There has been some discussion on the Internet about the book Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides are Wrong in the Race Debate
However, there are really two types of human interests. With respect to the present discussion, these can be defined as follows. As the name suggests, preference interests describe a concern for objects or activities that a person or group has a conscious preference for; e.g., “my friend Joe has an interest in baseball.” This is the type of interest most people are familiar with, and Malik exploits this familiarity by framing his “argument” in these terms. However, such a narrow definition of “interest” as our “wants, needs, and desires” leads us to conclude that non-sentient organisms have no interests and that, for example, a recent heart attack victim can have an interest in smoking, eating deep fried Twinkies, and drinking melted lard – if he so “wants” and “desires.”
Therefore, we must consider welfare interests – which describes those objects and activities that contribute to the well being (defined in very broad terms, including the evolutionary) of any organism, independent of their “wants or desires” (if they are even capable of having “wants and desires”). Therefore, although a bacterium does not have preference interests, it does indeed have welfare interests in its survival and reproduction – reproduction contributing to genetic continuity, which is the core measure of “success” or “fitness” from an evolutionary perspective. And it should also be noted that Salter refers to the interests of evolved organisms (individual organisms and groups thereof), not the “interests” of genes per se. If Malik or anyone else wants to critique the “genes have interests” paradigm, I refer them to Richard Dawkins.
One of the defining characteristics of life on Earth is reproduction; indeed, as stated above, genetic continuity is so fundamental to evolutionary theory that biological “fitness” itself is defined in terms of reproductive success and genetic representation in future generations. It is therefore a quite unusual definition of “interests” that excludes as a fundamental concern the central tendency of all evolved organisms. It is more reasonable to see genetic continuity as one of – if not the – most important aspect of welfare interests for all life on Earth. After all, “welfare” presupposes existence; a group that does not exist cannot have “welfare” for any of its non-existent members to have an interest in. Thus, in a real sense, life does have a welfare interest in genetic continuity. All life on Earth reproduces using genetic material; therefore, genetic continuity of life equals the existence of life itself.
It is clear that evolved organisms have interests – welfare interests – in genetic continuity. The idea of kin selection recognizes that it doesn’t matter from an objective standpoint whether the genetic information to be continued is yours or identical, or relatively more similar, information in “kin.” “Kin” is a relative term, so that co-ethnics who share more of your genetic information in a relative sense compared to non-ethnics are also “kin” from the standpoint of genetic continuity. It therefore stands to reason that if genetic continuity constitutes a welfare interest for evolved organisms, and if the continuity of “kin” (including co-ethnics) is part of this continuity, then organisms have a welfare interest in the genetic continuity of their “kin,” relative to others. The word “relative” must be stressed. One does not say that an organism has a greater interest in a random “kin” member compared to self, but it does have an interest in “kin” compared to others of the same (or different) species who are genetically more dissimilar. And, the greater the numbers of co-ethnic kin vs. non-ethnics involved, the greater the welfare interests in the (genetic) continuity of kin over non-kin.
If we accept welfare interests as legitimately encompassing genetic continuity – and, after all, for life on Earth, genetic continuity is continuity itself, and existence must be an interest, is it not? – then the next line of “argument” against Salter involves the “naturalistic fallacy” (see note). In other words, the accusation is that Salter derives a preference interest for genetic continuity directly from welfare interests in that continuity, and one cannot directly derive an “ought” from an “is.” In other words, one cannot directly derive preferred human action from natural laws and biological facts.
However, Salter repeatedly makes clear that he does not do this – he intersperses “values” in between nature and human action. After all, why can’t humans “want” and “need” and “desire” genetic continuity? Why can’t they “want” and “need” and “desire” ethnic/racial continuity? Why is this an invalid value? Why can’t people value biological fitness? We are not saying they are obligated to do so from the reality of biological fitness; however, we are saying that if people choose to behave adaptively, then valuing genetic continuity is the way to achieve that objective.
