Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 1

Kevin MacDonald

Obviously President Obama was a horrific president in pretty much every possible way. His domestic policies in particular have been anathema to the Alt Right — he would, after all, have loved to sign an immigration amnesty/surge bill into law. Nevertheless, couple of things he said in his farewell address made a lot of sense, although he probably wasn’t thinking about the Alt Right when he said them.

Obama said that too often people think of those who oppose them as not merely misguided but malevolent. This is a huge problem for the Alt Right. The very label is typically associated in the media with words like ‘Nazi,’ ‘White supremacist,’ and ‘racist’ — all of which have strong moral connotations after years of browbeating by the media.  These words produce psychological reflexes intended to preclude honest debate or any rational discussion of our ideas. And they have been very effective in doing just that.

During an interview with an NPR reporter, I mentioned that I hoped the phrase “White supremacist” would not be used in whatever eventually gets aired. The interviewer seemed surprised, thinking that “White supremacist” was a perfectly reasonable label to use, and defending his stance by claiming that some Alt Rightists have talked about Europeans as a superior and uniquely talented group. Depending on how an idea like that is phrased and conceptualized, I have no problem with it. We should have pride in the accomplishments of our European ancestors, as tabulated, for example, by Charles Murray.

But our desire to preserve a European identity and culture really has nothing to do with European talents, and I think pretty much everyone on the Alt Right is aware of this. We could be the most average or below average people on the planet but still have a legitimate interest in wanting to preserve our people and culture — and the territories needed for that. None of the people shouting about “White supremacists” would suppose that Africans should be supplanted from African states they control, no matter what their talents or lack thereof, and the same goes for Korea and every other country with a historical ethnic and cultural core. And of course, many of the same people comfortable with condemning “White supremacists” are quite content with Israel being a “Jewish state.”

But being called a White supremacist in today’s political climate has obvious moral implications (happily the phrase did not appear in the NPR interview). Such a person is not only misguided, he or she is malevolent. Such a person is consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon, or so goes the stereotype And that’s the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society  —“a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.”

So the antifa at the November NPI conference felt entitled to beat up a cameraman, throw foul-smelling liquids at attendees, and break into a dinner venue. There have been other assaults, notably of Richard Spencer in January in Washington DC, but also in February at the UC-Berkeley riots. So we often hear “no free speech for fascists,” not only at antifa protests but in university classrooms, designed to shut down errant professors and students. College students showing sympathy for Donald Trump can be hounded into dropping out of school. We find students protesting having White philosophers on the curriculum. No need to discuss their ideas because they are dead White males and ipso facto a component of racial oppression.

Moralistic Rhetoric as a Weapon against the West

It’s not really important to the discussion here, but I have argued that in Western, individualist societies, people are less prone to ingroups based on kinship but far more prone to forming ingroups based on reputation or moral standing. For our hunter-gatherer ancestors, exclusion from the group because of a reputation as immoral or untrustworthy was the ultimate kiss of death. So we want to be “good people” by fitting into the current moral zeitgeist and of course that zeitgeist is now completely dominated by the left.

In any case, our political rhetoric, whether it’s going to war in Iraq (or WWI or WWII or the Civil War) or demanding civil rights for Blacks, is saturated with moral rationales. And, overwhelmingly, it works.

But perhaps the election of Donald Trump shows some slippage, since he was morally condemned from Day 1 of his campaign. This hasn’t let up since his victory. The moral condemnations continue to rain down on him from the mainstream media and in the continual well-funded anti-Trump protests and marches—especially over immigration which is the moral imperative of our age (“No Human Is Illegal”). This shows that moralistic rhetoric isn’t even close to losing its power, even though we should be happy that polls show that a solid majority of Americans support the ban and some polls show Trump with around 50% support overall.

The problem is that far too many White people think they are in a competition to be the most virtuous person around — to the point that pointing out “virtue signaling” has become a standard tactic on the Alt Right. When I was still teaching at a university, the competition for sainthood among White academics was a sight to behold.

So obviously, it would be great for the Alt Right to frame their issues in moral terms if they want to appeal to a broad audience of White people. There has to be a moral core there. It’s not a matter of “we’re superior and therefore deserve to rule.” It’s more like, “We are who we are and want to create our own culture” — just like pretty much everyone else around the planet. Hatred toward the other need not be part of this equation, although it must be said that there is nothing wrong with hating your enemies — the people who are really actively out to get you.

The Alt Right media is essentially an attempt to get others, both Whites and non-Whites, to see the world as we see it. But the point is that by vilifying us as moral cretins, people automatically close off the possibility of even trying to see the world as we see it. After all, if a person is morally culpable, there is the implication that that person is blameworthy. Excuses like having different, sincerely held beliefs, no matter how well-founded, don’t have to be considered. Immorality implies malicious intentions.

