[This is a very thoughtful article. Very thoughtful. Our people are moving into great depths of thinking and its AWESOME. This guy talks about the Christian church even subverting marriage. This is quite a strange and interesting story. I'm curious about it. Either way, this is well written. Lovely stuff. In here the man talks about Jewish subversion of Sweden. Jan]
What strikes me from reading the Kevin MacDonald’s book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, is that, over the course of many thousands of years, the key to power over European peoples has always been based on the power of moral communities to make people conform. Because of our individualism, our social glue is not based on extended families. But Western cultures do have a social glue. Moral communities are the social glue of the West. While in non-Western societies social cohesion is attained via kinship connections, the social glue of Western societies revolves around reputation as honest, trustworthy, fair, and—most of all—as someone who upholds the moral values of the community. Dissenting from a moral community typically means ostracism, guilt, loss of job, or worse.
The thesis of this article is that we, the European peoples, need to defend ourselves against ethnocentric peoples whose agenda is to weaken the power of the White population by erecting moral communities in which White people are seen as evil if they defend their people and culture. The best route for us to accomplish this is to build on our very strong tendency to build morally-based ingroups via inducing shame and guilt in those who dissent from the moral code of the ingroup. Since I am an ethnic Swede myself, I will focus on northwestern Europe, and specifically Scandinavia, but most of the thesis should be applicable also to White Americans.
MacDonald elaborates how the European peoples, particularly northwest European peoples, have a genetic tendency towards egalitarian individualism, and that European ingroups are permeable to members outside the ingroup provided they are trustworthy and demonstrate a reputation of good moral character that is in line with the moral standards of the ingroup. This goes all the way back to Indo-Europeans and northern hunter-gatherers several thousand years ago, although the current peoples of Europe have undergone a significant evolution since that time. The northern hunter-gathers were thoroughgoing egalitarian individualists, while the Indo-European warriors were only egalitarian within the aristocratic group of warriors (they established hierarchical societies with the military elite on top), but the group was permeable to talented people from outside the group. The moral code of honor kept the group together with strong bonds, and individualism meant that individuals could rise in the hierarchy. It was not based on kinship.
The hunter-gatherer groups were genetically inclined towards egalitarian individualism because of their evolution in the far north of Europe: The harsh environment of the north, in combination with a sparse population density, and therefore a low degree of competition for resources and no need for ethnocentrism, called for intelligence and creativity in surviving the harsh environment; outsiders who were willing to help and could demonstrate useful abilities were welcome; there was less need for kin-based power structures. It strongly fostered monogamy because one man could not support more than one woman and their children. The nuclear family was the building block of society, not clans. And these traits had a genetic origin—they were not just arbitrary “social constructs”!
Thus, evolution has created an individualistic, egalitarian, monogamous race, whose bonds are mostly based on a reputation-based morality, high trust, and ingroup consensus rather than kinship and ethnocentrism. They formed moral-ideological communities in which those who violated public trust, ingroup consensus, and other manifestations of the moral order, were shunned, ostracized, and exposed to public humiliation—a fate that would have resulted in evolutionary death in the harsh northern ecology.
MacDonald finds that European peoples are significantly more individualistic than other peoples, and within Western Europe, there is an ethnically based northwest-southeast gradient of a genetic tendency towards individualism, correlated with variation in family structure within Western Europe. In this gradient, Scandinavians have the most individualist family patterns in all of Europe.
Paradoxically, Sweden, as one of the most individualistic countries in the world, has chosen a very socialistic economic policy with a powerful state and powerful tendencies toward egalitarianism, conformism and law-abidingness. Thus, on the surface it looks like a collectivistic society. It is easy to think that individualism and collectivism would be opposites? There is, however, a clear logic to this paradox:
The paradox of “individualistic collectivism”
What is unique about Sweden is the underlying morality of that attempts to liberate the individual citizen from all forms of subordination and dependency in civil society: the poor from privately based charity, the workers from their employers, wives from their husbands, children from their parents and old people from their children.
