Where you end up depends upon where you start. In other words, the conclusions reached by correct reasoning are determined by one’s premises. Certainly, someone whose premise is that all people are genetically equal will reach vastly different conclusions than a person who believes there are significant genetic differences. In this chapter, the premise, which is supported by evolution (Chap. 4), selection (Chap. 5), and genetic differences (Chap. 7), is that the alleles, and therefore the traits, that are passed on to and survive in future generations, are those that code for traits that aid in putting those alleles into future generations. That is so obvious, it may seem like a tautology, but it is not. The successful alleles could be those that code for goodness, love, and universal brotherhood, but they are not, because alleles get into the next generation not as a reward for virtue, but as a result of the reproductive success that results from the traits they code for. That premise has profound implications, as the remainder of this book will demonstrate.
    Not only are there genetic differences between individuals but, as we saw in the previous chapter, entire populations are, on average, genetically different from other populations. In this chapter, we answer the questions, “Are people able to, at least roughly, discern the genetic distance between themselves and others, i.e., whether others carry more of the same alleles that they have?” and, “Do they act on that information to further their own reproductive success?” In other words, are our alleles influencing our behavior to make us favor our own alleles? ³ In this chapter, we examine the evolutionary rationality of inherited behavior; we do not consider learned behavior, i.e., “culture.”

                            Shared Alleles
    Genes are the unit of inheritance. Other than women nursing infants and organ transplants, we don’t pass our flesh on to our descendants, as an amoeba does when it divides into two amoebae. We don’t even pass on our traits – you cannot “give” your children your red hair or high IQ. What we pass on is a copy of one of our two blueprints, i.e., half our chromosomes, our gene regulators, and our mtDNA if we are female. Each of our 23 pairs of chromosomes contains the same genes that everyone else has, but we will frequently have alleles of those genes that are not the same as the alleles that many other people have. One half of the father’s genes (23 chromosomes) become part of his sperm and one half of the mother’s genes (23 chromosomes) become part of her egg, and the corresponding chromosomes pair up again after fertilization. ⁴ Since portions of chromosomes are mixed up in forming the 23 chromosomes for each sperm and for each egg (“cross-over,” p. 26), two siblings, other than identical twins, could, theoretically, receive completely different alleles or exactly the same alleles, depending upon luck during crossover and whether the mother and father had no alleles that the other had or had all the same alleles that the other had (both very unlikely). If the parents are 100% heterozygous their two siblings will, on average receive half of the same alleles ⁵ but, since parents are likely to have some of the same alleles, siblings are likely to have more than half their alleles in common.
    When the father’s copy and the mother’s copy pair up in their child, only one allele in each pair may be expressed, or each allele may be partly expressed. But alleles that aren’t there cannot be expressed, i.e., you cannot have a heritable trait unless you have the particular alleles that code for that trait. And, even if your child has the alleles for a trait, unless some of his other alleles motivate and enable him to survive and reproduce, all of the alleles in his body die when he does. Conversely, if the child does have alleles that motivate and enable him to reproduce, each parent’s alleles in their child have at least a 50% chance of being passed on to the child’s progeny. (If he receives the same allele of a gene from both parents, one of those two alleles is certain to be passed on if he has progeny.)

