I hold to no such idea that there is no right or wrong. Only that certain strategies have greater projectable worth. The primacy of the individual, I think, has a fairly impressive historical success record, and is therefore an over-arching principle I choose to adhere to. It informs how I approach basic political problems.

I try to be both practical and idealistic in deciding on issues that affect the lives of real individuals. And I am by no means deaf to persuasion and evidence when deciding course of action.

>> Only that certain strategies have greater projectable worth.

But what is "worth"? That's the main issue. "White nationalists" have one standard of "worth": the preservation of the "white race". Godless capitalist favors an aracial cognitive elitist immigration policy because he thinks this ensures the technological, financial and military supremacy of the US. That's a different standard of "worth".

Is there something objective which makes one of the two better than other?

I mean 'worth' as the gauged effectiveness of a political value (i.e. Democracy has greater worth than Monarchy. Secularism has greater worth than Theocracy).

Where are you going with this? At no point have I presented values as a religious conviction. Again, there is a balance between expedient actions and projectable values. Between practicality and idealism. And, yes, even between the individual and society, I admit. In all cases I look for what seems best as according to my knowledge of history and society. Perhaps I'm wrong in some or most matters, but I by no means have shut my mind off to any matter, nor have I to the opinions of others.

>> I mean 'worth' as the gauged effectiveness of a political value (i.e. Democracy has greater worth than Monarchy. Secularism has greater worth than Theocracy).

But what is effectiveness? One cannot speak of effectiveness without also speaking of a value. I mean, something is 'effective' if it produces a desired 'effect'. So, "white nationalism" in immigration would be "effective" in producing the "effect" of "white purity".

So, I think that "gauged effectiveness" cannot be used to e.g., show that one immigration policy is better than another. For example, an immigration policy of "admit only beautiful people" would be effective in beautifying the population, while one of "admit only smart people" would make it smarter, etc.

They'd all be effective in what they're trying to do. But what should they be trying to do?

>> Where are you going with this? At no point have I presented values as a religious conviction.

I'm trying to see what the standard of value is. We asked whether there is a "good" and then we said that it's when something has a "projectable worth". And then, we asked what "worth" is and we saw that it is "gauged effectiveness". But, since "effectiveness" assumes a goal, we must now think what the "good goal" is. Is there such a thing?

Frank Salter makes very clear in his analysis that the ultimate interests are ethnic genetic interests. He also makes clear how those who wish - for whatever reason - to attack the ethnic genetic interests of European-derived peoples can come up with many "aracial schemes" to fool European-derived peoples. The problem with "valuing the individual" is that if only European-derived peoples believe this as a group (and that's a fact), then they _will_ be displaced by others who act more collectively. Yes, indeed, brownsters will tell us how much we need their "cognitive elitism" as they and their fellow coloreds displace White people. Once the displacement is done though, you watch how ethnic collectivism will suddenly 'trump' individual 'elitism' when the now-minority Whites make a 'plea' for fairness.
My attitude is clear: ethnic genetic interests must always take precedence over all else.

"My attitude is clear: ethnic genetic interests must always take precedence over all else."l

Thats not really my attitude but the question is which advantage will the immigration produce at first for Europeans, and secondly for mankind.
The immigration do not solve the problem of poverty in the countries of the 3rd world.
The immigration will not be useful if we want a collective and more moral society in the west. (Because I think a common identity makes it easier)
Biologically our ancestors, and I believe that the Europeans are some of the most progressive races of mankind, will be displaced and so there heritage genetically, and probably even culturally will disappear and so far there is no group beside the East Asians which could substitute them for the progression of mankind.

Immigrants bring their cultural heritage and conflicts in western countries. This further divides it and makes it more difficult to produce a new collectivistic common sence against the selfish destruction in the name of individualism and liberalism on the one side, and religious/superstitious fanatics on the other.

The only one which have an advantage of this on the middle run are the members of the present corrupt selfish and hedonistic establishment and a short number of immigrants.
All others, even the not emigrating members of the races which are now growing have no personal advantage in the whole.
They loose members of their elite, their cultural system will be destroyed, and the most of them will still live in poverty under controll of a now multiracial establishment.
Well what a progression...

