A Response to Some Issues in Ted Sallis’s Blog

I recently became aware that Ted Sallis has been criticizing my book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (2019; hereafter Individualism) on his blog. Sallis is basically on-page with most of my work, including my work on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, and he has made great contributions in defending and promoting Frank Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interests. Some of this work was posted on TOO, and in all, he has written 17 articles for us, starting with “Why Was the Understanding of Ethnic Genetic Interests Delayed for 30 Years?” in July of 2009.

In preparing this, I looked at his blog entries under ‘MacDonald‘; here I discuss what I regard as his most important objections, but also ones that are likely to give rise to questions from others who have read the book.

Am I a Nordicist?

Sallis claims I am a Nordicist. I presume this refers to the fact that a major theme of Individualism is that I claim to have found a north-south cline in family structure, and I link geographical variation in family structure with the settlement patterns of the three groups that populated pre-historic Western Europe—the Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, the Indo-Europeans (mainly north-central Europe and northern Italy), and the Early Farmers from Anatolia (mainly in the southern part of Western Europe). I suppose one can argue with that, but I don’t see an argument in Sallis’s  writing. Doing so would require an explanation of how my review of the population genetic data in Chapter 1 fails to show a north-south genetic cline  linked to these three groups, and/or that my review of the family history data in Chapter 4  is faulty. The family history data show a more collectivist pattern in southern Europe (e.g., brothers living together with wives and parents) than in northern Europe, the extreme being Scandinavia with nuclear families characterized by very weak ties among their members.

But the claim that I am a Nordicist has an evaluative ring to it—that I think that the Nordics are superior in some way. In fact, Individualism reveals the weakness of northern Europeans, especially in the current cultural environment in which traditional social controls embedded in religion have disappeared, resulting in a dysfunctional, guilt-prone culture unable to oppose the invasion of other peoples that is now besetting them. Moreover, Scandinavia was a relative backwater in European culture compared to the dynamic northcentral regions of Western Europe. Charles Murray’s map of human accomplishment (discussed in Ch. 9 of Individualism) excludes the great majority of Scandinavia, apart from Denmark which has a strong infusion of German genes (Ch. 1). If anything, I suppose one could call me a Germanicist.

Human Accomplishment--Charles Murray p.1 - YouTube

Individualism and Conformity

I portray Scandinavians as highly individualistic but also as highly conformist—what I regard as a paradox in need of explanation, but Sallis regards their conformity as a fatal flaw in my argument. I regard this paradox as a fundamental problem for any analysis and certainly not solved by Sallis’s theory that individualism resulted from geographical distance from racially dissimilar others (see below). There is no question that Scandinavians are conformists. My first efforts to understand this are from a 2012 review of David Hackett Fischer’s Fairness and Freedom (pp. 80–81) where I discuss the Jante Laws of Scandinavia and the Tall Poppy Syndrome in New Zealand as basically socially enforced egalitarianism common in hunter-gatherer cultures around the world (see Christopher Boehm’s Hierarchy in the Forest [4]), and a major point of Chapter 3 of Individualism is that, because of their peculiar ecological position (briefly described below), the northern Europeans retained their hunter-gatherer ways for a very long time, holding off the Early Farmers of more southerly regions prior to the Indo-European invasion for 2000-3000 years. My solution was thus to emphasize the point that extended kinship is less important as a social glue among Nordics (and to a lesser extent, among the Indo-Europeans compared to southern Europeans). All cultures require mechanisms of social cohesion, but rather than relying on kinship distance, as in the rest of the world, social cohesion is maintained mainly by reputation in the community: Can you be trusted? Do you uphold the moral values of the community? Are you a courageous, competent warrior? From Chapter 8:

In Chapter 1 it was argued that the Scandinavian countries are on the extreme end of the northwest-southeast genetic cline, with higher levels of northern hunter-gatherer-derived genes than other parts of Western Europe. Chapter 3 described these hunter-gatherer cultures as reflecting egalitarian individualism, and Chapter 4 described the Scandinavian family patterns as extreme within Western Europe.

Although all Western European-derived societies are undergoing replacement-level, non-White migration, there can be little doubt that Scandinavia and especially Sweden, are extreme in welcoming replacement of their peoples and cultures. As elsewhere in the West, a major role in these transformations has been played by Jewish activists and Jewish media ownership,[1] but Scandinavians seem particularly favorable to these transformations. Indeed, Noah Carl, analyzing 2015 survey data from the European Union, found that Swedes were the least ethnocentric group as measured by items such as approval of children having a love relationship with various ethnic groups, sexual minorities, and disabled people.[2] Respondents from the U.K. and the Netherlands were also highly tolerant, with Eastern European countries on the low end, data consistent with northwestern Europeans being the most tolerant.

The reputation-based moral communities of Scandinavia have been strongly egalitarian. The “Jante Laws” of Scandinavia are paradigmatic: 1. Don’t think you are anything; 2. Don’t think you are as good as us. 3. Don’t think you are smarter than us. 4. Don’t fancy yourself better than us. 5. Don’t think you know more than us. 6. Don’t think you are greater than us. 7. Don’t think you are good for anything. 8. Don’t laugh at us. 9. Don’t think that anyone cares about you. 10. Don’t think you can teach us anything.[3] In short, no one must rise above the rest. Such egalitarianism is typical of hunter-gatherer groups around the world[4] and is antithetical to the aristocratic ideal of the Indo-Europeans.

Extreme egalitarianism results in high levels of conformism and social anxiety. Individuals fear social ostracism for violating egalitarian norms and standing out from the crowd—a phenomenon that has played a major role in creating a public consensus in favor of mass migration and multiculturalism. Decisions are by consensus, implying that individuals are loathe to stand out from the group. In Sweden especially there is no public debate on the costs and benefits of immigration; sceptics typically remain silent for fear of shunning and disapproval.

So my view is that Scandinavians are conformists in a social setting where reputation is paramount because of their evolutionary background as hunter-gatherers living in socially enforced, highly egalitarian moral communities where extended kinship relationships were relatively less important. In interacting with another person, the important issues are whether another person is trustworthy and whether one can benefit from the relationship, not how closely related the person is.  But on the other hand, Scandinavian family relationships are egalitarian and relatively loose. The radical individualism of Sweden is illustrated in the following, from Chapter 4:

What is unique about Swedish social policy is neither the extent to which the state has intervened in society nor the generous insurance schemes, but the underlying moral logic. Though the path in no way has been straight, one can discern over the course of the twentieth century an overarching ambition to liberate the individual citizen from all forms of subordination and dependency in civil society: the poor from charity, the workers from their employers, wives from their husbands, children from parents (and vice versa when the parents have become elderly).

In practice, the primacy of individual autonomy has been institutionalized through a plethora of laws and practices … . Interdependency within the family has been minimized through individual taxation of spouses, family law reforms have revoked obligations to support elderly parents, more or less universal day care makes it possible for women to work, student loans which are blind in relation to the income of parents or spouse give young adults a large degree of autonomy in relation to their families, and children are given a more independent status through the abolition of corporal punishment and a strong emphasis on children’s rights. All in all, this legislation has made Sweden into the least family-dependent and the most individualized society on the face of the earth [5].

In this regime, families become “voluntary associations”—despite continuing to exhibit high-investment parenting as indicated by high levels of time spent with children. Nordic families are relatively prone to “independence (of children), individualism, and (gender) equality.”[6] The “Swedish theory of love” is that partners should not be dependent on each other—that true love means not entering a relationship as dependent in any way (e.g., financially) on the other person.[7] Surveys of values confirm that Nordic societies cluster together in scoring high on “emancipatory self-expression.”[8] Nordic societies also cluster at the top of social trust, despite also being high on secular/rational values and despite trust typically being associated with religiosity. [9] Finally, the high standing on “generalized trust” provides economic advantages because it lowers “transaction costs”—less need for written contracts and legal protections, fewer lawsuits, etc.[10]

These trends toward individual freedom and lack of dependency on superiors go back at least to the medieval period. Michael Roberts noted that the peasant in medieval Sweden “retained his social and political freedom to a greater degree, played a greater part in the politics of the country, and was altogether a more considerable person, than in any other western European country.”[11] Similarly, Lars Trägårdh:

The respect for law and a positive view of the state are historically linked to the relative freedom of the Swedish peasantry. The weakness, not to say absence of feudal institutions, corresponds with a history of self-reliance, self-rule, land ownership, representation as an estate in parliament, and the consequent willingness and ability to participate in the political affairs of the country.[12]

The concept of moral communities as the social glue of Western societies is recurrent throughout Individualism, particularly in Chapter 7 on the movement to abolish slavery. It is not cherry-picking but backed up with numerous examples and is strongly rooted in theory. Sallis writes, “unfortunately, MacDonald started to extend that idea into bizarre HBD-Nordicism, and stretching facts to fit into some overarching theory of heritable group differences to explain even relatively shallow differences in national behavior.” I need specific examples of how I have stretched facts in order to reply. Obviously, this is a very difficult area. Theory must attempt to deal adequately with all the historical data on political and family structure, population genetics, and much more—and with seeming paradoxes such as the extreme individualism of Scandinavia combined with social conformism. My solution to the paradox of individualism may not be correct, but refuting it requires more specificity.

