Archive for the 'Wright Island Model' Category

New York Times Nativists are Restless Vdare

February 1, 2009

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/peter-brimelow-at-the-national-press-club/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/theyre-just-not-making-white-supremacists-like-they-used-to/

NYT attacks Peter Brimelow, Marcus Epstein, Vdare, Bay Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, Republicans, white people, Founding Stock Americans, Southernors, Virginia Dare, Benjamin Franklin implicitly and everyone linked to them in any way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=1

Americans want immigration solved, and they realize that mass deportations will not do that. When you add the unprecedented engagement of growing numbers of Latino voters in 2008, it becomes clear that the nativist path is the path to permanent political irrelevance. Unless you can find a way to get rid of all the Latinos.

What a very interesting point of view.  NYT is saying you can never stop Latino immigration, since there will always be illegals to be legalized or anchor babies even if stopped legal immigration.  Either Latinos take over completely and genocide all here, or the rest have to eject all the Latinos.  Wisdom of the New York Times.

NYT is saying its all Latinos out or its:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

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.

NYT is saying literally its all Latino genes replace all others or the others eject all Latinos.  This is because some sort of Latino immigration continues forever if any Latinos remain is the NYT position.  By the theorem that implies genetic extinction of all other genes.  Not mixing, but complete replacement.  Theorem doesn’t say there is final state of mixture, but a final state of complete replacement.

Note NYT is saying that Latinos insist on genocide of all other genes by future Latino immigration.  NYT says other genes can only survive by ejecting all Latinos because Latinos insist on genocide and have a program of genocide.  NYT is saying Latinos won’t let others coexist with them in equilibrium but insist on perpetual immigration to genocide all other genes completely.  Moreover, NYT says its either fight this and remove them all or give in and submit to genocide.  Those are the only two choices according to NYT.  (NYT is in effect saying Latinos hate all non-Latinos and are determined to genocide them and if any Latinos are left they will continue to try it.)

A semi-spoof with data to reject NYT and more math and theory is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/new-york-times-orders-wright-island-model-concealed/

New York Times orders Wright Island Model concealed

February 1, 2009

(Spoof) The New York Times ordered that the Wright Island Model be removed from textbooks and webpages worldwide.  The NYT wrote:

The Wright Island Model makes the white nativists restless.  Its too much for the poor dears to comprehend that their extinction is decreed by us, and that makes it good.  Peter Brimelow, Vdare, and Marcus Epstein received warnings from the Times that they must apologize 5 times a day for being white.   When it was pointed out that Vdare was a website, the Times said so?  We say it is, so it is.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

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.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

(Nagylaki got started in physics and wrote papers on quantum electrodynamics.  WIM though is much older.)

New York Times claims that this is too complicated.  We are journalists, we are told what to say.   What do we care what some theorem says.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/01/19/carlos-slim-to-buy-more-of-new-york-times/

Besides we don’t like the assumptions.

Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

June 4th, 2007 Assume that

  1. Population is bounded from above
  2. The flow of immigrants is unbounded from above
  3. The survival probabilities of the genes of each immigrant are equal.

Then

For any given cohort of immigrants at time t, the survival probability of their genes at T > t, p(t,T) must go to zero as T goes to infinity.

In fact the assumptions can be weakened so that if some group with unbounded influx has a survival probability which mutiplied by some constant bounds the other groups then it and all the groups have zero survival probability.  Same applies for ex-post survival factor.

NYT:  You didn’t use measure theory in that proof did you?   If you didn’t, we don’t accept it.  Its not theoretical enough.  If you did, we don’t accept it either, its not practical.

(OK, obviously the spoof is going too far.  The NYT editorialists don’t know measure theory and that probably includes Paul Krugman as well.)

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/peter-brimelow-at-the-national-press-club/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/01/theyre-just-not-making-white-supremacists-like-they-used-to/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewall_Wright

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/theyre-just-not-making-white.html

BTW with the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem you can proof the second law of thermodynamics.   The proof is basically that the full Hamiltonian or time development operator causes the system to have an influx of probability of other states as seen relative to some simpler Hamiltonian.  Thus the entropy increases since the probability of every state relative to the simpler Hamiltonian goes to zero.

The WIM implies a substitution effect.  This carries over to all aspects of human society.  The WIM says whatever good you do, the bad rises even more to force extinction of every gene here and each year’s cohort of genes that come here.  Immigration forever means that this is a genetic graveyard.  Every gene that comes here goes extinct.

