There is an argument within the most autistic subculture on the internet, neanderthal identitarians, about whether neanderthal altruism is good, bad, or merely inappropriate for the modern day.
I represent the minority faction, which claims that the unrequited altruism of neanderthals operating in their genetic niche as geniuses is a special case of cross-group kin selection which is both morally good (without reservation) and the optimal reproductive strategy. I’ll refer to my position as “kithism”, taken from the root word “kith”, because I believe the fundamental disagreement comes from the conflation of kin selection and multi-level selection.
The majority faction can be described as the “treestumpers”, which is an Edenist meme that can be traced back to a video of a homeless guy in Canada who lives in a treestump and sucks dicks to subsidize his meth addiction. Treestumpers believe that altruism should only be practiced as part of a multi-level selection strategy, so that when the greater group fragments into atomized individuals living parasitically off the remaining accomplishments of the former civilization the genius’s altruism becomes inappropriate, an abstract form of cuckoldry. They are therefore predisposed to wait for the mass of parasites to undergo a Malthusian die-off, merely concerning themselves with increasing their own individual fitness in the meantime, so that they will be able to contribute to the next group-selected civilization as it arises.
A third group, probably the smallest, believes the optimal strategy is to form a breakaway nation of neanderthals which only breeds within itself and takes an isolationist foreign policy. I’ll offer a brief criticism of the third group first.
1. There is no reason to believe the neanderthal phenotype breeds true, as the genius phenotype has already been proven not to breed true. What would the ratio of neurotypical children to aspergic children be in this society? What would be done with the former?
2. The ratio of males to females expressing this phenotype is likely four-to-one, which raises serious issues with creating a sustainable breeding population that have not even been raised.
3. It has never been done successfully before. Where are the other neanderthal ethnostates? If they are adaptive, then we ought to be able to point to several that have existed for thousands of years.
4. Isolationism is a ridiculous foreign policy that indicates a negligent disinterest in outside affairs. No nation which is pridefully ignorant of outside nations will ever be able to win a war with them.
This latter group can be most accurately described as “Edenists”, so that’s the label I’ll use.
Ultimately, they are arguing in favor of insularity and purity-spiraling, which is why they do not engage in productive efforts toward their political ends and thus a brief criticism is sufficient.
Both kithists and treestumpers share the belief that the European genetic strategy is predicated on optimally exploiting the production of the genius phenotype. The argument boils down to the question of who needs whom more in the context of this strategy, geniuses or non-genius whites. I claim that geniuses are obligate symbionts and non-geniuses are facultative parasites. Treestumpers claim that geniuses are facultative symbionts and non-geniuses are obligate parasites.
Obligate symbionts are mutualists that tend to have a nutritional function and typically occur in insects that feed on imbalanced diets such as plant saps or cellulose . In contrast, facultative symbionts have a much broader array of effects, ranging from mutualism to manipulation of reproduction .
A facultative parasite is an organism that may resort to parasitic activity, but does not absolutely rely on any host for completion of its life cycle.
An obligate parasite or holoparasite is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host.
To reiterate, treestumpers claim the population of white normies are an obligate parasite phenotype dependent on the altruism of the host population of genius phenotypes. Alternatively, they may claim both populations are facultative symbionts or facultative parasites. However, I haven’t seen either argument put forth. Kithists claim the genius population is an obligate symbiont on the normie host population which only successfully reproduces as a group-selected phenotype.
My argument for kithism is fairly straightforward.
1. Geniuses do not reproduce anywhere near replacement levels and therefore cannot survive as a separate breeding population (i.e. not facultative).
2. Genius does not breed true. Two genius parents are unlikely to produce a child who is also a genius.
3. Neurotypical human groups likely existed for a long time before shamans existed, suggesting their relationship with geniuses is facultative. See the neanderthal origin theory and Texas Arcane’s response.
This evolution suggests that white people would be able to return to a more primitive sort of existence, painting their butts blue and running around the forest worshiping cargo planes and so on. Geniuses, however, would be produced at a lower and lower rate until the entire world descended into primitive savagery and there would no longer be any demand for group-selecting high technologies, since no one else would have it either. In this sense geniuses can be thought of as creating the demand for their phenotype by altruistically giving away their inventions.
For a micro-level example, if I increase the fitness of my extended family then we will outcompete any other extended families that don’t have altruistic geniuses in them, so that all surviving families will have one genius. But then my family may lose to another family with two geniuses in it. This becomes an arms race to increase the prevalence of genius phenotypes in our genepools until we hit an optimized ratio of geniuses-to-normies. It’s possible this equilibrium may be predicted by Hamilton’s rule:
Interacting organisms may have an evolutionary incentive to help each other (or at least to hurt each other less) if they share genes, and the magnitude of this incentive should increase with the degree of relatedness between them; this is the central tenet of William D. Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory 14– 16 (the term kin selection theory was coined by John Maynard-Smith 11 and is here used as a synonym for ‘inclusive fitness theory’ to comply with its conventional use). This tenet is encapsulated in a very simple form in Hamilton’s rule, which states that a (gene for a) social behavior is favored by natural selection if rb- c > 0, where c is the fitness cost to the individual performing the behavior, b equals the fitness benefit to the recipient(s), and r is the genetic relatedness between them 14, 15.”
However, I avoided calling this “kin-ism” because one of the consequences of geniuses being a phenotype which shapes the cultural environment rather than the genepool directly (i.e. geniuses act on the level of nurture rather than natural selection) is that geniuses will often prefer their culture-shaping work over family connections. This makes them a distinct phenomenon from the “gay uncle” type of kin selection. What is most notable about this difference is that the utility of genius altruism for the genius’s reproductive strategy does not depend on the existence of other altruists in their extended kin. It only depends on the creation of the sort of high-complexity cultural environment which necessitates more altruistic geniuses in order for host populations to engage in group competition.
Going back to the example of my own extended family, let’s assume that my goal is for the world to have more geniuses in it. If, by my altruism, I shape the culture so that only families with two or more geniuses can compete, then even if my own extended family gets wiped out in group competition the genius phenotype still wins. So in purely selfish terms it is always correct for geniuses to act altruistically, even if it is not requited. This is different from the strategy for facultative phenotypes, for whom unrequited altruism just means they’re getting cucked.In that case, where the group is obviously going to lose in group competition due to high defection, it makes the most sense for the individual to invest more in their own reproductive fitness to try to survive the extinction of the greater group.
The central tenet of multilevel (or group) selection theory conveys that selection not only acts on individuals but can act (simultaneously) on multiple levels of biological organization, including cells and/or groups 48. This view suggests that even if behaviors that benefit other individuals are selectively disadvantageous at the level of the individual, they might still evolve if they are advantageous at—and hence selected for on—a higher level of the biological hierarchy (e.g. on the group or colony level) 6, 48. Altruism, for instance, is costly for the altruistic individual, but groups containing a higher proportion of altruistic individuals usually have a competitive advantage over groups that are composed mostly of selfish individuals (e.g. because altruistic groups are more productive or superior in direct confrontations). In such situations, altruism can evolve—driven by a process of selection between groups—even against the background of selection favoring selfishness within each group (e.g. 49, 50).”
If genius is not a special form of altruism as I’ve described above, but rather can be comprehensively explained as generalized mutualism, then the treestumpers are correct.