And I should add that one thing that stands out from my reading is how persistent family structures are despite vast changes in other areas. Chapter 4 on family structure is critical. For example, recent research on families in southern France shows continuing remnants of moderate collectivism—living near their parents (often residing in the same house), marrying people from the same area, helping each other more (including financial aid), and having stronger distinctions between male and female roles. Patrick Heady labels this pattern “parentally anchored and locally involved,” the extreme opposite being “origin free and locally detached” [13] typical of Scandinavia.    On the other hand,

Middle Eastern cultures were dominated for centuries by Greek and Roman conquerors, but this had no influence on the collectivist, clan-based, extended kinship social organization that remains typical of the area today. Cousin marriage, an excellent marker of these tendencies because it shows a preference for endogamy within a male kinship lineage (patrilineage), originated in Middle Eastern prehistory and continues into the present era despite centuries of domination by Western powers.[14] In view of the recent surge of Middle Eastern Muslim immigration to Europe, this incapacity for assimilation to Western norms is likely to represent a long-term problem for the West. [Ch. 4 of Individualism]

I would apply the same sort of analysis to African-American families in the U.S.—that the lack of male involvement in rearing children is at least partially explained by their West African cultural-genetic heritage where men had multiple wives and each wife headed her own household and provided for the children. If indeed there are such proclivities among African-Americans, it is not surprising that changes in welfare laws making it easy for women to rear their children without male provisioning would give a major impetus to out-of-wedlock births among African-Americans (and other groups, but less so) compared to levels prior to 1960.

At times, Sallis appears to deny that Nordics are highly individualist, while here he is proposing to explain the high levels of individualism among some Europeans (presumably including Nordics) as the result of geographical distance from racially distinct others. For example, he seems to deny that Nordics are particularly individualist when he complains about my statement that “Scandinavian [societies] are the most individualist cultures on Earth…” (Sallis’s emphasis): That MacDonald continues to assert that lie, refuted at my blog, and then cites himself as evidence (!!!), really trashes his reputation as an objective scholar.” I think I have made clear here why I think Scandinavian cultures are the most individualist cultures, and a more elaborate version is in Individualism. And it’s based on much more than citing myself. And calling it a “lie” is outrageous—at most it’s a garden variety scholarly mistake.

In any case, I find Sallis’s theory of European individualism unpersuasive for a number of reasons. For example, eastern Europe in general  is more collectivist in terms of family structure than western Europe despite living among racially and ethnically similar peoples for the vast majority of their history, and it was noted above that family structure is highly resistant to change despite huge cultural transformations, such as changing elites. Most Western groups lived with Jews as a very distinct alien, often hated outgroup for centuries without effects on family structure or obliterating individualism. How does the theory explain the uniqueness of Western individualism cross-culturally—were Western European peoples the only people in the world with no experience confronting racially dissimilar others? How does the theory explain the relatively collectivist family structure of traditional Ireland compared to Germanic family structure (reviewed in Chapter 4)? How does it explain the difference in family structure between Scandinavians and the Germanic peoples of Europe (the latter roughly populating the area encompassed by Murray’s map of human accomplishment)? In Individualism I make a major point about the contrast in family structure within France between northeastern France and France south of the Loire. I rather doubt that the latter area was threatened by more racially dissimilar others—the only invasion from the south that I am aware of were the Muslims defeated in 732 by Charles Martel of the Germanic Franks who are more individualist in terms of family structure than France south of the Loire; the Huns came from the east, but their invasion was short-lived and would have affected Germanic groups at least as much. Indeed, how would it explain Murray’s map of human accomplishment in general? Moreover, it is at best an incomplete theory because it does not provide a mechanism for understanding the paradox of individualism mentioned above: If, say, Swedes are so individualist because they evolved at a greater distance from racially dissimilar others, why are they also the most conformist?


It’s always difficult and a bit distasteful to have to respond to someone who is basically in agreement on many issues, and someone who has posted on TOO. But it has to be done, and frankly I thought the tone of many of Sallis’s comments was uncollegial to say the least. I hope this can clarify some of these issues and move the ball forward a bit.


[1] M. Eckehart, How Sweden Became Multicultural (Helsingborg, Sweden: Logik Förlag, 2017); Roger Devlin, “The Origins of Swedish Multiculturalism: A Review of M. Eckehart’s How SwedenBecame Multicultural,” The Occidental Observer (September 9, 2017); Kevin MacDonald, “The Jewish Origins of Multiculturalism in Sweden,” The Occidental Observer (January 14, 2013).

[2] Noah Carl, “Tolerance of Inter-Ethnic Relationships in Europe,” @NoahCarl (July 227, 2019). https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/tolerance-of-inter-ethnic-relationships-in-europe-c27bda8a25e1

[3] Aksel Sandemose (1899–1965) in his novel En Flyktning Krysser Sitt Spor (A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, 1933). Although originating in a work of fiction, the Jante Laws have been widely recognized by Scandinavians as accurately reflecting a mindset typical of their society.

[4] Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999)

[5] Lars Trägårdh, “Statist Individualism: The Swedish Theory of Love and Its Lutheran Imprint,” in Between the State and the Eucharist: Free Church Theology in Conversation with William T. Kavanaugh, Joel Halldorf and Fredrik Wenell (eds.) (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014): 13–38, 21–22.

[6] Ibid., 33.

[7] Ibid., 27. [

8] Ibid. 

[9] Ibid, 26. [

[10] Ibid., 26–27.

[11] Michael Roberts, Essays in Swedish History (London: Weidenfield & Nicholson, 1967), 4–5. [2] Lars Trägårdh, “Statist Individualism: The Swedish Theory of Love and Its Lutheran Imprint,” in Between the State and the Eucharist: Free Church Theology in Conversation with William T. Kavanaugh, Joel Halldorf and Fredrik Wenell (eds.) (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014): 13–38, 21–22.

[12] Trägårdh, Ibid.

[13]  Patrick Heady, “A ‘Cognition and Practice’ Approach to an Aspect of European Kinship,” Cross-Cultural Research 51, no. 3 (2017): 285–310.

[14] Ladislav Holy, Kinship, Honour, and Solidarity: Cousin Marriage in the Middle East (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1989), 12, 13.

[15] Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, “The Weirdest People in the World?,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2010): 61–135.




94 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Thank you, Kevin. It is always encouraging to see our folk engage in mutual constructive criticism. Handled properly (as this writing illustrates), mutual criticism fosters mutual respect and understanding, as well as intellectual and spiritual growth. It helps us to learn, and either reinforces the validity of our arguments or sets us straight where we have erred. That’s how we move forward!

    Mutual criticism is a pleasant contrast to the unilateral ridicule by those who hate our folk. Indeed, our people are worth fighting for!

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Whatever “constructive criticism” there has been in this exchange has come from one side only: that of this site’s host. Thanks to Ted Sallis, mutuality has been notable solely by its absence.

      Moreover, KM’s characterization of some of Sallis’s remarks as “noncollegial” stretches the true scholar’s gentlemanly decorum—specifically, in sparing no effort to see his critic’s comments, however intemperate, as springing from impartiality and motivated by a quest for truth—to its limits.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Thank you sincerely for this link.

        Perhaps some readers will be more impressed by Sallis’s response than I am. Far from being what anyone, I think, would call scholarly, it leaves one wondering whether “adult” is even an appropriate modifier. Instead, facetiousness, hipness, snideness, and compulsive name-dropping are all put on display within the first two hundred words and persist to the end.

        As for the last-named failing, the less than obvious point in referring in virtually his first breath to Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Vilfredo Pareto—that’s two Jews out of three, with the recognition of this fact, I take it, indelibly branding a recognizer as an anti-Semite—reminded at least this reader of the question once put by Brian Lamb to Bill Clinton when the latter was showing the former the impressive array of books in his (Clinton’s) library: “Have you read them?” To be fair to Clinton, he recovered his composure in about half a second and responded with a disarming smile, “Well, about half.” I have fifty bucks that says that no answer remotely so genteel would emanate from Sallis’s mouth were I to ask him the same question.

  2. Happy bug
    Happy bug says:

    ‘For example, eastern Europe in general (e.g., Poland) is more collectivist in terms of family structure than western Europe despite living among racially and ethnically similar peoples and not prone to being invaded by racially dissimilar others’

    Turks? Mongols etc?

  3. Frederick Ford
    Frederick Ford says:

    The extremities of Eastern & Southern Europe have been thoroughly colonized with members of the pure Black races,& the Jewish campaign to diversify Europe is, therefore, a global effort to bring in all varieties of the genetically dominant and numerous pure Black races from Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia & the rest of the world replacing the Non-Black colored populations of Europe & the Western world.

    Europeans in the North & West are mostly of this Non-Black coloration which is an anatomically different function compared to the pure anatomical functions of Nonwhites while Europeans further East and South near Asia and Africa are more black.

    The -preservation of this difference between Whites & nonwhites, which will be wiped out through lack of White births and genetic dilution through mixing with the dominant Blacks, should be the true goal of saving the White race rather than the assertion of ethnic or racial superiority that many Europeans powers pushed upon Nonwhites which brought them to invade the West in order to be in equal footing with Whites. causing the blackening of Europe & the West we are witnessing today.

    So in order to save the West the notion of racial superiority needs to be abandoned, even if it is true, and instead the notion of White/Nonwhite anatomical difference needs to be emphasized because if this is done then more Whites people will find White nationalism isn’t this oppressive force that’s out to wipe out Nonwhites but is in fact trying to push them away from White living space for the sake of true White racial purity which isn’t based on supremacy but anatomical difference. This anatomical difference that Whites have is explained here.
    these anatomically different functions, however, can also be “stolen” by nonwhites through careful genetic mixing which the Jews & other nonwhites have done with their black blood being predominate in these mixed offspring. This form of racial mixing is also unrecognized by many people because the people who are mixed are generally of the Caucasian form which isn’t a separate race but a variety of the human skull that any human race can acquire through natural selection and selective breeding.

  4. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    An interesting topic. I am not a man of the subject like Professor MacDonald and can only describe my experiences and observations. Murray’s map corresponds approximately to the “Blue Banana”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana I lived in Norway for a short time in the 1990s. I originally intended to stay longer, but my romantic idealism was cured after half a year.