Therefore:
Preference Interests in Genetic Continuity = Welfare Interests in Genetic Continuity + Values Favoring Fitness
If Malik believes that the values favoring fitness are morally or aesthetically or rationally wrong (at least for whites) then he needs to explicitly say so. He should go on the BBC and tell native Britons that a concern for their own continuity is bad and stupid – in the context of honestly and completely explaining evolutionary theory and biological fitness. He needs to openly express the opinion that native Britons should be unconcerned with their own survival as a (biological) group and that they should be unconcerned with displacement by others. It is clear that any group that takes Malik’s advice and eschews genetic continuity as a value will be replaced by groups that do hold such a value as a fundamental interest. Indeed, a lack of interest in group continuity is not evolutionarily stable – any groups that lack such an interest will replaced by those groups that value that interest, and if all groups lack this interest then the entire species may become extinct.
In addition, issues of preference interests and welfare interests begin to overlap – to declare that people have children only because of “desires and wants” for parenthood misses the point that most prospective parents want their own biological children, sometimes going to extreme lengths to achieve that objective. Isn’t then the preference interest for parenthood – manifested as a “need” and “desire” for one’s own children – an evolved instinct for personal genetic continuity? Can one continue to insist that genetic continuity is not an interest when so much of the “striving” of life is toward that goal?
Further, the idea that ethnocentrism is no longer adaptive today, although it may have been in the past, is ludicrous, since ethnocentrism is most adaptive in the context of ethnic/racial competition – a competition most salient in today’s globalist world, and in multiracial “western” nations. Indeed, ethnocentrism is likely more adaptive (at least for Westerners) today than in any other time in human history. The stakes have never been higher.
While genetic interests, like all ideas, should certainly be subjected to rational critique, the absurd assertion that human groups have no interest in their own continuity – which goes against evolutionary theory – is way beyond the limits of rationality. Why would Malik promote such an idea? Perhaps the first sentence of this abstract holds a clue (emphasis added):
The term Darwinian fitness refers to the capacity of a variant type to invade and displace the resident population in competition for available resources.
Indeed. Given that Salterism can be viewed as a tool that the “resident population” can use to resist displacement by an invading “variant type,” is it surprising that a representative of a quite variant type wishes to delegitimize that tool so as to facilitate the invasion? Isn’t it in the genetic interests of the variant to deny the very existence of those same genetic interests when addressing the resident population, to disarm that population in the competition for “available resources” (e.g., territory)?
Note:
I in fact have become skeptical of this, and a number of other, commonly cited “fallacies.” It is too easy for people to dismiss unwelcome ideas by stating that the promoter of those ideas has “committed the XYZ fallacy,” thus ending debate on the topic. It may be useful to, at some point in the future, revisit the idea of whether the “naturalistic” and/or “is/ought” fallacy is indeed a fallacy in the light of modern evolutionary theory.
11 Comments
Civilization, religion, language, writing, science = all are for our long-term survival, all are basically humans waking up from the darkness of history to take control of our own genetic destiny (if you take a larger view of them). Why would Kenan Malik want us to go back to being blind animals again? That is basically what he is saying if I understand this correctly. He is a puppet of current politics, current confusions and derailments of our destiny from Jews– which aim to destroy all these things. He is not being objective, just trying to make it appear that way.
Current wants or desires can easily be changed by media manipulation. By classical conditioning, you can change basic wants ridiculously — like Pavlov making dogs salivate to a bell instead of food. What people think they want is often illusion (another theme of religions too) and a result of manipulation, fads, or fashion which are meaningless. Understanding core interests, i.e. “welfare interests”, the timeless ground of the soul, can stop the twisting of our best impulses by the conditioners and manipulators. Understanding genetic interests is one way to do this.
Only by learning and honing your mind, understanding things like evolution, can you break free. With objective knowledge you can wake up from these forces and see your real wants and needs — those things in your true best interests. You can throw off conditioning with some effort and see clearly if you have made solid ground to stand on in your mind. Isn’t that precisely what truly separates us from animals?
