Creation of a disjunctive Identity out of non-disjunctive components.
In his book On Genetic Interests,
Frank Salter criticizes National Socialism for, among other things, considering
ethnies to be completely disjunctive categories, akin to species. This contrasts to the modern scientific view
of biological/genetic differences between ethnies being statistical; in other
words, differences in degrees of genetic relatedness (kinship). I agree with Salter’s assessment. However, at the same time, I do believe that
identities can be disjunctive, and of particular interest to this blog is the
European Identity, which here is considered disjunctive and unique compared to
the various non-European peoples (of course, narrower identities – such as
“subracial” or ethnic – can be viewed as disjunctive as well, in like manner).
So, how is a disjunctive European
Identity consistent with the view that human biological categories are not
disjunctive? After all, as NECists tell
us, it’s possible that, for example, Greeks may be (slightly) more genetically
similar to, say, Lebanese that to Northeast Europeans like Finns. Now, that argument on its face is stupid, in
the sense that, first, it is usually based on Fst and not genetic kinship, and,
second, that it cherry picks the most extreme fringes of European genetic
variation to directly compare with each other.
Greeks and Finns would be more genetically similar to the European
genetic median than to the vast majority of non-European peoples. But, for the sake of argument, let’s evaluate
these considerations.
There is more to Identity than
the biological/genetic, although, obviously the biological is fundamental. Other important considerations of Identity
are cultural/civilizational, as well as historical connections between groups;
of course, one can think of other components of Identity as well. Even if some assert that cultural and historical
(and other) components are themselves not completely disjunctive categories,
when all these components are taken together – as they exist together in the
real world – then the synergistic interaction between them can become truly
disjunctive. These components of
Identity intersect, and where they intersect, they form a point that is
separate, unique, and disjunctive from other points formed from the intersection
of components of Identity of other peoples.
One way of looking at this is as
a Venn diagram. Each component of
European Identity can be represented as a circle. For each individual component, there may be
some degree of overlap with that of non-European peoples. However, when taken together, all these
circles representing the components of identity overlap, and where they overlap
is a distinct and disjunctive area defining European identity. While each individual component may exhibit
some overlap with non-European groups, there is no non-European group that
shares the biological + cultural + historical + other components of Identity
together with European ethnies.
This principle is analogous to
the issue of Lewontin’s Fallacy with respect to a genetic definition of
race. Taking alleles one at a time, one
can make statements about “more variation within groups than between
groups.” However, when simultaneously
considering a larger number of alleles, racial groups can be easily
discerned. Likewise, when simultaneously
considering multiple components of Identity, a distinct and disjunctive
European Identity can emerge (and as stated above, the same can hold for
narrower – or broader – Identities as well, within reason; thus a German
Identity exists even if there is some kinship overlap between some Germans and
some non-Germans).
Another argument would be to
assert “how is all of this compatible with your view, following Salter, that
genetic interests are ultimate interests?”
Why not only consider the biological components of identity? This misses the point about gross vs. net
genetic interests which I have previously discussed. The pursuit of genetic interests takes place
in the real world, and considerations of all components of Identity influence
how peoples can effectively defend their ultimate interests.
Thus, it can make sense for
Greeks and Finns to be part of the same European Nationalist Federation, and it
makes sense for these groups to embrace their European Identity, since by so
doing they can more effectively defend their national territories and their
genepools from alien peoples derived from other continents and other
civilizational groupings. It makes
little sense for a Greek to say, “well I may be ever so slightly more similar
to a Lebanese than to a Finn – ignoring that I may be closer to most Europeans
than to Levantines – so I’ll just ignore my European Identity and either
embrace the Third World Afro-Asiatic masses or go it alone, a tiny nation of
several millions in a world of billions.”
Likewise, should Finns embrace Central Asians because of the possibility
that they may be slightly more similar to some Ugric peoples than to some
Greeks? Should we dissolve the wall
between “The West” and “The Rest” because of subfractional differences in
relative Fst at the geographic and genetic fringes of Europe ? Greeks, Finns, and all other European peoples
are best served by identifying with the civilizational grouping to which they
belong and to which, by belonging, they leverage the collective strength of The
West to defend ultimate interests.
Practically speaking, other European peoples do not pose any existential
threat to any other European peoples, including the Greeks and the Finns. But non-Europeans do pose such a threat, as
the growing immigrant populations, derived from the Third World, in Greece and Finland
and everywhere else in Europe , clearly show. By identifying with the Europe
to which they belong, all Europeans, including Greeks, Finns, or whoever, have
much to gain and nothing to lose. The
organic solidarity of The West, the collective strength of the European family
of nations, can serve to protect the ethnic genetic interests of each nation
and people that constitute this collective.
An Identity of European and Western can give a people the biocultural rallying
point to defend themselves from the colored hordes, from those whose
civilizational Identity is hostile to Europe
and The West. Conversely, since European
peoples pose no real existential threat to other, there is no loss, no negative
for nurturing a European Identity.
Further, these slight genetic
overlaps at the fringes of Europe would
disappear if a European Imperium closes its doors to non-Europeans and
non-European gene flow. Over the generations,
a genetic Fortress Europe would eliminate any possibility that a European group
could be slightly more genetically similar to a non-European group compared to
any other European group. Over time, the
“outlier groups” would increasingly converge toward the European median and
diverge from non-Europeans.
Needless to say, these possible
genetic overlaps are only a problem for those groups that have the potential
overlap. Ethnies more at the center, the
median, of European genetics – say, Germans and French – are going to be
genetically more similar to Finns and Greeks than they would be to non-European
groups more genetically distant. So,
these more central groups have nothing to lose, and have genetic interests to
gain, by a process where outlier groups converge toward the European genetic
median.
This is all a “win-win” situation
for all European peoples, worldwide.
