Ethnic Genetic Interests

What Does It Really Mean to Be English?

/4 Comments/in , /by

The increasing ethnic diversity of England – due to 30 years of mass-immigration combined with the much higher birth-rate of Muslim immigrants in particular – has led to an extremely emotional debate over what it means to be English. The Pakistani Labour Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has asserted that she is “English” and the Prime Minister has stated that those who dissent from her view are “the enemies of national renewal.” This is a euphemism; a way of saying that you are being divisive if you insist on the idea that to be “English” you must be ethnically so. By contrast, the former (Conservative) Home Secretary Suella Braverman, an ethnic Indian, provoked huge controversy by accepting that though she was “British” she was surely not “English” and didn’t see herself as such.

So, we have two ideas of what it means to be English: (1) That you are born in England, or even simply live in England, regardless of your genetics and (2) That you are . . . well . . . actually English; that you are a member of the ethnic group that is the English. A system of categories is only useful if it allows correct predictions to be made. The second definition allows correct predictions to be made.

Two random English people are twelfth cousins. They have a common ancestor in about the sixteenth century and they are both descended from King Edward III due to the fact that socioeconomic status strongly predicted completed fertility until the Industrial Revolution. This means something, as their helping each other – and certainly breeding with each other –means that they can indirectly pass on more of their genes. This is why most people marry endogamously. It is why studies find that we disproportionately co-operate with people of our own ethnic group. It is why studies find that we sexually select for genetic similarity. It is why friends and housemates are more likely to be from the same ethnic group.

As Frank Salter has shown in his book On Genetic Interests, this can be quantified based on genetic similarity. If the world was only English and Danes then two English people would be 7th cousins. The replacement of 10,000 English with 10,000 Danes would be the equivalent of each Englishman losing 167 children. If we replace Danes with Bantu, it would mean the loss of 10,054 children. Hence, the genetic definition of ethnicity is highly meaningful. It explains why English people will lay down their lives in war, even against relatively similar ethnic groups; such as the Germans. So, this model of Englishness predicts something very important.

Secondly, the English – due to centuries of endogamy and relative isolation – are a genetic cluster. This will lead to modal differences in behaviour or “national character,” again rendering genetic Englishness a useful predictive category. For example, psychologist Richard Lynn (1930-2023) showed in his book An Introduction to the Study of Personality that the English are far lower in Neuroticism than the French, which likely explains why France is so much less politically stable, with all its different “Republics.”

There are many other crucial ways in which English ethnicity is a predictive category. If it is not, then why does the National Health Service put out adverts asking for Black and Asian organ donors? The answer is that your body is more likely to accept an organ from someone who is strongly genetically similar; from someone of your own ethnic group. Similarly, cystic fibrosis is 1 in 19 among the Irish but 1 in 25 among the English. Lactose intolerance is higher among the English than among the Irish.

“Englishness” is meaningful as a predictive category . . . of course it is, because the English are a distinct genetic cluster. The Pakistani Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is no more likely than a random Irish person to be lactose intolerant. The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, is more likely to be. Mahmood, being from an area of Pakistan where 70% of people marry their cousins, is, however, more likely to have a whole host of genetic problems that are common there.

Thirdly, there is a simple matter of consistency. The left will allow that the Saami – the reindeer herders of Lapland – are an ethnic group, defined by their ancestry. But, according to data presented by Salter, so are the English. Both present as genetic clusters due to common ancestry and endogamy. If the Saami is an ethnic group, indeed, an “indigenous” group, then so are the English. If the English are not an indigenous group, then, surely, I can simply move to Saamiland and declare myself a Saami. Of course, I cannot, which highlights the inconsistency. The Saami know I’m not one of them, though they might eventually “adopt” me, and this raises a crucial point.

We know – deep within us – who are our “family,” though the borders can be nebulous. Do we see all our second cousins – even those we haven’t met – as “family”? For English people, the English are, in effect, their highly extended family. It’s nothing to do with “values.” Your brother is still “family” even if he is a murderer. It’s the same with your “ethny.” But as with “family,” this “feeling” element means that it is mainly, though not completely, about genetics. Surely, we would see sur dog as more part of our family than our cousin, and our dog is a different species!

Can this be true in relation to our ethnic family? Can there be nebulous borders in the same way? It was common in the 1980s to assert that all non-Whites should be sent home “except Frank. He’s one of us is Frank.” “Frank” was the Black boxer Frank Bruno who’d been born in England, married an English woman, and had done our country proud. I think intelligent people can disagree over whether someone like that can be “adopted” into the family of Englishness.