    While Germans are considered rude, dismissive, selfish and and unfriendly, Scandinavians are famous above all for their gentleness, helpfulness, tolerance and friendliness. I already made acquaintance with this on the crossing from Kiel to Oslo. Since high percentage alcohol is prohibited in Norway, one met many drunken Norwegians on the ferry, where there were duty free stores. Many Norwegians “traveled” just to consume alcohol. At the same time, I noticed a sociable attitude that didn’t have the plebeian bluntness of Bavarian beer festivals.

    I got into conversation with a group of educated Norwegians, talked to them in English for a while until I was asked what nationality I was? Since we were departing from Kiel, this question astonished me. I confessed myself as a German. Suddenly the attitude of my previously amused interlocutors changed and I was confronted with a taboo that I was to encounter more often later. They withdrew from me almost tactlessly. Suddenly I was afflicted with a “Nazi stigma,” although at the time I was still voting left-liberal, as I confess to my shame.

    The situation also apparently implied another unspoken belief: “Germans (usually) can’t speak English.” Scandinavians, like the Benelux countries, are mainly influenced by the Anglo-American cultural area. This is mainly due to the fact that they do not have a dubbing industry like the German-speaking countries. In northern Germany, we also received Dutch and Danish television, most of the films were in the original language with subtitles.

    Germans are sought after on the Norwegian labor market because they are considered diligent, correct, hard-working and punctual. But Norwegians presuppose that the “migrant worker” speaks their language. So I attended a language course at the evening school, where I suddenly found myself mostly between Orientals and Pakistanis. Since Norwegian is relatively easy for Germans to learn, I learned faster than anyone else. The fact that German was so “foreign” and frowned upon by our Nordic “siblings” was not always the case. In Kaiser Wilhelm’s time (who liked to spend his vacations in Norway), the academic center of gravity for Scandinavians was Germany.

    I adopted the old slogan “The best way to learn about a country is through its women.” And soon I had a first blonde and blue-eyed prospect on the hook. “Wow,” I thought, “Viking women are that revealing.” My new pearl led me through the Oslo bar scene, where I noticed a young man who kept sitting down at our table without being asked. I asked her who this pushy guy was? After all, I didn’t understand most of the communication yet. She said it was her ex-lover from whom she had just broken up. You can imagine how I felt.

    In Norway, I repeatedly encountered Germans who had been living there for decades. They seemed to suffer from social isolation. One colleague said he had been married to a Norwegian woman for 30 years, but was shunned by her relatives to this day. He would never become part of the immediate family circle. His brothers-in-law were not happy about his origins. Sarcastically, I would say today, “Well, then just intermarry with Pakistanis if it satisfies your insatiable ‘humanism’!”

    That Scandinavians are polite and courteous soon turned out to be a mere facade. “Friendly,” a Norwegian told me, “we are only friendly because we are taught that in school. Even if we’re in a bad mood, we can’t let it show.” The social ostracism of aggressive impulses (which in Germany are more of a “good thing”), in addition to the low sun factor, may well be the reason for the high suicide rate. It is probably not as “hyggelig” as claimed. One researcher said that the Scandinavian paradox consists of being a society of forced happiness, to which all those who do not constantly indulge in artificial “happiness” fall victim.

    The prices there for rent, living costs, etc. were astronomical for non-Norwegians. Which could only mean that their salary level was also astronomical compared to ours. Since Norway is sitting on their North Sea oil and they also use their hydroelectric power for electricity generation, these people are just swimming in money (comparable to the Swiss). The housing especially on the Oslofjord was mostly enviable. The houses were built in a natural style that could actually have come from the Viking Age. Since in Germany by the Allied “liberators” the bulk of the building fabric was ruined, i.e. razed to the ground, a pleasant experience.

    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:

      …speaking of Nazis:

      It is noteworthy, btw., that although they publicly burned some books, they never put them in indexes. All titles were still available for consultation in public archives and libraries, admittedly often for the propagandistic purpose of “deterrence”: “Look at the filth they fed us for years!”

      Obviously, the Nazis had less to hide than the Allies, because after the war the censorship and destruction of books really started. The Stalinists were particularly rampant in the “Ostzone” (GDR). Between 30-40,000 books were banned and their possession was a “crime”.

      Of course, this makes it particularly interesting nowadays to find out what exactly they were trying to hide and destroy. You can find the individual titles under “Web links”. https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Liste_der_auszusondernden_Literatur#Weblinks

    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:


      90-year-old Oslo woman: “I felt safer under German occupation than I do today”.

      90-year-old Norwegian Randi Danielsen lives in central Oslo. Since 2000, she has been mugged or robbed five times on the open street. Danielsen can still remember the time of the German occupation in the 40s. She says it was safer for her to walk the streets then than it is now.

      The last attack on her occurred in mid-October this year. The perpetrator, a Somali man, was later apprehended; he was no stranger to the police. Randi Danielsen is one of the many native Norwegians who have been victims of violence in Oslo in recent years. Violence that has been perpetrated almost exclusively by immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. In October, there were 120 reported assaults in Oslo. Oslo has long since “morphed” into the violence capital of Scandinavia.

      Norway’s largest daily newspaper, Verdens Gang (VG), arranged a meeting Tuesday between the vital 90-year-old and Norway’s new justice minister, Anders Anundsen of the Progress Party. Randi Danielsen reported on the robberies and called for more visible police on the streets. She also said that Oslo was a much safer city during the dark period of German occupation in WW2.

      During the interview, Randi Danielsen wants to know how old the Minister of Justice was in 1940.
      – “Me? No, I wasn’t even thought of then! My father was born in 1949, Anundsen replied.”
      – “Then I want to tell you this: at that time, when all of Norway was in darkness with the Germans in the country, I was not as afraid as I am now,” says the 90-year-old.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        I distinctly recall reading an interview of the female owner of the famous Parisian night club Moulin Rouge.

        To the question as to who behaved how during the War and thereafter, she replied, that her Wehrmacht clientele behaved far better than their successors.

        Hundreds of French women and girls were raped by Allied, primarily US soldiers; though not approximating the 2 million raped in the German East, by the Red Army, at the behest of super swine Ilya Ehrenburg, Stalin’s friend.

        Writing daily in their armed forces’ RED STAR, exhorting their braves to Talmudic excesses.

        Having survived their April 21, 1945 spearheads ca. 100 kms SSE of Berlin, I must add, that not all behaved in that swinish fashion; probably remembering their mothers’ admonition to always act in a Christian way.

        • Waldemar
          Waldemar says:

          There would be much to report, which, according to the alleged “eternal rulers of the world”, the self-appointed ones, before whom we not only kneel down in the most pitiful manner, but let them deprive us not only of our position in the world, but even of our entire earthly existence, should never come to light. And the longer we are away from it, the more improbable becomes the possibility to allow this part of the truth to become known.

    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:

      However, this honorable lady does not tell us what was so “dark” about the period of German occupation. Much is probably owed to the politically correct zeitgeist in order to find a hearing at all with the Jewish-commanded “media”.


    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:

      The “occupation of Norway” had a single military purpose: to bypass the sea route blocked and mined by the Brits. Apart from that, there wasn’t much to conquer up there except freezing cold in inhospitable surroundings.

      Except the complete insanity that Austrian canyon boy Hitler and his cronies considered “Nordic” Scandinavians to be of even nobler blood than Germans bastardized by 5000 years of migration.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        Norway had heavy water components essential to Germany’s nuclear research, as well as rare metals.

        GB had already planned its invasion by sea, but the Germans arrived a mere three days earlier, initially by air. That venereally diseased whore Historiography nevertheless made Germany the immoral invader.

        • Waldemar
          Waldemar says:

          I guess I should have written “main purpose” instead of “single military purpose.” Of course, such decisions are never monocausal.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        A recommendation: You might profit from reading this article, originally published in the Barnes Review (Sep/Oct 2003). It is rich in enlightenment on the subject of the occupation of Norway.

        • Waldemar
          Waldemar says:

          Interesting article. Almost everything was unknown to me, and will probably always remain unknown to the mass of our race members. And this is also exactly so wanted by our “loved-hated” oppressors / spiritual slaveholders.

        • Waldemar
          Waldemar says:

          One of these Jewish schizophrenias is to demonize all their real opponents as inconceivable “monsters,” but then – after the world finally believes all these inconceivable lies – to say, “They were not monsters at all, they were normal people like you and me. So it can happen again any time!” These people really belong in the padded cell!

        • Waldemar
          Waldemar says:

          One may dare to ask: Who do you Jews think you are, to allow yourselves a “true” judgment about your enemies? As far as I know, Jews suffer since millennia from psychic complexes, because their cheeky kind as a parasitic oppressive minority is undesirable everywhere. If we had to make ourselves dependent on your cursed “estimation of the world situation” in the name of nature and the world, then we could pack up and go home all together (if we have a home thanks to jewish “chuzpah” at all)! Unbelievable, this impudence! Nobody wants them, but to everything they have to secrete their unasked “hypermoral” “judgment”!

  5. DanBo
    DanBo says:

    I’d say Warrior cultures are more individualistic. Nepotism can cost you your life. Strict discipline is also necessary but has to be fair and have rational basis. Strong cooperation is necessary (with hunting too) but voluntary participation of highly self-motivates operators is a must.
    Keeping the balance between YIN individualism and YANG collectivism / altruism is a must among elite warriors. The North did not have masses of peasants cannon fodder.
    Though these sentiments are hard to maintain when in peace (Sweden had their last war when?)
    Christianity is the first truly individualist religion (Rome had family gods and the smallest element of society was family after clan, tribe etc.).
    When taken to the core, as Protestants did, that individualism springs up as well.
    Most people seek Equality and Stability, but the third value Liberty is sought out by the best i.e. the bravest – those elite warriors or the Pilgrims seeking new frontiers.
    We see the pendulum in that triangle of base values swung to the Equality corner, now challenged by the Stability seeking conservatives and fascists (who also seek equality among their own kin – national or ethnic), with some meek push of the max 15% Liberty loving Tea Party members and such.

