|
|
|
(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter A few weeks ago Daniel sent a request to Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests, to consent to be interviewed for MR Radio. He was then in the process of a double-session interview with Red Ice. We hope he might be interested in a more intellectually demanding approach to his thesis in OGI and his hopes for European peoples in the West. He was unavailable. In anticipation of a positive reply from Dr Salter I had scribbled down some questions – heads of discussion, really - which I hoped to put before him. It is unlikely that they will be asked in that form now. I thought they might be of interest to readers all the same, duly embroidered with some of my own understandings which would have emerged in the discussion. 1. Academics, science and politics Dr Salter, you describe your profession as that of a political scientist and ethologist engaged in studying the motivational and organisational aspects – the laws that are at work, if you like - in human group dynamics. In the process you have afforded us all some unique insights into normative human behaviour, most particularly in the central thrust of On Genetic Interests. Purely for myself, I would like to thank you for that; and I’m sure very many others with our politics would feel the same. (a) Can I begin by asking how you see yourself and your work? Is an ethologist like you, with his basis of work with empirical data, fundamentally of the humanities or the sciences? How do your politics, which are clearly quite nationalist, influence your selection and formulation of research projects? Do you have to make additional efforts to function as a disinterested researcher, while your peers down the corridor in the politics and sociology faculties are quite free to operate as de facto campaigners for progressive causes? (b) More than a decade since the death of Stephen J Gould, and with the Sociobiology Study Group a forgotten entity, what is your assessment generally of the state of truth-speaking in the biological sciences, in particular about human difference? Would you say that the era of strict censorship has passed, and academic freedom now obtains? Or has the focus merely moved from a rigid control on what can be studied to a more subtle but no less widespread control of how studies can be framed, how results can be presented, and so forth? (c) What kind of reception have your conclusions had among your academic peers? For example, has EGI, as a concept, been discussed by, or even incorporated in the thinking of, other political scientists with your ethological focus, or that of evolutionary biologists and psychologists, or even sociologists? 2. Politics and the public discourse Many thinking nationalists who have studied your work have sought to introduce EGI in to public debates. What advice would you offer those making this effort? How can the strictly reproductive but rather abstract focus which you observe, say, in your glossary to On Genetic Interests be communicated in cogent terms to non-technical people? Is it too compromising to the genetic thesis to take the long route and substitute the fuzzier but more communicable term “ethnic interests”, if only as a first step? If your concept of a shared cost relativised in lost child equivalents is still too alien and abstract for most people - and I think it is – is it of practical benefit to speak merely of the absence of our life within foreign peoples, and of the beauty and meaning of that life? 3. The problem of the dominant class (a) This problem consistently appears in your work, and is evidently an important concern for you. I am reminded of Richard Herrnstein’s concern for the increasing hermeticism and introspection, as he saw it, of the Jewish cognitive elite, which motivated him to cooperate with Charles Murray in the writing of The Bell Curve over two decades ago now. In On Genetic Interests, of course, you make frequent reference to the problem of free-riding elites. Your 2005 book Emotions in Command examines how dominant interests manipulate the masses through the systematic elicitation and repression of certain universal sociobiological traits. But in sociobiological terms, aren’t elites engaged throughout history in the struggle for male dominance in mate competition? Isn’t such behaviour … the manipulation, the free-riding, the rent-seeking, and so forth ... entirely consistent with the elite’s own genetic interests? In a contest between GI and EGI won’t GI tend to win, and what does that imply for the ethnic group? (b) As the elite’s monopoly of high status is an historical constant, and elitism, like the poor, will always be with us, isn’t the real problem one of political environment - in our case, capitalism, modernity, and neoliberalism? In particular, did not the economic ascendency of neoliberalism in the decade after 1979 gift elites with a model of Man as an interchangeable economic cypher born only to labour and to consume, and quite deserving of subservience to a caste of overmen dedicated to their own unlimited power and wealth? (c) The first academic reference to the modern forms of elitism appears to be Bruno Rizzi’s Bureaucratisation of the World, published in 1939 two years before James Burnham’s seminal work on managerialism. As it happens, it contained the following illuminating passage (redacted from later editions):
