The top 10 most powerful people, according to the magazine:
1. Hu Jintao, president of China
2. Barack Obama, president of the United States.
3. Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, the king of Saudi Arabia
4. Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of Russia
5. Pope Benedict XVI
6. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany
7. David Cameron, prime minister of the United Kingdom
8. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve
9. Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress
10. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Archive for the 'White Nationalist' Category
Dear Senator Mark Warner,
Why I voted againt the Democrat anti-White coalition.
You say you can take America from Whites and give it to the non-Whites you choose. And you are doing it.
You say Whites in America are cowards who lack the fortitude to be called racist by you as you take what we have.
You say you can bring Latino gangbangers into our schools to rape our children and make them afraid and we are such cowards we will stay silent while you do it.
You say when we say what you are doing it is hate speech.
You say you will put us in prison with your hate speech laws for saying you are anti-White and taking our lands with your non-White replacements.
You say you have contempt for Whites as cowards.
You say your disdain and contempt for us as cowards has turned into the need to show your hate of us in legislation like hate speech and hate crimes that is explicitly anti-White.
You say you will give out 1.1 million green cards a year to non-Whites to race replace us as voters and to take our jobs.
I voted against what you say since you still can’t stop my vote to save White people from your program of ethnic cleansing of Whites.
Tea Party Constituent
Most of this is true of Jim Webb as well, but I will cut him a little slack for saying stop affirmative action for other than descendants of slaves. On everything else, hate speech, 1.1 million green cards a year, etc. he is about as bad as you.
A contraction mapping is one for which any pair of outputs are closer together than the corresponding pair of inputs. If you take the output of a contraction mapping and feed it back in, it iterates to the same fixed point no matter where you start.
Honest discussion of the white situation by whites is a contraction mapping. What comes out of one of our brains goes in the other and as this iterates the results get closer together. This is if the discussion is rational. I think even the Left sees this. Clinton celebrating white reduction is a form of it, since he acknowledges the facts in part. He also ended welfare as we know it, but it morphs anew.
The reason that white consciousness is a contraction mapping is that the processes of the state are all contraction mappings of whites. Each iteration of the affirmative action slicer, of immigration, welfare, uncivil rights, and false schools leads closer to whites being zero.
White discussion of our situation that is honest and fact and reason based gets closer and closer to this realization no matter far how apart it starts. This is one reason I post on lib cites like Rawstory. Many libs agree with it all. I have found this with Democrats who call for candidates. Its usually women and the wages of women are usually a concern and they recognize that immigration is keeping them down.
We are in the midst of the Great Contraction of whites but also the Great Contraction Dialogue of white reason on our situation. We are converging to a fixed point, the fixed point of white consciousness of our situation and the need to act to change it. We are also realizing its our moral duty to act in ways that will actually work.
We have been lied to about the morality of race consciousness and we are waking up to that. This will go on until we reach the fixed point of the realization that we have the moral right and duty to separate from non-whites and this separation means non-whites leaving all white lands.
This essay started as a comment at Vanishing American.
Vanishing American, “Have we done this to ourselves?”
E. M. Forster wrote: The only books that influence us are those for which we are ready, and which have gone a little further down our particular path than we have yet got ourselves. [ ” A Book That Influenced Me”]. Forster was also part of the so-called ‘Bloomsbury Group’.
In building a theory of racial loyalty we need a set of data and characterizations of the data. One datum is the reaction to the OJ verdict.
Listen to the black lawyers and intellectuals saying the black reaction you see before you is not hatred of whites or celebrating the killing of whites. Its almost as if Frontline created a training tape that either side could use. Liberals can see how to lie about what people see. The right, or whatever we call ourselves, can say see how the talking heads lie about what you see in front of you with your own eyes.
There are several levels of race loyalty on display. The black jury voted for OJ. The blacks react with joy. The black lawyers and intellectuals then say its not black racism, or hate of whites in general or celebrating the killing of two whites. So all levels of the black race express their race loyalty in their own way and in the way that is most useful to their race.
Whites fought among themselves in Europe. When they encountered non-white races in their expansion outward they mostly continued to fight other whites.
Now whites have to build a white loyalty to fight the other races. now that the threat is real of white genocide. This is as useful as stopping the barbarian invasions of Europe that allowed the Renaissance. The Renaissance came from men of the sword stopping the non white invasions.
We need a new birth of race consciousness among whites to save our people and our civilization. This has to build on the individual nationalistic loyalties as well as build a new loyalty among whites. This is being forced on us because it is the only way for us to survive. We still have sufficient numbers to do so. But only if we act. Speaking the truth and not being cowed by PC is the first step.
==Some prior articles and threads at Vanishing American
Great article VA.
You might want to save the following pdf from DOJ’s website before it disappears.
The pdf gets the screen shots but there are also data sets that can be downloaded. I don’t think they are in the pdf. To get those, you have to go to the webpages with graphs, click on the graph and click on the spreadsheet link. That is actually a text file, and you can save it adding the extension .csv when you save it. It will then load automatically into a spreadsheet program including free ones. I go through some of the steps below.
“Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders ”
If you go to above and click on graphs and click on spreadsheet you get stuff like following. These can be saved as text files
with extension .csv and then opened in a spreadsheet program,
including free ones.
You may want to get this data now before it disappears.
Bureau of Justice Statistics,,,
Homicide trends in the United States,,,
Date of release: January 17 2007,,,
“Homicide Victimization Rates per 100,000 Population by Race”,,,
Good discussion: (also at other cited links at VA)
Is White loyalty less today or more? Was white loyalty high in the 19th century? In WWI? In WWII? Are the two world wars and 3rd world immigration a new crucible for the birth of white loyalty? Aren’t whites still loyal? Don’t they prefer their own? Don’t they show that still? Have always done so?