Liberals and Women More Likely to Exclude Others Over Trump Support

Studies have shown that liberals tend to be far more intolerant of people with conservative opinions than vice versa. This is especially true of women who identify as Democrats.

Nearly one-quarter (24%) of Democrats say they blocked, unfriended, or stopped following someone on social media after the election because of their political posts on social media. Fewer than one in ten Republicans (9%) and independents (9%) report eliminating people from their social media circle. Political liberals are also far more likely than conservatives to say they removed someone from their social media circle due to what they shared online (28% vs. 8%, respectively)….Only five percent of Americans say they are planning on spending less time with certain family members because of their political views. Democrats, however, are five times more likely than Republicans to say they are trying to avoid certain family members due to their political views (10% vs. 2%, respectively). … Democratic men are nearly twice as likely as Republican men to block or ‘unfriend’ people in their social media circles because of their political views, and Democratic women are three times more likely to take this step than their Republican counterparts. 

I think that a reason for this is that liberals see the liberal/conservative/Alt Right political divide in moral terms. They see conservatives and especially anything approaching the Alt Right as evil. On the other hand, people on the right do not typically condemn liberals as immoral. Naïve and misguided, perhaps. Uninformed, maybe. Believers in an impossible, utopian, idealistic future. Quite often. For some of us, this critique of the left takes the form of pointing out that their policies will likely lead to untold horrors, as was the case with Communist revolutions and is quite likely to be the case with the imagined multicultural kumbaya utopia magically free of ethnic and religious conflict. But even then, we don’t suppose that your basic White, suburban, college-educated, New York Times-reading liberal is advocating multiculturalism with evil intent. It’s all about “I’m a good person. A really good person. I want the best for everyone.”

Jewish Motivation for Supporting Multiculturalism and Immigration

On the other hand, there is good reason to think that quite a few non-White ethnic activists do have malevolent intentions. I suspect Jewish activists on behalf of immigration and multiculturalism as having rather obviously self-interested motives (diluting the White majority), their hypocritical posturing in terms of moral universalism (given their support of Israel), and often hateful attitudes toward European peoples and their cultures. As I noted in Chapter 1 (p. 13) of Culture of Critique:

Sammons (1979, 263) describes the basis of the mutual attraction between Heinrich Heine and Karl Marx by noting that “they were not reformers, but haters, and this was very likely their most fundamental bond with one another.” The suggestion, consistent with social identity theory, is that a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic. This deep antipathy toward the non-Jewish world can also be seen in sociologist and New York Intellectual Michael Walzer’s (1994, 6–7) comment on the “pathologies of Jewish life,” particularly “the sense that ‘all the world is against us,’ the resulting fear, resentment, and hatred of the goy, the secret dreams of reversal and triumph.” Such “secret dreams of reversal and triumph” are a theme of the treatment of Jewish radicals in this chapter as well as in Chapter 4 on Freud and the psychoanalytic.

This hatred and the revenge fantasies are fueled by the lachrymose view of history in which Jewish history is one long tale of persecution by Europeans, beginning with the Romans and ending with the Holocaust. And more and more we see expressions of hatred toward Whites by Black Lives Matter and Latino activists holding signs saying things like “Go back to Europe,” and of course there are plenty of White people who have internalized this mindset. Mainstream Jewish sensibilities of hatred toward Whites are leaking into the mainstream of other groups.

The White people who have internalized the message of White guilt are the altruists in this game, and these liberal altruists are quite happy with this self-image. They bask in it. They own it. They wear it emblazoned on their tee-shirts and broadcast it on social media.

Sex Differences in Social Exclusion

But why are women more inclined to this behavior than men? This is not a subtle sex difference, and I immediately suspect an explanation rooted in our evolutionary history. In the absence of a study explicitly linking such exclusionary attitudes with personality traits, I suggest that an evolutionarily informed personality psychologist would emphasize the similarly robust sex difference in the love, nurturance and empathy. In general, women are higher on these traits, and the evolutionary logic is that these traits have been more important over evolutionary time for women because they feed into nurturing children and cementing close relationships within the family. Relationships of love and affection are particularly important for northern peoples for cementing family relationships because individual choice of marriage partner is the norm rather than arranged marriages to first cousins, as in the Middle East. Arranged marriages are enforced by the extended family and don’t require mutual affection.

It’s no accident that women are more attracted to the helping professions like nursing and social work, or that they are more susceptible to the propaganda emanating from the media (e.g., the countless stories of suffering refugees like viral photo of the Syrian child on the beach in Turkey and now sob stories about people who are negatively impacted by Donald Trump’s travel ban from certain Muslim-majority countries not to mention striving DREAMers, and other assorted victim groups). Encouraged by the media, empathy and compassion for designated victim groups becomes a badge of honor and a very important aspect of self-identity. They hold up signs at rallies advertising their virtue and allegiance to group values. They fear being shunned by the group.

