The Western Evolutionary Culture of Invidivualism
August 15, 2022
97% of human advancement historically came from White countries. There is an evolutionary racial explanation for this, explained in this article.
Note: On YouTube you will occasionally come across hours of non-White pseudoscience taking claim for White accomplishments. What their pseudoscience won’t demonstrate is an evolutionary racial explanation for their claims.
Western Civilization is a product of the distinct evolution of the White Race. National Socialism, as documented in numerous Renegade Tribune articles, is the political & cultural pathway to preserve & protect and advance the accomplishments of the White Race and Western Civilization.
This article was composed for the most part utilizing the writings of Kevin Macdonald’s book, “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future” and to a smaller extent some observations noted in Charles Murray’s book “Human Accomplishment”, along with some National Socialist commentary.
Note: There is a northwest and southeast genetic & psychological gradient in Europe, with Individualism being more common in the historical populations of northwest Europe. This was known to the Hitler’s National Socialist party (NSDAP) and was a factor in their preference for Nordicism in the Third Reich. Keep in mind, however, in comparison to the Middle East for example, all of Europe, including Eastern Europe, is relatively individualistic.
INDO-EUROPEANS: ARISTOCRATIC INDIVIDUALISM
The Indo-European migration throughout most of Europe, India and Iran occurred as early as 8000-5000 BCE. Indo-Europeans were an incredibly militarized culture. There was a lot of competition within the society and upward mobility was possible if you had military talent and could lead men into battle.
The Indo-Europeans absorbed, but did not exterminate, the individualistic hunter-gathering tribes in the Northwest and the agriculturally-based farming societies in the South. They created a free market culture where kinship was deemphasized, and individual talents and accomplishments were valued.
The Indo-European legacy is key to understanding the restless, aggressive, questing, innovative, “Faustian” soul of Europe. Indo-Europeans were a uniquely aristocratic people dominated by emerging chieftains for whom fighting to gain prestige was the all-pervading ethos. This culture is interpreted as the Western state of nature and as the primordial source of Western restlessness.
The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was based neither on centralized kingship nor clan-type extended kinship groups, but on an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group. Critically, this elite was not bound by kinship as would occur in a clan-based society, but by the pursuit of fame and fortune, particularly the former. The men who became leaders were not despots, but peers of other warriors… an egalitarianism among aristocrats.
Successful warriors individuated themselves in dress, sporting beads, belts, etc., with a flair for ostentation intended to attract attention. This resulted in a vital, action-oriented, and linear picture of the world. They moved forward in pursuit of the goal of increasing prestige. The leader was “first among equals”, commanding by voluntary consent rather than force, and being a successful leader meant having many clients pledge their loyalty.
These groups of comrades were singularly dedicated to predatory behavior and to wolf-like living by hunting and raiding, and to the performance of superior, even super-human deeds. The members were generally young, unmarried men, thirsting for adventure. The followers were sworn not to survive a war leader who was slain in battle, just as the leader was expected to show in all circumstances a personal example of courage and war-skills. Only in reference to Indo-European aristocratic warriors can we speak in Hegelian terms of a fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige.
The formation of voluntary Indo-European war-bands held together by oaths, camaraderie, and a common self-interest was a fundamental characteristic of these chiefdoms. This was a time when social status and rank were still openly determined by one’s heroic deeds and by the number of followers or clients one could afford.
The aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of their culture was the practice of gift-giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were commonplace. 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 were based on talent and accomplishment, not on ethnicity that rewards people on the basis of close kinship or despotic subservience where followers are essentially unfree people.
Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of war-bands, they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military-elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service.
Exogamy (marrying outside the community) and Monogamy were core features of the Indo-Europeans. Indeed, the general cultural pattern of predatory bands of males seeking riches and females implies that such relationships would be exogamous.
Indo-Europeans developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. There were thus mechanisms to provide guest-host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality.
As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. Those warrior leaders who rose to the top considered themselves “first among equals”, which we can call Aristocratic Individualism.
A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity. Military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors.
Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.
Indo-European individualist societies leaned toward free choice of marriage partners based on personal attraction and other interests, which in turn are based on the personal qualities of the marriage partners.
Inherited status counted for little in Indo-European societies. Around two-thirds of the wealth of the chief was buried or burned when he died, with the rest going to the living, so that even the sons of chiefs had to prove themselves by accumulating wealth and power on their own.
The free-market character of Indo-Europeans was inconsistent with despotic rule. If individuals are free to choose their leaders and defect from those who are inept or fail to reciprocate with generous gifts, then despotic rulers cannot arise. Despotism implies that others do not have freedom to pursue their interests. There is a vast difference between being first among equals and being a despot.
The Indo-European Visigothic Code in Spain illustrated the desire for a non-despotic government and for social cohesion that resulted from taking account of the interests of everyone, except slaves. Regarding despotism, the Visigothic Code stated… “It should be required that the king make diligent inquiry as to the soundness of his opinions. Then, it should be evident that he has acted not for private gain but for the benefit of the people; so that it may conclusively appear that the law has not been made for any private or personal advantage, but for the protection and profit of the whole body of citizens.”
In individualistic Indo-European societies citizens saw their self-interest as a stake holder coinciding with the interest of the system as a whole. The wise king created cohesion not by coercion, but by giving everyone a stake in the system:
Indo-European heroes in ancient Greece and elsewhere were individuals first and foremost. These were men who distinguished themselves from others by their feats in pursuit of individual renown, as shown in the story Beowulf for an example.
The Indo-Europeans were an extraordinarily successful group that had by far the most influence on European culture over approximately 4,000 years, into the European Middle Ages and beyond. Armed with cutting edge military and food cultivation technology, as well as with a culture that prized military accomplishment above all else and allowed for the upward mobility of the most adept warriors, the Indo-Europeans were an unstoppable force in the ancient world.
In Europe, the Indo-Europeans encountered older European peoples who shared their individualism, if not other aspects of their culture. Given that barriers against inter-marriage rather quickly broke down, males from these peoples were able to rise in the Indo-European cultural environment.
The Indo-European contribution to the European genetic and cultural heritage is thus very great, however foreign it may be to the present culture of the West. Indo-European societies were intensively hierarchical. In contrast, the present-day West is determinedly egalitarian.
Indo-European societies were completely militarized and prized only the warrior virtues. Contemporary Western culture values a completely different set of personal qualities, such as empathy, financial success and a relatively high position for women.
Indo-Europeans culture prized fame and glory resulting from genuine virtue and military & political accomplishments, not indolence (laziness) and love of luxury, but also not labor, because laborers were often slaves and at the time the rightful booty of conquest.
NORTHERN HUNTER GATHERERS: EGALITARIAN INDIVIDUALISM
Indo-Europeans have greatly contributed genetically to contemporary Europeans. This genetic influence is most apparent in the northwest of Europe, especially Nordic Scandinavia. Again… this was known to the Hitler’s National Socialist party (NSDAP) and was a factor in their preference for Nordicism in the Third Reich.
The Western world remains the only area in the world characterized by all of the markers of Individualism. Taken together, these tendencies are unique to Western Europe and they have a White ethnic racial basis based on evolutionary circumstances, which is also reflected in Whites having a relatively high IQ and a high level of delayed gratification (long-term planning).
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 exclusion from the group (ostracism). Hunter-gatherer societies are moral communities in which women have a major role.
In Hunter Gatherer societies decisions are done by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals. People are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized.
Nordic peoples have been less subjected to between-group natural selection than other groups, particularly Middle Eastern populations as a result of experiencing the harsh evolutionary pressures of the Ice Age, resulting in the Nordic peoples living in small groups and having a tendency toward social isolation.
The intellectual abilities of Nordic peoples are due to the need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection for traits related to spatial & mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness, what psychologists label “performance IQ” as opposed to “verbal IQ” which is important for social influence and would be expected in a people who evolved in large groups. Modern Scandinavians are indeed high on spatial abilities.
Such a perspective would not imply that northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression. This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the physical environment than at competing with other groups. In such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and collectivist groups.
The evolutionary interpretation of ethnocentrism emphasizes its utility in between-group competition. Ethnocentrism is of no importance in combating the physical environment, and in any case, a harsh physical environment does not support large competing groups.
Northern European groups are adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward Monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny (more than one wife) or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines and quite unlike the patrilineal system of the Indo-Europeans. This suggests relative gender equality compared Indo-European culture. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships, and marriage tends to be exogamous, i.e., outside the kinship group.
This scenario implies that northwest European peoples are more prone to Individualism because they existed for a very long period in an ecological-context that did not support large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations; there were no resources such as fertile river valleys that might be controlled on a year-round basis by a single kinship group.