If whites can form a bond and eject the 3rd world invasion in our lands, then we can have a new white Renaissance as great as the white Renaissance that started sometime around 1300. That was made possible by centuries of fighting against invasions into Europe by non-whites. That fight had meaning. It was essential for the Renaissance.
Are we at such a time again? Must we not rise to the challenge to fight the invasion by non-whites into our lands? Isn’t that what is needed for the New White Renaissance?
Bill White has posted a claim that Ron Paul attended a dinner at the restaurant Tara Thai with him and others whom SPLC and others call white nationalist and white supremacist.
Bill White appears to have posted his claim Dec 20, 2007
“Ron Paul Lies About Lack Of Involvement With White Nationalists”
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
There is an FEC Filing from the Ron Paul campaign with a Tara Thai expense dated December 15, 2007. When was it posted?
This report on Tara Thai says
Tara Thai 314.59
Generated Sat Dec 15 18:58:38 2007
This link is from Charles Johnson at who credits one of the LGF lizards (Hat tip: Render.)
Thus it is conceivable that White found this report and used it for the Tara Thai. There may also be previous dinners at Tara Thai and Ron Paul on previous reports as well. In fact, there is one for second quarter filed in July 2007.
Tara Thai 143.70
Generated Sun Jul 15 14:43:58 2007
These two Tara Thai dinners, in the December 15 and July 15 reports, appear to be purchases by the entire table not one person. It doesn’t make sense that Ron Paul’s campaign paid for the dinner alleged above by White, he would have paid his own or someone else would have paid. (Note that it was LGF that linked to that expense, not White.) These appear to be dinners by the Ron Paul campaign staff who paid for their entire dinner with a check from the campaign.
There is a third report for First Quarter 2007
Tara Thai 39.14
Generated Sat Jul 14 20:04:04 2007
Thus White could have found these reports from July 14, July 15, or December 15, 2007 and used Tara Thai based on those.
search Ron Paul “Tara Thai”
4001 Fairfax Dr
Arlington, VA 22203
The Ron Paul campaign used the following address for the 3rd quarter report:
3461 Washington Blvd Suite 200
Arlington, Virginia 22201
This address is also listed for mail for the Ron Paul campaign.
3461 Washington Blvd., Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201
It is .2 miles from this Ron Paul address to a Tara Thai restaurant:
So the Tara Thai restaurant is a short walk from Ron Paul’s campaign address as of the third quarter filing. They may have had an office there and still filed the first and second quarter reports using the Texas address, 837 W Plantation Dr
Clute, Texas 77531.
Articles or posts on this story
Justin Raimondo is very good on this here:
Secondly, the man who organized the dinner meetings “Commander” White refers to, Peter Gemma, has this to say:
“I ran those dinners – Ron Paul was never there… If Bill White ever came to the meetings, he didn’t use his real name – he doesn’t even get the name of the restaurant correctly.”
His article or others cited have provided links below.
SPLC bio of Bill White
William A. White, 26 | SILVER SPRING, Md. (from 2003)
In late 2003, White moved to Roanoke, Virginia,
Ref on related stories trying to tie Paul to the white right.
More corroboration of the neo-Nazi’s claim: Extremist Group Announces Speech by Congressman.
SPLC on Robert Taft Dinner organized by Marcus Epstein for Ron Paul to speak:
SPLC is trying to prevent whites, whom they seem to target , from associating with whites. They are smearing whites meeting with whites to make whites afraid to meet with or talk to whites. That is the opposite of freedom of association.
That is the reductio ad Civil unRights that PC leads to. Ron Paul pointed out in Meet the Press that you don’t have to submit to home invasion.
The SPLC idea is that if whites meet with whites, the Nazi White Nationalist White Supremacist Bound is passed and this proves they are plotting a white supremacist comeback. Any meeting of whites is suspect in the SPLC inverted rights world.
The SPLC has a comment thread that has many comments that disagree with SPLC on this story.
=Ron Paul on Meet the Press
See Vanishing American link above for link to Meet the Press Transcript (also below) and Youtube link as well.
Note that it was LGF that claimed the Tara Thai expense by Ron Paul supported the claim of Bill White.
== More detail here
The expenses show that none of the meals was on a Wednesday. This was the alleged day of the meal.
This entire article is draft and preliminary. All statements should be restated as questions or hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply. Comments and corrections welcomed.
The left approximately follows the following escalating levels of attack on whites. This doesn’t apply in all cases, but illustrates the phenomenon. We can formulate the following
Leftist Escalation of Attack Words Hypothesis
- Bigot or Nativist: Under leftism, any white who speaks up or about what is happening to whites, without using the word white.
- White nationalist. When the white uses the word white and just reports or repeats a fact incident, the left calls them white nationalist.
- White supremacist. If they say it should stop, the left calls them a white supremacist. If they propose specific action to make it stop, the likelihood of being called white supremacist goes up.
An example is the attacks on Brussels Journal, Vlaams Belang and Paul Belien by some at LGF. They were all attacked as white supremacist for not just saying what was happening to whites in Europe, but that what is happening to whites in Europe should stop.
Lets analyze the above paragraph. LGF reports on what is happening in Europe and condemns it. What is happening to whom? Its being done to white Europeans. But to say that is beyond the pale to LGF. Why does LGF condemn what is done to whites but that to say the victims are white Europeans they condemn? If they condemn what is done to whites, are they not saying it should stop being done to whites? But don’t want to say that explicitly?