Another phenomenon that feeds into this fear of being shunned is an often replicated finding in developmental psychology: whereas boys often react to disliked peers with anger and aggression, girls are more apt to react by social exclusion and forming cliques, termed “relational aggression” as opposed to physical aggression. Disliked others are simply shunned. “This behavior is marked as a female phenomenon and is labeled as catty, vengeful, deceitful, manipulative, back-stabbing, or just plain mean.”

So, as we all know, women are not simply saints. When they don’t like someone for whatever reason and especially if they are not a very nice person to begin with (after all, even though women are higher in general than men on empathy, some certainly are not), they are very much into social exclusion as a remedy. The result is that women are more conformist. They fear social exclusion.

Go to Part 2

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

43 Comments to "Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival, Part 1"

  1. Sir Charles Pipkins's Gravatar Sir Charles Pipkins
    March 6, 2017 - 1:18 am | Permalink

    White women are gullible saps whose hysteria destroys society -exactly what Black Pigeon Speaks say.

    • Nigel lang's Gravatar Nigel lang
      March 7, 2017 - 1:10 am | Permalink

      I agree. And they are being mobilised. Are battle lines being Defined?

  2. Gotcha's Gravatar Gotcha
    March 6, 2017 - 4:04 am | Permalink

    White supremacist is often used by liberals to muzzle debate on real issues like migration and crime. Once it was “racist” to talk about mass immigration.

    Anger is understandable given we are dealing with a crooked and dishonest establishment. For example last year in the UK, the system lied about bringing in child migrants from France who turned out to be 30 year olds with beards who now cannot be deported. If anything commoners are being pushed daily towards an IRA-like resistance.

    Obama like Jews is driven by resentment. His granddad Hussein Onyango Obama was once imprisoned for being part of the Mau Mau terror group in Kenya.

    Western advances are part of the problem for the left. Science is too white and male for them.

    The response is fables.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      March 7, 2017 - 9:45 pm | Permalink

      @ Gotcha:
      Frank Marshall Davis’ ghost is desperately trying to contact you. Something about Mau Maus in Chicago…

  3. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    March 6, 2017 - 6:56 am | Permalink

    A quick review of Alexander Middleton’s essay, The need for a White Minorities Movement (October 15, 2016) could be timely. Two lines are of particular interest:

    “The White British group has yet to formulate a coherent reaction.”

    “To build resilience, we would need to deliver a revolution in activism.”

    Personally, I would continue to press hard on the hipsters and hennetasters. And keep in mind this will be bottom up revolution and that time is of the most importance.

  4. Robert Bloc's Gravatar Robert Bloc
    March 6, 2017 - 8:43 am | Permalink

    I usually enthusiastically agree with everything Professor MacDonald writes. However, I think the white supremacist label cannot be so artfully dodged. White nationalists shrink from that label like vampires from a crucifix, with the result that Jared Taylor spends half his time reminding us that East Asians out score whites on IQ tests and that he loves whites only because they are his own for all of their endearing inadequacies.
    Apart from representing a rather tepid battle cry, this approach has the strategic disadvantage of ignoring the stunning overachievement of whites that was made manifest in early modernity but is certainly foreshadowed in classical antiquity. East Asians have studied and catalogued this overachievement which is twisted into a base of dishonor by our adversaries. They twist our glories into a legacy of aggression and domination. We concede that field if we do not positively confront white innovation that continues at a lopsided rate through the demoralization and deracination of the present day. DERBYSHIRE is very near the right approach: he defines white supremacy as a society ordered by whites and notes that such societies are increasingly in demand as destinations by nonwhites. Professor MacDonald is s courageous man who has stood up to threats and harassment that few of us would endure. It is thus presumptuous of me to criticize him for backing down from the toxic lave white supremacist; but I think we have to seize that banner and wave it high. Whites are distinguished – and isolated – by a unique record of achievement that must be defended as such. The alternative is to be cucked a mile and a half down the road from Jeb Bush.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      March 6, 2017 - 10:29 am | Permalink

      To offer Derbyshire as an alternative to Jared Taylor, however compromised Taylor may be, for courage and insight is to court legitimate puzzlement. A fortiori, to offer him as an alternative to Professor MacDonald for the selfsame attributes is to court open contempt. Put otherwise, if lust for (((mainstream))) acclaim were a criminal offense, Derbyshire would be serving several life sentences without hope of parole.

      Derbyshire represents nothing so much as a case study in sycophancy to the power of international Jewry, not least in its demand that its votaries never refer to the flyover masses of white Christian Americans with anything but the superior, worldly wise sneer that tonally characterizes virtually everything the man has ever written or spoken.

      One can only wonder whether the appearance of Jeb Bush’s name at the tail end of the gentleman’s comment constitutes subliminal acknowledgment that true words are oft spoken in jest. Derbyshire and Jeb may be more than a mile and a half apart in conventional units of distance measurement, but in terms of compromises with moral and intellectual principle, Derbyshire and Bush can readily see and wave to one another.

