Southern Poverty Law Center enjoys using the label white nationalist in its mathematically based analysis of the views of others. We can return this favor by using mathematical analysis to label the views of those who advocate zero survival probability for whites or genes currently residing in whites.
The Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem states that one-way migration causes the survival probability of genes in the stock to asymptotically vanish, i.e. go to zero as time increases. This also applies to every gene in the flow.
Of course, one needs a few more assumptions to prove this result. Homogeneity and unlimited inflow are two assumptions that can prove the theorem. This set of assumptions is typically a subset of the assumptions in a Wright Island Model setup. For more on the Wright Island Model go here.
We can either consider the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem (IVST) as a more elegant or parsimonious version of the Wright Island Model or as a separate, but closely related paradigm. The IVST also has applications beyond genes, so in that sense its a more basic and more general result in probability.
In the genetics literature they don’t recognize the issue of tagged genes as we shall call them. We can consider each gene, each physical unit, however expressed, as having a little tag with a serial number on it. Even though two genes may be “identical”, they still have different serial numbers on their tags. Probability as applied to genes is consistent with this approach.
(In quantum mechanics one encounters two other types of statistics, Fermi Dirac and Bose Einstein for which identical particles can’t be tagged to distinguish them. All the probability calculations in genetics journals and textbooks is of the classical kind where one can distinguish each “particle” or gene. The Wright Island Model although it calculates probabilities of gene types, is still based on tagged probability.)
Tagged probability makes it easier to prove some theorems. The Wright Island Model theorems are formulated towards gene frequencies, without trying to trace their history. The Nagylaki article, “The Island Model with Stochastic Migration”, (link here) uses stochastic analysis that is a little difficult for the non-probabilist to follow easily. (Although one should struggle through it as best one can and come back to it later.)
With tagged probability, we can prove the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem. Here we tag each gene and follow it through time. With tags, we can talk about different genes still having the same survival probability. We can also make that an assumption.
If every gene here has equal survival probability and each gene that arrives here has that same survival probability at the time of arrival, then its easy to see that if the population is bounded from above, the single common survival probability has to asymptote to zero. (Note this is really a function of time, and as time from arrival or presence increases, survival probability goes to zero.)
This is seen by multiplication. If we multiple the survival probability of each tagged gene times the number here and the number that arrive from now to some date in the future, then this product, the expected value, grows without bounds if the survival probability is bounded away from zero.
The product is unbounded since the number arriving is unbounded and the other factor, the survival probability is above some minimum positive number. This contradicts population being bounded from above, so the survival probability can’t be bounded from below, except by zero. Thus the survival probability goes to zero.
It is possible to vary the assumptions of the theorems. We can have multiple groups. Remember these are groups of genes. Suppose one group has an asymptotic (far in the future) survival probability greater than the others. (This has to happen if the number of groups is finite, and we consider the asymptotic probability, i.e. far in the future as the basis of ranking the groups.) As long as this best survivor group has an unlimited inflow, its survival probability has to asymptote to zero, because otherwise by itself it would cause the population to exceed its upper bound by the reasoning above.
Since this best survival group has an asymptotic survival probability greater than all the others, and since its asymptotic survival probability is zero, so must all the others have an asymptotic survival probability of zero.
There is no need to assume whether people of different group inter-marry or not. The same conclusion happens either way. The theorem in fact is not limited to genes, but can be applied abstractly to “states” of a system or in other abstract ways.
(We shall capitalize phrases like White Zeroist, etc. in what follows for emphasis and focus, and perhaps too much German study.)
So we can come back to the terms, White Zeroist, White Nationalist, White Nativist, Nightly Nativist, and the like. A person who advocates that each year immigration into Europe, America, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and a few other places should be greater than zero is a White Zeroist. They are advocating a policy that with probability one causes the extinction of every gene in those countries, white or not, white origin or non-white origin alike. Its every gene currently in those countries, whatever its source. Its also every gene that enters, with some lagged time.
However, focusing on the white aspect, as SPLC likes to do, and Daphne Eviatar at the Nation and others, we need to have a term to label their advocacy. The term White Zeroist seems to apply when the context is their use of the term White Nationalist. The opposite of White Nationalist, if it requires immigration above zero, is a White Zeroist.
What is the opposite of a White Zeroist? White Unitarian? White non-Zeroist? White Survivalist? White Existentialist? White Cooperativist? White on White Altruist?
Existentialism means existence precedes essence. A White Existentialist could mean someone who thinks there is a white culture or civilization that follows white existence. People talk about acting white. Is this correct?
