View Full Version : Ethnic Genetic Interests: The Scientific Basis for Racial Activism

Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 08:33 AM
by Michael Rienzi

Racially-conscious whites are often frustrated that people of European descent do not understand a simple fact that others take for granted: that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. Unlike people of other races, whites seem to demand some kind of objective, rather than subjective, reasons for survival. Activists have long hoped a respected academic would offer an objective, scientific justification for the defense by whites of their own ethno-racial interests. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter of the Max Planck Society has published just such a justification in the peer-reviewed journal Population and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140). I believe Dr. Salter’s tour-de-force, “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”, is the single most important recent intellectual contribution to ethno-racial studies.

“Mainstream” discussions about immigration usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity, which is the focus of Dr. Salter’s paper. In the very first sentence he asks the central question: “Does ethnic competition over territory pay off in terms of reproductive fitness?”

Qualitative Considerations

From an evolutionary standpoint “fitness” means “reproductive fitness,” or the propagation of distinctive genes from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Thus, as Dr. Salter explains, adaptive behavior “maintains or increases the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population.” Family or kin share many of the same distinctive genes, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his kin.

This is true also for ethnic groups or “ethnies,” which is the term Dr. Salter prefers. Like families, members of an ethny have more distinctive genes in common with each other than they do with other populations; the same can be said of members of the same race. Although the genetic kinship of ethny members is more diluted than that of family members, ethnies are large reservoirs of genetic interests for their members. Therefore, just as a person has a great genetic interest in the well-being of his family, so does a German have for Germans, an Italian for Italians, etc. In this sense, it can be as adaptive to support one’s ethno-racial group as to support one’s family.

A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. According to Dr. Salter, “The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances …” Acquisition and defense of territory are therefore an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. The passionate relationship between a people and its homeland has been constant throughout history, and, as Dr. Salter points out, a people can suffer many setbacks, but as long as it retains its own territorial space, it can recover.

In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction — precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. A large part of Dr. Salter’s work in this paper is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.

Quantitative Analysis

Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying capacity and genetic kinship. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although technology and increased economic efficiency can increase carrying capacity, there is a practical limit above which further population growth is not possible. Many ecologists believe we are approaching, or have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity of the earth. Even if these ecologists are wrong about the earth as a whole, it is clear that carrying capacity has already been exceeded in those areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources.

Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of genetically alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually.

Nearly 30 years ago Garrett Hardin (BioScience, October 1974) wrote that over-population will limit population growth (as we see today in China), and he also pointed out that the cost of immigration falls “most heavily on potential parents, some of whom would have to postpone or forgo having their (next) child because of the influx of immigrants.” Immigration may not limit your decisions about having children, but some day it will limit the choices of your descendants.

Dr. Salter notes that immigrants can change the carrying capacity of their new nation. Intelligent, hard-working immigrants could in theory raise the carrying capacity by increasing the efficiency at which resources are used (though there is still a cost to natives, as we will see below). Incompetent immigrants are a drain on resources, and lower the carrying capacity. Readers can judge for themselves which kind of immigrants are arriving in the West.

The other concept central to Dr. Salter’s paper is genetic kinship. Even though all humans share many genes, kinship is a measure of the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general gene sharing; it measures the relative frequencies of ethnically distinctive genes. Kinship values can be either positive or negative. If individuals (or groups) share more genes than is typical of a population, then the kinship is positive; if they share fewer genes than average, kinship is negative. Genetic kinship can be mathematically derived from studies of the genetic variation, or distance, between populations.

The genetic data that form the basis of Dr. Salter’s quantitative analysis are from the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes, which examined the frequencies of genetic variations in a broad range of human populations. In general, the data are sound, and show the genetic distances between different populations. They can also be used to measure the extent of the damage alien immigration does to the genetic interests of natives.

For the sake of simplicity, Dr. Salter assumes immigrants have no effect on carrying capacity, and that they have the same birthrates as natives — very conservative assumptions. Dr. Salter then asks: What is the genetic effect of displacing 10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants? What happens to the frequencies of ethnic-specific genes? Given that members of an ethny want their nation to be composed of their people, and to leave behind, after they die, as many copies of their ethnic-specific genes in the population as possible, how much genetic damage does immigration cause?

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendents that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that.

Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic ethnic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his ethnic genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number of aliens? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but gene equivalents put into the form of the genetic parent-child relationship. Put differently, the arrival of immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of view of any given member of the native ethny, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number of children not born to that person.

An example will make this clearer. Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post-displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.

Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus — a population very genetically distant from the English — rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations.

What if the level of immigration were larger, and more in keeping with the massive displacement of Western peoples we see today? The English population is roughly 50 million. If 12.5 million were replaced by an equal number of Danes, the genetic loss to an Englishman would be the equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6 million children; if the immigrants were Bantus, 13 million. These figures are not guesses or estimates; they are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data accepted by the scientific community. Of course, all these numbers would apply in the reverse as well — genetic damage to Bantus or Indians if Englishmen were to come to live among them in large numbers — but immigration does not flow in that direction.

