The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
A Negative Review of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A rather negative review of my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future appeared by someone who calls himself thezman. I am not familiar with his blog, but he seems to be basically on the right side of things as indicated by its blogroll, which includes, AmRen, Steve Sailer, etc. Since most people are not going to wade through a 500+-page book, this is my version of the main ideas.


Thezman’s review will not be helpful to someone who isn’t familiar with the book because it leaves out critical information and basic ideas. The review begins by complaining that I don’t get around to defining individualism until Chapter 8. But a major point, ignored by the reviewer, is that there are two clearly spelled out definitions of individualism in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively, the aristocratic individualism of the Indo-Europeans, and the egalitarian individualism of the northern hunter-gatherers. Unless one discusses these concepts, the entire point of the book is missed because it’s essentially about how these two types of individualism played out in history, with the power of aristocratic individualism gradually decreasing after the English Civil War in the mid-seventeenth century. One would do better by reading some of the reviews on Amazon, such as this one; or even better, read Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s 9-part review for the Council of European Canadians.

Re aristocratic individualism, from Chapter 2:

The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was not based on a single king or a typical clan-type organization based on extended kinship groups but on an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group. Critically, this elite was not tied together by kinship bonds as would occur in a clan-based society, but by individual pursuit of fame and fortune, particularly the former. The men who became leaders were not despots, but peers with other warriors—an egalitarianism among aristocrats. Successful warriors individuated themselves in dress, sporting beads, belts, etc., with a flair for ostentation. This resulted in a “vital, action-oriented, and linear picture of the world” [citing Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization]i.e., as moving forward in pursuit of the goal of increasing prestige. Leaders commanded by voluntary consent, not servitude, and being a successful leader meant having many clients who pledged their loyalty; often the clients were young unmarried men looking to make their way in the world. The leader was therefore a “first among equals.” …

Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships [not biological relatedness] were characteristic of [Proto-Indo-Europeans] and this practice continued with the various [Indo-European] groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree).

Thus aristocratic individualism is fundamentally about individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties as being at the heart of social organization while retaining a strongly hierarchical social structure. Chapter 3 describes Egalitarian Individualism:

As noted in Chapter 2, there were already strong strands of individualism in Indo-European-derived cultures. Thus the argument here is not that northern [hunter-gatherers; h-gs] are the only basis of Western individualism, but that Indo-European individualism dovetailed significantly with that of h-gs they encountered in northwest Europe. The major difference between these two strands is that I-E-derived cultures are strongly hierarchical and relatively egalitarian only within aristocratic peer groups (aristocratic individualism), while the h-g’s were strongly egalitarian without qualification. The burden of this chapter is to make the case for this. The contrast and conflict between aristocratic (hierarchical) individualism and egalitarian individualism is of fundamental importance for my later argument.

I really don’t understand how a competent reviewer could miss this, or the material in the following paragraph on the evolutionary basis of egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer groups and the central importance of moral communities as the social glue binding hunter-gatherer communities rather than extensive kinship. This concept that is critical for understanding Chapters 6–8. From Chapter 3:

Egalitarianism is a notable trait of hunter-gatherer groups around the world. Such groups have mechanisms that prevent despotism and ensure reciprocity, with punishment ranging from physical harm to shunning and ostracism.[1]Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). Christopher Boehm describes hunter-gatherer societies as moral communities in which women have a major role,[2]Ibid., 8.
(Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).)
and the idea that Western cultures, particularly since the seventeenth century, are moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer egalitarian ethic will play a major role here, particularly in Chapters 6-8. In such societies people are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized. Decisions, including decisions to sanction a person, are by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals.

Re climate, I certainly agree that climate is important, as emphasized in Chapter 3 on the northern hunter-gatherers, where the harsh climate of Scandinavia resulted in a general deemphasis on extended kinship in favor of nuclear families. The Indo-Europeans originated in what is now Ukraine but developed a very different culture than the hunter-gatherers. Their culture was completely militarized—likely needed to survive and prosper in the steppes where marauding groups were the norm (not the case in Scandinavia). Their individualism, whereby individual merit mattered more than kinship, was highly adaptive in getting the best leaders. I suppose this could have been simply a cultural invention enabled by domain-general processing (see below; the cultural invention approach is emphasized by Joseph Henrich in his The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous re the role of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages). Or it could have been due to a similar scenario as that sketched in Chapter 3 for the northern hunter-gatherers: Both of these groups lived in areas where one kinship group couldn’t control the basis of economic production. In the case of the northern hunter-gatherers, their source of food on the Scandinavian littoral was not available year-around, forcing them to retreat into small family-based bands where only very close kinship relationships mattered for part of the year (Chapter 3). On the other hand, the proto-Indo-Europeans periodically traveled for extended periods in their wagons in small family-based groups to grazing areas for their cattle and returned to the larger encampment. Again, no kinship group could control the vast steppe region, and relatively intensive kinship typical of hunter-gatherers rather than extensive kinship relations (e.g., in a Middle Eastern clan) would continue as the fundamental basis of social organization. I favor the ecological scenario, but the cultural innovation perspective is also possible. However, a purely cultural shift would have to entail strong social controls to prevent evolved predilections for kinship ties from dominating. Seems difficult and there is no evidence for it.

[thezman:] The first three chapters of the book cover the migration of people into Europe and what we know about the organizational structures. Europe was initially settled by hunter-gatherers with an egalitarian culture. Then nomadic people with an aristocratic warrior class came in from the east. MacDonald argues that the genetic basis for egalitarianism and meritocracy is in these original people. This is not an argument from science, but rather an argument from inference.

Thezman thus ignores the ecological argument of Chapter 3, the clear evidence for individualism in both of these groups, and the genetic cline from northern to southern Europe revealed by population genetic research discussed in Chapter 1.

[thezman:] It cannot be emphasized enough how marriage patterns and family formation helped define what we think of as the West. The rapid decline in cousin marriage, for example, is arguably the great leap forward for Western people. It naturally lead to the evolution of alternatives to narrow kinship in human cooperation. MacDonald does a good job summarizing how these mating patterns were brought to the West with the aristocratic people who migrated from the East.

But it’s not just the aristocratic peoples from the East that created the familial basis of individualism (i.e., a tendency toward nuclear families rather than, say, compound families common in Southern and Eastern Europe based on brothers living together with their wives). I argue in Chapter 4 that the nuclear family pattern is strongest in Scandinavia, a result I attribute to climate (monogamy is favored in harsh environments because of the difficulty of men provisioning the children of more than one woman) in conjunction with the ecological argument noted above.

[thezman:] In the next chapters the focus shifts to culture and history. Chapter four is about European family formation. The focus is entirely on Europe, so the reader is left to guess why this differs from the rest of the world.

But the arguments from Chapters 2 and 3 make it clear that the roots of individualism in both the Indo-Europeans and the northern hunter-gatherers are essentially primordial, as noted above.

[thezman:] Chapter eight is an interesting chapter in that he finally gets around to providing a definition of individualism. He states at the opening that individualist societies are based on the reputation of the individual. Group cohesion depends on the members judging other members on an individual basis. Each member also accepts that he will be judged by society as an individual. This contrasts with other societies where membership in a tribe or clan is the basis for judging people.

But the theme of the importance of reputation appears long before Chapter 8. Indeed the word ‘reputation’ appears around 80 times in the entire book, beginning with Chapter 1 and throughout the book. The stage is set for developing the importance of reputation in the emphasis on individual military reputation in Chapter 2 on the Indo-Europeans and the concept of moral communities in Chapter 3—individuals were trusted to the extent that had a good reputation, and trust was not based on kinship distance. This chart contrasting northwestern European hunter-gathers with the Middle Old World culture is from Chapter 3:

NorthwesternEuropean H-G
Cultural Origins
Middle Old-WorldCultural Origins
EvolutionaryHistory Hunting, gathering Pastoralism, agriculture
Kinship System Bilateral;
weakly patricentric
strongly patricentric
Family System Nuclear family;simple household Extended family;
joint household
Marriage Exogamous;monogamous Endogamous,
MarriagePsychology Individual choice based on personal characteristics of spouse Utilitarian; based on
family strategizing within kinship group
Position ofWomen Relatively high Relatively low
Ethnocentrism Relatively low Relatively high
Social Status Mainly influenced by reputation Mainly influenced by status in kinship group
Trust Trust based on individual’s reputation Trust based mainly on kinship distance

Contrasts between European and Middle Old-World Cultural Forms

[thezman:] This gets to the major flaw in the book. It needs an editor. The parts are here for a straight line argument that individualism has genetic roots and that it was selected for in European people. As humans adapted to the harsh northern climates, they adopted social structures that rewarded the behaviors necessary to survive as a group in the areas we now call Europe. While we cannot locate an “individualism gene” we can infer it through things like marriage patterns and family formation.