Hunting required considerable experience, quality education, and years of intensive practice via high-investment parenting. It also favors intelligence because hunting for humans relies on cognitive abilities more than running ability or even strength.
The hunting scenario is complex and ever-changing. Every animal species, including humans demonstrates unique behavioral characteristics depending on intrinsic characteristics such as sex and age, and extrinsic conditions such as season, weather, topography, etc. And it calls for cooperation and maintaining a trustworthy reputation within the group. All of these trends are intensified in northern areas because there is less energy available per unit area.
Hunter-Gatherer societies of Northern Europe did not have any stable resource capable of being controlled by a lineage group or military elite on a year-round basis. Extended kinship relationships therefore assumed less importance. Indeed, all the original ancient agricultural societies developed around defensible, stable and areas, typically around fertile river basins like the Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yangtze rivers. However, in Northern Europe, despite their complexity, these Hunter-Gatherer groups were not able to remain in one area for the entire year, thus maintaining relatively small, family-based, face-to-face groupings for part of the year. It was in these small Nordic groupings that Egalitarian Individualism survived in a world that was becoming dominated by agriculture.
In Northern Europe, Hunter-Gatherers were forced to interact extensively with non-kin and strangers for much of the year, which led to an emphasis on trust and maintaining a good reputation within the larger non-kinship-based group. Yet, since such groups dispersed into smaller groups for part of the year, there was no selection against Egalitarianism.
In such large but seasonally migrating groups of Hunter-Gatherers, the ecological conditions favored not only egalitarianism but also monogamy, since one man would not be able to control enough resources on a prolonged basis to enable polygyny. In Europe, the tendency toward monogamy was thus far more genetically and culturally fixed.
Thus, an important thrust of Western culture has been to regulate behavior in order to create a relatively more egalitarian social structure. In other words, to recreate the conditions of the Hunter-Gather culture. This tendency was reinforced by the Church during the Middle Ages for its own reasons.
Today, extreme egalitarianism is found in contemporary Scandinavian societies.
EXOGAMY & LOVE AS CHARACTERISTIC OF WESTERN MARRIAGE
Whereas kinship-based cultures tend toward marrying relatives, often first cousins, marriage in individualist societies is based more on personal attraction. In individualist societies marriage would likely be more based on personal attraction such as physical traits (physical attractiveness, strength, health) and personality (warmth and affection, conscientiousness, honesty, courage) of a prospective partner than they would in a kinship-based society where the all-important goal is to strengthen the descent group.
Love, another aspect of individual choice, has been valued far more in the West than in the other cultures of the world. Marriage in collectivist societies, the vast majority of human societies, is based on marrying relatives fairly independently of their personal characteristics. In European societies dating as far back as records can be found, spouses were chosen based on a variety of personal characteristics, including the personality trait of Love/Nurturance underlying close relationships of affection and intimacy. This tendency toward warmth and affection can even be seen in mother-infant interactions.
Northern Europeans have always leaned toward romantic love as the basis of marriage. At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism thus involves mechanisms such as romantic love and physical attractiveness in which mating behavior is intrinsically rewarding rather than imposed by family strategizing.
Wealth and social status have also been important marriage criteria in Western societies, particularly for the propertied classes, but even among the propertied classes there has been a trend toward the companionate (on an equal basis) marriage based on affection and consent between the partners. In the eighteenth century and thereafter, close relationships based on affection and love became universally seen as the appropriate basis for monogamous marriage in all social classes, even including landed aristocrats.
Western populations are more inclined to value the traits of love/nurturance in prospective mates as an aspect of individualist mating patterns and, ultimately, because of the need to cement close family relationships and paternal investment in the harsh environments that northern hunter-gatherers evolved in. Unlike kinship-based societies, marriage is exogamous and based at least partly on personal attraction, including personality characteristics like Love/Nurturance. This trait is also important for status within moral communities. Most people would not find cold-heartedness attractive in a potential marriage partner, nor would they desire cold-hearted people to be part of their moral community because such persons would tend to be untrustworthy and selfish.
The main evolutionary impetus for the development of the human Love/Nurturance system is the need for high-investment parenting, females are expected to have a greater elaboration of mechanisms related to parental investment than males. The evolutionary theory of sex implies that females are expected to be highly discriminating mates compared to males and more committed to long-term relationships of nurturance and affection; cues of nurturance and love in males are expected to be highly valued by females seeking paternal investment.
For males, having a reputation as conscientious and dependable is important for attracting females and to being accepted in a moral community.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
Westerners evolved in an environment where interacting with strangers was the norm but in which people tend to be generous because they are concerned about their reputation in future interactions.
Europeans exhibit high levels of cooperation with strangers rather than with extended family members, and they are prone to market relations and individualism. This suggests the fascinating possibility that a key strategy for any group (International Jewry) intending to turn Europeans against themselves would be to trigger their strong tendency toward altruistic punishment by convincing them of the moral blameworthiness (wrongdoing) of their own people.
Altruistic punishment is essentially a moral condemnation of the other person as unfair. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily exhibit moral anger against their own people once they are seen as defectors from a moral consensus and therefore blameworthy. This is a manifestation of Europeans stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers. In altruistic punishment, relative genetic distance is irrelevant. Free-riders are seen as strangers in a market situation.
MORAL REASONING, COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES, DEBATES AND ABSTRACT THINKING
An illustrative contrast between Western and non-Western societies can be found in the area of moral reasoning. In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of Justice.
Western people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to the intrinsic characteristics of objects, and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and their surrounding field). Analytic thinking is associated with thinking of oneself as independent, whereas holistic thinking is linked to thinking of one self as interdependent with other people.
For example, memory for objects is worse among East Asians if the background is removed compared to Westerners, implying that Westerners pay less attention to the background and relationships between background and objects in it. Moreover, Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract, where as non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship.
These differences in a wide range of areas strongly suggest a biological basis for Western individualism. The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception are all “of a piece”; they all fit in to a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning.
The Western culture of individualism and the unique genetic heritage of the West predispose Westerners to abstract their judgments from the social context, and that this then predisposes the West to scientific, rational thinking… as well as unique methods of moral reasoning. Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits such as honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments.
All this is done in abstraction from their relatively weak kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of Justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying “universally” applicable Laws of Nature.
Beginning in ancient Greece, intellectual debate was intensely competitive, and individuals were free to defect from a particular scholar if they found another more appealing. Intellectuals sought followers not by depending on pre-existing kinship or ethnic connections, but rather by their ability to attract followers in a free market of ideas in which people were free to defect to other points of view. Just as Indo-European warriors were free to defect to other leaders with objectively better prospects for success, the free market of ideas would naturally default to arguments and ideas that can appeal to others who are free to defect from the group and where groups are highly permeable.
In a social context consisting of others who are similarly free to defect, logical arguments and predictive theories about the natural world would come to the fore. This individual freedom gave rise to Western Civilization… all thanks to Whites having a tradition and rich legacy of Egalitarian Individualism and Aristocratic Individualism.
MID-ARTICLE CONCLUSION
The egalitarian-individualist strand of Western culture is an important component of the current cultural climate of the West. Egalitarian individualism, along with Aristocratic Individualism, are critical for understanding the dynamism of the West.
THE CHURCH IN EUROPEAN HISTORY
Christianity has certainly had a dysgenic effect on Europe contributing to the anti-White pathological altruistic climate engineered by International Jewry. Renegade Tribune and Renegade Broadcasting has numerous articles and podcasts dedicated to this topic. Regardless, the Catholic Church has been a unique institution that has had important influence on the course of Western history. The Catholic Church continued to alter Western culture away from extended kinship networks and other collectivist institutions, motivated ultimately by the desire to extend its own power. Additionally, it had a central role in maintaining Monogamy.
In European history the medieval Church was a unique feature of Western culture, but in critical ways it was most un-Western. This is because medieval Europe was a collectivist society with a strong sense of group identification and commitment. Indeed, the decline of ecclesiastical collectivism was very likely a precondition to the full flowering of individualism in the West in the areas most pre-disposed to it, which was northwest Europe inhabited by the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.
The collectivism of Western European society in the High Middle Ages was real. There was intense group identification and group commitment to Christianity among all levels of society. For example, the outpouring of religious fervor and ingroup fervor that accompanied the Crusades aimed at freeing the Holy Land from Muslim control.
The medieval Church often had a strong sense of Christian group economic interests, and often worked vigorously to rightly exclude Jews from economic and political influence and to prevent social intercourse between Christians and Jews. Europeans considered themselves at the time a part of a Christian ingroup arrayed against non‑Christian out-groups (particularly Muslims & Jews) who were seen as powerful & threatening enemies.
This medieval religious collectivism combined with the desire for power by the Church actually facilitated Western individualism and the liberal tradition in the long run because, as a hegemonic entity, the Church battled against other, opposing collectivities (kinship groups, secular kingdoms), leading eventually to a conception of Christendom as a collection of “individual” morally equal souls that paved the way ultimately for Protestantism and the Enlightenment.