      • Robert Bloc's Gravatar Robert Bloc
        March 7, 2017 - 7:12 am | Permalink

        I will respond to the gentleman’s Rule to Show Cause. Derb is immensely likable; I have corresponded with him at length we are both refugees of the derivatives business. I agree he is soft on die judenfrage. He is conflicted to the point of schizophrenia in reviewing the work of Dr. MacDonald. That said, we aren’t going to find too many public intellectuals with the depth of insight or the uncompromising integrity of Dr. MacDonald. That doesn’t mean that a Derbyshire or a Taylor can’t be helpful on certain questions. There is a near universal tendency on the part of white nationalists to quake before the label of “white supremacy”. Whatever his limitations, Derb came up with a resonant riposte. I don’t think we should ignore that simply because he is wobbly on the Jews. They ARE funny, and good at Math, and like the tragic inhabitants of Crickett they prolifically produce truly catchy pop songs. Crypsis is not their only camouflage. Derb will come around before they kill him.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          March 7, 2017 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

          Although I remain unpersuaded that Derbyshire does our cause more good than harm, I think that he is fortunate to have you for a champion, sir.

    • Harry Heller's Gravatar Harry Heller
      March 14, 2017 - 5:49 am | Permalink

      That’s hardly original to Derbyshire. Michael Levin (funny how few seem to remember his great book on Why Race Matters) made that point about nonwhite migration as a testimony to White superiority in AR decades ago.

  5. Rickie's Gravatar Rickie
    March 6, 2017 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    There is a fine line between compassion and stupidity.

    Show me a man who says females are more compassionate, and I’ll show you a man who’s never worked in an office with them.

    • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
      March 6, 2017 - 10:46 pm | Permalink

      Women are compassionate like mothers. In any other position they are absolute bitches. I would also say that men are more compassionate than women. A man has always the suspicion that a baby could be his, therefore interested to care. A woman has the certainty whether a baby is hers or not. Caring for a baby not hers is too much time and resources. Men babysitters are not trusted because they could be sex predators. Women babysitters are monsters of their own kind.

      • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
        March 7, 2017 - 6:43 am | Permalink

        The only women fit for babysitting are the ones that don’t yet have children of their own because young or unmarried. They want to demonstrate to the world that they are fit mothers, not monsters. Women with children mistreat children they are supposed to care for.

  6. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    March 6, 2017 - 11:13 am | Permalink

    Well done to Dr. MacDonald for tackling the “white supremacism” label so effectively! It’s nothing to do with IQ or achievements, but the right to live amongst people of your own tribe, your own kind with whom you feel comfortable, because you share ancient tribal links that are hard to define. The question to white supremacists is: “Would you prefer to replace all the low IQ whites in your town with high IQ Third World ethnic groups? Because that is where this supremacist argument leads.”

  7. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    March 6, 2017 - 11:38 am | Permalink

    Kevin, thanks again for reiterating the basics of the problem. To wit: innate White credulousness, self-destructive altruism, and a very weak sense of racial identity. The conflicted White paradox in a nutshell.

  8. Rick's Gravatar Rick
    March 6, 2017 - 11:56 am | Permalink

    As much as I agree with you playing humble sheep is not going to help us much.

    Trump is a prime example. He braved abuse and fought his way through and is still fighting.

    I also agree with one comment about resentment and envy. Clearly the Whiteman is the apex specimen be it looks, sports, science or disoveries and this is the real problem for Jews, feminists, blacks, Hispanics etc. Jews especially have a serious inferiority complex.

  9. Forever guilty's Gravatar Forever guilty
    March 6, 2017 - 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Well actually “average “suburban” liberal ” is not so innocent. He (she) was greatly benefiting from globalization In the past. He was holding “secure”, good paying, degree requiring position. Also he was paying for cheap imports with high value US dollars. He enjoyed cheap labor rates, when he was renovating his house, hiring maid or just mowing his lawn.

    It was “white trash”, “low IQ Broom Pushers” , “Union thugs” who paid the price

    However today India for example producing millions or tens of millions university graduates, enough to replace “suburban liberals ” several times over . And because India is basically huge sewage dump, these people will do almost anything to move to US.

    So what will “suburban liberal ” do, when kicked out of his cozy position in industry or academy? Compete with scores of people to get position in Wall-Mart? How he would be able to pay his medical insurance, mortgage , property taxes, living expenses ?

    • March 7, 2017 - 10:39 am | Permalink

      Yes, more or less true. I think K Mac’s discussion of ‘virtue signalling’ omits something. Nobody ‘signals’ in a vacuum or in the dark. ‘Virtue signalling’ as a signal for Jews, either directly or through their collaborators. With any change, the signals will change too.