I realize that at 511 pages, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is something of a tome but I think there is in fact a straight-line—albeit complex—argument. The difficulty is that one is dealing with two different forms of individualism and how they play out in history. The primordial tendencies of all three groups (the Indo-Europeans, the northern hunter-gatherers and Early Farmers) and how they influence family structure (Ch. 4) must be integrated. But one must also include the argument on the role of the Church in accommodating to aristocratic individualism in the early Middle Ages (the Germanization of Christianity) and ultimately facilitating egalitarian individualism (e.g., the canon law of moral universalism, monogamy, exogamy. Canon law swept away the morality of the ancient world based on natural inequality characteristic of the aristocratic moral framework and substituted a morality based on moral egalitarianism and individual conscience, paving the way for outbreaks of Protestant-type individualist thinking about religion during the later Middle Ages) (Ch. 5). This culminated in the Protestant Reformation and the rise to dominance of egalitarian individualism, leading to the English Civil War and the gradual decline of aristocratic individualism (Ch. 6). And then Chapter 7 (which is completely unmentioned in the review) focuses on egalitarian individualism and how it figured in the movement to eradicate slavery by creating a moral community that abhorred slavery. In any case, its tomeishness is no reason to fail to comment on the central differences and the historical dynamic between aristocratic individualism and egalitarian individualism. There is an argument there, but I rather doubt that thezman read it carefully enough to get it.

[thezman:] This [a shorter book] would make for a nice, crisp two-hundred-page book. Instead, these bits are spread over five hundred pages, mixed with material that is highly debatable. People familiar with the history of the early church, for example, will scratch their head at the assertions made in chapter five. The section on Puritanism often seems to contradict what he said in early chapters about individualism. A professional editor could have pointed this out and forced a rethinking of these chapters.

It’s not professional to complain about the statements in Chapter 5 without saying what was puzzling. And the chapter on Puritanism shows that essentially it started out as what one might call a group of individualists (because of their evolutionary background as northern Europeans). This concatenation of individuals formed a cohesive group via powerful social controls embedded in Calvinism. In America, the Puritans originated with the intention of keeping non-Puritans out of Massachusetts (building “the proverbial city on a hill”), but this gradually gave way, mainly because of the colonial policies of the British government preventing the colony from restricting immigration and settlement. During the nineteenth century, several intellectual offshoots of Puritanism, having escaped the powerful social controls of Calvinism, revealed themselves to be radical individualists (e.g., the libertarian anarchists).

[thezman:] Another problem with the book is that it is not really about individualism so much as a way to support his theory of group evolutionary strategy. As a result, he reduces group behavior to individual motivations. This sort of reductionism is common among older right-wing writers for some reason. That generation has always had a fetish for assigning base human desires to the behavior of groups. For some reason, emergent behavior lies beyond their intellectual event horizon.

Sorry, but I don’t get this; I would like to see examples where I reduce group behavior to individual motivations or assign “base human desires to the behavior of groups.” The whole point of cultural group selection theory (which has gradually become eminently respectable) is that groups are a fundamental category of natural selection, that groups are far more than a concatenation of individuals—an idea I first developed regarding the ancient Spartans (Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (Plenum, 1988) and later applied to traditional Jewish groups (A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994). Take a look at Chapter 1 of the latter; it’s a cultural group selection argument. Think of a military unit. Group behavior is not a simple function of individual motivations but of a hierarchical command structure enforced by rigid discipline; cheaters in the ranks are often forced to suffer severe penalties, thereby solving the fundamental problem of group selection: human groups, unlike the vast majority of animals, are able to develop social controls and ideologies that prevent individual cheating detrimental to group interests. This is a major theme of A People That Shall Dwell Alone where I show that heretical Jews were dealt with harshly.

Moreover, my argument is definitely not biologically reductionist, since there is a major role for cultural innovation via human general intelligence and its control over the modular mechanisms of the lower brain (see here and here on the links between general intelligence and innovation, solving novel problems, and solving old problems in new ways). My view is that ideologies are not reducible to the deterministic output of evolved modules, and this should have been apparent from reading the book, especially Chapters 5 and 8. From Chapter 5:

Religious beliefs are able to motivate behavior because of the ability of explicit representations of religious thoughts (e.g., the traditional Catholic teaching of eternal punishment in Hell as a result of mortal sin) to control sub-cortical modular mechanisms (e.g., sexual desire). In other words, the affective states and action tendencies mediated by implicit [modular] processing are controllable by higher brain centers located in the cortex.[3]Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy,” Politics and Culture (Issue, #1, April, 2010), unpaginated; see also K. MacDonald, K. (2009). Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 208–233. For example, people are able to effortfully suppress sexual thoughts, even though there is a strong evolutionary basis for males in particular becoming aroused by sexual imagery. Thus, under experimental conditions, male subjects who were instructed to distance themselves from sexually arousing imagery were able to suppress their sexual arousal. Imagine that instead of a psychologist giving instructions, people were subjected to religious ideas that such thoughts were sinful and would be punished by God.

Ideologies such as the Christian ideology of the sinfulness of sexual thoughts are a particularly important form of explicit processing [i.e., non-modular processing linked to general intelligence] that may result in top-down control over behavior. That is, explicit construals of the world may motivate behavior. For example, explicit construals of costs and benefits of religiously relevant actions mediated by human language and the ability of humans to create [emphasis added here] explicit representations of events may influence individuals to avoid religiously proscribed food or refrain from fornication or adultery in the belief that such actions would lead to punishments in the afterlife.

Ideologies, including religious ideologies, characterize a significant number of people and motivate their behavior in a top-down manner—i.e., the higher cognitive functions involving explicit processing located primarily in the prefrontal cortex are able to control the more primitive (modular, reflexive) parts of the brain such as structures underlying sexual desire. Ideologies are coherent sets of beliefs. These explicitly held beliefs are able to exert a control function over behavior and evolved predispositions.

There is no reason to suppose that ideologies are necessarily adaptive. Ideologies often characterize the vast majority of people who belong to voluntary subgroups within a society (e.g., a particular religious sect). Moreover, ideologies are often intimately intertwined with various social controls—rationalizing the controls but also benefitting from the power of social controls to enforce ideological conformity in schools or in religious institutions [e.g., Marxist control of the educational system in the USSR]. The next section illustrates these themes as applied to regulating monogamy in Western Europe.

Ideologies are cultural creations enabled by human general intelligence and language; they are not a deterministic outcome of evolved psychological mechanisms. In Chapter 8 I discuss the ability of ideologies such as racial egalitarianism created by elites throughout the West that dominate the media and academia to control evolved tendencies toward ethnocentrism—a major problem for White people now. Hence, I absolutely reject biological reductionionism. Thus the title of my book, The Culture of Critique. Culture is critical and underdetermined by our evolutionary history.

[thezman:] The final criticism of the book is that it fails to explain why individualism has led the West to the verge of self-extinction. It has become an article of faith in certain circles that Western individualism is the cause of decline. Some argue that it makes it possible for tribal minority groups to exert undue influence on society to the detriment of the majority population. If so, then why now and not a century ago or five centuries ago when the West was far more fragmented?

Again, I think the argument is quite clear: the rise of a substantially Jewish elite (i.e., thezman’s “tribal minority”) hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West discussed extensively in Chapters 6 and 8, and continued in Chapter 9. From Chapter 9:

So, what went wrong? Why, little more than a half century after the countercultural revolution, is the West on the verge of suicide, everywhere inundated by other peoples—peoples that are typically far more clannish, far more prone to corruption (an endemic problem in much of the Third World where relationships are based primarily on kinship rather than individual merit and trust of non-kin), and often of demonstrably lower intelligence. This has continued to the point that Western peoples are on the verge of becoming minorities in areas they have dominated for hundreds or, in Europe, thousands of years. Ultimately, if present trends continue, their unique genetic heritage will be lost entirely. One need only look at the demographic trend lines in all Western countries, steady declines in the White percentage of the world population, and generally below-replacement White fertility in the context of massive immigration of non-Whites. Extinction, after all, is just as much a part of the story of life as the evolution of new life forms.

This ongoing disaster for the traditional people of America is the direct result of the rise of a new elite as a result of the 1960s countercultural revolution. This new elite despises the traditional people and culture of America.

The above is essentially a reference to the argument from Chapter 6 on the decline of the WASP elite and the rise of a substantially Jewish elite, culminating in the 1960s countercultural revolution and recounted in my book The Culture of Critique (especially Chapter 3). The above passage continues:

The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and academe were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism discussed throughout this volume. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that moral indictments of their opponents have been prominent in the writings of these activist intellectuals, including political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and the Frankfurt School developed the view that social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The triumph of these intellectual movements to the point of consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil.

