Home

J. Philippe Rushton’s genetic similarity theory (Rushton, Russell and Wells 1984; Rushton 1989) expands Hamiltonian kin selection and asserts that individuals have evolved to display non-reciprocal altruism towards other individuals in proportion to their genetic-relatedness. On this basis, Salter (2006) argues that all humans have a vital interest in genetic continuity that is threatened by mass migration and proposes Universal Nationalism. In support of Salter’s argument, Vanhanen (1999) found that the correlation between ethnic heterogeneity and institutionalized ethnic conflict was 0.73. In other words, it is clear that mass immigration works neither in theory, nor practice. Furthermore, anti-immigration attitudes are innate, and if they were not so, different sub-species (i.e. races) could not have evolved in the first place (McGregor 1986). However, Western governments have allowed mass immigration because it boosts tax revenue and keeps inflation down. To mitigate their self-serving actions, they needed to encourage cooperation by enforcing egalitarianism by stigmatizing perfectly natural in-group biases in the guise of 'racism'.

The male contingent of a man's in-group is his own dominance hiearchy. Individuals of a different nationality or race will clearly be from a different dominance hierarchy, so race/nationality acts as an in-group/out-group marker. In-group/out-group biases imply that men have a strong sense of identity with their own nationality/race, and tend to act so as to exclude others. See Tajfel (1978) Tajfel (1981), Tajfel (1982) and Tajfel and Turner (1986).

Vanhanen (1999) found that ethnic heterogeneity was strongly correlated with institutionalized ethnic conflict. For example, to take the extremes, North Korea, South Korea and Lesotho were low in both ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic conflict, whilst Sudan was high in both.

Source: Vanhanen (1999)

Schneider (2008) found a non-linear relationship between outgroup size and perceived ethnic threat.

Source: Schneider (2008)

Tajfel (1978) identifies four kinds of assimilation:
  1. There are no constraints to social mobility imposed by either of the two groups involved and sooner or later the minority ceases to exist. An example would be some immigrant ethnic groups in the United States.
  2. The people who moved from one group to another may well interact in their new setting in many ways which are 'free of constraints', but they have not been fully accepted by the majority.
  3. 'Illegitimate' assimilation, hiding one's origins in order to 'pass'.
  4. Some sociologists refer to this very different type of assimilation as 'accommodation' or 'social competition'. The minority attempt to retain their own identity and separateness while at the same time becoming more like the majority in their opportunities of achieving goals and marks of respect which are generally valued by the society at large.

Male reaction to male immigration
Every male feels a strong sense of identity with members of his own dominance hierarchy, and will tend to act so as to exclude other men (the out-group). Males of a different race will clearly be members of the out-group.

Male reaction to female immigration
Men may appreciate the exotic fruit.

Female reaction to male immigration
Women are deeply suspicious of most men, foreign men in particular.

Female reaction to female immigration
Fairly equitable on a friendship level, but would not appreciate the love-rivals.

The table below shows increasing genetic distance from the English (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza 1994).

Belgian 2.7
Dutch 3.0
Danish 3.4
German 3.9
French 4.3
Norwegian 4.4
Scottish 4.8
Swiss 5.0
Irish 5.3
Swedish 6.6
Portuguese 8.2
Spanish 8.3
Austrian 9.7
Italian 10.0
Czech 10.6
Hungarian 12.4
Polish 12.4
Icelandic 13.5
Russian 14.0
Finnish 20.4
Basque 21.0
Yugoslavian 28.4
Greek 35.1
Berber 38.0
Iranian 40.0
Near Eastern 47.0
Indian 59.0
Sardinian 62.6
Lapp 73.8
Dravidian 92.0
Mongul Tungus 99.0
Chukchi 114
N. Turkic 137
Uralic 137
Tibetan 142
Mon Khmer 159
San 170
N. American 177
Polynesian 186
E. African 188
Korean 188
Indonesian 189
S. Chinese 196
Micronesian 197
C Amerind 200
Filipino 208
Malaysian 213
Ainu 227
Thai 227
Nilo-Saharan 236
Na-Dene 255
Eskimo 260
Japanese 261
S. American 266
W. African 274
Australian 278
Melanesian 305
New Guinean 314
Mbuti 376
Bantu 462

The table below shows ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic conflicts during the period 1990-1996 in order of increasing ethnic heterogeneity (Vanhanen (1999)).