While plunging birthrates may be genetically damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it genetically, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a native territory their genes are a permanent addition. From the standpoint of genetic ethnic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological.

Why does immigration cause such large genetic losses? Dr. Salter writes: “Random members of an ethnic group are concentrated stores of each other’s distinctive genes, just as children and cousins are concentrated stores. Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to large negative stores of those distinctive genes. Also, as described above, migration has a double impact on fitness, first by reducing the potential ceiling of the native population, and secondly by replacing those lost individuals’ familiar genes with exotic varieties.”

Number of Immigrants between 26 European Ethnies Needed to Reduce the Ethnic Genetic Interests of a Random Native by the Equivalent of One Child
(http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Far%2F2003%2F02%2FTable4.pdf)

Dr. Salter also stresses that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss in terms of genetic equivalents (e.g., 167 child-equivalents in the English-Danish example) reflects the change in population from the point of view of every member of the native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the loss of his children and grandchildren, though on a much larger scale” (emphasis in original).

Dr. Salter has calculated the number of immigrants of any group necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of a native group by one child-equivalent. (See table on this page — all tables are taken from Dr. Salter’s paper.) For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African, or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child-equivalent.

Charity and Heroism

It is well understood that within-group charity is potentially adaptive because it encourages the survival of kindred genes. Dr. Salter explains that self-sacrificial “heroism” that preserves one’s group genetic interests can also be adaptive. For example, Dr. Salter points out that “an act of charity or heroism” performed by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 Englishmen would be worthwhile genetically even if the Englishman sacrificed his life and with it the potential of having up to 167 children! Preventing replacement by Bantus would justify an even larger sacrifice, given the greater potential loss of genetic interests. It is clear that pro-white activism intended to avoid displacement is normal and adaptive, and justified by rational analysis. It is multicultural surrender that is pathological, as all peoples in all periods of history (except for whites in the 20th century) have instinctively known. Men have not had to be taught to die for their countries; the preservation of their land and people has been more important to them than life itself.

What are the genetic costs of immigration and displacement among whites? In general, as one would expect, Europeans are genetically closer to each other than to non-Europeans since Europe is, as Dr. Salter writes: “a generally racially homogenous region.” Within Europe, geographically close populations tend to be even more similar. The table on this page shows, for 26 European ethnies, the number of immigrants from other ethnies required to reduce the genetic interests of a native by one child-equivalent. The greater the genetic similarity, the larger the number of immigrants required to reduce genetic interest, and these data are consistent with what one would expect.

Germans and Swiss are closely related, so it would take 125 Swiss immigrants to reduce a German’s genetic interests by “one child.” The same effect will occur with 83.7 Belgians, 78.5 Dutch or Danish, 57.2 Englishmen, 33.3 Italians, 18.5 Spaniards, or 9.1 Greeks. Italians are more similar to, and less damaged by, French (37.1) or Germans (33.3) or Spaniards (20.9) than they are by Danes (17.7) or Swedes (13.5).

There is a tendency for European ethnies from islands (e.g., Sardinians and Icelanders, but not the English) to be somewhat more genetically distant from other European populations than might be expected. This is probably because of genetic drift in these small, relatively isolated populations rather than the admixture of non-European genes. Also, Europeans from southeast Europe seem slightly more distant, as are other specific groups, such as Finns and Basques. However, even these more outlying groups are within the European range. Dr. Salter concludes: “Immigration between ethnies of the same race can still be maladaptive for the receiving population, but the threshold is typically 10 to 100 times that of inter-racial immigration.”

Problems of Multiculturalism

Dr. Salter notes that Americans of European descent are a declining proportion of their nation’s population, and that this is a clear and serious threat to their genetic interests. Miscegenation only makes matters worse. Dr. Salter points out that miscegenation may benefit the genetic interests of non-white immigrants, for they are diluting the native gene pool while the gene pools of their own racially-exclusive homelands remain intact. As regards genetic dilution, a biracial child contains and reproduces fewer of the distinctive genes from any one of its parents than does a monoracial child. In other words, a child born to a man and women of the same ethny is genetically closer to its parents than is a mixed-race child, because the parents have many distinctive genes in common, and the child is therefore a combination of genes that make it close to both parents. A mixed-race child is genetically more distant from both parents because half its genes come from a parent from a different — and genetically distant — ethny.

The relationship can be understood this way. A parent has a certain base-line kinship with his child no matter who the other parent is, but is genetically closer to his children if he marries within his ethny. This gain in parental kinship is foregone to some extent when the other parent is of a different race or ethny. An average European white who has a child with a typical African foregoes 66 percent of the parental kinship he would have gained if he had had the child with another European. An Englishman who picks a Danish rather than an English spouse loses only one percent of the parental kinship to be gained from an English spouse. Choosing a Bantu mate would mean the loss of 92 percent of the parental kinship that would have been gained with an English mate. This figure, which is close to 100 percent, raises the theoretical possibility that if an Englishman has a mixed, English-Bantu child, the child will receive so many non-European genes from the Bantu parent that the Englishman is only slightly more genetically related to his own child than he is to a random stranger from his own ethny.