Also… the great social achievement of the early Middle Ages was the imposition of the same rules of sexual and domestic conduct on both rich and poor. The King in in his palace, the peasant in his hovel (open shed); neither was exempt.
Trends toward egalitarianism in opposition to aristocratic interests were eventually encouraged by the Church’s ideology of moral egalitarianism. Natural Law came to be understood as implying natural rights of individuals, like the right to a fair trial.
As Christian Europe aged, several rights were defended by the Church, like the right to own property, consent to government, self-defense, marriage and procedural rights. The church moved in the direction that the right to property entailed the duty to share in time of need. This led to the idea that the poor had rights, the intellectual ancestor to the modern welfare state. Rulers had limitations on what they could do beyond the reciprocal obligations of vassalage.
Towns and cities began to govern themselves and thus be independent or semi-independent power centers. In general, the towns and cities tended to be more egalitarian than feudal systems. People fleeing serfdom often took refuge in cities and were protected by the Church. These urban areas created a middle class that contained the seeds of a modern Constitutional order, although oligarchic tendencies existed as well.
Christian moral intuitions centered around individual conscience and moral egalitarianism ultimately caused the downfall of the Church as a hegemonic religious institution. Liberal thought “emerged as the moral intuitions generated by Christianity were turned against the authoritarian model of the Church.
By the Fourteenth century, there were calls for representative government within the Church. These were resisted by the papacy, resulting in widespread agitation against the Church. These were essentially democratic movements that rejected the top-down structure of the Church, promoted individual devotion and campaigned to be able to read scriptures in native languages… harbingers of Protestantism.
Thus, basic liberal ideas that had been propagated by the Church predated Protestantism but were contradicted by the Church’s own collectivist structure. In the end, those liberal ideas, such as equality of status, individual liberty, freedom of conscience and representative government, opposed the interests of the Church.
This resulted in the religious wars (1618 to 1648) of the Reformation, after which there came to be general skepticism about the wisdom of enforcing religious orthodoxy. These trends continued, so that by the eighteenth century, clericalism was seen as the enemy of liberal secularism.
The Reformation and the end of alien Abrahamic domination of the collectivist Church ultimately unleashed the full flowering of egalitarian individualism in northwestern Europeans.
The Church promoted policies that tended toward individualism, policies that were consistent with its own interests in becoming a powerful, hegemonic institution and that built on pre-existing tendencies toward individualism in Indo-European and northern hunter-gatherer cultures. Individualism was and remains strongest in northwest Europe because these evolutionarily based tendencies are stronger there. In the end, individualism militated against the Church as an authoritarian, collectivist institution with the result that Protestantism flourished throughout most of northwest Europe, with the radical individualism of the Enlightenment soon to follow.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MONOGAMY
Monogamy, which implies sexual egalitarianism, is a central aspect of Western uniqueness and may well be a necessary condition for the unique European “low-pressure” demographic profile.
This demographic profile results from late marriage and celibacy of large percentages of females during times of economic scarcity. The theoretical connection with monogamy is that monogamous marriage results in a situation where the poor of both sexes are unable to mate.
In turn, the low-pressure demographic profile appears to have had economic consequences. Not only was the marriage rate the main damper on population growth but, especially in England, it had a tendency to lag well behind favorable economic changes so that there was a trend for capital accumulation during good times rather than a constant pressure of population on food supply.
The fact that the rolling adjustment between economic and demographic fluctuations took place in such a leisurely fashion, tending to produce large if gradual swings in real wages, represented an opportunity to break clear from the low-level income trap which is sometimes supposed to have inhibited all pre-industrial nations. A long period of rising real wages, by changing the structure of demand, will tend to give a disproportionately strong boost to demand for commodities other than the basic necessities of life, and so to sectors of the economy whose growth is especially important if an industrial revolution is to occur.
Monogamy, by resulting in a low-pressure demographic profile, was a necessary condition for industrialization. This argument suggests that Monogamy may indeed have been a central aspect of the necessary architecture of Western modernization.
Later marriage not only constrained the number of births but also provided greater opportunities for female informal learning, especially through service. A high proportion of unmarried females between the ages of 15 and 25 left home and worked elsewhere, instead of bearing children, as in other societies. This widened female horizons compared with a passage from the parental household directly into demanding motherhood & housekeeping.
Throughout this period the family was the principal institution for educating and training future workers. Schooling was not compulsory until 1880 in England. In the early nineteenth century few children attended any school regularly and few remained at school for more than one and a half years. Such skills and work discipline as were learned were passed on and built up over the generations primarily by the family. Over the centuries, the gradual rise of this human capital raised productivity and eventually brought about the Industrial Revolution.
Polygynous mating systems tend to result in resources being devoted to reproduction and relatively less to investment in children. Monogamy, however, restricts the investment of individual males to the offspring of one woman. With the decline in extended kinship relations and the institutionalization of monogamy for all social classes, support for children came to rest completely upon the independent nuclear family. This family, based on the simple household was the critical precursor of Western modernization.
PURITANISM: THE RISE OF EGALITARIAN INDIVIDUALISM AND MORALISTIC UTOPIANISM
Note: Both the Puritans & Quakers left England and came to America with the desire to practice their religions more freely. In general, the Quakers have been less influential than the Puritans in the United States, although they had a critical role in the British anti-slavery movement. The Quaker campaign to end slavery can be traced back to the late 1600s, and many played a pivotal role in the Underground Railroad. This campaign came at a time when slavery was common practice all over the world.
The English Civil War of the mid seventeenth century, which established the influence of Puritan culture in both Britain and the United States, should therefore be seen as a turning point in the history of the West, a watershed event that eventually ended the domination of the fundamentally Indo-European-derived social structures that had held sway over the Western European political landscape from time immemorial.
However, despite Protestantism being ultimately enabled by Western individualism, Puritanism itself, in theory and for a considerable time in practice, was strongly collectivist. Ingroup-outgroup distinctions were highly salient and within the group there were powerful controls on thought and behavior. In other words, at its origins, Puritanism was a group evolutionary strategy.
The radicalism of the Puritan Revolution was that it eventually destroyed the old tri-partite Indo-European order based on domination of a military elite. This revolution was far more radical than that whereby Christianity destroyed the pagan gods of Old Europe because it flattened the foundational myths of the trifunctional social order
Characteristic of all Indo-European peoples. The Puritan Revolution and its aftermath eventually ended the Indo-European world and its Christian version… the king & aristocracy, Church and the commoners.
It was thus the quintessential modern revolution, and because of the rise of Britain into a dominant world power, it was a fundamental break in the history of the West. It marked the beginning of the end of aristocratic individualism with its strong emphasis on hierarchy between social categories and the beginning of the rise of egalitarian individualism with its ideology of social leveling and parliamentary democracy blended with capitalism and wealth accumulation.
Additionally, the triumph of the North in the Civil War meant that the United States was even further removed from its Indo-European roots than before.
As time progressed elements in the secular world were then combined by the religious descendants of Puritans into a world view that saw progress not just in the material world but also in the spiritual world. Humanity was thus heading toward a spiritual and material utopia, a golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort. These ideas were often combined with the idea that this golden age would follow upon an apocalyptic battle between good and evil.
In the nineteenth century it was entirely reasonable for Europeans, and especially northwest Europeans, to think that they were a special people given that they had essentially conquered the world, and Americans in particular had carved out a huge continental land mass for themselves. Moreover, all the inventions and all the progress in science was coming from Europeans. It was quite natural, then to think that there was something special and unique about Europeans and their culture… as indeed there is.
DARWINISM
By the early twentieth century, Puritanism and other similar religious and philosophical ideologies were a distant memory and the new materialists had won the day. Radical racial theories based on Darwinism rather than religion held the academic high ground. The early part of the twentieth century was the high-watermark of Darwinism in the social sciences. It was common at that time to think that there were important differences between the races in both intelligence and moral qualities. Not only did races differ, they were in competition with each other.
The prominence of Darwinian theories of race was not confined to the United States. Such theories were influential among intellectuals of Europe as well.
As a result of Darwinism, the decades leading up to the passage of the 1924 immigration law and thereafter were a period of ethnic defense, in the interest of White preservation.
Despite the high position that White race held at that time, there was an understanding that non-White races could undermine their ascendancy. This was reflected in the titles of the classic works of the period, such as Grant’s ”The Passing of the Great Race” and Stoddard’s “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under‑Man”.
Note: Keep in mind that this White World Supremacy was not based on a subjective “chosen” ideology like International Jewry’s supremacist ideology. White World Supremacy was categorically a fact based on many objective markers, such as Science, Technology, Fine Art, Warfare, etc.