It was noted in Chapter 6 that during the period of ethnic defense in the 1920s, Darwinist thinking on race was common throughout Western culture and assumed prominence among many U.S. immigration restrictionists, energized by the changing ethnic balance of the United States. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that the intellectuals who became influential beginning in the 1930s (particularly the Boasian school of anthropology) targeted Darwinian theories of race as well as individual identities based on White racial group identity. For example, attacking racial identities in favor of atomized individualism for European-Americans was a central strategy of the Frankfurt School. Group identities based on race and even the family, were portrayed as an indication of psychopathology. Radical individualism was thus promoted by intellectuals who retained a strong allegiance to their own group and self-consciously promoted group interests.

These ideologies fell on particularly fertile soil because they dovetailed with Western European tendencies toward individualism. And whereas individualism has been the key characteristic of Western peoples in their rise to world dominance, these ideologies and their internalization by so many Europeans now play a major role in facilitating Western dispossession.

In particular, the ideology that White identity and having a sense of White interests are signs of psychopathology has made it impossible in mainstream media and academia to argue for the legitimate interests of White people in having homelands and in avoiding becoming minorities in societies they have dominated for hundreds, and in the case of Europe, thousands of years. Such ideologies are disseminated by the mainstream media—including conservative and libertarian media—and throughout the educational system, from elementary school through university.

They have in effect created a moral community that is radically opposed to the interests of Whites. And as with the Puritans, the new elite has been able to create a culture of altruistic punishment in which White people punish fellow Whites who deviate from the dogmas of the moral community created by the new elite, even at the cost to compromising the long-term interests of themselves and their descendants.


These ideologies have been increasingly buttressed by powerful social controls. As discussed in Chapter 8, in much of the West these controls include formal legislation punishing critics of immigration and Western dispossession. Because of the First Amendment, such statutory controls are in their infancy in the United States but are likely to gain traction in the coming years if the left gains power.

However, informal controls are also very effective in the United States and throughout the West. For example, many people have been fired from their jobs as a result of the actions of activist organizations simply phoning their employers. These organizations take advantage of the moral community created by media and academic elites over the last 50 years by limiting the influence of dissident individuals and exposing them to public scrutiny, thereby subjecting them to ostracism and job loss. The effectiveness of these tactics relies on elite consensus and conformist popular attitudes for their effectiveness. Scientifically based ideas that were entirely respectable less than a century ago now result in ostracism and job loss.

You can disagree with that (please do!), but it’s unprofessional to review this book without mentioning the book’s discussion of the role of the rise of the Jews in creating the culture of Western suicide. But once again, a critical piece of the argument is missing from the review. One wonders if thezman did anything more than thumb through the book.


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

[2] Ibid., 8.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy,” Politics and Culture (Issue, #1, April, 2010), unpaginated; see also K. MacDonald, K. (2009). Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 208–233.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Europeans, Individualism, Kevin MacDonald 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[200] • Disclaimer says:

    The JQ is ignored because TheZMan — a supposed outsider who still operates in the swamp of DC — flatly refuses to attribute anything negative, even in the face of considerable evidence, when it comes to certain not-quite-ethnic-not-quite-religious groups. He is consistently defensive on this topic.

    I suspect the omission of the topic at part of the review was an attempt to discredit the book without making his philia obvious.

    • Agree: Megoy
  2. For the most part, Western Individualism is a myth. Individualism had value only for a small percentage. Still, it was significant compared to other cultures that hardly any concept of individualism.

    One thing for sure, the notion of Western Individualism was never a universal thing. Most people were sheeple and couldn’t be anything but that.

    • Replies: @Tucker
    , @cohen
  3. Proof the US isn’t controlled by the ‘left’ but by ultra-right Jewish Supremacism.

    So, where is the leftist outrage over stuff like this?

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @shoeknotfit
  4. gT says:

    Can’t really blame the JQ, they used a weakness existing in the Western Liberal tradition, namely the women, to break the West. Women simply can’t abide seeing a stray animal in the streets, they want to take care of it. Same with refuges from elsewhere, women just can’t abide seeing others suffering. And the men of course have to oblige the women because they, the women, are gorgeous. In the end the result is the destruction of your society because too many outsiders will change your society, plain and simple.

    With the Jews, because they don’t have the numbers to change a society and instead focus on infiltrating Government, banking, law and the media and entertainment industry in order to change a society, the rule should just be that outsiders are not allowed to succeed in other’s societies, outsiders must go and succeed in their own societies. In ancient Athens no outsider could own land in Athens, probably not vote either, so it makes sense that outsiders should not be allowed to succeed in the societies of others. They can live there, within reason, but not prosper there.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Jim Christian
  5. I just finished reading Kevin MacDonald’s new book. I read it over the course of about two months, so I may have lost some of the continuity. I think that it is worth reading, but I wonder if the sections on the Puritans and the abolitionist movement might have been shortened. I also think that the book could be improved by a more extensive discussion of what has changed since the 1960s to result in the success of the counterculture. For example, the book mentions the vastly increased ability of people to travel and to contemplate emigration since the 1960s. The book might have benefitted from exploring this factor more and factors such as the availability of satellite television, the internet, and a generous welfare program that ease the existence of migrants today vis-à-vis 50-60 years ago.

    I wonder a bit too of how easy it is to characterize cultures of 4,000+ years ago. As Nicolas Wade put it, evolution is recent, copious and regional. We might not have to look that far back to find a genetic basis for the western European proclivity to de-emphasize clan and kinship relationships. Still, I recommend the MacDonald book.

  6. Dutch Boy says:

    The question is: what is the basic unit of a society? Protestant (now secular) Northern Europe says the individual. Catholic (but increasingly secular) Southern Europe says the family. The individualist philosophy (aka liberalism) leads to social suicide, as the interests of families are pushed aside in favor of an acquisitive economic philosophy and libertine social mores. As individualism has expanded southward, you see previously family-friendly societies become barren, e.g., Italy and Spain with their suicidal fertility rates.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  7. kelso says:

    Z Man is most likely David Cole or an alias he uses,

  8. Zman is either a jew….or a cuck… which case he isn’t worth bothering with.

    He’s a small man attacking the big man to get attention.

    • Agree: fnn, CSFurious
  9. Emma S. says:

    I don’t think Europeans are inherently less tribalistic than other groups. The strange phenomena we see today would not be present 300 years ago. Some people blame Christianity for the ethnic and racial suicidal tendencies in Whites, but modern Whites are less Christian than ever, and Liberal Whites tend to be atheists or progressive “Christians”. Black people who are overwhelmingly Christian, even more so than Whites, do not put their race to an alter because of Christianity. They find race extremely important and are very proud of themselves without any apology. What could the reason behind this be? I feel like there are multiple explanations, none too simplistic.

    • Replies: @RVIDXR
  10. Alrenous says: • Website

    Unquestionably comes across as a quisling, in any case. A variety of concern troll. Intellectually insufficient.

  11. Alrenous says: • Website

    egalitarian individualism of the northern hunter-gatherers

    Law of Jante.

    moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer egalitarian ethic

    As I keep saying, Fascism is paleolithic economics. “We’re rich enough we can all afford to LARP as hunter tribes, right? Return to monke.”

    I suppose this could have been simply a cultural invention enabled by domain-general processing

    Humans don’t find environments strict enough to enforce any particular phenotype. They sort of fall into something convenient and then it self-reinforces for social reasons.

    What you’re calling aristocratic individualism mostly just sort of happened, and then, as it happens, it is the best system. It has a tendency to win because it is good. Egalitarianism is downright stupid if you’re not a stone-age tribe.

    Neither individualism nor da joos have led the West to self-extinction.

    Coercive government is inherently cancerous. Coercive government is inherently criminal and inherently sets the government against its subjects. As a result it destroys your society roughly every 250 years. (Check: how often does China have a catastrophic civil war?) Turns out the economic incentives of crime are criminal and inherently unjust. The political formula, which forms the core of any society with a coercive government, legitimizes the crime and the society cannot purge the cancer without ripping up its own roots.

    Expansionist coercive government is particularly destructive. China recovers. Expansionist States do not recover. They destroy themselves and then it’s over; the genetic stock is destroyed, not merely the parochial economy.

  12. You don’t need a 500-something pages of bullshit to explain the so-called “western individualism”. Basically, “Western individualism” is a cult-like myth whose core belief is that the general public can act or think ‘independently’ in any meaningful sense. That alone should make it obvious to anyone who has more than a half-functioning brain that it is such an absurdly retarded idea. But these ‘huwhite people’, mostly the anglos, are too narcissistic to admit their pathetic reality, so they had to create such a ridiculous cult which they can jack off of and escape from reality.

