Ted Sallis: In the comments section on my previous blog on Jewish genetics, Hunter Wallace pointed out this screed by Ian Jobling — a leading proponent of the Philo-Semitic Branch (PSB) of pro-White activism. While I hope that the academics whose work was unfairly attacked in that essay will directly respond on their own sites, I would like to reproduce a heavily edited version of something I had previously written.
Jobling confuses descriptive and prescriptive arguments about ethnic nepotism. As we shall see, he is not the only one who makes such an elementary error. There has in fact been a lot of “squid ink” squirted around this issue by individuals who really should know better, if they were not so blinded by ideological concerns.
For example, a favorite quote from Richard Dawkins (for Asian supremacists and their followers) is as follows, this from The Selfish Gene:
Kin selection is emphatically not a special case of group selection. … If an altruistic animal has a cake to give to relatives; there is no reason at all for it to give every relative a slice, the size of the slices being determined by the closeness of relatedness. Indeed this would lead to absurdity since all members of the species, not to mention other species, are at least distant relatives who could therefore each claim a carefully measured crumb! To the contrary, if there is a close relative in the vicinity, there is no reason to give a distant relative any cake at all. Subject to other complications like laws of diminishing returns, the whole cake should be given to the closest relative available. (p. 290)
There are problems with this cake analogy. The pursuit of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) is not about parceling out “goodies” (“cake”) to co-ethnics in an indiscriminate fashion. It’s about making relevant and contextual choices to maximize your proportion of distinctive genetic information in the next generation.
It’s also not about the “evolution” of anything. As discussed more fully with respect to Brigandt’s article below, there is no reason why a specific behavior that would enhance EGI needed to have “evolved.” We are talking about rational thought mechanisms able to make an adaptive decision about what is prescriptively adaptive — not instinct.
A problem with the cake analogy is that the “cake” in question may be a collective good or some form of action or sociopolitical ideology which is suited for application on a large, population scale, and is not relevant to “close kin.” All things being equal, it would be more adaptive to “spread the cake” of immigration to America to your close kin overseas rather to non-related co-ethnics. When it comes to immigration policy, we are not talking about making a choice between your uncle Joe immigrating or some random co-ethnic. We are instead asking whether (large) numbers of genetically distant peoples should be allowed to migrate to your territory; we are making a choice of whether the future demography of your nation will consist of co-ethnics or aliens. If the “cake” in question is access to the carrying capacity of an entire nation, then obviously, the “cake” cannot be reserved for “close kin.” No person that I know of has an immediate family that numbers in the millions or tens or hundreds of millions. Only ethnies fill the bill for certain rather large “pieces of cake.”
Therefore, certain types of “cake” are not scalable down to individuals and extended families.
Of course, the thing about this is that the “cake” goes in both directions: By giving co-ethnics the “large cake” by successfully influencing immigration policy, you are getting the “small cake” of your own genetic interests being maximized. Note also that Dawkins says that when a closer relative is in the “vicinity,” then that is who should get “the cake.”
In other words, he is suggesting a relative, contextual metric, despite earlier stating that we should not give out “cake” based on relative genetic distance. If the close relative is at hand, give the cake to him; this implies that if the closer relative is not at hand, give it to the more distant relative. Indeed, then, looking at “cake” which is scaled to populations, one favors the “close relative” of co-ethnics over others when given the choice. Even at the individual level, in circumstances in which favoring family is not possible, the “close relative” of co-ethnics, “when in the vicinity,” takes the “cake” over the “distant relative” of non-ethnics.
Of interest to this issue is Brigandt’s confused article (“The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of van den Berghe’s sociobiological approach to ethnicity,” Politics and the Life Sciences 20: 203–215, 2001). There he attempts to explain why ethnic nepotism is not “adaptive.” The problem is that the argument boils down to Brigandt’s definition of a behavior being adaptive only if it has evolved. He asserts that ethnic nepotism could not have evolved because various population groups were isolated from each other during their evolution; hence, there was no selective pressure for ethnic nepotism. As a result, ethnic nepotism could not have evolved and therefore it makes no sense to say it is adaptive.
