Ethno-Racial Flourishing: The Legitimate Aim of Politics
Below is an abridged version of a landmark essay which argues for White ethno-racial nationalism on the grounds that it is biologically adaptive in terms of enhancing not just our group-evolutionary interests, but also our individual evolutionary interests as well. This is key because if we are to understand politics as the extension of war by other means, what could be more important than the survival and victory of the side on which we fight? Clearly, no morality, ideology, or political system is legitimate if it fails to serve — or worse yet, actively undermines — the war on behalf of life itself. This is why our current systems of political corruption and social decay — and the administrative parasites who govern them — have to be replaced by a spiritually healthy and biologically sound National Socialist order if we are to survive and thrive as Nature intended. — Dissident Millennial
Pan-European Genetic Interests
Ethno-states, Kinship Preservation, and the End of Politics
by Michael Rienzi
WHITE gentiles of European descent, unlike all other groups, seem to demand objective, rather than subjective, justification for ethnoracial preservation. Thus, white racial nationalists have long desired to see an objective work that justifies a defense by whites of their racial interests. The wait is now over.
Dr. Frank Salter, a political ethologist with the Max Planck Society, Department of Human Ethology, has recently published just such an analysis. As we are well aware, typical discussions about these topics usually center around issues which Dr. Salter terms “proximate,” e.g., economics, crime and security, culture, etc. Completely lacking in such discussions is concern for what can be termed the “ultimate” interest: “genetic continuity.” It is this ultimate interest which is the focus of Salter’s work, the central question of which is asked in the very first sentence: “Does ethnic competition over territory pay off in terms of reproductive fitness?”
Crucial for the survival and propagation of an ethny is a definite territory in which to live and successfully reproduce. According to Salter: “The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances….” Thus, the acquisition and defense of territory became an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. In the long run, only territory can ensure survival, and human history is replete with conflicts of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory can result in ethnic diminishment or destruction, with the consequent negative effects on the native’s genetic fitness interests. To objectively measure the extent of this negative genetic impact, a quantitative analysis is required.
Salter’s quantitative analysis of ethnic genetic interests depends on the concept of genetic kinship, a relative term which defines genetic relatedness as compared to the genetic background of a random population. Thus, even though all humans share many genes, genetic kinship measures the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general gene sharing. Kinship values can be either positive or negative; if individuals (or groups) share more genes than is typical of the population, then the kinship is positive; if they share fewer genes than on average, then the kinship is negative.
Genetic kinship can be mathematically derived from studies of the genetic variation between populations. The genetic data that form the basis of Dr. Salter’s quantitative analysis of ethnic genetic interests derive from the work of Cavalli-Sforza, which examined gene frequencies of various alleles from a broad range of human populations. These genetic data, interpreted mathematically in terms of genetic kinship, can be used to determine the extent to which alien immigration harms ethnic genetic interests. Salter examines groups of 10,000 people and asks: What would be the effect of displacing 10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants? To bring the point home more clearly, Salter expresses losses of genetic ethnic interest in terms of losses in “child equivalents.” In other words, Salter is asking: for any given individual of the native population x, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his ethnic genetic interests caused by immigration of 10,000 people of ethny y?
Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny very similar genetically to the English. Displacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes results in a loss of genetic interests equal to 167 children for every person of English descent! What if the immigrants were Bantus — a group very genetically dissimilar to the English — rather than Danes? The genetic cost to a single Englishman of the immigration of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! What if the level of immigration were larger, more in tune with the massive displacement of Western peoples observed today? The English population is roughly 50 million. If 12.5 million of these were displaced and replaced by an equal number of Bantus, the loss would be equivalent to 13 million children! Salter emphasizes that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss applies to every member of the native populace.
To further illustrate these points Salter then determines the number of immigrants of group y necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of native group x by one child equivalent. For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child equivalent — a powerful and personal argument against racially alien immigration. Salter states that within-group charity is potentially adaptive and that self-sacrificial “heroism” directed at preserving one’s group genetic interests can be adaptive as well.
For example, Salter points out that “an act of charity or heroism” performed by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 Englishmen would be worth it even if the Englishman sacrificed his life and with it the potential of having a family of up to 167 children. Preventing replacement by Bantus would justify a far larger sacrifice. It is therefore very clear that activism performed to avoid ethnoracial displacement is very normal and adaptive, and is entirely justified by a rational analysis. Indeed, it is multicultural surrender which is pathological and abnormal.