The result is that Sweden is on the extreme end of individualist societies with an extreme independence from other individuals and groups other than the state. The state has the warrant of maintaining independence of individuals so they are not dependent on their families or other individuals. Through active intervention, it promotes egalitarian conditions that guarantee individual autonomy. There is a belief that a strong state and stable social norms will keep their “neighbor” out of both their lives and their backyards.
In older times, the peasants and the king often joined in a common struggle against their common adversary: the nobility. Therefore, the peasants came to view the state, in the figure of the King, as in some sense being “on their side.” The patterns of individual freedom and lack of dependency on superiors go back at least to the medieval period. Feudalism did not happen in Scandinavia; farmers had a say in their government—typically not as strong as other forces like the nobility, but a force nonetheless.
For example, one scholar notes “the obvious egalitarian tendencies, personal freedoms, and legal and political enfranchisement so strikingly evident in historical, legal, and saga sources of medieval Iceland.” The leaders (goðar) who convened in the Althing were not territorial lords, as in Feudal Europe, but had reciprocal obligations toward the free farmers who elected them; farmers could switch their allegiance at will. The rule of law prevailed: “Built into this system of annual Althing courts was the concept of impartiality, embracing an intense desire to avoid partisanship” (Ibid.:11); judges could be disqualified on the basis of kinship.
Nordic societies score at the top of social trust despite low on religiosity. This trust assumes (and is the result of) strong social norms and strict moral codes: Since there are virtually no kin-based power structures, trust is based on reputation-based moral codes where those who violate public trust and other manifestations of the moral order are shunned, ostracized, and exposed to public humiliation. For instance, Swedes are terrified to violate the moral consensus surrounding migration for fear of ostracism and, quite possibly, loss of job. Western societies are communities based on moral-ideological consensus.
This high standing on trust has had economic advantages in lowering the costs and risks of business transactions. But in modern times this trust has been on a steady decline as a result of massive immigration of groups who do not share the same moral codes because they are neither biologically inclined for that (their norms are based on kinship), nor have any such traditions. As Joseph Henrich notes, first- and second-generation immigrants from countries with intensive kinship remain relatively untrusting of strangers, foreigners, and people from other religions; they are less individualistic-independent and more conformist-obedient (pp. 207, 244). Further, people from societies with intensive kinship contribute less to group projects, volunteer less, are less likely to donate blood to strangers, are more willing to lie under oath to help a friend, and more likely to hire relatives. “Cultural transmission can perpetuate a clannish psychology for generations, even after clan organizations have vanished” (p. 195) (The Weirdest People in the World, 2020).
Thus, extreme individualistic egalitarianism results in moral-ideological communities with extreme levels of conformism and social anxiety. Individuals fear social ostracism for violating egalitarian norms and standing out from the crowd. It is not surprising that such a culture exerts strong controls on individual behavior to ensure conformity to the norms of a moral-ideological community. This clearly can be perceived as being a form of collectivism, despite the genetic origin actually having its roots in individualism!
The next level of paradox is that, over the last decades, interventions by the state have run amok to the extent that the individual freedom has been throttled to almost zero, except the “freedom” to practice any form of degenerate sexual activity. The social norms have run amok, strongly supported by hate-speech laws that have made it illegal to say anything negative about homosexual activism, or transgender activism, or the non-reversible transformation of children to the opposite sex, or even some forms of pedophilia. And it has become mandatory to accept that lesbian women should be free to have children via insemination without the need for any relationship with a man—only a confident relation with the state.
It has become very dangerous to deviate even the slightest from the stipulated “Core Values” of Nordic society. It is not even accepted to have a view of your own! If you express a dissenting view in a group of more than six people, it can be illegal!
Thus: Egalitarian individualism has become totalitarian collectivist intolerance!
The weakness of individualistic societies
Besides the unpleasant totalitarian intolerance as a result of egalitarian individualism, there is a more existential threat: An individualistic society is extremely vulnerable to an influx of ethnocentric people—they can quite easily take over the society because they will always prioritize their own kin. This is especially devastating if the intruding group attains power over the media and the educational system (which is where the current moral norms are established and propagated) and political parties.