Figure 8-1

    Alleles don’t “want” to survive and get passed on. They are, after all, just strings of DNA in a chromosome. But if they code for traits that motivate and enable the individual to pass them on (alleles A in Figure 8-1), they may be passed on; otherwise, they are not passed on (alleles B in Fig. 8-1).
    So, as Samuel Butler insightfully put it (Life and Habit, 1877, p. 134), “A hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg.” That is, an individual, with his collection of allele-expressed traits that motivate him to reproduce, can be thought of as his alleles’ way of making more of those same alleles (in other individuals). This means that every living thing must be “selfish,” in the sense of placing its own reproductive success first, or it is simply out of the game. A unique collection of alleles in an “unselfish” organism, that makes no effort to achieve reproductive success, lasts only a single generation. To put it more abstractly, a fertilized egg contains a set of instructions that, given the appropriate environment, causes another fertilized egg to be made that contains a copy of at least half of those same instructions.
    But alleles have another way of getting a copy of themselves into the next generation of eggs, besides making the egg they are presently in become a reproducing hen (or rooster) that makes more eggs. Since alleles are instructions written in DNA, animals don’t need to reproduce the normal way, by putting copies of their DNA into an egg; they are just as reproductively successful if the DNA that is put into the egg is identical to their DNA. Who puts that DNA into the egg is of no biological importance because the next generation is the same either way though, of course, having someone do the putting isn’t nearly as much fun. Thus, if animals don’t reproduce at all, but instead help others of their species to put the same instructions that they have into the eggs, they are just as reproductively successful as if they themselves put a copy of their own DNA into those eggs.
    Social insects, such as honeybees, are a good example of the “helping-others-reproduce-who-have-my-alleles” reproductive strategy, i.e., “altruism.” 6) The worker bees are females and do not reproduce, but they spend their lives helping the queen, their mother, to reproduce. The resulting siblings carry, on average, three-fourths of the workers’ alleles. ⁷ Thus, when the workers die of exhaustion without ever reproducing, they still pass on most their alleles to the next generation through the siblings they fed and cared for, any one of which can be fed royal jelly to turn it into another queen with three-fourths of their alleles.
    Here is an amazing discovery about the relatedness of alleles: if a population is isolated and its members breed among themselves, the relatedness among them can rise to as high as ½, the same as between parents and their children or between siblings! ⁸ Thus, if that maximum were to be reached, the members of that group could help pass on their unique alleles as much by helping another member of their group as they could by helping their own brother or sister. Indeed, if another member of their group is better positioned to reproduce (younger, healthier, better traits), a member could increase his reproductive success more by helping him than by helping his own siblings. ⁹ Every person therefore has a genetic interest in the welfare of his own group, ethny, and race, and favoring them over others is rational and adaptive. ¹⁰
    Alleles that code for altruistic behavior are more advantageous in populations where individuals are able to identify and help those who carry their alleles, e.g., where relatives don’t scatter, individuals differ genetically in their appearance, odor, or behavior (so that those having similar traits can be identified), and pair bonding reduces promiscuity (so that men know who their children are). Racial differences in altruism have not yet been quantified, ¹¹ but northern populations, which pair bond more and are more “K” orientated reproductively, should be more genetically altruistic.
    Like all traits, there is an optimal amount of altruism. Too little or too much means resources are not being used to maximize reproductive success and, as with other traits, populations will tend to evolve towards the optimal amount of altruism. A population that is reproductively isolated, and therefore inbreed and less diverse, will have a higher optimal amount of altruism because the likelihood that others carry the same alleles is higher. If two reproductively isolated populations, one high in altruism and the other low in altruism, are intermixed, they will each continue expressing their differing degrees of altruism, the low altruism population taking advantage of the generosity of the high altruism population. This is the situation that now exists in the multicultural western nations, where genetically different immigrants from the warmer climates, who are less altruistic, have been allowed to move into northern wealthier nations whose populations are genetically closely related and who have a higher optimal amount of altruism.
