Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200302 American Renaissance

200302 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 47|Likes:
American Renaissance, February 2002. Ethnic Genetic Interests; Subjective Reasons are Sufficient; The Humiliation of Trent Lott; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, February 2002. Ethnic Genetic Interests; Subjective Reasons are Sufficient; The Humiliation of Trent Lott; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 30, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



American Renaissance - 1 - February 2003
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world. 
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 14 No. 2February 2003
Ethnic Genetic Interests
American Renaissance
The scientific basis for ra-cial activism.
by Michael Rienzi
acially-conscious whites are of-ten frustrated that people of Eu-ropean descent do not under-stand a simple fact that others take for granted: that it is normal for an ethnicgroup or race to want to survive and toavoid displacement by others. Unlike people of other races, whites seem todemand some kind of objective, rather than subjective, reasons for survival.Activists have long hoped a respectedacademic would offer an objective, sci-entific justification for the defense bywhites of their own ethno-racial inter-ests. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter of the Max Planck Society has published just such a justification in the peer-re-viewed journal
 Population and Environ-ment 
(Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140). I believe Dr. Salters
, Estimating Ethnic Ge-netic Interests: Is it Adaptive to ResistReplacement Migration?, is the singlemost important recent intellectual con-tribution to ethno-racial studies.Mainstream discussions about im-migration usually consider only second-ary questions such as economics, crime,culture, etc. They ignore the ultimateinterest of a people: genetic continuity,which is the focus of Dr. Salters paper.In the very first sentence he asks thecentral question: Does ethnic compe-tition over territory pay off in terms of reproductive fitness?
Qualitative Considerations
From an evolutionary standpoint fit-ness means reproductive fitness, or the propagation of distinctive genesfrom one generation to the next. Livingorganisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Thus,as Dr. Salter explains, adaptive behav-ior maintains or increases the frequencyof ones distinctive genes in the popula-tion. Family or kin share many of thesame distinctive genes, so a persons fit-ness is increased by the survival andreproductive success of his kin.This is true also for ethnic groups or ethnies, which is the term Dr. Salter  prefers. Like families, members of anethny have more distinctive genes incommon with each other than they dowith other populations; the same can besaid of members of the same race. Al-though the genetic kinship of ethnymembers is more diluted than that of family members, ethnies are large res-ervoirs of genetic interests for their members. Therefore, just as a person hasa great genetic interest in the well-be-ing of his family, so does a German havefor Germans, an Italian for Italians, etc.In this sense, it can be as adaptive tosupport ones ethno-racial group as tosupport ones family.A defined territory is crucial for thesurvival of an ethny. According to Dr.Salter, The special quality of a de-fended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of de-mographic disturbances . . . . Acquisi-tion and defense of territory are there-fore an integral part of the tribal strat-egy of humans. The passionate relation-ship between a people and its homelandhas been constant throughout history,and, as Dr. Salter points out, a peoplecan suffer many setbacks, but as long asit retains its own territorial space, it canrecover.In the long run, only territory ensuressurvival, and human history is largely arecord of groups expanding and con-tracting, conquering or being conquered,migrating or being displaced by mi-grants. The loss of territory, whether bymilitary defeat or displacement byaliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destructionprecisely what is happen-ing in the multicultural West today. Alarge part of Dr. Salters work in this
Zulus and Danes . . .. . . Which make better immigrants?
Here is finally an objec-tive, scientific justifica-tion for the defense bywhites of their own ethno-racial interests.