Genetics and eugenics is the purest, highest religion in this sense. The purest and highest impulse of civilization. It is the epitome and manna of science and heaven. All these things go together. To say our genetic interests are wrong is to 1) deny life itself, 2) deny freedom, and to 3) especially deny being human. Since every side in conflicts thinks they are right, we can only get at who is really morally right by understanding how the world works and who we are and how we got here objectively from the evidence — beyond the ebb and flow of selfish wants and manipulations. Incidentally, that is how our court systems work. It is the foundation of justice. To say we should only pay attention to such selfish desire is nonsense. We need objective assessments of universal, real, and timeless interests. Never trust anyone who is against eugenics, or objective knowledge. They have something to hide. People and civilizations are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
It sounds like that entire book is manipulation masquerading as balance. Most critiques of early racial science try to say the motives were important. They want to say that they simply wanted to show they were superior back then rather than trying to find the truth. They get it wrong in pushing this view on purpose, I think — because of politics. All western science is marked by it’s objectivity. It is quite obvious to anyone with only cursory attention to history that the white race has been quite creative and superior in many things. They were trying to find out why objectively, and they knew it had something to do with biology.
It’s like when Chemistry had it’s beginnings in alchemy — they were wrong a lot back then, but they knew there were great truths there so they kept at it. All science is like that. There is the kernel of truth, and we try to hone it down to a science. Think Mendel’s pre-DNA bean plants VS knowledge of DNA and the modern genome project. We know this is how objective science works, it is obvious. So why do those who want to banish ideas of race from public view constantly go back to earlier flawed racial science to try to discredit it? For the same reason you might go back to early alchemy to discredit chemistry — ULTERIOR, NON-OBJECTIVE, motives!! Stephen Jay Gould did the same thing with his citation of early craniometric studies, etc. This book tries to say that both sides were politically-driven and that’s all we need to know, except this itself is a politically-correct attempt to confuse the issue. There IS objective science, and the idea of race is important and sound — maybe the MOST important concept of all time and the real focus of all science. Nice try.
Chuck,
Ah yes, the “Israeli Water Engineer” – who posts as “J” on various blogs, including “Majority Rights” as well as “Mangans.”
I note that despite not having any significant content-wise problem with my “formulation” he delves into two particularly stupid examples of ad hominem – the family formation “criticism” as well as Levantine psychobabble about “envy.”
This is to be expected from a Near Eastern Asiatic, whose bizarre Oriental mindset is foreign to Western traditions of empiricism and logical debate.
Let’s look at each “criticism” in turn.
Certainly, the low white birthrate is a problem, but it is primarily a problem because whites are forced to compete in the same polity with faster-breeding minorities (*) as well as being subjected to replacement immigration. The solution to weathering the demographic transition is to protect the people from demographic competition, not by forcing whites to attempt to outbreed r-selected non-whites (**), a contest whites will undoubtedly lose. Birthrates alone are not the problem, birthrates coupled with multiracialism and immigration are the problems. Population size changes can level out and be reversed, but only if population replacement can be avoided.
*Certainly, Israelis must be aware of this problem with their own fast-breeding Palestinian minority. Granted, Jews and Arabs are genetically and culturally very close; however, they still identify as different peoples competing for the same territory. Therefore, it is imperative for guys like “J” to do their part and have ten children on welfare. However, given the phenotypic realities of J’s female co-ethnics, it is understandable if Israeli men have problems performing and instead prefer to expend their vital energies with Eastern European women tricked into coming to Israel and forced into prostitution by J’s racist and goy-hating co-ethnics. Full separation of the Jewish and Arab populations seems to be a more sustainable solution.
**No doubt it would be beneficial to certain market-dominant minorities at the top of the human energy pyramid if American whites would adopt “J’s” advice to become welfare-addicted, r-selected, non-racist family formers, rather than combining sustainable family formation with biocultural homogeneity. A dumbed down, “sweet” and “non-racist” mass of social welfare whites makes a good serf class, does it not?
The stupidity about envy is particularly ridiculous, as any substantial disagreement on policy can always be attributed to “envy.” Dislike the war in Iraq? You are envious of George W. Bush. Against “health care reform?” You are envious of Barack Obama. You are just a stupid “hater!”
The pot calling the kettle black perhaps, Mr. J?
Non-whites don’t have to worry about genetic continuity since their genes always predominate. It’s like a never ending plague that consumes and consumes. That’s why I’m an esoteric. Something in White blood is precious, like it’s there to test our willingness to maintain it. Should we not, we’ll be punished by the returning depositors of said genetics.
