Subscribe to The Occidental Observer Newsletter and be notified of updates through emails. To subscribe, go to our Subscribe Page
Jewish Ethnic Genetic Interests?
June 22, 2010
June 22, 2010
analysis of the recent
Atzmon et al. data, particularly the data most relevant to genetic
interests (i.e., gene sharing, the IBD findings),
clearly shows that Jews, while genetically close to Europeans, form their
own cluster in between Europeans and Middle Easterners, and are more similar to
each other than they are to Europeans.
However, a controversy has erupted as to what these findings may mean
with respect to the genetic interests of Jews.
How can this issue be more properly addressed?
Here I start such a discussion.
Note that this is obviously not
meant to be a comprehensive analysis; it is merely one example of how such a
discussion could begin, provided we assume that those discussing this issue
actually want to achieve a reasonable analysis, rather than using “Jewish EGI”
in a purely instrumental fashion for political propaganda purposes.
Note as well
that this analysis can in no way be considered “anti-Semitic,” as the entire
point of this exercise is to determine what an optimal strategy would be for
Jewish survival as a unique people – in other words, “is it good for the Jews?”
By promoting mass non-white immigration into the
Mass migration of non-whites brings in peoples, who are, for the most
part, genetically distant from Jews, directly displacing Jews and harming their
EGI. Since Jews are relatively
genetically close to Europeans, and since there are large numbers of
European-descended people in the USA, race replacement immigration into America
also harms Jewish EGI, by replacing those more similar to Jews (i.e.,
Euro-Americans) with those genetically more distant to Jews (i.e., non-Whites).
Jews are a distinct people from Europeans, and are not really
assimilating into Euro-America (see below), and therefore have to be considered
separately from Euro-Americans with respect to their direct EGI.
Jews make up a very small percentage of
America’s population — they are far from directly influencing American carrying
capacity with their own numbers.
Hence, changes in the demographic composition of the greater American population
will not result in displacement of
Jews – they’ll always be a small proportion of the population one way or
another. Therefore, the only real
possible harm to Jewish EGI comes from the indirect effect of immigration on
Euro-Americans, who are genetically closer to Jews than are most non-Whites.
Atzmon’s findings show that Jewish groups cluster together and are characterized
by a very high degree of gene sharing. This means Jewish populations have
a very marked degree of genetic interests in other Jewish populations, in
contrast to their genetic interests in Europeans.
Further, even though there are many more Europeans worldwide than there
are Jews, the much weaker Jewish gene sharing with Europeans means that Jewish
genetic interests may be overwhelmingly concentrated in their very close
gene-sharing relations that Jews group have with their small number of
co-ethnics. In this sense, if an action can boost the probability of Jewish
group survival, then this action can be adaptive even if it harms the interests
of the more numerous Europeans, with whom Jewish populations have a more
diluted and attenuated genetic relationship.
On Genetic Interests, Salter defines
four basic ethnic strategies (or lack of a strategy): first, majorities
defending their ethnic interests in an ethnic state; second, majorities living
in multiculturalism and not defending group interests; third, minorities that
assimilate into the majority; and fourth, endogamous strategizing minorities
that do not assimilate and preserve themselves as a separate unique ethny. Given
that Jews perceive themselves, and are, a unique people, and have traditionally
avoided assimilation, it seems that they do/should follow the last strategy,
which typically is observed among Diaspora peoples (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Parsis,
etc. — people living in host nations).
If so, the presence of a biologically and culturally homogenous host nation can be perceived as a threat to such an unassimilating minority, if for no other reasons than that (1) there will always be assimilatory pressures in a majority-centered state; (2) in a majority ethnic state, the interests of the majority will be given precedence over that of minorities; and (3) naturally, whenever two distinct groups share the same territory without assimilation, overall differences of interests will always crop up.
would be in the interests of an unassimilating Diaspora-type minority to oppose
majority ethnocentrism and the formation of an ethnic state and, instead, favor
a minority rights-focused multicultural model in which mobilized minorities are
favored over atomized majority members who do not defend specific group
interests Further, diluting the biological and cultural preeminence of the
majority through mass alien immigration can also be seen as a useful strategy
for a Diaspora minority .
of genetic interests that may occur because the minority is relatively
genetically close to the dispossessed majority, will be counter-balanced by
gains that accrue to that minority by following the anti-majority strategy.
Again, these gains, causing a net positive advancement of genetic interests, are
predicated on the facts that (1) the minority is genetically integrated and
different from the majority, and (2) the minority is not fully assimilating.
After all, even if the genetic distinctions are negligible, minority losses from
majority displacement will be large; if assimilation is occurring, then the
minority will share the fate of the majority they are melding into, a fate that
is obviously maladaptive.
First, Jews are assimilating, as intermarriage rates show; therefore,
shouldn’t they have interests that coincide with non-Jewish White Americans? A
Intermarriage rates are likely over-estimated, and in any case, are 1.5-2 fold
lower than they should be, given population proportions, if genuine assimilation
was occurring. Further, there are solid anti-assimilation elements in the
Jewish population, and the more ethnocentric elements have the highest
birthrates. There's no evidence that the separate Diaspora strategy is
being fully abandoned. More
importantly, this confuses prescriptive and descriptive arguments.
If Jews are a distinct people and perceive themselves as such, and if
they are not already predominantly assimilated (albeit these are descriptive
arguments they may be controversial), then, prescriptively, they should eschew
intermarriage and follow a separatist model.
Jews have shown the ability to make alliances with non-Whites against Whites
(e.g., the Civil Rights movement) and are now attempting to make alliances with
Hispanics within the
But, the Jewish alliance with Blacks has essentially fallen apart, and Blacks
are among the most anti-Jewish of Americans.
As long as
the “persecutions” of history, the only place Jews have prospered has been the
West. Therefore, I argue that long
term preservation of Jewish EGI requires Jews to drop their historical grudges
against the West and to move away from fears of “white goy persecutors” and
instead attempt to make a deal with Europeans that would safeguard the existence
of both peoples.
But, why would the Europeans trust Jews (and vice versa) after all that has
happened, and with a growing knowledge of the Jewish role in Civil Rights, mass
migration and multiculturalism?
reasonable arguments can be made to support either contention: that Jews are
acting adaptively or acting maladaptively in pursuit of their EGI in the context
of their “progressive activism.”
the issue will be taken seriously. All peoples have preservationist
rights; even groups that have heretofore wished to deny preservationism to
others may become convinced of the legitimacy of Salter's "universal
nationalism" if they realize their own long term group survival depends upon it.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that we keep an open mind in the event that Jews
rationally conclude that their optimal interests are best served by preserving
the European peoples.
As I'll be working on a conceptual genetics project that hopefully will positively impact racial nationalism, I'll leave the "finish" of this "argument/counter-argument" to the insightful and thoughtful commentariat here, and focus on that project.
Ted Sallis (email
him) writes on scientific issues.