The Fundamentals

Fundamentals of a New Movement

The overarching, basic fundamentals of a New Movement are listed here. The link leads to the relevant post below. Also see "The Fundamentals" post list to the lower right. This is our new path. If you agree with this direction, then join with us.

The Old Movement is dead. Let us instead build something that works, a New Movement, a fresh start.

Monday, November 18, 2013

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.

Monday, October 7, 2013

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.

Friday, August 30, 2013

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?

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Testing for Israel


Well, well.  In theory, a good idea.  It's the hypocrisy that is staggering.  A White nation instituting "testing" for immigration would be slammed - particularly by Jews - as "racist" and "Nazi" and world opinion would come down on them like a ton of bricks.   Internet trolls who hysterically label me an as advocate of "testing" likely will be silent about a real-world example of "testing" in action (note: I've never advocated "testing" as a prerequisite of living in a White ethnostate. I believe ancestral ethnic heritage shown by genealogy should be sufficient, although I encourage "testing" for self-enlightenment and to provide information about relative genetic kinship).

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Vandalizing America

HBDers' favorite race strikes again.

This is yet another example of the burning hatred exhibited by "high-IQ" East Asians against traditional White America.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Ruthless Intolerance

It's time to say "NO" to the defectives.

Identifying defectives is an important first step.  What's next?

Ironically, a key flaw in the racialist "movement" is an excess of tolerance.  Tolerance for defectives. Tolerance for Internet trolls.  Tolerance for agent provocateurs.  Tolerance for every type of stupidity and abnormality possible.  Some activists are so desperate for "followers," so desperate for someone who will (pretend to) agree with them, so eager for "members," so desperate for any illusory progress, that they will accept - nay, embrace! - all of the aforementioned defective and infiltrator types, and then wonder why progress comes to a halt and why the normal and productive become alienated.

Thus, the "vicious circle" begins: the defectives are embraced and populate the "movement," followed by an exodus of the positive and productive elements, reinforcing the defectiveness, alienating more of the normal and creating such an unattractive environment that most who join are themselves ranked among the defective.

It is - or should be - clear that the only way to break this negative cycle is a policy of ruthless intolerance toward defectives, toward trolls, toward backwards memes, toward all the nonsense that has been "business as usual" in the "movement" for decades.

Oh, yes, "movement" "leaders" play lip service to the idea of "eschew the defectives" but they never follow up on it.  They don't want to lose any of their precious "followers" or "members" - funny how a "movement" that values an "elite" and "quality over quantity" is so afraid to sacrifice numbers for progress - and they never want to take a stand on issues that may reduce the possible range of their support.  In fact, the same "leaders" who promote "elitism" and complain about defectives are often the same who tell us we need to accept "eccentric personalities" among the overt racialists, since we must accept that only the eccentric will populate the upper echelons of "open and public" racialist leadership.  Do they ever wonder why that is? Why after decades of racialist activism we've never built up the sort of socioeconomic support structures that would allow overt activists to resist social pricing?  Which would allow more of the non-eccentric to rise to leadership? Is it perhaps because of the decades-long acceptance of "eccentrics" who are unable to accomplish anything, and who dwell upon cephalic indices or Kali Yuga instead of the practical work of building a sustainable, long-term real Movement?

No, we should be less tolerant of eccentric behavior in our overt leaders, not more.  With the power and prestige (such as it is in the "movement") of leadership must come responsibility.  If one cannot restrain their "eccentric" behavior for the common good, what kind of leadership is that?

It is time to say "NO" to "movement" freakishness.  It is time for a ruthless intolerance for "movement" stupidity.  Enough is enough.  No more of the eccentrics.  No more about Kali Yuga, esoteric gnostic nonsense, narrow ethnoracial nitpicking.  Enough with those who promote juvenile cartoon histories of race and culture. We should stop tolerating those who use racial activism for a platform for their narrow obsessions - moon landing hoax, smoking doesn't cause cancer, animal rights, the USA has a carrying capacity of three billion people at a First World standard of living, Asiaphilic HBDism, Hindu spiritualism, extreme lowbrow vulgarism, comic book versions of history repeating the same predictable ethnoracial fantasies from "year one" - we need to say, finally, no. No. No more.  If some want to indulge in that, we need to separate ourselves from them - after all, isn't separatism a good thing? - and go our own way.  