Putting aside the argument of whether ethnic nepotism could have evolved (see Notes 1,2), the problem here is the semantic one of defining ‘adaptive.’ If we wish to define ‘adaptive’ in the sense that Brigandt does, then he may be correct, given that caveat of the notes below. However, let’s look at this crucial quote by Brigandt from the same paper (emphasis added):
True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.
Well, yes. That, in one sentence, is a reasonable summary of Salter’s entire prescriptive argument — which is different from Brigandt’s descriptive argument about the likelihood that ethnic nepotism could have evolved. Indeed, herein lies the problem, in that Salter (and I) would define adaptive as “an evolutionarily better strategy.” In this sense of adaptive, whether a strategy is adaptive is independent of whether or not is has evolved.
Most people would define adaptive in the sense that Salter and I use it, and not as Brigandt uses it. (See also Kevin MacDonald’s comments here and here on how rational choice mechanisms are capable of adaptively attaining evolutionary goals in novel environments — including the multi-racial environments of the contemporary world.) In other words, for most people, adaptive means “an evolutionarily better strategy” — a strategy that succeeds better than alternatives in maximizing fitness in future generations.
How about a more specific example? Let us assume that an Irishman has no evolved tendency to favor Irish over Nigerians. Is it, or is it not, adaptive for him to invest in preventing Ireland from being over-run with Nigerians, and the Irish being displaced? This is the important question here. Does an Irishman have any genetic interests beyond that of his immediate family? Or, once beyond that family, do all human magically become genetically identical from the interests of our specific Irishman?
If groups are not genetically identical — as alleged “race realists” should know — then interests differ depending upon, as Brigandt admits, how closely related you are to people. The extent of these interests depends on numbers and more important on relative genetic distance. From an Irish perspective, a Nigerian immigrant does more genetic damage that a Chinese, who in turn does more damage than a Pakistani, who does more than a Syrian, who does more than a Greek, who does more than an Italian, who does more than an Austrian, who does more than an Englishman, who does more than a random Irish unrelated co-ethnic.
Context is crucially important. In many cases, there is no advantage to the Irishman to engage in ethnic nepotism. If the Irish were demographically secure, if no non-Irish were in Ireland, if there was no ethnic competition, then the Irishman should concentrate on helping immediate kin against the non-familial Irish competition. However, in cases in which Irish interests are faced with non-Irish interests, particularly on issues on a scale beyond normal familial interests, then ethnic nepotism can be adaptive.
On the other hand, in some cases, “humanism” is adaptive — joining humanity to fight an alien invader, or to avert some global ecological catastrophe. Alternatively, in some cases, a narrow struggle as between the Irish and English is adaptive.
Given the world-wide racial crisis for European peoples, sometimes an intermediate racial nepotism may be adaptive. Context always matters. Relative interests always matter. There is no set-in-stone rulebook which says one must always engage in indiscriminate ethnic or racial nepotism — that’s a straw man that no one is advocating, and that’s not part of Salter’s prescription. Instead he advocates a nuanced, nested view of genetic interests in which a person normally invests mostly in self and family, but, at times, may also need to invest in the ethny, dependent upon circumstances.
Context may change. Regardless of the past, the English vs. the Irish are hardly the major threat each group faces today, given Third World immigration and racial displacement in each nation. In the past, persons of Irish and Italian ancestry engaged in conflict in East Coast American cities, due to competition over urban ecological niches. Today, after decades of extensive intermarriage between those groups, assimilation, as well as the emerging colored threat in the cities, that ethnic hostility as in large part completely disappeared.
Where to invest in genetic interests, and when to do so, will always be legitimate questions that depend upon context. EGI is fluid, not completely fixed. However, what is beyond question is that EGI exists, since genetic differences between groups exist and to quote Brigandt: “it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”
It is curious — quite curious — that an anti-racist academic can admit this, but an alleged “pro-White race realist” like Jobling attempts to deny it. Cui bono? It would be one thing if what he’s saying in these essays was correct — after all, there is the long Western tradition of valuing truth-telling over political convenience.
But it is not correct – and he’s making himself look foolish defending the narrow interests of a group that has heretofore opposed all manifestations of race realism — moderate or otherwise.
What about arguments such as “don’t people have genetic similarities to mice? We should avoid killing mice!”