Furtheron the most immigrants as I said are neither more intelligent or in another way better than the European people. (For the temperate zones of course they are the best races of mankind so far)
So why should they displace their own people?
In fact they just do it to keep the system for some profiteurs running. Cheap workers, a more fractioned = more helpless society with no common sence, and the idioty of the individualistic american consumption way of life which will be propagated all over the world.
Nature will be lost, Europeans will be eradicated and the whole mankind will degenerate, and those who controll the media making the "democratic" politic.
What a great future for all of us! Brownsters or Whitish!
Just hope everyone of us is coming in the establishment, and if the conscience hurts, take some drugs or travel around the new order world of multiracial selfish capitalism.
The only positive thing would be, if through genetic engineering the elite would change their children to more intelligent ones and "hopefully" with more moral and fantasy, this children will kill there parents and make it better.
Because its unbelievable for me that a moral intact intelligent human being which is not totally corrupted would like this kind of society which will arise if the development goes on.

Not to mention the economic consequences of constant uncontrolled immigration like it is a reality in US and Europe.
And this is not just a problem of whites but even of the established immigrants too!
The constant stream of immigrants destroys developed structures on the jobmarket.
Due globalization many industries are lost in the West and what happens to make it worse? For the few good jobs there come more immigrants.
Are they sooo much more intelligent and better educated? If so there must be something wrong with the education system and the reproduction of whites but oooops, thats no real problem for politic and there are no consequent measures to make it better.
Furtheron they are mainly just one thing: CHEAPER!
So the problem is this development makes just a small amount of non-white people really more wealthy but destroys the good structures for all whites!
So why is this good for US or Europe?
For how many?
For 10? For 100?
But definetely NOT for the majority!
What all should think about is the concept of indivudialism, because maybe this concept is not the best for whites, for mankind AND for the majority of human beings.

I don't know anything about Frank Salter; never heard of him until a few posts ago (or van den Berg either).

Excluding Rienzi's last sentence, and placing qualifications on his first sentence, every single other word in Rienzi's comment above is absolutely, one-hundred percent not only correct, and not only a total no-brainer, but SUCH A NO-BRAINER that anyone claiming to not see it must be pretending, in my humble opinion. It's not possible that people honestly don't see all that. They're playing some kind of game -- some kind of self-interest game or some kind of holier-than-thou game.

As far as valuing the individual goes, I would rather see everything I hold dear politically, ethnically, racially, and culturally go down to utter defeat than compromise in regard to civil rights, to absolute guarantees of fair Anglo-Saxon treatment for all individuals regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, etc. But that's all individuals as individuals, not all nations as nations or races as races.

We've all heard the expression in law, "Your rights end where mine begin." Races, ethnicities ("ethnies," to use Rienzi's word), ethnocultures, countries, nations, religions, etc., have a right to exist. All of them have that right; not just non-white ones, Harvard "Professor" Noel Ignatiev's bullsh*t Marxist sophistries notwithstanding. There is such a thing as excessive incompatible immigration. It needs to be stopped and humane ways of restoring the previous ethnic balances undertaken (primarily by use of financial incentives). This stuff doesn't apply to any individuals "as individuals." It applies only indirectly to "individuals," in so far as they may be caught up in the larger, perfectly legitimate questions of whether significant volumes of race-changing immigration should be permitted to come into a country. It applies only to those questions -- inappropriate volumes of immigration of incompatible groups whose presence cannot help but make a decisive demographic difference. It applies to no individuals "as individuals," each of whom should be accorded total Anglo-Saxon fairness, rights, respect, and equality. But no collective individual rights trump the rights of nations to national existence.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever: a race war is being fought and the pretense of "race-neutrality" is simply a weapon used by one side in the war. That pretense will suddenly vanish into thin air once it's no longer needed, and then all the dupes and useful idiots will be surprised indeed to see the real face behind the Marxist mask.