    Now that you know the behavior predicted by the logic of our genes, let’s see if real people actually behave that way. Altruism is most commonly seen in animals that live in inbreed groups, such as humans, especially if they care for their young. ¹² We make our greatest sacrifices for our children ¹³) because, unless we have an identical twin, our children carry more of our alleles than any of our other relatives (your parents may carry about the same number as your children but, since they are older, they may be less likely to reproduce and less in need). Your child has at least half of your alleles, ¹⁴ so if you help him survive (so that he can reproduce), you are helping at least half of your alleles to survive and, hopefully, make you a happy grandparent. The more related you are to another person, the greater the number of your alleles he is likely to carry, and the more your sacrifice for him increases your fitness, your likelihood of reproductive success. ¹⁵ Alleles in common, and therefore altruism, decreases with increasing genetic distance, i.e., from blood family members to blood relatives to ethny to race to species to genus, etc. ¹⁶ If you have a will and your wealth goes mostly to your relatives in approximately the order they are related to you, then you behave as predicted.
    If you have ever been to a funeral, you have probably observed that the amount of grief that you and other mourners feel is proportional to how closely you and they are related to the deceased. Indeed, that is so obvious and normal that people would be puzzled if it were not so. Grandparents grieve more for their daughter’s children than their son’s children, because they are more certain they are related (Littlefield, 1986), i.e., their son’s wife may have cheated on him. And identical twins grieve more for their dead co-twin than do fraternal twins, who sharer fewer alleles. (Rushton, 2005a; Segal, 2002). In general, people grieve more for someone who has more of his alleles (e.g., a child of the same race), as that is a greater genetic loss. ¹⁷
    Unrelated people living together are more likely to kill each other than are related people. (Daly, 1988). Children in the U.S. are about 100 times as likely to be abused or murdered by a parent if one of the parents is a stepparent. (Schnitzer, 2005; Daly, 1988). We care more about our own children than the children of strangers, we practice nepotism, our charity is greater when we give to our own ethny, and we even care more about how we treat gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans than we do about mice, which aren’t as closely related. A man will help his sister’s children more than his brother’s children because his brother’s wife may have cuckolded him, but he knows his sister’s children are related to him and carry his alleles. ¹⁸ For the same reason, we help our mother’s sister’s children more than our other cousins (Jeon, 2007) and maternal grandparents are more willing to travel to see their grandchildren than paternal grandparents. (Pollet, 2007). “Blood is thicker than water” because our alleles are pulling the strings, and those persons who did not have alleles pulling their strings to induce them to pass on their alleles have long since departed without progeny. ¹⁹
    And how do we know how closely related another person is to us? It was only recently in man’s history that he kept records of who his relatives were, but there are two methods that can be, and are, used, even by animals: (1) Location – if it is in your nest, it is probably yours. That is why, when cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other species, the non-parents feed them even when the rapidly growing cowbird chicks push their own chicks out onto the ground. (2) Traits – the more it looks like you, smells like you, and behaves like you, the more of your alleles it is likely to have. Although humans do smell and behave differently, appearance is more telling. (Rushton, 2005b). A woman knows for certain who her children are, but until DNA analysis came along, a man could never be sure. That is why the first words a new mother says to her mate are, “He looks just like you.” ²⁰ She is reassuring him that he is, indeed, the father, so that he will make sacrifices that will enhance her baby’s chances of surviving.
    Amazingly, people pick not only spouses (Bereczkei, 2008) and friends (Rushton, 1989) who have similar traits, and are therefore more genetically similar, but even pick pets that look similar to themselves. ²¹ And the more heritable a trait is, the more it is used to determine how closely related someone is. (Rushton, 2005a).
    In other words, we are attracted to our own traits in others. ²² We do not have to be consciously aware that we are doing this because our alleles provide us with stimulation to the pleasure centers of our brain if we do it. All we have to do is “act normally” and not consciously resist our desire for that pleasure. ²³ Even though we try to treat all our children equally, it is hard to resist favoring those who are most similar to us.
    And how could it be otherwise? People who favor carriers of dissimilar alleles over carriers of similar alleles are killing off their own alleles. Before a population can be moral, creative, productive, or anything else, it must first survive and pass on its alleles.