Another way of understanding it is as follows.  Suppose every gene now in the US gets a serial number that is distinct.  Each gene that crosses the border gets a new serial border.  When a gene is created from a single gene, it copies the same serial number plus the date.  When created from two genes it gets both serial numbers combined and the date.

The serial numbers as of any date eventually all disappear even embedded in other numbers.  All the serial numbers that arrive in a year disappear as well even embedded in other numbers.  This has to happen because otherwise there would be more serial numbers than the upper bound on population.

Thus all the good that happens has to be overmatched by bad to force humans to reproduce below replacement.   We are in the credit crisis and financial crisis that the WIM predicts will happen.  Uncertainty is a way to get humans to defer reproduction.  In some cases, that is permanent.  Young adults defer and then are old adults before they know it.  Marriages are unstable.   So they don’t have more kids they break up.

Then young adults think recursively.  The marriage won’t last, so don’t have kids.  So don’t get married.

With zero immigration, not zero net, but zero influx, young adults have job security.  All jobs have to go to them if there is zero influx, not zero net, but zero absolute.  This gives young adults the confidence and security to get married, have kids, stay married and have more kids.  This produces institutions that work and happy families.  Happy families make institutions work and when institutions work they make it possible to have happy families.  This is why influx must be zero, not just equal to outflux.

Graph of ferility 1800 to 1990:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility fell except during immigration restriction from 1940 to 1957, when immigration reached 250,000 per year again.  That is why that amount is too high, it cuts off the security of young adults and interferes with marriage stability.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973

See graph page 19

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Productivity per hour doubled over the period.

==

Series Id: PRS84006093
Duration: index, 1992 = 100
Measure: Output Per Hour
Sector: Business

Series Id,Year,Period,Value,
PRS84006093,1947,Annual,32.232
PRS84006093,1948,Annual,33.722
PRS84006093,1949,Annual,34.493
PRS84006093,1950,Annual,37.325
PRS84006093,1951,Annual,38.510
PRS84006093,1952,Annual,39.602
PRS84006093,1953,Annual,41.013
PRS84006093,1954,Annual,41.883
PRS84006093,1955,Annual,43.619
PRS84006093,1956,Annual,43.647
PRS84006093,1957,Annual,45.026
PRS84006093,1958,Annual,46.268
PRS84006093,1959,Annual,48.027
PRS84006093,1960,Annual,48.865
PRS84006093,1961,Annual,50.568
PRS84006093,1962,Annual,52.882
PRS84006093,1963,Annual,54.950
PRS84006093,1964,Annual,56.808
PRS84006093,1965,Annual,58.817
PRS84006093,1966,Annual,61.205
PRS84006093,1967,Annual,62.543
PRS84006093,1968,Annual,64.678
PRS84006093,1969,Annual,64.994
PRS84006093,1970,Annual,66.285
PRS84006093,1971,Annual,69.015
PRS84006093,1972,Annual,71.243
PRS84006093,1973,Annual,73.410
PRS84006093,1974,Annual,72.257
PRS84006093,1975,Annual,74.793
PRS84006093,1976,Annual,77.145
PRS84006093,1977,Annual,78.455
PRS84006093,1978,Annual,79.320
PRS84006093,1979,Annual,79.305
PRS84006093,1980,Annual,79.151
PRS84006093,1981,Annual,80.779
PRS84006093,1982,Annual,80.149
PRS84006093,1983,Annual,83.002
PRS84006093,1984,Annual,85.215
PRS84006093,1985,Annual,87.131
PRS84006093,1986,Annual,89.673
PRS84006093,1987,Annual,90.133
PRS84006093,1988,Annual,91.507
PRS84006093,1989,Annual,92.409
PRS84006093,1990,Annual,94.381
PRS84006093,1991,Annual,95.902
PRS84006093,1992,Annual,100.000
PRS84006093,1993,Annual,100.390
PRS84006093,1994,Annual,101.360
PRS84006093,1995,Annual,101.495
PRS84006093,1996,Annual,104.494
PRS84006093,1997,Annual,106.478
PRS84006093,1998,Annual,109.477
PRS84006093,1999,Annual,112.841
PRS84006093,2000,Annual,116.107
PRS84006093,2001,Annual,119.067
PRS84006093,2002,Annual,123.934
PRS84006093,2003,Annual,128.693
PRS84006093,2004,Annual,132.403
PRS84006093,2005,Annual,135.001
PRS84006093,2006,Annual,136.416
PRS84006093,2007,Annual,138.957

==

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=pr

Select business, output per hour, and index. Then click on Add to Your Selection.

