Customer Reviews

On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The need to identify with others like oneself, and to be with one's own kind, is a major component of human nature and so ethnic identity is a powerful force in human affairs. Group members have "ties of blood" that make them "special" and different from outsiders. This is why patriotism is almost always seen as a virtue and an extension of family loyalty. It also explains why ethnic remarks so easily become "fighting words." Culture builds on genetic similarity and is bound together by it. Patriotism is preached in kinship terms. Nations are the "motherland" or the "fatherland" and unions and churches refer to their members as "brothers" and "sisters."

Salter draws out the implications, however politically incorrect, for immigration policies, citizenship law, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and other ways of allocating resources within and between states. There are constraints on how much diversity can be appreciated.

On Genetic Interests extends evolutionary theorizing, including my own Genetic Similarity Theory, to the new ground of interpersonal and ethnic relations such as within-group cohesion and between-group conflict. It discusses studies on likeness in social partners such as spouses and best friends. Most importantly, it applies genetic calculations and finds that the average coefficient of kinship within most ethnic groups is about as high as between half-siblings, aunt and nephew, or grandparent and grandchild. Thus, ethnic nepotism is no mere poor relation of family nepotism-it is virtually a proxy for it. Because we have many more co-ethnics than relatives, the aggregate mass of genes shared with the former dwarfs that shared with the latter.

Frank Salter, a political scientists and ethologist at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, argues persuasively in this book that shared genes are the glue of sociality.On Genetic Interests goes so far as to refer to the mind as having an "innate descent-group module" (p. 102). It uses this concept to explain the universality of ethnic nepotism. This is heartening because many social scientists and sociobiologists alike have been reluctant to even consider applying gene-based similarity to ethnic and national preferences. Following World War II, few political scientists and historians have considered inter-group conflict from a Darwinian viewpoint. Partly in an effort to insure that they are perceived as in no way condoning racism, many evolutionists have minimized the theoretical possibility of a biological underpinning to ethnic, national, and racial favoritism. As the late, great, evolutionary biologist William Hamilton himself remarked in 1987, while noting why kin discrimination even among animals is not more readily expected, "in civilized cultures, nepotism has become an embarrassment."

Social scientists and historians have been quick to condemn the extent to which political leaders or would-be leaders have been able to manipulate ethnic identity. But the questions they never ask, let alone attempt to answer is, "Why is it always so easy?" and "Why can a relatively uneducated political outsider set off a race riot simply by uttering a few well delivered ethnic epithets?" On Genetic Interests provides an illuminating answer.

The importance of this book is that it explains that racism is rational. That is, by favoring people of one's own race, a person is increasing his fitness. This means that the anti-racists are trying to convince people to lower their fitness and eventually go extinct. In evolutionary terms, racism is adaptive and anti-racism is maladaptive. A further implication is that racists are in harmony with man's nature (indeed, the nature of all living things - to pass on the unique forms of one's genes), and that anti-racists, who go ballistic at any tinge of racism, are psychologically pathological.
While there is some math in the book, it can be understood by the average person who thinks carefully about the definitions of the terms. The reader should consult the glossary in the back of the book and be sure he understands the difference between "individual fitness," "absolute fitness," "relative fitness," and "inclusive fitness." Chapter 2 is the most important and difficult chapter and should be read several times.

This book gives scientific legitimacy to genetic interests which can be protected by the ethnostate. It reads like a scientific journal and is a bit daunting to understand at times for the layman, but not overwhelming.

Salter advocates putting more emphasis on preserving the ethny rather than just focusing on families or humanity. The three concerns involved are humanity, ethny, and family. Conservatives favor family and liberals favor humanity in their concerns. The mass immigration of genetically distant populations into America is displacing the European ethny here. He uses evolutionary sociobiology to make his arguments against alien immigration. He advocates universal nationalism for the world's ethnies. He reviews arguments against his ideas and the ethical considerations involving universal nationalism.

He argues for the same thing that David Duke and Robert McCollough argue for, but his arguments are even more focused on scientifically justifying ethnic separations such as having ethnies monopolize a territory. This strategy would echo the tribal evolutionary strategy that has always existed and has built the nation state. Modern mass anonymous societies with all their technologies have made us confused about our genetic interests. He is against the multi-racial polities which favor minority interests over majority ones, although he does not forbid multi-racial states for those who desire them. Minorities are more motivated to defend their interests in multi-racial states because of alienation and the subtle rejection of the majority. Majorities are complacent about their interests because they deal more with their own kind everyday and do not feel alienated.

He is against aggression in his model of universal nationalism; it is no longer worth it to take over territory because of population growth and the destruction war can cause. The age of empire should not be renewed.

Unfortunately, ethnic polices are often decided by political cunning and will to power, rather than by scientific reasoning. I do not see that any of ideas will be implemented soon. Some states are based on ethnic solidarity such as in Germany, where only those of German blood are citizens. Still Germany has not sent many Turks back home because they do not have the political will, even though it is constitutionally legal for them to do so. Even such ethnic states will not always enforce their ethnic policies. But Germany is better off than the US and England, which have become proposition nations in which citizens supposedly attain solidarity by believing in liberal democratic ideals that deny the genetic interests of various ethnies. Multi-racial proposition nations are hard to hold together and require a lot of propaganda from the media, government, entertainment, and education to keep people believing in the proposition.

"A tour-de-force. Absolutely astounding information about genetics you wont hear anywhere else. For example, he clearly shows how immigration into western countries is much worse than mass murder of members of our extended family (our racial genotype) in relation to or genetic interests. We have a lot to lose if immigration goes unchecked culturally and intellectually, but this book shows the specific genetic basis for our global fears in this regard. A very unique book pulling the true power of genetics out of the stone of natural sciences. Very unique, very well-written. A masterpiece."

I can hardly recall reading a book with so many intriguing new concepts per page as this one. The author makes a compelling case for counting group genetic interests amongst human rights. At the same time, he lays bare the ignorance, hypocrisy and bias of most of the "scientific" community when dealing with this subject. Yet he does so with great modesty and respect.

We are shown how there is no qualitative difference between the connection between mother and child and the connection between an individual and his race. The difference is only in degree. We are shown this conceptually and mathematically.

"Until the discovery of our evolutionary origins, we were like blind men in pursuit of the adaptive life...now the enlightenment is illuminating our fundamental interest..." Though the author was speaking of our overall scientific knowledge, the same can be said about the knowledge contained in his book. Most of us are like blind men prior to reading it. After reading it, we are blessed with sight. Thank you Mr. Salter. You have done all humanity a great service.

I highly recommend this monumental work to anybody who has a genetic interest - which is to say, everybody!

the fact is, that the greatest hatred are amoung peoples who are genetically very similar through out human history. (German, English in WWII, Chinese, Japanese, Korean through out history etc). in the worst human conflict, WWII, American, English, Chinese, Russian on one side, German, Italian, Japanese on the other side. i can't see any "genetic" stratification in that. and now, the greatest nation(at least the most powerful one)-- America, have no genetic basis. and Germany, the country that advocated racial purity is not even a entity until a few hundred years ago.(before that, it is loosely connected tribal...)

anecdote evidence aside, quantitatively, traditional ethnic division can only 1% explain human genetic variation(my estimation, no hard data), so if these is a genetic base for ethnic based thinking(racism), it must be a very weak third order effect. it is akin to rate attractiveness among individuals by the body mass based on newton's law. we know it is absurd, even through newton's law is correct.