                            Inter-Ethny Dynamics
    Now let us apply the findings of evolutionary psychology to the behavior between ethnies, which are groups of people who are not necessarily close relatives, but are more genetically-related to each other than to people in another group. Nations were first formed from ethnies to reduce internal conflicts and to protect and advance interests of the ethny vis-à-vis other ethnies, just as individuals act to advance their individual interests. Thus, “nations” were, at least in part, founded on genetic similarity. ²⁴ Today, egalitarians promote “concept nations” – politically organized groups of mixtures of ethnies who supposedly share common values, e.g., democracy, Western standards of behavior and justice, etc. Concept nations can not be stable (i.e., long lasting), however, because the individuals within them can advance their own genetic interests more by helping individuals of their own ethny than by helping individuals of other ethnies, and that is exactly what they do, for the simple reason that those who do not do that will have less reproductive success and will eventually go extinct; favoring one’s own ethny can be avoided only if the nation comprises a single ethny, i.e., multiculturalism is not stable. Moreover, the more inbred (i.e., genetically related) people within the ethnies in a mixed ethny concept nation are, the more ethnocentric they will be and the more they will act to advance the interests of their own ethny vis-à-vis other ethnies.
    When ethnies are in the same territory, they will compete for resources and there will be ethnic conflicts, the severity of which will be roughly proportional to their ethnocentrism and the genetic distance between them. ²⁵ A mutually beneficial relationship (“mutualism”) between ethnies living in the same territory is not stable because the carrying capacity of all territories is limited and each ethny either expands its own population or eventually goes extinct. ²⁶ Only if ethnies live in different territories and meet only to trade are stable, mutually beneficial relationships between them possible, ²⁷ and that is the only stable relationship between ethnies.
    When ethnies live in the same territory, their relationship will not for long be a mutually beneficial one. Instead, one ethny will be a predator and the other its prey, or one ethny will be a parasite and the other its host. In both cases, the prey or host does not consent and therefore neither relationship is stable. In a predator-prey relationship, the predator ethny uses open violence against the prey ethny, e.g., colonialism, slavery, war, local gangs. In a parasite-host relationship, however, open violence by the parasitic ethny is not possible as the host ethny is more numerous and is militarily dominant. ²⁸ Moreover, the host ethny regards the parasitic activities of the parasitic ethny as unfair, unethical, immoral, illegal, or criminal, making it necessary for the parasitic ethny to either (1) conceal its parasitism so that the host ethny is not aware that it is being parasitized or (2) incapacitate its host ethny ²⁹ so that even though its host ethny is aware that it is being parasitized, it is unable to free itself. Both require controlling the media ³⁰ and the government - a “covert coup.” These tactics are major and expensive operations requiring years to put into place. They are therefore available only to a parasitic ethny that has access to a great deal of wealth. When the host ethny discovers that it is being parasitized, and it is able to free itself, the parasite-host relationship ends, perhaps not pleasantly for those in the parasitic ethny. Neither a predator-prey relationship nor a parasite-host relationship is likely to last indefinitely because conflict is inherent in both relationships. There are two possible resolutions of ethnic conflict over territory: (1) one ethny wins and destroys or expels the other or (2) the ethnies interbreed and become a single ethny. Expelling the parasitic ethny preserves the genetic uniqueness both ethnies; interbreeding destroys it.
    Individuals within the parasitic ethny develop a set of values, even a religion, that justifies their parasitism, simply because those individuals who feel their behavior is their right and feel no remorse, shame, or guilt are more effective parasites and are therefore reproductively more successful. Individuals in the parasitic ethny are therefore selected for a lack of empathy, i.e., for sociopathy; such individuals differ genetically from everyone else in that their mirror neurons, which enable people to empathize with the feelings of others, are absent or turned off. The parasitic ethny will rather quickly achieve a high percentage of sociopaths, people who are charismatic, charming, and often well-liked, but whose only goal in life is winning, i.e., defeating those outside their ethny. ³¹ The parasitic ethny cannot become less virulent, as microbial parasites do,³² because they are too invested – genetically, socially, religiously, and culturally – in their parasitic lifestyle and less parasitic individuals within their ethny are selected against even by others in their own ethny, i.e., they do not rise to positions of influence within their ethny. Like all parasites, they are specialized and cannot easily become more generalized. ³³ Host and parasite ethnies are on a collision course and neither can back down.

