Pan-European Genetic Interests

Ethno-States, Kinship Preservation, and the End of Politics

Michael Rienzi

White gentiles of European descent, unlike all other groups, seem to demand objective, rather than subjective, justification for ethnoracial preservation.  Thus, white racial nationalists have long desired to see an objective work that justifies a defense by whites of their racial interests.  The wait is now over.

Dr. Frank Salter, a political ethologist with the Max Planck Society, Department of Human Ethology, has recently published just such an analysis.¹   As we are well aware, typical discussions about these topics usually center around issues which Dr. Salter terms "proximate," e.g., economics, crime and security, culture, etc.  Completely lacking in such discussions is concern for what can be termed the "ultimate" interest: "genetic continuity."  It is this ultimate interest which is the focus of Salter's work, the central question of which is asked in the very first sentence: "Does ethnic competition over territory pay off in terms of reproductive fitness?"

Crucial for the survival and propagation of an ethny is a definite territory in which to live and successfully reproduce.  According to Salter: "The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances. . . ."  Thus, the acquisition and defense of territory became an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans.  In the long run, only territory can ensure survival, and human history is replete with conflicts of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants.  The loss of territory can result in ethnic diminishment or destruction, with the consequent negative effects on the native's genetic fitness interests.  To objectively measure the extent of this negative genetic impact, a quantitative analysis is required. 

Salter's quantitative analysis of ethnic genetic interests depends on the concept of genetic kinship, a relative term which defines genetic relatedness as compared to the genetic background of a random population.  Thus, even though all humans share many genes, genetic kinship measures the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general gene sharing.  Kinship values can be either positive or negative; if individuals (or groups) share more genes than is typical of the population, then the kinship is positive; if they share fewer genes than on average, then the kinship is negative. 

Genetic kinship can be mathematically derived from studies of the genetic variation between populations.  The genetic data that form the basis of Dr. Salter's quantitative analysis of ethnic genetic interests derive from the work of Cavalli-Sforza,² which examined gene frequencies of various alleles from a broad range of human populations.  These genetic data, interpreted mathematically in terms of genetic kinship, can be used to determine the extent to which alien immigration harms ethnic genetic interests.  Salter examines groups of 10,000 people and asks: What would be the effect of displacing 10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants?  To bring the point home more clearly, Salter expresses losses of genetic ethnic interest in terms of losses in "child equivalents."  In other words, Salter is asking: for any given individual of the native population x, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his ethnic genetic interests caused by immigration of 10,000 people of ethny y?

Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny very similar genetically to the English.  Displacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes results in a loss of genetic interests equal to 167 children for every person of English descent! What if the immigrants were Bantus—a group very genetically dissimilar to the English—rather than Danes?  The genetic cost to a single Englishman of the immigration of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children!  What if the level of immigration were larger, more in tune with the massive displacement of Western peoples observed today?  The English population is roughly 50 million.  If 12.5 million of these were displaced and replaced by an equal number of Bantus, the loss would be equivalent to 13 million children!  Salter emphasizes that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population.  The loss applies to every member of the native populace.

To further illustrate these points Salter then determines the number of immigrants of group y necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of native group x by one child equivalent (see table on page 43).  For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child equivalent—a powerful and personal argument against racially alien immigration.  Salter  states that within-group charity is potentially adaptive and that self-sacrificial "heroism" directed at preserving one’s group genetic interests can be adaptive as well.

Number of Immigrants Between Nine Geographical Races Needed to Reduce the Ethnic Genetic Interest of a Random Native by the Equivalent of One Child

For example, Salter points out that "an act of charity or heroism" performed by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 Englishmen would be worth it even if the Englishman sacrificed his life and with it the potential of having a family of up to 167 children.  Preventing replacement by Bantus would justify a far larger sacrifice.  It is therefore very clear that activism performed to avoid ethnoracial displacement is very normal and adaptive, and is entirely justified by a rational analysis.  Indeed, it is multicultural surrender which is pathological and abnormal.

Another thing that needs to become transparent is hypocrisy vs. sincerity.  Those who preach ingroup separatism coupled with outgroup multiracialism (hypocrisy), particularly when both ingroup and outgroup are ethnically European, must be eschewed in favor of those who promote the idea of ethnic interests for all members of the greater race (sincerity).  Of course, an interest in specific ethnies must not eclipse the need for cooperation toward overall racial survival; the point to be stressed again and again is the need for balance.  And, in the long run, the only way to find the required balance is through transparent honesty and mutual ethnoracial respect.  It is through all of these ways of looking at activism that a true and productive pan-European movement will emerge.

It is likely that the twenty-first century will be the crucial one in deciding whether peoples of European descent will continue as genetic ethnic entities, and the issues discussed in this essay are likely to be fundamental in deciding this future.

Michael Rienzi, the pseudonym of a biological scientist living in the Northeast, is the author of the December 2000 cover story "Race is a Myth? The Left Distorts Science for Political Purposes," in American Renaissance.

End Notes

1. "Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?" Population and Environment 24, no. 2 (November 2002), pp. 111-140. A more detailed review, by the current author, of this specific paper was published in American Renaissance 14, no. 2 (February 2003) www.amren.com.

2.. L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).

3. Kevin MacDonald, "An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity," paper presented at the Meeting of the Association of Politics and the Life Sciences, Washington, D.C., September 3, 2000.