What we need to do is take all the endless talk about elitism and quality and the problem with defectives and actualize it into strategy and policy.  We must have the sort of ruthless intolerance toward stupidity and failure that history shows us wins battles and wins wars.  If "movement" "leaders" cannot clean out the insane asylum - perhaps because they themselves are inmates - it's time to start over with something new. Something new in which intolerance toward the failure of the past is integrated from the start.

Step one is to say "NO" and break with the Past.  Then we can begin to shape the Future.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Identifying Defectives

Defectives : who are they?

Many in the "movement" play lip service to "excluding defectives" - but of course they never do it, giving said defectives pride of place within organizations, blogs, websites, comments threads, etc. One can define "defective" in such a way as to exclude even the worst "movement" misfits, and it is always "someone else" at "some other blog" or in "some other organization" who is the defective, never one of your own.

How then to effectively define "defective" in the context of racial nationalism?

A defective is someone whose ideas and/or behavior will repulse, alienate, and turn-off most White people independent of racial nationalism.

The last four words of the definition are crucially important.  We acknowledge that just being pro-White is itself often enough to repulse many Whites and is enough to have one be considered "defective" by the mainstream.  What I'm saying is let's eliminate that variable.  Let's look at the person above and beyond their racial nationalism.  Forget all about their pro-White activism.  Is there anything else - anything independent of pro-White attitudes - that would make the person truly defective?  That's the key.  If we are pro-White, then that's a given and whether or not pro-White attitudes are considered "defective" by the mainstream is irrelevant, since we still need to promote pro-White memes.  But that should not, and must not, be complicated by truly defective ideas and behaviors that have nothing directly to do with being pro-White.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Crank Cuckoldry

Good essay on cranks in the "movement."

Read here.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Haplogroup N

NRY haplogroup.

Haplogroup N: an interesting origin and an interesting distribution.

Not the sort of thing discussed in detail by those "raciology" Russian "race scientists" praised in "the movement."  Not the sort of thing focused on by all the "titans" "marching" either.

After all, population genetics data must be cherry-picked for an agenda.

Another reason to focus on genetic kinship, since the population genetics field has been completely politicized, particularly by "the movement."

Cognitive Cheaters

Law-abiding high-IQ Chinese...cheating on exams.

Is anyone surprised?

Sunday, June 16, 2013

More HBD Nonsense: Rushton

Typical superficial HBD nonsense.

Several points.

First, this idea about a wider range (greater SD) of European vs. East Asian IQ has been around for quite some time.  Evidence for it is lacking, as far as I know.  Granted, Rushton mentioned it as a possibility, not as definitive, but still, if there is no real evidence for it, why not mention that fact, instead of taking the idea seriously?

Second, the 'Black Death" was not a "virus."  Didn't Rushton know elementary facts about the Bubonic Plague.

Third, note how eager he was to speculate that East Asians are about to out-pace Whites, which he considered as the normal outcome, given their "higher-IQ."

And with respect to the point about testosterone (from Duke?), is that a fact or only an assumption?  

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Friday, May 31, 2013

Cognitive Food

Any comment from the HBDers?

Emphasis added:

“We are importing more and more food from China at the same time we are hearing more and more about food scandals involving Chinese companies,” said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch who testified in Congress at a hearing on Chinese food imports. Food safety problems, like melamine deliberately put into pet foods and baby formula as well as unsafe levels of cadmium in rice, have plagued China. The latest episode involved fox, rat and mink meat that was doctored with gelatin, pigment and nitrates and sold as mutton.
 “We should definitely give the Chinese an award for creativity in adulterating foods,” said Jeff Nelken, a food safety expert. “They are a great resource for counterfeited foods, like honey products that don’t seem to have any pollen in them.”...
...China is not, however, allowed to export fresh pork or beef to the United States because it still has outbreaks of hoof and mouth disease. 
The Smithfield announcement reminded many people of video footage this spring that showed thousands of pig carcasses floating down a river that supplies drinking water to Shanghai. The source of the floating pigs remains a mystery, but they were hailed as a sign that a Chinese government crackdown on people selling dead and diseased pigs for pork was working. 
In 2011, Shuanghui itself got caught up in that enforcement effort, after Chinese officials found it selling pork laced with clenbuterol, a veterinary medicine banned for use in animals intended for human consumption.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Jobling Denounces White Nationalism