The table below shows the amount of parental kinship that would be gained by endogamous marriage as opposed to the mixed marriages depicted in the table. Africans and Pacific Islanders are so genetically distant that cross-marriages between these groups lose 100 percent of the kinship gain achieved through endogamy. European Caucasoids who mate with Northeast Asians lose 38 percent of the kinship they would have gained through same-race marriage.

Dr. Salter notes for the record that this analysis ignores potential benefits from so-called “hybrid vigor.” I see no evidence of such benefits in mating across wide racial divides; I see no increase in intelligence, health, or creative ability in the mixed-race populations of, say, Latin America or Central Asia as compared to original Europid or Mongolid stocks. And there is absolutely no evidence for any “vigor” which could make up for a 66 percent or 92 percent decrease in paternal kinship. This is a powerful argument in favor of racially endogamous mating: You are biologically closer and more similar to a child if your mate is of the same race than if your mate is from a different race.

Dr. Salter notes that the genetic damage done by the post-1965 immigration to America “has decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined.” Why does it continue? Why does the white population allow it, while non-white peoples of other nations forbid immigration and preserve their group interests? Dr. Salter rejects the notion that white Americans want to be displaced; they may not actively resist displacement, but they surely do not welcome their own dispossession.

Perhaps the economic benefits of immigration raise carrying capacity and outweigh the costs. Dr. Salter notes that there are heavy economic costs to immigration, of which immigration-control activists are well aware. He also points out that even if there were economic benefits, the economic argument can be stretched to absurdity: If immigrants benefit natives by boosting the economy and raising the carrying capacity, why not maximize economic gain by replacing all natives with immigrants? Dr. Salter asks: “Is an economy meant to serve people or be an end unto itself?” If natives are being displaced, do they benefit from economic growth?

Dr. Salter asks us to imagine American Indians of the year 1600 being given a choice between mass European immigration and fast economic growth, coupled with eventual displacement by Europeans; or keeping America for themselves with much slower economic growth. The choice is obvious. Nothing can take the place of having a continent for one’s posterity; nothing can replace the loss of a people’s territory. Thus, economic explanations fail.

Dr. Salter observes that white Americans have, in the name of multiculturalism, engaged in a “unilateral withdrawal from ethnic competition,” with devastating results for their genetic interests. The majority also suffers from minority “free-riding” of two kinds. Minorities that cluster at the bottom of the social scale form an underclass that increases its reproductive fitness by absorbing resources and welfare from the majority, making the majority pay for its own genetic dispossession and loss of fitness. At the same time, more competitive minorities can manipulate public policy in their ethnic favor and against the interests of the majority.

What does Dr. Salter suggest as a possible solution? He proposes ethno-racial states in which shared ethnicity is a requirement for citizenship and in which the state “unambiguously serves the ethnic interests of the majority.” This is completely opposed to the current fad of “constitutional patriotism,” or the nation as an “idea” or “community of values.” Dr. Salter rightly sees such aracial “patriotic” schemes as “a formula for reconciling ethnic majorities to their own demise,” while serving minority and elite interests. Particularly damaging to majority interests is the fusion of “constitutional patriotism” with “multiculturalism,” as in today’s America, where majority displacement is thought to be of no importance as long as “freedom and democracy” are maintained. Such ideas are now being promoted in Europe as well, where some promote the view that Germany and France are “idea nations”!

Ethno-racial states are the only way for Western majorities to promote their ethnic interests. But what is the optimal size of an ethno-state? From the standpoint of maximizing and preserving ethnic genetic interests, smaller populations would have a “higher concentration of distinctive genes.” On other hand, economic and military necessities probably require something larger, so there must be a balance between ethnic interests and national viability. What to do with minorities living in such states? Assimilation is one possibility, but Dr. Salter notes that for the minorities this is an “evolutionarily uncertain” proposition. I might also add that it dilutes the majority gene pool. A better option would be federalism, in which concentrations of minority populations have local autonomy. Best of all is to prevent the minority problem to begin with by restricting immigration. Of course, if minorities have their own completely separate nation-states, they are no longer minorities.

Needless to say, there are different kinds of “minority.” Blacks are a minority in the USA, as Russians are a minority in the Baltic states, but the relative genetic distances are very different. Assimilation may be possible when numbers and genetic distances are small.

Another problem is the possibility of majority-majority “free-riding,” whether that of a welfare-dependent underclass or a privileged elite. Dr. Salter stresses the need for a bio-social contract between classes of an ethny, a contract that balances normal individual competition with the need for cooperation in defending larger ethnic interests. Dr. Salter theorizes a state in which ethnic genetic interests are considered a “collective good” that the state manages as part of a group’s “evolutionary strategy.” This would require protections against free-riding elites who may distort policy for their own narrow class interests.