Anti-Jewish attitudes were common among the American elite. Ford financed “The International Jew a series of essays originally published from 1920-1922, which focused on describing Jewish behavior and documenting Jewish influence, which was also influential in White European elite circles.
THE RISE OF ANTI-WHITE CULTURAL MARXISM
The eventual defeat of Darwinism was a major thrust of Jewish intellectual and political movements, particularly Boasian anthropology. By 1915, the Jew, Franz Boas controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board. Anti-Darwinism was thoroughly replaced by Cultural Marxism (Critical Theory) which manifested after Jewish German academics from the Frankfurt School fled National Socialist Germany and relocated in New York to enter high positions within U.S. academic circles.
The demise of Darwinism and National Socialist Germany had major implications because it removed the only intellectually viable source (Darwinism) of opposition to Jewish cosmopolitan ideology and their cultural pluralist anti-White model of America and of all White European nations.
In the absence of an intellectually respectable defense, ethnic defense was left to conservative religion and the popular attitudes of the less educated. These were no match for the cosmopolitan intellectuals who quickly became settled in all the elite institutions of United States, especially the media and the academic world.
By the 1960s, this new Jewish elite had become dominant in critical sectors of American life, particularly the media, banking, the social sciences, the legal profession, and as financial contributors to political campaigns and causes. High on the agenda of this new Jewish elite was replacement-level immigration.
In 1965, via the 1965 Immigration Act, America was opened up to all the peoples of the world. In the ensuing decades this cultural shift resulted in the ever-decreasing power and influence of the White European-derived peoples and cultures of America.
Once the Puritan-descended White intellectual and financial elite had been displaced, their moral idealism and their proneness to altruistic punishment was vulnerable to hijacking by Jewish intellectual and political movements aimed at replacing the traditional White peoples of the United States and all of Europe. This is White Genocide!
EMPATHY
The White Race is extremely empathetic. International Jewry has learned how to manipulate this trait for their own self-interest and to the detriment of White interests.
The logic of moral universalism, which is deeply rooted in Christianity, is based on empathic concern, and unfortunately is now ubiquitous during this age of the Jewish New World Order, post-World War 2. The White Race rationalizes everything from wars of liberation against oppressive dictators in far off lands to alleviating the suffering of impoverished Third-World migrants and animals. Empathic concern is a lynchpin for anti-White immigration and refugee policy, ethnic relations, poverty, and much else.
Although these tendencies toward egalitarianism and moral universalism were presumably adaptive within the small societies that northwestern Europeans evolved in, they are proving to be maladaptive & destructive in the modern world where empathy and altruism can be manipulated by International Jewry.
For individualists, like the White race, being on the high end of empathy can easily lead to a pathological form of altruism where high costs can be incurred with no corresponding benefit. Pathological altruism is generally defined as focusing on others’ needs to the detriment of one’s own needs.
Normal levels of wanting to be liked as well as pathological altruism often involve a sense of self-righteousness, which can be translated as a sense of moral superiority that advertises one’s good reputation within a community, defined not by kinship but by conforming or exceeding the moral standards of the community.
A fundamental aspect of Western individualism is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation. The reputation-based moral communities of the West have deep historical roots both in Indo-European culture and Hunter-Gatherer culture.
These moral communities are indigenous products of Western culture, the same way that kinship-based clans, cousin marriage, sequestering women, and the harems of elite males are products of the people of the Middle East.
Moral communities are pervasive throughout the institutional structures of the West. Again… for individualists, like the White race, being on the high end of empathy can easily lead to a pathological form of altruism where high costs can be incurred with no corresponding benefit. Whites beware!
ETHNO-CENTRISTRISM
White people tend to be more individualistic than other non-White peoples, implying that Whites are less likely than other peoples to make invidious distinctions between ingroups and outgroups and are more likely to be open to strangers and people who don’t look like them. Because Whites are low in ethnocentrism and high in Conscientiousness, controlling ethnocentrism is easier for them on average. Their subcortical mechanisms responsible for ethnocentrism are weaker to start with and hence easier to control.
Blacks and other non-Whites have much stronger explicit ethnic identities than Whites do.
Jews are hyper-ethnocentric… thus International Jewry preaches multi-culturalism & diversity for White Countries only, knowing that Whites are have a tendency for pathological altruism and have low ethnocentric behaviors.
Liberal Harvard Political Scientist, Robert D. Putnam, conducted a famous study to determine if Diversity creates distrust. To his shock… it most certainly does! The study demonstrated that the greater the racial diversity the greater the loss of trust. For Whites, whose foundational stands upon on Egalitarian Individualism based on trust, racial diversity is disastrous.
The creation of an explicit culture legitimizing White identity and interests, which is central to National Socialist ideology, is a prerequisite to the successful pursuit of the interests of Whites as a group and their survival.
ARTICLE CONCLUSION
This article has emphasized the liberal strain of Western culture stemming ultimately from European Individualism, which can be found at the very origins of the Western European peoples. A fundamental aspect of individualism is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation, and most importantly, a moral reputation as honest, trustworthy and fair. There are many things positive that can be said about these liberal-egalitarian cultural trends.
The aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture that had dominated Europe for millennia had shortcomings. The aristocracy, originally composed of military leaders who had earned their positions in battle, had often become a politically and economically oppressive, parasitic elite… alienated from the people they ruled and, quite often, addicted to conspicuous consumption and degenerate sexual behavior, particularly in France.
Egalitarian social movements had an obvious appeal in such an environment, and, beginning in the eighteenth century, they became focused on improving the often-appalling conditions of labor and ending slavery.
Nevertheless, the aristocratic-egalitarian tradition per se has certainly had many positive attributes. In the ancient world, this tradition was firmly grounded in the idea that society should be dominated by those with natural superiority.
The egalitarian trends that began their ascent to power in the seventeenth century unleashed enormous creativity and innovation as inherited social status declined in importance in the new meritocratic context in which upward mobility was possible and individual initiative and talent rewarded. There was a tremendous flowering of science, technology, inventions and the arts, to the point that, in comparison to all other areas of the world, almost all (97%) of the major figures in these fields have been males of European background, particularly northwestern Europe.
Further, while the accomplishments of Western science in the ancient world are without parallel, its real ascension skyrocketed in the seventeenth century and coincides with the rise of Egalitarian Individualism.
As stated in the beginning of this article…
97% of human advancement historically came from White countries. There is an evolutionary racial explanation for this…. “Whites having a tradition and rich legacy of Egalitarian Individualism and Aristocratic Individualism.” This individual freedom gave rise to Western Civilization.
From a National Socialist perspective… National Socialism represents the best of both worlds… Aristocratic Individualism and Egalitarian Individualism. A holistic blend of Indo-European and Hunter-Gatherer traditions.
National Socialism is based on racial pride on an “ethnocentric” national ethnic basis where meritocracy selects the most talented to lead in their respective fields (Aristocratic Individualism) of excellence across all sectors of society, while at the same time this leadership has the blessings and given a vote of confidence by the national community. This arrangement is built of trust and the good reputation of individual leaders who must follow through on their pledge to uplift and defend the overall interests of the national community (Egalitarian Individualism).
Note: Free PDF on “National Socialism – The Fundamentals” is linked here:
https://archive.org/details/nationalsocialismthefundamentalsebook
National Socialism was a theory until put into practice by Hitler’s Third Reich. Renegade Tribune has numerous articles devoted to the miraculous accomplishments of the Third Reich. These achievements were actually not miracles but the manifestation of natural laws that the Third Reich put into practice.
International Jewry has won the battle of World War 2 but its in no position to ultimately win victory over Natural Law.
97% of human advancement was accomplished by White individuals. When you assemble the human resume, only a few thousand people stand apart from the rest. Among them, the people who are indispensable to the story of human accomplishment number in the hundreds.
National Socialism stands on this understanding that individuals change human history, but National Socialism also understands that the national community is everything and is the glue which holds individualism in place.
Individualist Western culture gave rise to a major stream of human accomplishment. Individualist Western Culture is fostered by a culture in which the most talented people believe that life has a purpose and that the function of life is to fulfill that purpose. The focus is on high achievement in the present, in the here and now. This individualist paradigm is significantly different from the majority of non-White cultures on this planet.
Respect is due! White racial pride is returning! Hail victory!
Be sure to check out The Noble Protagonist’s 1,100 page E-book, “The Battle to preserve Western Civilization (European Folk Soul vs. Jewish Supremacy).
Free E-Book available at: https://archive.org/details/@nobleprotagonist
Battle for the West (Website): http://www.battleforthewest.com/
Battle for the West (BitChute): https://www.bitchute.com/channel/65cDI4QdHali/
Or https://www.bitchute.com/channel/PtaJxtItAip0/
August 15, 2022
97% of human advancement historically came from White countries. There is an evolutionary racial explanation for this, explained in this article.