Then click on Get Data. You can get formatting options later. I selected only annual data and csv data. I copied that into a text file and then recopied it into this.

Other productivity choices and sources

Labor productivity

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/home.htm

http://www.bls.gov/bls/productivity.htm

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?pr

1948 to 2002

http://www.bls.gov/mfp/historicalsic.htm

http://www.bls.gov/mfp/

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod3.t01.htm

Table 1. Private business sector:Indexes of productivity & related measures, 1987-2006

“productivity index” bls

==

PRS84006093,1973,Annual,73.410

PRS84006093,2007,Annual,138.957

This is almost a doubling of this measure of output per labor. There are many at BLS.

==NYT.  Bottom line is bottom line.  And top line is top line.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/carlos-slim-to-bailout-ny-times.html

Immigration distrust equilibrium low fertility outcomes

December 18, 2008

The following was a comment at Vanishing American, “Where have all the men and women gone.”

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2008/12/where-have-men-and-women-gone.html

VA had a post on the London Times:

Where have all the men gone?

…Where have all the men gone? Instead, we have an overload of man-boys – which leaves a generation of single, thirtysomething women who are their natural mates bewildered. I am one of those women.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973 in the US see p60-233.pdf graph page 19.

We can use a theorem in demographics to explain demographic outcomes.  The theorem is the Wright Island Model.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

“the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”
Nagylaki, Genetics.

There is a substitution effect by immigration alone.  Its a math theorem that the genes on the island have to converge to those of the immigrants.  Thus the mating process is disrupted.

Economic instability works its way backward.  Marriages can breakup when the man or both lose their job.  So the marriage is unstable.  So they can’t have kids.  So there is no reason to get married.  So they don’t. This type of recursive or backward reasoning is used in game theory and modern economics.

It is sometimes called rational expectations.  Young people have rational expectations of job instability.  Based on that they have rational expectations of marriage instability.  So they have rational expectations of not having children when married. So they have rational expectations of not getting married at all.  So they don’t.

Its a rational expectations equilibrium that derives from the unstable job market caused by immigration.

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

The fertility graph above from 1800 to 1990 shows this.  Fertility fell except during immigration restriction from 1924 to the late 1950’s early 1960’s when it picked up even before the 1965 act.  The baby boom started in 1940 and peaked in 1957 and was followed by the baby bust.  This was the same period that saw marriage start to crash.

We now are in the extreme stress conditions implied by the Wright Island Model.

Young people are looking for an explanation of what is happening to them.  Its in the math.  The math explains what is happening.  Immigration causes genetic replacement with certainty.

The growth of distrust is a result of the influx.  With zero immigration, people deal with the same people on a repeat basis and there is stability. So behavior is closely monitored. This makes reputation important. Trust comes out of this. We get a trust and responsible behavior equilibrium.

With the influx of immigrants, there is no way to avoid extinction ultimately.  So people become desperate and short term in their thinking. They also deal with different people and so don’t need a good reputation.  The result is they behave badly. We switch to the distrust equilibrium. People expect bad behavior in advance, so they don’t let themselves be vulnerable. The result is a crash.

Its the same in our financial system. Bear Stears in 1998 wouldn’t do illiquid trades like LTCM did.  But in 2008 they went bankrupt by selling illiquid derivatives.  This was because the managers just wanted to get theirs while they could and the spread for selling illiquid derivatives was high.  The same for AIG FP. These firms also became full of Indian and Chinese quants who simply told the trading bosses what they wanted to hear, value at risk was low.  But, of course, it wasn’t. We are in the distrust equilibrium. That comes from immigration and its a consequence of rational expectations equilibrium from game theory.

The meaning of young people’s lives is the above math.  Their lives instead of being full of meaning are just bacteria in someone else’s experiment.  They are reduced to objects by immigration.  Yet they see the meaning in their life as being not bigoted.  Its actually a scam foisted on them by those running the experiment.  And the experiment is evil.

==

An economist or someone said recently, or I read it recently and they said it long ago, that children are a durable good.  The production of that good is disrupted by immigration.  Its too costly and risky to produce children when there is immigration.  So they are produced less.

