’s methodology and arguments. In other words, the opposition seemingly doesn’t possess the objectivity and intelligence to reasonably and fairly evaluate Salter’s ideas, even at the cost of not being able to better undermine those ideas. While it is true that Salter doesn’t go far enough in his thesis (and, thus, underestimates the scope of genetic interests) and may not always cover all caveats in the detail demanded by some of his critics, the bottom line is that the fundamentals of Salter’s work are irrefutably correct. Attacking Salter on methodology or logic is a lost cause. The only “out” for his critics is to acknowledge that Salter is fundamentally correct in the existence of genetic interests and their importance, but to cite differing values as the rationale for ignoring these interests – possibly by counterbalancing some putative “counter-values” that can be reasonably seen as over-riding the importance of genetic interests. Such arguments – although I believe they would also ultimately fail – would require that those making these points actually understand and accept Salter’s insights and would also require that they would have the honesty to admit the importance and validity of genetic interests.

I don’t think they have it in them. Even if they do, arguing against continuity as an important value does not seem to me to be a winning proposition.

Caton then cites examples of non-white nations that seemingly, with impunity, ignore international human rights declarations (to which they are signatories) with respect to minority rights and immigration. Caton writes:

Salter does not persuade this reader that the guarantees of minority rights included in his new agenda of “universal nationalism” have any greater prospect of enforcement.

That may be so, but in “universal nationalism,” majority rights take precedence. A “minority” that is significantly genetically (and culturally) distinct can spin off their own nation; in some cases, “minorities” that are similar to the majority can be assimilated, if that is what both sides desire. But the “universal nationalism” project cannot be made to founder on fears that “minorities” will be “persecuted.” That is merely more of the same of what we have now.

Caton proceeds to point out that even an ethnostate would need to deal with what Salter would call “free-riding;” Caton writes:

…uncontrolled nepotism must be eliminated if the state is not to stagnate as a luxuriant personal despotism.

True enough, which is why Salter asserts the need for a “biosocial contract” within the ethnostate to mediate class differences and inhibit destructive forms of intra-ethny free-riding.

Caton makes other insights, such as the need for a more in-depth study of multiculturalism and its practice, particularly in Western nations.

Caton ends by stating that even with whatever flaws that may exist in Salter’s work it is of immense importance:

But considering the awesome futures at stake, those concerned with policy are well advised to give Salter’s achievement serious attention.

Well put. Are nationalists listening?

JW Holliday

Tags: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

Comments:

Posted by silver on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:13 | #

This is the second time I’ve come across “extanct” in a GW posting. Pardon the pedantry, but is that an archaic form of “extant”, an incorrectly spelt form of “extant”, or does it mean something else entirely?

Posted by D.E. Johnson on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:33 | #

It means you’re flummoxed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:16 | #

It’s what Englishmen say, silver. We are stubbornly non-universalist here!

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:09 | #

“Are nationalists listening?”

Yes.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:06 | #

Are any nationalists reading Emotions In Command?

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:29 | #

Reading it? No, but I have a copy. MacDonald told me not to make reading it a priority. Do you disagree?

Posted by rocket on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:02 | #

Salter sounds like a utopianist . how can universal nationalism be pulled off ? what are the nuts and bolts of this ? does man have it in him to do this ? does history have an example of what came the closests to his model ? this is really interesting stuff.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:48 | #

Ben, I only ask because it is listed as Salter’s latest book (November, 2007). However, upon looking at it more closely, I find that it is just a reprint of a 1995 text book by Salter—which predates his seminal work on ethnic genetic interests. That is consistent with MacDonald’s, very probably good, advice.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:27 | #

Actually, I suspect it’s full of good stuff, but there’s so much to read.

Posted by Matra on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:23 | #

Salter sounds like a utopianist . how can universal nationalism be pulled off ? what are the nuts and bolts of this ?

One could say that about most ideas including liberalism and Marxism. The nuts and bolts are usually worked out as the idea evolves. Who knows if it is the answer but “universal nationalism” has something going for it that liberalism does not: It would be in the interests of the majority in each state therefore it should provide more stability in the long term unlike under liberalism with its permanent reliance on sophisticated mass manipulation for its success.

Posted by rocket on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:53 | #

Matra , that sounds a bit like Neitzche’s Aristocratic posistion that fears the rise of a working class . Liberalism is utopian too . they have their own form of aristocracy—hollywood and washington as the 2 nerve centers.

as far as stability goes with heirachy that it seems Salter is positing , the theory is plausable .

