Immigration And The Unmentionable Question Of Ethnic Interests

[Previously by Kevin MacDonald:


Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off "Racist"?
and


Thinking About Neoconservatism
]

Arguments
 over immigration are

usually limited to cultural or economic factors.
Political scientists

like

Samuel Huntington
point out that the

culture of the count
ry
will

change dramatically

if there is a continued influx of

Spanish-speaking immigrants
. And economists

like

George Borjas

have demonstrated
that large masses
of newcomers depress wages and create enormous demands
on the

environment

and on

public services
, especially

health care
and

education
.

These lines of argument are,
of course, legitimate. But there always seems to
be

an element of timidity present.

No one wants to talk about the 800-lb. gorilla
sitting over there in the corner—the issue of ethnic
interests.

Any
attempt to bring up the

ethnic issue
is

usually
strangled in the cradle. Indeed,

other lines of argument are frequently met by

assertions

that they are
masking ethnic concerns. Thus immigration
enthusiasts are quick to

smear

arguments that immigration will harm the environment as


"the greening of hate."

This strategy has been highly effective—because,
if there is one area where the intellectual left has won
a complete and decisive victory, it is in pathologizing
any

consideration by the European majority of the
United States

of
its

own ethnic interests. By "pathologizing"
I mean not only that people have been indoctrinated that
their

commonsense perceptions

of

race
and ethnicity are an "illusion,"
but,

further,
that the

slightest assertion
of ethnic self-interest

or consciousness by the European majority of the
United States is the sign of a

grave moral defect
—so grave that it is a matter of
psychiatric concern.

Of
course, this is hypocritical. While assertions of ethnic
interest by Europeans are

stigmatized, assertions of ethnic interest by

other groups

are utterly commonplace.

Mexican activists loudly

advertise
their goal of reconquering the
Southwestern United States via immigration from
Mexico—which would obviously be in the ethnic interests
of Mexicans but would presumably

harm the interests of

European-Americans.

Jewish organizations, in the forefront of the
intellectual and political

battle
to pathologize the ethnic interests of
European Americans, have simultaneously been

deeply involved
in organizing coalitions of minority
ethnic groups to assert their political interests in
Congress and in the workplace. Plus the Jewish effort

on behalf of

their ethnic brethren in Israel is legendary—and can
only be described as awesomely effective.

I
believe we should get rid of the hypocrisy and discuss
ethnic interests openly and honestly.

Until
recently, ethnic interests were understood intuitively
by everyone. People have an interest,
or "stake"
in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that
parents have a genetic interest in raising their
children.
By bringing up my children, I ensure that my
unique genes are passed on to the next generation. This
is the fundamental principle of

Darwin`s theory of evolution
. But in defending my
ethnic interests, I am doing the same thing—ensuring
that the genetic uniqueness of my

ethnic group

is passed into the next generation.

And this
is the case even if I don`t have children myself: I
succeed genetically when my ethnic group as a whole
prospers.

A major
step forward in the scientific analysis of ethnicity is
Frank Salter`s book


On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an
Age of Mass Migration
. Salter`s basic purpose is
to quantify how much genetic overlap people in the same


ethnic
group

or race share, as compared to people from different
ethnic groups or races.

Different human ethnic groups and races have been
separated for thousands of years. During this period,
they have evolved some genetic distinctiveness.

But,
Salter notes, measuring these differences is now a

straightforward process
,

thanks to the work of researchers like

Luigi Cavalli-Sforza
whose book



The History and Geography of Human Genes

documents the

genetic distances
between human groups.

It turns
out that the
distances between human populations correspond
approximately to what a reasonably well-informed
historian or demographer or tourist would expect.

For instance,

Scandinavians

have greater overlap of genetic interests with other
Scandinavians than other Europeans.

Europeans have a greater genetic interest in other
Europeans than in Africans.

In fact, on average, people are as closely related to
other members of their ethnic group, versus the rest of
the world, as they are closely related to their
grandchildren, versus the rest of their ethnic group.

Salter
suggests we think of it this way: citing authors like

Garret Hardin

and


E. O. Wilson
, he argues that we can`t just keep on
expanding our numbers and usage of resources
indefinitely.
If immigrants contribute to the economy in ways that the
native population cannot, the national carrying capacity
is raised. But if they are a drain on resources or even
of average productivity, they must take the place of
potential native-born in the ultimate total population.
It`s a zero-sum game.

Let`s suppose that immigrants have equal capacities to
the native born.
Then if
10,000 Danes emigrate to England and ultimately

substitute for
10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the
genetic equivalent of 167 children (or siblings)
in the ultimate total population,

because
of the close genetic relationship between

Denmark

and England

This
is not a great loss.

However, if 10,000 Bantu emigrate to England and

substitute for
10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the
genetic equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).

And, of course, it works the opposite way as well: If
10,000 English emigrate to a Bantu territory and

substitute for
10,000

Bantu natives,
the average Bantu loses the equivalent of 10,854
children (or siblings).

This is a staggering loss. Small wonder that people tend
to resist the immigration of others into their
territory. At stake is an enormous family of close
relatives. And history is replete with examples of
displacement migration—for example,

Europeans displacing

Native Americans,
Jews

displacing Palestinians
in Israel,

Albanians

displacing Serbs from

Kosovo.

All of the losers in these struggles would have been
better off genetically and every other way,
if they had prevented the immigration of the group that
eventually came to dominate the area.

Nevertheless, the big story of immigration since World
War II is that wealthy Western societies, with economic
opportunities and a high level of public goods such as
medical care
and education, have become magnets for
immigration from around the world. Because of this
immigration, and high fertility among many immigrant
ethnic groups, the result is

rapid displacement of the founding populations,
not only in the United States, but also in

Australia
,

Belgium
,

Canada
,

France
, and

The Netherlands
,

Germany

and

Italy
.

If
present trends continue, the United States`

founding
European-derived population is set to
become a minority by the middle of this century. In the

British Isles,
the submergence date is just two
generations later, around 2100.

European populations that are allowing themselves to be
displaced
are playing a very dangerous game—dangerous
because of the long history of ethnic strife

furnishes them no guarantees about the future.
Throughout history there has been a

propensity for

majority ethnic groups
to oppress minorities. A
glance at Jewish history is sufficient to make clear the
dangers faced by an ethnic group that

does not have a state
and political apparatus to
protect

its interests.

It does not take an overactive imagination to

see that how coalitions of minority groups
could compromise the interests of formerly dominant
European groups. We already see numerous examples where
coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence
public policy against the

interests

of the European majority—for example,
"affirmative
action"

hiring
quotas

and
 immigration
policy.

Besides coalitions of ethnic minorities, the main danger
facing Europeans is that wealthy, powerful European

elites

are often unaware of,
or

do not value
, their own ethnic interests. Frequently,
they

in effect sell out their own ethnic groups for

short-run
personal gain
. There are many contemporary examples,
most notably the efforts by

major corporations to import

low wage workers
and

outsource

jobs to foreign countries.

Of course,

these elite Westerners

are
the last to suffer personally from ethnic replacement.
They
are able to live in

gated communities

and send their children to

private schools.
They are intensely interested in obtaining wealth and
power in order to promote the interests of their
immediate family,
or, sometimes, their social class.
But they completely ignore their enormous family of
ethnic kin.

This extreme individualism of Western elites is a tragic
mistake for all ethnic Europeans—including
the elites themselves,
who are losing untold millions of ethnic kin by
promoting mass immigration of non-Europeans.
It is a case of putting short-run

class interest

and self-interest

before long-run

ethnic interest.

In the long run, globalism and multiculturalism are a
threat to almost everyone`s ethnic interest because both
ideologies actually legitimize and increase ethnic
competition. Globalism results in increased competition
because everyone has potential access to everyone else`s
territory, opening opportunities for plundering
another`s backyard. Multicultural societies sanction
ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become
cauldrons of competing ethnic interests.

In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some
ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic
groups differ in
intelligence and ability to control economic resources.
They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the
extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group
interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward
other groups. They

differ
in their numbers,

fertility
,
and the
extent to which they encourage responsible parenting.
They differ in the amount of land and other resources
held at any point in time and in their political power.

Given
these differences, it
is
difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations

among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status
quo in territory and resource control is very

arduous, as can be seen by the

ill-fated attempts

of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the

1924 immigration law
. Accepting a status quo would
not be in the interests of groups that have recently
lost land or numbers. It would also likely be
unacceptable both to groups with relatively low numbers
and control of resources and, conversely, to
high-fertility groups.

Yet the
alternative—that all humans renounce their ethnic group
loyalties—seems unrealistic and utopian.

Indeed,
given that some ethnic groups, especially ones with high
levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization, will
undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the
foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic
loyalties by other groups means only their surrender

and

 defeat

and

disappearance—the Darwinian dead end of
extinction.

The
future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a

Darwinian competition.

And ethnicity will play a

crucial role.

Salter`s conclusion: the
best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an
ethnostate—a political unit
that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic
interests of its citizens. Promoting ethnostates is not
only fair, it
also

serves the interests of most peoples. All existing
nations are vulnerable to displacement by highly
mobilized ethnic minorities, especially if the
minorities have


high fertility
.

As Frank Salter argues, a far better solution is to
acknowledge everyone`s right to live in a state
dominated by

their ethnic group.

This "universal nationalism" would allow people
the right to live in an ethnostate that would

protect
their ethnic interests—and therefore,
by extension,
the genetic interests of the vast majority of the human
race.


Kevin MacDonald [email
him] is Professor of Psychology at California State
University-Long Beach.