Is objectivity, some forms of altruism, minority rights, justice for all, altruism outside one’s own group, etc. taken together characteristic of white societies but not others? Is democracy with minority rights a concept developed by white societies? Did white existence have to exist first before this cultural construct could occur? If whites cease to exist, will acting white stop as well? Are minority rights acting white?
Are minority rights part of White Nationalism? What societies in the world have minority rights? Very few non-white societies? Without whites, minority rights will disappear? Is the survival of whites necessary for the survival of minority rights? Does the existence of White Nationalism precede the essence of minority rights?
Mexicans Without Borders is a group expressing Mexican Nationalism. What part of minority rights do they understand? Does Mexico practice Americans without borders? Except for themselves as an immigrant group, when have Mexicans stood up for minority rights for others? For Gringos?
Do minority rights for Mexicans Without Borders mean the right to come in, get welfare, have a higher birth rate, take over, and then do the same with the next country? When this runs into Muslims Without Borders doing the same from Europe, the result is a nuclear fought with the leftover nukes of Europe and America? Is this their superior morality, using the leftover weapons of superior civilizations to destroy themselves in the remnants until the sun finally burns off all life on this planet? Is the only thing standing in the way of that, acting white? Does that require white existence?
For Mexican Nationalists are not all whites automatically Gringo Nationalists? Is not all white culture just Gringo Propaganda? Don’t they see their replacement as their goal? Mexicans Without Borders is really following a Wright Island Model of replacement? World wide ultimately? Don’t most other groups have that as their model as well?
If the only way to avoid a white survival probability of zero is some form of white nationalism, then all those not White Zeroists would be White Nationalists?
A related question is the denial of ethnicity to Germans, English, etc. In European countries, its quite common for immigrants to claim to have an ethnic group, Turkish or Arab, and also to have a foreign nationality, Libyan, and to be German or English.
Where does that leave the ethnic group formerly known as German? Or English? Or Irish? Or Italian? Its considered racist to refer to these as ethnic groups or as nationalities (in the traditional sense of a people) that exclude newcomers.
Can some people have an ethnic group and others have no ethnic group? The people in the non-ethnic bin, can they survive long term? The non-ethnic bin is the dustbin of genetic history?
Which brings us back to White Nationalist. If not having an ethnicity means you are out in terms of genetic survival, and having an ethnicity means some form of cooperation, then its White Nationalist or White Zeroist?
Is cooperation within an ethnic group a form of ethnocentrism or nationalism? If some groups cooperate within their group, they will survive over groups that don’t? Is SPLC hostile to cooperation by whites with whites, but for cooperation within all other ethnic groups? (That is except for giving money to SPLC to fight cooperation by whites with whites?)
So is it White Nationalist or White Zeroist? Of course, one could have the mixture of two or more groups, and have survival of both’s offspring in the mixture, as long as the inflow was cut to zero. This is a logical possibility. As long as the inflow is greater than zero, then all within a country must have a zero asymptotic survival probability, as well as every gene that comes there.
One definition of nativism is maintaining an asymptotic survival probability greater than zero for those in the land.
In discussions of genes and evolution, there is sometimes a tendency to use terms like best or fittest or adaptive or mal-adaptive without discussing what those mean. Survival probability is an attribute that applies to every gene or group of genes.
In discussing mal-adaptive, we should consider the most important mal-adaption. If humans don’t get off the earth, they will be cooked by the sun along with all life on the planet. So becoming a successful space faring species is the only way to have a long term survival probability greater than zero. Whatever prevents that or makes it less likely is mal-adaptive at that time horizon. So preserving human intelligence, altruism, social cooperation, individuality (which is connected to optimal search), freedom (also linked to optimal search), is adaptive and in fact essential at long time horizons. Its the only way for humans and everything else alive on earth to survive, except perhaps some bacteria or viruses that might get into space somehow and travel onwards.
Some of the criticism of the Frank Salter work tends to do a poor job articulating the issue of what mal-adaptive means. Where it comes to the survival of a technical civilization, this is important as the above discussion shows. Survival of civilization is adaptive near a star that is going to expand and heat up and is essential.
Infinite diversity and infinite multiculturalism also imply that each specific gene or culture should be infinitesimal. Diversity for the sake of diversity is the advocacy of eliminating what we have. Eliminating it for what? For an infinitesimal. That is, for nothing. Diversity is the philosophy that you have to give up everything to have nothing, or you are a bigot.
This article is draft and preliminary. These are hypotheses, not assertions. Comments welcome. It is subject to revision. Any remarks on the Nation, SPLC, Daphne Eviatar are meant to be in the same good natured humor that characterizes their efforts (actually better than that).