    The most hilarious part of this “western individualism” cult is that it basically can be neatly summarized as “we are doomed because we are too unique and superior.” This really perfectly summarize the typical anglo attitudes. It’s basically “we are doomed, because we are too superior and moral, because we are so individualistic. They now have the upper hand only because they are too inferior and have no ‘independent mind’ and collectivists and bugs and whatnot. It’s sad that we are so unique and superior.” LOL!

    • Agree: Ghan-buri-Ghan
    • LOL: Hitmarck
  13. Homer, supposedly writing in the 800’s BC about events from around 1200 BC, is one of our earliest references for our cultural origins. I’d say the Iliad and the Odyssey provide some evidence for but much evidence against McDonald’s theory.

    The culture of the aristocratic elite, the Achaeans, was based on ethnic identity. The Achaeans invaded mainland Greece from the north and conquered and enslaved the population living there, but also learned from them the art of sailing and building cities.

    They may have been ‘individualistic’ in some terms, at the top of the aristocratic hierarchy there seems to have been some equality at that level, but that is not the same as ‘individualism’. In fact they were clan based and kinship based. Your father and father’s father and your mother etc were VERY important. This is not ‘individualism’, or, if you call it ‘individualism’ the term loses its meaning.

    The equality in Homer is the equality among kings, who were heads of warrior clans based in a city state who sometimes allied together. That is not ‘individualism’, but alliance based on the fact that no city state was able to conquer all the territory of Greece, and thus, after Homer, there was constant fighting between city states, until the rise of Macedon, Philip and Alexander.

    No Bronze age or Dark Age or Classical Age Greek would identify himself as an ‘individual’. Rather, he identified himself in terms of family, city state, and ethnic identity.

    In fact being an ‘individual’ was the worse thing you could be, without protection, a slave, fit for working the land, being sold or sacrificed.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @Anon
  14. anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:

    Same with refuges from elsewhere

    You conveniently hide the fact that the refugees were displaced by the whitevil man (if not direct invasions, then financial terrorism through various means), and his limitless greed and bloodlust.

    • Replies: @Justrambling
  15. The Z Man has the occasional insightful post, but mostly he’s a mediocrity.

    • Replies: @Borman
  16. tkman says:

    What is the difference between animals and humans?
    Do animals have a culture?
    What made the wild humans become civilized?

    Mr. Mc Donald you write extensively about a subject you are missing it’s core definition.
    As a result you are omitting a complete and acurate analysis of today’s social and financial situation in the Western societies. Your are detailing the roundabouts.
    Great and respectable effort …….

    Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.

  17. Tucker says:
    @Priss Factor

    “One thing for sure, the notion of Western Individualism was never a universal thing.”

    I have gradually developed the sense that this so-called ‘Western Individualism’ is actually just a term that was invented to slap several coats of camouflage paint on the extremely negative characteristic of selfishness.

    I have known and associated with many of these MAGA Boomer types, and some of them I have known for several decades – and during that entire time, despite giving it my best effort, I could never get these Boomers to take the red pill on the JQ and understand that there was a war being waged against Whites and the perpetrators of that war were waging it against White Europeans on an international scale. These Boomers primary focus in life was the pursuit of materialism – and as long as they could buy or take on debt to shower themselves with the newest smart phones, or Big screen Televisions, or a new car every few years, and blow money on expensive vacations – they were happy as pigs wallowing in we-all-know-what.

    Some of these Boomers even had kids and grand kids and when I tried to point out what kind of horrible future those kids and grand kids would be facing, once our #1 enemy managed to reduce Whites to a hated and despised minority inside the nation that our 100 percent White European Founding Fathers created and then bequeathed to their direct, White European posterity – the attitude and response I would get was something like this: “Well, I’ll be long dead before any of that happens, so I don’t give a hoot.”

    Selfishness, folks. White MAGA Boomers probably have the greatest amount of selfishness of any previous generation of White Europeans in world history. These losers do not even give a damn that their selfishness is guaranteed to foist a nightmarish future upon their very own progeny.

  18. Karl1906 says:

    Mr. MacDonald, sir, I’m verry sorry to say but I think you’re wasting your time on this “critic”.

    Hiding behind a nick already clearly indicates how “serious” this has to be taken – zip. It’s basically some asshole having an opinion – and most likely for money. And he most likely had this opinion long before he wrote this (hit)piece of garbage. So there’s no convincing possible and/or necessary because this tool/fool was never interested in a serious debate in the first place. Only in discrediting your book and the effort that went into it.

    It reminds me of Grant’s book and how some people (back in the day) tried to pull the same number. (Though at least they were no cowards and stood to their criticism in public and with their real names.) In the end the quality and validity of the work stands and speaks for itself and always outclasses these people. By a long shot.

  19. @Tucker

    I first heard that phrase “I am glad that I wont be around when X happens” circa 1999. I agree that at its root that it derives from selfishness justified with the notion that USA is an exceptional nation and that something will come along to return USA society to a 1980’s level of opportunity of not the 1950’s. For some people uttering it , it means helplessness about forces that have changed the west beyond recognition.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  20. Jimmy1969 says:

    Professor MacDonald. Think back to all of the losers you taught in their freshman year. How many dropped out, how many failed or received C’s or D’s out of mercy and could obviously not think or reason …who always mixed up the empirical with the normative……whose essays were ambiguous rants. These failures are many of the bloggers of today. They often took psychology or sociology but failed out the first time they had to take a basic stats course……which is the bedrock course for learning how to do basic research in the social sciences. How many of those guys did you fail…and do you notice that few if any of the bloggers have the title PhD behind their name..or where they went to school….or what their marks were.

  21. @Houston 1992

    But they’re willing to give up their material benefits and drop their standard of living to defeat Russia.

    • Agree: Houston 1992, JR Foley
    • Replies: @Houston 1992
  22. Dimitrie says:

    As a disclaimer I didn’t read the book only this article. It is an engaging thesis about shaping European society by competition or cooperation between aristocratic individualism and egalitarian individualism.

    But I don’t think that these are to be reduced as the unique response to the environmental factors or at least this point it wasn’t demonstrated.

    “Both of these groups lived in areas where one kinship group couldn’t control the basis of economic production.”

    Harsh environment is also in Arabian peninsula but that didn’t stop the Arabs to be clanish (and by the way polygamous with not such difficulty of men provisioning the children of more than one woman)

    Similar in Mongolian steppes were climate is much harsher that in North Black Sea region Mongolians retained a much more stern tribal clannish structure in contrast with Indo-Europeans before.

    Again reading Sagas of North (Njall Saga but also the others) the society structure is clanish with very extended families ( to the n line) providing support for the individual. Similar with old Eastern way a man with a name can follow his ancestry till more than ten generation (the only change from the Semitic way was that a man also knew his paternal ancestors on his mother side).

    It seems to me that individualistic stance (aristocratic or egalitarian) was not predetermined by external factors. Maybe the Calvinist doctrine put a glass over our eyes and we see thing of the past modified by our modern perception. It is a hypothesis.

  23. Megoy says:

    The “Z”man? As in the “Zionist” Jew man? You can’t get away with the classic Jew omission of Jewish treachery (like Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Marc Levin, Dave Rubin and Breitbart currently do) without the omission of Jews giving you away! Heaven forbid anyone read MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” and see the irrefutable Jewish subversion of America that brought us to today’s “leftists” that all of the above mentioned (((conservative))) Jews are racing to cover up and scapegoat others for.

  24. MLK says:

    MAGA is the problem, eh?

    You remind me of David Duke going on CNN every other day in 2016 to inform everyone that he was repeating his endorsement of Trump because, honest and for true, he wanted him to win.

    Or when we learned post-Charlottesville, that Trump was such a dyed in the wool racist he had turned an Obama campaign guy in the organizer of that anti-Trump set-piece.

    Now, oddly enough, you’re pointing your filthy finger at MAGA in line with the current agreed narrative of Leftist and RINO filth.

    A word to the wise, here, like in advertising, the intelligence of the audience being targeted is discerned by the smarts or lack thereof of the pitch. You should go loud and proud leftist if you’re looking for people stupid enough to believe you with this “I know some MAGA personally. They’re all selfish, stupid, and don’t care about the future of their loved ones and nation.”

    • Thanks: Pierre de Craon
  25. Charles says:

    The Z Man, whoever he may be, is often quoted by Theodore Beale, a.k.a. Vox Day. Beale is the same person who will never-endingly claim his IQ towers above the common rabble, yet will also claim that the Protestant version (I neither know nor care which definition he uses) of Jesus is the only way to get out of our predicament. He was a believer in Q and in the idea that Trump was going to “cross the Rubicon” and re-install himself as President. It is impossible to take such people seriously.

