In previous posts, I’ve explained that race is foundational to both individual and group identity. This is what makes civic nationalism problematic: as when different groups naturally express their own racial identities, they engage in all-encompassing struggles for power and resources.
Nevertheless, this reality is constantly downplayed by various apologies for multi-racialism. Such claims include;
- Mass immigration is problematic, but lower levels of skilled, merit-based immigration isn’t;
- Multiculturalism should be avoided, but multi-ethnicism is desired;
- We should aim to better assimilate new migrants, rather than slowing immigration levels; and
- If immigrants have Australian values of tolerance and respect, they will seamlessly integrate regardless of nationality.
However, Dr. Frank Salter’s 2002 peer-reviewed journal Population and Environment, dismantles these tepid justifications by exploring a far deeper field: the genetic impact of mass immigration and interbreeding. In outlining how the primal proclivity to genetic continuation manifests, these findings serve as an objective, irrefutable case for ethnonationalism.
Across life forms, be it plants, animals or humans: we are all evolved to behave in ways that pass our genes from one generation to the next. This is the most simple answer to life’s meaning: the survival and reproduction of our genetic codes. As natural selection dictates, only genes that are most inclined to adaptive behaviour survive the passage of time and are in preponderance today. In Dr. Salter’s words, adaptive behaviour is that which “maintains or increases the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population.”
To the substance of Dr. Salter’s paper. Dr. Salter makes various points about the basis for opposing replacement migration and explores the field of human genetic interests. Some of these key findings include;
Resisting Replacement Immigration is Adaptive Behaviour:
For resisting replacement immigration to be adaptive behaviour, requires significant genetic similarities within groups. This is precisely the case, and just as people have substantial genetic interests in protecting their family members, so does a German have in protecting Germans, albeit to a lesser extent. In this sense, ethnicity and race exist as extended families.
In conducting his analysis, Dr. Salter treats the genetic impact of each migrant as replacing the preexisting native population, one for one. At first, this might seem contentious methodology, for the admission of 10 000 Chinese into England doesn’t have the literal effect of physically removing or killing 10 000 English people. Nevertheless, when a country reaches its carrying capacity, the presence of immigrants and their descendants will make it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. With finite space/ resources on Earth this replacement effect is inevitable, and Dr. Salter’s approach is correct.
In assessing ramifications of this replacement, Dr. Salter asks: What are the genetic repercussions of displacing 10,000 natives through the introduction of 10,000 immigrants? To measure this, Dr. Salter uses ‘child equivalents’ to express the loss in genetic interests. These ‘child equivalents’ don’t represent actual children. Rather, Dr. Salter’s ‘child equivalents’ equal the total loss in genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number/type of migrants.
As an example, Dr. Salter establishes English people as the native population, and tests the genetic consequences that 10 000 Danes immigrating to England would have. The Danes and English are genetically similar populations, but the immigration of 10 000 Danes into England, would induce the genetic loss of 167 English children.
These costs are far exacerbated when considering an English population alongside a genetically disparate population. For instance, the immigration of 10 000 Bantus would inflict a remarkable genetic loss of 10 854 English ‘child equivalents’. As demonstrated, the degree of a population’s genetic transformation hinges on the distance between the native population and the newcomer’s genetics.
More generally, Dr. Salter’s analysis demonstrates precisely why in group preferences emerge across racial grounds, for ultimately, ethnocentrism is an expression of genetic interests. As adaptive behaviour “maintains or increases the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population,” it is therefore adaptive to cooperate, have affection for, and protect group members when common genetic interests are present. Because these behaviours are strengthening each party to a relationship and producing conditions of life that are better calibrated towards an identity, solidarity, survival, additional resources and the eventual replication of shared genetics, they are adaptive.
Additionally, when competition emerges between groups ethnocentrism prevails as the most survival-oriented strategy, hence making this practice unsurprisingly common.
Dr. Salter adds the genetic harm done by post-1965 immigration to America, has “decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined.”
This remarkable observation belittles the case that immigration is necessary for economic reasons. For Dr. Salter asks; “Is an economy meant to serve people or be an end unto itself?” In other words, if native populations are being replaced, how do they stand to benefit from economic growth?
Moreover, Dr. Salter’s findings decry the folly immigration is needed to counter lowering Western birth rates. A falling birth rate reduces a population and is thus damaging, but this decline does not alter it genetically. Below replacement birth rates are mere temporary afflictions to a population, which can be compensated for with increases in future birthrates. Contrastingly, once new immigrants are established, their different genes are a lasting addition, save for later attempts at mass repatriation. In terms of genetic consequences, replacement migration is significantly more detrimental to groups than low birth rates.
Out of these blatantly negative consequences which immigration bears for native genetic interests, there is but one proper remedy: a territory. Essentially, given humans have conquered others throughout history (whether by military defeat or replacement migration), the only sure means of ensuring group survival is a territory that “insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances.”
Adaptive behaviour thereby involves maintaining a national homeland and resisting replacement immigration, given these actions “maintain or increase the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population.”
Genetics, Parental Kinship, and Mixed Race Children:
Based upon Dr. Salter’s concept of adaptive behaviour, it becomes clear where parental love is derived from. Parents maintain a base-line kinship with his/her child no matter who the other parent is, which contributes to the unconditional, seemingly irrational love commonly seen. But if parents mix with a racially similar partner, their child will more closely resemble their own genetics. This makes it objectively more adaptive for parents to produce a mono-racial child, than a mixed-race child.
Dr. Salter compares the potential loss in parental kinship when pursuing spouses of different genetic backgrounds. Dr. Salter finds that an Englishman who mixes with a Danish woman would lose just 1 percent of parental kinship that would result from an English spouse. Ordinary Europeans who mate with Northeast Asians would in fact lose 38 percent of parental kinship gained through same-race marriage. Most drastically, an Englishman choosing a Bantu partner would mean the loss of 92 percent of parental kinship, that would have resulted from engaging an English woman. These remarkable consequences, means that because a child would receive so many non-European genes from the Bantu parent, the Englishman would only be slightly more genetically related to his child than a stranger from his own ethny.
Perhaps controversially, Dr. Salter notes this stringently genetic analysis ignores potential benefits arising from mixed race-relations, which include ‘hybrid vigor’. But whether one concludes inter-racial relations are desirable for this reason or another, the genetic implications are clear: humans are biologically closer to their child if their partner is of the same race, than if their partner is of a different race.