Jews excel in exploiting the weakness of an egalitarian individualistic host population by using universalistic moral arguments such as: all humans are equal in intelligence and all other traits that are linked to upward mobility; only racism keeps some groups down; you must open your heart to immigrants; minorities in your country are oppressed, etc. They can even tell people that it is morally wrong for Swedes—or Whites in general—to prioritize their own group, despite the fact that ethnocentric groups like our Middle Eastern immigrants and the Jews do it all the time! Because we live in a moral-ideological community, such moral arguments are easily absorbed by the native White population who are genetically inclined to be more trusting of strangers—especially when messages encouraging them to do so are are propagated by the media and educational system.
Hence, we seem to have no defense against such intruding groups. Historically, that has not been so much of a problem because prospective intruders have come from nearby, which means they had similar egalitarian-individualistic origin, and to the degree they were not, the strengths and merits of egalitarian individualistic communities was stronger than the threat of “aliens” trying to infiltrate us with a different set of moral norms. But over the last 50–100 years, the immigration pattern has been very different, with people coming from the Middle East and Africa. Africans would not have been a big problem if they weren’t supported by other “alien” smarter globalistic forces, because Africans have such a low IQ. But they are being exploited by Jews and other globalists as a battering-ram to break down the homogeneity of the Swedish population.
The rest of this paper will focus on ways to combat this threat from ethnocentric kin-based groups that invade and infiltrate our nation and transform it into something people of northwestern descent strongly resent. How to combat ethnocentric intruders
Is the Church our hope?
Many people claim that Catholicism is a safeguard against Jewish and Muslim intrusion into our societies and against unwanted transformation of our societies by these groups. Let’s take a look at what MacDonald finds about the Church in Chapter 5, The Church in European History, and then I will draw my conclusions.
Christian ideology has always been universalistic (i.e., blind to ethnicity or kinship, and equally applicable to all races), which is the very foundation for the current propaganda by the globalist elites that are leading us to nationless globalism. The church, however, had a very strong desire for power, and at the pinnacle of its power during the medieval period the elite followers of the religion saw themselves as a supranational collectivity with the Pope as their master. Hence, it had a fundamentally collectivist orientation that is so foreign to the northwestern European mind.
The church battled against other opposing collectivities, and the Europeans considered themselves part of a Christian ingroup arrayed against non-Christian out-groups, particularly Muslims and Jews who were seen as powerful and threatening enemies. Over the course of such battles, the church sought to break down kin-based power structures among the groups the church wanted to dominate. It did that by prohibiting marriage of blood relatives and only supported marriage based solely on consent of the partners. In the sixth century, the prohibition was extended to second cousins, and by the eleventh century it was extended to sixth cousins! And that even included affinal relatives (i.e., relatives by marriage)! Clearly, these prohibitions go way beyond those that would be healthy to prevent in-breading. It was exclusively a way to eradicate kin-based power structures in pursuit of expanding their own power!
It may be true that Christian ideology, once upon a time, essentially became a blueprint for an anti-Jewish group strategy, and that crusaders many hundred years ago successfully pushed back Muslim invasions. But the price for the power of the church was extreme universalism, which later proved to be very detrimental for Europeans. The church strived towards an ever increasing universalistic centralization of its papal power that expanded its domains throughout the world.
The extreme universalism that the church was propagating actually facilitated Western individualism and the egalitarian liberal tradition in the long run. Eventually, it led to the conception of Christendom as a collection of individual souls, all morally equal, united by their religious identification and ultimately paving the way for Protestantism and the Enlightenment. However, in the present age, the Church’s universalism fosters race mixing and welcomes immigrants and refugees as citizens. What does that remind us of? Well, communism, the Kalergi plan, and the New World Order!