Dr. Salter’s paper can be summarized as follows. Ethnies (and races) are large reservoirs of genetic interests for group members. Ethnic genetic interests are real and vitally important. Genetic kinship can be calculated, and the harm to any person’s (or group’s) ethnic genetic interests resulting from alien immigration can be quantified. Immigration of even closely-related groups has a negative impact on genetic interests, and this detrimental influence increases rapidly with greater genetic distance. Putting this detrimental impact in the form of “child-equivalents” is a particularly powerful way of demonstrating these effects. If people of European descent understood that every non-white face they see is diminishing their personal and group interests they might begin to understand they are being ill-served, at a fundamental genetic level, by non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism.

Finally, Dr. Salter’s paper stands as an objective, scientifically sound justification for the activist pursuit of ethnic and racial interests. Liberals cannot deny the facts discussed here, nor can they deny that they point to the necessity of European ethno-racial nationalism. The formation of ethnic-based national states is the most efficient way of safeguarding ethnic genetic interests.

Ecologically-minded liberals should also heed Dr. Salter’s work, for only when Third-World populations are made to bear the consequences of their own reproductive irresponsibility will they, and the world as a whole, establish population policies that protect the environment. Closing off the “safety valve” of Third-World immigration to the West should be as attractive to the sincere left as to the racial right.

Source: American Renaissance (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Far%2F2003%2F02%2F)

American Renaissance is a monthly magazine that has been published since 1991. We consider it America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought, and we invite all users of this page to subscribe. The paper version is delivered through the mail, and the PDF version — with identical contents — is delivered to e-mail addresses. American Renaissance is published 12 times a year. One-year PDF subscription to American Renaissance costs only $ 15.00 ! Subscribe now (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstore.am ren.com%2Fcart.php%3Ftarget%3Dcategory%2 6category_id%3D87).

Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 08:41 AM
A scientist explains the genetic basis of nationalism.

by Jared Taylor (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jare dtaylor.org%2F), American Renaissance (January 2005) (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Far%2F2005%2F01%2Findex.html)

What is genetic interest?

According to Darwinian theory, the goal towards which all living things strive is to make more copies of their distinctive genes. This is seen most clearly in the devotion of parents to children; as Dr. Salter writes, “The importance of genetic continuity is an end in itself, for humans as well as for other species.” From an evolutionary points of view, “propagating one’s genes is life’s raison d’ętre.” This is the ultimate goal of living things, and every other goal is subordinate to it.

One important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Fstore%2Fon_genetic_interests.htm l) is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny—Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group—is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of each of its member’s distinctive genes than even a person’s children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of children.

An ethny is an extended family. The larger one’s ethny, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive genes, so its members have an interest in seeing their numbers rise or at least remain constant. A shrinking ethny is like a family whose members are dying off—either condition represents a loss of genetic interests.

According to the universalist, everyone’s-equal model of human relations that is supposed to govern how we think about race, there is no good reason any of us should care more about our children than we do about the children of strangers. We do, of course, and not because they are objectively superior to all other children but because they are ours, that is to say, they carry our distinctive genes. From a genetic point of view, our ethnies deserve similar loyalties for the same reason.

Dr. Salter points out that different ethnies can be so genetically distant that random members of the same ethny are close kin in comparison to members of the other ethny. Ethnic loyalty can thus be a continuation of family loyalty. Australian Aborigines and Mbuti pygmies, for example, are about as genetically distant as two ethnies can be. Two random members of either group are—in comparison to members of the other group—so genetically similar to each other they are almost the equivalent of identical twins. Compared to Australian Aborigines, all Mbuti pygmies are, in fact, so similar to each other that actual identical Mbuti twins are, relatively speaking, not much more closely related to each other than any two random Mbuti.

When parents from distant ethnies have children together it can lead to surprising results. Rules of genetics hold that children always carry half the genes of each parent. However, when parents are from the same ethny, they have many distinctive genes in common, so their children actually carry more than half of each parent’s distinctive genes. In this sense, parents who descend from the same lineage and who share many of the same distinctive genes are more closely related to their children—in terms of the number of genes they share—than are parents who have children with distant stock.

If an Australian and a Mbuti were to have a child together, each parent would be more closely related genetically to everyone in his original ethny than he would be to the child. Complete strangers would be closer kin than the child, and from a strictly genetic standpoint would have a greater claim on family loyalty.

Most ethnies are not as distant as aborigines and Mbuti. However, the same principles apply. Outmarriage with a member of a distant ethny produces children who are relative genetic strangers to their parents.

How do these findings square with the fact that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them? Richard Lewontin famously pointed out that if the total genetic variation of humans is given a figure of 100, 85 to 90 percent of that variation is found within population groups, and only 10 to 15 percent are distinct variations not shared by all groups.

This only highlights the importance of the 10 to 15 percent. We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Yet all humans are obviously more closely related to each other than to mice—they are identical twins by comparison. The small genetic differences are where the important differences lie, and it is in the area of these small differences that all Mbuti are practically identical twins by comparison with Aborigines.