So right there at the academic beginning, so to speak, racial nationalism was understood as a radical response to a crisis of socio-economic organisation which, among elites, effects a novel disloyalty to and conflict with the people. Of course, Rizzi is wrong, and nationalism is not merely a reactive phenomenon, and we will come to that shortly. But how radical are you, Dr Salter? Do you think the modern problem of the elites can be resolved by reform or only by revolution? Thus, is there some behavioural line which can be held, perhaps voluntarily, by which the worst of elite excesses can be proscribed? Can their interests be brought back into sympathy with the common interest? Does that require that the tools of neoliberalism, globalism, and political internationalism, and even international finance and dateline capitalism themselves, must be put beyond use altogether? Or is that still insufficient because it leaves the liberal model, which is their parent, in place? Must a complete new order - a systemic, anti-liberal revolution centred on folk and nation - be instituted to re-found the Western life? In essence, how much must be done to cohere all the interests in the social body, the ethnic body, and establish its political and, therefore, historical pre-eminence? 4. The problem of the liberal mind As with any general organising idea, liberalism is borne through history generationally, in the thoughts and personality and lived life of each of us. Yet in its current postmodern or post-postmodern manifestation, it does not ascribe human worth to that life if it is racially European, and especially not if it is also male and sexually normal (reference your observation in your Red Ice interview that Western multiculturalism is a system in which the government extends protection to every racial and ethnic minority but the natives). There have been many authoritative critiques of liberalism over the centuries of its intellectual and socio-economic primacy in the West. In talking to you, Dr Salter, I am less interested in exploring the philosophy as such than the mind and mysterious motives of those fellow-Europeans who promulgate it from left and right. You have had unparalleled opportunities to observe them, after all. They are all around you in your professional life. (a) The enculturated liberal. How do you view the run-of-the-mill liberal’s fond attachment to a supposedly universalistic humanism which, in fact, combines an unqualified generosity to the out-group with dismissiveness and even hostility to the in-group? Is such conflictedness, with its peculiar and extremetized reversal of the human norm, an inherent characteristic of a philosophy of breaking every bound? Or is it, as Kevin MacDonald has suggested, a sad, ineluctable working-out of the traits of individualism and altruism in the European psychology - a kind of proving mechanism for personal autonomy by an emotional transference to the out-group ? Or, still psychologically speaking, is it no more than an absurdly self-regarding public display of piety by the ladies of the post-Christian parish, every one a moral scold? Or is it much more hard-edged and calculating than that: an ideological club offering its members the privileges of bias confirmation, peer approval, social and professional advancement, and metropolitan elitism? So who, in the main, is the eponymous liberal – a devotee of anti-Nature, tragic European, primping church lady, or ambitious and unprincipled elitist? Or all these things? Or something else entirely? (b) The progressives and ideologues. As a sexually normal, non-Jewish white male and, therefore, an oppressor of practically everyone, how do you even say hello to a creature of the activist left, except at a safe distance and through a megaphone? Psychologically, he (or, of course, it could be a her or an it) is held captive by, and is rigidly obedient to, the diktats and faux-moralities of identity politics, anti-racism, and political correctness. What conversation can there be with a modern-day puritan who is never more than touching distance from his little stash of epithets … who will never see, never mind explain, how his thought-processes are aborted by a reflexive need to project disgust at his own natural instincts and preferences onto your all-too-inviting expressions of same? Perhaps the more interesting question is: how did such crude self-mutilation arise and attain its psychological hegemony over the liberal mind? It can’t be the force of the progressives’ arguments. It must be the force of their force. Are, then, these shouty, professionally offended minority hucksters and aggressive anti-racists simply too ideologically virile and the metropolitan liberals too effete? Is the latter’s submissiveness explained by a learned racial guilt, or by some deep Whiggish contempt for the white working class? Or is it something to do with an appetite for novelty and a joy in destruction that is shared with the progressive faction? Or is it a product of some higher level of suggestibility in the university left, given as it is to abstraction over concrete thinking? How do you, personally, explain the progressive revolution of the last fifty years? (c) The philosophers. The classic line of development of nationalism in Europe is through scholarly interest leading to political nationalism and mass participation. Today, however, effectively the entire professoriate in the humanities stands four-square upon the foundations of liberal thought, functions wholly within it, and will not countenance opposition to it from ethno- (as opposed to separatist or civic) nationalists. It does not matter that a significant fraction of scholars define themselves as critics of the status quo. Western Marxists, agonists, Rawlsians, Habermasians, etc all have their points of departure. But their foundational principles and beliefs still direct them away from their own humanity, and that is the essence of the beast. The liberal model of Man has its most ancient root in the Judaic conception of the gentile, this having passed into the Western canon via Christianity. Accordingly, it is conflicted with all human distinctions. Since