Some good sense.
One point that requires repeated stressing is that ultimate and proximate interests can never be truly separated from each other, since each influences the other. Here is where certain blogs go wrong, in their instrumental use of "EGI" - using "ethnic genetic interests" as some sort of talisman, without thinking of its implications.
MacDonald writes at The Occidental Observer (emphasis added):
As Frank Salter reminds us, genetic distances between human groups are the basis of natural selection and that one’s racial/ethnic group is a huge storehouse of genetic interests compared to other groups. That is the fundamental biological reality underlying all this. But how we behave on the basis of this information is not at all determined by the genetic data. We Europeans must define ourselves in a way that makes strategic sense, using the culture-producing mental faculties of explicit processing. We have to make explicit assertions of racial identity and explicit assertions of our racial interests. No other strategy will succeed in staving off the dispossession of European America.
That is correct. And more:
Via explicit processing, we can decide how to carve up the racial landscape to best suit our political and genetic interests... Races and ethnic groups are fuzzy sets in which the boundaries are fluid and subject to social construction. For a European-American, it makes much more sense to identify with others who can trace their ancestry back to Europe before 1492... On the other hand, it would be a poor strategy for me to identify only with Scottish Americans because such a relatively small group has much less political potential in multicultural America than the category of European Americans.
Thus, while genetic interests are ultimate interests, how we best pursue those ultimate interests is realistically determined by proximate interests influencing the determination of Identity. This is why there is a distinction between net and gross genetic interests. Using Maconald's example above, one can argue that his gross genetic interests would be served with a narrow identification with Scottish Americans, and a ideology focused on Scottish Americans outcompeting all other groups, including other Whites. Realistically, however, this is a recipe for failure, and the final, net genetic interests of MacDonald and of Scottish Americans are best served as part of Euro-America, with its much greater political potential.
The ethnoracial paradox is that while race and ethnicity are real, biological entities, their boundaries are not rigidly determined solely based on biology. The same applies to the concept of color and no one denies the objective reality of, say, red vs. blue, even though the distinctions at the boundaries of red vs. orange and blue vs. green can become fuzzy and subjective. The categorization of the boundaries of real entities by the human mind is a fact of our reality. The construction of racial and racial identities starts with a biological foundation, and the rest of Identity is built upon that - using cultural artifacts as one key ingredient. All of this is perfectly consistent with genetic interests as ultimate interests. Genetic interests are what they are. How they are best pursued delves into the proximate realm.