Excluding Rienzi's last sentence, and placing qualifications on his first sentence, every single other word in Rienzi's comment above is absolutely, one-hundred percent not only correct, and not only a total no-brainer, but SUCH A NO-BRAINER that anyone claiming to not see it must be pretending, in my humble opinion. It's not possible that people honestly don't see all that. They're playing some kind of game -- some kind of self-interest game or some kind of holier-than-thou game.

I disagree.

A) You don't know what he's talking about with "genetic ethnic interests", it is not a superficial phrase but a sociobiological theory with a specific meaning, so you very much shouldn't accept it as "100% correct" without knowing what it entails.

B) It is not "[people who wish] to attack the ethnic genetic interests of European-derived peoples" who are coming up with "aracial schemes to fool European-derived peoples.". 'Attack' and 'fool' are real words with specific meanings. The people who are coming up with these "aracial schemas" mostly are European-derived people, shaped and informed by a unique history.

C) Yes, indeed, brownsters will tell us how much we need their "cognitive elitism" as they and their fellow coloreds displace White people.

Godless has never advocated anything close to "displacement" levels of immigration. In fact I can't think of many in the blogosphere who have said one word about immigration, much less of drastically cutting/reforming it to the level and frequency our website has. The words aren't matching the pictures, Rienzi. Furthermore, that human-beings are somehow programmed to act in the interests of "their race" in general, and that Godless is acting in the interest of his specifically are unproven assumptions, at best. Theoretically terrible & empirically false, at worst.

Trust me Unadorned, you're not dealing with Richard Poe here, you're dealing with a guy who writes articles on neo-nazi web-sites. You might want to re-evaluate who you campaign for. Your blood won't be welcome in his blood-test nation, and since you're a member of the "most dangerous race" I would fear where he thinks it belongs.

(Also I wonder if Rienzi thinks America should contain Italians? Or does he volunteer himself to Italy to let the American Anglos live out their "genetic ethnic interests". How many hypothetical Anglo children does each Italian displace, Rienzi? Oh sure, he'll tell you that whites need to band together to fight the "colored threat", but we know from his own theories where his "ultimate" interests are. :D )

"The primacy of the individual, I think, has a fairly impressive historical success record, and is therefore an over-arching principle I choose to adhere to."

Actually it doesn't. The historical law is towards less individualism with increased social complexity.

The rise in Western individualism is because of the decline of Catholic Church in Europe. The collectivist social order was imposed from Italy and without the church the west collapsed into individualism.

The success of the west can be explained by location and partly by IQ.

"But, since "effectiveness" assumes a goal, we must now think what the "good goal" is. Is there such a thing?"

As animals, only genetic code matters.

>> As animals, only genetic code matters.

Humans are not just animals, they are rational, political animals.

Caitlin: "The success of the west can be explained by location and partly by IQ."

Location?

"As with animals, only genetic code matters."

Her pen name notwithstanding, the above pronouncement by Caitlin and others of hers make it hard to believe she's female.

"Location?"

The geography of Europe - it was never unified like China. This created competition between states.

"Her pen name notwithstanding, the above pronouncement by Caitlin and others of hers make it hard to believe she's female."

Meaning what? That only males can be biological reductionists? All creatures are born, spread genes and die. That is a fact for everyone.

"Humans are not just animals, they are rational, political animals."

And as animals, the "rational, political" aspects must have evolved to serve evolutionary survival, which is therefore the goal (wether you think of it as preordained purpose or not, you don't need to believe in God to see things as having a practical meaning in nature that can be discovered by study; and study says it must have evolved for a reason).

I agree with Jason that "Only that certain strategies have greater projectable worth." I disagree with him that individualism - a personal or cultural value - is how to measure that. I don't believe that values are relative, I just see todays individualism as just another belief system.

By being against individualism I should have pointed out that I was referring to the modern western concept of individualism, not for example Junger's "anarch". For example. I believe in decentralisation but based on families and communities, not individuals and corporations.

But, since "effectiveness" assumes a goal, we must now think what the "good goal" is. Is there such a thing?"

To over-simplify for this discussion, I would say that humans can exist in one of four states: #1 happy and free, #2 unhappy and free, #3 happy and unfree*, and #4 unhappy and unfree.

