A thorough 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?”
RESOLVED: By promoting mass non-white immigration into the USA and other Western nations, Jews are damaging their own ethnic genetic interests and are hence behaving maladaptively.
Argument: 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).
Counter-Argument: 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.
However, 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.
In 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.
Therefore, it 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.
Whatever loss 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.
Argument: First, Jews are assimilating, as intermarriage rates show; therefore, shouldn’t they have interests that coincide with non-Jewish White Americans? A future non-White America may be less accommodating to Jewish interests than are White Americans. Racial conflict may result in serious anti-Semitism; growing numbers of non-Whites would feel no attachments to Jews or to Israel, and may well just consider Jews to be another variety of hated White.
Counter-Argument: 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.
In addition, 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 USA and with East and South Asians globally. By portraying themselves as a distinct, persecuted minority in solidarity with the non-West, Jews may survive and thrive in a post-Western, post-White world and in American in particular. They are already strategizing to ditch the West once the White race collapses.
Argument: But, the Jewish alliance with Blacks has essentially fallen apart, and Blacks are among the most anti-Jewish of Americans. As long as Israel exists, Muslims are expected to be hostile to Jews. Jews may broker some sort of quid pro quo arrangement with Hispanics (i.e., Jewish support for immigration and amnesty in exchange for Hispanic support for Israel), but for how long willAmerica’s growing Hispanic population tolerate Jewish oversight of their politics? Won’t they rebel, just like the Blacks? And why should Asians tolerate Jewish competitors, except as part of a temporary alliance of convenience against Whites?
Despite all 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.
Counter-Argument: 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?
Obviously, 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.”
Hopefully, 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.