Children provide a stream of benefits.  Not just support in old age, but emotional ones when young.  There is a trade. Parents give children a stable loving home and get love in return.  This works if the parents have a stable job.

But if that stream of benfits from children isn’t worth the cost and risk the children are not produced.  To enjoy the benefits, one needs economic stability.  When there is no job stability, a child goes from being a stream of satisfaction, to a source of worry, how to provide for the child.

The emotional stream of benefits comes with the requirement of a stream of emotions to provide to the child. And if one can’t provide, the parents part of the bargain, the trade of emotions with a child can’t happen in a positive way but is negative. Child abuse may have risen because of this as well.  Parents can’t deliver on their part of the trade, a stable economic environment and home, and so abuse the children out of their angst and to blame the victim.

The trade between parent and child is disrupted by immigration which creates economic instability.  This changes children from a blessing to a burden.  So young adults don’t have children. So they don’t get married. So they are unhappy.

Immigration causes unhappiness.   Part of the channel is to create distrust.  This includes distrust between the sexes. The result is more partners and instability and the spread of disease.  That is another outcome of immigration.

==

Search “children are durable goods”

“children are a durable good”

bad grammar but good search.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SITE/papers2005/Schoonbroodt.05.pdf

Two Wright Island Model also Vanishes

September 26, 2007

In the Wright Island Model we have an annual inflow of immigrants which is bounded from below by a positive number.   If we assume the genetic survival ratio of the immigrants times some constant bounds everyone on the island, then we get the result that the genetic survival ratio of everyone, immigrants and others asymptotes to zero.  Here the genetic survival ratio is plotted as a function of time since arrival, with presence considered a type of arrival for running a clock.

The above is actually the Immigration Vanishing Survival Framework.  It also extends more broadly than just to genes, but to states of a system.  It is then a fundamental concept in statistical aggregate analysis just as entropy is.

To derive the Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem result, we can modify the assumptions in a variety of ways.  If there is a subgroup of immigrants that satisfies the same assumptions, annual inflow bounded from below at some level above zero, and which also can dominate or shrink the rest, then we get the same result.

The key is that we have a squeezing group.  This group has a survival ratio that is greater than or equal to that of the other groups, and which is of unbounded size including its annual inflow.  That inflow can come from outside the island or it can come from above replacement fertility of that squeezing group.

The other groups are then squeezed.  In effect, the squeezing group is self squeezing towards its own members, since if we tag a member’s genes with a serial number and track them, we find that the asymptotic survival probability of each tagged gene is zero.  This applies to every member of the population and to each entrant.

The keys are to have an unbounded inflow and some way of aggregating individuals to form a squeezing subgroup.  The squeezing subgroup needs to be able to dominate in survival ratios the other individuals or groups in the population.  To link individuals together, we can assume homogeneity, or membership in a group of equal survival probabilities.  In fact, we can consider groups in which the survival probability is bounded by some appropriate subgroup.   To aggregate individuals into a sqeezed group, squeezee group, we only need to have a subgroup that dominates from above.

A second island doesn’t alter the conclusion if we add sufficient conditions to effectively include the island in the framework.  If the population of the second island is bounded, and it is subject to unbounded immigration by the same or similar squeezing group, then circulation of the squeezee groups between the two islands doesn’t alter the conclusion.  Whether the squeezees are limited to each island separately or can circulate in any matter between them doesn’t matter.  As long as both islands are subject to immigration from a squeezing group from outside both, the same result occurs.

We can also get the same result if there are two separate source groups on each island.   Source groups have above replacement fertility.  These two source groups will squeeze the others on the two islands.  Adding immigrants to islands with domestic source groups only makes it worse.  Again, we are assuming a bounded population on each island and thus on the whole.

The idea of importing population is a foolish one.   The result is to squeeze the domestic product, in this case genes. The Immigration Vanishing Survival Framework is about what conditions or assumptions are needed for the importation of genes to result in the domestic production of genes to disappear.  This is what is happening in every land of the European diaspora. The presence of pockets or islands of below replacement fertility Europeans which circulate among European diaspora lands or other lands doesn’t change the fact that European genetic survival ratios are asymptoting to zero world wide.

This is draft and is preliminary.   As this is put into a more formal structure, there may be additional supplementary assumptions or refinements in the definition of source, squeezer groups, and squeezee groups.  The conditions for aggregation also may require refinement.

White Zeroist Wright Island Model

September 6, 2007

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).

%d bloggers like this: