More on Racial Cuckoldry and Racial Mimicry 

Ted Sallis  

October 27, 2009

I have received some feedback on my racial cuckoldry article and, to be honest, some of the comments are disheartening.  Some readers apparently completely missed the major point of the essay, and there seem to be many misunderstandings.  I will make a few brief comments here.  I would strongly suggest though that interested readers go to American Renaissance and order Frank Salter’s book On Genetics Interests.  Salter deals with some of these issues, including the "only phenotype is important” argument, in his chapter replying to objections to genetic interests, and this book is absolutely fundamental. 

I will start by outlining the chain of argumentation used in the original racial cuckoldry essay. I attempted to construct a simple, logical, and accessible-to-the-layman thesis.  I began by discussing the general phenomenon of cuckoldry for evolved organisms, relating the human experience of cuckolded men with what occurs with brood parasitism involving, for example, birds. 

I assume that the reader agrees that raising another man’s child due to deception is a serious blow to the cuckold’s interests, since he is investing in another man’s genetic continuity and not his own. But it’s the same at the level of the population: Racial cuckoldry occurs when the “racial cuckold” mistakenly perceives a genetically alien person/group as a member of the cuckolds’ own ethny, and thus maladaptively invests in that genetically alien person/group.   

I then considered in what manner such a mistake can be made.  I used several examples — including on the population level (e.g., Kalash) and on the individual level (e.g., Gosselaar) — to demonstrate that racial cuckoldry often occurs because of racial mimicry.  The cuckold thinks that the genetic alien “looks like” and/or “acts like” “one of us” and thus accepts that this alien is “one of us” when objectively, this alien is not “one of us” at all. 

I concluded that if one wishes to avoid the maladaptive action of racial cuckoldry, one must take into consideration kinship as evaluated through genetic assays, instead of relying on personal opinions of what someone “looks like.” 

I also pointedly compared cuckoldry to adoption.  In both cases, investment is made in the genetic alien, but with cuckoldry, this investment takes place involuntarily due to deception and/or ignorance, and in the case of adoption the investment is voluntary, the decision is made fully informed of the genetic consequences. 

The ultimate “take home point” of the original essay is that whatever decision one makes on “who is in my ingroup,” that decision must be an informed one, made with all the facts known.  If you want to “adopt” the Kalash or Gosselaar as European, then at least do so knowing exactly what they are.  I also pointed out that it is not necessary to “test” every individual - ethnic group data can serve as a proxy when individuals’ ethnic ancestries are known. 

Thus, starting from the biological reality that adaptive behavior for evolved organisms is defined as that behavior which results in genetic continuity and/or expansion, all else in the original essay follows, assuming that the reader wants to act adaptively.  Of course, people may not care (e.g., quite a few Christians don’t care). But it is reasonable to believe that readers of The Occidental Observer care about adaptive behavior, even if they may not specifically use that “scientific" term to describe their interests in familial and racial continuity.  The typical racial nationalist stresses kinship ties to the race and ethnic group.

Let’s look at some (paraphrased) comments and complaints (in italics) and replies to these.

The concept of “Racial Cuckoldry” presumes the existence of a pure race…

I have read over my original essay and I can't quite see any references to a "pure race."  All that is required is genetic differences, not “purity.” 

You confuse racial interests with genetic interests.  Racial interests are the interests we have for people with a White phenotype, groups that have evolved a White phenotype in particular environments.  You are too reductionist with all of these genetic arguments.  Only physical appearance matters.

Some people apparently missed the entire point of the essay and talk about only White phenotypes as being of importance, and that if different groups under similar conditions evolved similar White phenotypes, then that’s all that matters. 

Salter made clear in On Genetic Interests that some people will continue stubbornly clinging to phenotype and that “who cares?" will always be an essentially unanswerable riposte against the invocation of genetic interests. This is likely what is happening here: If some people simply don’t care about kinship or relatedness at all, what can one do? If people value phenotype over kinship, then that is their value system and one cannot objectively argue against values.  However, one can logically point out that this choice, this value system, is not biologically adaptive.  It is the same as favoring the children of a completely unrelated stranger over your own children simply because the stranger’s children happen to look more like you than your own (assume for the sake of simplicity that all are of the same ethny).  Now, if that is your choice based on your value system, I can’t argue with you. But don’t pretend that it is adaptive and a biologically wise choice.  It is in fact highly maladaptive. 