I support that which I think might ensure that more people will end up in category #1. The states are listed in their order of desirability. My values and goals are based on which state I would prefer for myself and therefore (through empathy and the Kantian logic of reciprocity)others.

*by 'unfree', I don't necessarily mean physical capitivity, though it can refer to that too. I refer to libertarian freedoms: political and legal equality, etc. Also, as a materialist I have rejected Cartesian versions of free-will, but I do accept there is human freedom in informed choices. Ignorance distorts our chooices - if someone making a decision on false information had known how things actually were they would have instead acted in accordance to reality (or more accurately would have at least had the chance to do so), therefore the ignorant state is the one of less freedom.

Ignorance distorts our chooices

It also distorts our spelling. ;)

Actually it doesn't...

You don't explain what you think the alternative to individualism is or how that alternative has been more successful.

As animals, only genetic code matters . . . And as animals, the "rational, political" aspects must have evolved to serve evolutionary survival, which is therefore the goal

You don't explain what you mean by this. Is 'survival of self' the highest human goal because "evolution" says so? Doesn't add up. Also please don't say something along the lines of evolution "coding for" the survival of race or species b/c it does neither. Don't commit the naturalistic fallacy, but more importantly don't commit scientific fallacies!

"Meaning what? That only males can be biological reductionists?"

Meaning I feel it's a form of dishonesty when posters on discussion boards sign with pen names of the opposite sex. All should use pen names that do not misrepresent their sex, ones that are either neutral like mine, or sex-appropriate.

I believe Caitlin is a guy. Presenting himself as a woman by his choice of pen name communicates false information, an undesirable thing in a serious discussion. It also detracts, in my view, from what he writes.

"I support that which I think might ensure that more people will end up in category #1. The states are listed in their order of desirability. My values and goals are based on which state I would prefer for myself and therefore (through empathy and the Kantian logic of reciprocity)others."

I don't see why you would rather be unhappy and free than happy and unfree? That is putting an ideal over your own happiness surely? If freedom itself is not what would make you most happy?

The latest Occidental Quarterly has a nice Alan de Benoist article in it comparing classical Greek and modern democracy.

"Don't commit the naturalistic fallacy, but more importantly don't commit scientific fallacies!"

The naturalistic fallacy is that the notion of moral goodness cannot be defined or identified with any property - is this really a fallacy? If you value increasing happiness as morally good, which everyone does to a degree, isn't that basing a moral notion on a property of the individual to seek happiness?

Then why not say that reproduction has the greatest worth based on observation of human place? And if it is a fallacy to link morality and properties, then aren't we rstricted to moral relativism?

"Also please don't say something along the lines of evolution "coding for" the survival of race or species b/c it does neither."

I don't say that it does, but nethertheless, observations of nature show that the nature of organisms (not the same as a planned reason for them) is to transmit that genetic code as they are programmed to. This is the point that I was making.

"You don't explain what you think the alternative to individualism is or how that alternative has been more successful."

I don't accept that (modern western) individualist societies has been more successful on that merit. China is hardly individualist. And China is a counterexample of a successful non-individualist society today.

Some feel that Asian societies are outcompeting western societies because they accept capitalism but not the accompanying western type of individualism, and say that their societies are more successful because they put the collective - the family - as more important than the individual. If so, then atomised individualism is holding the west back.

"Meaning I feel it's a form of dishonesty when posters on discussion boards sign with pen names of the opposite sex. All should use pen names that do not misrepresent their sex, ones that are either neutral like mine, or sex-appropriate.

I believe Caitlin is a guy. Presenting himself as a woman by his choice of pen name communicates false information, an undesirable thing in a serious discussion. It also detracts, in my view, from what he writes."

I don't understand what you mean. I am me. It's not a "pen-name". My Aspergers mignt make my way of communicating seem more "male" than usual "female", perhaps. Or at least Aspergers writing and talking has been described as being masculine because it is rigid and isnt expressive. But I am typing this formally anyway, so I'm not trying to express emotions.

"I don't understand what you mean. I am me. It's not a 'pen-name.' "

Are you a man or a woman? (Answer plainly, please.)