    • Alfred
      Alfred says:

      Isn’t his main point that the source of heightened individualism among European peoples comes from the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Aryan war bands as they spread throughout Europe? The Nordics add a streak of egalitarianism, not individualism.

      • Kevin MacDonald
        Kevin MacDonald says:

        In a way you can say that. No question that they are egalitarian and conformist. The individualism is in their family structure, etc. as discussed in the paper and in more detail in the book.

  6. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    Two themes that I find difficult to explain..1) Trump during his presidency Moved the USA Embassy to Jerusalem, Recognized The Golans as Israeli territory, Bombed Syria which defacto divided teh country in half, and Enginered de Abraham Accords..NOW the same JEWISH Neocons that benefited inmensely from those policies are trying to use the JEW6 Commitee to prosecute Trump. The JEW6 Commitee which lacks the Constitutional/legal/Judicial standards to be considered a legitimate Congressional Committee could become the bases for prosecuting Trump and thereby making him ineligible to run for office in 2024+…Hence the question why are JEWS that greatly benefited from Trumps proIsraeli poicies..are Now using the JEW6 committee (unconstitutional) to prosecute him??…An illegal committee which with NO ranking members of the minority party, no cross examination, no forensic examination, hear/say evidence/perjury testimonies etc. These JEWS are truly a zio/israli psycho/zealots UNGRATEFUL rat race. Trump the best president israel ever had.

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      I would suggest that Jews hated the rest of his stated agenda on immigration and multiculturalism, and they figured they could get the same from Democrats which so far is true but getting shaky.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        HAARETZ and THE FORWARD write with dismay about their Jewish community increasingly supporting Republican contenders on all levels.

        Their ship is sinking and they are afraid to lose their first-class cabins. What’s a perpetual victim to do !?

      • Birhan Dargey
        Birhan Dargey says:

        IF psycho Ziojewish Zealot AG Garland prosecute Trump..they will be making a BIG premature Mistake…an UN/necessary mistake…Because Trump can NOT win vrs AIPAC DeSantis..throw AIPAC Pence into the fray and its going to be a GOP Bloodbath…Trump has to choose between makin America Great OR being President again BUT He can NOT do both. Sadly Trump could had built MAGA into the biggest most powerful institutional Conservative America First PAC Nation wide.. he wasted that opportunity (Trump jr. for Governor/Senator?)., because he is looking at the tress NOT the forest.

    • Fred Penner
      Fred Penner says:

      Jews are disloyal rats. You can’t do enough for them.
      The men in my family fought against the Germans in WWII, and look how the dirty Jews repaid us.
      You’re right, Trump did almost everything they wanted, except make war with Iran.
      The Jews won’t accept partial control over a politician; it has to be total control….
      so Biden is the perfect shabbos goy, just a brain dead puppet that does whatever the dirty Jews want
      him to do.
      It’s a sad and sick world that we live in and it gets worse by the day.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Be one of the few , the proud ;
      and know that which Shakespeare discovered more than 300 years ago ___

      “All the world’s a stage,”…

      ( verbatim from the Shakespeare play
      “As You Like It” , Act II, Scene 7 )

  7. Tog
    Tog says:

    Sallis did not cite his data, which showed that Italians are more individualistic than Scandinavians. But, every european will tell you that it is not true. Maybe it is simply a matter of semantics.

  8. Tom
    Tom says:

    In the last decade, I traveled to Denmark extensively and made several friends there. For me at least, the most salient personality trait that I noted was the Danish tendency toward aloofness. I noticed weak kinship ties in many families. But the cause of that weakness in my way of observing had nothing to do with a prior sense of individualism but simply with a heightened non-concern about much beyond the discrete self. It’s hard to generalize of course but I got the distinct sense that Danes’ personal radar systems didn’t extend very far. If a societal universal happens to be aloofness, it’s no wonder then that a moral imperative might just consist in making that aloofness a mandatory political feature.
    As an American, I also got hefty doses of that Jantelov nonsense. I say “nonsense” not to be pejorative but simply because I could see beyond the smokescreen. They were simply jealous of any societies that impudently dared to be greater, stronger, or more successful. “Don’t think you’re better than us” simply translates into “we think you’re a piece of shit”. It was obvious. It was right there in plain sight.

  9. Olympus
    Olympus says:

    Am I correct that the *recent* phenomena of socialism and Western liberalism (much of which are Jewish systems) are mainly responsible for the Nordic countries, such as Sweden, believing that mixing with other races is OK and even desirable?

    How did these Nordic people stay so light-skinned over the centuries if they truly believed in mixing?

    Newer generations of American Whites have been brainwashed into being very liberal and “Woke.”

    Earlier generations of American Whites were more socially conservative.

    American Whites now often dislike their race (though they won’t say so explicitly) and feel unnecessarily guilty about being White.

    The media talk up minorities and give short shrift to European culture.

    Of course, we know who owns the mainstream American media that do the brainwashing. Cowardly White Christians – including conservatives – won’t speak up.

    What have we become?

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      Research the American-Jewish, Israel-Stockholm resident, married to Stockholm Rabbi, BARBARA LERNER SPECTER.

      According to Swedish, female, experienced journalist CARLQUIST, Specter EXTORTED the Swedish government of 2 million $, to fund her PAIDEIA INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH STUDIES, otherwise she would let the world know, that Sweden played financial footsie with the Nazis.
      Of course their Royal Family and government caved, pushed by Jew dominated Swedish msm.

      Specter states, that the Jews will be unpopular for pushing immigration BUT without said reinvigorating immigration, Europe will wither on the vine. In plain English; once again our examplary, vital, but misunderstood saviors.

      Of course Paideia is only a part of a much larger organisation, tied into Brussels’ fuse panel.

      [ Several excellent, credible, reliably sourced videos on the net ].

  10. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    The conjunction of “moral communities” and “dispersal behavior” of sexual species resolves the paradox of conformity and individualism. By “dispersal behavior” see Box 1 of “The Evolution of Eusociality” where Nowak, et al describe a critical mutation in the evolution of eusociality (the ultimate in collectivism) that silences the tendency for sexually maturing young to leave the protected nest and found their own protected nest. In other words, the “nuclear family” (or to be more PC, “simple household”) isn’t something Nordicists made up. It is on the order of 600M years old among species that required protected nests. If a gene silences the dispersal behavior of sexually mature offspring, it sets the stage for reproductive specialization as the nest building behavior becomes collective and, eventually, the property of a mother with lengthened reproductive life.

    In humans where “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” involves not just physical development, but acquisition of skills toward establishing a “protected nest”, the skills often take the form of morals — should/shoudn’t — vertically transmitted from parent to child generation after generation evolving symbiosis between culture and genes. However, when environments frequently require creativity to adapt, “rebellion” may necessitate transgressive behavior, which adds impetus for not just dispersion, but also assortative migration to find communities with compatible “transgressions”.

    The 30 Years War over religious differences — triggered by Luther’s valorization of individual moral agency among Germanics, combined with the Gutenberg Press breaking the media monopoly of the Roman Church — didn’t stop the blood letting until assortative migration was permitted under the Treaty of Westphalia. We’re facing a similar conflict in the near future due to the supremacist moral community that does not permit escape from “the protected nest” and, instead, seeks parasitic castration of individualistic peoples.

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      The Thirty Years War was described at the time as based on religion, but in fact both sides were invented and profited from by Jews.
      Why are Americans still so ignorant of history? Charles Murray’s ridiculous map omits India, China, Babylon and the near East, and isn’t even a bad joke

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Raeto West writes The Thirty Years War was described at the time as based on religion, but in fact both sides were invented and profited from by Jews.

        Jews specialize in creating religions whether you want to call their “Intellectual Movements” religions or not.

        Raeto West asks Why are Americans still so ignorant of history?

        You seem to think that these Jewish-instigated wars from which they profit are not properly called “religious” even though it is obvious to anyone who has studied history (unlike apparently yourself) that in virtually every case of fratricide that Jews played a part, falsely inspired enthusiasm aka “entheos” or “God within” was an essential aspect.

        KMac makes it clear in CoC that the leaders of these “intellectual movements” are best thought of as wielding “rabbinic” authority over their acolytes. Did you ever bother to not only read but understand the history of 20th Century “Intellectual” Movements?

        • Raeto West
          Raeto West says:

          Yes, they do specialise in being a third party and causing immense harm. You seem to agree that’s described accurately as being ‘religious’.
          MacDonald looks at various movements, such as Freud’s and Boaz’s. He does not describe or criticize any movement by Jews supporting wars – such as World Wars1 and 2.
          I’d not mentioned wars against China, which are generally never mentioned.
          If you’re holding yourself up as an example of an intellectual American, I won’t even laugh

          • Kevin MacDonald
            Kevin MacDonald says:

            “He does not describe or criticize any movement by Jews supporting wars – such as World Wars1 and 2.”
            Ridiculous. I have written about Jewish influence on the US entering WWII and the neocon horror.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      … triggered by Luther’s valorization of individual moral agency among Germanics, combined with the Gutenberg Press breaking the media monopoly of the Roman Church …

      Whew! No trace of ax-grinding here, thank goodness.

      The Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg was the Vulgate. The ONLY Bible ever printed by Gutenberg was the Vulgate. Gutenberg himself was a lifelong Catholic—probably also a Franciscan tertiary—and was buried in a churchyard in Mainz. Neither the church nor its burial plot has survived.