In an interview with the SPLC.

Not surprising, but still remarkable.

Another reason not to trust the HBDers.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Jews Not Part of White America

MacDonald telling it like it is.

As far as the Boston Marathon bombing goes, it seems that it is just another battle in the lopsided ongoing war between NECs and Europeans.  Lopsided because the NECs attack and the West just takes it on the chin.

And no, the "war in Afghanistan" and the "Iraq war" do not constitute a Western counter-attack, because those wars are just manipulation by Jewish neconservatives, forcing America to fight Israel's battles.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Italian-American Assimilation, 4/12/13

VDARE article.

Read here.  Note that in contrary to the ignorant Mangan, the reality of a specifically Southern Italian migration to the USA during the "Great Wave" is explicitly cited.

Also of relevance, emphasis added:

The first Italian-American to be elected to Congress was Anthony Caminetti, the native born son of a Sicilian immigrant. Caminetti was elected to the US House of Representatives from the state of California in the 1890's. However, his largest impact on national policy came when he was named Commissioner General of Immigration by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. 
Caminetti implemented an “America First” migration program that would impact policy for decades. He believed in the maintenance of America's historic demographic majority and strongly campaigned against immigration from Asia. 
Against immigration from Asia?  For shame!  What would the HBDers think?

Thursday, March 28, 2013

A Blurb for Bowden

A small Ted Sallis contribution.

Greg Johnson asked me to write a short introductory blurb for a compilation book of the comic book-related work of the late Jonathan Bowden.  I agreed to do so, and the following is what I submitted to Johnson:

Jonathan Bowden, a leading New Right thinker, will be remembered for the many important contributions he made to our cause.  However, I suspect that his interest in comic books puzzled even those who were among his most ardent admirers.  What’s so important about a comic book, they wonder?  As someone who has also written about comics, I answer thus: comic books are, like it or not, part of our modern popular culture, and we ignore that culture at our peril.  Our enemies use all forms of media to propagandize their message (as should we!), and they have for decades very effectively utilized the comic format to mold the minds of White youth.  For a very long time now, the Left has been practicing “deconstructivism” on our beliefs, our ideals, our traditions, our worldview, undermining the foundation upon which a people survive and thrive.  This assault has been done with malice aforethought and we are suffering mightily from it.  But, the Culture of Critique – borrowing a phrase from Dr. Kevin MacDonald – can cut in both directions.  It is high time that the New Right practices some deconstructing of its own.  If the cultural artifacts of the West can be subjected to a continuous intellectual dissection, does not the work of our opponents deserve the same?  But here Bowden goes beyond negative criticism; indeed, a considerable portion of this volume is positive commentary on more healthy expressions to be found in comics, graphic novels, and fantasy literature – almost always in those works produced by racially European creators.  After all, with a title like “Pulp Fascism,” there will be much here that strikes a chord in the Western soul.  There is hope for the comics, and there is a way for us of the Right to make use of them.  After all, what’s the point of deconstruction?  Simply this: to clear away the old to make way for the new.  We therefore await the new genre of the overtly Neo-Fascist graphic novel.  I think Mr. Bowden would have enjoyed that prospect, and if you, dear reader, feel the same, then this volume is for you.  Read and enjoy.  – Ted Sallis

It was later put up on Counter-Currents; which is linked to here. 

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession

Important new Kevin MacDonald article.