What about the intra-European situation? What are the genetic costs of intra-racial immigration and displacement? In general, the trends are, as expected, that Europeans share more genetic kinship with other Europeans than with non-Europeans, Europe being, as Salter states: “a generally racially homogenous region.” Of course, within Europe, geographically close populations tend to be even more similar, by another order of magnitude. Germans and Swiss are closely related, so it would take 125 Swiss immigrants to reduce a German’s genetic interests by “one child.” If we continue to look at Germans, we can see that the same effect will occur with 83.7 Belgians, 78.5 Dutch or Danish, 57.2 Englishmen, 33.3 Italians, 18.5 Spaniards, or 9.1 Greeks. In summary, Salter states: “Immigration between ethnies of the same race can still be maladaptive for the receiving population, but the threshold is typically 10 to 100 times that of inter-racial immigration.”
Salter notes that Americans of European descent are a declining proportion of that nation’s population, due to immigration and other factors, and that this is a clear and serious diminishment of the ethnic genetic interests of Euro-Americans. In addition, this problem is being exacerbated by racial miscegenation, which may actually benefit the genetic interests of the non-White migrants coming to America, for they are diluting the native gene pool while the gene pools of their own racially exclusive homelands remain intact. In fact, Salter notes that the genetic damage done by the post-1965 immigration to America “has decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined.” What Salter observes is that white Americans have, in the name of multiculturalism, engaged in a “unilateral withdrawal from ethnic competition,” with devastating results for their genetic interests.
What does Salter suggest as a possible solution? Not surprisingly he brings up the possibility of ethnoracial states, a form of “universal nationalism” in which each ethnic state makes shared ethnicity a requirement for citizenship, and where the state “unambiguously serves the ethnic interests of the majority.” This is opposed to the current fad of wave-the-flag “constitutional patriotism” (the nation as an “idea”). Salter rightly sees such raceless “patriotic” schemes as “a formula for reconciling ethnic majorities to their own demise,” while serving minority and elite interests. Thus, such ethnoracial state models are the only real way for Western majorities to promote their ethnic interests in America, Europe, and Australia. In general, for this plan to work, both internal (class) and external (nation vs. nation) conflicts would need to be equitably resolved to make way for viable ethnoracial states. But the costs would be worth the result, in the form of states which truly represent the interests of their populations. Salter’s vision of ethnic-based “universal nationalism” is a vision of ethnic and racial progress of great potential benefit.
Salter’s work can be summarized as follows. Ethnies (and races) are large reservoirs of genetic interest for members of these groups. Ethnic genetic interests are thus real and of fundamental importance. Genetic kinship can be quantitated and the harm to any person’s (or group’s) ethnic genetic interests resulting from alien immigration can be calculated. Immigration of even closely related groups has a negative impact on genetic interests; this detrimental influence increases rapidly with increased genetic distance between the immigrant and native populations. Putting this detrimental impact in the form of “child equivalents” is a particularly powerful way of demonstrating these effects. Peoples of European descent are being ill-served, on a fundamental, genetic level, by non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism. The formation of ethnic-based national states is the most efficient way of safeguarding ethnic genetic interests. . .
[Thus] What needs to be developed is an “ideology of ethnicity,” an ideological framework in which ethnic concerns, ethnic genetic interests, and the work of Dr. Salter are considered the foundation upon which the activist structure is built. Ethnic concerns absolutely must be considered in addition to general racial concerns. Indeed, the overall survival of whites would be cold comfort to a German or Italian or Russian activist if the particular ethny of that activist were greatly diminished or completely eliminated. On the other hand, Euro-ethnic activists must also consider that they do indeed have genetic, and other, interests in European ethnies besides their own, albeit at variable and more diffuse levels. Thus, both the whole (white European race) and the parts of the whole (various European ethnies) are important. Therefore, an ideology of ethnicity would assist in informing activists and groups as to what strategies to pursue: those which maximize ethnoracial interests by properly balancing both the narrower (ethnic) and broader (racial) perspectives. Such avenues of activism must incorporate provisions for ethnic as well as racial survival.
An “ideology of ethnicity” can tell us not only what we should do, but what we absolutely must not do. For example, an individual who promotes multiracialism (e.g., of Europeans and non-Europeans) for someone else’s ethny is promoting the genetic equivalent of mass murder (genocide). An individual who advocates splitting up someone else’s ethny is promoting the break-up of a family unit on a mass scale; the damage done to that ethny is also the genetic equivalent of mass murder. Thus it is obvious that any such proposals, regardless of whether they originate from the “anti-racist left” or the “racialist right,” must be absolutely eschewed. . .
In a future likely to be dominated by massive ethno-racial power blocs, persons of European descent need to maximize their power base, while at the same time preserving their more specific ethnic and national interests. In addition, pan-European cooperation, by increasing the pool of competent activists and other human and material resources, and by focusing these resources where they can do the most good, can significantly enhance the efficacy of ethnoracial activism. There is no logical reason for a Swedish activist to refuse assistance from a Spanish activist, or vice versa, as long as both sides adhere to an “ideology of ethnicity” that respects their more specific ethnic interests. It must also be noted that a nationalist victory in only one or a few white nations would probably not be stable; in the long run if the rest of the white world is liberal and “multicultural,” the nationalist states will be in constant danger. The most stable situation for any white racial nationalist would be to see his ethny preserved in the context of broad racial survival. For example, a German Germany in a European Europe would be the most stable situation for German ethnic survival; a German Germany in a non-white Europe would be untenable. How then to best balance narrower with broader activist concerns? Studying the work of Frank Salter, as well as that of Kevin MacDonald, can we discern an answer to this question?