      The contemporary archbishop of Mainz, in whose service Gutenberg sometimes labored, enthused over Gutenberg’s invention of mechanized movable type, as did Pope Pius II. There is to my knowledge not a single verified complaint from any Catholic prelate of any danger to come from untoward consequences of the invention—certainly nothing so ludicrous as the loss of a “media monopoly.”

      Indeed, had the Catholic hierarchy been observing human nature more closely than its members plainly were, they might have spent far more time and effort preventing their flock and indeed all of mankind from making contact with anything that tended to promote literacy. One need spend no more than twenty minutes online—not excluding the comment threads at this site—to become seriously regretful with regard to the blatant misuse that most humans make of their literacy.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        You sound like someone who would argue that the Internet, being the creation of the US government, did not serve to lessen the government-protected monopolies of mass media and academia of the 20th century and the resulting moral zeitgeist.

        But then you also sound like someone who would argue that the freedom of expression of the Internet is to blame for “spreading fake news”.

        Talk about “Whew!”

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          The resort to psychoanalysis is an old carny trick that can be counted on to impress the gullible and the uncritical enthusiast. I’m sure your devotees will be duly impressed.

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            Asserting you “sound like” you have certain attitudes is only “psychonanalysis” in the most tendentious use of that term. Do you or do you not agree with those that state the Internet unleashed crazed plebs to reinforce each other’s bad ideas (at least until the network effect monopolies of the new media clamped down with draconian censorship in the wake of Trump’s election, including on Trump himself)?

  11. Dr Tom Sunic
    Dr Tom Sunic says:

    One must not conflate old time Scandinavian Vikings, or even hypermasculine Swedish soldiers during the Thirty Years War in Europe with modern Swedes. They showed courage and manliness back then. Many modern Danish or Swedes males – are pretty much effeminate, due to Jante law guilt-ridden sentiments. Hence the deluge of non-Whites in major Scandinavian cities – although Scandinavian states were never colonial powers. Racially speaking, East Europeans & Russians are today far more “European” than West Europeans. Surely, Scandinavians are more individualistic, but in terms of their fake guilt-ridden humanitarianism (check their effeminate leaders ) they are far more gregarious than Central, East, South European politicians. Non-White migrants know very well that they cannot play lachrymose games with Croat or Hungarian cops; neither do the average Russians or Ukrainians bow down to Non-White migrants . BTW. On must be careful with the usage of the word “Nordicist” – a word having by now a derogatory meaning. Good, precise German words Nordisch, Falisch, Ostisch, Westisch, Dinarisch, Ostbaltisch had to disappear from all German dictionaries.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Surely, Scandinavians are more individualistic, but in terms of their fake guilt-ridden humanitarianism (check their effeminate leaders ) they are far more gregarious than Central, East, South European politicians. Non-White migrants know very well that they cannot play lachrymose games with Croat or Hungarian cops; neither do the average Russians or Ukrainians bow down to Non-White migrants . BTW. On must be careful with the usage of the word “Nordicist” – a word having by now a derogatory meaning

      And to think a while back Eastern Europe and Russia were thought to be “backward”, lagging in all areas, and “rustic”. The tortoise won the race with the hare.

    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:

      Highly respectable, your valuable contributions, Dr. Sunic. Only comparable to those of Prof. MacDonald (or, on a less explicit level with Jared “Jews are not the problem” Taylor).

      My family comes from East Prussia on my mother’s side and from Silesia on my father’s side. Among them are many “Germanized” Slavic names. Even today, the origins of our ancestors can be determined from the names.

      Names like Olschewski, Schimanski or Nowak come from the East, names like Björn Engholm (former socialist FRG politician) from the North, names like those of his comrade Oskar Lafontaine from the West.

      As Prof. MacDonald correctly pointed out, the gene pool of the Danes contains a high proportion of German genes (as does the Czech gene pool), while the Austrian gene pool, for example, contains a high proportion of Slavic genes.

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      In the post I about paradoxes, and you bring up another: How can modern-day Scandinavians be so unmanly considering their Viking ancestors and their fighting in the Thirty Years War. I’ve puzzled about this for years without being happy about my thinking on it. But the idea I have is that egalitarian hunter-gatherer ethos and genetics remained in Scandinavia after the conquest of the Indo-Europeans. Those hunter-gatherers lived in a surprisingly complex society and likely gave the Indo-Europeans a run for their money (I speculate about this in a footnote on Norse mythology in Ch. 4). As happened elsewhere quite often, the I-Es did not exterminate the people they conquered but dominated them (but to a lesser extent than in feudal Germanic areas), resulting in the long run in a mixture, but with predominance of h-g influences that underlie today’s hyper-egalitarianism and unmanliness. Obviously this is very tentative, but it’s a question that should be addressed. Of course, culture is also important and I suppose one could attempt a culture-only argument but I don’t think that sits well with the genetic evidence as resulting in primordial proclivities toward egalitarianism. From Ch. 4: This contrast between the “Odinic rulers” and the previous priestly regime is consistent with Marija Gimbutas’s controversial theory that the Indo-Europeans introduced a warlike, male-dominated culture, replacing previously existing, more female-centric cultures.
      The following is speculative, but it’s interesting that a theme of Norse mythology was a primeval battle between the Aesir and the Va-nir, the former seemingly referring to the Indo-European conquerors with their highly militarized culture (with gods such as Odin and Thor), and the latter possibly referring to the previously resident hunter-gatherer culture discussed in Ch. 3. The main god of the Vanir was Freya, a goddess associated with magic and compatible with the idea that priests were the original rulers in Scandinavia and that the culture was much more influenced by women than the highly patriarchal cul-ture of the Indo-European conquerors.
      As noted in Ch. 3, this culture was quite sophisticated and support-ed a large population. They may well have been able to put up a for-midable defense against the invaders; after all, as also noted in Ch. 3, the hunter-gathering cultures of Scandinavia held off the advance of agriculture by the farming culture of the Middle Eastern-derived farm-ers for 2000–3000 years. I suggest that the mythology ultimately refers to real battles that are lost to prehistory. According to the mythology, the Aesir used typical military tactics, while the Vanir used magic, and the two sides ultimately arrived at a modus vivendi. It’s therefore tempting to explain the relatively egalitarian thrust of Scandinavian cultures compared to other Germanic peoples as emanating from this cultural fusion.

      • Alfred
        Alfred says:

        “highly individualistic but also as highly conformist—what I regard as a paradox in need of explanation”

        If we consider an “individualist” to be a rambunctious type unafraid to speak his mind, it’s a paradox. But if by “individualist” you mean someone who is not very attached to his family, never calls his mom, it’s not a paradox. There’s no reason to suppose that this kind of person would be a meek, let’s not the rock the boat type of person. The only paradox is between “individualist” and “collective.”

      • Alfred
        Alfred says:

        Salis: On the one hand, Sweden and Denmark are more individualistic than, say, Spain, Russia, or Poland (but Russians and Poles have a lot of “northern hunter gatherer” ancestry, so their collectivism is itself a partial refutation of HBD Nordicism).

        KM: Regarding the point that Russians and Poles “have a lot of northern hunter-gatherer ancestry,” the review of population genetic evidence from Chapter 1 does not support a general northern hunter-gatherer profile but shows the distinctiveness of Scandinavia resulting from seasonal changes in the ability to form large groups (Ch. 3).

        Salis made an error in assuming that in KM’s theory individualism came from the Nordic hunter-gatherers but in fact KM’s theory posits that it came from the Indo-Europeans, correct?
        So his point, if revised, still stands:
        Don’t the Eastern Europeans and Russian have as much or more Indo-European ancestry than any other Europeans?
        Shouldn’t they thus be more individualist?
        Aren’t they in fact, more collective than Western Europeans and Nordics?

          • Alfred
            Alfred says:

            Thanks, so there are 2 primordial sources for heightened European individualism.
            1. Aristocratic individualism originating in Indo-European martial steppe societies.
            2. Egalitarian individualism originating in Scandinavian hunter-gatherer societies whose genesis took place in a very unusual environment resulting in an atypical psychological profile when compared to HGs in other parts.

            The IEs are known to have spread throughout all of Europe and left their mark. The Northeast to Southwest cline. But did the individualistic Scandinavians HGs have that much influence? I assume very little in Greece, Rome, Gaul, Britannia, Spain. Were the Germanic tribes that battled Rome heavily derived from Scandinavian stock? I thought they were predominantly IE stock. The Vikings raided a lot but didn’t leave much genetic mark outside of their homeland except in a few places like Northumbria, correct?

            Do modern Eastern Europeans/Russians most closely resemble the original IEs, having neither much Early Farmer nor Scandinavian HG ancestry? And if so, shouldn’t we expect them to be more individualistic than the Southern Europeans who have some IE ancestry but mostly Early Farmer ancestry, and no Scandinavian HG ancestry? I think the Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans are about equally collectivist.

      • Hitmarck
        Hitmarck says:

        Kevin, this – the idea of less patriarchal Nordics – conflicts with Ed Duttons take on Gingers as a beauty gen-warfare adoption of women to the patriarchs in the harsh environment.

        Why is ginger hair correlated with cancer of the rectum?
        Though Ed is still the great correlator.

        I have a more general question, why is Jonathan Haidt taken serious?
        The guy is a walking contradiction.
        In one moment he proves his liberal audience to be the most close minded people u can imagine and u can prove that and it is proven, for example they can not imagine a right wing point of view, while the other way around that’s common.
        In the next moment he says his groundbreaking work on moral foundations shows liberals are stronger in openness.
        And on what absurd basis fairness is attribute to those people I dont even want to get into.