    • March 7, 2017 - 11:05 am | Permalink

      I support your line of thoughts. There are parts of the white population which have had profit from the multikulti-process. And other parts had the negative sides. Therefore there was a division within our own folk. But this is the story of yesterday. Today the multikulti-process is so big and accelerating so much that it is a deadly threat to our folks as a whole. This said division should not hinder us to fight together for our survival and for the survival of our children.
      Today most of the “suburban liberals” (in German: “Gutmenschen”) feel deep inside that they have sold their own heritage for a “Linsengericht” (dish of lentils, see Esau and Jacob in the Bible). They do not want to wake up because they still have some advantages from multikulti, but deep inside they know the truth. They need some kind of a triggering moment, they need a wake up call that they can not overhear. Inside they are ready to join us, but they need an additional “kick”. After this moment, the different groups within our folks all will stand at our side, at the side of life for us and our children, and than we will win against all adversaries.

  10. Deep North's Gravatar Deep North
    March 6, 2017 - 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Women use manipulation and other psychological weapons to get what they want and punish other women since they don’t have the physical strength or intimidation like men do. Post-Trump election liberals have a cult like mentality that will give Jim Jones a run for his money. As much as a victory that Trump was for America his comments about women are steering moderate women into the feminist camp. This can be countered with facts about black on white rapes and the true misogyny allowed in third world cultures. White women have it real good in Western Cultures, they just don’t know it. Women are naturally more caring and nurturing due to their genetics. Women know how they’re pursued and sought after in society and wouldn’t want to risk losing that status by becoming an outsider who is shunned. Although we are seeing more women becoming brainwashed and becoming hostile towards men because of (((certain influences))). Not to mention they now celebrate obesity as a healthy body image with the result that men will don’t date these women.

  11. Henrik's Gravatar Henrik
    March 6, 2017 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

    In Sweden the media has for decades portrayed people who support mass third world immigration as intelligent, sucessfull, rich, well-behaved, urban, tolerant and and likeable. At the same time people who do not like immigration are portrayed as stupid unemployed losers with alcohol-problems that are illbehaved and unkempt, often criminal and not very likable at all. It has been quite succesfull.

    I think the Sweden Democrats has done som mistakes in the past focusing on economics. People do not care if immigration costs money if immigration is morally righteous. Another mistake is the party focusing on helping people in the” viscinity of the conflict-areas”. This is wrong because you portray the immigrants as, in general, real “refugees” instead of portraying them as immoral people who lies and deceives. The Sweden Democrats also want to increase the number of quota refugees. Maybe the party could have been more successful by fighting the moral paradigm, established by the media, than by buying in to it. Fight for higher moral ground, so to speak.

    • March 7, 2017 - 10:35 am | Permalink

      People do not care if immigration costs money if immigration is morally righteous…
      This is yet another Jewish media falsehood. Because of Jewish loans to governments, which are barely mentioned (I’ve never seen the ‘national debt’ in Britain discussed by the Jewish commentators) people have no idea what the true costs are. Here’s a book review of a book nominally about ‘ideological Islam’, including a few estimates by ‘Parisclaims’—
      “… the British government spends a minimum 18 billion a year from tax revenues on unproductive Muslim immigrants. While the government is trying to create £12 billion in annual cuts from benefit payments by targeting the handicapped, elderly and poor amongst its own citizens, they have neglected to reject from the country a group that is highly overrepresented above anyone else in welfare exploitation.
      … in 2012 … 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed, while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed – risen from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004. Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability (2001 figures). Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures). As if this is not enough, the total prison population iamongst category A and B criminals (the worse crimes) is now 35-39% Muslim.

      … Money-wise it means that out of 5 million Muslims living in Britain (2012 demographics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85%, live off tax payers. If we average this with the minimum benefit payment of £67 a week, at least 284,750,000 per week (£1.1 billion per month) is spent from taxpayer money to feed and care for Muslims who don’t contribute anything whatsoever to Britain’s revenues—except making more Muslims.

      And that calculation doesn’t even include housing benefits, childcare support, medical care and other coverage utilized by the population.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        March 8, 2017 - 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Yes, it is yet another Jewish media falsehood, and your examples play out similarly in all countries being flooded. I have learned to question people directly about their support for the immigration insanity by asking them why they despise poor and disadvantaged Canadians to the advantage of foreigners. After all every dollar spent on an immigrant is a dollar taken away from our own poor and disadvantaged.

  12. March 6, 2017 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Another excellent article, Dr MacDonald.

    “Obama said that too often people think of those who oppose them as not merely misguided but malevolent. This is a huge problem for the Alt Right. The very label is typically associated in the media with words like ‘Nazi,’ ‘White supremacist,’ and ‘racist’ — all of which have strong moral connotations after years of browbeating by the media. These words produce psychological reflexes intended to preclude honest debate or any rational discussion of our ideas. And they have been very effective in doing just that.”

