Ethnic Genetic Interests-JWH

…Thus, this essay  has  three  basic  purposes.  First,  to  introduce  the  fundamentally  important  concept  of genetic interests – which are ultimate  interests  –  to  Western  peoples.  Second,  to  explain,  succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire  people,  with  a  consequent devastating personal  loss  for  each  and  every  member  of  that  people.  Third,  to  encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical  activism  to  pursue  their  genetic  interests.  Which  means:  to  ensure  their  own  survival…


Ethnic Genetic Interests

by JWH


“Mainstream” discussions about immigration, race, and the implications  of  a  multiracial  society  usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore  the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity.  No  rational  person  would  support  policies  that  would, on the one  hand,  “enrich”  their  family  while,  on  the  other  hand,  simultaneously  replace  their family with  strangers.  And  yet  we  seem  to  completely  ignore  the  large  scale  effects  of  public policies on  our  greater  “extended  family”–  the  racial  and  ethnic  groups  to  which  we  belong. Concerned  individuals  have  awaited  a  comprehensive  and  honest  study  of  these  issues.  The wait is over. Dr.  Frank  Salter  has  published  just  such  an  analysis  in  the  journal  Population  and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140),  entitled:  “Estimating  Ethnic  Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”  He  has  then  followed  this  crucially important article with an even more detailed study in the book,  “On  Genetic  Interests,”  reprint:  Transaction  Publishers,  2007.  The  following  summary  is  based  upon  Dr.  Salter’s  work.

Basic Considerations

Essentially, life as  we  know  it  is  ultimately  about  the  propagation  of  distinctive  genetic  information from one generation to the  next.  Living  organisms  can  be  seen  as  the  vehicles  by  which this propagation occurs. Family members share many  of  the  same  distinctive  genetic information, so a person’s fitness  is  increased  by  the  survival  and  reproductive  success  of  his  or  her family. This is true also for population groups,  or  “ethnies,”  a  term  which  can  refer  to  races, ethnic groups, and/or  various  subgroupings  of  these.  Like  families,  members  of  an  ethny  have  more distinctive  genetic  information  in  common  with  each  other  than  they  do  with  people  of  other  populations.  Although  the  genetic  relationship  of  ethny  members  is  more  diluted  than  that  of family members, ethnies are larger reservoirs  of  genetic  interests  for  their  members  because  of their size,  which can number in the many  millions Therefore, it can be as adaptive, or more so, to  support    one’s    ethnic    or    racial    group    as    it    would    be    to    support    one’s    own    family.

A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. In the long  run,  territory  is  crucial  for survival, and  human  history  is  largely  a  record  of  groups  expanding  and  contracting,  conquering  or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss  of  territory,  whether  by  military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic  diminishment  or  destruction  -  precisely  what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. An important part of Dr. Salter’s work is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.

Carrying Capacity

Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying  capacity  and  genetic  kinship.  Carrying  capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although  technology  and  increased economic  efficiency  can  increase  carrying  capacity,  there  is  a  practical  limit  above  which  further  population  growth  is  not  possible.  Many  ecologists  believe  we  are  approaching,  or have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity  of  the  Earth.  Even  if  these  ecologists  are  wrong  about the Earth as a whole, it is  clear  that  carrying  capacity  has  already  been  exceeded  in  those  areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources. Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its  carrying capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of  the  United  States  is  probably  significantly  greater  than its current population. However, one day its  carrying  capacity  will  be  reached,  and  if  at  that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no       room into which they can expand.  In  other  words,  even  if  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  United  States is as high as 600  million  or  more,  if  that  population  figure  is  ever  reached,  some  portion  will be the descendants of alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the      parts of  the  United  States  they  occupy  unavailable  to  whites.  We  may  reach  carrying  capacity  later rather than sooner, but since the  earth  is  a  “closed  system,”  it  will  happen  eventually.  The  same principles apply to any  other  nation,  including  the  nations  of  Europe,  many  of  which  are  more densely populated than is the United States.

Kinship and Child Equivalents

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to              the population, but as a one-for-one displacement  of  natives.  This  is  methodologically  correct,  because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their  descendents that makes  it  impossible  for  natives  to  increase  their  numbers.  What  may  not  appear  to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen  to  be  precisely  that.  The  other  concept central to Dr. Salter’s  paper  is  genetic  kinship.  Even  though  all  humans  share  much  genetic information, kinship is a measure of  the  genetic  similarities  and  differences  above  and  beyond this general genetic sharing.

Dr. Salter expresses the  loss  of  genetic  interest  in  units  he  calls  “child-equivalents.”  In  other  words, Dr. Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is the number of         lost children that would equal the loss of his or  her  genetic  interests  caused  by  the  arrival  of  a  certain number of alien peoples? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but genetic equivalents put into the form of the  parent-child  relationship.  Put  differently,  the  arrival  of  immigrants from  other  ethnies  will  change  the  genetic  character  of  a  population,  and  make  it  more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of        view of any given member of the native group, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number             of children not born to that  person.  This  is  putting  a  number  on  the  replacement  of  members  of  one group by members of another.

Some examples will make this clearer. The data that Dr. Salter used for these calculations derives       from  genetic  assays.  Please  note  that  these  specific  studies  are  somewhat  dated,  although  the  most basic findings have been replicated in more recent research. It is very important to note that        these data almost certainly underestimate the extent of genetic  interests  and  underestimate  the  genetic  damage  done  by  immigration  and  multiracialism.  That  is  because  not  only   are   the original studies somewhat dated and not as detailed as later work, but the findings do not include differences  inherent  in  higher  order  genetic  structure,  which  also  contribute  to  genetic  interests.  Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of           the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically  very  close to the English. Replacing  10,000 Englishmen with 10,000  Danes  changes  the  genetic  characteristics  of  the  population  so  much   that   the   resulting   “post-displacement”   population   differs   from  the   undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again,  we  are not  talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.