Im a woman, or at least a girl anyway. What are you?

I do think this is rather silly...

Seriously, Unadorned . . .

Jason, do you know what he means?

I don't see why you would rather be unhappy and free than happy and unfree?

Then let's all get lobotomies. I hear its a nice place.

Then why not say that reproduction has the greatest worth based on observation of human place?

Even if we consider what you are saying is true (and it isn't), how do you see what you are saying is incompatible with individualism?

I don't accept that (modern western) individualist societies has been more successful on that merit. China is hardly individualist. And China is a counterexample of a successful non-individualist society today.

Right now I don't see any indication that China is either more happy or more free than the West. If it should pull "ahead" economically or militarily on the back of slavery, indoctrination and human rights violations, that would not be an improvement either. Again if it is better to be happy and unfree then I might as well wish to be a pig rather than a human. But I rather enjoy being rational man.

(me)
"I don't see why you would rather be unhappy and free than happy and unfree?"

(you)
"Then let's all get lobotomies. I hear its a nice place."

Im not sure that I understand what you mean. I didn't even mention a place in that sentence.

You say that you would rather be free than happy. Why if the freedom wouldn't be making you happy?

(Me)
"Then why not say that reproduction has the greatest worth based on observation of human place?"

(You)
"Even if we consider what you are saying is true (and it isn't), how do you see what you are saying is incompatible with individualism?"

I'm not saying that these things are neccessarily not compatible, in normal circumstances anyway. Im just generally discussing ethics and "worth". I'm pointing out that there are different criteria of "greatest worth" and that each are based on properties of man. Including a desire to happiness and (the pesonal version of) freedom.

Why don't you see my statement about genes as true? If happiness and a desire to want freedom are prperties of man, so is the urge to spread genes.

(Me)
"I don't accept that (modern western) individualist societies has been more successful on that merit. China is hardly individualist. And China is a counterexample of a successful non-individualist society today."

(You)
"Right now I don't see any indication that China is either more happy or more free than the West. If it should pull "ahead" economically or militarily on the back of slavery, indoctrination and human rights violations, that would not be an improvement either. Again if it is better to be happy and unfree then I might as well wish to be a pig rather than a human. But I rather enjoy being rational man."

Wat you asked was for me to name an alternative to liberal democracy that works, and why. I chose the Chinese because of their success. And wether we like the Chinese ways in the west, their society is very successful at competing against more individualist westerners.

"Jason, do you know what he means?"

What I meant about the difference between males and females? Jason can say whether he does or doesn't -- I wouldn't want to speculate on his behalf. (I bet most of the Greeks who read this site do, though -- the Mediterraneans in general don't seem so easily brainwashed by your standard northern-variety PC.)

What exactly is this about, I have no idea. And really I don't care...

I find all this too strange to bother asking more...

Furthermore, that human-beings are somehow programmed to act in the interests of "their race" in general, and that Godless is acting in the interest of his specifically are unproven assumptions, at best. Theoretically terrible & empirically false, at worst.

The fact that ethnocentrism is a prominent feature of every human society is hard to explain unless ethnocentrism is somehow hard-wired. The theory of kin selection and the fact that ethnicity is essentially a proxy for racial group demonstrates that ethnocentrism is obviously an adaptive trait, since it increases an organism's "inclusive genetic fitness".

The fact that ethnocentrism is a prominent feature of every human society is hard to explain unless ethnocentrism is somehow hard-wired.

Yes, people orient themselves in in-groups which are necessarily contrasted by out-groups. The evolutionary description (PDF) has none of the implications for conflict that you want it to, esp. racial ones.

The theory of kin selection and the fact that ethnicity is essentially a proxy for racial group demonstrates that ethnocentrism is obviously an adaptive trait, since it increases an organism's "inclusive genetic fitness".

No Oleg, the math of kin selection (r x b > c)contradicts that racism is an adaptive trait. If you would like to propose a new evolutionary mechanism, though, I'm all ears.

Also, as I've stated here before, "white" is not an ethnic group, anyhow.