    Dr Thomas E Turner calls these words “nebulous-power-words”, and has analysed their nature.

    I hope I am not being too forward in mentioning that I have written about this in my latest blog article (with links): ‘Word Power in Paris and Berkeley’.


    (Mod. Note: Pardon me for inserting a comment, but I’d like to encourage other TOO readers to check out the link Invictus provided. Invictus, the link you provided above contains a sub-link to a book review: This one The book referred to in the review is either “free” or very inexpensive on Amazon (USA). But the review alone provides a very good understanding of what “nebulous power words” are and how they are used to deceive and dominate. “We” European American types seem to be particularly susceptible to this type of deception, so understanding “how it works” is invaluable. Thanks.)

  13. Walter L's Gravatar Walter L
    March 6, 2017 - 3:58 pm | Permalink

    “In general, women are higher on these traits [love, nurturance and empathy], and the evolutionary logic is that these traits have been more important over evolutionary time for women because they feed into nurturing children and cementing close relationships within the family.”

    The current history of White women shows that they are not loving wives.

    Women don’t do too much cementing family relationships today, but they do start divorce. They start single mom families. In America today women can get along without a man. The state takes care of women.

    Men are necessary because they work, produce things, and pay taxes.

    Is there a state school, from K to PhD, that tells women that men are good, and that women should be good wives?

    As far as evolution history goes, isn’t the winning strategy for a woman to not get killed defending her tribesmen, but allow the invading tribe to kill her mate and his offspring, and start over with the new tribe?

    The bond of love is strongly bound up with sex pleasure, a pleasure which men feel more intensely than women.

  14. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    March 6, 2017 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    As a former leftist while at university in the early 70s, I associated myself with many non-white people on the left. What became clear to me was that non-white leftism was (and still is) driven by the same so-called racist motives that they attribute to whites. But of course, they couldn’t (can’t) say that without falling into contradiction – hence the diversity speeches. Simply put, non-white leftism is purely tribal and racial in terms of psychological motive. Non-whites are happy to see more non-white faces (as well as the multitude of non-white cultural markers) in their midst and the easiest way to achieve that in the west is to simply flood Europe and America with non-whites.

    We often hear the oft-repeated remark that diversity is code for anti-white. True, but it’s really code for non-white racism. For non-whites, diversity is the first step on the path to the racial exclusion of whites.

    • Harry Heller's Gravatar Harry Heller
      March 14, 2017 - 5:31 am | Permalink

      Think “conquest”.

  15. Derek's Gravatar Derek
    March 6, 2017 - 9:09 pm | Permalink

    I concur with some comments. The Left is highly intolerant particularly the Loony Left. For instance the Jewish-controlled BBC until recenty forbade any discussion on multiculturalism and the terrible damage it has caused. To this day discussions like honour killings in the Muslim ghettoes in European cities and towns are simply verboten for BBC editors who also have censored debate on the appalling abuse of white girls in places like Bristol and Rotherham. Now imagine the BBC allowing debate on disproportionate Jewish power in both America and the UK – yet they are happy to talk about white male dominance of boards.

    All this is obvious as Jews, being Middle Easterners, cannot stomach our democratic traditions of individual say that can be traced back to Norse Thing or Witan that was a proto-type of modern parliament or your townhall meetings.

    My only problem with the Alt Right is lack of political shrewdness and constant veering from real issues like white displacement, immigration and reverse racism – these are issues that win votes as Donald Trump has shown not talking about a white valhalla. Without political power our efforts are futile and reduced to “Turner Diaries” status. This apart from Jewish money is why for example the BNP failed to capitalise on angst in the UK.

    • March 7, 2017 - 10:21 am | Permalink

      Lack of political shrewdeness. I’m inclined to take an evolutionary view. Whites developed into many groups even within their own societies: specialists in animal taming, animal care, plant growth, boats, buildings, and necessary types – patient, cautious; death-defying and bold; guardians, police; strong etc etc – white virtuosity and multi-skilled capacities have helped the veering off which you identify. We get used to it: after only a century we have people taking airplanes for granted, piloting etc; ditto with cars, which, after having never existed, are catered for by large numbers of males with no genetic background. An incredible tribute to those types of activity, but they’ve turned out to be weak in the hands of generations of inbred parasites who deceive without the slightest compunction and have instinctive hatred as their motor.

  16. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 6, 2017 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Women are evolutionarily wired to sleep with the enemy. It is a win-win situation. Most usually, the enemy was not a Bantu tribe, rather a similar nearby tribe. Should their own tribe lose, she already has connections in the other side. Should her tribe win, she can buy rehabilitation with sex favors. Plus, the other tribe improves her genetic lot by not inbreeding too closely.

