ETHNIC GENETIC INTEREST & ETHNIC NEPOTISM - THE NATURAL LAW OF NATIONALISM
If it wasn't already inherently obvious to literally everybody, ethnicity plays a very large role in society and influences how people within it interact with one another. Every living creature on earth, from bacteria to ants, survive and thrive by continually securing their genetic and reproductive interests. When they fail to secure their genetic and reproductive interests, they ultimately become extinct.
As investigated by the author Dr Frank Salter, he posits that the rise of nationalism and anti-immigration attitudes is an adaptive response to replacement migration. He proposes a way of quantifying how immigration can lead to the loss of an ethnicity's genetic interest by comparing how significantly the migrant's own genes diverges from that of the native's (genetic kinship).
He takes into account that any territory has a maximum 'carrying capacity', meaning basically the maximum number of people that could live in a certain area given its local infrastructure and resources. Each new migrant to an area essentially 'replaces' a child of a native as the resource needed for that potential child has now been occupied by that migrant. This directly impacts an ethnicity's reproductive interests which in turn impacts their genetic interests. Dr Salter quantifies the loss of genetic interest as lost children, where migrants that are more genetically divergent from the natives results in a greater loss of genetic interest (since less of the native's genes are being continued).
- If 10,000 Danish people moved to England, it would result in the English having a genetic interest loss of 167 children.
- If 10,000 Bantuan people moved to England, it would result in the English having a genetic interest loss of 10,854 children.
The genetic distance of immigrants immensely impacts the continuance of an ethnicity's genetics, which
degrades their genetic interest -- the maintenance of which being a core principle to the survival of all living things.
When we take into account the unfortunate fact European birth rates are so low, typically lower than that of immigrants, the threat on ethnic genetic interest is even higher than first anticipated.Dr Salter argues that opposition to immigration is adaptive, which would explain the rise of nationalism in response to the flood of immigration promoted by western governments.
Of course, anyone who is intellectually informed on nationalism knows that it has its roots in common kinship, and that the nation is essentially a kind of extended family (people of the same ethnicity share about the same genetic kinship as one does with a half-sibling). When existential threats come against the survival of your family, the response is to fight it aggressively.
Evidence shows communal or societal altruism is strongly reliant upon the cohesive of ethnicity (ethnic nepotism) and that the more ethnically diverse a nation becomes, the less altruistic its citizens become towards each other. This diluting of altruism leads to more insecure and isolated communities who are cynical towards their neighbours. Trust breaks down and soon enough societal dysfunction develops. As crime rates, mental illness, suicide rates, and loneliness rises, it is clear that societal dysfunction is developing.
The evidence is clear: there is a natural principle behind nationalism. An ethnicity’s desire to preserve itself is natural in the face of losing its genetic and reproductive interests. It is only through the superimposing of exterior abstract beliefs that this core and inherent natural instinct is actively suppressed, funnily enough, ideas imposed by people who gain from the elimination of nations and any kind of cohesive ethnic identity.
History, nature, myth, and science all tells us nationalism is core to human social function and ultimately we are foolish to deny ourselves of this great benefit to ourselves and our kin.