We are a highly pro-social species, we create very strong social bonds, and you can see how an element of being “one of us” can be social. The Scottish comedian Count Dankula once tweeted that he wanted every foreigner sent home, except the ones who were his friends. This resonated with a lot of “based” people. I don’t want my friend, a Native South American woman who was adopted by English people at six weeks, “sent home.” Even bees – a eusocial species – “adopt” into their hives. In a process known as trophallaxis, a bee gets lost, lacks the energy to return to her hive, acquires some nectar as a gift, goes to another hive and, if she’s lucky, is accepted in, with the guard covering her with the guard’s – and thus the hive’s – scent.

Overall, however, only the genetic definition of Englishness is predictive, consistent and congruous with what the English feel, as reflected in how they behave rather than how they virtue-signal. And as for Suella Braverman’s idea that she is “British” but not “English,” it says in the national anthem, “One realm of races four” and the same arguments that I’ve made about “English” could be made, far more cautiously, about “British.” This is because there is a large genetic gap between the English and the Celts. England, after all, is the “land of the English” and the English came from what is now the Netherlands and Denmark and displaced (in the east), and interbred with (in the west), the Celts.        

Review of Ed Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism

/35 Comments/in , , /by

Race Differences in Ethnocentrism
Edward Dutton
Arktos, 2019.

“Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself.”
Ed Dutton

Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it’s easy to forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher, author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton’s At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People by What They Look Like (2018),  J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018),  and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers (2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered, in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant monographs I’ve read in years.

Dutton’s book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two questions “particularly salient during a period of mass migration”: ‘Why are some races more ethnocentric than others?’ and, most urgently of all, ‘Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?’ In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by everyone.

In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves “taking pride in your ethnic group or nation and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it.” Negative ethnocentrism, on the other hand, “refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups.” Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that “there exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent to which they are ethnocentric.” Dutton’s foundation is built on a deep reading of existing literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia’s Boris Bizumic. These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict. Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of ‘inclusive fitness,’ which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one’s genes.

Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called ‘Age of Discovery,’ Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill intruding foreigners, including an American missionary in November 2018. The Japanese appear throughout history to have combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European ‘Age of Discovery.’ Read more

Marine Le Pen suggests Wallonia become part of France

/58 Comments/in /by

Marine Le Pen has suggested that the French-speaking part of Belgium become part of France, pending a referendum of all Belgians. This follows last year’s vote in which a majority of voters in Flanders favored Flemish separatists. Le Pen stated that “if Belgian is going to split, if Flanders pronounces its independence, which seems more and more credible a possibility, the French republic would do well to welcome Wallonia into its heart.”

A related article, “End of Nationalism Dream Dying in Belgium” notes that “If even Belgium’s Dutch speaking Flemish and francophone Walloons cannot live together then how can Europe’s ‘Union’, a more recent and even more artificial construction, hope to bridge national differences?”

Indeed. The EU project was built on moral idealism of the left rather than on a realistic understanding of what motivates people. Attachment to ethnically similar people sharing a common language and culture is a bedrock part of human nature–hence the robustness of these differences no matter how much the left would like to engineer them away. Read more

Anders Breivik as a Nordicist

/128 Comments/in , , , /by

It’s been noted, particularly on the racialist, paleoconservative right, that Anders Breivik’s ideas closely resemble the ideas usually associated with the neoconservatives: Strong support for Israel and opposition to Islam. For example, in his book, Breivik cites Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and he includes several excellent articles from the Gates of Vienna site. My article, based on his web comments, may have contributed to this perception.

However, unlike the great majority of neoconservatives who are focused mainly on supporting  Israel and for whom any other conservative attitude is a position of convenience, Breivik comes across as someone who is mainly motivated to preserve Europeans and their culture. (For example, neocons are typically very soft on immigration (see here, p. 26 and passim, including Muslim immigration; Breivik includes an article  by “Fjordman” that questions neocon Daniel Pipes‘ idea of promoting moderate Islam.)