it apprehends human nature only as bounds to be broken (for the purpose of unfettering the will), it is denaturing; and since it is denaturing, it is reductive*. Its freedom reduces to personal choice, whereas the real, momentary thing is the freedom which is in being. Its self reduces to something pending, something incapable of completion because it is only a theory, an oasitic political ideal, leaving the life of the everyday to materialise, literally as well as figuratively, as an impoverishing, interchangeable economic cypher whose every whim may be indulged providing it is child-like and self-absorbing, yet whose natural destiny, blood, kinship, love, and human beauty and dignity are all banished as the source of regressive thoughts and realities. In contrast, obviously, the self as such is Truth, the product of those realities and not a project of becoming at all. But how do you convince an intellectual of our time that you and he and all of us are visceral and familial and tribal, and his attachment to liberalism’s artifice is utterly mistaken? If he cannot really understand by what means he came to see his own natural affinities as either irrelevant or a threat to his individuality, how can he internalise the subversive thought that his ultimate interest, worth his life itself, is shared with his kin … that the ethnic group is the repository of his own fixed human attributes, and transmitting these in the teeth of Time and Entropy is Nature’s sole imperative and the true function of his and all our lives? Does he even inhabit an intellectual and moral universe in which such a thought is possible? * It is the long tradition of Judaic thought about the gentile which emerged into Pharisaic and Orthodox Judaic thought, and subsequently into Jewish-authored philosophy in the Western canon, which sets the tone for Man as an alienated and denatured individual. Rationalism’s structural tendency to fracture and abstraction is, of itself, insufficient to guarantee that ethnocidal estate. Is not, after all, the positivism demonstrated in your EGI thesis, and in the Darwinian theory to which it belongs, also a rationalist approach? 5. The naturalistic fallacy There is a question which famously arises with any positivist focus, namely that the measure of Man, however precise and complete it may be, does not lead seamlessly into a value-driven universe. How do you personally negotiate the disconnection between scientific conclusion and ideal? Is the naturalistic fallacy a child of reason, and is therefore absent from questions settled by the instinct? Indeed, is “ought” simply absent in matters of existence (reproduction, survival, continuity), replaced by Nature’s “shalt”? 6. European nationalism and universal nationalism One of the standard academic interpretations of nationalism allows for it to operate as a constant, quiet referent in the life of all peoples - very like a broad reading of ethnic genetic interests. As such, it imbues the leadership and the state, the army, and other public institutions with patriotic value, and invests the collective identity and common love of the land, traditions, and folk memories with a subtle political influence. Such nationalism is essentially conservative and anti—progressive, and it is quietist. In the absence of external threat, it needs no more overt or active expression. This represents a universal nationalism of sorts, but one elastic enough in application to incorporate affiliations of the regional, separatist or civic kind, ie, nominally multi-ethnic. You commend a universal nationalism which is ethnically particular and anti-immigrationist, of course, which makes it much closer to the forms of ethno-nationalism arising in Europe now. Other than its emphasis on reciprocity towards the sovereign will of other peoples on their own soils, how does the universal nationalism you commend differ from those ethno-nationalisms? Are there ideological characteristics in them which you find negative? Do you find them lacking in intellectual foundation? How do you respond to the surviving fascistic elements in European nationalism, and in White Nationalism in America? Do you perceive in them a threat to the developing discourse of ethnic survival and continuity, or do you expect them to become detached and isolated? Would you contest the descriptions by scholars and the media of Golden Dawn and Jobbik, say, as fascistic or neo-fascistic parties, or do they belong to the ethno-nationalist sphere? Likewise, how do you respond to political nationalisms centred on defending not European peoples as such but Western civilisation and culture from Islam? Do you think a religion-centred critique which motivates many Christians who are otherwise uncomfortable with ethno-nationalism, and which is centred on assimilation, misses the point, or is it a useful transitionary form … a useful proxy that will introduce and accustom Europeans to thinking ethnically and racially? Is there any viable politics for the European life that does not necessitate a repatriation or relocation of the Third World populations now colonising our countries? Finally, what are your expectations for your own country, Dr Salter? What lessons do you take from the brief flowering of the One Nation party, beyond the exposure of a substantial body of discontent among white Australian voters? Do you hold out any expectations at all for Pauline Hanson’s return to leadership of the party, announced less than a fortnight ago? Thank you very much. Comments:2
Posted by NonSpecificGentileOther on Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:02 | # This is a very significant passage where GW traces the source of European selfless universalism to the Judeo/Christian attribution as other, non-specifically, “gentile.”