    • Replies: @coolhand850
  26. fnn says:
    @Priss Factor

    The Pelosi Zionist Capitol Police fired stun grenades randomly into the crowd in front of the Capitol on J6-resulting in the deaths of two middle-aged Trump supporters.

  27. @Anonymous

    Yes, the Z man has a well known weak position on the jewish elites. It’s like the difference between the dying civilization or the civilization that is being killed deliberately, the world views that are way too different to reconcile.

  28. Mevashir says:

    A rather negative review of my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future appeared by someone who calls himself thezman.


    If you knew how to click on links you could easily find out who thezman is:
    [email protected]

    To contribute to my Escape From Lagos Fund

    Or, You can send money to me at:

    Z Media LLC.
    P.O. Box 432
    Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432

    I read all mail and respond to as many as time permits, but I am usually weeks behind so don’t expect a quick response.

  29. @Tucker

    You could be dropped into a barrel of titties and you’d come up holding a dick, because you are one stupid lying faggot POS.

    • Replies: @Tucker
  30. KenH says:

    Zman has an interesting and well written blog but perusing it one will see that discussions of Jewish power and influence is never the focus of any blog entries. If it’s mentioned at all it’s done so fleetingly.

    Take for example his blog of July 25th titled “The End of Times” about the introduction of crudeness and nastiness into national politics with the arrival of the Clinton’s. Nowhere in the article is there mention that the Clinton administration was the most Jewish in American history or that the mainstream media who encouraged much of this nastiness is wholly owned and controlled by Jewish elites. This doesn’t absolve the Clinton’s of their behavior but Jews clearly played a role in that which Zman decries.

    Throughout the article Zman bemoans the power of leftists and progressives without mentioning that it’s inarguably Jewish brains and money that have made them as formidable as they are today. Jews have always had disproportionate representation in far left wing movements as leaders, movers and shakers and bankrollers as KMac, David Duke and many others have documented.

    Just like Jewess terrorist Susan Rosenberg is the brains and fundraiser behind the BLM movement. Not the three butt ugly negro lesbians who serve only as proxies for the public.

    So the fact that Zman, who normally seems to relegate the JQ to the status of a nothingburger, suddenly took notice of KMac’s latest book by taking some cheap shots at it certainly makes me suspicious of him. It’s possible he’s Jewish himself or perhaps a philo-semitic or anti-anti-semitic white man in denial about Jewish power and influence.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  31. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:

    Selfishness, folks. White MAGA Boomers probably have the greatest amount of selfishness of any previous generation of White Europeans in world history. These losers do not even give a damn that their selfishness is guaranteed to foist a nightmarish future upon their very own progeny.

    Selfishness is a huge problem in our society, but it’s not the MAGA crowd but the liberal elites who drink martinis out on Cape cod and expect the rest of the country to bow and scrape to them. These people never Network and never meet with the masses.

    Unlike the MAGA crowd who constantly Network in their Sunday School classes in their Kiwanis Rotary and Lions clubs etc. President Trump went out of his way to hold populist rallies. Does Biden ever meet with anyone? No!

    The MAGA crowd are extremely unselfish and are networked with a strong sense of community, unlike the elites who are arrogant look down at the rest of us from the mountaintop and laugh into their beer. Or laugh up their sleeves as a famous German populist once said.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  32. Jim H says:

    ‘Since most people are not going to wade through a 500+-page book, this is my version of the main ideas.’ — Kevin MacDonald

    Geez, KMac: have a little faith in readers (and yourself).

    I waded through The Culture of Critique — 421 pages, plus end notes.

    It’s not the task of an author to pre-emptively devalue his work … or to respond to anonymous, no-account blogger critics on the interwebs.

    Just keep punching, and focus on the real battles: Merrick Garland/Garfinkel is about to indict Trump and start a civil war.

    Like the Bolshevik revolution, it’s a Jewish-led pogrom. And it’s directed at us, whether we are Trump supporters or not.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  33. RVIDXR says:
    @Emma S.

    To me Edward Dutton’s mutant explanation makes the most sense: the child survival rate going from a coin flip to near 100% in the 19th century and also the industrial revolution allowing the genetically unfit to not only survive but breed in large numbers eventually culminating in them becoming a large enough demographic that they could negatively influence society with their maladaptive ideas.

    It seems like, in general, every civilization that gets advanced enough becomes a victim of its own success, all sorts of important attributes stop being selected for and that lack of selection pressure eventually reaches a critical threshold where advanced society cannot be maintained anymore. Difference is this time around we’re on a much faster and more extreme timescale due to the unprecedented technological advancements we’ve undergone.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence things rapidly spiraled out of control a few generations after society allowed anyone with a below average IQ to get a factory job that could afford a house, a stay at home wife and multiple kids. Before that there was a limit to how many hardwired degenerates could survive and breed but since that began they’ve been altering the societal selection process to favor the dysgenic and we’re now in the late stage where they’ve reached a critical mass and will ultimately revert society back to a primitive state. We’re seeing that happen in real time right now.

    Religion isn’t immune to low quality people either, nothing is really, if every white person became an extreme ethnonationalist with a positive view of eugenics tomorrow the churches would change their rhetoric to accommodate that to maintain membership- which is all it’s really concerned with as an organization. As it stands the average white person implicitly supports LGBT and racial equality hence why so many churches hang rainbow flags and virtue signal about brown people, that’s what’s perceived as popular so the faith has adapted to match that. Much of the current state of Christianity is a reflection of the quality of its people just like civilization itself but given that so much of the bible is open to interpretation and the faith’s inherent universalism it’s uniquely dangerous due to its ability to be used as a weapon.

    As for blacks they’re hardwired to be collectivist much more than Europeans are, the average white person wouldn’t blindly defend a white george floyd just because he’s the same race like they do, for example. Also, their faith is really just ornamental, by white religious standards they’re degenerate heretics but there’s no contradiction from their perspective because it’s not something they take seriously. They’re also extremely primitive so the mental gymnastics that whites use to justify slow motion suicide as a good thing doesn’t work on them, in white countries their sole focus is on extracting wealth from whites via handouts and pushing for policies that allow them to live like savages without any interference. As long as they can commit wanton crime and have their EBT cards refilled every month they’re content even if it means they’ll be ethnically cleansed out of their own neighborhoods by mexicans and south americans from voting democrat in exchange for those things.

    There’s more elements to all of these things but from my view those are biggest drivers of what’s currently happening.

    • Replies: @anon
  34. Borman says:
    @Change that Matters

    Z-man has some good insights.

    His biggest flaw is his need to post every day. He is good, but not good enough to post that volume of material and have be of quality. Too much of what he writes seems to be half-cocked filler.

  35. @Anon

    First of all, boomers had nothing to do with any of the problems we face today.

    The shitty legislation was forced on us by activist judges and corrupt shabbos goy politicians……backed by organized jewry.

    And the MAGA crowd isn’t simply composed of “boomers,” as I believe that Trump has fans of all age groups. And you’re right that for the most part MAGA people are real patriots, and of course they are mostly white.

    I am not a Trump fan, and I don’t think he deserves a second chance.

    On the other hand, Trump is still light years ahead of creepy Joe Biden.

    Seems to me that a MAGA hater is most likely a jew or a soyboy shitlib faggot.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  36. @kelso

    No, there are videos of David Cole on youtube, you can hear his voice, (Cole sounds very Jewish to me) the Zman does a podcast every Friday, he has a very different voice, not Jewish

  37. anarchyst says:
    @Robert Dolan

    To paraphrase a famous song “We Didn’t Start the Fire” by Billy Joel, it’s not every “boomer” that is the problem. In fact, many of us boomers struggled through life, but finally “made it”.

    I am a “boomer” who has worked all my life, starting at 12 years of age. Being one of a large family, life for my parents and us was not easy, but we all persevered in our own ways and were successful in life.

    Nobody ever gave me anything. What I did was gained “with the sweat of my brow”.

    If there is any “blame” to be placed, it must be placed at those of previous generations, especially the “greatest generation”, that formulated and passed many of the destructive laws and customs that we live under to this day.

    From the enactment of the federal income tax and the creation of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve cartel, previous generations have a lot to answer for.

    The “greatest generation” was duped into fighting a war for European (jewish) interests, killing off the true “best and brightest” gentile whites, and destroying much of European culture as a result, and solidifying international jewish power by NOT going after the REAL enemies of human culture, legitimizing the state of Israel, thereby consolidating jewish power, and assuring the jewish zionist hold on the world political process.

    Let’s not forget that the “greatest generation” pushed for the terribly misguided “civil-rights” acts, statutes and laws, which effectively disenfranchised gentile whites (but only gentile whites) with the abolition of “freedom of association” (but only for gentile whites). In fact, federal troops were used against law-abiding whites in violation of “posse comitatus” laws which prohibit utilizing the military for domestic law enforcement purposes. Whites have been effectively neutered since these laws were passed. Forced integration of schools (cross-district bussing and other schemes) was enforced by jewish leftist judges who insisted that blacks needed to sit next to whites in order to learn.