It’s funny. When I was in the Phillipines I met several Chinese Philipinos. They were, of course, 100% ethnically Chinese. Not once in a hundred years of occupation did any cases of miscegenation happen. And nobody ever called it racist. But add Jews to the mix, I’d give them 30 years before the Chinese are infested with mulattos and half-Philipinos and other half-castes.
“Israeli Water Engineer’s” people:
http://www.viewzone.com/g-tora.html
Crazed Middle Easterners killing other Middle Easterners.
It seems like this essay has upset a non-white, Middle Eastern commentator:
http://www.h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2010/01/ted-sallis-accuses-malik-of.html
Makes a lot of sense. If you are a pro-white activist, you are not serious unless you have ten children and agitate for social welfare programs. The fact that someone involved in the political process can potentially influence policies involving millions of people means nothing. Unless you have ten children like a Mormon – and be sweetly “non-racist” to boot – you are not serious.
Typically Asiatic is this non-white Middle Easterner’s assertion that critique of Malik – even criticism that the non-white Middle Easterner agrees is a reasonable formulation – is motivated by envy of the successful Malik. It’s all “pathology” don’t you know, after all, the non-white, Middle Eastern Frankfurt School types say so!
Hey! Is the Israeli Water Engineer’s criticism of Sallis itself motivated by jealousy? Certainly, any animus toward, say, the President of Iran by “Israeli Engineers” must be motivated by envy as well! We certainly cannot assume that Israeli hostility to foreign leaders who profess hatred toward Israel can be anything other than envy, can we? And if Malik promotes ideas poisonous to whites, why, any critique of that must, must, must be motivated by envy!
Since “Israeli Water Engineers” allegedly have high IQs, I am not sure what is so mystifying about:
It is too easy for people to dismiss unwelcome ideas by stating that the promoter of those ideas has “committed the XYZ fallacy,” thus ending debate on the topic.
“…only our wants, needs, and desires constitute real human interests.”
Kenan Malik and other “One World, One Love” left-wing whackos like him are far from the only ones who believe in this kind of nonsense. Corporate advertisers promote this same ideology. One of the reasons (maybe even the most important one) why left-wing “culturalism” has triumphed in the West is because it fits so well with capitalism. It acts a sort of decertification of reason. People are duped into believing that they are making “rational” and “informed” choices when the exact opposite is the case. Under the present regime ordinary White people are being forced to make irrational and uninformed choices about almost everything from what brand of laundry detergent they buy to how they “think” about race relations.
Addition: In fact they are so extreme sometimes that they say that a debate about certain topics “legitimizes” the opponent (what ever that means). But there you are — it is the “logic” of the tyrant.
“It is too easy for people to dismiss unwelcome ideas by stating that the promoter of those ideas has “committed the XYZ fallacy,” thus ending debate on the topic.”
I agree with this, it is more preferable to be empathetic and explain why this is wrong and then ask what he really meant. However, there is a slight imbalance, to use an understatement, in the debate today for the media and its leaders are not interested in truth, rational arguments and similar things that we expect of a debate.
They wish to mass produce their statements everywhere and do not wish a debate to reach an agreement, rational conclusion or anything that was formerly considered civilized. They only wish to stomp down their monstrosities in your throat and if you do not agree you are a “hater.” Hence, by pure man power shortage and shortage of time we in the opposition have to be hard and sometimes pick the easy way of pointing out fallacy XYZ.
“Nevertheless, it is worth briefly looking at Malik’s remarkable suggestion that humans (and life itself!) do not have an interest in genetic continuity; only our “wants, needs, and desires” constitute real human interests.”
Good, let him do this in his own backward, third world country!
Don’t come here and mess up ours out of your overwhelming sense of inadequacy and envy.
Remember to all you third worlders and your lackeys: Once a host is killed, the PARASITE dies along with it.
“Indeed. Given that Salterism can be viewed as a tool that the “resident population” can use to resist displacement by an invading “variant type,” is it surprising that a representative of a quite variant type wishes to delegitimize that tool so as to facilitate the invasion? Isn’t it in the genetic interests of the variant to deny the very existence of those same genetic interests when addressing the resident population, to disarm that population in the competition for “available resources” (e.g., territory)?”
Pretty much says it all on the motives and motivation of this non-European ‘vampire’!
This article of yours is another in a string of proverbial ‘out of the park’ homeruns.
Fantastic job, Ted!