Posted by Guardianistani on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:38 | #

Guessedworker

I’m an at least once weekly reader of your very interesting blog. I’ve noted you are a big fan of Salter, and also, that you feel that Liberalism is perhaps the fundamental sickness afflicting the West.

In Occidental Quarterly, Vol 7 No. 3, Fall 2007, page 91, Michael Polignano states “Salter’s universal nationalism is just another form of ‘live and let live’ liberalism” and “Thus I fear that Salter’s universal nationalism, like all forms of unreconstructed liberalism, will only prove a disadvantage to whites”.

Have you considered that ‘Unversal Nationalism’ is just another form of Liberalism?

Because if you have, is there not some incoherence or contradiction?

Or do you, like Polignano, feel that whilst Salter makes a valuable contribution, there is a big political flaw in his thinking?

And if so, (that you agree with Polignano) have you pointed this out to your acolytes?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:45 | #

Guardianistani,

Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up on Michael Polignani’s piece, which I had not read. I have corrected that. I will make just a couple of comments in answer to your question.

First, Polignani is obviously a bit confused by Salter’s universal nationalism. I think he is, as a eugenicist, quite comfortable with the familiar palingenetic forms of the 20th Century nationalisms. They share his idealism, his faith in the verity of “higher goals”.

He properly perceives that “a genetic conservatism” is profoundly at odds with this. I think it’s fair to say that he doesn’t really understand why. That’s because he labels the poles of the sun as idealistic, teleological nationalism on the one hand and, on the other, equally idealistic, equally teleological liberalism, and thinks he has caught therein all the good and bad political thoughts of Man. Since Salter’s genetic conservatism is not what he understands nationalism to be, it gets written off as liberalism by dint of its core principle of reciprocity (not actually live and let live).

But I will return to this in a moment. First, let’s at least set the axiality correctly.

A teleological philosophy like liberalism or palingenetic nationalism is separated by a wide and unbridgable gulf from an ontological philosophy like genuine conservatism (obviously, I don’t mean neoliberalism here). The same polarity of “being” and “becoming” runs through all manner of thought. It is in the story of Cain and Abel, and the even older bardic myth of Gilgamesh. It is in sufic Islam. But it is missing from the main body of Western philosophical thought because of the influence over it of idealism. Thus one may observe, as I often have, that English Conservatism is notoriously not a philosophy at all ... it is not really expressed within the Western canon.

Salter’s genetic conservatism is distinctly ontological. Because it is nationalist in outcome it would appear to have commonality with other nationalisms. But the appearance is deceiving. The appeal to power or glory, heroism or destiny, the appeal to a golden age, etc have no bearing on its core value.

So Poliganani took a wrong turn when he placed Salterism on the teleological axis. The more interesting question for him might be not where it sits there - it doesn’t - but whether any ontological construction can move men to change the world.

Now let’s deal with the “live and let live” aspect.

Reciprocity provides the moral authority for a jus ad bellum. It is not weakness to set down the terms on which peace and war shall prevail. Further, the capacity of palingenetic nationalism (or extreme liberalism) to devalue and kill people, including those of one’s own people who do not share the vision, is beyond argument. Its social darwinist root runs counter to the golden rule of “the greatest good” - something that thoroughly commends the choice of an adaptive way of life.

Again, Polignani has not thought through the implications of his social darwnism, one of which is that he looks like a racal supremacist, and really can’t complain if the future untermenschen of his eugenic dreamworld take offence.

Posted by Non-MR Acolyte on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:58 | #

<a href = “http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/05/pot-calling-kettle-black.html”>Critique of Polignano.</a>

Posted by cjreno1@msn.com on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:23 | #

I know this is sort of out of line, but I am trying to figure out how to access the Western Biopolitics site, which is now only available to invited members. How do I get to be an invited member? Do you have any way of communicating with JWH? I love his site and am going to miss it. This same thing happened to Vanishing American a while back, but thankfully she is back. Also, South Africa Sucks has had a LOT of trouble staying up until they got their OWN site (not a blog). Has Western Biopolitics been deleted because of a bunch of a**holes doing whatever it is that they do? What does a person like me do when this happens? Can you help?

My name is Cathy. Email is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Please advise.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:37 | #

Cathy, I will pass your email address on to JWH.

Posted by cjreno1@msn.com on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:47 | #

Thank you Guessedworker. I have been trying to find a way to contact J.W. Holliday, so I Googled that name, and I got a hit on Huffington Post that a J.W. Holliday donated $1,000 to Obama. Could this possibly be the same person??? Would “our” JWH give money to “that one?”