    Now obviously this turns upside down, inside out in the reality of today. Give it a million years, and women will adapt. Or figure out how to put the debate and create the situations so that our tribe wins. Africans have nothing at all to lose, nothing. It is a surreal world that they go to another place, get houses and women at will, without having to do anything at all. That’s how it actually is. Ad we are losing big time.

    • joe six pack's Gravatar joe six pack
      March 9, 2017 - 4:07 am | Permalink

      The Guanches were a tallish blondish tribe who lived undisturbed on the Canary Islands until the late 1400s when the Spanish discovered them. They were conquered violently and, as is the custom, the men were slaughtered and the women raped. So for women it is not the end of their genes, which is the point of it all. But for men, being conquered is basically THE END.
      They did a genetic study of present day Canary islanders and the results confirmed this age old custom of conquerors.
      “Admixture analysis taking the Iberians, Northwest and West sub-Saharan African populations as parental sources of the actual Canarian population, gave estimates of around 33% for the maternal4 and 6% for the paternal5 Guanche lineages. This strong sexual asymmetry was explained as a result of a strong bias favouring matings between European males and aboriginal females, and to the important aboriginal male mortality during the Conquest.”
      from here:

    • Seek's Gravatar Seek
      March 9, 2017 - 2:02 pm | Permalink

      I have noticed time and again that women are most likely to mate with men who seem to be their protectors, even if “protection” amounts to abuse. A “nice” man, even one with money, is at a disadvantage here. This is why black male-white female pairings are far more common than white male-black female pairings. White men, it seems, are fearful of appearing less than fair or chivalrous.

      The antidote for white males, crude as it may seem, is to become part of Pickup Artist culture. Put simply, men must learn to be confident — not abusive, but confident to the point of not needing a woman. Emotional neediness gets us put on the “back of the bus.” If you are a white male and not ashamed of being white, tell a white woman that, bluntly and without apology. If she shuns you as a “racist,” then good. You’ve just saved yourself several wasted months of expensive dates.

      • Harry Heller's Gravatar Harry Heller
        March 14, 2017 - 5:29 am | Permalink

        Few black women are attractive to most White men. The pickup artist culture does not get you a quality wife, but a golddigger – which brings innumerable problems down the road.

  17. Kartoffelsalat's Gravatar Kartoffelsalat
    March 6, 2017 - 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Some in the German New Right believe links with a revived Russia and a shift away from the Anglo-Saxon sphere is key to survival of the West.

    I personally agree. Inspite of Trump, English-speaking countries are heavily Judaised and destructive movements like feminism (also chronic to Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland) seem almost irreversible. On the otherhand traditionally conservative countries like Poland may offer some resistance but lack economic strength given their dependence on the EU (German money). Russia has many problems but there is no better alternative. (in German)

  18. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 7, 2017 - 12:10 am | Permalink

    Now I think that we are framing it all wrong. We must frame everything in national, patriotic terms. Irish national interest, Swedish national interest, Russian national interest, and so on. I liked it when somebody said “US is the best country in the world. In order to remain so, only the best people should be allowed to come.”

  19. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    March 7, 2017 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    I’m a White Nationalist but I’m not a White Supremacist. Because I’m not so sure we’re supreme at all. I think it’s possible that the Left actually believes they are Supreme and can right all wrongs while not mortally wounding themselves and their society. I don’t believe this. If you look at the deep past Europeans were pushed into an area that was far from being the most desirable. I submit that the the huge push from the American Indian die off from disease gave us an underestimated boost. Vast amounts of land, minerals and material. It vastly improved shipping as there was plenty that needed to moved. This was amplified and possibly started the Industrial Revolution which boosted us even further. Now I’m White and like Whites. I’m not degrading our past accomplishments but we must be careful not to get carried away and somehow dream we are the all to end all.

    I wonder if Trump’s victory over the “moralist” might not be that we as a people must respect those doing the moralizing in order for it to be important to us. How many people followed Jimmy Swaggart’s moralizing after he was caught with a prostitute? Does anyone respect the media. The numbers are very small. We might very well be in a once in a lifetime switch in exactly who and what it is that is moral.

  20. joe six pack's Gravatar joe six pack
    March 7, 2017 - 3:10 pm | Permalink

    “We should have pride in the accomplishments of our European ancestors, as tabulated, for example, by Charles Murray.”
    Yeah on p.246 of Human Accomplishment Murray says, “The inventories are overwhelmingly European and male” and that is why the world hates us. We succeeded overwhelmingly, they did not. That is the reason for the World Wide War on Whites, aka W to the fourth power. We have money and land, the rest have less. This W to the fourth will not end until we have far far less.

    Do these virtue signalers think that the mob makes distinctions between good whites and bad whites? I think not. Will the New Black god come flying over the good whites house and make a sign on the door saying ‘Passover this house, a good White lives here.’
    i think not. These virtue signalers are selling their granddaughters happiness for their ever-so-slight gain in social status.

