The Moral Darwinian Argument For White Interests: Chapter 9 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition


We have now reached the last chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. This indispensable book argues that both the rise and decline of the West can be explained in terms of the genetically selected predisposition Europeans have for creating communities that emphasize the moral reputation of individuals for honesty, hard work, and fairness, rather than kinship ties and racial identities. The fundamental error of Whites was to project onto all human beings their peculiar individualism and moral universalism. Whites failed to understand their own history: that only Europeans created moral communities based on universal values, and that non-Whites have remained very in-group oriented and ethnocentric throughout their histories. They failed to understand that in the age of mass immigration non-Whites view their openness as an opportunity to promote their own ethnic interests.

This is not to say that Whites have always viewed themselves in the extreme 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. They did not think that cultural nationalism was inconsistent with liberal principles. It was really after Word War II that Whites came to the view that liberalism demanded the integration of multiple races within their homelands. Why did they come to this view?

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.”

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. Whites are not inclined to create kinship-based communities. 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.

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.

Darwinian Communities of WEIRD Whites

White normies can’t be expected to discard altogether their deeply seated behavioral inclination for communities based on moral fairness, trust, honesty, and merit. They can’t be expected to create “group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions [and] fealty to group leaders.” Whites are a different race with a WEIRD personality and intellect. Whites have a unique capacity for analytical reasoning. Whereas the minds of non-Whites operate within contextual relationships made up of traditions, kinship interests, and personal inclinations, the mind of Whites operate according to rules dictated by the mind’s own rational principles.

The White mind has a capacity for decontextualization, that is, for detaching things from their context, focusing on the inherent traits of objects as such and developing formal rules for explaining and predicting phenomena. The non-White mind, if I may put it bluntly, can’t fully distinguished the subject and the object, the mind and the body, the context and the thing-in-itself. The minds of collectivist non-Whites are socially embedded, which means that the collectivist mind tends to be trapped to the surrounding world of prescribed or dogmatically given norms and interests of the kinship group, and thus has a lesser capacity for impartiality, for science, for honesty, for trustworthiness. It is no accident that Whites are responsible for almost the entire history of logic, 97% of all scientific findings, the development of abstract symbols in musical notation, arithmetical operations, grammatical rules, and almost all the categorizing, serializing, enumerating, and inferring in science.

Therefore, if identitarians are to make a case for White racial interests in the face of growing White awareness of their impending marginalization, they must articulate arguments that take into consideration the unique nature of the White inclination for moral communities. 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.
  • 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.
  • that the moral communities Whites cherish based on democratic politics, rule of law, meritocracy, are deteriorating precisely because these communities are increasingly populated by non-whites and dominated by radical leftist politics.
  • that Whites are the least morally depraved race on the planet when it comes to political corruption, inequality of rights, and ethnic despotism.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • that immigration and incessant attacks on “white racism” are leading to extreme polarization in politics, civil strife, and eventual 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.
MacDonald’s book thus comes full circle, in a tightly argued manner, from a very original account 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”. Criticisms can undoubtedly be directed against Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. 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. 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.
15 replies
  1. Brandon Palmer
    Brandon Palmer says:

    Thank you for the excellent review.
    Looks like KMAC hit it out of the park again and now we have
    a blueprint for the future.

  2. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    Interesting that Duchesne ends with the appeal that

    “MacDonald’s perspective is far more than one viewpoint among other interesting viewpoints. It is an *indispensable viewpoint* without which White identity politics would lack both a solid scientific foundation and a compelling moral argument.”

    It’s interesting because Adolf Hitler similarly saw his National Socialism that utilized the “Leadership (Personality) Principle” rather than majority rule as a new Worldview, not only a political party among others. Therefore it had to be intolerant of others, and to dominate because it was a Worldview.

    I’d like to add that if Kevin MacDonald had taken the trouble to learn anything about Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist state, instead of falling hook, line and sinker for the Jewish WW1 and 2 narrative and Allied propaganda, he could have known that Hitler already discovered and introduced in 1925 every bit of the Jewish Culture of Critique that MacDonald discovered and wrote about in the 1990s.