Why do they say that stopping what is being done to whites in Europe is white supremacy? Filip Dewinter said he didn’t want his daughter to marry a black, and that is called white supremacism by his critics. But isn’t it rational?
As Steve Sailer documents, regression towards the mean in IQ means that children of black parents regress towards the mean of black IQ which is 85, 15 points below the white average. Thus a child of a white and black parent will, from this effect, tend to have a lower IQ than the white average. LGF condemned Filip Dewinter for wanting to avoid that. Why shouldn’t he?
Isn’t it irrational to want a lower IQ for your grand child? It would seem the definition of rationality would imply preferring high IQ to low IQ. Since marrying a black implies regression towards the black mean of lower IQ of 85 as Steve Sailer points out, this is irrational. Note that the black IQ is 85 in the U.S. In Africa its much lower. Europe has immigration of blacks primarily from Africa, so the black IQ there might be as low as 70. There has also been much less time for mixing there than in the U.S.
Being white and knowing the truth about statistics and data sources already makes you a covert white nationalist in the mind of the left. If you say the word white in relation to the victims identity, the left goes crazy. Even though they publicize hate crimes with black victims, if a white talks about white victims they are a racist to white nationalist to white supremacist. Saying the victims were white as a stand alone sentence is considered racist by many.
If you tell what happens to whites in an incident or generally, the left calls you a bigot or nativist. If you use the word white while doing so, they call you a white nationalist. If you say it should stop, they call you a white supremacist. Listen to them. Observe them. This is real not just a joke. They are deadly serious.
==This is real
The EU has made it at least a draft policy to eliminate the white race in Europe and replace it with a mixed race.
VA quotes the following
BRUSSELS, July 27 (Reuters) – The European Union should admit up to 75 million immigrants over the next 50 years and be prepared to become a racially hybrid society, according to a paper to be discussed at an EU ministerial meeting on Friday.”
That’s a real government saying this as policy. They are doing it. They are doing it after the attacks in Malmo, London, Madrid, the car burnings in France, etc. After all this, they make it policy to eliminate the white race. This is the real thing. Its happening now. They are open about it.
The EU has taken ownership of London, Madrid, Malmo, the car burnings in France. The EU has said these are their policies. Listen, observe, believe. This is what is happening now. They say so.
==Following was after reading following discussion
So is there something wrong with the term ‘white nationalist‘? I would say only the fact that it is necessary to prefix the term with the word ‘white.’ Old-style American nationalism (which undeniably many people find a negative word, preferring the term ‘patriotism’ which they find more positive) implies an identification with the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of America.
I am not a white nationalist, but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I’m not afraid to link to them. The undisputed champion in this department is Larry Auster. I am also fond of Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse. The two central organs of intellectual white nationalism in the US are American Renaissance and VDare. If there is a European equivalent, it is probably Brussels Journal. On all these sites, you’ll find thoughtful, well-written commentary that will expand your mind. I’m not sure all these writers would accept the white-nationalist label – this is just my own description.
This is rather academic. Another approach is to say that white nationalism is what people who call themselves “white nationalists” believe. John Savage has a good link summary, featuring a friendly debate between Steve Sailer (who is perhaps best classified as a Sailerist, a label I’m not at all afraid to stick on my shirt) and the editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor.
==Old Atlantic and White Nationalism?
OA like Vdare does not adopt the term white nationalism. This is a term for discussion. I, like everyone else, am trying to sort this out in my mind as to where we are, where we are going, and what will happen. I appreciate the writing of Vanishing American and the others listed above on this subject.
I do support almost zero immigration, not 250,000 per year. Under the Wright Island Theorem and Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem that inflow would still result in genetic replacement and zero survival factors for genes, even allowing for some outflow. We are not at a point of circulation.
White nationalism as an idea I consider to be a positive one, not a negative one. I see nothing wrong with those who adopt the term, simply from doing so.
I hope the break up of the U.S. can be avoided. I don’t want to see an Islamic Europe that has British and French nuclear weapons and wants to attack New York City because of the people who live there, or other American cities. This does require people in the West to help each other survive liberalism.
The people of the West do have to wake up. It does need to keep white majorities. There is a reality outside liberal TV shows that can’t be ignored. We do have to say we want to keep white majorities to actually keep them.
Those who want to stop terrorist immigration need to recognize that to do that you have to stop all legal Muslim immigration. Under liberalism, the only way to stop all legal Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration.
People have to see an upside to their own efforts. Fighting in wars, being called bigot and racist to stop immigration are not something people will do so that liberals can stay on top calling them names. They will do it for the survival of their own, not just for some abstract principle the writers of All in the Family cherish. The purpose of life is not to avoid being called names by liberals. That is not the purpose of the universe either.
==Mexican and Muslim Nationalism are the real thing
==Can we test the hypothesis?
Because nativist and bigot are used almost as standard terms for anyone the left disagrees with on immigration, we would expect these terms to dominate the terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist”. So in looking at results we have to adjust for that.
Note the initial work didn’t look at racist in the searches, but that has been added in some cases. This seems to be the word of choice still. One can consider the hypothesis that the left just uses whatever word is in vogue, and they copy each other and the words they use are not used for their meaning but just because it makes them feel good to say them.
SPLC searches were not done initially but added after the strange Ron Paul results were found.
Results 1 – 100 of about 67,000 for amren racist.
Results 1 – 46 of 46 for amren nativist.
amren “white supremacist”
Results 1 – 100 of about 19,900 for amren “white supremacist“.
A quote mark was left out after Brimelow, so we can repeat this:
“Peter Brimelow” “white supremacist”
Results 1 – 100 of about 108,000 for “Steve Sailer” racist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 25,800 for “Steve Sailer” bigot
Results 1 – 100 of about 821 for “Steve Sailer” “white supremacist“.