Effects of Immigration and a Multiracial Society

Let us consider other  examples.  What  if  the  immigrants  were  Bantus  -  a  population  very genetically distant from the English - rather than Danes? Here the  genetic  cost  to  any  given  Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent  of  10,854  lost  children!  Clearly,  the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on  the  genetic  distance  between  the  native and immigrant populations.

What if the  levels  of  immigration  were  greater,  and  more  in  keeping  with  the  massive  displacement of Western peoples  we  observe  today?  If  12.5  million  Englishmen  were  replaced  by an equal number  of  Danes,  the  genetic  loss  to  each  individual  Englishman  would  be  the equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6    million children; if the immigrants  were  Bantus,  13  million.  These  figures  are  not  “guesses;”  they are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data. As stated above, these figures likely underestimate the real genetic damage. It is also important to stress that this loss is not somehow    reduced by  being  spread  over  the  entire  native  population.  The  loss  in  terms  of  genetic  equivalents reflects the change  in  population  from  the  point  of  view  of  every  member  of  the  native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children         and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the  loss  of  his  children  and  grandchildren, though on a much larger scale” (emphasis in original paper).

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. For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants  is  sufficient  for  the  loss  of  one  child  equivalent.  In  other  words,  using  conservative  genetic  data  that likely underestimate these effects, the presence of about one African, or  about  two  Northeast Asians, damages the genetic interests of a typical white  (i.e.,  of  European  ancestry)  person  to  a  degree equivalent to that of losing  a  child.  This  is  a  powerful  and  personal  argument  against  racially alien immigration and against a multiracial society.

While plunging birthrates may be damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien  immigrants  is  much  worse.  A  falling  birthrate  reduces  the  population  but  does  not transform it, and a future increase in birthrates  can  always  make  up  for  the  loss.  Once  immigrants have established themselves in  a  territory  their  genes  are  a  permanent  addition.  From  the standpoint of  genetic  interests,  the  idea  that  “immigration  makes  up  for  low  native  birthrates” is pathological. The assertion  that  immigrants  must  be  imported  for  “economic”  reasons,  or  for  some  other  short-sighted  rationale,  is  therefore  exposed  as  incredibly  destructive  to  the  interests   of the natives. Any consideration of the costs  vs.  benefits  of  immigration  –  or  of  a  multiracial  society in general – must absolutely  consider  the  costs  incurred  at  the  most  basic,  most  personal, and  most  fundamental  human  level.  After  all,  humans  are  living,  breathing  organisms  –  “economic  growth”  or  other  issues  are  important  only  insofar  as  they  influence  real,  living  humans and human interests. A people do not “benefit” from “X” if “X” results in that people’s displacement  and  their  replacement  by  others  to  an  extent  equivalent  to  mass   murder.   Genetically,  mass  alien  immigration  is  genocide.  Similarly,  a  multicultural,  multiracial  society    that   manages   the   demographic   eclipse   of   its   majority   population   is   also   practicing genocide.

These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.


This is not meant to  inspire  dislike  or  anger  towards  immigrants  –  or  towards  any  other  people.  On the contrary, such emotions  are  self-defeating  and  counter-productive.  After  all,  these  peoples  are only taking advantage of the opportunities given to them for a better life  and  to  expand  their numbers in other peoples’ lands. No, the  ultimate  causes  of  Western  decline  are  that  the  governments and “leaders”  of  the  West  are  openly  and  actively  betraying  the  interests  of  their  own peoples, and that the peoples  of  the  West  themselves,  all  too  comfortable  and  unconcerned  with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests.  Or  is  it  that Westerners   are    grossly    uninformed  about    where    their    real    interests  lie?

Thus, this essay  has  three  basic  purposes.  First,  to  introduce  the  fundamentally  important  concept  of genetic interests – which are ultimate  interests  –  to  Western  peoples.  Second,  to  explain,  succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire  people,  with  a  consequent devastating personal  loss  for  each  and  every  member  of  that  people.  Third,  to  encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical  activism  to  pursue  their  genetic  interests.  Which  means:  to  ensure  their  own  survival.

What is required is the practice of biopolitics –  the  fusion  of  biological,  human  concerns  with  political action and public policy initiatives. Westerners need  to  stop  focusing  exclusively  on  secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment opportunities, funding for pensions, and a  myriad  of  other  concerns  which  –  while  certainly  important and  certainly  worthy  of  interest  and  consideration  –  pale  in  significance  compared  to  the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.

Survival comes first. All else comes second.  Genetic  interests  come  first.  Other  interests  come  second. Biopolitics will reorder priorities  in  the  recognition  that  the  well  being  of  the  Peoples  of the  West  first  requires  that  these  peoples  continue  to  exist.  Biopolitics  will  ensure  that  they     do.

This essay is adapted from an analysis  of  Dr.  Salter’s  work  that  was  published  in  the  February         2003    issue        of             the              journal            American                   Renaissance    (

February 2003


Search Results for “Ethnic Genetic Interests” — 166 articles

This entry was posted in Ethnic cleansing-Säuberung Deutscher, Europe, Race Rasse, The West-Westen and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.