Key points in the conclusion (emphasis added):

So in summary, there appear to be three basic mechanisms tending to make White displacement psychologically palatable to Whites:
·                          self-interest resulting in competition among Whites to engage in ever more ridiculous displays of self-abasement and love of diversity and multiculturalism; such displays benefit individuals because of the very elaborate infrastructure that rewards such displays;
·                          social learning facilitated by the prestige associated with dominating the intellectual high ground of the society, thus giving Whites the comfort of having the same attitudes as elite institutions like the New York Times and informing others that one is intelligent and well-read;
·                          feelings of moral rectitude resulting from subscribing to the moral dictates of the society as defined by media and academic elites. Since these elites unanimously regard the traditional people and culture of the West as uniquely immoral, dissenting from these views results in shame and guilt, whereas going with the flow results in very positive feelings that one is a member in good standing of the mainstream society.

All of these processes  discussed here depend on elite control. Without elite control, there is no infrastructure that makes displays of guilt and abasement profitable. Social learning only becomes a weapon against Whites after the forces opposed to Whites control the elite media and the academic world; the same can be said for the creation of moral ingroups.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Dan Freedman's Babies

Bizarre and alien.

The "HBD race realists" should talk more about things like this, rather than just about how "big-brained, high-IQ and law-abiding" all those East Asian "model minorities" are.

Another Chinese Spy

Again and again.

The "HBD race realists" have a lot to answer for.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Chinatrix Honey Trap

Same old story.

What really is the difference between that and aging HBD White males (not "men") praising East Asian attributes in exchange for their younger Chinese wives?  Treason?

Sunday, March 3, 2013

More on Gene-Culture Interactions

Levantines and Chinese as examples.

First, read here, a previous post at this blog.

Second, read here.

Quote (emphasis added):

Alexander Platt talks about inferring population history using haplotypes. Of interest: during the last 1,000 generations there are more coalescences between Beijing Chinese and Japanese rather than Beijing Chinese and southern Chinese; in more recent times, there are more coalescences between Chinese groups. This makes some sense, if we suppose that -as seems likely- Mongoloids spread north-to-south across China during prehistory; the Japanese are thus linked -in older times- with northern Chinese, both of which are mostly descended from the northern Mongoloids; in more recent times, especially after the emergence of a uniquely Chinese polity and culture, the Chinese tend to marry other Chinese, hence they share more recent common ancestors within the country itself.

The same can apply to Europe and any (relatively small) potential kinship overlap that may currently exist between Europeans and non-Europeans.  Once a “Western Imperium” is established, and gene flow from outside is stopped, over time, genetic distance between those groups within the Imperium and those outside will increase.  Thus, even if there is no increase in gene flow within the Imperium, the fact that a genetic division will be established with the “outer groups” will ensure that Europeans will, over time, form an ever more cohesive genetic grouping, more clearly separated from non-Europeans.  Thus, proximate influences ultimate, and genetic boundaries can become increasingly well matched with political-cultural-civilizational boundaries once gene flow between civilizational groups is stopped.  And there is more than enough genetic diversity within each civilizational bloc to satisfy biological requirements in the absence of any inter-continental and inter-civilizational gene flow.

Gene-Culture Interactions in the Levant

Culture can alter genetic differentiation and, hence, influence ethnic genetic interests.

The proximate and the ultimate are related, and cannot be fully separated.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Common Ancestors

Absolute Purity a Strawman

The new scientific neo-racialist paradigm must be genetic kinship, not a mythical purity, an easily disproved strawman which can be used to discredit racial preservationism (e.g., "you are all admixed anyway, so why the concern?").

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

On Portugal

A good point.

A commentator at Sailer's blog writes:

Portugal is not a "mulatto society." The amount of sub-Saharan admixture is small, and it is not evenly spread throughout the population. Moreover, the populations of the Iberian peninsula likely already had small amounts of sub-Saharan admixture at their peak of power and influence. There have been genetic connections between North Africa and the Iberian peninsula for thousands of years, and the Moorish invasions would have brought additional, though dilute, sub-Saharan genes to Iberia, all before the Age of Discovery.

