/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14215773]

Just finished MacDonald's latest book. I was gonna make a thread with a short summary but I'm too lazy. Ask me anything.

[Anonymous No.14215780]

>>14215773
Is it good?

[Anonymous No.14215792]

>>14215780
Yeah it is. Kinda too contemporary though. Mentions antifa and twitter controversies.

[Anonymous No.14216028]

Come on you fags it has antisemitism and capitalism and all the fun stuff. Give me some (you)s. I'll spoon feed you all you need to pretend that you've read the book.

[Anonymous No.14216036]

>>14216028
Does he absolutely shit on individualism or is he like, yeah, you can be a little individualistic but don't over do it, sweetcheeks?

[Anonymous No.14216517]

>>14216036
He's pro individualism. He thinks individualism is conducive to capitalism, abstract thinking, and good government. It's not a matter of not overdoing it, but of avoiding its pitfalls.

[Anonymous No.14216545]

>>14216517
Thanks. How does he define Western liberal tradition? Does he regard it as something which comes from the Westerners themselves or does he look at it as something that has been brought about through Jewish subversion?

[Anonymous No.14216662]

>>14216517
Does he propose how to avoid those pitfalls? Recommend any particular form of government?

[Anonymous No.14216829]

>>14216545
He thinks westerners are genetically disposed to individualism. He talks about two things: individualism and moral universalism. Individualism means prioritizing competence and moral character over kinship ties, which leads to westerners' weak sense of ethnocentricism. Moral universalism is the belief that all men are equal in rights and abilities. Both were exploited by jews for their benefit, though they wouldn't have been able to so had westerners no been inherently prone to individualism. I don't think he gives a unique definition of the western liberal tradition. He states that liberalism as we know it today began in the 18th century, though he traces its roots to Christianity, to the classical tradition before it, and then all the way to the indo-europeans and western hunter gatherers (he calls the individualism of the former "aristocratic individualism," the latter's "egalitarian individualism." Both had their pros and cons).

>>14216662
Yes. He thinks white activists should create an environment where it is permissible to talk about the ethnic interests of whites. He thinks most whites have a predilection toward ethnocentricism, it just needs to be brought out and mobilized without fear of ostracism. He thinks America is heading toward civil war and segregation along racial/regional lines (with all the necessary population transfers).