Another argument is as follows.  For a variety of reasons, disease-related as well as, allegedly, surgical, Michael Jackson started "looking Whiter" as he aged. However, his African-American genes remained the same.  If, as some claim, racial interests are different from genetic interests, I ask — did Whites' racial interests in Michael Jackson increase as he started to "look Whiter?"  If racial phenotype independent of genetics is what racial interests are really about, then by the time of his death Mr. Jackson was much "more White" than he was as a youth, and, thus, of greater racial interest to Euro-Americans.

To answer that absurdity, some may claim that what they really mean are heritable phenotypes.  That’s okay, but by heritable you mean genetic.  Thus, these racial interests in phenotype are based upon genes — genes for physical appearance.  But why should these genes get sole precedent over all others?  What about genes encoding intelligence, behavior, etc?  What about so-called "non-functional" genes that provide important information on kinship, on family, on common ancestral origins?  Who is to say that some genes are important to racial interests and others are not? 

The fact is that there are many, many more functional genes than just those controlling physical appearance. And, even though (true) non-functional genes may be of lesser importance, gene markers that provide important information on kinship are not completely without value.  Thus, I argue that all genetic information that distinguishes people or groups from each other is important.  Some are more important than others, but all must be considered.  Once you cite the heritable genetic nature of phenotype to get around the obvious absurdity of "a ‘Whiter’ Michael Jackson is now worthy of White racial interests," one cannot arbitrarily draw a line and say that only a small set of genes are important.  They all are, to one degree or another. Thus, racial interests are indeed genetic interests; there is no real difference between the two.

Groups people say are related are not really that related because, for example, Slavs and Basques are characterized by different NRY haplotypes.   

First of all, you cannot determine population identity by single locus markers, like NRY or mtDNA.  Their time of utility for population genetics has passed; we are now in the age of using hundreds of thousands of autosomal markers to ascertain race and ethnic group identities.  Second of all, there is no such thing as an ethnic group composed of members with only one type of NRY or mtDNA haplotype.  There is variation within groups as well.  This means that even in mono-ethnic extended families, you can have different NRY or mtDNA.  Mono-ethnic male cousins of different paternal lineages can have different NRY. Are they not closely related?  The same applies to mDNA and maternal lineages. 

Now, there are of course real differences between European types that can be identified by autosomal analyses.  I never said Europeans were identical.  The point is, though, that they are much more closely related to each other than to the Kalash, or to hybrids like Gosselaar. 

A general comment that does have some validity is that I am missing the forest for the trees.  In other word:  with a global racial meltdown for Whites, why bother nitpicking over a White-looking fellow like Mr. Gosselaar?  Is it necessary to focus on ever finer genetic distinctions?

In one sense, I am sympathetic to this argument.  Gosselaar and reasonable numbers of people like him are likely assimilable.  And, true enough, it is easy to get distracted from the worldwide racial crisis by obsessing over small genetic differences between closely related peoples.

On the other hand, Gosselaar's non-European ancestry is not trivial.  Even if you assume that his mother herself is admixed and not pure Indonesian (possible, given Gosselaar's appearance), the fact that he may be 1/4 Indonesian rather than 1/2 Indonesian doesn't make him European.  25% Southeast Asian ancestry is a lot.  And I have no definite evidence his mother is admixed; it is just a possibility.  

But, Gosselaar was just an example of the broader issue.  An entire ethnic group — the Kalash — is being mistakenly classified as similar to Europeans based on several pictures of Kalash children.  So, the assimilability of Mr. Gosselaar aside, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  At the very least, as I have stated, let us have the information.  If we know what Gosselaar and the Kalash are, and if we still want to accept them as "White" — well, at least make that acceptance an informed decision.  Thus, my essay is not so much telling people where to draw the line, but rather, suggesting that they get all their facts in order before drawing that line — and that they must rely on genetic facts and not just on their personal opinions of what they think someone "looks like." 

Some of this is arbitrary — there are blonde, blue-eyed Jews, Black Jews, etc.

I was referring for the most part to Ashkenazim, the ones that may look most similar to Europeans.  That they may be "blonde and blue eyed" — like some Kalash — is the entire point of the article. 

Some groups have increased their power by accepting mixed race “cuckoos.”  Blacks accept as “Black” obviously mixed mulattoes, and this increases Black numbers and power.  Hispanics come in all types: White, Black, Amerindian, and mixes thereof, but a pan-Hispanic identity increases their power.  Maybe it is OK to have “racial cuckoldry?” 