The whole point of EGI is differences in distinctive genes (or as I would put it, distinctive genetic information). Harpending makes this point in the article reproduced in the appendix to On Genetic Interests (OGI), when he refers to the fact that people share many genes with an onion. But what is important is genetic similarity beyond that of random gene sharing. After all, evolution ultimately works on the differences in genetic information within and between populations.
It is quite clear that if all organisms were perfect genetic clones of each other, then there would be no basis for the natural selection of those types best “fit” for a particular environment. Selection works on differences; kinship is based upon relative differences. An Irishman and his brother share many genes with a random, unrelated Irishman. What’s important for distinguishing the familial interests of the brothers from that of an unrelated co-ethnic is the genetic information shared by the brothers that the unrelated stranger lacks.
From the perspective of a human, the relationship between humans and mice, from a purely reductionist genetic standpoint, are the genes and gene sequences shared by humans that are distinct from mice. Random gene sharing does not require humans to place murine interests above their own. Random gene sharing does not require one human population to favor another if the two are in conflict.
This mouse-human example also ignores the issue of relative interests and context as described above for our Irish case. Killing a mouse does not reasonably harm the genetic interests of any individual human in comparison to another person not killing the mouse. Indeed, if the mouse carries harmful germs, eliminating that rodent can be adaptive; there are no counter-balancing relative interests imposing genetic costs. That is contrasted to ethnic activism in favor of your ethny, and against an alien ethny which, for example, promotes mass immigration, racial integration and miscegenation, and “civil rights” for other alien ethnics.
The mouse “argument” also importantly ignores genetic structure. We may share X% of gene sequences with a mouse, but a mouse is structurally different genetically than a human, so that an infinite number of mice do not, and can not, ever constitute an interest to a human greater than one other human. (Note: one cannot completely blame Jobling for this point, since I am not satisfied with how this was handled in OGI).
Likewise, from the standpoint of an Englishman, any number of English-Bantu hybrids will never exhibit the genetic information characterizing a genetic structure (e.g., coinheritance of genome-wide units of distinctive genetic information) typical of a single given Englishman. Genetic interests are ultimately about genetic information, not merely the numbers of copies of individual genes or gene sequences. This flaw in the original EGI concept is one that I hope will be corrected in future editions of OGI.
Nevertheless, the point is obvious. How could “kin selection” for our vaunted “family kin members” have evolved anyway? After all, don’t numbers of non-familial ethnics, non-ethnics, and even mice contain more copies of particular genes than our immediate kin? The same ridiculous “argument” about “gene sharing” used against ethnic nepotism can be used against familial nepotism. Jobling no doubt shares more total gene copies with the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team than with a single member of his own immediate family. Should he invest all his resources in buying new sneakers for the globetrotters? Or, perhaps, in feeding a nest of house mice?
Further, genetic identity (e.g., population genetics, forensics, paternity) is not based on the numbers of gene sequences, but the patterns of gene sequences within individuals and within groups. Ultimately, evolution is working on differences in gene (sequence) frequencies in organisms and populations, not those scattered randomly throughout the biosphere. Genetic structure is important, and recent published work has begun the process of quantifying it.
In conclusion, I have to tell Hunter Wallace: you are right and my “fence-sitting” about the PSB was wrong. Even after all the destructive memes that have been emanating from the PSB: a multiracial White separatist (sic) state, racial preservation for its own sake is “insane”; Whites needs to surrender to the racial status quo, and all the rest.
I naively held out hope that an accommodation could be found between the PSB and traditional “pro-White” factions. I hoped that the only real differences between the PSB and traditional racial nationalists was merely that the former wanted inclusion of Jews, and that something — perhaps Svigor’s assimilation idea – could be a long-range solution for bridging that gap.
But, this was mistaken. There are fundamental differences that set the PSB apart — their ultimate interests are different from ours. I am concerned — as I believe Hunter Wallace is — that the PSB may attempt to subvert racialism in the same manner that the neoconservatives subverted traditional American conservatism. If this occurs, racial nationalism (for European-derived peoples) will be replaced by some sort of anti-EGI, aracial culturalism that defends White values rather than White people. We’ll be told to accept “Asians and others” and to distinguish between the bad “NAMs” (a concept meant to condition us to accept “high-IQ, law-abiding” non-Whites) and the good “AMs.” As genetic studies continue to emphasize the differences between Jews and Europeans, the PSB can be expected to further critique and attempt to delegitimize EGI and ethnic nepotism.