Note: On YouTube you will occasionally come across hours of non-White pseudoscience taking claim for White accomplishments. What their pseudoscience won’t demonstrate is an evolutionary racial explanation for their claims.
Western Civilization is a product of the distinct evolution of the White Race. National Socialism, as documented in numerous Renegade Tribune articles, is the political & cultural pathway to preserve & protect and advance the accomplishments of the White Race and Western Civilization.
This article was composed for the most part utilizing the writings of Kevin Macdonald’s book, “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future” and to a smaller extent some observations noted in Charles Murray’s book “Human Accomplishment”, along with some National Socialist commentary.
Note: There is a northwest and southeast genetic & psychological gradient in Europe, with Individualism being more common in the historical populations of northwest Europe. This was known to the Hitler’s National Socialist party (NSDAP) and was a factor in their preference for Nordicism in the Third Reich. Keep in mind, however, in comparison to the Middle East for example, all of Europe, including Eastern Europe, is relatively individualistic.
INDO-EUROPEANS: ARISTOCRATIC INDIVIDUALISM
The Indo-European migration throughout most of Europe, India and Iran occurred as early as 8000-5000 BCE. Indo-Europeans were an incredibly militarized culture. There was a lot of competition within the society and upward mobility was possible if you had military talent and could lead men into battle.
The Indo-Europeans absorbed, but did not exterminate, the individualistic hunter-gathering tribes in the Northwest and the agriculturally-based farming societies in the South. They created a free market culture where kinship was deemphasized, and individual talents and accomplishments were valued.
The Indo-European legacy is key to understanding the restless, aggressive, questing, innovative, “Faustian” soul of Europe. Indo-Europeans were a uniquely aristocratic people dominated by emerging chieftains for whom fighting to gain prestige was the all-pervading ethos. This culture is interpreted as the Western state of nature and as the primordial source of Western restlessness.
The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was based neither on centralized kingship nor clan-type extended kinship groups, but on an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group. Critically, this elite was not bound by kinship as would occur in a clan-based society, but by the pursuit of fame and fortune, particularly the former. The men who became leaders were not despots, but peers of other warriors… an egalitarianism among aristocrats.
Successful warriors individuated themselves in dress, sporting beads, belts, etc., with a flair for ostentation intended to attract attention. This resulted in a vital, action-oriented, and linear picture of the world. They moved forward in pursuit of the goal of increasing prestige. The leader was “first among equals”, commanding by voluntary consent rather than force, and being a successful leader meant having many clients pledge their loyalty.
These groups of comrades were singularly dedicated to predatory behavior and to wolf-like living by hunting and raiding, and to the performance of superior, even super-human deeds. The members were generally young, unmarried men, thirsting for adventure. The followers were sworn not to survive a war leader who was slain in battle, just as the leader was expected to show in all circumstances a personal example of courage and war-skills. Only in reference to Indo-European aristocratic warriors can we speak in Hegelian terms of a fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige.
The formation of voluntary Indo-European war-bands held together by oaths, camaraderie, and a common self-interest was a fundamental characteristic of these chiefdoms. This was a time when social status and rank were still openly determined by one’s heroic deeds and by the number of followers or clients one could afford.
The aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of their culture was the practice of gift-giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were commonplace. 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 were based on talent and accomplishment, not on ethnicity that rewards people on the basis of close kinship or despotic subservience where followers are essentially unfree people.
Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of war-bands, they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military-elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service.
Exogamy (marrying outside the community) and Monogamy were core features of the Indo-Europeans. Indeed, the general cultural pattern of predatory bands of males seeking riches and females implies that such relationships would be exogamous.
Indo-Europeans developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. There were thus mechanisms to provide guest-host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality.
As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. Those warrior leaders who rose to the top considered themselves “first among equals”, which we can call Aristocratic Individualism.
A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity. Military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors.
Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies based on individualism.
Indo-European individualist societies leaned toward free choice of marriage partners based on personal attraction and other interests, which in turn are based on the personal qualities of the marriage partners.
Inherited status counted for little in Indo-European societies. Around two-thirds of the wealth of the chief was buried or burned when he died, with the rest going to the living, so that even the sons of chiefs had to prove themselves by accumulating wealth and power on their own.
The free-market character of Indo-Europeans was inconsistent with despotic rule. If individuals are free to choose their leaders and defect from those who are inept or fail to reciprocate with generous gifts, then despotic rulers cannot arise. Despotism implies that others do not have freedom to pursue their interests. There is a vast difference between being first among equals and being a despot.
The Indo-European Visigothic Code in Spain illustrated the desire for a non-despotic government and for social cohesion that resulted from taking account of the interests of everyone, except slaves. Regarding despotism, the Visigothic Code stated… “It should be required that the king make diligent inquiry as to the soundness of his opinions. Then, it should be evident that he has acted not for private gain but for the benefit of the people; so that it may conclusively appear that the law has not been made for any private or personal advantage, but for the protection and profit of the whole body of citizens.”
In individualistic Indo-European societies citizens saw their self-interest as a stake holder coinciding with the interest of the system as a whole. The wise king created cohesion not by coercion, but by giving everyone a stake in the system:
Indo-European heroes in ancient Greece and elsewhere were individuals first and foremost. These were men who distinguished themselves from others by their feats in pursuit of individual renown, as shown in the story Beowulf for an example.
The Indo-Europeans were an extraordinarily successful group that had by far the most influence on European culture over approximately 4,000 years, into the European Middle Ages and beyond. Armed with cutting edge military and food cultivation technology, as well as with a culture that prized military accomplishment above all else and allowed for the upward mobility of the most adept warriors, the Indo-Europeans were an unstoppable force in the ancient world.
In Europe, the Indo-Europeans encountered older European peoples who shared their individualism, if not other aspects of their culture. Given that barriers against inter-marriage rather quickly broke down, males from these peoples were able to rise in the Indo-European cultural environment.
The Indo-European contribution to the European genetic and cultural heritage is thus very great, however foreign it may be to the present culture of the West. Indo-European societies were intensively hierarchical. In contrast, the present-day West is determinedly egalitarian.
Indo-European societies were completely militarized and prized only the warrior virtues. Contemporary Western culture values a completely different set of personal qualities, such as empathy, financial success and a relatively high position for women.
Indo-Europeans culture prized fame and glory resulting from genuine virtue and military & political accomplishments, not indolence (laziness) and love of luxury, but also not labor, because laborers were often slaves and at the time the rightful booty of conquest.
NORTHERN HUNTER GATHERERS: EGALITARIAN INDIVIDUALISM
Indo-Europeans have greatly contributed genetically to contemporary Europeans. This genetic influence is most apparent in the northwest of Europe, especially Nordic Scandinavia. Again… this was known to the Hitler’s National Socialist party (NSDAP) and was a factor in their preference for Nordicism in the Third Reich.
The Western world remains the only area in the world characterized by all of the markers of Individualism. Taken together, these tendencies are unique to Western Europe and they have a White ethnic racial basis based on evolutionary circumstances, which is also reflected in Whites having a relatively high IQ and a high level of delayed gratification (long-term planning).
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 exclusion from the group (ostracism). Hunter-gatherer societies are moral communities in which women have a major role.
In Hunter Gatherer societies decisions are done by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals. People are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized.
Nordic peoples have been less subjected to between-group natural selection than other groups, particularly Middle Eastern populations as a result of experiencing the harsh evolutionary pressures of the Ice Age, resulting in the Nordic peoples living in small groups and having a tendency toward social isolation.
The intellectual abilities of Nordic peoples are due to the need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection for traits related to spatial & mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness, what psychologists label “performance IQ” as opposed to “verbal IQ” which is important for social influence and would be expected in a people who evolved in large groups. Modern Scandinavians are indeed high on spatial abilities.
Such a perspective would not imply that northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression. This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the physical environment than at competing with other groups. In such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and collectivist groups.
The evolutionary interpretation of ethnocentrism emphasizes its utility in between-group competition. Ethnocentrism is of no importance in combating the physical environment, and in any case, a harsh physical environment does not support large competing groups.
Northern European groups are adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward Monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny (more than one wife) or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines and quite unlike the patrilineal system of the Indo-Europeans. This suggests relative gender equality compared Indo-European culture. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships, and marriage tends to be exogamous, i.e., outside the kinship group.
This scenario implies that northwest European peoples are more prone to Individualism because they existed for a very long period in an ecological-context that did not support large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations; there were no resources such as fertile river valleys that might be controlled on a year-round basis by a single kinship group.
Hunting required considerable experience, quality education, and years of intensive practice via high-investment parenting. It also favors intelligence because hunting for humans relies on cognitive abilities more than running ability or even strength.