Virgil Goode said stop Muslim immigration. He said nothing about whites or anything about race. But Goode did say stop something. What was he called?
==Senator George Allen
George Allen just used the word macaca.
The hate against George Allen and Virgil Goode was a national obsession. The instant association of both with white supremacism and white nationalism is extreme. The searches could be repeated with -ism instead of -ist. Both Allen and Goode are from Virginia.
Results 1 – 100 of about 157,000 for Vdare racist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 9,320 for Vdare nativist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 12,300 for Vdare “white supremacist“.
Vdare has used the word white, said what is happening to whites using the word white, said to stop it and proposed specific action. They are called white supremacist more than white nationalist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 379,000 for “Lou Dobbs” racist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 52,300 for nativist “Lou Dobbs”.
Lou Dobbs does not describe his victims as white and does not propose remedies for preserving whites qua whites. He emphasizes amnesty but also discusses guest worker programs as harming Americans, independent of being white or not.
Results 1 – 100 of about 32,200 for “Lou Dobbs” “white supremacist“.
Results 1 – 33 of 33 from splcenter.org for “Lou Dobbs” Nazi.
Results 1 – 24 of 24 from splcenter.org for “Lou Dobbs” “white supremacist”.
Some results talk about guests on Lou Dobbs show. But it seems that we are seeing the emergence of support for a hypothesis that they don’t stop at calling someone white nationalist but move right up to white supremacist.
== Pat Buchanan
Results 1 – 54 of 54 from splcenter.org for “Pat Buchanan” Nazi.
Results 1 – 35 of 35 from splcenter.org for “Pat Buchanan” “white supremacist”.
Pat Buchanan has explicitly talked about what is happening to whites and the West and said it should stop. The results in his case are that he is called white supremacist more than white nationalist. So this supports the hypothesis.
Results 1 – 13 of 13 from splcenter.org for “Tom Tancredo” “white supremacist”.
Results 1 – 39 of 39 from splcenter.org for “Tom Tancredo” Nazi.
We see that there is almost immediate escalation from white nationalist to white supremacist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 702,000 for BNP racist.
Results 1 – 100 of about 17,800 for BNP “white supremacist“.
How did Ron Paul get labeled with over 1 million hits on racist and over 50,000 hits on White Supremacist? He is not even a particularly strong advocate for immigration restriction relative to the other Republican candidates. He is against amnesty, but has supported H-1B and legal immigration. The most he has done is be against anchor baby.
Hypothesis: The enormous number of hits on Ron Paul shows its being white and not part of the establishment that gets you labeled. It doesn’t matter what you really say or do. White, non-“mainstream” and you are racist and white supremacist to them.
One of the hits:
Ron Paul is not necessarily a racist for one speech with this group, … The SPLC should come to a Ron Paul New York meetup group meeting or listen to those …
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/10/08/extremist-group-announces-speech-by-congressman/ –Hypothesis: This is smear by association. Ron Paul will talk to anyone as a person and not call them names but say what he thinks without telling them what they want to hear. This makes him racist and “white supremacist”. The failure to condemn those he should condemn, and treating everyone with civility and talking to them on an equal level using logic and facts is all that it takes to be named racist and white supremacist.
“Ron Paul” Nazi site:splcenter.org
Results 1 – 4 of 4 from splcenter.org for “Ron Paul” Nazi.
Results 1 – 100 of about 627 from splcenter.org for Christian Nazi.
Christian Meeting Turns Into Attack on Gays. BRIEFS. NSM Attack Sparks Rift · KKK Suit Ends With Award to Victims · Neo-Nazi Financier Arrested …
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=632 – 40k – Cached – Similar pages Christian Nazi site:splcenter.org
Results 1 – 100 of about 306 from splcenter.org for Christian “white supremacist”.
Murder victim Channon Christian was the focus of a rally by white … parroting the key white supremacist talking point, characterizing the Christian-Newsom …
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=819 – 51k – Cached – Similar pages
One of the hypotheses was that just to know the truth and speak the truth would get you attacked.
Results 1 – 61 of 61 from splcenter.org for Jesus “white supremacist”.
Results 1 – 83 of 83 from splcenter.org for Jesus Nazi.
Results 1 – 100 of about 143 from splcenter.org for God “white supremacist”.
Results 1 – 100 of about 290 from splcenter.org for God Nazi.
Results 1 – 100 of about 813 from splcenter.org for “white Supremacist”.
Thus a little more than 1 in 6 times that “white supremacist” is used by SPLC on their website, God is associated with it.
Results 1 – 100 of about 1,720 from splcenter.org for nazi.
Thus a little more than 1 in 6 times that Nazi is used by SPLC on their website, God is associated with it.
God, then Christian and Jesus were searched at SPLC after the Ron Paul results were found and then others checked at SPLC for Nazi and “White Supremacist”.
The original hypothesis has some support but is clearly only partly valid. The main problem is that the left in general and SPLC in particular want to ramp up to Nazi and white supremacist rather quickly. The term racist is still the preferred term for any comment from the right on the topic of immigration, crime, etc. The Delaware State and Washington public school programs that teach all whites are racist also prefers that term to saying say that all whites are Nazi or all whites are white supremacists.
Despite the randomness in the use of these words, there is still some tendency to escalate in rhetoric in the way the original hypothesis outlined. If you talk about what is happening, say its happening to whites, say it should stop, and say the white race deserves to live and to continue, and that its appropriate to act to do so, you are almost certain to be called a bigot or nativist, and have a good chance of being called a white nationalist or white supremacist. Distinguishing between white nationalist and white supremacist may be something only specialists do. It seems once they go for “white nationalist” they immediately go to “white supremacist”.