Whatever the PSB strives for with their activism, their vision and goals are not ours.
Notes:
1. Given that selective pressures on humans have continued up to the present, and may be accelerating, it is quite possible that selection for ethnocentric behavior could have taken place during periods in which different ethnies were in close proximity (e.g., in historical times). It may even be taking place today, as non-ethnocentric ethnies are being demographically displaced by those who place a higher value on such behaviors. And, of course, brain scans show that Whites have a stronger (negative) response to Black faces than to those of Whites, which suggests an evolved heightened “danger” response to the phenotypically alien.
Although this does not in any way alter the irrelevancy of Brigandt’s argument, it is worth noting that the argument itself may just be plain wrong. We also need to follow through on the implications of Brigandt’s argument. Let us say he is right in that the bulk of behavioral evolution took place within homogeneous groups/societies and, thus, selection for ethnic nepotistic altruism could not have evolved.
The problem is that the Whites of today, most of them, live within multiracial, multicultural societies quite different from that in which their “instincts” evolved. And the overall “small world” globalist environment means that peoples in general are being exposed to things for which their mental/behavioral modules have not been “evolved” to handle (again, this is assuming Brigandt is correct). Therefore, “evolved behavior” cannot be deemed as “appropriate” — i.e., it cannot be truly adaptive in the modern world, can it?
You cannot have it both ways. If ethnic nepotism cannot have evolved because human behavioral evolution took place in “racial isolation,” then one cannot assert that behaviors that evolved in such isolation can “protect” the adaptive interests of individuals in radically different environments today. We have now introduced a factor that simply did not exist in the “environment of evolutionary adaptiveness” — group competition between the co-ethnics and non-ethnics. Broader genetic interest didn’t exist before, as the only group in the environment was co-ethnics, and the only genetic distinctiveness was at the individual and familial level.
Sorry — that doesn’t apply anymore in multiculturalism or in the “global economy” as a whole. There is now the whole issue of group genetic interests. If Brigandt is correct, “evolved behavior” took place in isolation; hence, such behavior cannot handle the modern realities. Rational thought processes are needed for adaptive behavior today, just as Salter has argued.
2. See here for a view that competition between groups can create conditions suitable for intra-group cooperation. Given that human evolution has been accelerating, perhaps the argument that ethnic nepotism could not have evolved is wrong. Again, if certain human traits have been selected for since the Neolithic, and, indeed, during historical times, then human behavioral evolution has been occurring during the period in which different ethnies have been in contact and in conflict. In those circumstances, ethnic nepotism may have evolved, and in the context given, they may well have been adaptive. As explained above, there are circumstances in which the “cake” can only be distributed between large population groups, and is not scalable to familial kin. In those cases, ethnic conflict can select for ethnic nepotism without any conflict to narrower spheres of genetic interest. However, in the last analysis, whether ethnic nepotism “evolved” is not required for it to be the “evolutionarily better strategy.”
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Go to Jobling’s “screed” and look at the comments. I don’t think he can fully grasp how he’s being jobbed. Figures.
I have followed the whole Inverted World/White America saga from the beginning. Jobling has specifically stated that his version of “race realism” is not based on shared kinship. Rather, it is based on the White predilection for liberal, democratic values.
In the last few months, he has been arguing (like GuessedWorker) that the pro-White movement “needs a philosophy” and that Rawlsian liberalism (!) is the answer. As you might expect, the response from the greater racialist community has been deafening silence.
He has attacked Jared Taylor, Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Lawrence Auster, and Kevin MacDonald. Frank Salter is his most recent target. He has only succeeded in utterly isolating himself from all segments of the movement. I predict his eventual trajectory will take him out of the pro-White scene altogether.
You’re right to be concerned. Jobling wants to turn White Nationalism into neoconservatism. He is philo-Semitic, endorses liberal values, attacks Salterism. He is even on board with the Iraq War. Fortunately, the vast majority of pro-Whites emphatically disagree.