The theory of kin selection . . .demonstrates that ethnocentrism is obviously an adaptive trait, since it increases an organism's "inclusive genetic fitness".

From my copy of The Selfish Gene [all emphasis mine]:

"Kin selection is emphatically not a special case of group selection . . . If an altruistic animal has a cake to give to relatives, there is no reason at all for it to give every relative a slice, the size of the slices being determined by the closeness of relatedness. Indeed this would lead to absurdity since all members of the species, not to mention other species, are at least distant relatives who could therefore each claim a carefully measured crumb! To the contrary, if there is a close relative in the vicinity, there is no reason to give a distant relative any cake at all [that means no cake for ethnic group or esp. "whites" - JM]. Subject to other complications like laws of diminishing returns, the whole cake should be given to the closest relative available."

That is inclusive fitness. That is how a directed altruistic act evolves. It has nothing to do with race.

Yes, people orient themselves in in-groups which are necessarily contrasted by out-groups. The evolutionary description (PDF) has none of the implications for conflict that you want it to, esp. racial ones.

No, that particular explanation doesn't explain the racial implications. Other writers, like MacDonald and Salter, have explained why ethnic groups are nearly always genetically constituted. Rienzi has a good summary of this here.

No Oleg, the math of kin selection (r x b > c)contradicts that racism is an adaptive trait. If you would like to propose a new evolutionary mechanism, though, I'm all ears.

Actually, that equation works just fine. The value for r is much greater if I'm dealing with a white person rather than an Asian or a black.

To the contrary, if there is a close relative in the vicinity, there is no reason to give a distant relative any cake at all [that means no cake for ethnic group or esp. "whites" - JM]. Subject to other complications like laws of diminishing returns, the whole cake should be given to the closest relative available.

We're not talking about a piece of cake, we're talking about most of North America, Europe, and Australia - a large fraction of the Earth's habitable land. This is far more resources than I alone or even all of my distant cousins could ever utilize by themselves. Obviously though it is in my best interests, genetically speaking, if the land is occupied by people as genetically similar to me as possible (i.e., occupied by other whites).

If an altruistic animal has a cake to give to relatives, there is no reason at all for it to give every relative a slice, the size of the slices being determined by the closeness of relatedness. Indeed this would lead to absurdity since all members of the species, not to mention other species, are at least distant relatives who could therefore each claim a carefully measured crumb!

This ignores the fact that, as any elementary biology textbook will tell you, most competition in nature is intraspecies. Hence, it is really not in my genetic interests to behave altruistically toward non-whites under most conditions because they are in competition for resources with people more genetically similar to me.

Actually, that equation works just fine. The value for r is much greater if I'm dealing with a white person rather than an Asian or a black.

We're not talking about a piece of cake, we're talking about most of North America, Europe, and Australia - a large fraction of the Earth's habitable land. [????]

Oleg you are missing the point by miles. You're right, we're not talking about cake, we're talking about kin selection. Your exact words were: "The theory of kin selection . . . demonstrates that ethnocentrism is obviously an adaptive trait". But that claim is in no way obvious. Kin selection demonstrates no such thing. Kin selection is the mechanism through which altruism towards close relatives evolves. As Dawkins points out, KS is not a mechanism for some infinite behavior of expanding genetic favoritism, (which would actually contradict the possible benefit of close relatives and therefore nullify any KS!) for the reasons addressed in the cake problem, and thus couldn't be adaptive. Ethnocentrism may be adaptive, but the theory used to describe how can't be kin selection. Feel free to explain a new process, even one with similarities to kin selection, by which conflict with relatives of an arbitrary distance could have been selected for. Please keep in mind while doing so the conditions of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness

As Dawkins points out, KS is not a mechanism for some infinite behavior of expanding genetic favoritism, (which would actually contradict the possible benefit of close relatives and therefore nullify any KS!) for the reasons addressed in the cake problem, and thus couldn't be adaptive.

I think you're the one missing the point here. Obviously for something very small, like a piece of cake, it makes the most sense to give it all to a close relative. But if we're dealing with greater quantities of resources, such as large territories of land, there's no possible way that my close relatives and I could ever make use of so much all by ourselves. Hence, in this case, it *does* make sense to favor my distant relatives (in my case, other whites) over more distant ones (non-whites).