Those who call for ending the white race are usually cheered. Its very rare they are criticized. Nor is any term like white ethnocide or racecide, whitecide or white zeroist used to describe this in any standard way. Even though its openly advocated, planned, and announced by the EU as draft policy.
Bill Clinton also cheered it and in effect admitted that it is the policy of the U.S. government to make whites a minority in the U.S. Since the US engages in affirmative action and other acts, this amounts to making whitecide US government policy. This is because the cumulative effect of this policy is to reduce European white fertility to below replacement, which it is now world wide in almost every country if not every country.
If you listen to what they say about whitecide, repeat it, say you disagree with that policy, say you want to oppose the policy and propose specific action to stop whitecide, then they say you are a white nationalist or white supremacist with a good probability. It would be interesting to check what SPLC and ADL use for these individuals on their websites. This can be done by adding site: and the name of the website.
Basically, if you speak up, say what is happening, say its happening to whites, say whites have a right to survive and propose specific measures to stop it, then they are going to go after you as a white supremacist. They also will go quickly from nativist and bigot right through white nationalist to white supremacist without pausing. They are ready to pounce on anything a party or well-known person says to immediately push them all the way to white supremacist. Bottom line, if you speak up and out they are going to target you and they want to escalate to white supremacist. Other searches would be on Nazi, which likely has similar results.
Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.
The Island Model with Stochastic Migration
Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.
The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.
From PDF, conclusion:
We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.
If the EU bothered to read science articles on the internet, they would find out the end result of their actions is not a new race of white and non-white, its just elimination of whites. That is what the math says. Its a theorem.
== Random, Emotion, Civility, Failure to Condemn Hypotheses
The above analysis and searches leads to some new hypotheses to consider.
Hypothesis: Racist is the preferred term for attacking whites who talk about any subject involving race, immigration, etc. If the person says something like macaca, stop Muslim immigration, don’t use the Koran for oaths, etc. they will be deluged with racist.
Hypothesis: The use of the words white nationalist, white supremacist is almost random and independent of what the person said. Instead, these terms reflect the emotion of the leftist.
Hypothesis: Nazi is also a word that just means the leftist is too angry (or full of hate) to stop at racist and has to say more.
Hypothesis: The attack on Ron Paul and association with racist and white supremacist shows intent to smear. Ron Paul is a very mild mannered man. His main issue is smaller government. He is also anti war. He is for immigration restriction. He is anti big government in all forms. He treats everyone with civility. He will, if he has time, talk to anyone about anything, listen to them, and treat them with civility and as serious whatever the person says. He does not condemn people. Ron Paul then says what he thinks and tries to use reason and facts to persuade those he disagrees with instead of calling them names. This whole set of attributes produces an extreme reaction of what might be called hate but definitely fear. His civility and rationality, fairness and openness to everyone threatens the whole rule by smear and fear official information complex.
Hypothesis: There is no strategy to keep from being called white supremacist, white nationalist, Nazi, racist, bigot, nativist, etc. if you want to say anything that is non-establishment or if you will treat anyone with civility and not condemn them as a person for what they say. If you adopt civility towards all, are willing to listen to anyone, and will respond with civility and reason, they will go ballistic and start calling you racist, Nazi, white nationalist and white supremacist.
Hypothesis: There are funded groups that try to organize attacks on leaders like Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, as well as Lawrence Auster, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, the BNP Ballerina, etc. These attacks follow a script and the script ends up calling them Nazi, white nationalist, white supremacist. The script doesn’t call for waiting at white nationalist, but as the numbers indicate, once they use white nationalist, they go to white supremacist. Racist is used without any compunction as an entry level word.
Hypothesis: Attacks using Nazi, white nationalist and white supremacist may be used partly to get attention from search engines. The use of the word racist doesn’t get enough identification. SPLC has a high revenue stream. Just using words like racist or bigot isn’t going to get as much attention in search engines as Nazi and white supremacist. They may want to use stronger terms to get more attention and then more funding. This also may be why God and Nazi go together so much at the SPLC website.
This is draft and preliminary. All statements should be restated as questions or hypotheses. This is subject to revision. All comments welcome. All other disclaimers apply.
The thread at Jihad Watch, started by Robert Spencer, has a lively discussion on BNP, Vlaams Belang, Fjordman, Brussels Journal, Paul Belien, Filip Dewinter, Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs, LGF, etc. Spencer has said he doesn’t want to pour gas on this fire but see it go out in effect. The thread has terms like Nazi, neo-Nazi, white nationalist or nationalism, white supremacist or supremacy, etc. Spencer says he thinks most people involved want to save Europe. He also says we should try to avoid this fight getting out of hand, which to some extent it has. I agree with Spencer on this and applaud him, as well as Charles Johnson for their work and contributions. The thread, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson, and all that”:
Many have commented on this debate including Vanishing American, Lawrence Auster, New Sisyphus, Vdare, Gates of Vienna, Winds of Jihad, etc.
So how do we think about this or discuss it? One way is to take assertions, make them hypotheses and then try to test them. Its usually best to have several hypotheses that conflict to test them against each other. Most assertions in this form are false, and so we have to choose among several false hypotheses which is most useful, none of them being true. Or they are uncertain and we have to consider probabilities that are difficult to estimate.
Most posters would agree there is an unacceptable risk of a major downgrade in the level of civilization in the West. This includes a loss of personal freedom, physical security, and some form or another of discrimination or persecution directed at those posting on the board or others they identify with.