    The evidence that human behavior is so strongly influenced by our genes is disturbing news to the egalitarians, who want man to be brain-washable, ³⁴ so that his behavior can be controlled, which is difficult or impossible if behavior is in our genes, even if the genetic influence is subtle. Now the findings in evolutionary psychology have become even more controversial and abhorrent to the egalitarians because, as we saw in the preceding chapter, geneticists have found that individuals of the same ethnicity and/or race share more of the same alleles than do others and, as described in the last few paragraphs, sharing alleles can strongly affect the behavior of genetically cohesive groups as well as individuals. To those of us whose minds are not self-censored, this may seem obvious, but it is an unwelcome truth to the egalitarians, for whom everyone must be genetically the same in order to be genetically equal. And not only are people genetically different, but they are genetically programmed to favor others who are genetically similar ³⁵ – horror of horrors, racism is not only genetic, but it serves our most important biological purpose – the survival of our alleles! ³⁶

1. Scientists who studied the relationship between behavior towards others and possession of similar alleles were initially called “sociobiologists” (Wilson, 1975), but they were so vilified by the egalitarians that they changed the name of their science to “evolutionary psychology.” (Barkow, 1992). Genetic similarity theory (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 69-90), i.e., "birds of a feather flock together," and population genetics are subsets of evolutionary psychology. Back

2.  "Verwandschaftsblut wird nicht durch Wasser verdünnt." (c. 1130, “Reynald the Fox”) Back

3. The premise of evolutionary psychology is that inherited behavior, like all inherited traits, is present (barring abnormalities) because it enhanced reproductive success. Back

4. Just to be clear, each parent contributes half of his (or her) child’s chromosomes and therefore half of the child’s alleles, i.e., two alleles for each gene, one from each parent. That does not mean that only half of the child’s alleles are identical to that parent’s alleles. The more of one parent’s alleles that are the same as the other parent’s alleles, the more alleles the child will have that are the same as that parent’s, if the other parent donated the corresponding allele for that gene that is in the chromosome he did not donate (and the probability that he or she will do so is ½). Thus, a person can pass on more of his alleles if he chooses a mate who is genetically more similar to himself and therefore who has more of the same alleles that he has. A child could have 100% of one parent’s alleles if one parent has a set A of alleles in one chromosome and a set B in the other chromosome, the other parent has sets B and C, and the child receives set B from one parent and set C from the other. "Sexually interacting couples who produced a child together are more genetically similar than either randomly paired individuals or sexually interacting couples in which the male is excluded from paternity. The two sexually interacting groups combined share about 50% of measured genetic markers [on average], part way between the mothers and their offspring who share 73%, and the randomly generated dyads [couples] who share 43%. Thus these results demonstrate that successful human mating follows lines of genetic similarity." (Rushton, 1988). Back

5. Each child of 100% heterozygous parents will, on average, share half his alleles with each of his siblings because the probability that any allele he receives from one of his parents will be the same allele that his sibling receives from that parent is ½. It is likely, however, that he will have more alleles in common with some siblings than he will have with other siblings. (Patterson, 1999, p. 59). We feel closer to some of our children, siblings, cousins, etc. than to others, perhaps because we share more than the average number of alleles with them for that relationship. It is theoretically possible to list every person on the planet in order according to the number of alleles they have in common with you. Generally, the order would be family at the top, then relatives, ethny, and race. Some children, siblings, etc. would be tied with other children, siblings, etc., but many would not be. Back

6. (Dawkins, 1976). Altruism as a reproductive strategy requires individuals to recognize in others the same traits that they have (and therefore probably the same alleles that they have, though the same traits may be coded for by different alleles that they do not have) and give those others preferential treatment, thereby assisting in the reproduction of copies of their own alleles. An allele may cause not only a noticeable trait but also a predisposition to be favorable to others having that trait, or an allele may be linked to another allele that causes such a predisposition. (Wikipedia, “Green-Beard Effect”; Hamilton, 1964; Dawkins, 1976, p. 89). Altruism, in the sense of putting the values of others ahead of one’s own values, is not possible, since every action we take is to achieve values that we have made our own. Back