That's a good point.  The low levels of admixture - real and/or artifactual - present in Iberia are most likely the result of (1) gene flow from North Africa over long time periods, and (2) the Moorish invasion, not from "Black slaves imported into Portugal's colonies."

In other words, the admixture was present before and during the Age of Discovery, and was not responsible for the subsequent decline of Spain and Portugal.

The same principle likely applies to Italy and Ancient Rome, particularly with respect to those genetics imported during the Neolithic farmer expansion.  Much of the genetic differences separating the sections of Europe (North vs. South, East vs. West) were already in place at the beginning of the Classical Age.

Obviously, there have been changes since then, no doubt.  But the naive view of "racial admixture = fallen Empires" has not been empirically proven, and is not always consistent with the actual time-lines.

Empires never last, because the efforts in creating and maintaining them exhaust the founding population in ways that include those other than the biological/genetic.

An analogy: the British Empire did not collapse because of alien immigration and admixture - the opposite is true; the bulk of the immigration, for the most part, occurred after the Empire collapsed for other (military, economic, geopolitical, etc.) reasons..

Saturday, January 26, 2013

KMacD Suspends Comments

Good move.

Kevin MacDonald writes (1/25/13):

Comments policy
Kevin MacDonald on January 25, 2013  Leave a CommentI decided to curtail the comments section, at least temporarily. I did this after several people, whose opinion I respect, all suggested this change. The problem was that too many comments were getting through that did not reflect well on the site, and we couldn’t commit the resources to monitoring all of them. I apologize to those who were making intelligent, thoughtful comments, but there were too many trolls and others whose opinions were unwelcome.
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

I hope the change is permanent there, but even if not, it underscores the problem faced in blogging: do you allow all comments, and let a form of "Gresham's Law" ruin the quality of the commentariat; do you invest the time in moderating, and run the risk of accusations of bias (favoring views compatible with your own); or do you forego comments altogether, and let those interested form their own blogs to express their own opinions there?

I've always favored the last, and have been criticized for it; thus, it's good to see others realizing the wisdom of this approach, if even temporarily.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Salter's Four Ethnic Option Categories

Key to understanding intra-polity ethny relations.

From "On Genetic Interests," Table 7.1 shows the following "ethnic dispositions" in a polity:
1. Territorial ethnic strategy - Traditional nation states and ethnic states.

2. Territorial non-ethnic strategy - Majority ethnies in multicultural states.

3. Non-territorial ethnic strategy - Mobilized minorities in multicultural states, and traditionally endogamous diaspora peoples: Armenians, overseas Chinese, Gypsies, Jews, Parsis.

4. Non-territorial, non-ethnic strategy - Immigrants who assimilate.

Let us consider these. Number one is obviously the optimal choice from both the ultimate (genetic) and proximate (sociopolitical, etc.) viewpoints. That is where "Whites" (European-derived peoples) worldwide should be. Unfortunately, whites are actually virtually all in number two, which is the worst possible choice of the four from both ultimate and proximate considerations. Multiculturalism for majorities is all about the steady displacement and replacement of the majority by others and the empowerment of organized minorities at the expense of the passive, atomized majority.

Number three is an interesting case. From the standpoint of the majority, the long-term presence of type three groups in a polity is an ultimate and proximate disaster. Unassimilated - and in some cases, unassimilable - minority groups are present, strategizing against the majority, expanding demographically within the same territory, and practicing ethnic nepotism often with the full favor of the multicultural establishment, the same establishment which strongly inhibits any sort of similar behavior on the part of the majority, which must remain passive, atomized, and helpless.

In addition, if the minority in question is genetically distant from the majority, assimilation of the minority - even if desired and if possible - may be more of a blow to majoritarian genetic interests than the status quo. Thus, for genetically distant minority groups, separation is the best prescriptive option for the majority, while for genetically more similar groups, assimilation can be considered, if practical, while weighing the pluses and minuses. Note that some of the diaspora "middleman minorities" would be expected to resist assimilation even if the majority decided that such was the best course of action.