    The “elephant in the room” to which blame can be squarely put on the “greatest generation” was the “Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965″. This jew-imposed act successfully cut off the immigration for white Europeans while opening up the floodgates for third-world brown and black immigration.

    Both major political parties were responsible for this travesty. Democrats saw increasing third-world immigration as a source for votes while the Republicans saw it as a source of cheap labor.

    The wages of native-born Americans have not increased in real terms since 1970, that point in time being seen as the “high-water mark” in relation to real wage growth. There has not been any real “wage growth” since then.

    All of the above can be attributed to those of the “greatest generation”–NOT us “boomers”.

    Best regards,

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  38. @Anonymous

    Have been reading the Zman far a good while now, and reading his comments/back and forth with his readers in his comment section, he freely admits that the Tribe are massively over represented in almost every negative trend in the Western world. He generally says if people want to understand the JQ they should start with Yuri Slezkine. He also says that some people can be tipped over the edge by Kmac’s work, I have seen this happen myself, Culture of Critique is a great book, but its not for everyone

  39. @gT

    The women are gorgeous? Are you drunk? In the west, one of twenty are gorgeous. The rest are fat, tattooed and pierced with blue and orange hair.

    • LOL: Ghan-buri-Ghan
    • Replies: @Johan
  40. @anarchyst

    Thanks for the reply.

    I do not think that labor is the real reason for the invasion. I maintain that the reason for massive third world immigration in every white country worldwide is the direct result of jewish paranoia and their desire to disempower white Christian people.

    To support my view, I offer the fact that EVERY white country on earth is being invaded at the SAME TIME… this isn’t spontaneous or random…..the destruction is deliberate.

    I don’t think it’s fair to blame any generation of whites, or women, or blacks, or the Chinese, or mexicans…..because the (((donor class))) runs the uniparty kosher sandwich.

    I could be wrong about zman….but back when I tried to make comments on his site I ran into trouble and resistance and denial regarding the JQ.

    Someone mentioned that zman said that some people can’t handle The CofC and the JQ…..oh well.
    Some people can’t handle beer.

    So what?

  41. All the arguments coming from ancient times, prehistoric hunters-gatherers are as good as Jurassic Parc stories. We simply do not know for sure if Arians originated in the Ukraine (to leave it then empty for milennia) nor wheter any Scandinavians existed before 1500 or it was an empty land colonized from Central Europe. There is no way to know anything about the Middle Ages and then-Catholic Chirch either. Hell, do we even know why a Capital of Rome was in Serbia?

    However, we can observe historical cultures that are closer to us, and conclude something about Individualism and where is it found. The answer will be very simple:

    Individualism is for slaves. Lack of kinship ties is for slaves. High roles of Woman is for slaves.

    Who are highest individualists and egalitarists in the world ? Russian/Ukrainian serfs; American Blacks. Scandinavians are individualist and comformist because they are slaves to their Kingdom. (Protestants of the Lutheran persuasion actually worship their King and Country, so being slave is their religious observance). Vikings are ancient history; the swedish rules of whats it called, which are totally slavish, come from their existence since 1700s.

    It is that simple. Normal free people have kinship ties, like, brothers living nearby their parents and so on; while slaves are individualistic because they hate themselves and their own kin. Every kid needs their own room, yes, and corruption is inefficient, great.

    This is the main problem with McDonalds theory. He praises the slave traits of the White Christians who are slaves to basically anyone, and condemns normal human behaviours like being good to his kin.

  42. Hoyeru says:

    Libertarians are the biggest deluded dupes on the planet. I have met a few and they are 100% self deluded assholes. Individualism? Please! They talk about being individuals while using all the things society offers. Let them see how “individuals” they can be by dropping them into the wildness without any tools of the modern society including matches and see how long they will actually survive.
    The concept of “Individualism” goes against ANY anthropology studies, Humans have survived and become the dominant animal on earth exactly because they chose to work together instead of working against each other.

  43. @Commentator Mike

    they will spend their grand kids \$, but Boomers dont seem to want their grandchildren joining the military these days. The support for the war among USA population is premised that it will prove cheap and quick….. introduce the draft , or even have females required to register with few exemptions and no exemption for combat, and support for foreign wars would plummet.

    by the way even [male] Quakers and other CO must register for the draft

    enacting the draft would lead to a surge in Quaker church attendance, and other religious traditions would do a roaring trade explaining, for example, why Southern Baptist tradition actually has a strong pacifist streak….

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  44. If you plug (pardon the expression) in the characters “hMPXV” after, you get “This page isn’t available. Sorry about that… Try searching for something else.”

    Along with this picture:

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  45. @Houston 1992

    The support for the war among USA population is premised that it will prove cheap and quick…

    That has been true of every war this country has been involved in. Somehow it never works out as promised. (Except, ironically, for the few “boomer”-era wars– Grenada, Kuwait, Haiti, Serbia…)

    Before we entered the “Great War”, it had already been clear for years that the promises of both sides that it would be over in no time were hot air– hot air full of mustard gas.

    We still went in. And Wilson’s name is still on that plaque in Paris:

  46. @Reg Cæsar

    Oops, sorry… This was meant for one of Sailer’s pages. Breathe on a tablet…

  47. cohen says:
    @Priss Factor

    It is all BS. to use some heavy made up or romantic words repeatedly. Words like fascism, totalitarianism, this ism and that ism to impress people of lessor levels. These morons dont know themselves the real meaning of such words. Newly minted words like American exceptionalism (we sure are exceptional in crimes, killing innocents, violating our own laws etc), American Values (killing old and weaker people on subways for instance), I get sick and tired of these so called and self proclaimed intellectual using such worn out words. A club of their own

    A lot of people take pleasure in bringing Einstein theory of relativity as a fashion to impress less fortunate without knowing what the the hell the theory is all about. I enjoy calling their bluff and ask them idiots to explain that they never do. You get the idea.

    Last week in Warsaw I saw the neighborhood where the so called Jewish UPRISING happened. What UPRISING (another fancy word for riots). It is a very small neighborhood, however, painted as uprising and perhaps 6 million died fighting the Nazis with their bare hands. Coming out of the poop storage and killing the Nazi with the smell. Go and visit the neighborhood and talk to old residents of Warsaw to get the right narrative.

    Another BS is being promoted called uprising of young Jews. These were young thugs in the neighborhood who used to throw rocks at the windows, steal and terrorize the residents. And exaggeration is the name of the game.

  48. @Tucker

    “Well, I’ll be long dead before any of that happens, so I don’t give a hoot.”

    It is amusing that these self-styled geniuses think they can predict the time frame of both their death and the death of white civilization.

    They may well live their final few years being tortured by anti-white racist orderlies in a nursing home.

    If they are going to be selfish they should at least be smart about it!

  49. Rosie says:

    Can’t really blame the JQ, they used a weakness existing in the Western Liberal tradition, namely the women, to break the West.


    White male greed and selfishness are the cause of the immivasion.

    This sh!t has been going on since forever. White men paved the way for minority rule in America when they decided to import black slaves rather than pay White laborers a decent wage. Plus ca change.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Liosnagcat
  50. @Hoyeru

    The other day there was a funny rich American musician on CNN who said ” I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. ” ………..ha ha ha !!!!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  51. anon[385] • Disclaimer says:

    The highly educated do the destruction not factory workers.

    • Replies: @RVIDXR
  52. Odyssey says:

    There are so many incoherent things here.

    First, the term ‘Indo-European’ is meaningless and without any substance. It was asserted (Anthony) that Yamnaya nomads (ancestors of Western Europeans) were Indo-Europeans. Their steppe economy, before coming to Europe, was based on few domesticated animals which wandered through the steppe and nomadic families followed them. They came to Europe (2800BC-2500BC, British Isles) and allegedly, brought their nomadic language, which they enforced to the entire indigenous European population. Where is this indigenous population in the book?

    Yamnaya nomads did not know for metals (they came with stone maces), houses, agriculture, trades. The European indigenous people, 5000 years before Yamnaya (who are 4500 years far from us!) had the first industrial revolution (metals), built multistorey houses and temples, had gold processing, trades, agriculture, literacy, cosmetics, knew astronomy and mathematics. How it was possible that nomads, who did not have a vocabulary for anything of the previous, could enforce their poor language in a short timeframe across the entire wooded and swampy Europe without roads and bridges? (Anthony’s) patron-client concept based on reputation is a real crap. Aristocracy? This must be a joke.

