Against Genetic Similarity Theory

What if living things aren’t programmed to replicate their genes but instead are programmed to try and choose mates in possesion of traits that will improve their offspring’s chances of survival in a particular physical and social environment?

(Perhaps this is why nonwhite men are attracted to white women and nonwhite women are attracted to white men.

It is not so much to do with white physical features as the fact that white’s are still seen as so powerful and successful, ie, nonwhites see reproducing with whites as a way to genetically improve themselves as oppossed to Rushton/Salter’s theory that we are programmed simply to replicate ourselves?

This would explain why white’s as of the 2000 Census were less likely than any other race to interracially marry. Whites are less likely to interracially marry because they are so dominant in society.)

If animals breeded only with those most similar to themselves then that life would have a higher chance of going extinct if their environment changes.

So having some level of genetic diversity is beneficial to a particular species, otherwise the ultimate for of evolutionary “fitness” would be for a mad scientist to kill everyone but himself with a supervirus and then clone himself forever and ever.

Of course, this line of thought leads to the argument that interracial reproduction is beneficial because it leads to more genetic diversity.

Our pro-white argument against interracial reproduction should therefore be that white’s are best suited to producing modern civilization and that white’s should preserve their inherent neuro-psychological abilities by marrying only other whites.

Rushton’s argumentation for GST draws on a highly technical body of research that a non-specialist like myself is unable to evaluate, so I cannot claim complete confidence in my assessment. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the majority of specialists concur with my negative assessment of GST.

The majority of specialists would not share your positive assessment of his work on racial differences.

Finally, Rushton’s claim that genetic similarity provides a natural basis for ethnocentrism falls prey to the criticism that can be brought against any theory of innate ethnocentrism: if it’s innate, why do we see so little ethnocentrism among white Americans today? It has been repeatedly documented on this website that white Americans show very low levels of racial partisanship. They do not believe that white people are biologically superior to other races, nor do they disapprove of racial intermarriage.

Although they may say they don’t disapprove, few engage in it. This would suggest it is innate.

My suspicion is that GST will never be able to surmount these criticisms because it is simply a bad theory.

Whether it’s a good theory or not depends on how much of the variability in human behaviour he thinks it explains. Surely it explains some. Perhaps the best criticism is that it’s somewhat tautological.

If this is true, we would do well to come up with a new theory of the sources of ethnic solidarity, as this is a key component of the theory and practice of the pro-white movement.

Do you believe ethnic solidarity exists? Although you say that Whites lack it, you must believe that it exists under the surface (or that there are good reasons to practice it even if it’s not natural), otherwise I’m not sure why you maintain this site. Are you interested in sources of suppression of White ethnic solidarity? Do you believe such exist?

Whether or not the theory can explain human behaviour better than alternate theories does not fundamentally affect Salter’s conclusions.

Dasein wrote:

“The majority of specialists would not share your positive assessment of his work on racial differences.”

Evidence?

Over 1,000 scientists within the fields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, education, and genetics were surveyed and it was found that 53% of them thought that the black-white IQ gap was racially genetic in origin. Only 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. (The IQ Controversy, by Rothman and Snyderman)

A statement by Linda Gottfriedson, which advocated a genetic explanation for the racial IQ gap, was signed by 52 internationally renowned experts. (“Mainstream Science on Intelligence”, 1997)

A survey of American anthropologists found that 69 percent of them accepted the concept of biological race (Leiberman and Reynolds, 1996).

I’ve edited this article in minor ways since I published it last night. I haven’t changed the substance, just some terminology. The most important revision was the introduction of the term “genetic altruism” to describe the logic behind genetic similarity theory and distinguish it from “standard theories,” also a new term, of assortative bonding that do not rely on genetic altruism. One of the reasons I was so reluctant to write about this topic is that it requires the use of a finicky, jargon-laden, technical vocabulary that makes many people’s eyes glaze over. Still, I’m glad I did write this article because it deals with a matter of fundamental importance to the pro-white movement. Hopefully, I’ll be satisfied with this version and won’t need to do any more revising.

JJR,

IQ differences are but one piece of evidence in Rushton’s r-K theory. Believing (accepting) the existence of races or racial differences in intelligence hardly translates into support for Rushton’s theory. Except for the usual suspects, it has generally met with hostility in academia.

Dasein,

You stated that the majority of specialists are opposed to Rushton’s work on ‘racial differences’, not his theory of r-K selection in particular. Rushton’s genetic similarity theory, an expansion of the sociobiological research of W.D. Hamilton and E. O. Wilson, may be a minority perspective, but it has received the praise of leading evolutionary biologists, including W. D Hamilton. Rushton’s work on GST appears in the best scientific journals within the fields of psychology and behaviour genetics and hardly qualifies as ‘fringe science’.

JJR,

Sorry, I should have made it clearer. Rushton’s work on racial differences, to me, is synonymous with his r-K theory. This is what he is most famous for, not any later work on African IQs or other traits.

I also don’t think that Rushton’s GST is ‘fringe science’. I think it is a common sense extension of Hamilton amd Wilson’s work. But apparently Mr. Jobling is not as impressed by what praise it’s received.

My point was that basing acceptance or rejection of any of Rushton’s theories on the majority opinion of experts is not necessarily a good idea.

My point was that basing acceptance or rejection of any of Rushton’s theories on the majority opinion of experts is not necessarily a good idea.

I should qualify that and say that Mr. Jobling is not using this majority opinion as the basis for rejecting MST, but he does feel it validates his position.

“What if living things aren’t programmed to replicate their genes but instead are programmed to try and choose mates in possesion of traits that will improve their offspring’s chances of survival in a particular physical and social environment? ”

I’ve been thinking along similar lines. That it’s not about individual genes surviving, but about populations of genes and gene combinations. What if some genes “prefer” naturally to mate with only certain other genes, but not with others? What if it’s not about the survival of individual genes (if I marry a black, my individual genes will survive), but about the survival of entire gene pools? What is there is a critical mass below which a gene pool becomes diluted too much and loses its integrity? In other words, what if the correct model is not the “selfish gene” theory but the “selfish gene pool” theory?

Dasein,

Despite its unpopularity among academics, I find Rushton’s r/K theory of racial differences convincing because it fits the data so well and because I know that there are such strong taboos against recognizing racial differences. However, as I’ve documented in the article, GST does not fit the data well, and other theories account for the facts about human behavior better. Most of the academic objections to GST strike me as rational rather than being politically motivated, and so I don’t think political considerations play a large part in the unpopularity of Rushton’s theory. Besides, it’s not impossible that liberalism gets some things right. Maybe liberals are actually right that ethnocentrism has no instinctive basis. In that case, political biases would steer academics towards valid criticisms of GST.

As far as interracial intermarriage goes, yes, you’re right it’s not very common in the US now, but if the statistics on openness to interracial relationships among young people are anywhere close to being correct, we will see a tide of interracial marriages in the future, unfortunately. I don’t think there’s any way of arguing that white Americans show the kind of ethnocentrism that you would expect of them if GST were true.

Of course I believe that ethnic solidarity exists. In fact, I admitted it was a human universal in the first part of the article. However, I don’t think it’s an instinct, meaning I don’t think it necessarily exists anywhere “under the surface” among white Americans, as you say. It may just not be there at all. I think ethnocentrism is the product of social circumstances that are normally present in human societies but are not present in the highly unusual societies that white Westerners have created. We need a theory of ethnocentrism that can explain both why it is common, but also why it disappears in some circumstances.

What if some genes “prefer” naturally to mate with only certain other genes, but not with others?

I think animals select mates with visible traits that are viewed as beneficial for a particular physical and social environment.

For example, Cochran and Harpending argue lactose tolerance swiftly swept through Indo-European populations because drinking milk helped Indo-Europeans to construct farming societies. The change in social environment led to a particularly rapid beneficial trait selection for Europeans with lactose tolerance.

So, what traits are selected for depend on social environment in addition to physical environment.

As far as “gene dilution” goes, we may be better off arguing against interracial pairings by informing people of how visibly beneficial white traits - not “genes” - get diluted when whites have children with nonwhites. Traits like intelligence, verbal ability, artistic creativity, athletic ability, etc.

“Gene dilution” sounds too abstract for people to understand, we ought to point out specific visible and desirable traits that get diluted.

My main problem with your argument, Mr. Jobling, is that you do not draw a distinction between natural and unnatural conditions of human life. There have been many recorded examples of animals under the influence of domestication displaying sexual attraction not only to other races, but to members of other species and genera. Goats are known to copulate with sheep, bulls with mares, monkeys and apes display sexual attraction to human females, and domesticated birds display similar abnormalities. If animals under domestication exhibit a reduced sense of sexual discrimination, it is not implausible that man has lost some of his sensivity in the recognition of his own kind in consequence of living in the non-feral cultural environment he has created. This would lead to a partial abandonment of instinctive constraints against miscegenation and bestiality.

The majority of Europids live in a population density far above the optimum and natural levels for the human species. Animals living in twice their natural population density level are known to display hypersexual and other deviant behaviours. As many social scientists have argued, man displays analogous aberrent behaviours in overcrowded urban conditions. We are fashioned to function at a certain population density, any change to which produces different chemical and glandular responses leading to ‘unnatural’ sexual and social behaviour.

Miscegenation may thus be an deviant behaviour associated with high population density and the denaturing effects of civilisation.

In any event, the incidence of miscegenation is not as high as you have suggested. Most Europids marry within their own race, and, according to opinion polls, say that they are more attracted to other Europids than to members of foreign races.

If GST were a valid theory wouldn’t we expect to see Irish-Americans marrying Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans marrying Italian-Americans and so forth? I haven’t seen any studies on this, but anecdotally I’ve noticed very little endogamy among sub-classes of Whites. Jews still marry each other at the relatively robust rate of P, but Jews are a very tiny group, sharing not just a genetic heritage but also a religion and a history of persecution making them distrustful of others.