Ethnic Heterogeneity Ethnic Conflicts Residual EC Predicted EC
Asia and Oceania Korea, North 0 0 -9.1 9.1
Asia and Oceania Korea, South 0 0 -9.1 9.1
Africa Lesotho 1 0 -10 10
Europe Portugal 2 5 -5.9 10.9
Asia and Oceania Japan 2 5 -5.9 10.9
Africa Botswana 3 5 -6.9 11.9
Europe Ireland 4 5 -7.8 12.8
Europe Poland 4 5 -7.8 12.8
Western Hemisphere Paraguay 4 10 -2.8 12.8
Western Hemisphere Uruguay 4 5 -7.8 12.8
Europe Denmark 5 10 -3.7 13.7
Western Hemisphere Costa Rica 5 5 -8.7 13.7
Western Hemisphere Haiti 5 5 -8.7 13.7
Africa Tunisia 5 0 -13.7 13.7
Europe Austria 6 15 0.3 14.7
Western Hemisphere Argentina 6 5 -9.7 14.7
Europe Czech Republic 7 15 -0.6 15.6
Europe Finland 7 10 -5.6 15.6
Europe Norway 7 10 -5.6 15.6
Europe Hungary 8 10 -6.5 16.5
Europe Italy 8 10 -6.5 16.5
Europe Slovenia 9 10 -7.5 17.5
Western Hemisphere Jamaica 9 5 -12.5 17.5
Western Hemisphere Chile 10 10 -8.4 18.4
Europe Greece 11 20 0.7 19.3
Asia and Oceania Jordan 11 10 -9.3 19.3
Europe Armenia 12 25 4.7 20.3
Europe Germany 12 20 -0.3 20.3
Asia and Oceania Australia 12 10 -10.2 20.2
Africa Libya 12 10 -10.2 20.2
Africa Rwanda 12 160 139.7 20.3
Europe Netherlands 13 15 -6.2 21.2
Europe Sweden 13 15 -6.2 21.1
Western Hemisphere Honduras 13 15 -6.2 21.2
Asia and Oceania China 13 25 3.8 21.2
Europe France 14 30 7.9 22.1
Western Hemisphere Venezuela 15 15 -8 23
Asia and Oceania Cambodia 15 25 2 23
Asia and Oceania Philippines 16 30 6 24
Asia and Oceania Taiwan (ROC) 16 20 -4 24
Africa Egypt 17 20 -4.9 24.9
Europe Slovakia 18 20 -5.8 25.8
Asia and Oceania Mongolia 18 0 -25.8 25.8
Western Hemisphere Colomibia 19 20 -6.8 26.8
Asia and Oceania Bangladesh 19 30 3.2 26.8
Western Hemisphere El Salvador 20 10 -17.7 27.7
Asia and Oceania Thailand 20 15 -12.7 27.7
Africa Burundi 20 160 132.3 27.7
Asia and Oceania Papua New Guinea 22 40 10.4 29.6
Europe Belarus 23 5 -25.5 30.5
Asia and Oceania Vietnam 23 20 -10.5 30.5
Europe United Kingdom 24 30 -1.4 31.4
Western Hemisphere Nicaragua 24 15 -16.4 31.4
Africa Zimbabwe 24 40 8.6 31.4
Europe Romania 25 30 -2.4 32.4
Europe Bulgaria 27 30 -4.2 34.2
Europe Ukraine 27 30 -4.2 34.2
Western Hemisphere Diminican Republic 27 30 -4.2 34.2
Africa Algeria 28 20 -15.1 35.1
Europe Spain 30 40 3 37
Western Hemisphere Panama 31 25 -12.9 37.9
Europe Azerbaijan 32 70 31.1 38.9
Europe Lithuania 32 30 -8.9 38.9
Europe Russia 32 60 21.1 38.9
Western Hemisphere Cuba 34 20 -20.7 40.7
Asia and Oceania New Zealand 34 30 -10.7 40.7
Western Hemisphere United States 35 40 -1.7 41.7
Europe Moldova 37 80 36.5 43.5
Europe Sweitzerland 38 45 0.5 44.5
Asia and Oceania Turkmenistan 38 15 -29.5 44.5
Asia and Oceania Uzbekistan 38 40 -4.5 44.5
Asia and Oceania Syria 39 25 -20.4 45.4
Africa Tanzania 39 20 -25.4 45.4
Europe Albania 40 20 -26.3 46.3
Europe Geogia 40 80 33.7 46.3
Western Hemisphere Mexico 40 50 3.7 46.3
Asia and Oceania Israel 40 120 73.7 46.3
Africa Morocco 41 30 -17.2 47.2
Africa Senegal 41 50 2.8 47.2
Asia and Oceania Oman 43 20 -29.1 49.1
Europe Croatia 45 140 89 51
Western Hemisphere Canada 45 50 -1 51
Asia and Oceania Saudi Arabia 45 30 -21 51
Asia and Oceania Turkey 45 60 9 51
Asia and Oceania Tajikistan 46 100 48.1 51.9
Asia and Oceania Laos 49 40 -14.7 54.7
Africa Yemen 50 30 -25.6 55.6
Western Hemisphere Brazil 52 60 2.5 57.5
Europe Belgium 53 70 11.6 58.4
Africa Gabon 54 60 0.7 59.3
Asia and Oceania Burma 55 100 39.7 60.3