Obviously some people skipped over my distinction between cuckoldry, in which ignorance/deception is involved, and adoption, in which the genetic alien is accepted with the knowledge of the differences that exist.  I put forth the option that one could “adopt” Gosselaar or the Kalash (or, by analogy, even Jews) as “European.”  If that will increase our power and cause a net gain of genetic interest (by helping us save ourselves), that would be a good strategy.  All I am saying is — let us know the facts about genes and kinship before making a decision.  If the decision is “let's accept Jews, Kalash, and Gosselaar,” that’s fine. Let's see the argument for that and balance it against the genetic evidence and kinship.   

Certainly, it makes sense for any group to look for allies and mutual benefits. What I am concerned about is cuckoldry, where one race is giving resources to people from another race.

These critics don't want to consider kinship at all.  They only want to consider interests like physical appearance and political power.  How is that different from the argument that (alien) immigration will make us all richer? 

Let's assume that the immigration would make us richer and more powerful.  Is it still good? Only if we can be assured that in the long run we won’t lose wealth and power to the alien immigrants. In other words, we must be assured that immigration does not result in cuckolding the receiving race.

As a thought experiment, one could imagine a managed form of immigration in which immigrants worked as contract laborers and could be trusted never to seek political power; nor would they seek economic benefits such as affirmative action that are costly to the natives, or disrupt the cohesiveness of the host society. They would leave as soon  as their contract expired. Under such a situation, immigration may indeed be beneficial for the receiving society.

Unfortunately, immigration into Western societies is not at all like this. Current immigration is maladaptive for Whites because within a few decades they will be a political minority at which point their wealth (and even their physical safety) may well be imperiled. And immigration destroys the social fabric by creating ethnic enclaves. And in the end, the present form of immigration lowers the genetic fitness of the natives relative to the total gene pool of the society. That is, distinctive European genetic combinations become relatively less common.

By the way, Blacks accepting mulattoes as “Black” is not racial cuckoldry.  Blacks distinguish between dark "pure" Negroes and the "coffee and cream" mixes. In other words, skin tone has important practical implications among Blacks.  But in any case, they know that those with light skin are mixed and they have decided to accept them.

It is not racial cuckoldry if people create categories that benefit their own group. Whites could creatively admit others (say, Jews) into the category of White if it benefited them in some way. But if so, the important thing would be to be aware of underlying genetic differences in order to prevent cuckoldry by, say, coming to believe that all Whites have the same interests in Israel as Jews do.

In any case, the point is that the people who claim that the Kalash are the same as Europeans are not saying “we are different, but let's form an alliance anyway.”  Instead, they are mistakenly thinking that the groups are the same when they are not — they are saying “the Kalash are just like Europeans, let’s accept them as such.”  The decision of acceptance is being based on mistaken opinions of Kalash racial characteristics. That’s the point.

People will not agree to be tested.

In my article, I said that it is unlikely that everyone will use genetic testing. And I say that we should use ethnic data as a proxy for individualized data in most cases.

Then there is another fellow on another website who has made the following comments (in italics, my response in plain text).

Ted seems to be saying that everyone has to provide a DNA analysis indicating that they are pure Aryan before they can join the club.

In the original essay, I openly state that for most people, simply knowing what their ethnic ancestry is can be reasonably sufficient if population genetics data exists for the person's ancestral ethnic groups.  I do not say "everyone must be tested."  I do say that would be optimal, but it is not currently practical.

I do not "seem" to be saying anything about "pure Aryans" either.  “Racial purity” has become a strawman argument, often used today by the “anti-racist” left to delegitimize the science of racial genetics.  It is also now apparently being used by some on the “right” to attack genetic testing.  “Purity” is not required. All that’s important is that genetic differences exist, and that some groups/people are more or less closely related compared to others.  So no one needs to “indicate” that they are a “pure Aryan.” However, I don't think it is too much to ask that people who are considered "racially just the same as Europeans" not be Central/South Asians like the Kalash or have an Indonesian mother like Gosselaar.

What a load of nonsense. Mark-Paul Gosselaar is a White man because he looks White.

This kind of thinking is exactly what I am arguing against in my essay.  Gosselaar is likely to be genetically 25–50% Southeast Asian.  But because he "looks White" in a photograph he mysteriously is not transformed into a "White man."  Let's change this a bit.  Imagine this commentator sees a boy that is the son of an unrelated stranger.  The boy looks like the commentator, so he says,  "That boy is my son because he looks like my son, he looks like me."  But … he's not your son.  He is someone else's son.  If your wife cheats and bears another man's son and tricks you into thinking it is yours — followed by her saying "that's it, no more children for me" — is the possibility that the little "cuckoo" may "look like you" going to change the fact that your genetic line has ended and you are raising another man's child?  Doesn't it matter what people actually are?

Let’s look at this another way.  Highly admixed families often exhibit a high degree of phenotypic variability.  Contrary to popular misconceptions, people do not inherit an equal, proportional amount of genes from each of their ancestors.  So, for example, due to independent assortment and recombination that occurs in meiosis, a person may inherit significantly less than or greater than 25% of particular types of genes from each of their grandparents — and the same applies to all other ancestors and proportional genetic inheritance going back in time.  Assume Gosselaar’s mother is herself somewhat admixed, with some European heritage. Thus, Mark-Paul Gosselaar may have inherited predominantly European phenotypic genes from his Eurasian mother to complement those from his father.  His overall genetic ancestry, however, will still be significantly Southeast Asian, but he will “look White.”  In theory, he can have a full sibling who inherits more of the Asian genes from the mother and therefore will look obviously non-White and Eurasian.  Can a “White man” have a non-White full sibling?  Isn’t it obvious that ancestry trumps physical appearance? 

And even if the mother is full Indonesian, many Indonesians do “not look as Mongoloid” as do many other East Asians, particularly Northeast Asians. They may have ancestry from other sources, including, possibly, Pacific Islander, Australoid, or even South Asian.  Particular combinations of uneven inheritance of genes encoding physical appearance can result in a Eurasian who looks like Gosselaar — despite being heavily Asiatic and obviously not “White.” 

Whether Kalash are White or not is irrelevant. They don’t live in White countries so who cares?

Commentators at American Renaissance sure care.  And, obviously, the point about the Kalash is that they are illustrating the Racial Cuckoldry problem.  The Kalash may not live in White countries, but other non-European Caucasians do live in White countries.  Should we accept them all as "White Europeans" just because you think they "look White?" 

Ashkenazi Jews are White to me but that does not make them one of us. Many Albanians are White but I don’t consider them one of us. 

Why?  Why aren't they the same as Gosselaar?  They "look White" but they are not "White?" 

Final Thoughts

Most scientists believe that life on Earth came about as replicating macromolecules.  These were almost certainly not DNA at first — perhaps RNA and possibly proteins. Some even postulate that non-organic material was the first replicating macromolecule.  What we are talking about here is information — self-replicating information in material form, making more copies of itself.   

Relatively quickly, given the many advantages of DNA as material for storing and replicating this information, DNA took over as the predominant form of replicating macromolecule leading to life as we know it.  Selective pressures then favored those replicating macromolecules that could not only reproduce themselves most efficiently (e.g., faster) but also those that could fill new niches and exploit these niches for further replication.  Thus, the informational material began coding for production of proteins that created a phenotype, whose purpose was the more effective replication of the informational material in particular ecological niches.  This, self-replicating information became genetic information, and life as we know it today.  The “striving of life” — if we may use that unscientific term — is toward the reproduction of the genetic material encoded in the DNA. 

Many species, like the Mayfly, have extremely short adult lives, some as short as only 30 minutes!  These insects simply emerge from the pupae, fly around, mate, lay eggs, and die.  If the “striving of life” was to express phenotypes, it is certainly strange to evolve a phenotype whose only purpose is to produce an adult that mates and then dies within 30 minutes.  The mayfly seems to me to be an organism (similar to microorganisms) whose essential purpose is reproduction.  Reproduction of what?  More 30 minute-lived adults?  Or, reproduction of the unique and distinctive genetic information characteristics of mayflies, that produces a particular phenotype to fill a niche allowing for this information’s replication.   

I know the answer that evolutionary biologists would give, the only answer that makes sense and which is consistent with modern neo-Darwinian thought: The mayfly is a vehicle for the reproduction of its genes, nothing more and nothing less. 

Humans, ultimately, are no different.  Europeans — and the finer subracial and ethnic distinctions among Europeans — need to worry about the continuity of their own unique and distinctive genetic information, and let Central/South Asians and Eurasian hybrids, regardless of phenotype, worry about themselves.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.  

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-CuckoldryII.html