    From ‘Mein Kampf’, Volume 2: (Chapt. 5, p 165 in the Dalton dual translation)
    “As displeasing as it may be to the individual [whose desire is to engage in only constructive work], a young doctrine of great and essential importance must adopt the sharp probe of criticism as its weapon. […]
    Marxism too has had its aims to pursue constructive work (if only the establishment of despotic rule by international Jewish world-finance!); nevertheless, for the prior 70 years, its principal work was criticism—destructive, disintegrating criticism, over and over, until this corrosive acid ate into the old State so thoroughly that it finally collapsed.”

    Adolf Hitler pre-dated “The Culture of Critique.” I don’t believe he missed anything–it’s all there on the record, just waiting to be discovered by any scholars that are interested.

    • Nancy Sparks
      Nancy Sparks says:

      You are always picking at KMAC with petty remarks and snide criticisms.
      You can bet that Macdonald has read “Mein Kampf.”
      KMAC has read everything you have read and thousands of volumes more than you have
      read, and he’s digested all of it with his 150 IQ, while you snipe at him like a yapping monkey.
      It’s one thing to be contrary but it’s quite another to be a dumb pain in the butt.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        I would not be so sure that K. MacDonald has read ‘Mein Kampf.’ Have you read it, Nancy? Just what are you familiar with?
        I’m sure I know K.M. better than you do. I hosted him on my radio program “The Heretics Hour” three times and we got along great. I am not “sniping” and my remarks are not “petty” but to the point and informative. It’s not a good idea to take offense on behalf of other people; you wade into something that is not your business and look foolish.
        I know Kevin MacDonald has a very loyal following, but so does Adolf Hitler. lol

        • Blenda Richter
          Blenda Richter says:

          You nailed it twice. First on your observation about Dr. MacDonald’s option for the path of least resistance and yielding to the Jew narrative and their Allied (lackey) propaganda. He might not be too hip on the Führer’s writings but I’m not sure if he’s oblivious as to what really happened in both WW’s. The Culture of Critique is a great work, but Hitler had already covered the subject on the JQ very comprehensively.

          And then you nailed it on your reply to Nancy (Karen) Sparks. A typical newbie, better yet, an ideological parvenu who cannot tell sniping from snot and yet snaps pissing uncontrollably outside the toilet.

      • Chris M
        Chris M says:

        Great comment Nancy.

        I especially liked this part.

        “…you snipe at him like a yapping monkey.
        It’s one thing to be contrary but it’s quite another to be a dumb pain in the butt.”


        CY is well-known for trolling and picking fights. She’s so delusional she actually thinks we all need and want her approval.

        Her comments ooze with that foul odor coming from a person who’s never experienced love. Poor thing.

        If she wasn’t so repellent and obnoxious I’d feel sorry for her. But she’s too repellent and obnoxious. So, I don’t.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Typical trollish ad hominums and personal insults with not a sign of factual examples to back up your empty remarks. Just what are you against? What are you for? The same question goes to Nancy Sparks — who is a a partially-filled vessel going along for the ride.

          I like and appreciate what Blenda Richter said: “The Culture of Critique is a great work, but Hitler had already covered the subject on the JQ very comprehensively.” The fact that a site that ostensibly discusses the Jewish Question for the benefit of Whites as a group, yet completely avoids Adolf Hitler’s contribution to that subject “for fear of the Jews,” deserves to be prompted about that omission as many times as is necessary. If either of you have a good answer as to why that is not so, please give it and we could have a useful debate.

  3. Canadianer
    Canadianer says:

    Personally, I think that 80 percent of whites will be wiped out. There are those that will coalesce into a collective but the vast majority simply dont care about or can’t comprehend group interests.

    I see the genius in the old levites and pharisees. They built a rutheless ethnic strategy wrapped up as a religion and used parables to teach the Jewish strategy to their young people. Then they took the 50k or so people that accepted the religion and considered everyone else the enemy.

    At some point race conscious whites will have to figure out what their group strategy is. Then you have to decide the status of the cucky whites.

