An Anti-Amnesty Analysis

Insightful analysis.

Read here.

White Advocacy and Conversion

Aspects of the conversion process.

Important Kevin MacDonald essay.

Fidelity of Identity

Ted Sallis essay.

Read here.

Counter-Currents on White Identity, Racial "Purity" and EGI

Important: Identity Does Not Depend on "Purity"

First, we have excellent comments by Greg Johnson and Matt Parrott on the subject of this post here - I endorse those views 100%..

Then, my Ted Sallis essay here.

These positions constitute part of the new direction for the "movement" that this blog wishes to influence and affect.

How the Proximate Influences the Ultimate

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.

Identity and Genetic Interests

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.

Net vs. Gross Genetic Interests

Brief explanation about ethnic genetic interests (EGI).

I sometimes use terms like "net EGI" and "gross EGI" and so a brief explanation is given here.

Gross EGI defines the raw genetic interests derived from genetic data - it's simply the effect of genetic distance multiplied by numbers (e.g., Salter's "child equivalents").  Net genetic interests (which can be represented by the same metrics - i.e., child equivalents) is the intersection between gross EGI and inclusive fitness.  In other words, net EGI is the final ("net") outcome on EGI of whatever choices people make to pursue (or not pursue) their ethnic genetic interests.

An example based on personal/familial genetic interests may be helpful.  You are genetically closer to your brother than to a random stranger (gross genetic interests).  Assume your brother is deranged and comes to a family reunion intent on killing everyone present (himself and you included).  He is stopped from doing so by that random stranger.  That stranger represents a greater boost to your net personal/familial genetic interests than does your brother (who, if successful in his plan, would have been a net negative influence).

The same principle applies to choices influencing genetic interests at the level of ethnies.  A co-ethnic politician intent on flooding your nation with millions of alien immigrants is a net negative on your EGI, while a non-co-ethnic (relatively speaking) politician who is an immigration restrictionist for your nation is a net positive.  Of course, that's not a reason to ignore gross genetic interests, but one always must keep in mind the endgame: what is the final outcome yielding the best EGI that is realistically possible under any given set of circumstances?