I recall Jobling announcing with great fanfare that Inverted World would succeed where American Renaissance had failed. He would banish the Holocaust denying, anti-Semites to the fringe. He would build a bridge to the political mainstream through the Jewish community and the conservative movement. All of this was predicated on the theory (which he probably absorbed from Taylor) that Whites are to blame for their own marginalization.
What happened? The Jews, White Nationalists, and conservatives all ignored him. As he took ever more extreme positions, his following within the “race realist” community dwindled to nothing. A master strategist he is not. His analyses were flawed.
Jobling is well educated and reasonably intelligent. Like many intelligent people, he concocted a complex web of logic to justify his own biases and completely succumbed to it. If he would update his site on a daily basis, as Guy White does (who spews the same crap), he would have a much larger following.
Hunter,
I have not been following Jobling’s sites, so this:
“Jobling has specifically stated that his version of “race realism” is not based on shared kinship. Rather, it is based on the White predilection for liberal, democratic values…In the last few months, he has been arguing (like GuessedWorker) that the pro-White movement “needs a philosophy” and that Rawlsian liberalism (!) is the answer.”
…is fairly shocking. In other words, he is a liberal neocon, with limited sympathy to HBD, who doesn’t much like low-IQ, violent blacks and hispanics. He attacks (stupidly and with no logic whatsoever) ethnic nepotism and EGI with all the confused gusto of an anti-racist or Asian supremacist.
“I predict his eventual trajectory will take him out of the pro-White scene altogether.”
Agreed. But then, he’s never really been “pro-white” has he?
Jobling is a liar and a fraud. The information in his recent article on ethnic nepotism is full of lies and inaccuracies which is easily disproven by mounds of evidence.
One example of Jewish ethnic nepotism and ethnic-networking in action was recently revealed here, the recent post on 5 interrelated Jewish families which control virtually the entire economy of Honduras – http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=40
Excerpts from the translated article found on a blog:
Is it possible that Jobling is currently being ‘sponsored’ by a certain Tribe to push a diluted brand by philo-Semitic White Nationalism?
I hope the readers of this blog will read my article. If they do, they will see it is no screed, but rather a painstaking and scholarly demonstration of why ethnic genetic interests (EGIs), though they are undoubtedly real, could not have led to the evolution of instincts. Ted Sallis here says that the question of the evolution of instincts for ethnic nepotism is irrelevant to the whole debate over EGIs, but this is plainly not true. All of the writers who have written on EGIs, like Salter, Rushton, and MacDonald, have, in fact, argued that these interests have produced instincts. Thus Salter, in Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism, says “ethnic nepotism theory proposes that the motivational basis of ethnic loyalty is nepotism, a phylogenetically old adaptation.” (p. 6) Salter doesn’t believe that people preferentially give money to co-ethnic beggars because they are students of evolutionary theory, but because they have instincts to prefer co-ethnics. Other instincts proposed by ethnic nepotism theory (ENT) partisans are ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and willingness to sacrifice oneself in warfare–see the references in my article. Thus I am indeed addressing a central claim of the ENT partisans in my article, and they need to answer my objections.
I have no quarrel with Salter when he says that it is in our genetic interests to resist the immigration or invasion of genetically dissimilar groups. I say that he is right that this is adaptive in my article. Also, I understand that both Salter and MacDonald argue that we must supplement our instincts for ethnic nepotism through conscious rational choice.
I predict, however, the total failure of any attempt to apply these principles in the world of politics. Political movements are based on the evolved cognitive architecture of humans, on their instincts, in short. People are simply not designed to think in evolutionary terms, so any political movement based on the requirement that they do will be about as successful as a scheme to make squirrels into particle physicists. It’s just not in the nature of the beast.
Consequently, if any pro-white movement is to emerge, it will not be based on arguments about EGIs, but on appeals to those concerns that naturally matter to people because of our instincts. For example, a pro-white movement might be based on the conviction that whites are morally superior to non-whites, and that non-whites cause harm to white societies by increasing incidence of crime and other immoral behavior. Other possible bases for a pro-white movement would be grievances over competition between whites and non-whites for valued resources like jobs and mates. It is for this reason that my website has highlighted racial differences in crime and morality, as well as the distinctive moral character of white societies.