Loyalty to an ethny is the genetic equivalent of loyalty to one’s family. Therefore, if immigration replaces parts of a native ethny with aliens, for the natives who remain, this genetic shift means replacement of kinfolk with strangers. Just how drastic the effect can be depends on how genetically distant the newcomers are.

Dr. Salter here makes a striking comparison that he developed in a November 2002 article for Population and Environment that was summarized in the Feb. 2003 issue (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Far%2F2003%2F02%2Findex.html) of AR. He notes that Danes and Englishmen are kindred populations but still genetically distinct. If 10,000 Danes were to take the place of 10,000 Englishmen it would represent a loss of genetic interests to the English who remained, because the distinctive genes of Englishmen would be replaced by those of a different ethny. Dr. Salter calculates how great the loss would be: So many English genes would disappear that it would be the equivalent of removing from the population 167 children or siblings of the native population that remained. (The figure is the same for either children or siblings because a person shares the same number of genes—50 percent—with a child or a sibling. The loss in genetic interests could be calculated as the equivalent of 167 × 2 = 334 cousins, nephews or aunts.) Because the English gene pool is a storehouse for all Englishmen of the genes common to them and that make them unique, this loss of 167 sibling-equivalents would be a loss of genetic interests for all members of the English ethny.

The loss in sibling-equivalents is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, 10,000 Bantus replaced 10,000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children or siblings. As Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.” The effect works both ways: If 10,000 English replaced 10,000 Bantus, the loss of Bantu genetic interests would be just as great.

Dr. Salter draws the inevitable conclusion:
“[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu.” (There is intuitive wisdom in the fact that blacks who live in white societies—but not those living in Africa—refer to each other as “brother” and “sister.” In comparison to genetically distant whites, they are essentially brothers.) Dr. Salter goes further:
“The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism … Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning …” Extreme as this conclusion may sound, it is justified from a genetic point of view.

As Dr. Salter explains, immigration does not appear to be replacement, because natives are not directly eliminated to make room for newcomers. However, the long-term effect is direct replacement because each part of the world will eventually reach the limits of its capacity to support humans. At that point, the presence of 10,000 Bantu (and their descendents) would mean England could not sustain an equal number of additional Englishmen. The immigration of Bantus would then appear in its true guise—elimination of Englishmen.

The effects of immigration are even more severe if the newcomers are of low productivity and drag down the carrying capacity of a territory. The larger the number of Bantus, the more quickly England would reach the limits of its ability to support a population, and the number of Englishmen their presence forestalled would be even greater.

On the other hand, highly productive immigrants can be a genetic stimulus to the receiving country. The white farmers of Zimbabwe were aliens, and their presence was a genetic loss for native blacks. However, they raised Zimbabwe’s productivity so much that many more blacks were able to live and reproduce than was otherwise possible. Expelling whites is in the short-term genetic interests of Zimbabwe’s blacks, but their loss means the country can support far fewer blacks—a clear genetic loss for blacks. It is in the genetic interests of unproductive people to welcome a certain number of very productive aliens.

Of course, today, most immigrants leave failing societies for successful societies, and are less productive than the host people. As Dr. Salter writes, “When the society is attractive due to wealth or stability, the ethny rapidly declines in relative fitness as the rest of the world floods in.” Natives are both replaced genetically and see the quality of their society decline.

This is why, until the triumph of ideologies that ignore biology, ethnies have always guarded their homelands jealously. A population may decline in numbers but later recover if it has a territory to which it has exclusive title. A decline in numbers accompanied by loss of territory—or merely the effective loss of territory due to immigration by aliens—can lead to irreparable damage. Dr. Salter writes that “for all of past human experience and still today control of territory is a precious resource for maintaining ethnic genetic interests in the long run.” This is why “immigration policy for most societies in most ages has consisted of a blanket ban.” From a genetic standpoint, immigrants are no different from armed invaders.

Virtually all people recognize the legitimacy of family loyalty but many condemn group loyalty—at least among whites. Some of these people would argue that culture rather than biological continuity is the ultimate value. However, as Dr. Salter points out, this is a false distinction:

“We can conceptualize copies of our genes in phenotypic terms: as shared blood, as family, and as familiar appearance and behavior. Valuing such characteristics is to value the genes that contribute to them.”

Intelligence, personality, and appearance are closely tied to genes, and certain traits will disappear if distinctive genes disappear. For that reason, as Dr. Salter writes, “Group genetic interests track cultural values,” so preserving an ethny’s genes preserves its culture.

It is both in the cultural and broad genetic sense that a person’s ethny can be said to deserve even greater loyalty than his family, whenever the ethny is threatened. If a man’s family is wiped it is a great personal tragedy. However, if his whole tribe disappears, it takes with it far more copies of his genes than he could ever produce as children. It also takes with it the culture and folkways that make his ethny what it is. In this sense, cultural and ethnic extinction is infinitely more terrible than one’s own death or the death of one’s family.

Homogeneous Societies

Despite much talk about the desirability of “diverse” societies, most people like living among people like themselves. If they must live in a multi-ethnic society they want to be the majority population that puts its stamp on the national culture and way of life.