The hunting scenario is complex and ever-changing. Every animal species, including humans demonstrates unique behavioral characteristics depending on intrinsic characteristics such as sex and age, and extrinsic conditions such as season, weather, topography, etc. And it calls for cooperation and maintaining a trustworthy reputation within the group. All of these trends are intensified in northern areas because there is less energy available per unit area.
Hunter-Gatherer societies of Northern Europe did not have any stable resource capable of being controlled by a lineage group or military elite on a year-round basis. Extended kinship relationships therefore assumed less importance. Indeed, all the original ancient agricultural societies developed around defensible, stable and areas, typically around fertile river basins like the Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yangtze rivers. However, in Northern Europe, despite their complexity, these Hunter-Gatherer groups were not able to remain in one area for the entire year, thus maintaining relatively small, family-based, face-to-face groupings for part of the year. It was in these small Nordic groupings that Egalitarian Individualism survived in a world that was becoming dominated by agriculture.
In Northern Europe, Hunter-Gatherers were forced to interact extensively with non-kin and strangers for much of the year, which led to an emphasis on trust and maintaining a good reputation within the larger non-kinship-based group. Yet, since such groups dispersed into smaller groups for part of the year, there was no selection against Egalitarianism.
In such large but seasonally migrating groups of Hunter-Gatherers, the ecological conditions favored not only egalitarianism but also monogamy, since one man would not be able to control enough resources on a prolonged basis to enable polygyny. In Europe, the tendency toward monogamy was thus far more genetically and culturally fixed.
Thus, an important thrust of Western culture has been to regulate behavior in order to create a relatively more egalitarian social structure. In other words, to recreate the conditions of the Hunter-Gather culture. This tendency was reinforced by the Church during the Middle Ages for its own reasons.
Today, extreme egalitarianism is found in contemporary Scandinavian societies.
EXOGAMY & LOVE AS CHARACTERISTIC OF WESTERN MARRIAGE
Whereas kinship-based cultures tend toward marrying relatives, often first cousins, marriage in individualist societies is based more on personal attraction. In individualist societies marriage would likely be more based on personal attraction such as physical traits (physical attractiveness, strength, health) and personality (warmth and affection, conscientiousness, honesty, courage) of a prospective partner than they would in a kinship-based society where the all-important goal is to strengthen the descent group.
Love, another aspect of individual choice, has been valued far more in the West than in the other cultures of the world. Marriage in collectivist societies, the vast majority of human societies, is based on marrying relatives fairly independently of their personal characteristics. In European societies dating as far back as records can be found, spouses were chosen based on a variety of personal characteristics, including the personality trait of Love/Nurturance underlying close relationships of affection and intimacy. This tendency toward warmth and affection can even be seen in mother-infant interactions.
Northern Europeans have always leaned toward romantic love as the basis of marriage. At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism thus involves mechanisms such as romantic love and physical attractiveness in which mating behavior is intrinsically rewarding rather than imposed by family strategizing.
Wealth and social status have also been important marriage criteria in Western societies, particularly for the propertied classes, but even among the propertied classes there has been a trend toward the companionate (on an equal basis) marriage based on affection and consent between the partners. In the eighteenth century and thereafter, close relationships based on affection and love became universally seen as the appropriate basis for monogamous marriage in all social classes, even including landed aristocrats.
Western populations are more inclined to value the traits of love/nurturance in prospective mates as an aspect of individualist mating patterns and, ultimately, because of the need to cement close family relationships and paternal investment in the harsh environments that northern hunter-gatherers evolved in. Unlike kinship-based societies, marriage is exogamous and based at least partly on personal attraction, including personality characteristics like Love/Nurturance. This trait is also important for status within moral communities. Most people would not find cold-heartedness attractive in a potential marriage partner, nor would they desire cold-hearted people to be part of their moral community because such persons would tend to be untrustworthy and selfish.
The main evolutionary impetus for the development of the human Love/Nurturance system is the need for high-investment parenting, females are expected to have a greater elaboration of mechanisms related to parental investment than males. The evolutionary theory of sex implies that females are expected to be highly discriminating mates compared to males and more committed to long-term relationships of nurturance and affection; cues of nurturance and love in males are expected to be highly valued by females seeking paternal investment.
For males, having a reputation as conscientious and dependable is important for attracting females and to being accepted in a moral community.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
Westerners evolved in an environment where interacting with strangers was the norm but in which people tend to be generous because they are concerned about their reputation in future interactions.
Europeans exhibit high levels of cooperation with strangers rather than with extended family members, and they are prone to market relations and individualism. This suggests the fascinating possibility that a key strategy for any group (International Jewry) intending to turn Europeans against themselves would be to trigger their strong tendency toward altruistic punishment by convincing them of the moral blameworthiness (wrongdoing) of their own people.
Altruistic punishment is essentially a moral condemnation of the other person as unfair. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily exhibit moral anger against their own people once they are seen as defectors from a moral consensus and therefore blameworthy. This is a manifestation of Europeans stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers. In altruistic punishment, relative genetic distance is irrelevant. Free-riders are seen as strangers in a market situation.
MORAL REASONING, COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES, DEBATES AND ABSTRACT THINKING
An illustrative contrast between Western and non-Western societies can be found in the area of moral reasoning. In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of Justice.
Western people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to the intrinsic characteristics of objects, and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and their surrounding field). Analytic thinking is associated with thinking of oneself as independent, whereas holistic thinking is linked to thinking of one self as interdependent with other people.
For example, memory for objects is worse among East Asians if the background is removed compared to Westerners, implying that Westerners pay less attention to the background and relationships between background and objects in it. Moreover, Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract, where as non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship.
These differences in a wide range of areas strongly suggest a biological basis for Western individualism. The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception are all “of a piece”; they all fit in to a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning.
The Western culture of individualism and the unique genetic heritage of the West predispose Westerners to abstract their judgments from the social context, and that this then predisposes the West to scientific, rational thinking… as well as unique methods of moral reasoning. Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits such as honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments.
All this is done in abstraction from their relatively weak kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of Justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying “universally” applicable Laws of Nature.
Beginning in ancient Greece, intellectual debate was intensely competitive, and individuals were free to defect from a particular scholar if they found another more appealing. Intellectuals sought followers not by depending on pre-existing kinship or ethnic connections, but rather by their ability to attract followers in a free market of ideas in which people were free to defect to other points of view. Just as Indo-European warriors were free to defect to other leaders with objectively better prospects for success, the free market of ideas would naturally default to arguments and ideas that can appeal to others who are free to defect from the group and where groups are highly permeable.
In a social context consisting of others who are similarly free to defect, logical arguments and predictive theories about the natural world would come to the fore. This individual freedom gave rise to Western Civilization… all thanks to Whites having a tradition and rich legacy of Egalitarian Individualism and Aristocratic Individualism.
MID-ARTICLE CONCLUSION
The egalitarian-individualist strand of Western culture is an important component of the current cultural climate of the West. Egalitarian individualism, along with Aristocratic Individualism, are critical for understanding the dynamism of the West.
THE CHURCH IN EUROPEAN HISTORY
Christianity has certainly had a dysgenic effect on Europe contributing to the anti-White pathological altruistic climate engineered by International Jewry. Renegade Tribune and Renegade Broadcasting has numerous articles and podcasts dedicated to this topic. Regardless, the Catholic Church has been a unique institution that has had important influence on the course of Western history. The Catholic Church continued to alter Western culture away from extended kinship networks and other collectivist institutions, motivated ultimately by the desire to extend its own power. Additionally, it had a central role in maintaining Monogamy.
In European history the medieval Church was a unique feature of Western culture, but in critical ways it was most un-Western. This is because medieval Europe was a collectivist society with a strong sense of group identification and commitment. Indeed, the decline of ecclesiastical collectivism was very likely a precondition to the full flowering of individualism in the West in the areas most pre-disposed to it, which was northwest Europe inhabited by the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples.
The collectivism of Western European society in the High Middle Ages was real. There was intense group identification and group commitment to Christianity among all levels of society. For example, the outpouring of religious fervor and ingroup fervor that accompanied the Crusades aimed at freeing the Holy Land from Muslim control.
The medieval Church often had a strong sense of Christian group economic interests, and often worked vigorously to rightly exclude Jews from economic and political influence and to prevent social intercourse between Christians and Jews. Europeans considered themselves at the time a part of a Christian ingroup arrayed against non‑Christian out-groups (particularly Muslims & Jews) who were seen as powerful & threatening enemies.
This medieval religious collectivism combined with the desire for power by the Church actually facilitated Western individualism and the liberal tradition in the long run because, as a hegemonic entity, the Church battled against other, opposing collectivities (kinship groups, secular kingdoms), leading eventually to a conception of Christendom as a collection of “individual” morally equal souls that paved the way ultimately for Protestantism and the Enlightenment.