An identifiable pro-White movement has existed in the United States since the mid-1970s. It is based racial consciousness and an impending sense of white dispossession.
Z,
I don’t think Jobling is working for the Jews. To my knowledge, the Jewish community has ignored his project. He was featured on one occasion in the SPLC Intelligence Report, but I believe this was before his departure from Amren.
I would attribute his strange ideas to his intelligence and status anxieties. Smart people often believe the dumbest things. Look at our universities.
“I predict, however, the total failure of any attempt to apply these principles in the world of politics.”
I don’t know – you are the last person to preach to others about how to avoid “failure” in “the world of politics.”
What I see is politics being a “top-down” phenomenon, where attitudes of elites can help shape “politics” of the masses. If those elites are self-interested Middle Easterners with an agenda to promote multiracialism, we have our present mess.
If we have elites enlightened with respect to EGI, politics can shift in another direction.
You confuse means and ends. EGI is an end. How best to achieve that end is another matter. The right side of the bell curve – those who should be the natural leaders of Europeans – need to understand what the ends are. Not “white values” and not “culture” but genetic interests.
What fairy tales they need to preach to the droolcup set is another matter. However, I believe that moderately intelligent and educated people told the facts about race, kinship, and EGI, can have a general understanding of their interests, particularly if concepts such as “child equivalents” are used to illustrate the points. These are the people – in addition to the even more intelligent leadership – who need to be won over.
The beer-drinkers, NASCAR fans, and “praise Jaysus!” freaks can be mollified in whatever manner is necessary.
Confusing the issue with nitpicking over non-essentials – and “evolved instincts” are non-essential – is a net negative, and indicative of an agenda hostile to white *gentile* interests.
“and they need to answer my objections.”
And I hope they do so.
“…to make squirrels into particle physicists. It’s just not in the nature of the beast.”
One can say the say about any schemes to get Jews *sincerely* involved in pro-white activism. It’s definitely not in the nature of the beast. And, yet, you still waste your time with that project.
The problem, in any case, of your proximate approach is that it builds the case for activism on peripheral issues that can be defused by the establishment.
Crime? Import more “law-abiding” Asians and create a police state.
Jobs? Boost the economy – “high-IQ immigrants” can do do.
Morals? Asiatics may have better standards in some cases as whites. And, anyway, let’s “assimilate” the Mexicans to “white culture” and all will be OK. etc..etc…
The establishment can pursue many different strategies to mollify white discontent – and will do so, if required. But if the discontent is based upon actual biological dispossession, on race and kinship – there is no way to mollify that except to actually address the problem – which is the intent.
First, I am skeptical of arguments that some underlying mental module for ethnocentrism/ethnic nepotism has not evolved, given historical attitudes about xenophobia, patriotism, and tribalism. Soldiers sacrifice themselves for their nation and people and have done so since the beginning of time. Spartan mothers were proud to see their sons die for their people.
Second, although I’m not convinced on the non-evolvability of ethnic nepotism, that’s not a big concern of mine. I’ll be quite satisfied to lets Drs. Salter, MacDonald, and Rushton make their arguments about that topic.
Third, then, the point is – can EGI be addressed to at least reasonably intelligent and educated people. If such people can be convinced of such unnatural, untrue, and masochistic memes as “there is no such thing as race” and “we must sacrifice our interests for the racially alien” I’ll find it strange if they would be deaf to reasoned appeals that tap into calls for kinship as well as a broader view of enlightened self-interest.
The idea that whites would reject because of concerns about “status” and “competitive altruism” also applies to the proximate concerns as well. Go to a yuppie cocktail party and start talking about non-white crime, non-white morals, job and mate competition, and see what the reaction will be for that. If I need to struggle to promote pro-white memes, I’d rather just go for the core than for window-dressing.
True enough, the “Jaysus!” crowd may be more focused on the peripheral issues. That’s not my concern. Again – “top down.”
Hunter,
“I don’t think Jobling is working for the Jews”
You may be right. But he is arguing in bad faith. Isn’t it a bit strange that a so-called “pro-white activist” is intent on disarming whites in ethnic/racial competition with other groups who effectively practice ethnic nepotism and in so doing outcompete more individualistic whites?