        In my view Jonathan Haidt would justify another chapter of another jewed discipline in CoC.

        Maybe in having their ‘Arsch offen’ as we like to say to hypocrites.

        • Alfred
          Alfred says:

          Openness means willingness to expose oneself to new, risky experiences and ideas. It doesn’t necessarily result in higher levels of empathy which is what you need to understand other people.
          Secondly, the liberal audience has its worldview constantly enforced by media (education, entertainment, news) whereas conservatives have to develop their views in opposition to liberal media. So you would expect conservatives to have a better idea of both sides.

          Does he use “fairness”, as in egalitarian? I can see this been true for the White/European Liberals (i.e., castrati, true believers).

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        When for nine months in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont traveled virtually the full extent of what was then the United States, they encountered and shared the lives of people rich and poor, famous and obscure. One thing that got Tocqueville’s attention was the extent to which virtually all the Americans he met spoke proudly of their independent and individualistic response, not just to politicians and political matters, but to public and private concerns of all sorts.

        Yet everywhere he and Beaumont went, Tocqueville found that behavior contradicted speech. Despite widespread insistence that “I think what I like,” he found remarkable conformity of opinion within every locale on most social and political matters. What is more, he found great reluctance on the part of almost everyone, rich and poor alike, to express a nonconformist opinion on any topic where there was, so to speak, an acknowledged “orthodox” outlook. As Tocqueville had genuinely come to have a marked affection for the American people as a whole, he looked upon this contradictory facet of character as a bit of harmless self-deception rather than what a hostile critic might call it: hypocrisy. In writing in “Democracy in America” about what he saw, Tocqueville’s terminology came remarkably close to KM’s, in that he related that while people spoke freely and proudly of thinking and saying what they liked, they feared “standing out from the crowd” lest they incur “social ostracism.”

        As I was first exposed to Tocqueville’s thinking in high school, it has been coloring my own perceptions for some sixty years. Perhaps as a consequence, I have never found it especially difficult to reconcile intransigent ideals and claims of moral and social individuality, on the one hand, with conformist behavior, on the other, most of all perhaps because American society, even before it became as Judaized as it now is, long tended to praise and reward big talk more than quiet action.

  12. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    OT (but not really)


    The band name of these vermi-
    nous wiggas is very appropriate!

    To me, it’s “cultural appropriation” when a Negro
    is not named Mbosi Umpula or Nteki Odongo but
    Stephen James or Albert McFoster, and he wears
    the white man’s clothes and speaks his language.

    Overseas, genuine Liedgut is still being cultivated.

    Hubertus sings https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUPr7Nm-uBwiLbuyQVfE7xA/videos

  13. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    The Jews possessed the cunning trick to shift the world to their indirect, unworldly level, removed from nature, because in the direct comparison of forces they do not possess any chance of survival. “Verily, Jewishness is the No to the life of the nations” (Martin Buber). https://live.jewishexpert.com/maurice-samuel

    The indirect level is the artificial “virtual” world. Connected with a “politically correct” language and thought policy, which they infiltrated into all areas of our everyday life. Thus they have finally brought us to our knees and have been playing with us like the proverbial cat with the mouse ever since.

    It is no coincidence that in German folklore the Jews are compared to the “Brave Little Tailor”, who sets the stupid sleeping giants against each other and is devilishly amused by the results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brave_Little_Tailor

    • Waldemar
      Waldemar says:

      Truth is not a single fact, but an accumulated impression of many information. As a child learns to run, because falling down hurts, so it knows one day, “Running is right!”.

      Just as Muslim assassins have been sold to us for years as psychologically confused individual cases, the Jews also sell their entire network to us as “non-existent”.

      To the accusation: “Prove to us that we are the corrupters of the world, you shameful anti-Semite!”, most of us would not know anything substantial to answer off the cuff.

  14. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    In the OP KMac writes: individualism reveals the weakness of northern Europeans, especially in the current cultural environment in which traditional social controls embedded in religion have disappeared, resulting in a dysfunctional, guilt-prone culture unable to oppose the invasion of other peoples that is now besetting them.

    One may also argue that the neocortex reveals the weakness of humans, especially in the current cultural environment in which abstract thinking gets in the way of spreading one’s genes far and wide and, indeed, such abstractions may be considered pathogens to which carrier populations are relatively immune precisely because of their lack of neocortical function.

    Individual *integrity* is a similar weakness and, indeed, may be considered of a piece with the weakness presented by the neocortex. One’s unwillingness to *compromise*, when confronted by a primate troop bent on raping women in one’s environment, singles one out for “cancellation” whether that primate troop is doing it while dancing to rap music or that primate troop is doing it while dancing to the tune of a quasi-religious movement imposed by Jewish media/academia.

    On the other hand, if one wants to form a *temporary* high functioning military machine to destroy utterly such primate troops and then disband to get back to a state of peace, is it a serious disadvantage for its components to be comprised of individuals whose integrity is such that when they take an oath to serve one needn’t spend inordinate resources to ensure the components will function with integrity for the duration of the extermination?

    • Alfred
      Alfred says:

      So the group composed of individuals with integrity has good perimeter defense but no defense in depth. Woe to them if infiltrated.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Indeed, that is one reason for replacing prisons and any laundry list of “rights” with unrestricted border enforcement and exile, as part of the correction of the Treaty of Westphalia (thence the US Constitution, etc.). If you look further back in history, Germanics tended toward genocidal attacks on civilization to leave an unpopulated no-man’s-lands between their homelands and “civilization”, used single combat in nature as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing and other measures which left them culturally “impoverished”. But which of us would not, today, sacrifice many if not most of the gracious things of civilization if only we could purge the infiltrators from our midsts so that we may become “culture” superior genes and greater social capital arising from higher levels of justifiable trust that those we were dealing with weren’t “infiltrators” or even contaminants?

    • John Samuels
      John Samuels says:

      You haven’t exactly made Nordics look good with your infamous essay about Nordic men getting raped in prisons. People should read that essay if they want to see the spiritual and mental decline of modern Northern Europeans.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Gang rape is a function of gang formation so, obviously, if someone is not congenitally predisposed toward gang affiliation, one will get gang-raped in prisons by prison gangs. This all stems from a flaw in the Treaty of Westphalia’s establishment of the modern notion of the “Nation State”.

        In my corrective to the Treaty of Westphalia which I call “sortocracy”, prisons (and selectively enforced laudrylists of “rights”) are replaced with extreme exclusion — exile and unrestrained border enforcement. There is, of course, the question of ultimate exclusion from all States, which is addressed by placing those people in nature preserves where strict rules against gang formation are adhered to. The rules are simple and obviously compatible with ruthlessly killing those who are gang-oriented, including demagogues.


        • John Samuels
          John Samuels says:

          Bowery wrote: “Gang rape is a function of gang formation so, obviously, if someone is not congenitally predisposed toward gang affiliation, one will get gang-raped in prisons by prison gangs.”

          This response demonstrates exactly why Ted Sallis has hit the nail on the head regarding the spiritual pathologies within the HBD and specifically NBD-Nordicist online “movement.” As he pointed out in his response to KMac, hidden in the supposed weak concession that Nordics are not actually superior is the implicit claim that Nordics are just too “good,” too “moral,” too otherwordly to function in such a “mean” and “corrupted” world with self-interested outsiders. You take a similar approach with regard to prison gang-rapes – with the unsupported claim that Nordic men are specifically targeted for prison rape – by presenting this supposed weakness, this alleged humiliation of a *subrace* of men, as a result of some innate goodness that prevents men from acting like men and defending themselves in the way their Viking ancestors – the meanest gangsters imaginable – did. Surely you would not argue that the Vikings or their Yamnaya ancestors would similarly be targeted for gang-rape without forming vicious gangs to preempt and counterattack their enemies. We see this in groups such as the Aryan Brotherhood (largely made up of Northern Europeans) and other White gangs that seem to defy your weird fixation on sexual humiliation – the AB has killed probably more people in prisons than any other group.

          Sallis is right to point out that there is a lack of continuity between the collectivist Viking and Yamnaya “gangsters” of previous times and modern Nordic peoples. This cultural and probably genetic disconnect is very fundamental, one too conflicting to brush aside. KMac and other HBD-Nordicists have a real problem, whatever its roots.

          To make this short, there appears to have been some pacification due to selective pressures that took the “gangster” – or toughness – out of the descendants of the Vikings. An analogy would be domesticated dogs compared to their wolf ancestors. This might be related in some way to the increased intelligence of modern Nordics since perhaps the beginning of the Middle Ages. Yet it is this modern, “effeminate” pacification (noted by Dr. Sunic above) that is taken by some Nordicists to be implicitly the hallmarks of cultural and even genetic superiority (men too good for their own good). KMac even implicitly derides these Vikings for their lack of intellectual achievements, seemingly unaware that the increased IQ he seems to like is related to this pacification that made the same group somewhat pitiful at the same time (you can’t have your cake and eat it too). This pacification is idealized by the HBD-Nordicist crowd such that they even go so far as to take incidents of racial humiliation – such as prison gang-rapes – as *specific* examples of Nordics being too good for their own good. This is where HBD-Nordicism veers into absolute weirdness that will forever repel neurotypical Nordics from associating with this online “movement.”

          If Nordicism is to ever thrive and be taken remotely seriously – and by Nordicism I mean the aim to preserve Nordic traits – Nordicists must cast off this weird fixation on racial humiliation and weakness (including the specific deification of IQ) as hallmarks of superiority. Personally, I think this weirdness derives from a balmy subset of Nordics getting on a soapbox and projecting their own peculiar views onto the world. IQ in and of itself is not a basis for racial preservation or consciousness, nor is it even as connected to good character as the HBD-Nordicists believe. IQ must take a backseat and the weak men who pedestalize it finally need to shut the fuck up. That so many of these men pair up with Asian women should make this abundantly clear. Amren is the logical conclusion of all of this.