Dr. Salter points out the advantages of homogeneity. First, it is probably necessary for the development of sound institutions. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” This is because when a society is composed of “a people without fellow-feeling … the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist.”

Liberty reposes upon institutions like the rule of law, freedom of speech, and republican government that require trust among a people, and are not likely to arise in mixed, mutually suspicious populations. Dr. Salter notes that sound institutions established by homogeneous populations can continue to function even after immigration by diverse groups, but suspects that as elections degenerate into racial head counts and free speech is sacrificed in the name of “sensitivity,” multiculturalism eventually undermines even the best institutions.

Dr. Salter also points out that welfare policies are most generous in homogeneous societies, and that even liberal scholars agree that this is probably because taxpayers are more willing to vote benefits to strangers who are similar to themselves. In Moscow, for example, beggars reportedly get the most handouts from people of their own ethny. People generally resist welfare that subsidizes reckless procreation by people markedly unlike themselves. It is natural that they should; in genetic terms, it is collective cuckoldry.

Even aside from outright welfare, since so much modern government activity involves taking money from one group and giving it to another, people are more likely to support a government if they think benefits are going to ethnic kinfolk rather than aliens. At the private level, citizens are also more likely to give blood, support schools, endow parks, and volunteer for community work if they know members of their own group will benefit. Less productive minorities, on the other hand, profit greatly from wealthy societies that offer benefits to all, regardless of ethnic origin.

Dr. Salter also points out that “raising children within national communities would increase the likelihood of them marrying fellow ethnics.” This is good for several reasons. Children from same-ethny marriages are more closely related to their parents. To continue with the previous example, Dr. Salter argues that if an Englishman marries an Englishwoman, his children will carry 92 percent more of his distinctive genes than if he marries a Bantu. In terms of making copies of his own genes, each child with an Englishwoman is almost like having two with a Bantu. It may also be that parents of single-lineage children treat their children better than do parents in mixed marriages, with the biological similarity of parent and child leading to more intimate bonding. Siblings in such marriages also share more genes with each other, and may develop deeper ties. Identical twins have the closest of all sibling bonds, and the more genes siblings share, they become more like identical twins.

Another benefit of same-ethny marriages is that children will have no conflicting loyalties if tension arise between the ethnies in a multi-ethnic society. Mixed children are sometimes unsure of their identities, and may be rejected by both groups.

Dr. Salter notes that it is obviously a genetic loss to adopt a child of a different ethny because the efforts of child-rearing are devoted to alien genes. He writes that such adoptions can even be seen as an act of disloyalty to a homogeneous society, because it means government benefits to the child force other members of the group to support a genetic free rider.

The multicultural societies that arise from immigration give rise to many problems for the host population. “From an evolutionary perspective,” writes Dr. Salter, “many collective goods in modern [mixed] societies represent an opportunity for enlightened free riding.” Immigrants benefit from schools, hospitals, parks, museums, and national infrastructure to which they did not contribute and which their own ethnies may not be able to produce or maintain. Natives resent this, but Dr. Salter observes that “multicultural regimes deploy modern forms of ritual indoctrination to defeat inborn discriminatory responses to ethnic diversity, at least by majority ethnies.” As a result, “in mainstream Western societies majority ethnic group strategies have all but vanished and free riding is largely uncontrolled.”

Many multicultural societies even encourage minorities to mobilize for the express purpose of extracting benefits from the majority. Many majority members end up distrusting a government that acts against their genetic interests, and Dr. Salter finds evidence that as a society becomes more varied, there is a decrease in public altruism; people prefer to do good works for their ethnic kin rather than for distant ethnies.

In Europe, white majorities are beginning to understand the high price they pay for multiculturalism. In Dr. Salter’s view, every example of ethnic tension or non-assimilation is a valuable warning sign that the majority population has made a serious mistake: “For a people losing its country, the only thing more disastrous than multiculturalism that does not ‘work’ would be multiculturalism that did work.”

The Role of the State

How should an ethny go about preserving its genetic interests? “It stands to reason,” writes Dr. Salter, “that it would be prudent for a population to defend its most precious collective interest—distinctive genes carried by the ethny—with the most powerful means at its disposal.” The most powerful means is, of course, the power of the state. And yet, almost every government has failed in this respect because “no state yet developed has reliably kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy.”

At one time, nation-states were made up essentially of ethnies, and defended genetic interests—even if in not so many words. Nation states acted naturally in what they took to be the benefit of their citizens, defending national territory against invasion, armed or unarmed. Dr. Salter notes that “the nation state is a psychological substitute for the primordial band and tribe,” and that “the political rhetoric of national identity and mobilization is rich in kinship metaphors such as the founding fathers, the motherland, brothers-in-arms, and fraternity.” No other appeal can elicit the same kind of devotion or sacrifice.