3
Posted by HaddingRot on Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:01 | # An article by Hadding Scott posted at Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/12/a-critical-look-at-rush-limbaugh/#comment-236324
.............................
4
Posted by Majority Rights on Sun, 07 Dec 2014 05:21 | # Ted Sallis advocates elite advocacy of majority rights within multiculturalism: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/democratic-multiculturalism/#more-50903
5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:34 | # Daniel, Politics in Europe has moved beyond the Sallis piece. It does seem that there are useful and attainable incremental stages between the liberal universalist model and the traditional European mono-racial model. Whether this applies to North America and the Antipodes is another matter, of course (it may only be a feature of the European blood community, ie, it appears as an end in itself in civic communities, not a step on the ladder as it obviously is in blood communities). Certainly in Europe, the electoral success of weak-tea parties such as the NVA in Belgium, the DPP in Denmark, and Wilders party in the Netherlands suggests something along these lines. UKIP may well add to this body of evidence. Marine’s softening of FN politics, and the electoral success it is generating, may also do so. All these parties introduce (rather low-level) native interests into an otherwise native-hostile party and political system, opening the ppssibility for pushing the discourse further in our direction. Of course, there has to come a revolutionary moment when the old ideational regime is defeated and replaced, but the weak-tea parties may at least potentialise that. 6
Posted by city-states on Mon, 08 Dec 2014 03:38 | # Kieth Preston discusses “the city-state” solution to irreconcilable differences that democracy and constitution fail to deal with. 7
Posted by Stan Hess Alert on Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:14 | # Joe Biden Boasts of End of Caucasian Majority in 2017
8
Posted by UK-based Folk: Saturday, 13th December, Christmas on Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:15 | # The Traditional Britain Group is having its Christmas social in Central London this Saturday. We always like seeing new faces and those who have wondered about this at this strange growing right-leaning organization. Here’s an opportunity to come along, listen to a short speech by TBG VP John Kersey, have some buffet food and drink and some hopefully great conversations with us in hospitable surroundings. Info here. 9
Posted by Ricardo on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 07:36 | # The Straussian Assault on America’s European Heritage Ricardo Duchesne
full article at: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/12/the-straussian-assault-on-americas-european-heritage/#more-51335 11
Posted by Sallis misrepresents White Left on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:56 | # The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism Ted Sallis
.... Sallis nicely organizes his argument in this paragraph:
And we can agree that gaining adherence from the middle class is a crucial difference from where the “movement” has been and failed to date…we can agree until he phrases it in these terms:
Of course we want to unify the concerns of the middle class and other classes into a union of classes, the native European nation - that is the idea of White Leftism.. But sadly, Sallis misrepresents what is presented here as a neologism - White Leftism - misrepresenting its nifty unifying function and vigil on perennial problem areas - areas for egregious opportunism but also amenable to incentive, motive and accountability. Instead he represents the term in this way:
Which is the exact opposite of what we mean by White Leftism, as an exclusively White union, which would not allow Coloreds - their scabbing entry to the union being forbidden. It saddens me, irritates me and aggravates me that Ted would extend this disingenuous Jewish definition of the term “Left” to even our neo-logism, The White Left. Ted, sorry, we are not going to let you define and misrepresent it that way. It has too much organizational utility. The White Left is not the Red Left. The White prefix is a difference that makes a difference and we will fight for that distinction. 12
Posted by European exogamy and renaissance on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 05:20 | # https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/there-and-back-again-shame-and-guilt-in-ancient-greece/
13
Posted by Salter/GW - Sallis on Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:35 | # Are Jews White? Ted Sallis
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/that-question-again.html
So now you won’t discourage Salter from being interviewed by GW, right?