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            The Yamnaya “gangs” were similar to the assortative “moral communities” in that they were voluntary associations based on exclusion rather than imprisonment (the lack of “dispersion” at sexual maturity being a kind of “imprisonment” that leads to eusociality). If you didn’t meet the moral standards of the moral community which had WHG ancestry, you were excluded. In more recent times this WHG exclusivity of moral communities took the extreme form of Puritans executing Quakers who violated Puritan turf. Talk about altruistic punishment! I expect some young tough who tried to hang out with a Yamnaya “gang” that didn’t admit him would be dealt with in a similar manner if he didn’t take the “hint”.

            Domestication by JudeoChristianization selective breeding is a popular theme among those of us who want to believe that the reason our coethnics are so “masochistic”. That may be somewhat the case but if you take seriously the idea of moral communities and then admit that what JudeoChristianization did was violate the assortative migration to escape theocratic dominance, then people are essentially “imprisoned” in a supremacist moral community to which they must submit — especially since it appears a pattern of JudeoChristianization was to outlaw commoners challenging “nobles” to single combat to the death at the same time peoples were “christianized”

          • John Samuels
            John Samuels says:

            Since Sallis has linked to my comment, I’d like to elaborate on something he just wrote with some speculation on my part. Sallis wrote: “How is it possible that the same person who wrote The Trilogy now agrees that an ‘individualist’ is defined as someone who never calls their mother? Am I the only one who thinks that is absolutely ludicrous?”

            Someone emotionally distant from his family in the way described is more appropriately referred to as “schizoid.” While some might argue that such emotionally cold individuals simply exhibit a unique cognitive or emotional profile that should not be maligned or pathologized, it’s worth noting that on the whole, even though schizoid individuals may not see themselves as problematic (given that they rarely seek treatment), they tend to have poorer than average social and professional outcomes.

            The schizoid personality is not, in my view, one to idealize in any way, as aberrant as it is. Yes, some geniuses, perhaps Tesla among them, were arguably schizoid, but for every Tesla among schizoids there are hundreds or more with very subpar and socially dysfunctional lives (this emotional coldness is not more widespread precisely because there were – and continue to be – selective pressures against it). It’s worth noting that brain scans appear to show schizoid and autistic brains as basically the same (showing a relationship).

            My speculation, given the subculture of HBD, is that the autistic or schizoid personality is pedestalized, which is an inversion of sorts with normie society given the penalties associated with such an aberrant personality type (the proliferation of autistic/schizoid incels and the increasingly competitive nature of our society has really brought their frustrations to the fore among very young adults today).

            HBD is really a form of projection on the part of men high in schizoid/autistic traits. Ironically, the normies are too smart to fall for this (yeah, they are smarter). Schizoid traits, in my view, should be culled, not idealized.

  15. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    Presumably people would say, “I don’t have a good
    feeling about the Jews, but I can’t explain it exactly.”

    At this point, the Jew begins to rub his hands. He
    knows his shamefulness. He will argue, “But there
    are so many good Jews, and so many bad goyim!”

  16. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    “Anti-Semitism is a sensory illusion! Negroes
    are Whites! Women are men! Sick is healthy!”

  17. Waldemar
    Waldemar says:

    Why did the Nazis “move” (movement -> motivation) so many people? Because they knew about a decisive principle and brought this to the perfect application (symbolized in the permanently moving and striving forward swastika): Man in truth does not move at all out of abundance and pure desire for reward like a spoiled child for sweeties, but only out of fear to avoid punishment and personal disadvantage. Only when the police is at the door and we are threatened to lose everything, only then we finally move our lazy fat ass.

    The Jews have completely undermined, overturned, negated this former (masculine) principle of self-discipline, which formed and produced all our elites, and declared the entire world to be a (female) petting zoo, a Kindergarten. Who screams loudest, does not need in truth the merciless whip, but all of our “endless compassion”. It feels just so cozy to become fat, lazy and degenerate, a disgrace to himself, his family and his entire nation. They have replaced the principle of responsibility (not only in sexuality) with the irresponsible “pleasure principle”.

  18. anonym
    anonym says:

    Sounds like simple envy. Accusing germanic and scandinavian people of being nordicists is laughable. What else should we be? His hysteria about disrespect for southern Europeans is imagined (even though there would be a lot of reason for it, considering how the European Union is more or less is a wealth transfer organization, redistributing money from Germany and Scandinavia to Italy, Spain and Greece.)

    The portrayal of the Indo Europeans as barbaric, psychopathic warlords also seems like a mischaracterization. They certainly knew how to fight, but they also invented the wheel, domesticated the horse (possibly also wolves, into dogs) created Sanskrit and wrote the Veda books – the spiritual foundation of all eastern philosophy. I’ve mostly only read the pop-lit about it, but the way Gimbutas, Riane Eisler et al describe the Indo Europeans as rabies infected wherewolves who’s invation is likened to the Fall of Sin – when the peaceful matriarchal society was destroyed – feels exaggerated.

    If anything, the grotesque misogyny of the semitic cultures indicates that it was the Indo Europeans who created the reasonably women friendly cultures in Sumer, Babylon and Egypt. The patriarchal system of the Indo Europeans have nothing on the Bible when it comes to psychopathy, cruelty and oppression.

    In short: I don’t think we need to be more “manly” and “warlike”, as much as we need to be less naive and gullible to Jewish manipulation.

    • Rendezvous
      Rendezvous says:

      “If anything, the grotesque misogyny of the semitic cultures indicates that it was the Indo Europeans who created the reasonably women friendly cultures in Sumer, Babylon and Egypt. The patriarchal system of the Indo Europeans have nothing on the Bible when it comes to psychopathy, cruelty and oppression. ”

      Again, what’s with this negro-like revisionism. It doesn’t make sense on the face of it either, because early indo-Europeans were notoriously patriarchal and Semitic attitudes towards women would change with the rise of Islam. We don’t need to claim everything of note, and that is good and holy, in the world, as being ultimately of European origin to prove anything. This sort of behavior gives an undeserved ego boost to semites who would be flattered by Europeans attempting to appropriate their cultures, regardless of the reason. This sort of behavior destroys any credibility as well because its usually done with very flimsy or no proof.

  19. Ryan H.
    Ryan H. says:

    Sallis is Italian-American and has been active for a long time online. Something I’ve noticed among many from a Southern European background involved in hard right and racialist politics is that they are very touchy and wary about anything that smacks of Northern European identity or self-determination. There seems to be a fear that it is explicitly or implicitly exclusionary of people like themselves, and also that since Northern European countries and societies are the leading element among European/White societies, it might put them lower on the totem pole. I think part of their motivation is to have a kind of egalitarian status within the European/White category, and something like northern European identity or consciousness may threaten that.

    Sallis himself is very into futurism and technology and obviously modern science and technology are dominated and led by northern Europeans, while southern Europeans tend to be, if not behind, not really ahead of some non-whites like Orientals or Jews. So his futuristic, tech oriented vision and outlook requires piggy backing on Northern Europeans.

    • macrobius
      macrobius says:

      Sallis himself is very into futurism and technology and obviously modern science and technology are dominated and led by northern Europeans, while southern Europeans tend to be, if not behind, not really ahead of some non-whites like Orientals or Jews. So his futuristic, tech oriented vision and outlook requires piggy backing on Northern Europeans.

      This is an important point as Sallis’s vision is high tech oriented combined with a Yockeyian “Imperium” style politics for Europe organizing and integrating Northern and Southern Europe.

      Any realistic assessment of this vision would recognize that it would require “privileging” Northern Europeans – if not requiring their outright domination – over Southern Euros in the Imperium for it to work because of the relative backwardness of Southern Europe today economically and technologically. This is not an attack on Southern Euros but simple reality. Without Northern Euro leadership in commerce and tech, Southern Europe would be like demographically similar Argentina today with its persisent economic problems and a nullity in technology and geopolitics.

      Sallis wants a kind of implicit affirmative action for Southern Euros in the Imperium that goes unmentioned to protect his pride. If he was truly devoted to the Imperium vision, he would recognize that some degree of paternalism would be necessary and that absolute egalitarianism would be unworkable.

  20. Harald E Brandt
    Harald E Brandt says:

    Ted Sallis confuses, on the one hand, the scientifically observed gradient of individualism-collectivism, where the nordic countries are at an extrem, with, on the other hand, Nordicism thought of as an ideal or agenda. He appears to have become obsessed with, and insulted by, the fact that there are genetic differences between Swedes and Italians that have resulted in profound differences in cultural behavior. His attempts at explanations and refutations are muddy and nebulous.

    As a political term, or an agenda, Nordicism is certainly problematic.

    I think Greg Johnson has described the situation very well: As an agenda for our cause, white nationalism is what we should push for, while at the same time encouraging preservation of the differences within Europe:

    “Who are We? Nordics, Aryans, & Whites”, by Greg Johnson 2016-03-08,

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      There are also technical issues with the racial label “White” that G. Johnson does not mention .

      I like the race label “NORDIC” for the predominant indigenous European races . It is a more elegant and dignified than “White” which is too bland and lacks appropriate elegance and dignity for a race label .

      “White” Nationalism should remain unchanged since the race designation “NORDIC” is not in isomorphic correspondence with the racial political movement designation “White” ; and it should remain “White Nationalism” for other less technical and more sublime reasons beyond the scope of this comment . Maybe TOO commenter Carolyn Yeager will provide more illumination on this issue .