Dr. Salter adds that by today’s standards nation-states were frankly xenophobic: “In the past ethnocentric culture has usually been adaptive. Indoctrination is a powerful strategy for encouraging ethnocentric thinking, one that allows leaders to mobilize the community for defense.” Mobilization can go too far, and lead to aggressive war that wastes lives even if it adds territory, but some level of nationalism is necessary for any people to maintain itself.

The problem with the state, as Dr. Salter sees it, is that “in modern societies, especially Western ones, there is no mechanism for ensuring the loyalty of cultural elites.” Mass immigration, which the government of virtually every white nation has imposed on its people, is the most egregious act of disloyalty. As Dr. Salter explains:
“This reverses the state’s role as defender of the people’s ultimate interest to that of an enemy of that interest. The people lose their historical investment in the nation state, which is effectively hijacked for private purposes. Globalism can thus strip ethnies of their most powerful instrument for pursuing ethnic interests.” The state, which should protect genetic interests, now actively dissipates it, and ceases to deserve loyalty: “It would hardly be adaptive to risk one’s life, or that of one’s son, to defend a state apparatus that presided over the replacement or subordination of one’s people.” Indeed, as Dr. Salter explains, “citizens would be justified, based on adaptive utilitarian ethics, to reform or tear down their states and build new ones whose ethnic composition and constitution better serve their genetic survival.”

In this context, Dr. Salter draws attention to the irony of white populations sacrificing themselves in two world wars only to see their governments adopt immigration policies that represent far greater genetic losses than all deaths on the battlefield. These populations have every reason to want to replace governments that betray them.

Although many nations in the past were established with at least the implicit goal of protecting and benefiting a particular people, almost none has been explicit about it. Israel is exceptional in that it is an avowed homeland for Jews, but even it has failed to prevent non-Jewish immigration. Dr. Salter writes that a biologically informed ethny should build a government around an explicitly ethnic constitution:

“An ethnic constitution would correct some of the weaknesses in the traditional nation state. Existing constitutions are limited to defending proximate interests. But the ultimate interest is not happiness, nor liberty, nor individual life itself but genetic survival. A scientifically informed constitution that takes the people’s interests seriously cannot omit reference to their genetic interests.” Such an ethnic state would be, essentially, a contract entered into by a people in the name of its posterity.

Dr. Salter argues that the right to live in an ethnic state is as important a human right as any other: “Like the freedom to raise a family, it is in everyone’s interest to have his ethnic interests protected by the power of the state and to be free to invest in his ethny by contributing to collective goods that are proofed against free riders.” A world composed of ethnic states need not be hostile. On the contrary, each state would recognize the validity of every other group’s genetic interests, and could cooperate for mutual benefit. Immigration and the replacement of genes would end. As Dr. Salter notes, for any territory, immigration policy is the equivalent of guiding evolution, in that it favors the propagation of certain genes at the expense of others. Each territory would, in this sense, control its own evolution.

Ethnic separation is obviously desirable for states that decide to turn their backs on multiculturalism, but Dr. Salter proposes federalism in those cases in which ethnies cannot be unscrambled. A weak national government could take responsibility for defense and foreign relations, leaving all other matters, including immigration policy, to local authorities.

Jumping the Tracks

Why has ethnic loyalty been discredited in recent decades while family loyalty—which is based on the same genetic interests—is recognized as legitimate? Dr. Salter is not sure, but notes that “families represent such a high and reliable concentration of their members’ distinctive genes that innate psychological mechanisms have evolved to monitor and protect that ultimate interest … This has not occurred in the case of the tribe.” Why not? We have been evolving in families since before we were fully human, and once we became human, tribal bonds were so tight there were no real opportunities short of outright treason to work for the genetic interests of other ethnies. Tribal loyalties are therefore weaker and more easily subverted.

As Dr. Salter explains, “The novelty of industrial society has tended to decouple social patterns from ethnic interests.” At the same time, “modern indoctrination techniques, most notably universal education and the mass media, tend to break down ethnic solidarity, causing altruism to be directed towards genetically distant individuals.” The result is that, “despite being outfitted with the potential for both family and ethnic feelings, humans are not as instinctively equipped to identify and defend ethnic genetic interests in the evolutionarily novel world of mass anonymous societies.” The loyalty of most whites therefore does not extend past their close kin.

As Dr. Salter puts it, “They are, in effect, leaving their ethnic genetic capital to chance—the vagueries of nature and the good-will of competing groups.”

The Left, in particular, insists that people should act as atomized individuals with no ethnic loyalty. Dr. Salter compares this kind of detachment from ethnicity with the way a Martian might view humans. He notes also that the Left no longer even accepts democratic results if people vote to preserve their own ethnies. The destruction of the Vlaams Blok in Belgium because of its “racist” commitment to keeping Flanders Flemish is a recent example. Likewise, the Left constantly calls the Freedom Party in Austria, the National Front in France, and the British National Party “anti-democratic.” Of course, there is nothing in their platforms against representative government. Apparently, the desire of a white ethny to preserve itself is so outrageous it cannot be accommodated by democratic means.