In Sweden, this has been taken to absurd levels in the last few decades by the Protestant Swedish Church: The archbishop is a communist, and the church acts as a far left activist organization by taking clear political positions and by protecting illegal immigrants. It praises the phrase “Allahu Akbar” as being compatible with Christianity, and it holds ecumenical gatherings that incorporate Islam! It is compassionately in favor of mass immigration and it is totally uncritical to the claims of “refugees” no matter where they come from or why they crossed the world to come to Sweden. Most Swedish Christians believe that Jews are friends of Christianity, and they are in favor of all Jewish lobbing organizations. As a result, the Swedish Church is definitely on the side of globalism!
Catholicism does not appear to be quite as extreme as modern Protestantism in this respect, but it shares most of the globalist traits, and the trend of the Catholic church goes in the same leftward direction as the Protestant church, i.e., having a universalistic egalitarian globalistic agenda combined with pathological altruism. These churches have come to serve the interests of the global power elites.
Believing that the church will save us is like asking George Soros for salvation!
It should be noted, however, that this negative conclusion regards the churches, not necessarily religious beliefs. Christian people may very well find good healthy support in their religious beliefs and in the Ten Commandments, provided they are strongly opposed to the leftist advocacy of the Church in other areas.
Even if the church could be reformed and “improved”, it would not help the Scandinavian nations because most people in this region are not very religious at all, even though they might be born as Christians, and be members of the Swedish Church. To believe Christianity, whether Protestant or Catholic, would help us in Scandinavia is very naive—it simply will not happen!
In a few European countries, such as Poland, Catholicism has a stronger position, and in these countries it might serve as an entity that slows down the destructive forces of culture Marxism and Jewish power, although every effort will be made to have it serve the interests of the power elites.
Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism
MacDonald describes in detail the difference between implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Implicit ethnocentrism is more or less unconscious, e.g., simply preferring to be among people of the same race. For White people, its manifestations may be White flight or moving to a “Whiter” area, motivated at the surface level by better schools or nicer homes (not because they want to escape a community with many Blacks). Explicit ethnocentrism is to openly be in favor of or promote the interests of Whites, and be in favor of preserving the State as a nation where the majority of the population is of White heritage, or perhaps even of northwestern European heritage.
Northwestern Europeans are the least ethnocentric people in the world, and they are therefore the most susceptible to the propaganda that says: “thou shall not favor your own kind because that is racism.” Even though Whites are the least ethnocentric people, the ethnocentrism is there, and it can be controlled or suppressed: Evolutionarily ancient mechanisms in the lower brain can be controlled by higher brain centers located in the cortex that are sensitive to cultural information. Conscientious people are relatively better able to regulate the more evolutionarily ancient parts of our brain responsible for things like implicit ethnocentrism. Since Whites score higher than most races on conscientiousness, controlling (suppressing) ethnocentrism is easier for Whites on average. Their subcortical mechanisms responsible for ethnocentrism are weaker to start with and hence easier to control.
Thus: Anti-White cultural information can enable Whites to inhibit their ethnocentric tendencies. MacDonald describes in detail the extensive morally based indoctrination that all Whites are exposed to, effectively suppressing White ethnocentrism. There are overwhelming sanctions on explicit assertions of White racial identity stemming from the ability of the media and educational system to create moral communities that pathologize White identity and interests.
In Chapter 8, MacDonald suggests that the way out of the morass is to change the explicit culture, in particular to legitimize a strong sense of identity and group interests among Whites. He suggests that the first step should be a psychological one: “making proud and confident explicit assertions of White identity and interests, and creating communities where such assertions are considered normal and natural rather than grounds for ostracism.”
However, in a country such as Sweden, with its totalitarian intolerance, combined with a very weak degree of ethnocentrism, the above will be very difficult! Although praiseworthy, I suggest that before we make widespread explicit assertions of White identity and interests, we must start by establishing strong moral assertions that condemn and shame those who act against us, and that is the topic of the next section:
A Quest for a Morally Based Ideology
Given the extreme tendency of Whites to build morally based ingroups via shaming those who dissent from this morality that defines the ingroup, we should build on this asset! Over the course of thousands of years, the various powers over European peoples have all used morally based schemes to attain or maintain power.