7. Since “normal” reproduction passes on only ½ of one’s alleles, not ¾, the worker bees’ altruistic strategy is actually more reproductively successful than normal. The reason it is ¾ for the workers and not ½ is that when a queen lays an egg she can fertilize it, so that it has a full set of 32 chromosomes and become a worker, or she can leave it unfertilized so that it has only 16 chromosomes and becoming a drone. The drone then makes millions of genetically identical sperm, each with the same 16 chromosomes, and mates with a queen from another hive. When that queen uses that sperm to lay a batch of fertilized eggs, all the resulting workers in that batch will receive identical 16 chromosomes from that drone plus 16 chromosomes from their queen, which are only ½ identical (due to crossover). So, of the 32 chromosomes in the eggs that will become workers, three fourths are identical (½ + ¼ = ¾), a strong motivation for their altruistic behavior towards siblings. Even some plants recognize their relatives and act to benefit them. (Yoon, C.K., "Loyal To Its Roots," New York Times, June 10, 2008). Back

8. (Hamilton, 1975; cited in Salter, 2003, p. 54). “Relatedness,” is not the same as “kinship” or “F_ST genetic distance.” (See Chap. 12, FN 12). Also, since kinship is ½ of relatedness, the kinship between two random persons in the same ethnic group can be greater than the kinship between one of those persons and his grandparent or grandchild. Back

9. Not only that, but if a person is altruistic, then related people are also likely to have his altruistic alleles and may well reciprocate any sacrifices he makes for them. (Gardner, 2007). Back

10. In other words, Mother Nature is a racist! This is bad news for egalitarians but the blow can be softened by seeing genetically-based altruism as creating close, caring, and unselfish relationships with the genetically similar, instead of as hostility towards the genetically distant. Back

11. (Nedelcu, 2006). The genes responsible for altruism are just beginning to be identified. (Knafo, 2007). Back

12. Even microbes, e.g., bacteria, act cooperatively according to relatedness. (West, 2007; Griffin, 2004). Marmoset fraternal twins can be chimeras, each twin having some alleles of the other. Thus, when a chimeric mother has children “her” egg may have been made with the alleles of her twin. If that happens, somehow the parents know it, and the non-chimeric father of her children cares for them more, but the chimeric mother cares for them less as they have fewer of her alleles. (Ross, 2007). Back

> 13. “Raising Your $290,000 Dollar Baby,” MSN Money, Aug. 10, 2007. Back

14. Your spouse may have given your child other alleles that you also have but did not pass on to your child. Back

15. If you help a person who is genetically distant from you, you may decrease your reproductive success if persons who do share your alleles have to compete with the person you help, e.g., you help genetically-distant immigrants enter the country. Similarly, if you mate with a genetically-distant person, your child may carry fewer of your alleles than a person your child competes with; in that case, you would be more reproductively successful if you had not had the child. Back

16. That ordering suggests a preference in the opposite direction, i.e., for one’s own species over other species, one’s own race over other races, etc. This is the basis for nepotism, favoring relatives over non-relatives. For the same reason, one favors those of his own ethny and race over those of other ethnies and races. Back

17. (Littlefield, 1986). One sees this even in the news and television crime shows, where white victims, especially children and women, draw more interest from white viewers than shows with black victims. Back

18. The extent of a male’s inborn cuckold-preventing behavior is surprising. It includes jealous rage and deeper thrusts during intercourse after a long absence to “vacuum out” the sperm of other men. (Shackelford, 2007; Baker, 2006). It is so important to a male that his alleles be passed on, even versus those of a closely related male, that even circumcision (Wilson, 2008) and infanticide (DeWaal, 1997, pp. 118-123) have been attributed to it. Back

19. Another good example is the Moslem countries in the Middle East, such as Iraq, where nearly half of the married couples are first or second cousins. This creates an intense genetic interest in members of one’s own clan, as they share so many of a person’s alleles, which makes democracy difficult (Sailer, 2003) because democracy is clan against clan for the spoils of the state. Back

20. Because of this “parental uncertainty,” men are much more concerned that their children look like them, which may be one reason why there is more miscegenation by white women than by white men. It is a common belief that children do look more like their fathers, especiallly when the the children are very young; evolutionary psychology implies that children who look like their fathers would receive more support from their fathers and would therefore have greater reproductive success. Back

21. (Rushton, 2005a & 2005b). Rushton has a hilarious collection of slides of people and their very similarly-appearing pets. Men are attracted to women who look like their mother, and women to men who are similar to their father (Bereczkei, 2008), thereby increasing the number of their own alleles in their children. Back