Persecution in the form of affirmative action is already happening in most Western countries, and in non-white countries is sometimes directed at white minorities. Examples are in Zimbabwe and South Africa, which both have affirmative action against whites. (How do whites fight discrimination against whites except by banding together? Are they supposed to just quietly watch others receive the hit and do nothing?)
Most posters at Jihad Watch want some form of immigration restriction that would include Muslims but possibly others. When in Western countries have their been substantial restrictions in immigration? Who made the restrictions and for what reasons?
Most posters likely agree that if the current immigration laws are continued, the results will be unacceptable. So they want them restricted. How can that happen? That gets us back to when and why has it actually happened in Western lands. Or we might look at non-Western lands as well for this.
A transition from allowing immigration to not allowing it is rare? The US did it in the 1920’s. Aside from minor restrictions, when else has a Western land gone from heavy immigration to substantially restricted immigration?
The transition from high immigration to low is not something that has happened often in the West. So its wise to consider when it happened in the past and why it succeeded, and why it has failed to happen in so many countries, even though the people want it.
Why don’t people resist immigration more? Do people think they gain from immigration? Or do they think they are harmed? Polls seem to have a wide dispersion of results on what people believe on this.
Is immigration beneficial? We can test that by looking at median wages. Median wages for men have not changed in the U.S. since 1973. Women’s median wages in the U.S. are the same as men’s were in 1960.
Who is going to vote for this immigration restriction? Without the support of whites can it happen? Why will whites vote against immigration? What do they get? What other groups are needed? What support will it get among such groups?
One concept is that the effort should be stated as stopping Muslim immigration, but not any other type of immigration. Would that work to avoid persecution, loss of freedom, etc? Since those are happening now as Enoch Powell predicted in his Rivers of Blood speech, we are in fact already experiencing persecution, loss of freedom, and discrimination.
Will the public support a stop only Muslim immigration position? Or is that less likely to work than a stop all immigration position? Experience to date suggests the elites find it very difficult to tolerate any discussion of stopping the immigration of one group but not the others. Its also not clear that this would achieve much. In fact, its a math theorem that it will still lead to genetic replacement, and thus the almost complete extinction of whites.
So we have lets call it the PC counter jihad position:
Proposed: to stop only Muslim immigration.
Lets consider as alternative stop all immigration.
Proposed: to stop all immigration.
Which of these proposals will the left, public, mainstream elites, etc. call nativist, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, white supremacist, Eurocentric, etc? The reaction to Virgil Goode and some others suggests that the proposal to stop Muslim immigration only will get the bigger reaction of calling those proposing it names.
Those who have gone along with a total halt of Muslim immigration include Lawrence Auster and it appears also Robert Spencer. So this proposal is possibly more likely to get them called names than a total ban on immigration.
What sort of alliance can be built to stop only Muslim immigration? With whom? As compared to stopping all immigration?
What is the chance to do this without a lot of luck and help from all those inclined in this direction, even for their own reasons? Very low. It will take building an alliance of many and they will have many motives. Survival of what they cherish will surely be part of it.
What is the chance that those pushing this won’t be called bigot, racist, nativist, xenophobe, white nationalist or white supremacist if white? Or being called neo-Nazi, Nazi, fascist, Hitler, thug, etc. whether white or not? The chance of escaping these names is likely zero, whether the effort to restrict immigration succeeds or not.
Traditionally, in the US, third parties push an idea until a major party adopts it. If that is the formula for success, then third parties like BNP, Vlaams Belang, Swedish Democrats, Constitution Party in the U.S., etc. are the main avenue of success. They need to get a critical level of votes to move the major parties. This might be as low as 5 or 10 percent. It only has to be the difference between the votes the two major parties get. That is usually less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent.
This is a doable level in most Western countries using the existing third parties. So far, no major Western party has embraced a total ban on Muslim immigration. Neither has one embraced a total ban on immigration. So at this point, the best play according to history is to get behind third parties that already exist on this issue and support them until a major party switches.
Getting 10 percent of the vote for such third parties is a reasonable target. We can hope that this will be enough. But it might take more. Ten percent is quite doable with the existing third parties. All of that vote could come from whites. So an appeal to whites who will vote that way consistently may be enough to succeed if we use the history of 3rd party platforms in the U.S.
Opposition to illegal immigration amnesty has already been achieved in the U.S. The people stopped the 2007 amnesty in the Senate by a call-in campaign. That is a major change. They then stopped several follow on efforts in October 2007.
During those debates, the issue of Muslim immigration was never a major part of the debate. Thus the proposal to advocate stopping Muslim immigration only, according to this evidence, was not a winner compared to opposing a more general category of immigration, illegal immigration. In fact, it might even have been counter-productive to advocate a ban of all Muslim immigration at that time.
There are many arguments against legal immigration besides those against Muslim immigration. China is spying on the U.S. Chinese spying can only be stopped by stopping all immigration from China. The same applies to know-how transfer to nuclear states like Pakistan or budding ones like Iran.
Reversing the median wage stagnation in the U.S. since 1973 requires training Americans in college instead of non-Americans. So this economic argument supports stopping all immigration not Muslim immigration only.
Hypothesis: A proposal to stop Muslim immigration only has little chance to succeed. In that case, counter-jihadis advocating this approach only are really advocating defeat. Their position is self-indulgent self-destruction. But its also destruction of the West. So its really no different than leftism, if we accept the relevant assumptions or hypotheses.
If BNP gets 10 percent of the vote at a general election in the UK for parliament, this might be sufficient to tip the Conservative Party in the UK to propose a ban on all immigration. This would be a major shift. At that point, many voters would switch to Conservative. Or they might subtract enough from Labour to elect the Conservatives. The BNP Ballerina supported the BNP, despite her partner being non-British and non-white. She did so not as a counter-jihadi but for reasons of British nationalism.