If we are to learn something from the unprecedented successes of the Church, it must be their immense focus on the deliberate use of morality as the guiding rule and norm. What was crucial was not the belief in God as such, but the ideology that defined what was deemed to be moral and praiseworthy, what you should strive towards. More than just promoting a religious belief, it had a moral-ideological foundation. That moral consensus built group cohesion, which is necessary for a group strategy, which is of paramount importance to build up power or as a defense against enemies.
This history of the church clearly tells us that we need to build a morally based ideology that people can relate to. Logical arguments don’t bite, but moral ones do bite! Moral arguments, especially when they result in shaming, affect people by motivating them actually change their behavior and attitudes.
Group strategies by ethnocentric peoples poised against Whites must be met by another group strategy. They cannot be met by individualism, and it can certainly not be met by logical arguments. The group strategy of Whites should ideally also be ethnocentric, but postmodern liberalism has created an individualistic, scattered, and divided society where Whites are willing to punish Whites for violating the norms of racial egalitarianism. Dogmas of “Core Values” are use to ostracize dissidents. As a group, it has made us defenseless and easy prey.
We cannot successfully go forward unless the present set of “Core Values” is deconstructed in favor of a new morally based ideology that is in line with White interests, without necessarily promoting an explicit ethnocentricity since the latter is subject to severe social sanctions. It must be a moral ideology that replaces the universalistic dogmas of “all humans’ are of equal value,” “human rights,” and the modern-day Christian “compassion” towards all peoples of the entire world.
Whites are genetically inclined towards reputation-based moral values, which also means Whites are very sensitive to guilt. In the long run, we must advocate a certain degree of ethnocentrism, but we cannot start with that because, as noted, lack of ethnocentrism is our weakest point and expressions of ethnocentrism are subject to severe social sanctions. Reputation-based moral values are the only way to build cohesion so that Whites can act as a cohesive group and survive in a hostile environment of globalist elites whose agenda is to destroy homogenous and sovereign nations.
Some people might object by saying: “We can’t change the moral sentiments of the entire society! We are only a minority among all the liberals who dominate all the cultural high ground. I object by saying: Of course we can change that! History shows that there were actually very few who drove the moral agenda! We need to build on the fact that northwestern European Whites are extremely afraid of being regarded as immoral. We should shame those who neglect their own kind! It shifts focus from logical reasoning to an emotional state of being of being morally good or bad.
The new moral codes and the shaming must be directed towards liberal Whites so as to guide or force them into our cohesive group. Think of the Puritans who were experts in this field. They were very successful in becoming an elite, especially in New England, and dominating American culture until the 1960s. We can do that without the religious veneer. It is very powerful!
It’s said that forging individualists into a cohesive group is like herding cats. Doing so requires strong controls at the group level and an ideology that rationalizes the controls—exactly what Puritanism provided. Puritanism was an intensely controlling society based on a moral vision. We should do the same!
The powerful controls on thought and behavior of the Puritans made it a rather collectivist evolutionary strategy with salient distinctions between ingroup and outgroup. But over time it became less collectivistic since, as with all Western groups, it was permeable. Ultimately, the universalistic and altruistic aspect of Puritanism paved the way for its own displacement. It is a general characteristic of Western groups that they are permeable—barriers do not survive for long. But if our new morally based ideology develops into a certain degree of ethnocentrism by being less universalistic, it does have potential for long-term survival, and thereby long-term survival of the White race. It is a prerequisite for the preservation of the Western culture with its high-trust societies.
In times of war, moral exhortations, not logic, have always been used by Western elites as the primary means of motivating people for war. Moral propaganda always precedes declaration of war. Currently, we are in the midst of a fierce cultural war of values—globalism versus nationalism, miscegenation versus ethnopluralism. Hence, our moral stance is of paramount importance. Without a set of cohesive moral codes, we are defenseless.
