Brief Notes, 9/24/22

Some notes.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Recently, I wrote of my differences with MacDonald, re: individualism:

It comes down to how one defines individualism.  I define individualism as most people do – prioritizing the autonomy of the individual over the demands of the group; thus, the focus in on supporting the opinions, desires, and identity of individuals over that of their community.  Individualism promotes the independence of the individual, allowing for their self-actualization regardless of what the group requires of the individual.  According to this, any group that is conformist, suppresses individual autonomy, and strictly enforces group social norms via social pricing including ostracism (or worse!) cannot, by definition, be “individualist.”  Such a pattern would be considered collectivist and completely inimical to individualism. 

Then, MacDonald wrote this nonsense; apparently MacDonald can't write a post without shilling for his refuted work on "western individualism." And apparently he has attended the Greg Johnson school of editing:

...going against such views may have a variety of negative consequences—form getting fired from your job or getting ostracized from friends and family.

Note: "...form getting fired..."

More to the point, he wrote:

The social glue of Western societies is based on establishing moral communities rather than communities based on kinship...The moral communities of the West are a powerful force for social cohesion...violating the moral sensibilities of the group was an evolutionary dead end...These lock-step moral communities produce a hive-mind, cult-like mentality.

And MacDonald calls those communities "individualist!" That is precisely my point - by definition, according to all reasonable definitions of individualism, communities that are are "lock-step" and enforce a conformist adherence to social norms via a "hive-mind, cult-like mentality" cannot be individualist, they are instead collectivist. Think about this, and consider how virtually everyone except for MacDonald defines individualism and then re-read: "These lock-step moral communities produce a hive-mind, cult-like mentality." How can that be in any way, shape, or form "individualist?"  

But you see, in the Anglosphere, with its pretensions of "individualism" (to hide its conformity), individualism has positive connotations - the "rugged individualist" defying the faceless mob and going his own way - while the designation collectivist is a de facto pejorative. Thus, superior Nordics must be individualists, facts and common sense be damned.

The whole guilt vs. shame culture paradigm is suspect as well. So-called individualist guilt cultures end up forming “lock-step moral communities” that enforce social norms with punishments including public shaming. So, aren’t they in reality actually shame cultures? What is the real difference between an individualist guilt culture that enforces collectivist conformity via shaming as opposed to a so-called collectivist shame culture? Practically speaking, they both conflate to the same thing.

The thing is, Der Right considers individualism and guilt cultures to be good and Western, and hence that must be characteristic of Nordics, while collectivism and shame cultures are considered bad and alien, and hence must be characteristic of non-Nordic wogs. However, the actual behavior of the people in question, the real-life behavioral facts on the ground, is often completely the opposite of this dogma.

Likely, egalitarianism explains more of the types of behavior that are wrong ascribed to individualism and guilt, but egalitarianism is bad according to Der Right, so in order to make Nordic egalitarianism more palatable, it is falsely coupled to individualism, while in reality it is collectivist (egalitarian collectivism being the hallmark of the Left, whether it manifests as communism or as SJWism).

The High Trusters in the EU seem to prefer to socialize production EU-wide but to privatize debt nationally. They dictate to other nations what they are allowed to produce and export and what they must import. Then when those nations suffer the economic consequences of this restricted production/export and run up debt, they are called "lazy and undisciplined" and the High Trusters ask "why should we bail them out?" It's OK to control, in socialist fashion, economies within the EU to benefit certain industrialized nations in the north, but when others run up debt because of this, the ones who benefit from these economic controls whine and complain about sharing paying down that debt.  Very well. Then everyone should produce and export whatever they wish and if they prefer native products to imports, good for them as well. How about a PIGSexit?

Interesting that it also seems that the same folks who express hostility to White ethnics (and especially anti-Italianism) are the ones who have, in general, lurched from one catastrophe to another, manifesting piss-poor judgment, ineptness, and endless failure. When is the last time American Nordicists did anything right and had a success? The Reed-Johnson Act of 1924? Even that was questionable from a Nordicist perspective, since it still allowed Colored Western hemisphere immigration (from the WN 3.0 perspective, perhaps a feature and not a bug, eh?). While that failure fits well with Racial Proximity Theory (and once again refutes MacDonald, since the 1924 Act was a manifestation of Nordic ethnocentrism targeted against Southern and Eastern Europeans) it didn't help "Nordic preservationism" to have Caribbean and Latino peoples enter the USA. In Europe, Nordicist racism, coupled to German nationalism and militarism, not only helped instigate WWII, but then prevented the Axis from gathering the support of Europe as a whole in an anti-communist, anti-democracy, pan-European crusade. The end result of all of that has been mass Colored immigration into Europe. So, now all of these constant failures, these raging incompetents, are left with nothing but sniping at White ethnics online, as part of their tragicomic "movement."