This is the motive for many people opposed to immigration, including in countries that currently restrict it, i.e. the entire non-white world. So if we look at history or countries that currently restrict immigration, reasons of race, ethnicity, nationalism in a traditional sense, etc. are the reasons everywhere and always we might hypothesize. If there are exceptions, they are not many.
The end of Western civilization would be a calamity. It would certainly be one for whites. They would likely suffer greatly and be reduced to a small minority with some probability. The overall picture presented by the third world today is that third world rule is bad for the people living under it. So its something to be opposed.
Opposition that actually stops Muslim immigration only is highly unlikely to succeed it appears at the present time. So for short term success, stopping all immigration is a better route. This, according to US third party history, may only require a consistent 10 percent vote for it in general elections. That can come from whites alone.
The 2007 call in suggests that non-whites support immigration restriction, but are not going to make calls. The call in in 2007 was likely mostly white. But the non-whites didn’t call for immigration they simply sat back and let the whites do the calling. This suggests non-whites would be quite comfortable for a BNP party to do the public pushing for ending immigration. They may call them white supremacist at every stage, but would be quite happy to let them succeed without opposing it.
People living in the West from the third world came here to escape the third world. They are quite willing to let whites stop new immigration and to maintain the existing high level of society. The left will call any effort to stop immigration white nationalist, white supremacist, xenophobic, etc. However, the US Senate 2007 call in shows that non-whites are quite willing to let activist whites stop immigration and preserve the West as it is and not let it turn into the third world.
All that is necessary is for enough whites to consistently call in to their reps and vote this way in elections, make contributions, blog this way, post comments at WaPo, UK Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, etc. and it will happen. The left will call these whites, white supremacist. Non-whites are quite happy to let these whites stop immigration completely.
Then the West can continue on as it is for a longer period of time. The above appears to be the only plan grounded in empirical reality. This plan means getting a critical mass of whites to call in, post, etc. This group can be motivated by anything, as long as they want to stop all immigration, legal and amnesties, asylum, student, etc. its enough to save the West. The more motives allowed, the more who will call in. The non-whites and other whites are willing to sit on their hands while this white minority makes it happen. They too want the West to stay the way it is.
The non-whites who are willing to sit on their hands while motivated whites call in, include Muslims, Hispanics, Asians, blacks, and Native Americans. Whites who didn’t call in to the Senate in 2007 in the U.S. include leftists, liberals, business people, university professors, green card holders, new citizens, etc.
Everyone who supposedly is ready to call the whites calling in names, and who might in fact do so, are willing to sit on their hands while the motivated whites do the calling for ending immigration. The vast majority of whites and non-whites just want it to happen. They don’t want to do it themselves.
So we just need a committed consistent group of whites to stop all immigration, who are willing to call, contribute, and vote for third parties to succeed. We are actually pretty close to this in many Western countries. BNP is one of the best of third parties for this, as is Vlaams Belang. So we are quite close to getting somewhere.
There are many pro BNP comments at UK Daily Telegraph and UK Times. Many people commented at UK Daily Telegraph that Nick Griffin of BNP should be in the top 100 conservatives. Many at UK Times suggested British mottos that were very anti-immigration.
This is a train that has arrived. The counter-jihadis just need to get on board and stop calling the whites who want to stop all immigration white supremacist and white nationalist. The PC counter-jihadis are doing more against their cause than they realize. They are a little like leftists who want it to happen, but don’t want to take responsibility and do what is necessary.
The way to convert major parties is to get the 10 percent vote for BNP and Constitution Party and others. This is quite doable with the existing third parties, blogs, issue groups, etc. We just need to pour it on. So we should stop calling each other names, advocate for all immigration to stop and make our phone calls, vote third party, contribute, and post at WaPo, etc. for ending all immigration including all legal immigration.
Stopping illegal immigration doesn’t work for counter-jihadis since that allows legal Muslim immigration. The only route for counter-jihadis to stop Muslim immigration is to make sure the anti-illegal immigration movement expands to stop all legal immigration in the US context. They also have to make sure that other countries also stop all immigration including student visas, guest workers, asylum, and family reunification.
The only way to stop all Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration. That requires a 10 percent third party support. The counter-jihadis can fill out part of that. This is their best realistic chance.
A list of rules to consider:
- Don’t attack what the US Department of Justice says is already true, e.g. “racial differences exist“.
- Don’t attack what the New York Times has already said, e.g. differences in the frequency of socially desirable traits may be genetic between groups.
- Don’t attack what Nobel Prize winners for DNA work say that is on our side.
- Don’t attack science or science papers that are on our side.
- Don’t attack what you actually believe yourself, or those saying it.
- Don’t attack people on our side because others do.
- Don’t forget to make your calls to your senator and reps asking them to stop all legal immigration including student visas, asylum, guest workers, H-1B, family reunification, diversity, and no amnesties.
- To stop all Muslim immigration requires stopping all legal immigration, asylum, student visa, family reunification, diversity, guest worker, H-1B, etc.
- That means you have to oppose all those types of legal immigration in your calls to your reps.
- Contribute to organizations like NumbersUSA, Fairus or BNP that oppose any and all immigration, or Vdare or Jihad Watch, American Renaissance, etc.
- Don’t attack people on the right who are pushing for what you want.
- Don’t repeat what leftists say.
- When you want to attack someone on the right, pick someone on the left and attack them instead. Those who make millions from immigration are always good ones to attack.