ASSIMILATION is easiest “among people who are culturally similar to the dominant group,” but when different races are involved, “assimilation efforts become irrelevant”. Milica Zarkovic Bookman, ‘The Demographic Struggle for Power’, 1997. The historical record indicates that ethnic separatism among Caucasian-derived groups has a tendency to collapse within modern Western societies unless active attempts at ethnic and cultural segregation are undertaken, as has occurred among Jews. As expected from a resource-reciprocity point of view, in the absence of rigid ethnic barriers, marriage in Western individualist societies tends to be importantly influenced by a wide range of PHENOTYPIC features of the prospective spouse, including not only genetic commonality but also social status, personality, common interests, and other points of similarity. This individualist pattern of marriage decisions has characterized Western Europe at least since the Middle Ages. The result has been a remarkable degree of ETHNIC ASSIMILATION in the United States among those whose ancestry derives from Europe. This is particularly noteworthy because ethnic conflict and violence are on the rise in Eastern Europe, yet European-derived groups in the United States have an overwhelming sense of commonality. The long-term result of such processes is GENETIC HOMOGENIZATION, a sense of common interest, and the absence of a powerful source of intrasocietal division.

Ian Jobling, please do more RESEARCH before writing another article, otherwise you’ll lose readers.

ETHNIC SELF-INTEREST is indeed important in human affairs, and obviously ETHNICITY remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.

The recent MULTICULTURAL movement may be viewed as tending toward a profoundly non-Western form of social organization that has historically been much more typical of Middle Eastern segmentary societies centered around discrete homogeneous groups.

Many immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural and genetic segregation are the NORM, and within the context of multicultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group.

In the United States we are presently heading down a VOLATILE PATH —- a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the rise/development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves, including collectivist Western group strategies aimed at exclusion, expulsion, or genocide. It is noteworthy that minority groups, especially African-American and Latino groups, have already developed strong ethnic identities in the U.S. These movements often have militant, racialist overtones. For example, Afrocentrism is often associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper basis of self-identity and self-esteem and in which a close connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Latino ethnic activists Latino activists have a clearly articulated policy of “reconquering” parts of the United States via immigration and high birth rates.

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=947nacaukkru716fbkegfh42p4&topic=3078.0#new

Assorting by physical similarity would thus be the easiest and most efficient means of maximizing fitness if Rushton’s logic were operative.

Someone who looks similar to me could be a close relative. Behaviour is more important than physical appearance in determining whether someone will be a successful parent. I’m less likely to abandon my children if I don’t fight with their mother. There are good reasons why behavioural traits would be preferred for measures of similarity.

Your main criticism of GST seems to be that it doesn’t operate very efficiently. There’s no substitute for a DNA sequencer. GST would have to evolve around inherent detection sensitivities (with necessary tradeoffs, like reducing dependence on physical characteristics for reason mentioned above). You’ve argued that CVT is a superior theory, but you haven’t shown that GST is wrong. CVT may be using evolved features from GST. J. Wingfield makes some very good points. The current environment, with all its propaganda demonizing Whites, is one where CVT may in fact be a better model to explain observed behaviour.

My criticisms of Rushton’s theory will deal primarily with his theory of assortative bonding between friends and lovers, rather than with his theory of ethnocentrism. Nevertheless, since Rushton’s theory of ethnocentrism is based upon his theory of assortative bonding, criticisms of the latter bear upon the former: if GST fails to account for assortative bonding, it cannot account for ethnocentrism, which is nothing more than assortative bonding on a mass scale.

This is a dubious assumption. As mentioned, there are good reasons (relating to cultural environment) why GST may not be the best model for explaining mating behaviour. It would not necessarily invalidate its role in ethnocentrism. Someone might marry outside their race because they think that provides them a fitness advantage, but they would still have good evolutionary reasons to favour their own ethnic group over that of their mate’s (or anyone else’s). How many European-African couples move to Africa? (this is really a new form of free-loading)

Of course I believe that ethnic solidarity exists. In fact, I admitted it was a human universal in the first part of the article. However, I don’t think it’s an instinct, meaning I don’t think it necessarily exists anywhere “under the surface” among white Americans, as you say. It may just not be there at all. I think ethnocentrism is the product of social circumstances that are normally present in human societies but are not present in the highly unusual societies that white Westerners have created. We need a theory of ethnocentrism that can explain both why it is common, but also why it disappears in some circumstances.

It’s interesting that you would adopt a heriditerian stance on intelligence, but not on ethnocentricity. You’re saying it’s not instinctual based on your analysis of mating behaviour (or extrapolated from current dating patterns), but you haven’t addressed any of the data dealing with people’s unconscious response to race-based stimuli. And if it’s not instinctual, why is it a human universal?

We need a theory of ethnocentrism that can explain both why it is common, but also why it disappears in some circumstances.

Mr. Jobling,

I think such a theory exists, but you ignore or discount it because you find it (or its extremes) unpleasant. Maybe you are only interested in theories that explain everything (Rushton’s r/K being a good example of one that can account for most, if not all, relevant observations). But what we need is a model for why Whites have lost their ethnocentrism (it’s in fact become almost a form of auto-immune disease, where any feelings of ethnocentrism are supposed to make them feel pathological and evil). To leave a variable out of the model because you think it may offend some people (perhaps many of your readers) or it can’t be the only variable in the model is not being honest with yourself or your readers.

J. Wingfield, Dasein, and my other critics,

There’s no reason to believe that interethnic marriage is a deviant or pathological behavior brought about by contemporary Western conditions. Because I anticipated such objections, I quoted statistics on interethnic marriage from non-Western societies in the article. If interethnic marriages take place in fairly high numbers across the world, then there is no reason to believe that interethnic sexual attraction is due to any particular set of social conditions. Comparing interethnic marriages to interspecies sexual attraction is completely outrageous.

I resent the implication that I deny that ethnocentrism has an instinctive basis in order not to offend people. You have no grounds for attacking my motives. In fact, if you look at the comments on this entry, you’ll see that, to the contrary, many of my readers plainly resent the thesis of this article and would much prefer it if I simply endorsed Rushton’s ideas, so that’s what I would do if I were worried about offending people. No, I reject GST because it doesn’t fit the data and because Rushton has not presented strong evidence for it.

I see little evidence that most of my critics have made a serious effort to understand what I’m saying. For example, Dasein mentions my discussion of what types of similarities are more important in interpersonal attraction seemingly without having grasped why I raised the point in the first place: consensual validation theory predicts that similarities in attitudes and opinions ought to be most important, whereas GST seems to make no such predictions, or to predict that physical similarities would be most important. The data fit CVT better: attitudes and opinions are among the most important types of similarities in attraction and physical similarities among the least. CVT gives a clear explanation of why this difference would emerge, but GST does not.

It’s no defense of a theory to argue that it could possibly be right. More or less any theory could possibly be right, but it’s the ones that have the strongest explanatory value that probably are right. In order to defend GST, you have to prove that it explains the facts about assortative bonding better than competing theories do.

Moreover, once again, my point here was never that ethnocentrism and ethnic conflict aren’t common in human societies, merely that Rushton fails to give us compelling reasons to believe that these behaviors are instinctive.

Ian, I’m even less impressed by your critique of GST than I thought I would be. First of all, you admit in your article that you are not a specialist in this field, and that you “cannot claim complete confidence” in your assessment. Not to be rude, but if you are not a professional, and “cannot claim complete confidence” in your own ideas, then why should anyone take you very seriously on this?

GST has, by and large, not been received favorably by experts in relevant fields, like evolutionary psychology, behavior genetics, and animal behavior.

But you also say in your article that we should question the experts if there is “strong evidence that the expert community is biased.” Well, everyone knows that the expert community is extremely biased on issues relating to race. Indeed, any work that even proves that race exists, or that there is innate differences between the races, is basically always met with disdain. For example, just as Dasein said (and you yourself even admitted in a comment on this thread), Rushton’s r/K theory on racial differences has also been reviewed unfavorably.

However, despite the criticisms of GST that you cite, I strongly believe that you are overstating the unpopularity of this theory. After all, if GST is as flawed as you say it is the white nationalist and pro-white communities wouldn’t hold it in such high regard as they do.

Interethnic sexual attraction is not at all rare. Twenty-four percent of American college students today report having dated interracially and half say that they are open to interracial dating.

I’m 22-years-old, so I believe that I know even better than you how mainstream interracial dating has become. However, just as you say Ian, not many people marry outside their race. In fact, according to the 2000 Census, only about 3.5 percent of white Americans marry a non-white. This is a very low number, considering how diverse this country is.

Besides, it is mainly the younger generations that have accepted miscegenation as normal. This is because they have been more heavily exposed to multicultural indoctrination than the older generations. And, as you have already heard a million times, indoctrination can influence people to go against their inborn inclinations.

Also, just because people are much more attracted to people who are genetically similar to themselves, it doesn’t mean that miscegenation will hardly ever occur naturally. For example, the desire to seek out genetically similar mates must compete with the tendency among women to be attracted to wealthy, powerful men. Thus, a woman could be attracted to a man who is genetically different from her because of his wealth and social status.

A study of ethnic intermarriage in Beijing found that those of Mongolian or Manchu ethnicity had out-marriage rates of about 90 percent.

But the Mongolians and the Manchu are not all that genetically different from each other. It is not very surprising that in certain situations relatively closely related ethnic groups would intermarry with each other at high rates. Besides, the study that you cite is based only on intermarriage rates in the city of Beijing. That seems to me to be a narrow sample.

Sociologist Zenchao Qian has found that better educated blacks and Hispanics are more likely to marry whites than their less educated co-ethnics, and better educated whites are more likely to marry Asians than less educated whites.

Better educated people are more likely to intermarry with certain ethnic and racial groups. However, I believe that you are overstating this disparity. And this belief is strengthened by the fact that you don’t provide specific statistics on this issue.

Besides, the more education that you attain, the more indoctrination that you are exposed to. If people with high levels of education are significantly more likely than people with lower levels of education to marry outside of their race, then it is most likely because they have been exposed to more propaganda. After all, we all know that our colleges are centers of multicultural indoctrination.