    One of the thints that few people talk about is the need to go beyond whiteness. One of the weakness of white identity is that whiteness includes both Europeans and Jews and Jews will hide behind white identity while harming us. That is why politics is so hard to understand — they will talk about the white BLM leaders without stating that those whites are Jews and they are mobilizing Blm as a weapon against whites.

    We need our own identity that is separate from Jews so that they cannot hide behind a shared white identity. We have to figure out how to define explicitely who is one of us and who is not.

    Lastly, if we are to survive without creating a tribal identity that can rival Jews and other ethnocentric groups in shared territory, we need our own territory without a hostile Jewish elite, and we can’t achieve a reconquesta without the ability to act as a group.

    We are in serious trouble right now. Developing a strong collective identity and geoup strategy could take hundreds of years and in the mean time we are getting our communities zapped by refugee resettlement that further strengthens the anti-white ethnic block.

    Can we figure out a winning group strategy before we are completely obliterated as a people?

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “Can we figure out a winning group strategy before we are completely obliterated as a people?”

      To answer that question simply reread your excellent comment and reflect on what you wrote before posting.

      Since you said a lot worth considering, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would be interested to read your answer.

      For now, one thing I would respond to in your comment is that too many people seem almost in awe of Jewish Supremacy’s destructive force. So much so that they equate this with an impossible to stop and permanent victory. This is just not true.

      For evidence I’d offer the following.

      City: New York. It’s gone. And they destroyed it.
      State: California. Same.
      Country: USA. It’s finished. They destroyed it.
      Continent: Europe. Same.
      Civilization: Western. Same.

      Would you call that a success story, or a Pyrrhic Victory?

      But there’s more.

      It’s obvious that the world is being divided in half right now by the only two real super powers that exist. The Chinese Communist Party and Jewish Supremacy Inc.

      To avoid tensions they’ve pretty much become partners in crime. But there’s a snake in this garden.
      JSI simply can not stop being JSI and all that that implies. And The CCP do not strike one as being all that into power-sharing. Nor does it look like they’ll ever back down when placed between the sword and the wall, which, as you well know, is exactly the position JSI would like to place the entire world.

      It’s what they do because it’s who they are. And it’s who they are because, as KM has said, “they can’t help themselves.”

      I, for one, would not refer to a people who are powerless over their worst collective character defect as a power that is going to last long. Maybe in the past. But not in a world more complex and unpredictable than ever before. No way.

      And I have no doubt that the Chinese, and not just the Chinese, but Russia as well, will not back down if pressured by JSI.

      After all, not long ago Putin said words to the effect that – there will be no world without Russia. The Chinese most definitely feel the same way.

      In short, neither one is going to allow JSI to push them around the way W. Europe and N. America did.
      Not to mention the fact that few in W. Europe and N. America want to throw their lives away defending JSI, ie; a hostile elite who hate and long to crush the very people they are dependent on.

      Time to look past the surface destruction (impressive and distressing as it is) long enough to see just how vulnerable they are to both themselves and others.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        not long ago Putin said words to the effect that – there will be no world without Russia.


        Putin made his remark during a demonstration of Russia’s nuclear capability. The video was from about two years ago and might still be up. Sorry I don’t have a link to share.

  4. Reb Kittredge
    Reb Kittredge says:

    This final installment of Prof. Duchesne’s review is a great summary of Prof. MacDonald’s book. It could also serve as a stand-alone piece, to give to someone to read, that encapsulates many of the most important themes in our movement.

  5. kikz
    kikz says:

    oh editor.. just a heads’ up.. erroneous suffix on distinguish…… 🙂 “The White mind has a capacity for decontextualization, that is, for detaching things from their context, focusing on the inherent traits of objects as such and developing formal rules for explaining and predicting phenomena. The non-White mind, if I may put it bluntly, can’t fully distinguished”

    nice article.

  6. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    “Jews did not create Western liberalism…[but] were crucially important in the articulation of the argument that America was meant to be a “polycentric” nation populated by multiple races”.

    Where were the Jews when “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” was proclaiming that:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness”?

Comments are closed.