Indeed, let Jobling preach to south Asians, east Asians, and Jews. Fascinating that all the “ethnic nepotism is not adaptive” arguments are aimed towards the one group (white gentiles) who practice it the least, instead at those groups whose entire ethnic culture is immersed in ethnic nepotism.
Even worse, the ones doing the preaching are those whose own ethnies practice ethnic nepotism, or, as in the case of our “inverted” friend, represents the interests of such groups.
“Do as I say, not as I do” it seems. Let the Asiatics be the first to eschew ethnic nepotism.
HW, I attribute Jobling’s beliefs to something as simple as believing he could do what Jared Taylor did. Have a pro-white website / stance with support, whether open or hidden, by Jews of influence. Jews who could “contribute” to the cause. Someone might cynically say it’s better than working for a living. Just another guy trying to have his cake and eat it too. Is a conscious or unconscious tool? Hey, does it matter?
Ted Sallis,
If there is no evolved instinct for ethnic nepotism then there is absolutely no way that you will ever get whites to resist their race replacement. White people must first have a natural preference for their own kind before you can convince large numbers of them to defend their race.
I am not a scientist so I can only give my layman perspective on the issue of ethnic loyalties. To me it is clear that all races and ethnic groups have an inborn preference for their own kind. However, it is also clear to me that this instinct is very weak. For example, although the vast majority of whites prefer to date other whites huge numbers of them will date non-whites during their lifetime. Moreover, the vast majority of whites — about 99 percent — are extremely hostile to their own ethnic interests. Any notion that whites should act in the interests of their own race will 99 percent of the time illicit hostility, scorn, mockery, or just plain indifference from white people. If ethnic loyalty was anything but a weak, subconscious instinct then no amount of indoctrination could break it down to the level it is today.
People are naturally extremely self-centered. That is the biggest reason we are in the mess that we are in today. As long as most people can make a decent living, watch American Idol, and eat Big Macs they just won’t care hardly at all about their race.
Ted,
First, in this article, I didn’t say that no instincts for ethnocentrism and other behaviors related to ethnicity existed. What I said was, if they do exist, they didn’t evolve for the reasons ENT partisans said they did–see the conclusion.
Intelligent people will certainly be better able to understand arguments about EGIs than less intelligent ones. That doesn’t mean they will act on them. People act when they have desires, and desires are shaped by instincts just as much among intelligent people as unintelligent ones.
NS says, “People are naturally extremely self-centered. That is the biggest reason we are in the mess that we are in today. As long as most people can make a decent living, watch American Idol, and eat Big Macs they just won’t care hardly at all about their race.”
Yes, that’s essentially what I believe. As long as people don’t think issues of race crucially affect their quality of life, they won’t take any interest in a racial movement. And that is quite sane of them. After all, if it’s possible to live a happy life in a multiracial state, why complain? What else should people want other than to live happy lives? Happiness is the only thing that the human animal is concerned about; how well our gene pool is doing is simply of no interest to apes like us.
What motivates me isn’t EGIs, but questions of truth and morality. It’s always wrong and corrupting to suppress the truth, and the contemporary world suppresses the truth about racial differences in intelligence and other matters. There’s a good case to be made that whites are a superior race, and someone should be making that case, so I do.
The deeper reason for a pro-white movement is the possibility of civilizational decline. I fear, for example, that Britain might become like Iran if Muslims become a demographic majority. For me, the pro-white movement is about ensuring the continuance of Western culture, characterized by liberal freedoms, democracy, and cultural and scientific innovation. No other race has managed to achieve these things to the extent that whites have, so the demographic decline of whites places them in jeopardy.
If freedom and innovation decline, so will the quality of life in the ordinary sense, as economic prosperity is founded on these things. In that case, you could see a mass pro-white movement develop. But such a political development is by no means inevitable.
“What motivates me…”
I do not believe you answer is quite complete, is it?
“For me, the pro-white movement is about ensuring the continuance of Western culture, characterized by liberal freedoms, democracy, and cultural and scientific innovation…”
That’s great. For the rest of us, it is about ensuring the continuance of Western PEOPLES.
That’s a fundamental difference that cannot be bridged.
