A necessary task. Emphasis added.
We have now reached the last chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.
Let us be thankful for small mercies.
This indispensable book…
Indispensable for promoting ludicrous HBD-Nordicism.
This is not to say that whites have always viewed themselves in the extremely individualistic and anti-nationalistic manner they do today. Some decades ago, Americans were quite comfortable identifying their liberal nation in ethnic “Anglo-Saxon” terms and imposing strict limits on immigration from non-European nations.
Well, only “non-European” if you ignore the Reed-Johnson Act. Well, I suppose that does fit with my description of Der Movement’s view of Europe as ending at Vienna to the south and at Berlin to the east..
They did not think that cultural nationalism was inconsistent with liberal principles. It was really after WWII that whites came to the view that liberalism demanded the integration of multiple races within their homelands. Why did they come to this view?
Then how the hell is the worldview “genetic” and “Darwinian?” Unless you posit a massive genetic change as a result of the war, then it makes no sense that the same people who closed the gates to wops and hunkies now embrace the Third World. Unless of course Racial Proximity Theory is correct.
This is where the inordinate influence of Jews comes into MacDonald’s historical study. The Jews did not create Western liberalism. But in the United States, the focus of MacDonald’s work, Jews were crucially important in the articulation of the argument that America was meant to be a “polycentric” nation populated by multiple races. They came up with the idea that liberalism was inconsistent with the identification of America as an “Anglo-Saxon nation.” They played the leading intellectual role in formulating the idea that all Western nations were meant to be multicultural and that assimilation to a “dominant culture” was a violation of the “human dignity” of immigrants. They pushed the idea that Western nations were founded on racism, patriarchal domination, exploitation of the Third World, and that the mere existence of Western nations without racial diversity was a form of “white supremacy.”
Carefully consider what Duchesne is saying here. First, MacDonald is correct that Herrenvolk Whites are wonderfully individualistic, honorable, noble, altruistic – and high, high, high trust. Second, these traits are genetic – due to superior WHG and Steppe ancestry. Third, despite that, somehow the Herrenvolk were properly ethnocentric, acting in a collectivist manner to safeguard ethnic interests, until after WWII. Fourth, the change was due to…drum roll please…the Jews. So Herrenvolk minus Jews = Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard; Herrenvolk plus Jews = Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton. Genetic it all is!
But, here's the thing. Are all Whites equally susceptible to this dastardly Jewish influence? If yes, then that punches a big hole in the idea of significant intra-European differences in ethnocentrism and affinity to universalist appeals. If no, then it stands to reason that the more resistant White ethnies are the ones we need at the forefront of the White resistance, not those who are most easily manipulated. So, which is it?
MacDonald is not of the view that whites are inherently condemned to be swamped by non-whites in lieu of their individualism. As we saw in Part 8 of our extended review, whites are still instinctively ethnocentric even while they express adherence to immigrant multiculturalism.
Furthermore, and this is the focus of chapter 9, MacDonald anticipates that, as “expressions of anti-white hatred” intensify, whites will start to coalesce as a race. But he cautions against a strategy premised on the expectation that whites will suddenly start behaving in the collectivist manner of non-whites.
So, they will behave collectively, but not in a collectivist manner. They’re collectivist individualists! Or individualistic collectivists! It depends upon whether their high trust WHG genetic program is activated or their heroic Steppe genetic program. Tightly argued, indeed.
Whites are not inclined to create kinship-based communities.
National Socialism never happened.
Therefore, if whites are to join communities that emphasize their racial interests, they need to be rationally persuaded that these race-oriented communities are morally justified. Whites need to be persuaded that their individual self-interests, and their own liberal way of life, are fundamentally threatened by immigrant diversification. As MacDonald writes:
Pro-white activists attempting to combat this moral community [of the Left] must be aware of the very powerful tendency among their constituents toward wanting to be part of a moral community. In particular, they must emphasize that whites have interests that are morally legitimate.
They must emphasize that Whites as a collective group have such morally legitimate interests. Individualism!