And, despite condemning cultural Marxism as the main villain, in the end Breivik realizes that it’s a biological battle. In his book, Breivik comments several times on the eventual extinction of the  Nordics if something isn’t done. Breivik’s view is that a poisonous, maladaptive culture may result in evolutionary death just as surely as a genocidal military invasion. His ideas imply what I take to be correct, that evolutionary conflict is now mainly taking place in the arena of culture—the view of The Culture of Critique. Because cultural Marxism has resulted in natural selection against the Nordics, Breivik views it as a racist ideology of hatred toward Nordics: “Multiculturalism IS as evil and racist as Nazism and as brutal as Stalinism.” This strongly suggests that his web comments where he condemns ethnocentrism are strategic and don’t go to the heart of his thinking. Read more

Model Minorities Gettin’ Slizzered

/89 Comments/in , /by
Far East Movement

This is Assimilation?

Asian immigrants are frequently referred to as “model minorities” because they generally succeed educationally and occupationally, without exhibiting the social pathologies rampant among America’s Black and Hispanic underclasses. Many HBD (Human Biodiversity) bloggers even use an awkward acronym, NAMs (non-Asian minorities), to differentiate between the Asians and the non-White underclass.

But success and assimilation are two very different things. In fact, the non-White immigrants who succeed are ultimately more threatening to our long-term survival than the ones who come here and fail, since they exploit our Western meritocratic tradition to obtain positions of influence through merit, then exploit their positions of power to promote their group interests. One classic example of this is in action would be WASP Bill Gates’ Slate Magazine, where the gifted Jewish journalist Michael Kinsley turned over the reins to the banal and transparently partisan Jacob Weisberg.

Jacob Weisberg is the quintessential beneficiary of Jewish ethnic nepotism, and Jews are the quintessential nepotists, but Asians also look out for their own. Increasingly, they’re perceiving themselves not as Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese, but as Asian. Read more

The Homosexual Lobby: A Prime Example of the Loony Left

/46 Comments/in , /by

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is a rare disorder that has shed a lot of light on how biology shapes sex differences. Girls with the disorder have a defective enzyme, and as a result their adrenal glands begin secreting male hormones well before they are born. The result is that to varying degrees their sexual organs are masculinzed at birth, often resulting in surgical repair. More interestingly, their behavior is masculinized: They are more aggressive, more likely to prefer rough, active play, less attracted to taking care of children, and prefer functional clothing to feminine finery. And even more interestingly, they are more likely to be lesbian. It’s the lesbian thing that has the homosexual activists all worked up.

The reason for their ire is that there is a promising treatment for the disorder. (“A rare disorder, a rarer debate“; LA Times, Aug. 15, 2010). The problem for the activists is that as a side effect of treatment, the girl would be less likely to be lesbian. Horrors! The inside headline in the  print edition screams, “Side effect outrages gay advocates.” Their greatest worry is that “some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy’s benefits.”

One activist group, Advocates for Informed Choice, “favors allowing children born with intersex conditions to participate in decisions about their gender identity, including delaying a decision until adolescence.”

But by that time the girl would already be masculinized and biologically predisposed to lesbianism. It’s obvious what her “choice” would be. The effects of the hormones during the prenatal period could not be undone at that point. In effect, the girl’s choice would have already been made for her.

So the child cannot meaningfully make a choice. Who can?

Amazingly, there is not one word in the article about what interests the parents have–or even what the real interests of the child are. You don’t have to be an evolutionist to realize that parents have a huge stake in the sexual orientation of their children. It’s likely to be the difference between having grandchildren and not having grandchildren, especially given that these girls have relatively little interest in nurturing children. Even without an evolutionary analysis, it’s obvious that most parents want grandchildren eventually and take great pride and joy in having them. Don’t they have a say?

And what about the child? These gay activists want the child to be just like them. But how does that benefit the child? For an evolutionist, the true interests of the child are clear: Heterosexuality and femininity are far more likely to result in children and well-cared for children at that.  But even apart from that, there is no reason to suppose that lesbians are happier than heterosexual women.

The attitudes of the gay activists here are yet another example of how far the culture of the  left has departed sanity and common sense. For these people, lesbianism  has a value for its own sake, independent of the interests and desires of the parents, and independent of the interests of the child.

As a biologically oriented psychologist, I am not surprised that research indicates the importance of biological influences on homosexuality. The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.

And they should be very happy that there is a promising treatment that would allow girls affected with CAH to grow up wanting to be wives, mothers, and grandmothers.

Bookmark and Share

Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments

/104 Comments/in , , , /by

Frank Salter  is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interests is a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the  social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (“On misguided advocates of open borders“). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction.  Diversity is associated with “reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.” Ethnic diversity is also associated with “reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher  standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole. … The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries.

Bookmark and Share