From the standpoint of the minority, strategy three has certain advantages, since it allows the group to continue as a genetically distinct, strategizing ethny, with the advantages of heightened minority mobilization and, in a multiculturalist regime, special advantages over the majority conferred by the establishment.

However, Salter critiques this option, even from the minority standpoint, as inherently unstable - even successful type three groups have suffered throughout their history as a result of not having their own territories. For groups long adjusted to such a "group evolutionary strategy," these negatives may be outweighed by the positives. However, for Western populations, type three is not a strategy we are adapted for, and would not be, long-term, likely successful at.

Further, type three groups have inherent differences in interests from all of the other three groups. A group cannot be, at the same time, in group three and in one of the other groups, AND there will always be an incompatibility of interests between group three and groups one, two, and four. Always. Those in group three will always be hostile to a society moving in the direction of strategy one, since strategy one will demand from group 3 assimilation, separation, or extreme marginalization. On the other hand, a type two society is optimal for the group three minority, but it hurts the majority. Again: incompatible.

Type four groups are those immigrants who assimilate. If these groups are relatively genetically similar to the majority, the long-term positives from a net EGI standpoint may outweigh the direct short-term gross EGI cost, for both majority and minority (however, if the groups are genetically distant - for example, inter, not intra, continental differences - then the costs are likely always to be too high, unless the numbers involved are very small). From the majority perspective, strategy four could work, therefore, given reasonable genetic similarity.

Salter notes that from the minority perspective, strategy four requires the group to give up the advantages of being a genetically distinct strategizing ethny. In addition, in a type two society, a type four strategy entails the assimilating group to become part of the majority that is being dispossessed and discriminated against. On the other hand, strategy three has its own problems, as stated above, and if a group is not suited for a type three group strategy and all that entails, then the option of assimilating to the majority is best. If the group wanted to remain distinct from the majority, then they could separate or have remained in their homelands. For Western populations as minorities in Western nations amongst a Western majority, type four is, generally, the best option. The trick is to attempt to move the society from the maladaptive type two to the adaptive type one. Thus, the interests of groups that are genuine "four" types coincide with that of the majority: move toward the type one strategy. Thus, group four is also at odds with the non-assimilating group three.

Although there is controversy about this among some areas of the web, I would say that "White ethnic" European Americans started out in group three (not necessarily by choice), but began moving into group four after the 1924 immigration restriction. Today, these "ethnics" are either totally in group two or are, at minimum, in the last stages of fully transitioning from group four into group two. They do, in the USA, suffer from the same problems as rest of the majority, and are generally considered as belonging to such.

Thus, the interests of all Euro-Americans are in belonging to a type one polity. 

Identity, Part I

Basic components of the Identity of our ingroup.

At its most basic, we can define three fundamental components of ingroup identity: ancestry, culture, behavior.

Ancestry:  Elsewhere here we discuss genetic kinship, a quantitative metric, but here we define the qualitative biological component of ingoup identity for us: ancestry as indigenous European.  What is indigenous?  We define it here.

Thus, for example, the English, French, Italians, Germans, and Spaniards are all indigenous Europeans, at the national level.  At the regional level, we have, for example, Cornish, Bretons, Lombards and Sicilians, Prussians and Bavarians, and Catalans.  In Scandinavia, the Germanic Scandinavians are indigenous to the southern regions, while the Saami are indigenous to the north. These are all indigenous Europeans.

What about Jews, Gypsies, and Turks?  Turkey is Asian, not European.  Jews and Gypsies, who entered an already-occupied Europe in historical times, are not indigenous to any specific territory in Europe.  Is there a nation or region of Europe which is the homeland of Jews or Gypsies?  No, there is not.  They are Diaspora peoples, scattered throughout Europe.  Even if one wanted to assert some sort of vague, generally European ethnogenesis for the Ashkenazim and Roma, that does not work, since every place in Europe where they are found there has always been an extant, older, "host" population of indigenous Europeans already present.  Thus, intrusive elements into a land occupied by extant, original peoples cannot be indigenous to that land - whether the land is a continent, nation, or region.

