Against Amnesty

New TOO essay.

Read here.

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..

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.
Share:

• 
• 
• 
• 

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.

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

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."

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.