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        “Germanic” is the most widely accepted anthropological term for the long-standing conflict between cultures of individual integrity and cultures of group integrity (aka civilizations).

        Perhaps now is a good time for me to talk about the reason I expended so much of my personal genetic potential (circa 1990) on advancing space as the proper “place for an expanding technological civilization” (ref Gerard O’Neill) and then, in seeming contradiction, started attacking the very idea of “civilization” as we know it (see “Camp 38” for a germanic alternative vision to Ayn Rand’s pseudo-individualism in Atlas Shrugged).

        There is an obvious role that cultures of individual integrity can play in both “back to nature” terrestrial ecological directions and “eusocial” non-terrestrial directions for future evolution. The non-terrestrial direction will mine-out individual integrity from the gene pool but do so during the dispersion of life — quite plausibly as a part of an ancient interstellar cycle of life sometimes called “directed panspermia”. The function individual integrity will serve in this regression to more primitive life forms specialized for interstellar dispersion is the creativity that has given rise to the advancement of technology throughout human history as males are excluded from centers of power and must find ways of adapting to marginal environments. In this process of regression toward eusocial organization both morality and sexual evolutionary platforms will likely be sacrificed. What is gained is dispersion of life.

        The terrestrial direction must abjure human eusociality so as to recover and extend the long-range direction of evolution that built sexuality upon single celled organisms and then built “the moral animal” on sexuality. See EO Wilson’s “The Social Conquest of Earth” for his thinking on human eusociality which is quite similar to mine up to the point where he, at the end of the book, declares his religious conviction that space is _not_ the place for an expanding technological civilization. This is basically EO Wilson indulging in a copout about the dilemma humanity faces.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          …” the long-standing conflict between cultures of individual integrity and cultures of group integrity (aka civilizations).”

          That precisely alludes to the main purpose of the 1776 American Revolution conflict — to protect the individual integrity of citizens ( called “We The People” ) by securing their “unalienable Rights” , with a constitutional BILL of RIGHTS that protects , albeit not always perfectly , against what the politicly erudite USA founders appear to have known about and that which renown British historian Lord Acton proclaimed about a hundred years ago
          and that which political cognoscenti around the world now know or should know to be historicly
          the most egregious problem of government —

          { Power corrupts ;
          and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely } .

          More precisely ,

          as a direct and immediate consequence
          of political power corruptions ,

          subsequent abuses of power

          ( which includes :
          unjustifiable financial losses ,
          unjustifiable loss of property ,
          personal social upheaval ,
          loss of public goodwill , psychological duress , loss of health up to and including
          unjustifiable death )

          are the most egregious problems of government ; not corruption per se .

          Abuses resulting from exercises of corrupted governmental powers are commensurate with inevitable and relentless inordinate accumulations of power upward to the top of a collective/organizational political hierarchy .

          When you realize that you have been stripped or are in the process of being stripped

          ( by a spiritually toxic and despotic collective of NWO powers-that-be whom are prima facie or de facto supported by a satanic media mesmerized humanity )

          of appropriate civilizational or governmental support for any or all of your

          {{ ” unalienable Rights ,
          that among these are
          Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness ” ,

          the right to own property ,
          the right to privacy in your personal affairs ,
          and the right to due process of law }} —

          who cares if
          humanity or
          cultures of group integrity or
          survives ?

          Have too many USA Nordics forgotten ,
          if they ever knew , why civilizational

          ” Governments are instituted among men ” ?

          The USA founders made it constitutionally clear
          in the 1776 Declaration of Independence
          that “Governments” “are instituted”
          “to secure [unalienable] Rights” in order to facilitate maintaining individual integrity of citizens .

          Hence ,
          governmental transgressions
          by “cultures of group integrity
          (aka civilizations)” against individual integrity
          are a satanic perversion
          of the foundational purpose of government
          which is to secure rights ,
          for individual citizens to maintain their integrity ,
          against abuses of
          governmental/civilizational powers .

          As for myself
          and many other cognizant Nordics ,
          any human culture or civilization
          that would egregiously violate any of
          our common individual “unalienable Rights” ,
          as mentioned above here in this comment ,
          or strip away support for those rights ,
          can go straight to hades in a hand basket ;
          as any such human culture or civilization
          would not be worth a single piece of paper
          it prints on .

          From your video ___

          ” Incentives open frontiers — not a plan .”

          ( quoted audio is from just after approx video mark 1:43 of the first redlink with “circa 1990” in your comment above which has
          the “copy link” address as follows ___

          https://youtu.be/boLdXiLJZoY ).

          Is there a greater incentive for humanity
          other than to develop space frontier technologies that would empower future generations
          to survive beyond the

          {{ Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }}

          in order for them to escape
          from an otherwise inevitable fate
          of perishing forever into the abyss of the

          DOOM of OBLIVION ?

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            Regarding the “power corrupts” narrative of civilizational collapse, see my video The Great Leveler and The Cycle of Civilization for the primary reason for civilizational cycles. Jarad Diamond would, of course, not touch this narrative with a ten-foot pole precisely because it cuts right to the heart of Jewish virulence. Jewish virulence has evolved, from multiple civilizational cycles, to not just “surf” these waves, but to actually amplify them so they can harvest civilizational wealth at a greater rate. Guys like Jared Diamond have a job and really one job only: Obscure this evolutionary strategy of Jewish virulence. That’s what woke me up to Jewish virulence when, after the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, I took it upon myself to investigate the capital market failures that were used by what I call “technosocialists” to centralize innovation in government bureaucracies. My conclusion was that the 16th Amendment should be replaced by a single tax on liquidation value of net assets and that the welfare state should be replaced by a citizen’s dividend. (More recently, this has evolved into a monetary system as well I call “Property Money“.) The hysterics that greeted my 1992 white paper on this tax/bureaucratic reform was so blatantly Jewish that I could no longer consider Jewish influence to be anything but a primary symptom if not cause of civilizational ills that negated all their other contributions of a positive character.

            Indeed, everything fell into place once I saw that and then saw William Pierce’s article on Jewish influence in mass media which I had not identified as such when I wrote, in 1982, “Videotex Networking and The American Pioneer” predicting a resurgence of settler culture political power with the advent of computer networking, but also predicting a tremendous danger of re-centralization of power as private sector monopolies on the network emerge.

  21. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    Thank you Prof KMac for elaborating on the vitally important subject/matter of “individualism” which stands in opposition to jewish collectivism in the conflict of the century ___

    { Individualism versus Collectivism

    ( in regard to human/personal rights ) }.

    This is the Merriam-Webster year 1972 verbatim definition of “individualism” ___

    (1): a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount ; also :
    conduct guided by such a doctrine
    (2): the conception that all values , rights , and duties
    originate in individuals
    b: a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and
    stressing individual initiative , action , and interests ;
    also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory

    The Merriam-Webster 1972 verbatim definition of “individuality” ___

    1 a : total character peculiar to and distinguishing an individual from others
    … … …

    3 : separate or distinct existence

    These two definitions clearly insinuate that “individualism” is often conflated with “individuality”.

    Moreover , it is apparent the vast majority of

    Westernworld NORDICS

    ( also known as : Whites/Aryans/Euroman/Europeans/
    [ and perhaps a few unspecified smaller Nordic populations dispersed around the world ] )

    totally conflate
    “individualism” with “individuality” ;
    “individuality” is by far the predominant definition of the conflation since the vast majority of Westernworld NORDICS/Whites are not cognizant of definitions (1) and (2) of “individualism”.

    Your perspective on “individualism” is significant and valued but pertains mostly only to the important matter of “conduct guided by such a doctrine” , as stated in definition (1) of “individualism” , and thus is limited to important but only parochial concerns of domestic Nordic cultures .

    Westernworld NORDICS need to know the fundamental worldwide political ramification of jewish collectivist ideology adopted by ILLuminati despotic globalist rulers .
    It warrants reiteration ___

    Jewish collectivist ideology holds that
    individuals Do NOT Have any
    a priori supreme “unalienable rights” ;
    not to Life , not to Liberty , not to sovereign ownership of their property , not to privacy , not to due process of law , and
    not the least of all — individuals have no “unalienable rights” to
    pursue happiness .

    Jews circumscribe their spiritually fatalistic ideological denial of human/individual/personal “unalienable rights” by attaining for themselves dominion over virtually or ultimately ALL Westernworld public/overt organizations ( which also includes privately owned corporations ).

    In particular ,
    Westernworld anti-status quo NORDICS must realize
    that U.S. Armed Forces flag rank commanders ,
    not rank and file military personnel ,
    have acceded , for career advancement purposes
    if not for any other reason ,
    to jewish collectivist anti-Nordic individualism ,
    an ideology which those commanders more or less ,
    depending on circumstances , conveniently employ
    to serve or preserve their progressive career interests
    while ostensibly proclaiming to be defenders of
    the U.S. Constitutional “unalienable rights”
    of the 1776 Declaration of Independence
    which is the first part of the Constitution
    as the preamble to it .

    After all , the Ashkenazi jewish Rothschildean financial empire , headquartered in The City of Satan ( aka City of London ) within London England , de facto owns the world’s reserve currency — the U.S. dollar . Furthermore , The Rothschildean financial empire built and owns the USA military-industrial-complex
    which is presided over by The Pentagon .

    Please note ___

    the “anti-Nordic individualism”,
    herein the above comment ,
    refers to the actual original meaning of

    …” the view that is opposed to individualism , often referred to as collectivism .”

    ( quoted from the Wikipedia article
    on “Anti-individualism” )

    and should not be confused with the perhaps deliberately obfuscated deflection of an ad hoc contrived and practically incomprehensible ridiculous techno-geek view expressed in the recently edited Wikipedia short article
    on “Anti-individualism”.

Comments are closed.