This, of course, does not mean that individual Jews or Gypsies cannot be assimilated.  Nor does it mean that small numbers of highly assimilable Jews or Gypsies or any other similar group could not be accepted.  But, it certainly does mean that the entire Jewish or Gypsy ethnies are not European, not part of our ingroup, and cannot be accepted en masse into any Euro-centered project that we will focus on.

Culture: A person can be indigenous European, as defined above, but if they adhere to non-Western, non-European creeds, then they cannot be part of our ingroup.  There cannot be Western Buddhists, Muslims, or  those who convert to the Jewish faith.  We can consider as Western/European: Christianity, Euro-Paganism (Norse-Germanic, Greco-Roman, Slavic, etc.), Atheism-Agnosticism, as well as any Faustian-Nietzschean offshoots of these, including calls to build a new Western High Culture.  

Behavior: A person who pursues policies harmful to our people's existence, who outmarry, who create racially admixed children with those from other groups, etc. - these cannot be part of our ingroup.  Those who betray our people at the personal (e.g., outmarriage) or public (e.g., support for alien immigration) levels can never be part of our community.

Thought For the Day: 1/20/13

An oxymoron: conservative principles

Friday, January 18, 2013

Indigenous Defined

What is meant by "indigenous?"

I've attempted to define "indigenous" at other forums, and here I'd like to put together a brief, one sentence definition.

A human group is indigenous when it is the oldest existing population to come into being as a distinct ethny, different from any other, in a specific territory.

1. Existing - extinct groups may have been indigenous to a given territory at one time, but if they no longer exist, they are obviously not currently indigenous.  The indigenous population of today's France is the French ethny, not the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons who once lived there, and who were indigenous at those times.

2. Oldest - new groups can come into a territory and form ethnies, but if a prior indigenous population still exists in that territory, then it is that prior group that is indigenous, not any new ethnies formed by the newcomers.  Only if the prior population becomes extinct, can the new group eventually evolve into a new indigenous group.

3. Distinct and different - if an already established ethny moves into an uninhabited territory or drives an existing indigenous group to extinction, the new group as it is is not indigenous to that territory, as they came there as an already formed group that is indigenous to their original homeland. This group will have to undergo change in their new colony, becoming a different and distinct group from their forebears, in order to be classified as indigenous to the new territory.  Indigenous correlates to the idea of ethnogenesis - transplanting an existing group with no further significant change is not ethnogenesis.

4. Specific territory - as explained in #3 above, a group cannot be indigenous to two different territories at the same time.  The ethnogenesis of a distinct group has to take place in one area. Further, Diaspora groups, spread far and wide, are not indigenous to any specific territory, even if the original host populations become extinct and even if Diaspora ethnogenesis takes place. Only if the ethnogenesis creates distinct groups in each separate territory, in the absence of any original population, can indigenous hold as a definition.

Others may have their own definition, but this I believe suffices as a reasonable approximation of what people mean by "indigenous."

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Against HBD Fetishism - 1/1/13

Brief Comment

"Asians are intelligent."  "Jews are intelligent."  Sailer and the HBD crowd remind us of this over and over again.

So, what does it really mean?  Just this: that Asians and Jews are more dangerous competitors, more dangerous enemies.

Is that a good thing?  I think not.

The Evolutionary Function of Prejudice

By Alan McGregor.

This essay is a short, brilliant explanation of the necessity for genetic isolation for speciation and general evolutionary progress.

One addition I would make is that - as long as original stocks are maintained - hybridization between (relatively) closely related stocks can, over time, result in stabilized blends that can represent new sub-species to be worked on by the forces of evolution.  Here, for example, I mean intra-European crosses, or intra-East Asian crosses, etc. - NOT crossings between highly divergent stocks such as the major continental population groups.

Hybridization between related stocks can produce useful combinations of related gene complexes, increasing genetic diversity of the race, while avoiding the outbreeding depression and wide loss of genetic interests and parental kinship inherent in divergent crossings.

Other than that detail, the McGregor essay is excellent.