One way to look at this problem is to view pan-European activism as concentric circles of ethnic interests. The primary interest would be genetic kinship. However, we may consider that phenotypic, cultural, and other concerns will also be very important in influencing rankings of groups within the circles. For example, some Slavic groups (e.g., Russians and “Yugoslavs”/Serbs) have a greater ethnic affinity than what would be predicted solely from genetic kinship distance. Thus, non-biological ethnic factors must be considered, although the genetic interests would always be the primary, underlying, fundamental consideration. . .
In his manuscript, Salter recommends ethno-states as a solution to the “genetic fitness problem” faced by Western majorities threatened by replacement immigration. Salter also states a need for balance between the “smaller is better” rationale (closer genetic kinship) and the “bigger is better” rationale (economic and military power to defend ethnic interests). How can these issues be resolved?
In theory, this need not be a problem in a Europe in which ethnic nationalists have achieved their goals. The nation-states of Europe are in general already built around ethnic identity, or, in those cases in which certain European nations can be viewed as really multi-ethnic, further separation into more ethnically homogenous units could be easily achieved. Arrangements could be made in which the various nation-states maintain their local autonomy and control immigration and their population make-up. National/ethnic hostilities and border problems between European states would need to be resolved in a fair and peaceful manner to avoid the sort of fratricidal bloodshed which would reduce European genetic fitness and further decrease the representation of European genes and phenotypes in the world. European ethno-states, while maintaining pure local autonomy and ethnic homogeneity, could form a Euro-racial union (along with diaspora European ethno-states abroad) for the purposes of military/economic competition with non-Western power blocs.
The situation in the European diaspora, particularly in America, is more complex. . . One can imagine several scenarios for Euro-Americans:
First, a Euro-American state could be made up of all Euro-Americans (or at least those who wish to live in such a state), fully separate from non-Europeans. Even in this situation, one can imagine that a heightened sense of ethnicity and race may promote the formation of various, more homogenous ethno-communities within such a state.
Second, if the first option fails to meet the ethnic interests of particular Euro-American ethnies, then one can imagine a number of separate, fully independent Euro-American states, each more genetically homogenous than would be a general Euro-American state. Each state would contain one or several more closely related ethnies. . . Analogous to the European situation, it would be reasonable for these Euro-American states to form alliances for protection against non-European power blocs.
Third, the “best of both worlds option,” could be a single Euro-American state which is “federated”: composed of a number of smaller, locally autonomous units of more concentrated ethnic similarity. This option would have the strength of a large single state, while still allowing more genetically homogeneous Euro-American populations to cluster together. . .
What kinds of policies could a European ethno-state practice, other than the obvious policy of separatism? One could expect that an ethno-state would promote fertility, values that strengthen the family, as well as eugenics. Eugenics would raise the genetic quality of the group and make them more formidable competitors with other groups, hence raising fitness. On a more individual level, picking as one’s mate someone of good genetic quality increases the chances of having children of high quality, enhancing their ability to compete and reproduce, and thus increasing genetic fitness. . .
Ultimately, we will need our own communities, our own schools and daycare centers, our own educational materials for our children, our own social organizations for both welfare and entertainment, and our own political structures. It is paramount that we get more involved in politics, not only to provide political “cover” and protection for our other pursuits but also for propaganda and recruitment, as well as a stimulus for organization and to shake up the stagnant, anti-white status quo. While I do not believe that the electoral process alone holds the key to victory, if we can get to the point where viable and respectable political candidates speak openly about the need for white separatism, we would have turned the corner in our attempt to persuade whites of the legitimacy of pursuing their ethnoracial interests. We also need to do what the left did in the 1960s and 1970s, that is, “march through the institutions,” so that pro-white individuals are in positions to help the movement grow, and provide the political and social cover for our varied pursuits. There may well be a significant number of effective strategies which can be employed by peoples of European descent, provided they realize they have genetic ethnic interests to defend. . .
It is likely that the twenty-first century will be the crucial one in deciding whether peoples of European descent will continue as genetic ethnic entities, and the issues discussed in this essay are likely to be fundamental in deciding this future.
Michael Rienzi, the pseudonym of a biological scientist living in the Northeast, is the author of the December 2000 cover story, “Race Is a Myth? The Left Distorts Science for Political Purposes,” in American Renaissance.
* * *
Source: The Occidental Quarterly