It is MacDonald’s view that a Darwinian perspective would be an excellent rationally-based argument to persuade whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests. As whites face increasing hostility from non-whites, they need to be persuaded that their communities based on social trust, rule of law, scientific objectivity, and equal rights, will survive only within an ethnicized form of individualism.
“ethnicized form of individualism” – an oxymoron, no?
They can’t be expected to create “group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders.”
I don’t know – “dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders” sounds a lot like Der Movement. Any “rock stars” have their dogma implicitly accepted? I won’t even mention Hitler.
The non-white mind, if I may put it bluntly, can’t fully distinguish the subject and the object, the mind and the body, the context and the thing-in-itself.
Sounds like Type I activists.
It is MacDonald’s conviction that the key to a successful moral argument is to persuade whites to create moral communities with a proper Darwinian understanding of history and in-group interests. The following are some of the key Darwinian lessons whites must integrate into their moral communities:
That there are genetic differences between peoples, and that despite their individualism and universalism whites have legitimate racial interests like every other race.
Thus, we must consider interests on a collective, racial level. By the way, this point describes an EGI-based perspective, a worldview based on kinship-racialism, not the proximate HBD-based flim-flam that privileges the interests of Jews and Asians over that of Whites.
That those communities enjoying higher social trust, lawfulness, political participation, functional schools, and ethnic cohesion happen to be heavily populated by whites with minimal diversity.
Much of that can be achieved with “high-IQ Asians,” no?
That the moral communities whites cherish based on democratic politics, rule of law, and meritocracy are deteriorating precisely because these communities are increasingly populated by non-whites and dominated by radical Leftist politics.
“Democratic politics” led to the current situation, and those high-IQ Asian cognitive elitists are very meritocratic, no?
That whites are the least morally depraved race on the planet when it comes to political corruption, inequality of rights, and ethnic despotism.
The Merkels of the world would label that as racism.
That low-IQ immigrants are a drain on society and on the ability of white nations to compete in our highly technical world economy, as well as a major cost to white taxpayers.
IQ! HBD! We need more high-IQ skilled Asians!
That mass immigration brings a downward pressure on the wages of working classes, and that the importation of workers from India and China undermines white high tech workers.
To care specifically about White high tech workers presupposes ethnocentrism.
That immigration and incessant attacks on “white racism” are leading to extreme polarization in politics, civil strife, and eventually civil war across many Western communities, rather than racial harmony and the elimination of human conflict as promised.That diversity comes together with increased anti-white hatred and violence against whites.
All of that can be blamed on “racist haters,” no?
MacDonald’s book thus comes full circle, in a tightly argued manner…
If incoherent HBD-Nordicism, which distorts ancient history and archaeogenetics, and is full of inconsistencies and misinterpretations about ethnic differences in individualism and collectivism, is “tightly argued,” then, well, no argument there!
…from a very original account…
Putting a pseudoscientific veneer on warmed-over Guntherism and Kempism is not particularly original.
… of Western uniqueness based on Darwinian principles to a call for white identity politics based on moral Darwinian arguments that appeal to the individualism and the analytical mind of whites to counter the anti-white “monster” the “Left and its big business allies have created.”
Putting aside that the above is a borderline run-on sentence, see my comments above about how poorly the alleged individualism and universalism of Whites has been addressed, re: strategy.
Criticisms can undoubtedly be directed against Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.
Uh, yes. But as long as the critics can be smeared as “insane” and “indecent” then there’s no need to engage with them.
But having studied this book in a thorough manner, I am convinced that MacDonald’s perspective is far more than one viewpoint among other interesting viewpoints.
I agree. It is instead comic relief.
It is an indispensable viewpoint without which white identity politics would lack both a solid scientific foundation and a compelling moral argument that could persuade large numbers of whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests.
Nonsense. The exact opposite in fact.
Now, these are the sort of extraterrestrials Der Movement can believe in! High trust northern hunter gatherers from outer space! Conquerors from the Andromeda Steppe!