One of the most damaging current ideological tactics is to try to persuade a people that it is a “credal” or “universal” nation and needs no biological continuity. As Dr. Salter explains, “It is in practice a formula for reconciling, or blinding ethnic majorities to their own decline while serving the sectional interests of minorities and free riding elites.” He continues:

“A concept nation is incapable of principled defense against ethnic replacement. The doctrine is as pathological as a conception of the family that did not allow parents to show preference for their children.”

This point is worth underlining: Telling people to give up racial loyalty is the moral equivalent of telling parents to be indifferent to their children. As a practical matter, this kind of propaganda is directed only at whites, and it is only whites who ever profess to believe biology does not matter.

Dr. Salter quotes a person he describes as Australia’s senior demographer:
“Some people think that a steady replacement of Anglo-Celts by other ethnic groups is highly desirable … Personally, [replacement of Anglo-Celts] does not worry me so long as ‘Australian values’ remain: free speech; freedom of religious worship; equality of the sexes; reasonably equality between social classes (i.e. no aristocracy); and so on.” Probably no Chinese or Nigerian has ever expressed official indifference to the prospect of extinction for his own people.

Dr. Salter hopes that a broader understanding of genetic interests will lead to more sensible public policies. He argues that aside from the strong desire to protect one’s immediate family, humans do not have very strong instincts to protect their genetic interests and that “the set of mechanisms for recognizing and investing in ethnies has become inadequate and often downright maladaptive.” He points out that people have genetic interests, whether they are conscious of them or not, and that people may have to be educated as to where their real interests lie. He concedes, however, that “incorporating genetic interests into social theory will be a large undertaking …”

The White Dilemma

Much of this large undertaking will involve persuading white “anti-racists” that ethnic loyalty is as legitimate—perhaps even more legitimate—than family loyalty. Dr. Salter writes that “if it is adaptive for a parent to make sacrifices for a family containing a total genetic interest of a few children, it is easy to conclude that efforts to preserve a population carrying the equivalent of thousands or millions of children must be at least as adaptive.” Yet, he concedes, “[T]his commonsense proposition is controversial …”

The following statement is also controversial, unimpeachable though it may be from a genetic standpoint:

“When ethnic kinship is high, as is the case in competition between members of different races, failure to show ethnic loyalty is the genetic equivalent of betraying a child or a grandchild.”

What gives rise to problems with ethnic loyalty is that it has not been abandoned by all groups to the same degree. Non-whites in their own nations, and non-white minorities within white nations show considerable racial solidarity. It is only whites who must be convinced that they lose something precious if their ethny is displaced or disappears. As Dr. Salter concedes, “One either feels protective about genetic interests or not,” and most whites have been trained not to feel protective.

That they could even be trained to lose interest in something so vital probably reflects something distinctive about whites, and if whites do not regain their solidarity they will be replaced by groups that never lost it. Dr. Salter puts his finger on one aspect of the problem: “Indiscriminate altruism such as foregoing reproduction to aid nonkin to reproduce, will weed out the genes that code for such behaviour, if maintained over many generations.”

This kind of indiscriminate altruism is not universal. Essentially, it is only whites who set up racial preferences for minorities, who adopt children of other races, or face dispossession through immigration. When whites took possession of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, they set aside territory for the exclusive use of the natives they displaced, giving them at least a minimal base for ethnic preservation. Non-whites who displace whites will not establish homelands for them.

Dr. Salter also points out that throughout human history, ethnic loyalty has been the norm, and that it is unlikely that only recently a few whites have discovered the path to true morality. “It is more rational,” he argues, “to assume that the absence of ethnic duty is a bold experiment, and possibly an immoral one.”

“A nation can take centuries to form,” writes Dr. Salter. “But as several Western societies have experienced, it takes a lapse of only one or two decades in immigration control for an economically successful society to find its unity broken and heading for genetic replacement.”

On Genetic Interests (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Fstore%2Fon_genetic_interests.htm l) is a powerful argument in defense of all ethnies. Let us hope it will be widely read by the ethnies that need its teachings the most.

Source: American Renaissance (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amre n.com%2Fstore%2Fon_genetic_interests_rev .html)

American Renaissance is a monthly magazine that has been published since 1991. We consider it America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought, and we invite all users of this page to subscribe. The paper version is delivered through the mail, and the PDF version — with identical contents — is delivered to e-mail addresses. American Renaissance is published 12 times a year. One-year PDF subscription to American Renaissance costs only $ 15.00 ! Subscribe now (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstore.am ren.com%2Fcart.php%3Ftarget%3Dcategory%2 6category_id%3D87).

The Aesthete
Sunday, May 23rd, 2010, 07:01 AM
This post was great and shows how what we are doing is against all reason. I particularly thought this part pertinent:

“A child born to a man and women of the same ethnicity is genetically closer to its parents than is a mixed-race child, because the parents have many distinctive genes in common, and the child is therefore a combination of genes that make it close to both parents. A mixed-race child is genetically more distant from both parents because half its genes come from a parent from a different — and genetically distant — ethnicity”.