  21. joe six pack's Gravatar joe six pack
    March 7, 2017 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

    “The suggestion, consistent with social identity theory, is that a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic.”
    Yet Jewish people play the chameleon and masquerade as Whites, thus confusing their duller opponents. But most Jewish people are really WHINOs. White-in-name-only.
    They have white skin but they vote like Blacks. Whats their line? “Act British vote Yiddish.” I think 70% Democratic vote total is the lowest ever Dem percentage for Jews, normally they are around 80% Dem.And although they are only 2% of the population of America they contribute over 2/3 of the money to the Democratic party.

    Wikipedia…. Israel lobby
    “In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party’s fundraising came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees. Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources.[49]”

    Also Mearsheimer and Walt, Israel Lobby, p.163
    “Despite their small numbers in the population(less than 3 per cent), American Jews make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties”
    footnote 55 ”
    “Indeed the Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates”depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources” footnote 56

    But it must be mentioned that Trump would probably not be President without Stephen Miller a seemingly true believer and Jared Kushner, who thought up the rust belt strategy which was a stroke of genius. Both guys are Jewish so we will see how things turn out.

    So nothing is Black and White but it would be nice to be able to discuss Jewish influence in the public forum.
    Anti-semitism is the erroneous belief held by non-Jewish people that Jewish people can be criticized….like everybody else.

  22. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    March 7, 2017 - 8:18 pm | Permalink

    “Studies have shown that liberals tend to be far more intolerant of people with conservative opinions than vice versa.”

    I think liberals are intolerant by and large. Wealthy liberals are intolerant of the rednecks. Penniless liberals are intolerant of opera lovers. I think conservatives are less class-conscious.

    A conservative business owner may hire a leftist employee, but a liberal is less likely to hire a conservative. Liberals like cool people like themselves. That’s why they have little patience for old people who think too slowly, for eccentrics, for people who dress or talk too conservatively, and probably for disabled people.

    “we don’t suppose that your basic White, suburban, college-educated, New York Times-reading liberal is advocating multiculturalism with evil intent”

    My theory is that many liberals are simply stupid. Wealthy liberals cannot be entirely stupid, but they are under stronger social pressure. I do think of them as having an evil streak, not just a stubborn, moronic, conformist streak. They just looove to inflict “altruistic” punishment to healthy minded conservatives. That’s why I have revenge fantasies. I wonder how many Norwegians changed their minds about the third-world invasion thanks to Breivik.

    Of course, Trump has already made a greater impact than Breivik. What he needs to do now is allow the creation of a big pro-White TV channel. It will give some moral and intellectual clarity to everyone, and will turn a lot of liberals into conservatives.

  23. March 10, 2017 - 7:13 am | Permalink

    The NPR reporter laid a strategic rhetorical trap for KMac and KMac, unfortunately, fell for it. Make no mistake people: Permitting the opposition to redefine “supremacist” in terms other than “having power over all others” is a disastrous blunder that is at the root of the moral toxins used against us. But KMac is not alone. John Derbyshire also made this strategic blunder. Here is my response to his blunder:

    Mr. Derbyshire,

    Being an American barbarian, I don’t have convenient access to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps you could help me understand your choice of the secondary definition of “supreme”, given at this source, to be your preferred definition of “supremacist”, thereby relegating to a neologism, “dominationist”, the primary definition of “supreme”.

    supreme ‎(comparative supremer or more supreme, superlative supremest or most supreme)

    1. Dominant, having power over all others.  
    2. (sometimes postpositive) Greatest, most excellent, extreme, most superior, highest, or utmost.  
    supreme disgust; supreme courage‎
    3. (botany) Situated at the highest part or point.

    Assuming this source isn’t a barbaric travesty of proper English, might I suggest a more conservative approach to usage:

    supremacist: Dominant, having power over all others.

    superist: Greatest, most excellent, extreme, most superior, highest, or utmost.

    I believe Nietzsche’s “superman” has been smeared with negative connotations adequate to render “superist” effectively libelous — so this neologism may be well received by “authorities”.

    An avowed “white” superist,

    Jim Bowery

  24. March 14, 2017 - 6:44 am | Permalink

    Kevin MacDonald is making an important point here. As he said in talks before, morality is a universalistic concept, and is not defined in terms of what’s good for a certain group. All the major moral theories throughout history define rightness without reference to ethnicity or group.

    Thus to make a specifically moral argument for limiting immigration is to base it on a principle which should apply to all ethnic groups. That principle is simply the (pro tanto) right of all ethnic groups to self-preservation. To base a policy of immigration limits on the idea that the white race is superior, on the other hand, makes that policy hostage to debates over whether they are indeed superior, over how to define ‘superior’ etc, and doesn’t have the kind of wide appeal that a moral (universalistic) argument tends to have.

Comments are closed.