For me, the pro-White movement is about thwarting our racial displacement on the North American continent, reasserting control over our own destiny, ensuring a positive future for White children, staking claim to a piece of territory in which our full racial potential can be developed and realized.
Looking ahead, I see the United States transformed into a flop house for the refuse of the world. I envision a scenario in which “democracy” and “social justice” are invoked as rationales to pillage Whites and to justify permanent non-White rule; equality before the law replaced by a hierarchy of favored and protected classes; a place where Whites enjoy the “freedom” to engage in every vice imaginable, but not to simply congregate amongst themselves.
I want to part of such a society. I don’t care if it is a multiracial version of the Jetsons with Star Trek replicators that can create food out of thin air.
Jan Jobling says
“Human beings across the world are almost genetically identical. According to the most common estimate, humans share 99.9 percent of their genes, so it is only a tiny fraction of genes that create differences between individuals and ethnies. ”
it is factually not true. 99% would be a better shot with all its consequences
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19715442?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1
Ah Ted, you beat me to it. Much of it reminds of Jewish speakers who when speaking of “people” or the “human race” are specifically referring to their own group. Kind of like a kid speaking to you with his fingers crossed behind his back. Jobling and certainly his masters cannot make the jump to state that preserving Western Peoples, the “White Race” is imperative. Or if they do, it certainly won’t be sincere.
“For me, the pro-White movement is about thwarting our racial displacement on the North American continent, reasserting control over our own destiny, ensuring a positive future for White children, staking claim to a piece of territory in which our full racial potential can be developed and realized.”
Hunter Wallace
Great paragraph. I agree with it completely.
In fact, it’s exactly because I do that I worry not just about Jewish influence in thwarting our efforts to acheive what Mr. Wallace talks about in the above quote. But that answers for what we need to do emerge exclusively from the very source that lead us to where we are in the first place.
As I understand European culture (and I view America as a cultural and intellectual extension of Europe) what seperates it from all other cultures is it’s ability to innovate, and it’s desire to move into a larger freedom – the two go together.
I believe one explanation for our current dilema is that Whites got their foot stuck in the Enlightenment and can’t for the life of them get it out.
This is something Jews have merely exploited, since they have not changed one bit in their entire history.
Our dependency on Enlightenment principles has lead to a cultural stagnation whose foundation was the mindless application of old forms and old solutions on ever new and increasingly complex problems. Problems that mankind has never faced before in quite this way.
And Whites face their biggest crisis, probably ever. I would hate to see us limit ourselves to solutions that emanate solely from Enlightenment principles.
” Happiness is the only thing that the human animal is concerned about; how well our gene pool is doing is simply of no interest to apes like us.”
Then why do people bother having children? Then why have so many men enlisted in Armies at times of perceived National Crisis?
The Israelis care about more than just being happy. They care about the future of their race. Just try sneaking your non-Jewish butt into Israel and you’ll find out just how much they care!
And it’s the same thing with China, Mexico, Iran, Afghanistan, Japan, etc.
Modern Politically Correctized White People are the odd men out, the absolute weirdos of the Human Race. For some reason, they have a fear of standing up for themselves on a racial level that leads to the suppression of instincts that are natural and freely expressed by most People around the World.
“And, of course, brain scans show that Whites have a stronger (negative) response to Black faces than to those of Whites, which suggests an evolved heightened “danger” response to the phenotypically alien.”
It seems to me that this could’ve evolved primarily as a result of interfamilial conflict, as is the case with many EGI adaptive behavior patterns.
If your brain evolved to be more afraid of and less altruistic to members of rival clans who look a little bit different than your clan, how much more will your brain be more afraid of and less altruistic to people who look a LOT different than the average member of you clan!
Your general point that in recent time Ethnocentrism has been strongly selected for is well taken though.
Phenomenal piece you have scored here! The web is overflowing of horrid publishing and I was taken hold of by your pellucidity. Your decisions are precise and I will directly subscribe to your rss feed to remain up to date with your up emerging postings. Yes! I acknowledge it, your penning style is charming and I will work tougher on mine.
First, let me commend your clarity on this subject. I am not an expert on this subject, but after learning your article, my understanding has developed well. Please tolerate me to take hold of your rss feed to remain in touch with any inflowing updates. Fabulous job and will extend it on to acquaintances and my website followers.