- Consistently criticize any politician or candidate who favors a category for immigration for that support. You can still vote for the least of evils if you want, and should vote for someone, but make it known everywhere you can including the candidate, that you oppose their support of legal immigration in any form. Especially do that with those you vote for. If you vote for someone, but oppose them on a position, write to them about it and tell them you voted for them despite their position in favor of some type of legal immigration, or because they were the least of all evils, but this is your most important issue.
- If you are white, you will be called Nazi, neo-Nazi, racist, bigot, fascist, and yes white nationalist and white supremacist. The left has learned we are most afraid of being called white nationalist and white supremacist. This means they will use those to stop us until we treat those names the same as bigot and nativist. Learn to list this whole list as what we are called, and don’t call others these names. Don’t call yourself these either. Treat their use by anyone ever as joke words that make that person ridiculous and non-serious. This has to be a united front. The words Nazi, fascist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, and even white nationalist and white supremacist have to be treated as non-serious words that make the person using them a joke if they are attacking with them.
- The left will use any word we are afraid of. They will find a word that makes us afraid. We have to learn, not to call ourselves that, and to list it as a word that automatically disqualifies the person using it as non-serious, at least in that instance. If they are on our side, we can forget it as we go forward.
- Anyone on the right using white nationalist or white supremacist to attack others on the right is saying this a serious word to use against the right. That gives the left a weapon against us. We must not use white nationalist or white supremacist as serious terms to attack anyone. We must not refer to ourselves using these words. We must treat them the same as the words bigot and nativist, joke words.
- The recent LGF debate over Vlaams Belang has empowered the left to call us white nationalist and white supremacist. These are the new words to make us afraid. We have to make these words into non-serious words the same as we have bigot, nativist, and racist. If there is any word we fear to be called, the left will find it. If we call ourselves that in attack, they will be able to figure out what word we are currently afraid of. They will then use it to silence us and make us fight against our own beliefs and positions. They will make us make the humiliating abject apologies they delight in. This we must never do. (Only those facing prosecution can be excused for such an apology.) We must go on the attack and make jokes about their most powerful words of attack against us.
- We must never use the words the left calls us against each other as serious. We must treat everyone of them as a joke word that discredits the speaker.
- This is a strictly school yard fight. The other kids know which words get to us. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but being called white nationalist and white supremacist will never hurt me.
- We are playing on a school yard by school yard rules. This is a fight without adult supervision. The other side are full of bullies and we have to fight back with school yard rules. The other side is a gang. We have to win.
- The other side doesn’t really want to win, as shown by the lack of call ins in 2007 for amnesty. No one called for amnesty, not even professors. I asked the Senate staffers and they said no one at all was calling in for amnesty. Not even the most extreme liberal. This was in Virginia. None of the leftists and immigrants living in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty. No one who works for Washington Post who lives in Northern Virginia called in for amnesty to Virginia senators. No one who works at the Civil Rights Division of DOJ who lives in Northern Virginia called in to their senators for amnesty. Or it was very few. But staffers did tell me at times, it was zero. The senators figured this out. The most extreme people who testify, the millionaires and billionaires, the petty bosses, the farmers, etc. none of them called in for amnesty. PC neocons who live in Northern Virginia didn’t call in for amnesty. People on TV for it didn’t call in. The Senate figured that out, they live here too. The left doesn’t want to win. They don’t want to live in the third world, they want to live here. They want us to call in and to call us names at the same time. They want to be hypocrites. Let them, don’t be them.
- Now that we have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist, and white nationalism and white supremacism to attack each other, the left knows that these are words some on the right will use against each other. Its not a secret, its on the internet. That means all of us will be inundated with these words. The other kids know we are willing to use them on each other on our side of the playground, so they know some of us are afraid to be called these words, those using them to attack for sure. That means we will be inundated with these specific words until we show we don’t care. We have to treat white nationalist and white supremacist the same as we treat Nazi, bigot, racist, nativst, xenophobe. By using them against our own side, we guarantee the left will pile these on all of us until we treat them as non-serious words whoever uses them. That is how the playground works. The kids on the other side figure out the words we use on each other we are afraid of. Now we have to show them we are not.
- Note that it doesn’t matter what the words mean. All that matters is we called kids on our side these names. The kids on the other side know we are afraid of these words. So they will taunt us with them until we show we don’t care. This is how the playground works.
- Those who have used the words white nationalist and white supremacist to attack others on the right are guaranteed to have these words used against them until they show they treat them like the words nativist, bigot, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. Those who have been called this should regard this as satisfaction enough. You don’t have to do anything more. The leftist bullies will use these taunts until those on the right who used them will turn on these words and not care about them. This will happen no matter how much emotion anyone on the right has right now about what has happened. Everyone on the right should cool off and realize that under schoolyard rules, those who use these terms as serious will be called them until they aren’t serious. The left knows they are called fascist and Nazi back and that these words stop people listening and discredit the speaker. We have now arrived, because we used the words seriously on each other, at the point where white nationalist and white supremacist are the new fear words. Get used to being called them, whether you used them or didn’t.
Robert Spencer, “Vlaams Belang, Charles Johnson and all that”:
Leon the Pig Farmer, one of my favorite posters at Jihad Watch, supports BNP at the above site and so did one or two others. Charles Johnson picks up on the above thread:
Lawrence Auster on the LGF thread.
New Sisyphus, says why can’t we all unite:
Frank Purcell says patriotism isn’t nationalism.
Vanishing American picks points out some problems with the Purcell and New Sisyphus approaches, as well as Charles Johnson’s attempted purge of the right in neocon fashion.
The following has many links to many posts on the LGF Charles Johnson Vlaams Belang controversy.
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).