22. A person rates his own face, morphed into the opposite sex, as most attractive, even when he doesn’t know it is his morphed face. (Penton-Voak, 1999). Back

23. The nucleus accumbens in our brain gives us pleasure to induce us to increase our fitness, e.g., at the prospect of obtaining sex or money; conversely, we feel discomfort at the prospect of our fitness being reduced. (Knutson, 2008). Of course, sometimes maladaptive culture or psychopathology interferes with our programming, and we act contrary to our programming. Back

24. A “nation” was originally synonymous with an ethny; American Indian “nations” are good examples. Indeed, the word "nation" comes from the Latin "nationem," which meant an ethny or race. People in an ethny are not only genetically related, but are culturally similar, e.g., in language, religion, and traditions. “[A people constitute] a nation because they are conscious of being ‘members one of another’ and of being different from the peoples of other lands. They are, and always have been, an inbreeding people. They have a particular affection for their native land. . . . If their country or its people are in jeopardy . . . they rally to its defense; they would give their lives freely to preserve the integrity of the land and the liberty of its people... They are sharers in a common interest and in a common destiny; they hope and believe that their stock will never die out. They inhabit a sharply delimited territory and claim to own it.” (Salter, 2002a, quoting Keith, A., A New Theory of Human Evolution, 1968/1947, pp. 316–17). Note that countries whose boundaries were not ethnically demarcated, e.g., the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Iraq, and many African countries, are mired in violent conflicts. The genetic distance between races is greater than the genetic distance between ethnies within a race, so much of what applies to ethnies will also apply to races. Back

25. The reader who is interested in the evolutionary psychology of ethnic conflict dynamics is referred to the trilogy of Kevin MacDonald, his magnum opus, A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and especially The Culture of Critique (1998). Back

26. See the discussion of Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion. Back

27. In a symbiotic relationship, individuals of different species cooperate for their mutual benefit, e.g., a clown fish and an anemone or us and the bacteria in our gut, but that occurs only because each species supplies to the other something that it cannot provide for itself. But within the same species, e.g., two human ethnies, it is difficult to think of a needed good that each ethny can supply to the other, but cannot make itself. The closest approximation might be manual labor, supplied by blacks, and intellectual labor, supplied by whites, but that was tried in slavery and apartheid and was not stable. Back

28. (William Engdahl) calls Great Britain a parasitic country because, when it was an empire, it exploited other countries (e.g., India, China, South Africa, the Middle East, and the United States), but it was militarily dominant and did not have to conceal its exploitation, so it was mostly a predator. Because a parasitic ethny has interests that conflict with the interests of its host ethny, a parasitic ethny-host ethny relationship can be considered to be "a nation within a nation." Although the parasitic ethny is a net parasite, not every individual in a parasitic ethny is parasitic; indeed, since there is a range of traits within an ethny, some members of a parasitic ethny may be very productive and beneficial to the host ethny. Nevertheless, productive members will sympathize and usually support parasitic members because they are more closely related to them than they are to members of the host ethny.
    Parasitic ethnies will also differ in their degree of parasitism. The degree of parasitism could be determined by the net transfer of wealth, in dollars, between the two populations, but dollars do not capture the entirety of what individuals value (Fuerle, 1986, 2003) and the harm done to the host ethny by parasitism can far exceed the benefit to the parasitic ethny. That is why stopping the parasitism can cause an economic boom for the host ethny, e.g., Germany and Japan in the 1930’s. Like a thief who steals $100 worth of copper piping from a house, causing $40,000 in damage, the "parasite load" can cost the host ethny much more than the benefit the parasitic ethny obtains. That is why, when the parasite is removed, the recovery of the host can be dramatic. Germany and Japan boomed after they freed themselves of the Jewish-controlled usury banking system (i.e., a central bank creates money out of thin air, then loans it to the government, charging the government interest on their debt).
    The degree of parasitism could also be determined by exposing all the activities of the parasitic ethny, including wealth transfers, then observing the extent of the action by the host ethny against them. Gypsies are usually expelled, though Great Britain has foolishly welcomed them. And if Jews were assets, they would not have been expelled from almost all European countries, sometimes more than once. (F. Roderich-Stoltheim, The Riddle of the Jews Success, pp. 25-28, translated from German in 1927 by C. Pownall). Blacks have so far been expelled only from England (edicts by Queen Elizabeth I in 1596 and 1601), though Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa (Peoria, Illinois, Oct. 16, 1854), as did Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay. (Putnam, 1961, p. 62). Wealth transfers and “white flight” clearly show that the white-black relationship is host-parasite. It is not the white population as a whole that desires the presence of other ethnies in its midst, but individuals within the white population who benefit at the expense of the remainder of the white population. In the U.S., businesses benefit from low wage workers and the federal government has created a “refugee industry” that profits from subsidies for refugees. (Allen, T., “Time to Cap the Refugee Industry,” VDARE.com, May 6, 2003). Back