American Renaissance - 2 - February 2003
 Letters from Readers
Sir  I follow your publication withgreat interest and generally agree withyour balance and realism on the impor-tant issues of race relations and the needfor whites to be proud of their heritageand contributions. However, I do notagree with your generally homophobic perspective, which I feel is irrelevantand even detracts from your overall mis-sion to temper the ideological excessesof so-called multi-culturalism.For example, your January review of Paul Gottfrieds
Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt 
has many negativereferences to homosexuals. It classifiesthem as victims (they do not see them-selves that way); calls them perverts(A mix of perverts, misfits, hermaph-rodites, aliens and non-whites . . . .);denigrates their rights by lumpingthem together in a negative context withthe wholy unrelated demands of immi-grants; and refers repeatedly to perver-sity, suggesting homosexuality is un-natural and a mental illness.Just as whites are not accurately rep-resented by cracker/redneck stereo-types, the great majority of homosexu-als do not fit unfavorable stereotypes.Most queers are ordinary, hard-working,taxpaying, respectable citizens. Bothfrom a tactical and a strategic standpointyour movement would be well advised be more inclusive towards a group thatgenerally supports your goals. Whitehomosexuals are an affluent, educated,law-abiding group who crave recogni-tion and respectabilityjust like other  beleaguered white folks. By excludinggays from your fold you tend to reducethe credibility of your movement.Some of your writing has that des- perate, fringe-group aura of its usagainst everybody else. In my opinion,you should re-examine your agendaabout how to further the goal of keep-ing the white race alive and well. Dropsome of your unnecessary prejudices,and be as inclusive as possible. Ho-mophobia will only detract from thewider appeal of your platform. Pleasegive this some serious thought. We dontwant to see
 American Renaissance
endup in the dust bin of social history.Sam Oglesby, Bronx, New York Sir  Regarding your article WhatReally Happened? about the relocationof West Coast Japanese during WorldWar II (Jan. 2002), I was disappointedyou did not discuss the treatment of American nationalssuch as the civil-ian workers on Wake Islandwho fellinto Japanese hands at the outbreak of the war. They were transported to Japanand forced to work in inhuman condi-tions in mines. Some of the survivors,like American POWs, sought redressafter the war but received no compen-sation.On a different matter, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, whowas the main congressional sponsor of the 1988 legislation that compensatedthe relocated Japanese, stated recentlyon
60 Minutes
that he was opposed toany type of racial profiling of airline passengers because of his experience asa child in one of the camps. Letting thismans wounded pride endanger thesafety of American travelers is stupidand reckless.George Bolton, Carlsbad, Calif.Sir  With respect to the recent flapover Sen. Trent Lott and his statementthat our nation would have been better off if segregation candidate StromThurmond had won in 1948, it is tellingthat almost all the attacks have beenagainst Mr. Lott the man, and not themessage. Trent Lott wimped out andapologized, but deep in his heart heknows he is right and so do his oppo-nents. The question bears repeating:Would you be better off if StromThurmond been elected President in1948?J.R., San Francisco, Calif.Sir  I found the review of the PhillipJenkins book,
The Next Christendom
(Oct. 2002), both timely and intriguing.I had high hopes it might stimulate someuseful controversy, and am disappointedit did not. So far as I can tell it wentunnoticed, which only reinforces mylong-held opinion that Western man isincapable of comprehending what he iscaught up in, let alone dealing with it.After thousands of years of bloodyconflict, it has scarcely dawned on himthat the supreme form of warfare iswaged against the mind. No man is morethoroughly conquered or occupied thanhe whose beliefs are formed by repeti-tion and superstition, rather than reason.In this respect, no other institution is as powerful as religion.Christianity, an Eastern conceptgrafted on to the West with pagan trap- pings, has Western civilization in a gripfrom which it is unlikely to extricate it-self. Yet its fulfillment spells the end of the white man as surely as would thetriumph of Marxism or internationalism.Christianity calls for a world inhabited by universalist man, who to me is indis-tinguishable from Marxs proletariat or internationalisms citizen of the world.The god of each is committed to theelimination of Western man.Charles Meyer, New Albany, Ind.
American Renaissance - 3 - February 2003
American Renaissance is published monthly by the New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com Electronic Mail: AmRen@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor James P. Lubinskas, Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor 
 paper is a quantitative analysis of thisnegative genetic impact.
Quantitative Analysis
Dr. Salters analysis is based on twoconcepts: carrying capacity and genetickinship. Carrying capacity is the maxi-mum population that can live in a giventerritory. Although technology and in-creased economic efficiency can in-crease carrying capacity, there is a prac-tical limit above which further popula-tion growth is not possible. Many ecolo-gists believe we are approaching, or have surpassed, the practical carryingcapacity of the earth. Even if theseecologists are wrong about the earth asa whole, it is clear that carrying capac-ity has already been exceeded in thoseareas where over-population has badlydamaged the environment or depletednatural resources.Immigration undermines the interestsof natives even if their territory has notreached its carrying capacity. For ex-ample, the carrying capacity of theUnited States is probably significantlygreater than its current population. How-ever, one day its carrying capacity
 be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendantsof todays immigrants, natives will haveno room into which they can expand. Inother words, even if the carrying capac-ity of the United States is as high as 600million or more, if that population fig-ure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of genetically alienimmigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of theUnited States they occupy unavailableto whites. We may reach carrying ca- pacity later rather than sooner, but sincethe earth is a closed system, it willhappen eventually. Nearly 30 years ago Garrett Hardin(
, October 1974) wrote thatover-population will limit populationgrowth (as we see today in China), andhe also pointed out that the cost of im-migration falls most heavily on poten-tial parents, some of whom would haveto postpone or forgo having their (next)child because of the influx of immi-grants. Immigration may not limit your decisions about having children, butsome day it will limit the choices of your descendants.Dr. Salter notes that immigrants canchange the carrying capacity of their new nation. Intelligent, hard-workingimmigrants could in theory raise thecarrying capacity by increasing the ef-ficiency at which resources are used(though there is still a cost to natives, aswe will see below). Incompetent immi-grants are a drain on resources, andlower the carrying capacity. Readers can judge for themselves which kind of im-migrants are arriving in the West.The other concept central to Dr.Salters paper is genetic kinship. Eventhough all humans share many genes,kinship is a measure of the genetic simi-larities and differences above and be-yond this general gene sharing; it mea-sures the relative frequencies of ethni-cally distinctive genes. Kinship valuescan be either positive or negative. If in-dividuals (or groups) share more genesthan is typical of a population, then thekinship is positive; if they share fewer genes than average, kinship is negative.Genetic kinship can be mathematicallyderived from studies of the genetic varia-tion, or distance, between populations.The genetic data that form the basisof Dr. Salters quantitative analysis arefrom the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforzas 1994 book 
The History and Geography of Human Genes
, whichexamined the frequencies of geneticvariations in a broad range of human populations. In general, the data aresound, and show the genetic distances between different populations. They canalso be used to measure the extent of the damage alien immigration does tothe genetic interests of natives.For the sake of simplicity, Dr. Salter assumes immigrants have no effect oncarrying capacity, and that they have thesame birthrates as nativesvery conser-vative assumptions. Dr. Salter then asks:What is the genetic effect of displacing10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants?What happens to the frequencies of eth-nic-specific genes? Given that membersof an ethny want their nation to be com- posed of 
 people, and to leave be-hind, after they die, as many copies of 
ethnic-specific genes in the popu-lation as possible, how much geneticdamage does immigration cause?It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as asimple addition to the population, butas a one-for-one
of na-tives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its car-rying capacity, it is the presence of im-migrants and their descendents thatmakes it impossible for natives to in-crease their numbers. What may notappear to be one-for-one displacementtoday will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that.Dr. Salter expresses the loss of ge-netic ethnic interest in units he callschild-equivalents. In other words, Dr.Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is thenumber of lost children that would equalthe loss of his ethnic genetic interestscaused by the arrival of a certain num- ber of aliens? Note that we are not talk-ing about actual children, but gene
Dr. Salter treats thearrival of immigrants quite correctlynot as asimple addition to thepopulation, but as aone-for-one
of natives.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->