web analytics
Deranged altruism Emigration / immigration Kevin MacDonald Prehistory Racial studies Universalism

Nothing wrong with Whites, really?


Best video I’ve watched that demonstrates
that some Whites are demonically evil

White suicide is so incomprehensible that nationalists still prefer Judeo-reductionism to explain this age of treason. To explain this darkest of all hours some people whom I recently discussed are even capable of invoking demonic agency instead of becoming familiar with depth psychology. It is a pity that my recent article that purports to ponder about why some Whites become evil received no substantial commentary. But it is perfectly explainable: these murky waters are aqua incognita for almost all people on Earth.

Fortunately, recently discovered territory has been explored by the intellectuals in the pro-white community. The following is an excerpted version of the latest article authored by Kevin MacDonald for The Occidental Observer:

I just finished a book titled Moral Capital by Christopher Leslie Brown on the movement to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself in the British Empire. The take home message is that the abolitionist movement thrived on moral capital. Even by 1790, popular opinion was persuaded that slavery was immoral, although it took quite a bit longer to actually abolish the slave trade (1807) and even longer to abolish slavery itself (1833)…

We need moral capital for our side—that just as the Palestinians have legitimate ethnic interests that are compromised by Israel, there is a moral imperative for the preservation of our people, our land and our culture.

White people—uniquely, I think—care about moral rectitude. (Not all Whites, but this is the dominant trend, at least since the 18th century and the decline of aristocratic culture, as emphasized in Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question Most Whites want to be members of morally defined ingroups—a reflection of our past as Northern hunter-gatherers. (Christopher Boehm describes hunter gatherer groups as “moral communities.”) In the societies of pre-historic Europe, ingroups were defined not on the basis of kinship which is the rule in the rest of the world’s great civilizations, but on the basis of adherence to the moral standards of the group. A recent archeological excavation of a 4600-year old site in modern Germany found evidence for exogamy and nuclear families, a strong indication that ingroups were not constructed on the basis of kinship / extended families.

Creating morally defined ingroups runs deep in Western culture, which is why the Jewish opponents of the West have fastened on moral critiques as an effective weapon. All of the intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique (Kindle expanded edition available) are essentially moral indictments of the West.

These movements tapped into moral sensibilities that have a long history in the West. It’s amazing to read the anti-slavery activists and theorists of the 18th century. At a time when slavery was unquestioned in the rest of the world and when slavery had clear benefits to the Empire as a whole, they argued that all humans were equal morally and intellectually; they were horrified that their countrymen were inflicting suffering on people from another continent. In an influential book published in 1784, the Rev. James Ramsay wrote, “I shall assert the claim of Negroes to attention from us, by explaining their natural capacity, and proving them to be on a footing of equality in respect of the reception of mental improvement, with the natives of any other country.” All peoples were equal, morally and intellectually. Ramsay also included descriptions of the brutal treatment of the slaves designed to evoke empathy in his audience.

Another well-known 18th-century abolitionist, Quaker John Woolman, felt guilty because he preferred his own children to children on the other side of the world—a comment that reflects the sentiments of central players among the British elite, as noted by a liberal critic of immigration policy:

When dining at an Oxford college… the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.

For such Whites, feelings for one’s own people are illegitimate and certainly not a basis for policy.

White people are uniquely prone to concerns about their moral rectitude and uniquely universalist in their outlook. That’s why it’s so hard to get a large group of American Whites out on the street to protest the immigration bill currently being considered by Congress, even though their legitimate interests are being massively violated if the bill is passed: The movement to restrict immigration or end it altogether has no moral capital in the eyes of media and intellectual elites, and this message is continually pounded home. In a sane world, Washington, DC would be inundated with huge public demonstrations against this bill. There is definitely some push back against it, mainly on the basis that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for violating the law—which would do absolutely nothing to stem the huge surge in the numbers of legal immigrants contained in the bill; but one never hears mainstream conservatives talk in terms of legitimate White interests. But even protesting illegal immigration is now portrayed by American elites as placing oneself outside the moral community.

So we have to keep pounding away at our message that Whites have interests that are morally legitimate. While the moral sentiments of the 18th- and 19th-century abolitionists were certainly sound, adopting an ideology of moral universalism amounts to suicide under the present conditions where migration over long distances is so easy.

[See YouTube video: here]

As noted in the comments on Paul Weston above, calling Whites “racist” for asserting their legitimate interests is an attempt to place opponents in a morally illegitimate category. Such campaigns are uniquely effective in the West. Jews, for example, are remarkably immune to the charge, despite their erection of an apartheid society based on ethnic cleansing.

As Weston notes, the rhetoric of the culpability of Whites for past behavior is a central pillar of the multicultural onslaught against White Britain. But it’s never noted that Whites uniquely abolished slavery on moral grounds or that the importance of moral capital is a unique aspect of Western culture. However, despite its role in correcting the abuses of the past, the centrality of moral capital is now an integral part of the psychology of Western suicide.

A good sign is that the people I know who are on-page about White interests and identity do see a strong moral imperative in preserving our people and culture. Paul Weston’s video is a ringing declaration of the morality of White interests in defense of their people and culture. Often without a lot of conscious thought about it, there is a sense that we are a moral ingroup and we reject and shun those who hate us and our ideas. There is a lot of confidence that we are right; there is a sense of moral rectitude and an awareness of the hypocrisy and corruption of our enemies. And that is a very good start indeed.

15 replies on “Nothing wrong with Whites, really?”

You said, “Best video I’ve watched that demonstrates that some whites are DEMONICALLY EVIL” (My emphasis).

In the previous post, “Body Snatched Spaniard”, you copied a comment by Lew who said, “Given those facts do you think it’s possible literal, real, metaphysical satanic influence is guiding the British leaders?”, to which you responded “Preposterous!”

Am I missing something here? You use the phrase that some whites are demonically evil, but when Lew says basically the same thing, you say that is preposterous.

Lew looks like a Christian (not sure) who believes in the existence of demonic entities.

I don’t believe in the existence of such creatures. But I do believe that the word “demonic” is legitimate in the Jungian sense.

That’s why in the lead paragraph I linked me recent essay “A Body-Snatched Spaniard”, where I explain exactly what do I mean.

Freud, the Vienna quack, was Jewish, yes: but Jung was Aryan and admired the Nazis.

But forget Jung. Since the ancient Greeks the word “daimon” was used in a sense of the inner Self (not as extracorporeal entities, the Christian concept).

Thanks for posting this. It’s very good. I do disagree to some extent with one point though. People do not eschew marching against amnesty, etc. ONLY because they don’t want to be considered immoral. They also don’t because they can actually lose their livelihood over it.

My experience is that they don’t march against amnesty because of apathy or the fact that they are insulated from potential problems by middle class affluence (as opposed to the white working class).

As I stated before, there was a time in America when protesting against Communism, illegal immigration, and multiculturalism would not have cost you your job. Yet so few did it when times were good (or even now when times are bad).

This is a question of cowardice and concensus reality; excuses are for people who don’t deserve to continue living.

Be the subjects Sub-Saharans with markedly lower IQs or Muslims with a deeply incompatible culture, the androidist extremists who control the West believe that they can use “education” and “culture” to maintain the status quo in their vast game of demographic musical chairs. Sub-Saharans can be educated to replace low-breeding Europeans and Muslims can be culturally reprogrammed by the potency and insidiousness of Western popular culture.


The tendency to moralize is a byproduct of existential security, and attracts its opposite; Existential precarity.

The appearance of written articles on the subject of morality, is an indication that we are still heading in the wrong direction: Away from the vital; Toward the inanimate.

Morality is the essence of the suicidal disposition.

There’s only one question: To be, or not to be?

Anyone wasting his breath on morality is operating under the self-aggrandizing premise that The Question is beneath the dignity of his notice.

Nature will trammel this arrogance.

But those (baby boomers in America) who choose to moralize (escape from reality) and give away their entire civilization to barbarians will not pay the consequences; their children will.

That’s what makes these libs so disgusting and evil (in the non-moral sense).

What is moral capital is a luxury of a growth economy, and when the economy stops all pretense of growing, and the contraction has fully spread through the economy, we just won'[t have the money/energy (both human energy and fossil fuels) to carry out multiracialist moral rectitude.

REference “the moral consequences of economic growth” by Harvard professor Benjamin Friedman (not the good Benjamin Friedman who spilled the beans on the WWI conspirators)


ECONOMIC growth has gotten a bad name in recent decades – seen in many quarters as a cause of resource depletion, stress and sprawl, and as an excuse for pro-business policies that mainly benefit plutocrats. Some have described growth as a false god: after all, the spending caused by car crashes and lawsuits increases the gross domestic product. One nonprofit organization, Redefining Progress, proposes tossing out growth as the first economic yardstick and substituting a “Genuine Progress Indicator” that, among other things, weighs volunteer work as well as the output of goods and services. By this group’s measure, American society peaked in 1976 and has been declining ever since. Others think ending the fascination with economic growth would make Western life less materialistic and more fulfilling. Modern families “work themselves to exhaustion to pay for stuff that sits around not being used,” Thomas Naylor, a professor emeritus of economics at Duke University, has written. If economic growth were no longer the goal, there would be less anxiety and more leisurely meals.

But would there be more social justice? No, says Benjamin Friedman, a professor of economics at Harvard University, in “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.”

Friedman argues that economic growth is essential to “greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness and dedication to democracy.” During times of expansion, he writes, nations tend to liberalize – increasing rights, reducing restrictions, expanding benefits for the needy. During times of stagnation, they veer toward authoritarianism. Economic growth not only raises living standards and makes liberal social policies possible, it causes people to be optimistic about the future, which improves human happiness. “It is simply not true that moral considerations argue wholly against economic growth,” Friedman contends. Instead, moral considerations argue that large-scale growth must continue at least for several generations, both in the West and the developing world.

“economic growth is essential to greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility” – Mindweapon

“they don’t march against amnesty because… they are insulated from potential problems by middle class affluence (as opposed to the white working class).” – Mister Deutsch

As long as the carrot of “growth” can prop open the elusive door of upward mobility, bourgeois nationalists will continue struggling to distance ourselves from the White proletariat who have no reputations to be lost by venturing out onto the streets.

Most of us prefer to imagine ourselves becoming the Kevin MacDonalds of the future and “attracting an elite”.

It’s the elite who are killing us off. WTF are we trying to make ourselves attractive to them?

Tomorrow’s elites will be forged in the streets.

Comments are closed.