Feel free to explain a new process, even one with similarities to kin selection, by which conflict with relatives of an arbitrary distance could have been selected for. Please keep in mind while doing so the conditions of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness

Some people have given different names to this phenomenon on a grand scale (I think Rushton calls it "genetic similarity theory"), but the basic mechanism is still the same as kin selection: favoritism of genetically similar people.

I think you're the one missing the point here. Obviously for something very small, like a piece of cake, it makes the most sense to give it all to a close relative. But if we're dealing with greater quantities of resources, such as large territories of land, there's no possible way that my close relatives and I could ever make use of so much all by ourselves. Hence, in this case, it *does* make sense to favor my distant relatives (in my case, other whites) over more distant ones (non-whites).

To quote fellow blogger David Burbridge:

. . . in the early 1960s a British biologist called Wynne-Edwards wrote a long book arguing that many common animal behaviours, such as territoriality, could be explained by group advantage. Wynne-Edwards did not use much mathematics, but he did at least set out the details of the process explicitly for the first time. The problem was that the process he described was absurd, and the biological community turned strongly against group selection (see G. C. Williams, ‘Adaptation and Natural Selection’, 1964).

Substituting 'territory' for 'cake' does nothing to change the flaws in your argument. Again this has nothing to do with the item up for grabs, it has to do with what kin selection is and does. Your argument is not based on kin selection, it is quite explicitly based on group selection, which you are mistakenly calling kin selection. Hamilton's theory had nothing to do with race or species "teams", it had to do with how and why animals behave altruistically towards close kin. Kin selection doesn't explain why animals behave on behalf of their species or sub-species for the simple reason that animals DON'T behave on behalf of their species or sub-species. Do humans? Maybe. But if they do it most probably has more in common with why humans play water polo or go to the movies than it does with kin selection. I don't doubt that humans are ethnocentric, but there are no sound theories that suggest it is the result of shared genes. Controlled experiments indicate that racism is a by-product of social and alliance-based contingencies. Real life experiments bear this out as well; such as the The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, a unit of Japanese-Americans who volunteered themselves into the war against Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They went on to become the most heavily decorated unit in American history.

The main problem is, that the human brain is just made for groups of, lets say 150-200 people at maximum.
In such groups kin selection and group selection is almost identical.
But culture changed this dramatically.
F.e. The most dangerous enemy of single Nordic groups were in most cases...other Nordic groups.
Thats true for most of mankind.

"Good" selection just works based on groups with kin-ship, not comparable to modern states.
The idea of many racists and biologists was, or at least should be, that evolution in modern society is nothing which should just happen but should be controlled.
Because "natural" evolution in modern societies can lead to biological degeneration or dead ends.
In fact no every adaptation is as good as another one. Just for one reason in the end: The universal advantage of features even out of the region where they were developed.
A adaption which is to specialized to some living conditions is negative for long time survival.

Maybe no educated individual of mankind think much about this, and looks more to their direct descendents and relatives. But take this as a fact, it doesnt mean that its good for mankind
Good for mankind and every group is it to have a strong identity which at least partially is based on common features and this features should maximize the survival of the group and their progressive development biologically and culturally.
In the end the difference will be between individuals like that, and people which still live on a primitive, ape-like niveau.

F.e. Europeans and East Asians has now thousands of years of civilization and proved their ability to construct complex and highly effective societies.
Long time aim should be to minimize degeneration of body and maximize development of intelligence (in a wider sence) and personality features which are useful both for a primitive but more for a more complex society.
People with these features would be able to survive in the jungle with stones or to live in a highly complex and developed collective society.
What happen today in the western societies is the opposite of this.
We are going to live in a highly fractionized, selfish-individualistic and degenerated-mixed society.
All what happens is biological contraselective, it doesnt raise the living standard of the majority of Europeans nor the majority of the world population and displace better structures with ineffective "liberal-multi-cultural" pseudo-stable structures just made for individual profit.