Finally, Rushton’s claim that genetic altruism provides a natural basis for ethnocentrism falls prey to the criticism that can be brought against any theory of innate ethnocentrism: if it’s innate, why do we see so little ethnocentrism among white Americans today?

Mr. Jobling, why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again? Even if you disagree with the idea that indoctrination suppresses our innate ethnocentrism, could you at least acknowledge that this is the answer that white nationalists give to your question?

nycjew,

I’d go even further and suggest that if genetic altruism, as Rushton suggests, were a major factor in interpersonal attraction, American history would be unimaginable. If GST were true, then ethnic ties would be so strong that you would never have seen the mass assimilation of ethnic groups that has taken place since America’s founding. Americans came from all parts of Europe, but today have become so extensively intermarried and socially intertwined that, except for a few ethnic obsessives, no one cares whether you are of English, Polish, Italian, or even Jewish ethnicity. Americans of European stock are just “white.” Moreover, boundaries between races get weaker as time passes. People plainly are not choosing friends and lovers on the basis of genetic similarity, but on the basis of psychological compatibility.

Ian - Excellent work, as always. You make several convincing arguments, however; like many others on this thread I’m firmly on the side of innate ethnocentrism. However, I think 99 percent of white folks who may come across this debate would be at best uneasy with the idea, and at worst repulsed by it. Debating the concept of innate ethnocentrism may be interesting, but it hardly serves the purpose of encouraging a much larger audience to our cause. Indeed, the first goal of your site states we should be “Improving our movement’s image.” I think spending valuable time and resources on such topics does very little to promote our movement’s image. Just a thought…

Mike G.,

You make a number of points against my article, but one thing you never do is attack my core argument: that standard theories of assortative bonding explain the facts about human behavior better than GST does. As I said above, the true question of science is which theory explains the observed phenomena better than the others. Don’t tell me why GST could possibly be true, tell me why it’s the best theory.

Given that GST is a theory of interpersonal attraction, what matters is not statistics on intermarriage, but on attraction. If a full half of college students are willing to date interracially, that seems to me very bad news for GST.

Black and white people are about as genetically different as any two people can possibly be. If Rushton’s logic of genetic altruism were operative, it’s very hard to see why black and white people would ever be attracted to each other. But, as I point out, it’s even worse for GST than that because there are cases in which the races intermarry preferentially.

Whenever I point out any flaw with the theory of instinctive ethnocentrism, you always appeal to the power of indoctrination, which, in your view, seems to have infinite power to modify people’s personalities. You seem to take a radically social constructionist view of personality, which would mean that people had no instincts at all. Though it’s true that I don’t mention the problems with this objection here, I have elsewhere.

As I’ve argued briefly, I deny that indoctrination has the power you believe it to have. I know of no other case in which a whole population has simply lost an instinct through indoctrination. Moreover, even if this were possible, I don’t know how such a program of wholesale personality alteration would be implemented in a free society, where the media and business are obligated to cater to people’s instincts in order to prosper. Perhaps I’ll address this question in a future article. For now, I’ll just say that I don’t think your indoctrination theory is plausible and refer people to the discussion at the link above.

By the way, you know, blacks and whites were sexually attracted to each other long before multiculturalism came into existence. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the states had to pass laws banning miscegenation because it was so common. Numerous commentators from that time expressed their outrage at the prevalence of interracial sexual relationships.

Martel,

It was because of the points you make that I hesitated so long before broaching this subject. I’ve said pro-whites need to stop just speaking to each other and learn to speak to everyone else. But now I’ve written an article that only interests pro-whites!

I wrote this article in part because I was under a lot of pressure to back up the claim I made in Building our Movement: Theory that ethnocentrism had no innate basis. It wasn’t just the people at this site who were nagging me about that, Rushton himself was. I talked with him about this issue at the Preserving Western Civilization conference, and afterwards he e-mailed me about it. I told him I wanted to work on other topics, but he pointed out, justifiably, that if I wasn’t going to make my case against GST, I had to stop criticizing it. So I thought I’d better just dive in.

Ultimately, though, getting the core ideas of a movement right is probably beneficial, and I think many of the core ideas in the pro-white movement are wrong. That said, now that I’ve done my best to answer Rushton, I’m going to write something with broader appeal next. However, I may return to this subject because there is still much more to say about it.

Mike G.,

A few more things.

When it comes to race differences, white nationalists take a strong innatist position: there are differences between the races, they’re innate, and we can’t do anything to change that. But when it comes to ethnocentrism, they lean towards social constructivism: indoctrination has the power to radically change our personalities, and our instincts can’t resist it. White nationalism is thus an odd amalgamation of contradictory theories of personality.

Next, you would do well to pause before hurling accusations of bias against people who criticize your views. I don’t see much evidence of bias in the scholars who reject GST, and I require some evidence of it before I accept the charge. Dismissing all objections to your views as the products of bias is not only lazy and dogmatic but also slanderous to your critics.

Whenever anyone cites evidence against GST, its defenders answer that in this case, the instinctive preference for our genetic similars is being overridden. Thus in some circumstances, women’s preferences for their genetic similars get overridden by their preference for wealthy and powerful men. These claims add an unpleasant squishiness and vagueness to GST and serve to make it untestable. Any time predictions from the theory aren’t confirmed by evidence, GST proponents can just answer, “Well, in this case, the instinct is being overridden.” So it becomes impossible to argue against you. A key criterion of a valid scientific theory is testability, and if GST isn’t testable, then it’s a bad theory. It’s this squishy, untestable nature of GST, manifested by Rushton’s failure to test his theory against competing ones, that frustrates most of his critics. So the critics would seem to be motivated by scientific integrity, not political bias.

Undiscovered Jew,

There is something about the “selfish gene” theory that doesn’t sit well with me. I feel a kind of resistance to it, but it’s hard for me to articulate why. This is my best attempt at an explanation. It’s not “emergentist” enough. I expect to have new levels of description for increasingly complex systems. Sort of like saying that a traffic jam represents a emergent level of complexity in relation to atomistic cars; therefore it can no longer be modelled by Newtonian laws. And so there is something unsatisfactory for me in a theory that says that genes simply want to replicate themselves. That too, of course, but it can’t be the entire point, can it? I am not satisfied. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head by saying it’s about whole populations, about the combinatorics. The very “pathos” of evolution, if you will (whether it’s perpetrated through random mutations or intelligent design), is about the teleology of combining for the purpose of improving. It’s about a constant incease in complexity. Evolution, by its very nature, is creative and purposeful (or “purposeful”). So it can’t be all about homeostasis, and on such a low (gene) level. Does it make sense?

If a full half of college students are willing to date interracially, that seems to me very bad news for GST. It may be bad news for GST, but if you think it argues against innate ethnocentrism, you’re wrong.

There are social penalties for whites who say they’re unwilling to date interracially (almost all of them imposed by coracialists, I should add). There are no social penalties for whites who are unwilling (self-deceptive or not) to date interracially, but say they are willing.

Your assertion that a miscegenation explosion will happen “real soon now” seems absurd too. When? We’ve been hearing this for decades.

I don’t know anything about GST so I’m not attached to it. But I do think it’s obvious that humans are innately ethnocentric. Is this a hard and fast rule, trumping all others? No. Does that mean there’s no instinct for ethnocentrism? No.

But let’s be honest here. Ceteris paribus, humans choose people more similar to them genetically, at least insofar as similarity can be determined.

Svigor,

No one doubts that we consort with people who are similar to us. The question is why. GST is only one theory among many.

There are social penalties for whites who say they’re unwilling to date interracially (almost all of them imposed by coracialists, I should add). There are no social penalties for whites who are unwilling (self-deceptive or not) to date interracially, but say they are willing.

The polls are anonymous. No one has any incentive to lie. If half of college students say they are willing to date interracially, I suspect that a goodly portion, if not all of them genuinely are.

One can be “open” to interracial dating but still have a preference for dating within one’s own race.

Ian Jobling,

You make a number of points against my article, but one thing you never do is attack my core argument: that standard theories of assortative bonding explain the facts about human behavior better than GST does.

I do attack your core argument by pointing out that a lot of the supporting evidence that you use to back up your claims is flawed. After all, if you can’t even back up your claims with proper evidence, then what does that say about your core argument?

Don’t tell me why GST could possibly be true, tell me why it’s the best theory.

I’m not going to do a disservice to GST by trying to prove the superiority of the theory over CVT any more than I already have. Only Rushton is qualified to do this.

However, I will explicitly say that I don’t think that CVT explains things well. We don’t just associate with people because they validate our opinions about the world. This may be very important, but there’s a lot more to it than that.

By the way, Ian, since you say that Rushton has been pressuring you to write an article about GST, think about asking him to write a rebuttal. I’m sure that many people would be interested in reading his response to your criticisms.

If a full half of college students are willing to date interracially, that seems to me very bad news for GST.

Just as Svigor said, many people would be unwilling to tell a pollster that they only date within their own race. They wouldn’t want to be thought of as a racist, even if the poll is anonymous.

Black and white people are about as genetically different as any two people can possibly be. If Rushton’s logic of genetic altruism were operative, it’s very hard to see why black and white people would ever be attracted to each other.

I think you are grossly overstating the claims made by GST. Black and white people may be very different from each other genetically, but this difference is not great enough to prevent absolutely all miscegenation. Indeed, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for you to say this. We are the same species after all.

Whenever I point out any flaw with the theory of instinctive ethnocentrism, you always appeal to the power of indoctrination, which, in your view, seems to have infinite power to modify people’s personalities.

In case you have forgotten, Ian, I participated in that little discussion that you link to in your comment.

Of course I know that many instincts are impossible to subvert through indoctrination. For example, no amount of propaganda can prevent many of us from eating too much, cheating on our wives, or having family loyalty. But, as Dr. Salter points out, tribal loyalties are much weaker and easily subverted than instincts like family loyalty.