14
Posted by dennis on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 03:45 | # I believe Salter focuses on Fst values. According to Fst values, Jews, Greeks, and Italians are more closely related to each other than Greeks and Italians are to populations like the Irish, Swedes, Orcadians, and Russians: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/table/t1-09_94_tian/ 15
Posted by To speak with Salter on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 05:41 | # Perhaps he does, but other studies show Italians, for example, to have more R1b than anything else (even in the south, they have more of that than anything else at 27.5 percent, three times as much as Ashkenazi at 9 percent and twice as much as Sephardic at 13) and that is the haplogroup representative of North-Western Europe - meaning that Italians have more in common with North-Western Europe in terms of genetic interests. Continuing with the hard example, of South Italy, it is true that according to this study that there is a population percentage overlap with Jews of J1, J2 and of E1b1b - at 18.5 percent, they do have almost as much of this Hitler (Einstein and Wright Brother’s) stuff as Ashkenazi have, and even twice as much as Sephardic. They also have 21.5%, around as much as Jews of the J2 - Caucasoid or however you characterize it, this group is closer Europe, marginally European and has very little to do with Africa. But finally, Ashkenazi and Sephardic have about 20 percent of the J1 - apparently the most characteristic “Jewish DNA”, that which Jews have in common with eachother. Whereas Southern Italians have only 4 percent of that. Thus, they have very little common EGI with Jews, even in their hard examples. Furthermore, these are overall percentages of South Italy. Thus, the extent of these haplogroups would, of course, vary between communities and individuals among its South - perhaps significantly. Next, there are matters which Sallis referred-to: In the holistic sense beyond biological reductionism, would Southern Italians identify as Jews? Surely not. Would they identify with Jews? Not much. Would they identify as European and Italian? Absolutely. Coming to the next point that Sallis brought-up - the attachment to their nation. Southern Italians are attached to the nation of Italy, not to Israel. Southern Italians could neither become Israeli citizens, even if they wanted to, nor would they be accepted by and as Jews in a genetic sense (perhaps accepted as religious converts, but how many Italians are converting to Judaism?). So, even if Salter treats Italians, Greeks and Jews as more closely related to one another, Jews and Italians do not treat each other as closely related; even more discrimination coming from Jews. And Golden Dawn can speak for themselves. All that being said, Salter’s endorsement of universal nationalism would sort-out attendant issues potentially without acrimony, allowing Italians to identify with their nation and other Europeans to identify with their nations, while Jewish interests identify with their nation. But whatever the case, we were not saying that if Salter uses Fst values to categorize Italians, Greeks and Jews as having more in common with each other than Western and Northern Europeans that we would not talk to him. We are saying that we’d like for GW to be able to speak with him as EGI has always been, and remains, fundamental to Majority Rights’ platform. 16
Posted by dennis on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 23:55 | # R1b is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, not a measure of genetic distance. Fst is a measure of genetic distance. 17
Posted by dennis on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 23:58 | # R1b is a Y chromosome haplogroup, not a measure of genetic distance. Fst is a measure of genetic distance. 18
Posted by Nationalist control 'veriable' on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 04:52 | # Universal nationalism would still allow Italians and Greeks to maintain their nationalism as distinct from Israel and other nations, a particularly wise “control variable” in the event there is something not in view of the distance framework - perhaps something qualitative, which might just explain why these nationals do not behave as if they want to be classified as being allied with Israel more than Europe; and why Israel would not allow them to be part of its nation, even if they wanted; but would rather exploit their countries to the umpteenth degree - for example, with debt, and be instrumental in flooding their nations with Africans and other migrants, even to the point of threatening the extinction of these native nationals; while Israel/Israelis would never permit anything remotely like that for their nation More, universal nationalism would allow grounds for Greece and Italy to survive as nations and people in the event that “Nordicists” and northern European nationalists are not quite seeing something in a disposition to throw these countries under the bus by errantly drawing a hard line of a profoundest distinction in the wrong place and classifying them as distinct from Europe and kindred to blacks, Jews and Arabs, leaving them to Israel’s whims, Africa’s masses and surges of bio-power, whereas the Southern European native nationals might, rather non-coincidentally, be more sympathetic and helpful to the cause of preserving the distinction between those peoples and European natives, including, by definition, national natives of northern European countries. Universal nationalism and The Euro DNA Nation, even more explicitly, is about curating, preserving, protecting and fostering the European peoples in total and in distinct native national kinds, not about blending them away with non-Europeans or even with other Europeans. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:06 | # I read somewhere not too long ago that, through inter-breeding with Europeans, Ashkenazim have come to exhibit greater genetic diversity than the entirety of Europe’s peoples. Would I accept as authoritative the results of a survey undertaken by Ashkenazic geneticists into Ashkenazic origins that demonstrated an ME source? No, I would not. Too much flexibility in sample selection, too much history of self-deception, far too much Zionist agenda. Genes cline as well as cluster. It is the Ashkenazic cluster that is of interest. Perhaps we should ask how, if not by a non-ME, non-European point of genesis, is Ashkenazic facial similarity so persistent and marked? I strongly suspect that MacDonald is wrong and Koestler and Co right - Ashkenazics are Khazarian in origin, not Hebreic. I also suspect that the Holodomor speaks rather plainly of that. As to southern Italians, the fact of clines does not falsify clining populations from identity with different clusters, for which the linguistic and cultural evidence is clear in the southern Italian case. I see no reason to challenge that. 20
Posted by Yiddish on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:49 | # You might want to check the Khazar theory against what not only MacDonald, but what Duke and Slattery are saying. Slattery is arguing that there are two massively difficult conversions that would have had to have been made to underpin the Khazar hypothesis: first, a mass of people held to become the Ashkenazi would have had to convert to Judaism. Next and an even greater challenge, is to explain why people who are held to have originated in Khazaria spoke Yiddish - a largely Germanic language. KM and Duke argue that there’re only one or two (unreliable, they say), genetic studies that endorse the Khazar hypothesis, while scores, they say, verify ME origins. Now, you do raise very valid points about characteristic temperament and other kinds of special relation that Jews have to the area. If you are willing to go to more ancient times, well prior to Khazaria, the fountain head of J1 does indicate an origin in Eastern Turkey (neither far nor very different climes from Khazaria) - viz., “the greatest genetic diversity of J1 haplotypes was found in eastern Anatolia, near Lake Van in central Kurdistan.” The only problem with arguing non-ME origins for Jews is that it seems more helpful to middle-easterners than to Europeans. On the contrary, it could spread them around more and amongst us (e.g., in Eastern Ukraine!) - the last thing we want when we need to quarantine them. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:18 | # 1. The Mosaic faith developed specifically as a survival mechanism in captivity, and developed through the Babylonian and Roman periods as such. For any people which has lost its guarantor of group survival - its land - and faces a permanent exile, with a future holding no more than an inevitable process of persecution and genetic dissolution, a mass conversion to Judaism is a perfectly logical choice. Groups are capable, under stress, of taking immense decisions, including to suicide en masse. We should not regard mass conversion to a foreign faith as simply impossible. 2. Yiddish is an artificially-constructed language rooted in the languages of the host, particularly in the east, but containing influences from Hebrew and Aramaic which may simply originate in the oral faith tradition. 22
Posted by dennis on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 02:29 | # Salter says in his book that his framework is not a theory of human behavior or origins. He argues that ethnic genetic interests derive from genetic distance. According to his framework, Greeks and Italians share more ethnic genetic interests with Ashkenazi Jews than they do with the Irish, Swedes, Orcadians, and Russians. 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:06 | # Even if his framework maintains that Italians, Greeks and Jews are in perfect agreement on every issue, we’d still like to have GW speak with him. In regard to Salter, you want to stick with what he says, and that is fair enough, basically we want to hear what he says and thinks; but since you insist on forefronting this issue which has nothing to do with our reasons for wanting to talk to him one way or another, and address the matter here, to us, I might say: One might look into a stereotypical similarity of feistiness and proneness to ethnocentrically organized crime. Perhaps there is somewhat more inclination to grouping and collective antagonistic behavior to outsiders, as in the case of mafia, with Italians.. can’t think of an example off-hand for the Greeks, their one-time diner-restaurant hegemony didn’t seem particularly hostile. Maybe Golden Dawn is an example. There was at one time cooperation between Jews and the second generation Italian-American mafia, beginning with Lucky Luciano. In fact, he broke the Cosa Nostra’s solemn commitment to work only with Sicilians by cooperating with Jews. Come less powerful days for Italian mafia, John Gotti did have a Jewish wife. It probably would not be too hard to find examples of gang-like aspects of these peoples acting in common if not in concert. But first of all, I would wonder how much that gang-like aspect and