Adaptive Moral Codes
Moral condemnation triggers a ”healthy” guilt. People will avoid or try to escape guilt and shaming. The escape should be to a moral code that allows for the survival and prosperity of our people.
In Sweden, even politicians have uttered: “Sweden does not belong to the Swedes”—and these politicians get away with it! Rather than starting discussions about historical facts, we should simply declare that such utterances are deeply immoral—a sign of a degenerate morality. We should take every opportunity to openly despise such persons. Remember that we are in the midst of a cultural war with implications for the survival of our people. We cannot afford to be soft and weak in times of war.
The positive moral imperative is that Sweden belongs to the descendants of those who have built the nation over thousands of years. Neglecting your own people should be regarded as the lowest forms of moral depravity!
People who accuse us of White Supremacy should be met with a claim that we worship Moral Supremacy of White survival and yes, Swedes ought to be supreme in Swedish society just as it’s taken for granted that Africans should be supreme in African societies.
Among nationalists, degenerate lifestyles are frowned upon, and there are a few moral codes that have gained strength in the last decade. Here are two examples:
Although there are ample scientific studies indicating that porn acts on the brain in similar ways as addictive and destructive drugs do, the moral imperative of refusing porn has an even stronger effect on people’s minds than scientific proofs do.
A corollary to the above is that those who engage in porn should be openly despised.
In Sweden, there have even been local politicians for the left-wing party (communists) that have been engaged in the production of porn movies—and they get away with it! Even the leader of the party has uttered that a porn movie can be “refreshing”! We should strongly despise such people! On accusations that we are just a bunch of old-fashioned moralizers, we should condemn those who haven’t the strength to build good relationships and a healthy family-centered society, and that porn consumers are comparable to drug addicts of low standards.
In a group of nationalists, it would be virtually impossible for a person to brag about a good porn movie he saw the other day—he would be looked upon as a despicable person.
Be the best version of yourself!
Many nationalists are engaged in martial arts and healthy food. What is important here is not whether you are super-strong and a good fighter, but the act of striving towards improving yourself. Make sure you do not become obese, and if you are overweight, do your best to improve the situation. Every person should do at least something to stay fit. Avoid junk food and pay attention to what you eat.
Slanderers try to depict nationalists who engage in martial arts as people who praise violence. The answer is of course that it is both a way to stay fit and prepare for self-defense. Those traits are edifying.
We should openly condemn and despise people who do not make the slightest efforts to get rid of obesity and who have a degenerate lifestyle!
The phrase be the best version of yourself is a very strong message! No one would want to go against that. Those who do not even make attempts self-improvement are easy to condemn and despise. The fat sloppy ones are almost always liberals.
Women and the moral code
Men are much more inclined to think in strategic terms of society-level defense, security and protection than women are—it’s in the genes of men because men have always had more to gain or lose by social dominance, whereas women have often been the spoils of war. As a result, women tend to be focused on security within their face-to-face world, such as their family. Therefore, men have, for a longer time than women, been thinking about the implications of mass immigration of foreign fighting-age men, and the resulting threat to the society, as well as its moral implications. Women, on the other hand, have been completely occupied by trying to be socially accepted by their moral community and move upwards on the social ladder. Decades of vicious propaganda have made women lose their moral compass, and they have become morally very confused. Women are guided more by empathy. The following is a real-life personal anecdote:
I live in a semidetached house, and many years ago, my neighbor had a party where many women were invited. (He had lost his wife to cancer, and he had two nice daughters only a few years old, so it was very natural for him to look for a new woman among friends of friends.) These women seemed to be about 35 years of age, at least 30 but not much more than about 40. I was working on repairing my windows on the second floor, so I overheard the conversation that took place while a group of women sat outside on the terrace under a roof. The conversation went as follows:
One woman started to brag about how fantastic it was to have sex with a guy that was only 20 years old. The other women kept quiet for a while, so she went on to explain that it was so great that he was so much younger. I was somewhat appalled by this way of openly bragging about being more or less a slut, so let’s call her the slut in the following (although that epithet might be slightly too harsh). The other women didn’t know how to tackle this, but one woman slowly made fumbling attempts at saying something like: “so, this is important to you?” The slut said: “yes, it’s fantastic, it means a lot to me.” After a while, another woman said something like: “Well, I have kids, and there is so much around life with my kids, so I don’t really have much time for sex.” In essence, no shaming at all, only very lame attempts at a defense, such as “not having much time for sex”.
To me, it was obvious that these women felt unease in listening to this bragging slut. Maybe a few of them were actually jealous, since the media propaganda has been touting that having many sexual partners confers high status. It was very obvious to me that none of these women had the slightest clue how to handle this bragging slut!
Now, imagine that the slut was surrounded by a group of Puritans from old times! The sheer facial expressions from these Puritans would be enough to make the slut want to sink through the earth, and she would be so humiliated that she would have wished she was never born!
Traditionally, women have been very good at policing other women. That requires a strong moral code. Since women are inherently hypergamous, women need to be policed in a monogamous society (which Western societies have always been), and that has generally been the task for other women. The Puritans were experts at that. Most of today’s women haven’t the slightest clue!
Activists for illegal immigration and “refugees” (who are vastly dominated by women) should be morally condemned, shamed, shunned, and perhaps even ostracized, for neglecting homeless Swedes in favor of e.g., Afghan men who claim to be 17 years old (while actually being much older, and quite often used as sex toys by these women). Such activists are driven by unrestrained empathy and a perverted moral code. It’s not a matter of logic or altruism, or even compassion. They are simply of very low moral character! Period!
Fortunately, a few women have risen above the low standards just mentioned, and these women with strong moral codes will be the vanguards of the new morality for women. It is hard for a single woman to oppose a group of mainstream liberals, but if a few vanguard women stick together in shaming moral depravity, they become powerful. Two cohesive vanguard women are not only twice as strong as one; they are at least five times stronger than a single woman! There’s something deep down in women’s psyche that realizes that slutty behavior is a pathology.
Other adaptive moral codes
A morally based ideology must of course encompass many more codes than have been hinted at here. The various peoples of European descent are likely to develop somewhat different sets of sound moral codes to be permeated throughout our nations.
We need to defend ourselves against ethnocentric peoples whose agenda is to weaken and ultimately destroy the power of the White population. The best route for us to accomplish this is to build on our very strong tendency to build morally based ingroups via inducing guilt among those who dissent from this moral.
In times of war, moral preaching has always been used by the elites in order to gin up motivation for the war, and it always precedes the declaration of war. Currently, we are in the midst of a fierce cultural war of values—globalism versus nationalism, miscegenation versus marrying your own kind, ethnic homogeneity versus ethnopluralism. Without a cohesive moral code, we are defenseless.
The present set of liberal “Core Values” must be deconstructed in favor of a new morally based ideology that is in line with White interests. The guilt for dissenting from these codes must be directed towards liberal Whites so as to guide them into a cohesive group that conforms to these values. With a set of cohesive moral codes in place, we have the power to defend ourselves. It is a prerequisite for the long-term survival of the White race and the Western culture with its high-trust societies.
 Lars Trägårdh, Statist Individualism.
 Byock, J. (2015). The Icelandic Althing: The dawn of parliamentary democracy. In: J.M. Fladmark (ed.), Heritage and Identity: Shaping the Nations of the North. London: Routledge; originally: Donhead St. Mary, UK, 2002.
 In Sweden, the term is “Värdegrunden”, a word that has no direct translation into English, but the closest is “basic values” or “core values”. Every major company, every school, every institution, every public or private organisation, has a set of those “Core Values” listed in their guidelines. Every employee must abide and completely conform to these norms! It is the factual current religion of Sweden.
 The term used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is ’dignity’. The phrase says: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” But in Sweden, and several other countries, the term “value” is used instead, and the phrase that is perpetually propagated is: “All humans’ equal value.”
 Sexual Utopia in Power, by Roger Devlin