In fact, here’s a snippet from Jared Taylor’s review of On Genetic Interests:

As Dr. Salter explains, “The novelty of industrial society has tended to decouple social patterns from ethnic interests.” At the same time, “modern indoctrination techniques, most notably universal education and the mass media, tend to break down ethnic solidarity, causing altruism to be directed towards genetically distant individuals.” The result is that, “despite being outfitted with the potential for both family and ethnic feelings, humans are not as instinctively equipped to identify and defend ethnic genetic interests in the evolutionarily novel world of mass anonymous societies.” The loyalty of most whites therefore does not extend past their close kin. As Dr. Salter puts it, “They are, in effect, leaving their ethnic genetic capital to chance—the vagueries of nature and the good-will of competing groups.”

http://www.amren.com/store/ongeneticinterests_rev.html

It would seem that Dr. Salter agrees with me that indoctrination can suppress our innate ethnocentrism.

By the way, you know, blacks and whites were sexually attracted to each other long before multiculturalism came into existence. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the states had to pass laws banning miscegenation because it was so common.

A degree of miscegenation occurred during slave times, when some slave masters took inappropriate liberties. However, basically all of these slave masters had white wives. There wasn’t really much attraction there, they were just taking advantage of the situation that they had.

Next, you would do well to pause before hurling accusations of bias against people who criticize your views. I don’t see much evidence of bias in the scholars who reject GST, and I require some evidence of it before I accept the charge.

If you think that theories like GST can get an objective review from the majority of scholars, then you are just dead wrong. And it’s not worth my time to discuss this with you any further.

The result is that, “despite being outfitted with the potential for both family and ethnic feelings, humans are not as instinctively equipped to identify and defend ethnic genetic interests in the evolutionarily novel world of mass anonymous societies.” The loyalty of most whites therefore does not extend past their close kin. As Dr. Salter puts it, “They are, in effect, leaving their ethnic genetic capital to chance—the vagueries of nature and the good-will of competing groups.”

But European whites have historically organized themselves around their immediate white ethnic group, and never as a single pan-European racial political bloc.

This suggests the instinct for racial loyalty has always been weak.

Also, does Salter ever explain where common genetic interests begin?

Modern genome association studies are sensitive enough now that scientists can easily tell the difference between Poles and Italians. If Poles and Italians are genetically distinct, does this mean Italians and Poles have seperate genetic interests?

It would appear to me that racial loyalty is not strong unless operating in conjunction with unifying cultural factors such as religion, sex relations, shared geography, shared history, and linguistics, etc. And even then, the loyalty to one’s group is most strongly held for one’s immediate ethnic/national grouping.

Mike G.,

Sure, everyone who disagrees with your views, like Rushton’s peers, is just motivated by political considerations and can be dismissed out of hand. People who hold attitudes that are incompatible with your theory, like the college students in the survey, are just liars or cowards. Essentially, you dismiss all arguments and evidence against your viewpoint as a pack of lies, undeserving of serious assessment. Such is the attitude of the dogmatist, the person who refuses to subject his views to rational evaluation.

You proceed as all dogmatists do, demanding that I prove my own position in ever greater detail, but producing no evidence for your own side of the argument. I’ve explained at length why I think standard theories like CVT explain assortative bonding better than GST, but you haven’t produced a single piece of evidence proving the vice versa. I could go on debating with you, but what’s the point? No evidence will ever make you doubt your idol, and you will always avoid a fair fight on equal terms. I said above that GST appears to be an untestable theory, and that is enough to discredit it. Rational debate about untestable theories is impossible, and that’s what makes them bad theories.

On the poll for interracial dating - just what percentage of students do you think have gave this more than a superficial answer? One of the problems I find in both myself and others is a tendency to answer questions without really bothering to formulate a proper opinion first.

I suspect that you could take the exact same students and put them in a society that frowned on interracial dating and the poll numbers would be very different. I’m not sure the poll will reflect how people act though. An off-the-cuff answer is one thing, life-affecting action is another.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s possible to answer a question in the affirmative and imagine we mean our answer, but when we actually confront the situation we’re forced to evaluate in an in-depth way and come to a different, concrete decision.

Dog breeds roughly correspond to human races. I wonder if it would make sense to experiment on dogs. One allows different breeds to cohabit and observes whether dogs have a preference for the same breed when it comes to mating. If they end up choosing a mate of the same breed in most cases, this would speak for the existence of some kind of an inherent ethnocentricity instinct.

“But European whites have historically organized themselves around their immediate white ethnic group, and never as a single pan-European racial political bloc.

This suggests the instinct for racial loyalty has always been weak.”

Europeans have always been neighbors with Asians on the Eurasian landmass that they both share. Caucasians have been neighbors with sub-Saharan blacks in North Africa. Has there been a lot of intermixture in the boundary areas? I am not sure. There might have been. I have always thought that Saamis look like a mixture of Asians and Europeans, people in the south of India are a mix of North Indians and Native Australians, South East Asians - of Asians and Native Australians, Ethiopians - of Berbers and African blacks. This is not something I have read about, just what I surmise by mentally overlapping two sets of racial features.

Personally, I think that something like an ethnocentric instinct might exist, but it is not very strong, as far as instincts go. It is expressed through aesthetic preferences, but it is easily overwritten by the experience of familiarity. For example, I grew up in a region that didn’t have any blacks. The first time I became aware of black tourists, as a child, I was struck by what was to me the absolute hideousness of their looks. It was almost physically painful to share a space (such as a bus) with ugliness and deformity of such proportions. Who was the philosopher who beat up an ugly man with a stick? For some reason, I think it was Schopenhauer. But maybe it was Nietzsche? This is how I felt when my aesthetic feelings were so rudely violated. Obviously, white people who grew up seeing blacks around don’t share these feelings. They might not think that blacks are subjectively as attractive as whites, but they don’t have the same violent reaction of recoil as I had. A lot of it is a matter of habituation. You can get used to anything. I myself no longer have the same extreme reaction, because my nervous system would be overwhelmed if I still felt like that in my daily multicultural reality. But I must admit that echoes of these feelings still remain with me. I could never fully enjoy myself in a landscape which includes some black people. I must avert my eyes and concentrate on something more aesthetically pleasing.

If my hypothesis that the instinct for endogamy is expressed through innate aesthetic preferences is correct, then this would also explain why it is not so strong and easity over-written. Aesthetic ideas are strongly shaped by culture. Color red might not be a good color to surround ourselves with for neurological reasons, but if it becomes fashionable to paint out appartments red, a lot of people will do so and insist that red is soothing and pleasant. Another example is that men of Mediterranean origins - Italians, Greeks, Jews - prefer Nordic-looking women and marry them as a mark of their status symbol. Biologically, they are supposed to prefer women who look similar to them, but their instincts are over-written by our Western culture’s preferences for the Nordic phenotype.

Exegesis, Mike G., Svigor,

What do you think of the finding that 24 percent of college students say they have actually dated interracially? Do you think that’s all just a bunch of lies too? What about the nearly half of Hawaiian men who say they date mainly outside of their own race? Are they lying? Plus you have the other statistics on interethnic marriage from the article. Are those all just a bunch of lies?

Sexual attraction towards people outside your ethnic group is common, and that’s not what you would expect if GST were true.

Europeans have always been neighbors with Asians on the Eurasian landmass that they both share. Caucasians have been neighbors with sub-Saharan blacks in North Africa. Has there been a lot of intermixture in the boundary areas?

Yes, particularly in Central Asia.

Uighurs are about 60% Europid, 40% East Asian.

Some more evidence from Steve Sailer that interracial sex has been common throughout American history:

Molecular anthropologist Mark D. Shriver’s team of population researchers at Penn State University has examined DNA samples from 3,000 individuals in 25 locations around America, looking for the gene markers that tend to differ between Europeans and Africans. Preliminary conclusions suggest an average of some 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That’s the equivalent of saying that, among the 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents ancestors of every modern American black, living some 200 years ago, 106 were Africans and 22 were Europeans.

Mike G. would have us believe that whites and blacks had sex without being attracted to each other, but why on earth else would they have?

These facts bear on the indoctrination question. Mike G. and the others think that college students today profess willingness to date interracially because they have been indoctrinated. However, throughout most of American history, the indoctrination went in the opposite direction: whites were told racial mixing was wrong and degrading. Nevertheless, indoctrination could not overcome the power of instinctive sexual attraction. Rather than seeing contemporary attitudes as the result of indoctrination, you could argue that they reveal people’s natural preferences when they are freed from indoctrination. In short, maybe people today are being more honest about sexual attraction than our ancestors, rather than less so.

These articles might be of interest:

Admixture, ancestry and its ascertainment among Puerto Ricans

Genetics, the myth-buster? The case of Argentina

Indeed Ian, people are being more honest about sexual attraction. I’ll see your Steve Sailor article and raise you another! LOL! Come on…it was a little funny?

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/03/08/interethnic-marriage-declining-for-asians-and-latinos-as-predicted-on-vdarecom-eight-years-ago/#more-11427

But scholars delving into the U.S. Census have found a surprising converse trend. Although interracial marriages overall have increased, the rate of Hispanics and Asians marrying partners of other races declined in the past two decades. This suggests that the growing number of immigrants is having a profound effect on coupling, they say.

The number of native- and foreign-born people marrying outside their race fell from 27 to 20 percent for Hispanics and 42 to 33 percent for Asians from 1990 to 2000, according to Ohio State University sociologist Zhenchao Qian, who co-authored a study on the subject. The downward trend continued through last year, Qian said

Sure, I’m smiling. The rate of interracial marriage may be declining, but if 20 to 30 percent of Hispanics and Asians are marrying outside of their race, that’s another piece of bad news for GST.

To Mr. Jobling, et al.:

The human child displays feelings of racial prejudice from a young age. The early appearance of racial prejudice may be taken as evidence that the feeling is not an acquired disposition. See http://tinyurl.com/cf7run and http://tinyurl.com/dmfevj ).

All social animals, from the lowest insect to the Great Apes, can detect the foreigner and resent his presence. The ant that sacrifices its life for the colony, and the bird that defends its nest from predators, are exhibitting a zealous patriotism. There is no evidence that man in the simian stage was destitute of the same passion. Prehistoric remains are distributed in a highly localised pattern, and even in primordial times men were already differentiated into races, a fact which cannot be accounted for unless endogamous breeding was the norm. The earliest peoples of whom we have written records — the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Teutons, Celts, and Chinese — were all originally divided into tribes. Patriotism, endogamy, and particulate grouping seem to be universal among social animals. It is unlikely that the same mentality displayed by lower social animals, by great apes, by man’s pre-human ancestors, by primitive humans, and by young children should be a learned behaviour in modern man alone.

How else do you account for the early differentiation of mankind into races, subraces, and local stocks? Paleontologists assure us that the brain is so expensive an organ that it takes 1,000 years for a population to gain a single gram in brain weight. Since the Negro race averages 100 grams less brain weight than the European, it follows that the Negro is at least 100,000 years behind the white race on the evolutionary scale. If brain weight is a reliable criterion, the various races of Eurasia must have been separated for tens of thousands of years. If there had been random miscegenation from primordial times, then the distribution of types that we observe today cannot be accounted for; and since groups were still interacting and competing with other groups, the isolating mechanism could not have been purely geographic. Group members must have been bound together by the ties of blood and soil and kept separate from other groups by feelings of mutual aversion.

Mr. Jobling wrote:

“What do you think of the finding that 24 percent of college students say they have actually dated interracially? Do you think that’s all just a bunch of lies too? What about the nearly half of Hawaiian men who say they date mainly outside of their own race? Are they lying? Plus you have the other statistics on interethnic marriage from the article. Are those all just a bunch of lies?”

Once again, college students are not a representative sample of the white population, and one can be ‘open’ to interracial dating but still have a general preference for dating within one’s own race. Hawaiians are hardly any more representative of the white population than college students. A better question: What percentage of Americans date interracially?

Mr. Jobling wrote:

There’s no reason to believe that interethnic marriage is a deviant or pathological behavior brought about by contemporary Western conditions.

I have given several reasons.

Mr. Jobling wrote:

“Comparing interethnic marriages to interspecies sexual attraction is completely outrageous.”

My point is that domesticated animals exhibit a reduced sense of sexual discrimination. How do you account for the fact that deformed people are able to find mates and have children? In feral conditions they would have been regarded with universal disgust. Surely, you must acknowledge, there is something in the non-feral cultural environment that has denatured and modified our natural behaviour. Perhaps a disturbance of some kind has taken place in the prolonged phase of imprinting and habituation during which the child develops a ‘consciousness of kind’. Again, young children are racially prejudiced; older children are less so. Why? If ethnocentrism is learned, it ought to become more entrenched with age.

I do not dispute that the direction taken by the racial spirit is a matter of upbringing, but I maintain that the disposition itself is inborn; just as the disposition to speak is innate, but the language spoken is learned.

Undiscovered Jew wrote:

“But European whites have historically organized themselves around their immediate white ethnic group, and never as a single pan-European racial political bloc.”

“Immediate white ethnic group” = race. The word ‘race’ may be used either to designate a people clearly differentiated by anatomical characters (Negroes, Europids, etc), or to designate a group sharing a common ancestry (Irish, Welsh, English, Jews, etc). A group sharing a common ancestry is also involved in the process of anatomical differentiation and may eventually become a ‘race’ in the physical sense. And people differentiated anatomically tend to share a common ancestry and so may be regarded as races in the ‘ancestry’ sense. Hence the two meanings blend into each other. But the ancestry sense must be regarded as primary, for people sharing physical characteristics are not necessarily of the same race in any meaning of the term. A race is a breeding population at whatever level of abstraction is desired.

We see that a major source of disagreement results from an ambiguous use of the word ‘race’. One person, using ‘race’ at one level of abstraction, claims that we have an innate sense of racial loyalty; another person, using ‘race’ at a higher level of abstraction, disputes the claim by pointing out that the white race has never been organised as a single racial bloc. And then both parties switch between definitions. I think that much of the disagreement is a matter of nomenclature.

Undiscovered Jew wrote:

“Yes, particularly in Central Asia. Uighurs are about 60% Europid, 40% East Asian.”

It does not follow that man has freely miscegenated since primordial times. Your argument is based on the happenings of a very recent period in human history. This view is mistaken for two reasons. Unlike the Uighurs, our primal ancestors were much too dependent on their territories to move about and intermingle. Finally, each major race group has been confined from a relatively early epoch to a single area of the globe.

NYCJew,

You seem to have confused the knowledge of blood relationships with genetic similarity theory. Knowledge of genetic relationships has been attained only by man. It is something learned, not innate. But the tendency to favour people similar to oneself is an inborn disposition. That is what genetic similarity theory is concerned with. Rusthon’s theory is not that people have a knowledge of blood relationships, then, acting on that knowledge, seek the company of people genetically similar to themselves in order to pursue their ‘genetic interest’ with this knowledge in mind.

As with many of the critisms I have seen thus far, Rushton anticipates this argument in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

Ian - I don’t think GST is the holy grail for explaining why people choose to interact with one another. Moreover, I think CVT has a number of powerful arguments that deserve the attention of everyone on this thread. However, I think this article begs the question, “Why, in light of the push for diversity and multiculturalism, are these groups moving toward ethnocentrism?”

In any event, I think what is interesting about the link I posted is inter-ethnic marriage between Hispanics and Asians increased as the number available partners increased within THEIR groups. This is, of course, in spite of the constant drumming from popular culture and the MSM about the glorious benefits of multiculturalism and diversity. Point in fact, the author from the article I posted states… (See additional link below)

“Researchers spent a decade following 3,300 children of immigrants in the New York region as they navigated adulthood, which led to a study published last year called “Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age.” They followed both the “second generation” children born in the United States and the “1.5 generation” — children of immigrants who came as youngsters — who were Dominican, Chinese, Russian Jews, South Americans and West Indians.

Researchers found that their subjects were constantly struggling with the desire to be open to people of all backgrounds vs. family expectations, and their own desires to sustain their culture. Most paired with others who shared similar racial or language backgrounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701841_pf.html

One of the reasons that I’ve come to believe that there is some instinct for ethnic loyalty or cohesiveness is my experience growing up in my home state of Maine.

When I was a kid, the tone of Maine’s culture was pretty aggressive in defining who and what we were. For instance, even if you were born in Maine, if your parents were from out of state, then you weren’t a Mainer. It was not stated plainly, but we didn’t want non-Mainers moving to and living in Maine. We liked our accent, our land, our people. Now, despite the native American community that had been living in pockets amongst us, I don’t think the average Mainer really thought about Indians as being Mainers. They were here in the territory, but if we didn’t really think much about them. By the way, the neighboring states got a partial pass on this; if you were from New Hampshire or Vermont you were more or less OK - unlike the hated states of Mass. and Connecticut.

I think it’s telling that after literally centuries of living in small pocket communities within the larger Maine community, these Indian tribes did not completely miscegenate. Was there some intermarriage? Sure. But think of it like this; for most of Maine’s history, it has been 98% or so white in population. Those Indian communities weren’t and aren’t big enough to be even remotely isolated from the surrounding Maine community - basically I’m saying there’s lots of interaction. My point is that of the pool of potential mates, 98% would have been white. The tribes should have completely miscegenated in just half a dozen generations, and many of Maine’s towns are over two centuries old, or ten generations.

That didn’t happen. Intermarriage rates are much lower than that. Clearly, something is interfering with people choices of mate selection - and it wasn’t even public opinion, in particular.

What we perceive to be our own race is based on the people that live around us and is tied up with cultural aspects such as accents and mores.

Somewhere along the line, this sense of being a particular people evaporated - and along with that went neighborliness, charity, and compassion in many ways. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who can’t wait to leave the state for someplace like Montana or Alaska. Basically, without the feeling of being a seperate people, the state is changing into a faceless mass of people who at best tolerate each other.

Sorry for the boringly long post. In a nutshell; people aren’t walking genetics labs - we can’t tell what another persons genes are except by superficial means. We use those means, such as looks, accent, shared history, etc. to differentiate ourselves from the rest of humanity and to form a particular group of people. That doesn’t lend itself to a sort of pan-European race conciousness. Just the opposite - if neighboring peoples are all European, people will sort themselves out on ever finer differences until they’ve seperate themselves. The real question is what is the optimal territory range for humans to avoid conflict with these other groups?

I suspect it is continent sized.

Wingfield,

If sexual attraction were substantially affected by genetic similarity, we wouldn’t see high levels of interracial dating in any sample.

As I pointed out in the article, 10 to 20 percent of marriages in multi-ethnic non-Western societies are exogamous in times of only moderate ethnic conflict. You can blame that on overcrowding, overdressing, overeating, or any other half-baked theory you pull out of your hat, but don’t expect me to take you seriously unless you provide some evidence. If you want to try to try to prove miscegenation and overcrowding are correlated, good luck to you.

Some of the rest of what you say does make more sense. If I really am going to prove that ethnocentrism is not an instinct, I do have to explain why the phenomenon of ethnic cohesion is at least a near universal. However, that is not the subject of this article, which is GST.

A few points—

1.) Only 1.9% of married white men and 2.2% of married white women have nonwhite “spouses” (http://tinyurl.com/cmsqj7). In contrast, 13% of British males and 12% of Norwegians have practiced homosexuality (http://tinyurl.com/bcpc6g, http://tinyurl.com/dlgk39), and 4% of the American electorate self-identify as homosexual. Homosexuality thus seems to be more prevalent than interracial dating. By your reasoning, heterosexuality is not an inborn disposition, since a “substantial portion” of the populaton are evidently “open” to homosexual experiences.

2.) According to a Hawaiian study, exogamy is less stable than endogamy:

“Findings suggest that even after controlling religion and many other demographic variables, inter-racially married individuals report lower happiness than those in intraracial unions, especially women… . Marital happiness depends on many factors, and homogeneity of race and culture between the couple is surely among them.”http://tinyurl.com/cfmgls

Also like homosexual relationships, interracial relationships amongst adolescents are more fleeting than endogamous ones:

“We find that adolescents who are involved in interracial relationships are more likely to terminate their relationships than their counterparts involved in intraracial relationships even after we adjust for individual, relationship and social network factors.” http://tinyurl.com/b9zc7p

If exogamous relationships are fleeting and unstable, it is fair to assume that they are less likely to result in the production of offspring than endogamous relationships.

3.) Just because men are capable of acts of brutality does not mean that altruism is purely a matter of upbringing and not an inborn disposition. By the same token, just because some people are open to interracial “dating” does not mean that the general pattern of endogamous breeding is purely a matter of cultural conditioning rather than an inborn preference. Endogamy is the norm not only across cultures, but amongst primates and other social animals. There is no reason to suppose that when the same phenomenon is observed in Westnern man, it is entirely learned.

4.) In primal conditions, individuals who were willing to cohere in a group and tune their individual needs to the survival of the group had the best chance of surviving, and those groups comprised of individuals endowed with the patriotic spirit — that mental machinery, inherent in virtually all social animals, which urges the individual to defend the group against the enemy — had the best chances of surviving as groups. Patriotism thus served, and continues to serve, an evolutiory utility, and explains a wide variety of otherwise puzzling cross-cultural phenomena.

Wingfield,

You compare the percentage of Brits who have had “any sexual contact with someone of the same sex” to the percentage of Americans who marry interracially, and assume rates of interracial marriage reflect rates of interracial dating. Surely, you can see that the categories you’re using here are incomparable to one another.

In fact, according to this survey, 35.7 percent of white Americans have dated interracially, along with 56.5 percent of African Americans, 55.4 percent of Hispanic Americans, and 57.1 percent of Asian Americans.

Throw in the towel, Wingfield, you’re beat. Interethnic sexual attraction is common worldwide, and this is not what GST would predict. That’s all I’ve ever been trying to prove. Your information about the stability of interracial relationships and the rest of it is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.

“The real question is what is the optimal territory range for humans to avoid conflict with these other groups?”

For some reason, the figure of 1 square mile per person (for the hunting-gathering lifestyle) is stuck in my mind. Am I completely off?

Ian Jobling,

You say that there is no innate basis for ethnocentrism. Why then do you think it is a human universal?

IJ: “By the way, you know, blacks and whites were sexually attracted to each other long before multiculturalism came into existence.”

If you put ANY groups of people (different races, religious groups, etc) within the same physical/geographic space they will eventually breed with each other because of familiarity and being in the same shared space - that’s obvious.

However, if racial groups are kept physically-geographically separate they very often show a definite repulsion for mixing with other groups, preferring strongly to breed only with their own group.

Ian Jobling,

Before I begin, let me just say that J. Wingfield was absolutely correct when he said that “one can be “open” to interracial dating but still have a preference for dating within one’s own race.” I meant to say this in my last comment.

Sure, everyone who disagrees with your views, like Rushton’s peers, is just motivated by political considerations and can be dismissed out of hand.

I don’t want to get into an argument over whether or not the sky is blue with you. If the majority of scholars are not biased, then why does work like r/K theory and The Bell Curve meet such hostility? You have to be at least skeptical of people who have a long track record of bias against racialism. Although, it goes without saying that not all criticism should be disregarded.

People who hold attitudes that are incompatible with your theory, like the college students in the survey, are just liars or cowards.

The poll of the college students is not incompatible with innate ethnocentrism. As I have already said many times, ethnocentrism has become broken down today.

By the way, it’s not my theory. You give me too much credit.

You proceed as all dogmatists do, demanding that I prove my own position in ever greater detail

Actually, you have it backwards. You have been the one who has brusquely demanded that I explain the theory of innate ethnocentrism even better than the likes of Rushton, Salter, MacDonald, etc. I have never demanded that you prove your position in any detail. Instead, I have just tried to counter your claims.

But I bet you call anyone who has the nerve to disagree with your divine wisdom a dogmatist, or the like. After all, who could have the nerve to dispute what “The Realist” says. Anyone who does must be irrational.

I’ve explained at length why I think standard theories like CVT explain assortative bonding better than GST, but you haven’t produced a single piece of evidence proving the vice versa.

What did I tell you? There you go again brusquely demanding that I prove something even better than the experts.

If CVT were the only explanation for assortative bonding, then ethnocentrism as we have seen in the past would have never developed. Indeed, it is hard to see how the high levels of ethnocentrism that the world has experienced in the past (and still experiences in many places) would have ever developed if we merely associate with people because they validate our opinions about the world. Therefore, much of assortative bonding must be explained by GST.

Also, I find it hard to believe that it would be possible for us to not show favoritism towards people who are genetically similar to us. If we didn’t, then that would mean that we would have no instinct whatsoever for genetic survival. It would mean that we wouldn’t care if our unique genes were lost and replaced.

Besides, I have never met a white person who didn’t immensely prefer to date within their own race. And this includes whites who have dated outside their race.

P.S. Rushton is not my idol. I am my only idol. Everyone else is just so flawed in comparison.

Salter in On Genetic Interests makes a good normative case for why people should be ethnocentric.

Whether ethnocentrism is innate or learned — I personally think it is innate — it is something that whites must acquire again.

Only tribalism offers the path to whites’ salvation.

Whites need to again take the upper hand in condemning miscegenation, and to do this whites need again to take control of the language. For example, “white trash” used to mean a white who procreated with a non-white. Such usage needs to be brought back.

First of all I wish to thank Ian Jobling for bringing up this highly interesting debate, and for presenting many valuable objections, even though I do not personally agree with most of them.

As I have come to understand the GST-theory, in my humble layperson perspective, it does not stand in opposition to other theories explaining human mate-seeking preferences, but is an attempt to explain a portion of the evolutionary history which has influenced human behavior through the ages. The mechanisms which influenced Homo Sapiens during the hunter-gatherer period does not necessarily need to be as strongly pronounced today in an urban environment, combined with a strongly rooted social-norms system (school, media, peers, authorities, taboos, etc).

Writers such as Howard Bloom also adress interesting facets regarding group-selection that does not necessarily include genetic similarity. In short, Bloom means that competition between groups could explain the great variety of seemingly useless genes within the chromosome. Looking into the issues of group-selection gives us some understanding how even genes that may result in negative behavior could be passed on within a population. The individual is not the sole unit of selection - a group could easily outperform and outcompete the individual. Selection probably exists on many levels at the same time - from individual to group, extending to ethnic group, race and species. All these levels of selection must be considered from their respective viewpoints. A group identifies itself through phenotypical appearances, as well as with the extended phenotype (culture, custom, language, and so forth), group-specific colors, clothes, flags, et cetera. When groups compete on the intra-group level, they naturally need to spot the differences between the groups easily and quickly, which makes phenotypical identification a natural part of group identity - especially in our evolutionary past.

Innate instincts vary in regards to their strength of activation and prevalence. For the GST-theory to enter as one of many considerations within social behavior equations, it is merely needed for it to show a slight statistical inclination within a population or ethnic group to intermarry within the ethnic and/or racial group. This means that first, such instincts will be difficult to separate from social mechanisms, which is a fact that strikes both ways. A general instinct towards ethnocentrism does not have to be activated within every member of the etnic group during a lifetime, it could also be latent, or activated in certain situations or at certain ages, as well as just having a minor or varying effect on our complex human psyche. In certain individuals such instincts could be more strongly pronounced, and in others much weaker. Statistically though, such instincts would reveal themselves. In this thread, the basic divide of opinions seem to revolve around the question of how to interpret poll data. I think most of us could agree that more studies need to be made, and that each study needs to be correctly weighted in regards to potential error sources. In the meantime, I belive the GST-theory is worthwhile to explore, if not for the fact that every theory should be examined thoroughly. Personally I see much potential in it, as an addition to the understaning of the evolutionary roots to mate-selection. If it could be proven that there is even a slight statistical innate instinct towards ethnocentrism among humans, then that would mean that the GST-model has some merit worth considering, in connection to other social-psychological models.

Scenario A-1:

When it comes to a questionaire-poll, anyone could hypothetically broaden their horizons on the answers when it comes to the question of potential dating mates. Let us for a short moment assume that alien beings were common on our planet. Let’s also say that they are relatively well-integrated in our society and that they look similar to humans, though somewhat different. Theoretically, I could answer on a poll that I could date an alien being. Hypothetically, a wellformed and intelligent alien being could be a possible match if all the other variables fitted my criterias. However, the fact that I am theoretically open to the possibility of dating an alien female does not imply that I will likely do so, provided that the opportunity exists. Saying that I could date an alien means that I could theoretically give it a try - non-sexually most probably - if that alien person of opposite gender was really interesting, attractive and charming.

Considering this hypothetical alien-dating scenario, does this mean that we humans do not have instincts towards preferring to mate within our own species? Or more precisely - isn’t it possible to have instincts of within-species preferences, while at the same time other factors could interact with and even override such instincts? And a date-scenario with an alien being would also have to factor in any possible genetic and/or social status improvement (as well as risks) to the offspring. However, dating an alien being would not necessarily disprove a general instinct of within-species preferral. The fact that instincts can be overridden on the personal level doesn’t gainsay the fact that instincts play a statistical role within populations.

To add some more facets to the debate, I wish to quote Frank Salter from his book ‘On Genetics Interests’: (Salter, page 102)

“Recent insights provided by psychologist Lawrence A Hirschfeld provide a persuasive solution to this puzzle (Hirschfeld 1996). Hirschfeld conducted a series of psychological experiments with young children, finding that knowledge of race is not derived from observations of physical differences. Nor does it develop in the same way as knowledge of other social categories. Three-year-old children distinguish inherited characteristics from uninherited ones. Hirschfeld concludes that ethnic thinking is the product of a special-purpose cognitive ability - a ‘domain-specific competence’ - evolved for understanding and representing heritable traits. One might call this competence an innate descent-group module, a concept seemingly made to order to help explain the reoccurence of ethnic nepotism. A common set of abstract principles has underlain all systems of ethnic thinking throughout history. Hirschfeld’s findings indicate that descent groups, both families and ethnies, have been so important to fitness in human evolution that the species is hardwired with special mental equipment for identifying, categorizing, and learning about them. Neuro-scientists are homing in on the brain regions responsible for processing facial characteristics, including racial differences (E.g Golby et al. (2001)) Once again, memes are selected by genes. Cultural group strategies cannot be simply designated in any clear cut way to be prior or external to genetic influences. Social identity processes combined with our innate descent-group mental module prime us to sort our social environments according to kinship and ethnicity and to identify with the descent groups to which we belong. However, identification with non-kin groups is easily induced, as demonstrated by social psychology experiments and everyday experience.”

Steve Sailer also strongly believes in the existence of ethnic nepotism—-the tendency of humans to favor members of their own ethnic group. In fact, here’s a snippet from an article he wrote on the subject back in 2004:

“So, the genetic basis for ethnic nepotism with each racial group is roughly as strong on average as the etymologically classic case of nepotism among close kin—-the uncle-nephew bond.

Ethnic nepotism isn’t a metaphor. It’s a reality.

And we’d better accept it—-whether Richard Dawkins thinks it would be good for his career or not.”

What Steve Sailer is saying is that ethnic nepotism definitely exists, and that it is about as strong on average as the uncle-nephew bond.

In addition, Mr. Sailer also documents how political correctness has prevented the concept of ethnic nepotism from getting a fair discussion:

“You may not have ever heard of ethnic nepotism before. That’s largely because the most media savvy-explicators of Darwinism—-such as Richard Dawkins, recently voted Britain’s top public intellectual by Prospect magazine—-are terrified that their entire field might be tarred as “racist” if the concept is given a fair public discussion.”

Anyway, the article provides strong evidence for the existence of ethnic nepotism—-as does the work of Salter, Rushton, and MacDonald. Anyone who is interested in this issue should definitely read it. Here’s the link:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm

Victoria,

There’s an article that defends Dawkins against Sailer’s attack here. Sailer is not being fair to Dawkins’ argument against ethnic nepotism. Dawkins’s critique is not that relatedness among ethnic kin members is vanishingly small, but rather that evolution would always favor those who preferred to direct altruism to close relatives. Dawkins’ argument is summarized at the link above:

As J. Maynard Smith clarified in his original definition of the term though, kin selection can only account for altruism toward close kin, that is kin selection operates not by an absolute percentage of shared genes but as a probability of sharing the same genes from the same recent ancestor. We’re entering the domain of the same problems faced by Wynne-Edwards – genes in animals that spread their nepotistic altruism thin down to the ninth and twelfth cousin would be over-run by genes that just had animals give all their favors to immediate off-spring. Dawkins clarifies in The Selfish Gene how the driving force in kin selection is not overall genetic similarity but evolutionary stability: “Kin selection is emphatically not a special case of group selection … If an altruistic animal has a cake to give to relatives, there is no reason at all for it to give every relative a slice, the size of the slices being determined by the closeness of relatedness. Indeed this would lead to absurdity since all members of the species, not to mention other species, are at least distant relatives who could therefore each claim a carefully measured crumb! To the contrary, if there is a close relative in the vicinity, there is no reason to give a distant relative any cake at all. Subject to other complications like laws of diminishing returns, the whole cake should be given to the closest relative available.” Pg. 290

Racial right intellectuals like Sailer are undoubtedly the victims of political correctness, but there is a tendency on their part to reflexively dismiss all objections their ideas as politically motivated. As I was saying above to Mike G., this is a lazy and unfair manner of dealing with critics.

• Humans, neuropsychologically, show favouritism towards people with similar phenotype. The human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages. Most of our cortical nuclear complexes are visual and that is also the part of the brain that sense making, confabulation, occurs. So we ‘see’ right next to where we evaluate. This enforce, neurologically, the argument that familiar appearance has as deep a bio-preferential component. We have a deep phenotypical-associative-bio-preference and us humans naturally generalize and stereotype because there is no other way for the human mind to bear a plurality of different units. Obviously, if the individual members of a group were completely different from each other there would be no group. This due to our limited ability to conceptualize humans as actually being individual persons. Us humans can only conceptualize about 150 to 200 individuals as actually being individuals. When we move beyond this number, humans start to become vague objects, distractions. This is called; Dunbars number.

• This begins when we’re toddlers. At 3months of age, toddlers show a distinct preference for people who share the same pehnotype as ones parents and strong prejudice towards people of a different phenotype. This can only get changed through corruption. (Socialization).

• At 5months of age, before we can speak ourselves, before we understand the importance of language, we show favouritism towards people who speak the same language as our parents but prejudice towards those who speak a different language, even accents mattered. All these traits, are seen within animals as well, our primitive ancestors for an example, with whom we still share much with.

• They conducted a test in 1979, Sheo D. Singh and B. S. Gupta, in India to see if Chimpanzees free from socialized conditioning by their parents and peers would show xenophobic behaviours. Which they did. This suggests that it’s an innate trait and it has been speculated that it has given us evolutionary advantages. Which it has.

• For an example, third cousins is the ultimate couple who produces the most healthiest babies. Third-cousin couples also tend to produce more babies and when third-cousins get together, they get their genes reinforced as they are close, and thus get more robust, the genetic trait gets more robust and dominant. When we talk about interbreeding it’s first-cousins and second-cousins may be a little risky as well. Why would people intrinsicaly want to pick similarities in their spouses, or try to and the answer is this. Your children look, much more similar to you. Infact they are much more genetically similar to you. The man and the women gives their genes to the child. The man gives 50% of his genes to the child and the women gives 50% of her genes to the child, but if you’re sharing genes in common with your spouse, then your child, not only get your 50% from you, but also get a precentage that you share with your spouse. And so they can be 70 or 80% similar to you.

• Several studies have shown that people prefer genetic similarity in social partners, and assort on the more heritable components of traits, rather than on the most intuitively obvious ones.

*(Downside of diversity) In multiracial cities, humans tend to feel a loss of identity and a crave for a community. “Diversity, at least in the short run,” he writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.” - Dr. Robert Putnam (Liberal sociologist) It leads to; less voting, less volunteering, less giving to charity, less working on community projects, less trusting of one’s neighbors, and less civic well-being. Residents of racially or ethnically mixed areas have fewer close friends and confidantes, report being less happy, and say they have a lower quality of life. They spend more time watching ­television. The effects are similar regardless of age, gender, economic status, political philosophy, or race. Living in a diverse community has a slightly greater negative impact on conservatives than on liberals, but the effect is “significant” among liberals too. Its impact on whites, Putnam says, is “definitely greater,” but it is “visible” among ­non­whites as ­well. How much less? “In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.” Although we might expect trust to lessen between different groups, Putnam found that trust lessened “even among members of the same group.”

• Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others.

• Elizabeth A. Phelps Humans are better at recognizing individuals of their own race than of other races. Golby et al. now show that same-race faces elicit more activity in brain regions linked to face recognition. Two studies published last year examined how social groups defined by race relate to activation of the amygdala, a structure thought to be involved in emotional learning and evaluation. Golby and colleagues at Stanford University extend this new research domain by investigating how neural systems related to face identification and recognition are influenced by racial group membership. Social psychologists have long noted that our ability to recognize individual faces varies depending on the racial identity of the perceiver and the face being recognized subjects recognize faces from their own racial group withgreater accuracy than faces from otherracial groups.

Several imaging studies have also observed increased amygdala activation during fear conditioning, as well as the recognition of fearful faces, and the visual or cognitive representation of fearful stimuli. It’s pretty clear, then, that the amygdala is a central part of the system that produces fear recognition and conditioning in humans. Another line of research, born of the controversy surrounding the claim that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) may reveal implicit racial attitudes, has investigated the neural activity underlying such attitudes. In one study, researchers presented participants with photos of unfamiliar white and black faces while they were in an fMRI machine. They also gave the participants the IAT, as well as another implicit measure (startle eyeblink), and asked them to describe their attitudes toward African Americans. They found that activation in the amygdala increased for black faces, and was correlated with implicit attitudes (more activation in the amygdala corresponded to more negative associations with African Americans), but not with explicitly expressed attitudes.

• There exist a biological precedent systematic phenotypc bias within humans. Harvard’s implicit association test; 33% Have a very strong preference for their own race 31% Have a strong preference for their own race 16% Have a mild preference for their own race 17% Have a slight preference for their own race 3% Have a preference for another race (3% is the same number procent of people who racemix, which is a global phenomenom.)

Most of those who takes the test are self-righteous individuals, on a quest to see how morally superior they are to the common man, because we have been taught that these feelings and thoughts are unnatural and that those that possess them, must intrinsically commit the most vile acts known to man, because the man is still, more or less a monster, not capable of rational and logical thinking and who immediately act on intuition. Even the individuals who created the test, Liberal professors at Harvard & Yale, showed strong favouritism. Brian Nozick & Mahzarin R. Banaji.

Media has demasculinized the white male and mascunilized the black male, thus TheUndiscoveredJew’s theory of;

“What if living things aren’t programmed to replicate their genes but instead are programmed to try and choose mates in possesion of traits that will improve their offspring’s chances of survival in a particular physical and social environment?”

In the beginning is right.

GST is for obvious reason’s also right and so is CVT. There’s truth in them both. I believe, as many people already have written, that it has to do with people; Answering without thinking or the reader’s derriving a non-existing meaning out of the answer such as yourself.

It is also about people trying to be cool and live up to expectations (mixing), surviving in that environment.

It is also about ancient method of surviving in terms of populations that have mixed instead of waring.

It also has to do with racialism and pro-Europea traditionalism and culturalism has becomed taboo and that the orthodoxy is based on a emotionalist discourse which has instilled fear in people.

I also believe that people are being lured away from their dispositions through market-advertisement and propaganda, (school, public-relations, media) (corporate interests and leftist ideologism). Attacked from the Trotskyite Neoconservatives and the Marxist Socialdemocrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUYFr-uDQgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

[More evidence on Rushton’s GST being accurate.]

Which is a good thing, it’s good being a skeptic but in all fairness, it does make our case more valid if it is true. If not then race is simple pragmatism and not metagenetic’s which nullify the reason for valuing race in the first place for the individual who personally lack aesthethic preference or metagenetic bond with their own race, such as myself who always have prioritized and loved my own people alot more than other’s and not because I dislike other’s, but because I love my own so much.

Moving on to the evidence;

*White women prefer their own race and discriminate other races in dating. A hispanic man needs to make $70k more than a white man for the same white woman to go out w/him. It is $125k for a black man, and $250k for an Asian.

*BLUE EYED WOMEN MORE ATTRACTIVE TO BLUE EYED MEN subconsciously, instinctively.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003842.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023193617.htm

Eighty-eight male and female students were asked to rate facial attractiveness of models on a computer. The pictures were close-ups of young adult faces, unfamiliar to the participants. The eye color of each model was manipulated, so that for each model’s face two versions were shown, one with the natural eye color (blue/brown) and another with the other color (brown/blue). The participants’ own eye color was noted.

Both blue-eyed and brown-eyed women showed no difference in their preferences for male models of either eye color. Similarly, brown-eyed men showed no preference for either blue-eyed or brown-eyed female models. However, blue-eyed men rated blue-eyed female models as more attractive than brown-eyed models.

In a second study, a group of 443 young adults of both sexes and different eye colors were asked to report the eye color of their romantic partners. Blue-eyed men were the group with the largest proportion of partners of the same eye color.

According to Bruno Laeng and colleagues, “It is remarkable that blue-eyed men showed such a clear preference for women with the same eye color, given that the present experiment did not request participants to choose prospective sexual mates, but only to provide their aesthetic or attractiveness responses…based on face close-up photographs.” Blue-eyed men may have unconsciously learned to value a physical trait that can facilitate recognition of own kin.

*AN ECONOMIST GOES TO THE BAR

http://www.slate.com/id/2177637/

We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did.

Another clear gender divide, this one less expected, emerged in our findings on racial preferences, reported in a forthcoming article in the Review of Economic Studies. Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race: White women were more likely to choose white men; black women preferred black men; East Asian women preferred East Asian men; Hispanic women preferred Hispanic men. But men don’t seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. A woman’s race had no effect on the men’s choices.

Two wrinkles on this: We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women’s neutrality, not the men’s pronounced preference.

(Me A.J writing) But blue eyed men find blue eyed women more attractive, who are blue eyed women? White women! So blue eyed men do value race as the women obviously do.

When it comes to race differences, white nationalists take a strong innatist position: there are differences between the races, they’re innate, and we can’t do anything to change that. But when it comes to ethnocentrism, they lean towards social constructivism: indoctrination has the power to radically change our personalities, and our instincts can’t resist it. White nationalism is thus an odd amalgamation of contradictory theories of personality.

This is a strawman. There are difference’s but nurtre is as important as nature in that nature need nurture to reach it’s fullest potential. A good nature can also be nurtured to behave badly. Their position is that nature is building block’s, capability’s, not skyscrape’s to begin with. I can take a Fård Taurus and turn it into a ferrari, but why would I want to do that when i can take a ferrari to begin with and alter it so that it is unobtainable for anyone to alter the Fård Taurus to come anywhere close to the Ferrari. This is the possibility a Ferrari has. One can also treat the Ferrari badly, drive with the handbrake down and so forth and turn it into a much more aesthethically pleasing Fård Taurus. Racial difference’s is irrelevant to the GST, which is about ethnocentrism and not racial difference’s. It’s a relation between the member’s of a race, not between race’s.

Firstly, then what’s the point in your site if you wish to act against people’s actions and choice which they ascribe value, or their values in the first place? Because you believe them to be non pragmatic in order to maintain civilization’s in the longterm? I assume you disagree with GST, because you wouldn’t mind to have a child with, let’s say a black girl if it wasn’t for the pragmatic reason’s which has guided you to your current values and belief’s?

Human’s have a few core instincts that is necessery for their survival. Water, food, to pee and to poo.

People also have other instinct’s such as reproduction and/or sex.

People are also violent and aggressive which is another instinct. Similarly as people are agressive, seen in fight’s, sport, war all type’s of debate’s, conflict’s, argumentation’s, they try to hide it as much as possible, but it’s latent. They hide it because they think they can do better in society by hiding it, economically and socially, they will thus have a much better way of surviving in this new man made panapticon or new man made eco-system. To hide this instinct is the new, “survival of the fittest”. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, all you need to do is to take away their materialism and consumerism and it’s visible, clear as day, as can be seen in the video I linked to were Edward Bernay based his consumerist propaganda on suppressing the human instinct’s which Sigmund Freud had found and analyzed. Same with racism, same with sex.

I would like to differentiate between reproduction and sex for this reason. If I were to be left on an island and on this island were two women; One black girl and one blonde-white girl. I would have sex with them both but only reprocreate with the blonde girl. If I only were allowed to have sex with one of the girls and the outcome would be a baby, I would without a doubt chose the blonde girl and to me it doesn’t matter if the black girl is more aesthethically pleasing as long as the blonde girl is moderately aesthethically pleasing, but inferior compared to the black girl. If I wouldn’t choose her, it would feel like I betrayed myself and my heritage, I would not create a mini-me, but a mini-her.

In this sense, ethnocentrism is an instinct, but it can be supressed due to societal punishment, thus ethnocentrism is an instinct but not an absolute necessity and prioritization in term’s of surviving. It is more important to survive than to have the luxury to be ethnocentric, because that’s what it is, a luxury. Thus, White Nationalist’s are right in that it is an instinct, but it, as most instinct’s, can be supressed and not be prioritized due to false-satisfaction’s which are; Believed satisfaction’s which later turn out to be dissatisfaction’s. A silly example is, eating cookie’s and ice-cream’s when you really shouldn’t. It’s a short satisfaction followed up with a strong penalty in the longrun.

This lead’s back to TheUndiscoveredJew’s theory.

The root to corruption is false-satisfaction

Understanding masochism, is probably understanding the roots of their childhood, parenting, how their personal situation and upbringing relates to their inheritad culture. A sort of psychological projection perhaps? Perhaps also simple naivity and ignorance of their masochism, some probably honestly dont understand the world around them. For those that do, perhaps they had a horrible childhood, our culture has perhaps created feelings of jealousy or injury. Perhaps it’s to test their own culture, their own people, not really hating it, but hating what it has created and becomed. Some has probably been brought up to be alian to their own culture, a lack of connectivity to their own past that makes their future so obscure and hedonistic (false-satisfactions), their time horizons so shallow and cannibalistic.

Take away the state and multiculturalism/racialism has no nation. Only the state can force them together. Such a concept is not a nation. Races, cultures and religions are mini-nations within these modern “nations” which has not organicaly emerged but been developed, mechanically with an intent in mind. Take away the state and new nations along racial, cultural and religeous lines emerge. These are true nations.

The modern states are anti-right to difference, anti-free association, dissassociation and anti-defense.

“Indifference is the essence of inhumanity.” -George Bernard Sha

“Nature brings forth families; the most natural state therefore is also one people, with a national character of its own. For a people is as much a plant of nature as is a family, except that it has more branches.” —Johann Gottfried von Herder, 1784

The only way to define an in-group is by comparing it to an out-group. The most natural and basic in-group/out-group definition is ethnic, as the family is the basic building block of socialization, and blood-ties are stronger then that of contractual ties, as the latter is only an outcome or even a reaction against the former.

Another example that I can think of is, the emergence of families. Families have naturally emerged, but when we got the welfare state, socialism and a consumerist culture with foccus on sex and youthfullness, these families, stopped emerging. Just because they stoppped emerging doesn’t mean procreation isn’t an instinct. It just mean’s that it can be supressed by irrational, more prioritized impulsess, such as water, food, to pee, to poo and to have sex. Especially if these are promoted to absurdum on the expense of other instinct’s. An evidence of the necessity of families and it’s instinctive nature, is evolution itself, our own existence, yet it can be suppressed by false-satisfaction’s.

It’s an instinct to live, for our body to fight of disease’s, yet people can become cult member’s and commit collective suicide’s. It is not GST’s altruism. Kamikazi attack’s and suicide bomber’s however does follow GST’s altruism theory since it’s for their nation a nation originally being a group of related tribe’s, tribe’s being related familie’s.

Sexual attraction towards people outside your ethnic group is common, and that’s not what you would expect if GST were true.

You have to differentiate between, attraction as in, being able to have sex with a broad variety of type’s and being attracted in the sense that a possible procreation is a possibility. In the former, you’ll find the majority being attracted to their own race. In the latter you’ll find even more people being attracted to their own race. And there is a core difference between the two, and the core is procreation, which is exactly what GST deals with.

Here’s some interesting, related information. Perhap’s neuropolitic’s play’s a part in all of these theory’s.

Scientist’s discover the liberal gene: http://www.neuropolitics.org/defaultjan09v7.asp

Conservatives, Liberals, and their Sex Partners
http://www.neuropolitics.org/defaultsep07.asp

Liberal right brain, Conservative left brain http://neuropolitics.org/Conservative-Left-Brain-Liberal-Right-Brain.htm

But blue eyed men find blue eyed women more attractive, who are blue eyed women? White women! So blue eyed men do value race as the women obviously do.

Another possibility is that there is a universal standard of beauty that whites physically conform to more so than other races.

But a universal standard of beauty makes no evolutionary sense, or at least none that I can think of.

Only blue eyed men conforming to the universal beauty that is blue eyed women?

Sound’s a bit too narrow for it to only be a conforming issue. It was a very distinct preference these blue eyed men had and not to forgot, it is only blue eyed men. Not green eyed or brown eyed white men, so if anything, do only blue eyed men conform to the universal beauty? The fact that they both share genetic similarities which are inline with GST theory, speak’s for it being rather genetic, than the men conforming, since it is so narrow. It seems like a cosmic joke of a coincidence if it isn’t a genetic issue.