behavior was representative of the whole pattern of Italians. I have argued with Bowery in the past, based on my experience, that I have found in truth, Italians to be more individualistic than a convenient scientific framework of their being middle eastern “grouping-peoples” might tend to look upon them as being. I would wonder, even more, as to how group pattern behavior would support kindredness and common interests of the three peoples. I doubt it would. Perhaps there is not the strongest commonality between Greeks and Italians and Northern Europeans, but I do see acting in common interest and I don’t see anything remotely like the antagonism that Jews have toward these groups. That is somewhat anecdotal, as are the facial similarities that I noticed, particularly in Western Sicily. However, genetically, this Western Sicilian pattern does seem to express common Phoenician parentage. Nevertheless, alone on her way home to her lesbian girlfriend (because she is so “conformist”) at 3 a.m., from a bar job that she worked in order to make money to start her own bar (because she’s “so dependent and part of collective gang culture”) she was hunted down by a Negro, stabbed, pursued to where she fled for safety and ignored while she was raped and killed (because “the natural gang that surrounded her’ was so ethoncentrically concerned, vigilant and collective-acting on her behalf”) The original NY Times news story was sensationalized by a Jewish writer/ editor; but its derived theories and their significance have also been minimized, apparently by Jewish sources. Moving to the Southern Italian example, in this clip of my cousin Analisa in Campania, I can admit that the lady to her left does have (what is to my experience) a Jewish look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2yOe0SGiE0 An analogy might emerge to the effect of one organ in a system being closer to another but still having a function completely different from the organ(ism) it is next-to; nevertheless serving the overall systemic homeostasis in common with organs that it is farther from. I suspect something like that could be a fair analogy to Italians, Greeks, Jews, middle Easterners and Africans. That Greeks and Italians are more a natural buffer than a conduit. As I recall, E.O. Wilson made the point that genetic closeness did not mean that peoples would not be in serious conflict with each other. He used the example of Jews and Lebanese or Syians, I believe. Anyway, my first girlfriend was half Italian (Bari) and half Irish and she was brilliant and sexy as all get-out. Way too volatile and hot tempered, I admit. Ripped my mind up for a year. She wound up marrying a German guy. Poor guy is probably singing in the boys choir now.
24
Posted by dennis on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:06 | # Well as I said, Salter’s notion of ethnic genetic interests is not a theory of human behavior, so how Italians or anyone else behave is irrelevant. It would not make sense as a theory of human behavior since people generally don’t behave according to Salter’s framework and since altruism beyond immediate kin is generally not adaptive. 25
Posted by MOB on Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:54 | # Hello, I have an old article in my files that I’d like to make use of, but I’m put off by the fact that I can’t find either the article or a single reference to it on the Internet. I thought I might find it in an APSA archive, but all I did find was that apparently the 2000 Census was the turning point for the use of the white/non-white categories and in the field, the use of racial/ethnic altogether. Do you, by chance, recognize it? It begins thus: Notes for ON GENETIC ETHNIC INTERESTS, delivered at the American Political Science Association conference, Washington DC, 1 September 2000, by Frank Salter Today I shall argue for four propositions. Proposition 1: Inclusive fitness is the ultimate interest. Subjectively the needs and wants of the phenotype are interests, and conventional political theory adopts this perspective. Vital etc. etc. etc. 26
Posted by Frank Salter on eugenics on Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:46 | # Frank Salter discussing eugenics at Red Ice 27
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Apr 2016 04:59 | # This may be of interest to GW et al..
28
Posted by Ethnic Genetic Interests Video on Sat, 09 May 2020 05:07 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: Hyperbolic Neo-Liberal Immigration Policy Misnamed “Leftist” By YKW Media (Be Even More Afraid)
|
|
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 SalterInterview on Tue, 02 Dec 2014 01:12 | #
Salter indicated that he was indisposed at that time (he happened to be amidst interviews with Red Ice). However, he might (should) reconsider an interview with MR when he has time and understands MR’s platform - actually more in sync with him and his objectives than other sites he has spoken with, as MR is firmly aligned with his universal nationalism (whereas RI, for example, endorses Hitler).
Note that the troll Thorn accused MR of discouraging Salter by being “anti-semitic” while he goes to Carolyn Yeager’s site and tells her to keep up the good work in harangues of MR.
That should provide clue enough that MR is doing something very right.
...........
tangentially related but interesting Steve Sailer video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Xs4QQL76w
Of course neither Sailer nor Bodeker understand the point of social constructionism but they make good points despite that.