Asia and Oceania Pakistan 55 80 19.7 60.3
Africa Benin 55 50 -10.3 60.3
Africa Congo 55 60 -0.3 60.3
Africa Malawi 55 50 -10.3 60.3
Europe Yugoslavia 57 100 37.9 62.1
Asia and Oceania Singapore 57 30 -32.1 62.1
Asia and Oceania Sri Lanka 57 120 57.9 62.1
Africa Namibia 59 60 -4 64
Western Hemisphere Ecuador 60 60 -4.9 64.9
Asia and Oceania Nepal 60 45 -19.9 64.9
Africa Togo 60 70 5.1 64.9
Europe Macedonia 64 60 -8.7 68.7
Asia and Oceania Iran 65 70 0.4 69.6
Africa Angola 65 120 50.4 69.6
Africa Burkina Faso 65 45 -24.6 69.6
Africa Mali 65 60 -9.6 69.6
Africa Zambia 67 30 -41.5 71.5
Africa Guinea 68 50 -22.4 72.4
Africa Madagascar 69 20 -53.3 73.3
Asia and Oceania Kuwait 70 80 5.8 74.2
Africa Mozambique 70 80 5.8 74.2
Africa Zaire 70 80 5.8 74.2
Asia and Oceania Iraq 71 120 44.8 75.2
Africa Niger 71 80 4.8 75.2
Africa Ghana 72 60 -16.1 76.1
Asia and Oceania United Arab Emirates 73 40 -37 77
Asia and Oceania Indonesia 74 60 -18 78
Asia and Oceania Kyrgyzstan 74 60 -18 78
Africa Central African Republic 74 45 -33 78
Western Hemisphere Bolivia 75 80 -1.1 78.9
Africa Mauritania 75 120 41.1 78.9
Western Hemisphere Peru 76 80 0.2 79.8
Africa Liberia 76 100 20.2 79.8
Africa Uganda 76 80 0.2 79.8
Africa Cameroon 77 60 -20.8 80.8
Europe Estonia 78 70 -11.7 81.7
Africa Somalia 80 160 76.4 83.6
Africa Kenya 81 100 15.5 84.5
Asia and Oceania Lebanon 85 120 31.8 88.2
Africa Sierra Leone 86 60 -29.1 89.1
Europe Latvia 90 70 -22.9 92.9
Western Hemisphere Guatemala 90 100 7.1 92.9
Asia and Oceania Afghanistan 90 140 47.1 92.9
Asia and Oceania Bhutan 90 80 -12.9 92.9
Africa Nigeria 95 80 -17.5 97.5
Africa Cote d'Ivoire 96 60 -38.4 98.4
Western Hemisphere Trinidad and Tobago 98 70 -30.3 100.3
Africa Eritrea 100 100 -2.2 102.2
Africa Ethiopia 100 100 -2.2 102.2
Asia and Oceania Kazakhstan 102 80 -24 104
Africa South Africa 107 120 11.3 108.7
Asia and Oceania Malaysia 110 90 -21.5 111.5
Africa Mauritius 110 60 -51.5 111.5
Europe Bosnia-Herzegovina 112 200 86.7 113.3
Africa Sudan 124 180 55.5 124.5
Asia and Oceania India 128 100 -28.2 128.2
Africa Chad 144 120 -23.1 143.1

Glossary

in-group
A group of people in which all members feel a strong sense of identity with the group, foster a sense of elitism about the group and tend to act so as to exclude others (the out-group).
out-group
A group comprised of all people who do not belong to a specific in-group.
dominance hierarchy
A form of animal social structure that exists when a group of individuals belonging to the same species share a territory and a ranking exists, with each animal dominant over those below it and submissive to those above it. Dominance-submission signalling goes on between the animals. Dominance hierarchies occur in most social animal species, such as primates, wolves and birds, notably chickens (‘pecking order’). In human beings, men exist in a dominance hierarchy. A man’s rank in the dominance hierarchy will be correlated with height, muscularity, symmetry, attractiveness, intelligence, income and willingness to take risks.
racism
A perfectly natural in-group bias which has been stigmatized by the politically correct West. In order to boost tax revenue and keep inflation down, Western governments have allowed mass immigration. To mitigate their self-serving actions, they needed to encourage cooperation by enforcing egalitarianism.

Links

Bibliography

Webmaster: Martin Sewell