What’s going on is the promotion of group EGI (ethnic genetic interests). While the Anglo majority stands as a defining medium for contrarian white ethnies competition will rule the day. It is a delusion to expect cooperation to inherit the morrow.

I’ve devoted a few posts on my blog to genetic relatedness and its connection to things like altruism (or lack of it), corruption, nepotism, etc. — i.e. that the level of genetic relatedness between individuals in any given group affects the levels of corruption, etc., in that group.

I’ve mostly been interested in the Muslim world and the type of paternal cousin marriage that many Muslim societies practice. My interest in the topic was triggered by Randall Parker’s post “Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development” in which he describes how institutionalized cousin marriage has led to the tribalistic natures of societies of the Middle East and which prevents them from having democratic and functioning nation-states the way we’re used to in the West.

I think the inverse must also be true — because northern Europeans and, later, Anglo-Americans did/do not inbreed in any significant way, institutions such as altruism towards all members of society, democracy, personal freedoms, etc., were/are able to thrive.

The thing about the Irish is, we have been inbreeding quite a bit — up until very recently. Not to the same extent as the Middle Easterners, but we are proud of all our “clans”, etc. (Up until the early medieval period when the Catholic Church banned cousin marriage in Ireland, cousin marriage or inbreeding was the norm. It was not the same type of cousin marriage as Middle Easterners practice, though.)

This is why you get the Irish promotion of EGI in the States (you should try following Irish politics sometime — what a mess!).

Until these groups start “outbreeding” more, the EGI problem will remain.

How to apply this genetic relatedness knowledge to the problems in the States, I don’t know. :-|

You both raised some great points about ethnic solidarity and the difference between the ethnies that constituted the Old Confederacy and today. Yes, these are different times.

And, yet, Tanstaafl and I (along with many other Americans) probably agree on a great many things without being bound together in an agrarian culture of “blood and soil”. So, to my mind, the jury is still out on just how much ethnic solidarity is required.

GuessedWorker wrote:

“Nonetheless, this natural
conservatism is perhaps not a default to which we may collectively decamp from the maladies of liberalism. I have thought so in the past, but I am reviewing this conclusion in a fairly comprehensive and radical way. I won’t explain everything here because it would not be appropriate.”

I would love to see you outline your views on this matter at MajorityRights.com [a great website to go to for everyone reading this]. For the moment, I feel that as a society we could decamp to such a conservative stance but perhaps I am being naive here.

Thank you for the exchange.

It wasn’t my purpose here to write chapter and verse of, respectively, the philosophical and kinship deficits in American WN. I just wanted to see whether Tan has moved onto this ground yet. Anyone who wants to follow the issue at MR can do so.

However, I will of course, answer the points you have raised.

“The Old Confederacy was about nothing more sophisticated then Southern White self-determination.”

The vestiges of conservatism in the American South disappeared between 1865 and the mid-1930s. The vestiges of Conservatism in England disappeared in the years between 1832 and 1902. The rest, in both countries, has been the “psychology”, as you put it, of individualism and egalitarianism.

Prior to the establishment of the Western liberal ideological milieu, it was perfectly possible for politics to be “about nothing more sophisticated than Southern White self-determination”. Such conservatism was notoriously NOT a philosophy. It was a matter of instinct. And, yes, the same instincts, as they corrolate to adaptive living, are present in us today and for all days.

Nonetheless, this natural
conservatism is perhaps not a default to which we may collectively decamp from the maladies of liberalism. I have thought so in the past, but I am reviewing this conclusion in a fairly comprehensive and radical way. I won’t explain everything here because it would not be appropriate.

On the question of kinship, or connectedness, and WN, it should be apparent to all who have observed the traditional left-liberalism of the Irish and Italians – or just Catholics – in America, and of the Irish again and the Ukrainians (Desmond?) in Canada, that there is much more at work here than just being “white”.

What’s going on is the promotion of group EGI (ethnic genetic interests). While the Anglo majority stands as a defining medium for contrarian white ethnies competition will rule the day. It is a delusion to expect cooperation to inherit the morrow.

It appears that you answered the question.

“But there is little question that the Irishmen in Massachusetts, the Poles in Chicago, the Germans up North, the Swiss out West, and the Saxons in the South are all White.”

The Old South was ethnically homogeneous. It was blood ties that linked the South. Ethnic nationalism, as opposed to Northern civic nationalism, bound the Confederacy to the soil. Mass immigration of other Europeans, 1846-1860, with the possible exception of DC, Baltimore and New Orleans, left the South untouched.

Somewhere between Jefferson and Lincoln, the ethnic nationalism of the North, majority English , overwhelmingly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, was broken.

We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

[From “Electric Cord” Speech (1858), in Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, ed. Roy P. Basler (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 499-500.]

Hibernia Girl, thank you for those links. As Steve Sailer might suggest, it helps to view the burgeoning genetics/race debate through the lens so many of its participants wear: is it good for jews? It is my opinion, and evidently a common theme of many Whites, that debate and truth are good for Whites. One of the many things wrong with the anti-white culture assimilating us is that we get too much of the former and not enough of the latter.