    Proto-Indo-Europeans? Who were they? Where and when they lived, where their language was developed? We don’t know anything about Yamnaya before 3100BC (Anthony).
    ‘Indo-European’ derived culture? Which culture? ‘IE’ did not bring any culture, only what archaeology found was pottery (done by abducted indigenous women) and some specific burial practices.

    What about the genocide conducted by Yamnaya (aka ‘Indo-Europeans’) on indigenous European people? One source says that 88% of indigenous men were killed and their women abducted?

    Yamnaya, aka Indo-Europeans (they were neither ‘Indo’ nor ‘Europeans’) were NOT Aryans. Who were Aryans? Aryans brought Rg Veda, mythology and language (which became Sanskrit) to India. The mainstream says that Sanskrit is an ‘Indo-European’ language. How come? Where and when Aryans adopted the language, their mythology and vedas from Yamnaya? What was the Yamnaya mythology?

    Scandinavians? Where they originated before coming to Scandinavia? Who lived in the central and southern Europe? Or it was uninhabited area?

  53. @Rosie

    Oh shutup, you dim twat.

    jewish merchants brought the slaves here.

    Why comment when you know nothing?

    • Agree: Liosnagcat
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Liosnagcat
  54. Rosie says:
    @Robert Dolan

    jewish merchants brought the slaves here.

    And White men bought them, because they didn’t care about their race, and still don’t.

    If they did, there would be more Kmacs willing to use their tenure privilege to advocate for Whites.

    BTW Kmac, why the hell do you bother moderating if you’re going to let pigs like RD call people “dim twat” for pointing out inconvenient truths that he doesn’t want to hear? Just turn off moderation and let me humiliate him in real time.

    • Replies: @Liosnagcat
    , @Anon
  55. Mya says:

    Huh? Is this a review of a review? Why not using AI comment software to write reviews, and review the reviews? The author can only be poor. This is work that is unpaid. A respectable writer should not review reviews. It feels like the whole word is going insane. Writers write their own reviews now, or pay for it, and then review the reviews as some kind of new publication. This is base trash.

  56. @Rosie

    White men paved the way for minority rule in America when they decided to import black slaves. . .

    White men did not import slaves to America; Jews did.

  57. @Rosie

    BTW Kmac, why the hell do you bother moderating if you’re going to let pigs like RD call people “dim twat” for pointing out inconvenient truths that he doesn’t want to hear?

    I’m confused: This is not KMac’s website; it belongs to Ron Unz. Does Unz employ MacDonald as a moderator?

    Just turn off moderation and let me humiliate him in real time.

    I’ve read Robart Dolan, and I’ve read you. Trust me, you are simply not up to the task.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  58. @Robert Dolan

    You are in rare form today, friend. 🙂

  59. @Charles

    Jesus is the only lasting way out of any predicament. He is the truth and the life.

    Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

    It’s the same battle between good and evil as it was in the beginning. Our brief moment in time is not an exception to the rule.

  60. RVIDXR says:

    That era of being able to reach the middle class off of one income from a low skill job along with artificially increasing the child survival rate was a form of bioleninism. In the 19th century only a small percentage of leftist freaks would’ve survived to adulthood and few of them would’ve would’ve been successful enough to have kids, now they all survive and their kids are paid for by welfare policies their kin voted for. Child survival rate dramatically increasing alone would’ve bred a lot more hardwired leftist freaks but having that in tandem with high paying low skill jobs supercharged their demographics within a single generation.

    This is why things degenerated so quickly in the last century and why it keeps accelerating with every generation, that first wave voted for policies that changed the selection pressures to favor mutants like themselves at the cost of the genetically fit. We’ve been effectively breeding and selecting for jewish footsoldiers for generations and now they’re so numerous their influence has become totally dominant. The advent of low skill jobs and medical advances probably wasn’t intended to be a form of bioleninism but that’s how it turned out.

  61. Rosie says:

    White men did not import slaves to America; Jews did.

    Right. They imported them to sell to White men, knowing that greedy White men didn’t care about their race. This is obvious to any honest person with two brain cells to rub together. So which is it? Are you dishonest or stupid?

    I’m confused

    Clearly. Authors moderate comments on their own articles.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
    , @Liosnagcat
  62. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:

    You are totally right Rosie. But you’re wasting your time talking with these people. They have to find anything to blame but their own greed and stupidity and selfishness.

  63. @Robert Dolan

    The Real Great Replacement is the removal of the ‘useless eaters’ that the globalist rulers no longer need. With robotisation, automation, computerisation, AI etc, the serfs are surplus to requirements. In fact their consumption threatens to destroy the planet and they represent nothing but a threat to the Masters. Those to be replaced are not just ‘Whites’.

  64. @Jim H

    ‘Since most people are not going to wade through a 500+-page book, this is my version of the main ideas.’ — Kevin MacDonald

    Geez, KMac: have a little faith in readers (and yourself).

    Point taken.

    But since there are plenty of readers even of THIS very highly-intellectual website who moan and bitch when an article occasionally runs anywhere over the standard max. 6,000 – 8,000 words, I think Dr MacDonald has a fair point too. The reading proclivities of you, me and the rest of the commentariat here are very different indeed to those of the bulk of the “ordinary” population – so summaries are sometimes a regrettable but very useful and necessary addition to the cause.

  65. @Charles Martel France

    The other day there was a funny rich American musician on CNN who said ” I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. ” ………..ha ha ha !!!!

    Charley Reese once said that Democrats with this stance failed in the South because the locals were “economically liberal but socially conservative”. True, but this economic (pseudo-)liberalism ended up blowing up in their faces. Any fool could have predicted that the New Deal would turn on them.

    High taxes are much more popular with those who don’t have to pay them!

    Libertarians (and various other nut cases) believe in the separation of church and state. (I’ll assume you don’t.) If you turn the welfare system over to the unchurched state, then by definition you have an unchurched welfare system. All hell breaks loose.

  66. @Rosie

    Authors moderate comments on their own articles

    Umm… Simply as a matter of factual accuracy, I think that is only the case for “fresh” articles published here first by Ron Unz, and not necessarily for articles reprinted from another publication or website (in this case, The Occidental Observer).

    But either way – courtesy of our gracious host Ron Unz, this site in particular has long pursued a general policy of light to non-existent moderation in the interests of free speech.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  67. @Hoyeru

    The concept of “Individualism” goes against ANY anthropology studies

    It also goes against just about all serious libertarian thought of the last 200 years. The whole point of that is that civilization thrives under voluntary cooperation. You know, freedom of association. Remember that phrase?

    Stay away from the Ayn Rand people– who, by te way, may call themselves “libertarian” today whether knowing or not that she hated libertarians. Because they came to their conclusions without their help.

    By eroding the family, the church, the “friendly societies”, the charities, it is the welfare state that is the true champion of ” individualism”. The individual has nowhere to turn for help but the state!

    • Replies: @Johan
  68. @Rosie

    They imported them to sell to White men, knowing that greedy White men didn’t care about their race.

    It’s hard to say with certainty how receptive the white colonial Americans were when initially presented with slaves at market; if you have any references in that regard, I’d be grateful. That said, it is a fact that the Jewish slave-traders aggressively marketed their product.

    Further, under the ownership of the American colonist, the African slave benefited enormously; they were treated better than blacks anywhere else in the world (except, of course, Wakanda 🙂 ).

    Authors moderate comments on their own articles.

    I’m fairly certain you’re mistaken. As I said, you’re definitely not up to the task of humiliating Robert Dolan.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  69. Rosie says:

    I’m fairly certain you’re mistaken. As I said, you’re definitely not up to the task of humiliating Robert Dolan.

    I already have. You’re just too dull to notice.

    That said, it is a fact that the Jewish slave-traders aggressively marketed their product.

    When a White man does something detrimental to his race under the influence of the Jew, it’s the Jews’ fault. When a woman does something detrimental to her race under the influence of the Jew, she does so because she is a woman, and it’s her fault, says the misogynist hypocrite.

    The Jews defense either works or doesn’t work. We’re not going to play silly games where the Jew defense works to absolve men but not women. Otherwise, of course you’re going to come to the ridiculous conclusion that it’s all women’s fault, the facts be damned.

  70. Rosie says:
    @Dave Bowman

    But either way – courtesy of our gracious host Ron Unz, this site in particular has long pursued a general policy of light to non-existent moderation in the interests of free speech.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. The authors of articles have discretion to moderate more strictly if they so choose. Audacious Epigone didn’t allow dehumanizing insults like that, and for good reason, it undermines rather than promotes constructive debate. Commenters who are making legitimate contributions to the discussion shouldn’t have to put up with terms of abuse like that.

    Of course, as I said, if Kmac wants to allow it, fine, but then why bother moderating at all? Just let comments appear immediately and then remove any comments that violate whatever minimal, indiscernible standards he cares to uphold?

  71. Anon[145] • Disclaimer says:

    “The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was not based on a single king or a typical clan-type organization based on extended kinship groups but on an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group. Critically, this elite was not tied together by kinship bonds as would occur in a clan-based society, but by individual pursuit of fame and fortune, particularly the former.”

    Unfortunately, this is wrong as wrong can be. Completely demolished by all genetic studies of the past decade or two. Kinship bonds within a clan-based society WERE everything in IE cultures, from the Yamnaya to the Corded Ware to the Bell Beakers. The history of the IEs is a history of competing patrilineal groups. Bloodlines savaging each other for dominance. These people had no understanding of themselves other than as members of extended families. The kurgans (burial mounds) one sees from the Volga to the Don basin to the Hungarian/Bohemian/Salisbury plains (and from which most of the genetic studies are derived) are little more than the expression of ancestor worship.

    And this is just between competing IE bloodlines–what they did to much less formidable non-IE males was brute genocide. Nearly complete genetic replacement.

    The point is that creating silly dichotomies about IE culture vs. WHG culture is senseless. You’re talking about people 5000 years ago. You’ve got a lot of history between then and now. Western European individualism is relatively recent, post-feudal, and quite well understood. Go read Jacob Burckhardt.

    What is happening post-WW2 to Western peoples is specific and utterly ahistorical. Without historical precedent. It’s not human. Because we’re all living in it (and it feels like living through some fevered dream) I’m not sure anything we say or understand makes much sense.

    • Agree: Odyssey
    • Replies: @Odyssey
  72. Johan says:
    @Jim Christian

    “Are you drunk”

    My theory is that the expansion of homosexuality these days is partly due to women starting to wear pants. Most of them, to put it softly, are not equipped to do so without causing serious offence.
    That there is also an increase in alcoholics, to soften the aesthetic discomfort of women wearing pants, I never thought of that.

  73. Johan says:

    The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and academe were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism discussed throughout this volume. A theme of The Culture of Critique

    My feeling is that Mr. MacDonald is forging theories, concerning cultural origins, which allegedly make Western societies susceptible to the manipulations of said ‘intellectuals’, which are too far fetched, and in a certain way, alternatively academically correct..
    It can simply be attributed to the Dumbocracy, the egalitarianism can simply be attributed to the envy which rules the Western Dumbocracies (rooted in the envy of the people), and the appeal these ‘intellectuals’ can make is due to the fact of the ever lowering level of intelligence during such times (the institutions of higher learning and other institutions being overrun and weakened by the Dumbocracy), and additionally, the society wide corruption which occurs during the Dumbocracy.

  74. Johan says:

    As a classical liberal, my view is that libertarianism is partly the home of orphaned classical liberals, after the statists/socialist/Anglo-Saxon fake liberalism/big government model overruled classical liberalism, they had to find a new home. And it is partly the home of what I call democratic anarchism. Libertarian thinkers, where their idea’s are qualitatively high, commonsensical and sound, they borrow their ideas from the masters, the classical liberals of the 1th century. Democratic anarchism in libertarianism is the product of democracy, product of declining culture, it is erosive.

    “The concept of “Individualism” goes against ANY anthropology studies, Humans have survived and become the dominant animal on earth exactly because they chose to work together instead of working against each other. ”

    Classical liberals like Herbert Spencer was the father of sociology, and of the theory of evolution. You are merely voicing a simplism which you got from classical liberalism, and you are voicing it out of context.

  75. Johan says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Serious ‘libertarian thought’, is actually Classical Liberalism. Libertarianism partly consist of incorporated ideas of classical liberalism and partly of democratic anarchism.

    The fundamental theory of a classical liberal like Herbert Spencer is that evolution works from incoherent homogeneity towards coherent heterogeneity. The latter means increasing individualization (which also brings about specialization), coherent means it is a cooperative collaborative individualization. It both leads to increasing organization and increasing individualization. This kind of individualization does not lead to atomization, and as you mention state slavery. Also family, church and many other forms of collaboration and group formation (and society at large) are not only fully compatible, but even the basis. The individualization process means that society evolves from simple to complex, to higher forms of organization.

  76. N of 1 says:

    The Zman is brittle prig who blocked me on Gab simply for disagreeing with him.

  77. Odyssey says:

    Pretty good observations. There are so many basics that need to be clarified and which are still hidden or ignored by the mainstream. I already mentioned the meaninglessness of the term ‘Indo-European’ (formerly, ‘Indo-Germanische’!!!), which was initially used for the classification of languages and later, uncritically expanded to the Yamnaya people, who came to Europe from Russian steppes. Because of wrong taxonomy and premisses, the mainstream has been chasing own tail for 200 years, unable to answer when and where (Proto)Indo-European (aka Yamnaya nomadic) language originated, how it dissipated, what was the mechanism of its adoption (‘patron-client’? give me a break!), which language(s) directly descended from Yamnaya nomad language, how come that ‘indo-european’ Sanskrit (and Aryans) has nothing to do with Yamnaya, etc, etc.

    On the other side, there is not any mentioning of the indigenous European population which several thousands of years before Yamnaya came to Europe already had high culture and civilisation. It started at the end of the Ice Age (cca 12K BC) while Yamnaya came from 2800BC. In this 8-9000 years period before their arrival, they could develop high civilization and language. Alinei asserts that this elusive, so-called ‘indo-european’ language was actually this, Lepenski Vir/Vinca language, from which directly evolved Serbian language and from this language, several 000 years later, Sanskrit and all other Slavic languages. Why Serbian? Because these speakers called themselves SRB (i.e. Serbs) what means ‘cousin, relative, member of the same race’. So, we have here kinship, too.

    Moreover, the English word ‘race’ was actually adopted from this old Serbian language, where ‘rasa’ was a primordial expression for single-tribeness, single-bloodness and single-kinness. This primordial word is preserved in English language, meaning absolutely the same. It is preserved in many other languages in very similar forms and with identical meaning. So, the meaning of the word ‘race’ (i.e. rasa) is the same as the meaning of the word – ‘serbs’.

    • Replies: @Anon
  78. Tucker says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Your reply to my perfectly valid criticism of the MAGA Boomers I have known makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Do you think that I am the only individual in this country who has noticed and pointed out the self-centeredness of the vast majority of the Boomer generation?

    Oh, and just to put my credentials on the table – I was born during the years that produced these Boomers, so on paper, I fall into that same generation – so, my observations and criticisms are coming from INSIDE the generation that I am criticizing. And, let me assure you – I do NOT share those defective character traits – which is why I am able to notice them when I associate with most of these Boomers.

    You know, liberals are famous for immediately lapsing into a hysterical spasm of name calling, usually using as much vulgarity as they can think of at the moment – and calling anyone who disagrees with them a faggot or a Nazi or a whole host of other derogatory names – whenever some honest, no nonsense conservative triggers them. Is that what triggered you? Did my criticisms of MAGA Boomers hit a nerve because you are guilty of one or more of the criticisms I cited?

    And, perhaps you could explain why you think I am ‘lying’ about my experiences with the Boomers I have known when you have never met these Boomers yourself and so have no way of observing their behaviors, as I have had?

  79. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    Exactly right. One wonders why MacDonald is at pains to de-emphasize ethny’s being the basis of polity for Whites. And why his blank-slatism (ideas over evolution), by which he rationalizes that de-emphasis.

    One gets a sense that the book’s principal assumption is “only the weak-minded are racist” and that its principal argument is “wogs are the real racists.” When MacDonald speaks of ideology emanating from a “moral community” and overmastering one’s natural instincts, is he making a scientific argument or an unwitting personal confession in this instance?

    In any case, with that principal assumption and argument, the book, leaving aside its academic paraphernalia, is best regarded as yet another Boomer manifesto.

  80. Anon[164] • Disclaimer says:

    “It is preserved in many other languages in very similar forms and with identical meaning.”

    Right, another example is “La Raza.” Why does the later West degrade race? Because it’s occupied by Jews. We sing “all races and religions… that’s America to me” (lyricist: Abel Meeropol*) and wane whilst they wax.

    * see:

    • Thanks: Odyssey
  81. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    The question is: what is the basic unit of a society? Protestant (now secular) Northern Europe says the individual.

    Nope. The basic unit of social unit or Northern Europe is the society, not the individual.

    What distinguishes Northern European man is his cooperativeness, not his “individualism.” Witness:

    —the strong rule of law
    —the altruism
    —the passion for group identity spectator sports (and the identification with sports teams or figures)
    —the visceral anger when perceived societal duties and norms are breached
    —the great capacity for guilt and for empathy
    —the low time preference
    —the great capacity to work together in organizations, and teams

    These are not characteristics of a highly “individualistic” people. They are characteristics of a highly cooperative people.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin MacDonald Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism