Jayman wrote a post about ethnic interests. His claim is that ethnic interests “do not exist” in the sense of being irrational and could not have been evolved.
His first argument was to cite a chart of coefficient’s of relationship between individuals, demonstrating that the coefficient becomes almost insignificant among third or fourth cousins, and would be insignificant among unrelated co-ethnics. He then goes on to say that(emphasis in original):
Just the same, the inclusive fitness impact to a White American is the same whether he focuses his altruistic act on an unrelated White American or on a Namibian; it is zero in both cases. If you adopt children rather than have your own, the fitness hit to you is the same whether your adopted children are White, Black, Chinese, or Venezuelan.
This doesn’t sound quite right. Aren’t Whites much more genetically related to other Whites than to non-Whites? They are. It’s common to hear things like “brothers share half their genes” but that’s a simplification based on the coefficient of relationship. Humans and Chimpanzees share 96% of their DNA and unrelated humans are about 99% genetically identical. Someone could say that their racism is “rational” because in supporting policies that are in their people’s ethnic interests they are contributing to the propagation of genes they share with their co-ethnics. I’m not saying they should say that, whether or not it’s moral is a value judgement, but it wouldn’t be scientifically invalid.
He then quotes “misdreavus,” who says that(emphasis in original):
1) It is impossible for such a thing as a “race altruist gene” to evolve, because sacrificing yourself on behalf of strangers does nothing to increase the frequency of the gene under any set of circumstances. It doesn’t matter if the frequency of a such a gene “magically” originated with a frequency of 4 in 10 Chinese people. The Chinese who don’t have the gene, on average, would have a higher fitness, resulting in the frequency decreasing monotonically over time.
They would only have higher fitness if they(the free riders) went unpunished. But in the real world, and in ancient China, the free riders were punished, and those who were especially loyal to the group were rewarded. While a specifically “race altruistic gene” could not have evolved, it is entirely possible for a gene for “group altruism” to evolve in this way. Imagine an army where there are three types:
1. The first type is the coward. He will try to be a free rider, avoiding putting himself in harms way whenever possible.
2. The second type is the “mercenary.” He fights bravely but does so because he expects to survive the battles and get paid. If he feels the situation is too dangerous for him or the enemy offers him more money he will defect.
3. The third type is the “patriot.” He feels a sense of brotherhood with his fellow soldiers and will risk death to protect them. He will not defect even if it is advantageous for him to do so.
You might wonder how it could ever be advantageous to an individual to be the third type. The answer is simple, in an environment where the third type are rewarded. And it’s not hard to see how an army, or simply a band of bandits, could be that environment. It isn’t hard for people to separate the second and third type even if the second type tries to pretend to be the third type. Humans are smart, and there’s a reason we say that “the best liar is someone who thinks he’s telling the truth.” The guy who is going to have the best chance convincing the commander he is the most loyal soldier is the guy who is actually the most loyal soldier.
Imagine there is zombie apocalypse tomorrow and you discover an abandoned bunker full of food and weapons. Who, in addition to your family, are you going to share it with? You’d select individuals who have the most skills or can bring other resources, and the prettiest girls, but you’d also judge people based on your perception of their altruism. This kind of thing has happened countless times in our evolutionary history.
Don’t confuse the type of “group altruism” I’m describing here with “reciprocal altruism.” The key element of reciprocal altruism is reciprocity. What I’m describing is an inherent tendency towards altruism to those in your group, whether or not you perceive it as being advantageous to do.
If we were to accept Jayman’s argument that it is “irrational” for people to show group ethnocentrism, we should also ask whether it is “irrational” to show any level of charity to non-kin at all. Both behaviors, White identarianism and charity to non-kin, are “natural” in that they are natural results of evolved altruism even if they aren’t strictly rational. No one condemns the idea of charity because we accept it as socially beneficial. Should we then condemn White identarianism?
There’s a widespread societal wish for “colorblindness,” a society where there is “not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America,” in the words of then Senator Barack Obama in his address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. If society could avoid all group feeling and the races were to all mix together, it would solve the problem of racial conflict. We wouldn’t turn into Africa overnight. The IQ of the American population won’t change if the races merged, through the standard deviation would. Even at the numbers projected for 2060, the population’s IQ decline would only be around 1.4 points. A eugenics policy could, over a few generations, raise the IQ of the population back to the White norm.
This would be a nightmare for White nationalists, who put a high value on the preservation of the White race as a biologically distinct entity. This view seems to be that of a small minority of Whites, however, and will likely remain so. However I don’t think the races will merge into one “American” race. This seems to be a hope of people who are mainly White. Blacks and Jews in particular have strong ethnic identities, strong persecution complexes and a strong feeling that they have the right and duty to pursue their perceived ethnic interests.
As other groups relentlessly pursue their ethnic interests in the public square the spokesmen for “conservatism” tell their followers nonsense like “race doesn’t matter.” This is why even though I’m not a White nationalist,(I’m not “White” strictly speaking, I’m half Jewish) I see the value in the idea of the cuckservative insult.
One needn’t be White to see the cuckservative as a pathetic creature deserving of ridicule. I find their enthusiastic support for Israel to be particularly pathetic. Jews do absolutely nothing to reciprocate the support they receive for their ethnostate from Christians, and yet Christians keep on chugging away even as identification as Christian has fallen to 57% of American millennials. That’s cuckold behavior.
The ideology of the present day has been to pathologize group identity for White people and encourage it for everyone else. The word “universalism” is often used for it, but it’s hardly universalistic. No gentile ever criticizes Jews when they denounce interethnic marriages for their people. The fact that this ideology has generated a backlash among a small group of Whites is entirely understandable.