29. A parasitic ethny gaining control of the government and media of the host ethny is analogous to animal parasites that gain control of nervous system of its host and cause the host to behave in ways that benefit the parasite, but are detrimental to the host. Here are a few examples: the Lancet liver fluke in ants; the Toxoplasma protozoa in rats and mice; "brain-jacking" in crustaceans by the thorny-headed worm; and a parasitic wasp that turns its host into a bodyguard. Back

30. The uncontrolled internet is now the primarily source of what is really going on, while the controlled media (TV, movies, big newspapers, magazines, and book publishers) is like a magician's beautiful assistant, distracting you so you don't look behind the curtain. Back

31. (Stout, 2005). Nor do sociopaths have any compunctions about defeating those within their own ethny, but sociopaths are intelligent enough to realize that they need their co-ethnics. Worse, although frustration creates anger in all of us, in a sociopath, whose goal is winning over and defeating others, frustration creates an intense need for revenge against and humiliation of the host ethny – it is not enough to just defeat the enemy. (Keeling, 1947). Conversely, a host ethny is selected by the parasitic ethny for the opposite qualities – wealth creating, trusting, altruistic, welcoming, and decent. Back

32. While a natural parasite that needs its host to infect another host usually become less deadly, because deadly parasites perish with their host (Ewald, 1996), for a parasitic ethnic group that would require restraint from their most sociopathic members out of concern for others in their ethny, behavior that requires the empathy they lack. Back

33. (Chap. 4, Rule 3). Virtually all large species have parasites that are specialized to that species, and there are even some species of parasites are specialized to live off another species of parasite. One may well expect that, like other parasites, a parasitic ethny will be too specialized to be successful once it is separated from its host ethny and, indeed, that is the case; all black-run territories are economic and political disasters (Chapter 15) and Israel requires massive military and economic aid from the U.S. and Europe to stay afloat. Back

> 34. The Student Accountability in Community (SAC) program at Michigan State University forced students to pay for, attend, and “pass” brainwashing sessions if they make “sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks at a meeting” or else be kicked out of the University. (Lukianoff, G., "Thought Reform and Compelled Speech at Michigan State, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Dec. 14, 2006). In 2007, the University of Delaware had a “treatment” program for students with “incorrect” beliefs. A "racist" was defined as "one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States. . . . By this definition, people of color cannot be racists,..." and two of the requirements were: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society." and "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." (Unruh, B., “University defends teaching students all whites ‘racist’,” World Net Daily, Nov. 1, 2007). Back

35. Even different areas of the brain are used for people who are different and who are similar. (Mitchell, 2006). Back

36. Xenophobia and the avoidance of people outside one’s own group may be an instinctual disease-avoidance mechanism as a person is likely to have antibodies to the diseases in his own population, but not to the diseases of other populations. (Navarrete, 2006; Fincher, 2008; Faulkner, 2004). Note how Native Americans in both North and South America were decimated by diseases brought over by the Europeans. (The reverse did not happen because the Indians were less concentrated and more migratory, making it more difficult for contagious diseases to become established.) Nevertheless, the most compelling reason for zenophobia and racism is that the "other" is a competitor who carries fewer of one's alleles than those in one's own ethny. Back