Also… the great social achievement of the early Middle Ages was the imposition of the same rules of sexual and domestic conduct on both rich and poor. The King in in his palace, the peasant in his hovel (open shed); neither was exempt.
Trends toward egalitarianism in opposition to aristocratic interests were eventually encouraged by the Church’s ideology of moral egalitarianism. Natural Law came to be understood as implying natural rights of individuals, like the right to a fair trial.
As Christian Europe aged, several rights were defended by the Church, like the right to own property, consent to government, self-defense, marriage and procedural rights. The church moved in the direction that the right to property entailed the duty to share in time of need. This led to the idea that the poor had rights, the intellectual ancestor to the modern welfare state. Rulers had limitations on what they could do beyond the reciprocal obligations of vassalage.
Towns and cities began to govern themselves and thus be independent or semi-independent power centers. In general, the towns and cities tended to be more egalitarian than feudal systems. People fleeing serfdom often took refuge in cities and were protected by the Church. These urban areas created a middle class that contained the seeds of a modern Constitutional order, although oligarchic tendencies existed as well.
Christian moral intuitions centered around individual conscience and moral egalitarianism ultimately caused the downfall of the Church as a hegemonic religious institution. Liberal thought “emerged as the moral intuitions generated by Christianity were turned against the authoritarian model of the Church.
By the Fourteenth century, there were calls for representative government within the Church. These were resisted by the papacy, resulting in widespread agitation against the Church. These were essentially democratic movements that rejected the top-down structure of the Church, promoted individual devotion and campaigned to be able to read scriptures in native languages… harbingers of Protestantism.
Thus, basic liberal ideas that had been propagated by the Church predated Protestantism but were contradicted by the Church’s own collectivist structure. In the end, those liberal ideas, such as equality of status, individual liberty, freedom of conscience and representative government, opposed the interests of the Church.
This resulted in the religious wars (1618 to 1648) of the Reformation, after which there came to be general skepticism about the wisdom of enforcing religious orthodoxy. These trends continued, so that by the eighteenth century, clericalism was seen as the enemy of liberal secularism.
The Reformation and the end of alien Abrahamic domination of the collectivist Church ultimately unleashed the full flowering of egalitarian individualism in northwestern Europeans.
The Church promoted policies that tended toward individualism, policies that were consistent with its own interests in becoming a powerful, hegemonic institution and that built on pre-existing tendencies toward individualism in Indo-European and northern hunter-gatherer cultures. Individualism was and remains strongest in northwest Europe because these evolutionarily based tendencies are stronger there. In the end, individualism militated against the Church as an authoritarian, collectivist institution with the result that Protestantism flourished throughout most of northwest Europe, with the radical individualism of the Enlightenment soon to follow.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF MONOGAMY
Monogamy, which implies sexual egalitarianism, is a central aspect of Western uniqueness and may well be a necessary condition for the unique European “low-pressure” demographic profile.
This demographic profile results from late marriage and celibacy of large percentages of females during times of economic scarcity. The theoretical connection with monogamy is that monogamous marriage results in a situation where the poor of both sexes are unable to mate.
In turn, the low-pressure demographic profile appears to have had economic consequences. Not only was the marriage rate the main damper on population growth but, especially in England, it had a tendency to lag well behind favorable economic changes so that there was a trend for capital accumulation during good times rather than a constant pressure of population on food supply.
The fact that the rolling adjustment between economic and demographic fluctuations took place in such a leisurely fashion, tending to produce large if gradual swings in real wages, represented an opportunity to break clear from the low-level income trap which is sometimes supposed to have inhibited all pre-industrial nations. A long period of rising real wages, by changing the structure of demand, will tend to give a disproportionately strong boost to demand for commodities other than the basic necessities of life, and so to sectors of the economy whose growth is especially important if an industrial revolution is to occur.
Monogamy, by resulting in a low-pressure demographic profile, was a necessary condition for industrialization. This argument suggests that Monogamy may indeed have been a central aspect of the necessary architecture of Western modernization.
Later marriage not only constrained the number of births but also provided greater opportunities for female informal learning, especially through service. A high proportion of unmarried females between the ages of 15 and 25 left home and worked elsewhere, instead of bearing children, as in other societies. This widened female horizons compared with a passage from the parental household directly into demanding motherhood & housekeeping.
Throughout this period the family was the principal institution for educating and training future workers. Schooling was not compulsory until 1880 in England. In the early nineteenth century few children attended any school regularly and few remained at school for more than one and a half years. Such skills and work discipline as were learned were passed on and built up over the generations primarily by the family. Over the centuries, the gradual rise of this human capital raised productivity and eventually brought about the Industrial Revolution.
Polygynous mating systems tend to result in resources being devoted to reproduction and relatively less to investment in children. Monogamy, however, restricts the investment of individual males to the offspring of one woman. With the decline in extended kinship relations and the institutionalization of monogamy for all social classes, support for children came to rest completely upon the independent nuclear family. This family, based on the simple household was the critical precursor of Western modernization.
PURITANISM: THE RISE OF EGALITARIAN INDIVIDUALISM AND MORALISTIC UTOPIANISM
Note: Both the Puritans & Quakers left England and came to America with the desire to practice their religions more freely. In general, the Quakers have been less influential than the Puritans in the United States, although they had a critical role in the British anti-slavery movement. The Quaker campaign to end slavery can be traced back to the late 1600s, and many played a pivotal role in the Underground Railroad. This campaign came at a time when slavery was common practice all over the world.
The English Civil War of the mid seventeenth century, which established the influence of Puritan culture in both Britain and the United States, should therefore be seen as a turning point in the history of the West, a watershed event that eventually ended the domination of the fundamentally Indo-European-derived social structures that had held sway over the Western European political landscape from time immemorial.
However, despite Protestantism being ultimately enabled by Western individualism, Puritanism itself, in theory and for a considerable time in practice, was strongly collectivist. Ingroup-outgroup distinctions were highly salient and within the group there were powerful controls on thought and behavior. In other words, at its origins, Puritanism was a group evolutionary strategy.
The radicalism of the Puritan Revolution was that it eventually destroyed the old tri-partite Indo-European order based on domination of a military elite. This revolution was far more radical than that whereby Christianity destroyed the pagan gods of Old Europe because it flattened the foundational myths of the trifunctional social order
Characteristic of all Indo-European peoples. The Puritan Revolution and its aftermath eventually ended the Indo-European world and its Christian version… the king & aristocracy, Church and the commoners.
It was thus the quintessential modern revolution, and because of the rise of Britain into a dominant world power, it was a fundamental break in the history of the West. It marked the beginning of the end of aristocratic individualism with its strong emphasis on hierarchy between social categories and the beginning of the rise of egalitarian individualism with its ideology of social leveling and parliamentary democracy blended with capitalism and wealth accumulation.
Additionally, the triumph of the North in the Civil War meant that the United States was even further removed from its Indo-European roots than before.
As time progressed elements in the secular world were then combined by the religious descendants of Puritans into a world view that saw progress not just in the material world but also in the spiritual world. Humanity was thus heading toward a spiritual and material utopia, a golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort. These ideas were often combined with the idea that this golden age would follow upon an apocalyptic battle between good and evil.
In the nineteenth century it was entirely reasonable for Europeans, and especially northwest Europeans, to think that they were a special people given that they had essentially conquered the world, and Americans in particular had carved out a huge continental land mass for themselves. Moreover, all the inventions and all the progress in science was coming from Europeans. It was quite natural, then to think that there was something special and unique about Europeans and their culture… as indeed there is.
DARWINISM
By the early twentieth century, Puritanism and other similar religious and philosophical ideologies were a distant memory and the new materialists had won the day. Radical racial theories based on Darwinism rather than religion held the academic high ground. The early part of the twentieth century was the high-watermark of Darwinism in the social sciences. It was common at that time to think that there were important differences between the races in both intelligence and moral qualities. Not only did races differ, they were in competition with each other.
The prominence of Darwinian theories of race was not confined to the United States. Such theories were influential among intellectuals of Europe as well.
As a result of Darwinism, the decades leading up to the passage of the 1924 immigration law and thereafter were a period of ethnic defense, in the interest of White preservation.
Despite the high position that White race held at that time, there was an understanding that non-White races could undermine their ascendancy. This was reflected in the titles of the classic works of the period, such as Grant’s ”The Passing of the Great Race” and Stoddard’s “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under‑Man”.
Note: Keep in mind that this White World Supremacy was not based on a subjective “chosen” ideology like International Jewry’s supremacist ideology. White World Supremacy was categorically a fact based on many objective markers, such as Science, Technology, Fine Art, Warfare, etc.
Anti-Jewish attitudes were common among the American elite. Ford financed “The International Jew a series of essays originally published from 1920-1922, which focused on describing Jewish behavior and documenting Jewish influence, which was also influential in White European elite circles.
THE RISE OF ANTI-WHITE CULTURAL MARXISM
The eventual defeat of Darwinism was a major thrust of Jewish intellectual and political movements, particularly Boasian anthropology. By 1915, the Jew, Franz Boas controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board. Anti-Darwinism was thoroughly replaced by Cultural Marxism (Critical Theory) which manifested after Jewish German academics from the Frankfurt School fled National Socialist Germany and relocated in New York to enter high positions within U.S. academic circles.
The demise of Darwinism and National Socialist Germany had major implications because it removed the only intellectually viable source (Darwinism) of opposition to Jewish cosmopolitan ideology and their cultural pluralist anti-White model of America and of all White European nations.
In the absence of an intellectually respectable defense, ethnic defense was left to conservative religion and the popular attitudes of the less educated. These were no match for the cosmopolitan intellectuals who quickly became settled in all the elite institutions of United States, especially the media and the academic world.
By the 1960s, this new Jewish elite had become dominant in critical sectors of American life, particularly the media, banking, the social sciences, the legal profession, and as financial contributors to political campaigns and causes. High on the agenda of this new Jewish elite was replacement-level immigration.
In 1965, via the 1965 Immigration Act, America was opened up to all the peoples of the world. In the ensuing decades this cultural shift resulted in the ever-decreasing power and influence of the White European-derived peoples and cultures of America.
Once the Puritan-descended White intellectual and financial elite had been displaced, their moral idealism and their proneness to altruistic punishment was vulnerable to hijacking by Jewish intellectual and political movements aimed at replacing the traditional White peoples of the United States and all of Europe. This is White Genocide!
EMPATHY
The White Race is extremely empathetic. International Jewry has learned how to manipulate this trait for their own self-interest and to the detriment of White interests.
The logic of moral universalism, which is deeply rooted in Christianity, is based on empathic concern, and unfortunately is now ubiquitous during this age of the Jewish New World Order, post-World War 2. The White Race rationalizes everything from wars of liberation against oppressive dictators in far off lands to alleviating the suffering of impoverished Third-World migrants and animals. Empathic concern is a lynchpin for anti-White immigration and refugee policy, ethnic relations, poverty, and much else.
Although these tendencies toward egalitarianism and moral universalism were presumably adaptive within the small societies that northwestern Europeans evolved in, they are proving to be maladaptive & destructive in the modern world where empathy and altruism can be manipulated by International Jewry.
For individualists, like the White race, being on the high end of empathy can easily lead to a pathological form of altruism where high costs can be incurred with no corresponding benefit. Pathological altruism is generally defined as focusing on others’ needs to the detriment of one’s own needs.
Normal levels of wanting to be liked as well as pathological altruism often involve a sense of self-righteousness, which can be translated as a sense of moral superiority that advertises one’s good reputation within a community, defined not by kinship but by conforming or exceeding the moral standards of the community.
A fundamental aspect of Western individualism is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation. The reputation-based moral communities of the West have deep historical roots both in Indo-European culture and Hunter-Gatherer culture.
These moral communities are indigenous products of Western culture, the same way that kinship-based clans, cousin marriage, sequestering women, and the harems of elite males are products of the people of the Middle East.
Moral communities are pervasive throughout the institutional structures of the West. Again… for individualists, like the White race, being on the high end of empathy can easily lead to a pathological form of altruism where high costs can be incurred with no corresponding benefit. Whites beware!
ETHNO-CENTRISTRISM
White people tend to be more individualistic than other non-White peoples, implying that Whites are less likely than other peoples to make invidious distinctions between ingroups and outgroups and are more likely to be open to strangers and people who don’t look like them. Because Whites are low in ethnocentrism and high in Conscientiousness, controlling ethnocentrism is easier for them on average. Their subcortical mechanisms responsible for ethnocentrism are weaker to start with and hence easier to control.
Blacks and other non-Whites have much stronger explicit ethnic identities than Whites do.
Jews are hyper-ethnocentric… thus International Jewry preaches multi-culturalism & diversity for White Countries only, knowing that Whites are have a tendency for pathological altruism and have low ethnocentric behaviors.
Liberal Harvard Political Scientist, Robert D. Putnam, conducted a famous study to determine if Diversity creates distrust. To his shock… it most certainly does! The study demonstrated that the greater the racial diversity the greater the loss of trust. For Whites, whose foundational stands upon on Egalitarian Individualism based on trust, racial diversity is disastrous.
The creation of an explicit culture legitimizing White identity and interests, which is central to National Socialist ideology, is a prerequisite to the successful pursuit of the interests of Whites as a group and their survival.
ARTICLE CONCLUSION
This article has emphasized the liberal strain of Western culture stemming ultimately from European Individualism, which can be found at the very origins of the Western European peoples. A fundamental aspect of individualism is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation, and most importantly, a moral reputation as honest, trustworthy and fair. There are many things positive that can be said about these liberal-egalitarian cultural trends.
The aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture that had dominated Europe for millennia had shortcomings. The aristocracy, originally composed of military leaders who had earned their positions in battle, had often become a politically and economically oppressive, parasitic elite… alienated from the people they ruled and, quite often, addicted to conspicuous consumption and degenerate sexual behavior, particularly in France.
Egalitarian social movements had an obvious appeal in such an environment, and, beginning in the eighteenth century, they became focused on improving the often-appalling conditions of labor and ending slavery.
Nevertheless, the aristocratic-egalitarian tradition per se has certainly had many positive attributes. In the ancient world, this tradition was firmly grounded in the idea that society should be dominated by those with natural superiority.
The egalitarian trends that began their ascent to power in the seventeenth century unleashed enormous creativity and innovation as inherited social status declined in importance in the new meritocratic context in which upward mobility was possible and individual initiative and talent rewarded. There was a tremendous flowering of science, technology, inventions and the arts, to the point that, in comparison to all other areas of the world, almost all (97%) of the major figures in these fields have been males of European background, particularly northwestern Europe.
Further, while the accomplishments of Western science in the ancient world are without parallel, its real ascension skyrocketed in the seventeenth century and coincides with the rise of Egalitarian Individualism.
As stated in the beginning of this article…
97% of human advancement historically came from White countries. There is an evolutionary racial explanation for this…. “Whites having a tradition and rich legacy of Egalitarian Individualism and Aristocratic Individualism.” This individual freedom gave rise to Western Civilization.
From a National Socialist perspective… National Socialism represents the best of both worlds… Aristocratic Individualism and Egalitarian Individualism. A holistic blend of Indo-European and Hunter-Gatherer traditions.
National Socialism is based on racial pride on an “ethnocentric” national ethnic basis where meritocracy selects the most talented to lead in their respective fields (Aristocratic Individualism) of excellence across all sectors of society, while at the same time this leadership has the blessings and given a vote of confidence by the national community. This arrangement is built of trust and the good reputation of individual leaders who must follow through on their pledge to uplift and defend the overall interests of the national community (Egalitarian Individualism).
Note: Free PDF on “National Socialism – The Fundamentals” is linked here:
https://archive.org/details/nationalsocialismthefundamentalsebook
National Socialism was a theory until put into practice by Hitler’s Third Reich. Renegade Tribune has numerous articles devoted to the miraculous accomplishments of the Third Reich. These achievements were actually not miracles but the manifestation of natural laws that the Third Reich put into practice.
International Jewry has won the battle of World War 2 but its in no position to ultimately win victory over Natural Law.
97% of human advancement was accomplished by White individuals. When you assemble the human resume, only a few thousand people stand apart from the rest. Among them, the people who are indispensable to the story of human accomplishment number in the hundreds.
National Socialism stands on this understanding that individuals change human history, but National Socialism also understands that the national community is everything and is the glue which holds individualism in place.
Individualist Western culture gave rise to a major stream of human accomplishment. Individualist Western Culture is fostered by a culture in which the most talented people believe that life has a purpose and that the function of life is to fulfill that purpose. The focus is on high achievement in the present, in the here and now. This individualist paradigm is significantly different from the majority of non-White cultures on this planet.
Respect is due! White racial pride is returning! Hail victory!
Be sure to check out The Noble Protagonist’s 1,100 page E-book, “The Battle to preserve Western Civilization (European Folk Soul vs. Jewish Supremacy).
Free E-Book available at: https://archive.org/details/@nobleprotagonist
Battle for the West (Website): http://www.battleforthewest.com/
Battle for the West (BitChute): https://www.bitchute.com/channel/65cDI4QdHali/
Or https://www.bitchute.com/channel/PtaJxtItAip0/