This article was originally published in Danish on June 1, 2022.
By Povl H. Riis-Knudsen
“What is not good for the swarm is not good for the bee either.”
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus
As a nationalist, it is difficult not to feel a great deal of sympathy for Lars Kragh Andersen. He does a great and useful job of exposing the totalitarian, full-on socialist nature of our current regime. However, Kragh Andersen’s ideological starting point is what he himself describes as “anarcho-capitalism,” where the individual’s unlimited personal freedom seems to be fundamental, in short, a view of life based on fundamentalist individualism. As mentioned, we have great sympathy for Kragh Andersen, but we nevertheless feel it necessary to add a few comments on his ideology, as it reflects a general and fateful trend among people from Western culture.
Humans are biological mechanisms that have arisen and developed as a result of evolution and are therefore subject to the same conditions of life as all other living organisms. However, evolution has worked at both the individual and group levels, so the individual is the result of both an individual and collective development and selection process without which we would not have become what we are. By nature, no individual is therefore created as an isolated, free-flying atom; we are dependent on our sociobiological group affiliation, i.e., our family, clan, tribe, and, in a broader sense, our people. These necessarily constitute the framework to which the individual is bound and dependent. This is a relationship of mutual dependence, which ensures and promotes the well-being and survival of both parties. It therefore seems obvious that the individual should refrain from behavior that directly harms the survival of the group, as this is precisely the condition for the individual’s own survival.
Our individual freedom is thus not absolute; it must necessarily be subordinated to the welfare of the whole. Fundamentalist individualism is therefore harmful to both the individual and the community to which they belong.
That said, it cannot be denied that Western culture is characterized by a relatively high degree of individualism.1 This can also be explained evolutionarily, and it does not undermine the fundamental relationship of dependency between the individual and the group. Thus, we are talking about higher degrees of individualism, but not an absolute. However, the tendency is there, and it can be dangerous if it is exaggerated or exploited. This is, of course, particularly relevant when Westerners are confronted with non-Western cultures and groups that are distinctly collectivist, which is characteristic of groups from the Middle East, such as Muslims and Jews. The objective advantage of a more collectivist-oriented culture is illustrated by the fact that the latter group, through a combination of ethnic nepotism and shameless exploitation of their host peoples’ individualism, has today achieved elite status in the West. Modern identity politics further exacerbates the collectivist tendencies of non-Western groups, to the point where it becomes extremely aggressive, as exemplified by BLM and rising fundamentalism among Muslims living here. In any confrontation, it is evident that individuals who are less adept at teamwork will simply lose out to those who are more adept, and as we know, there are now hundreds of thousands of very aggressive Middle Eastern team players standing right outside our front door. In addition, the mass media, Hollywood, Twitter, Instagram, etc. promote a pathological, egocentric, solipsistic mass culture in which any form of group affiliation among Westerners is systematically criminalized and broken down. Today, there is no greater sin than for a Westerner to show preference for their own ethnic group. This is exemplified in a tragicomic way by the fact that the mass murderer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer was very keen to emphasize that he was not a racist, he had killed and eaten people of all races…
Another aggravating circumstance is that European peoples, through their own skill, diligence, and creativity, have created societies with high material prosperity, which has the fatal consequence of mitigating the struggle for survival that is omnipresent in nature, meaning that there are no immediate consequences for individuals who behave antisocially or foolishly.
This opens the door to all kinds of debauchery, wishful thinking, daydreaming, free imagination, and pure madness, since it is, so to speak, “free” to be an idiot. Only in such a society would it be possible to advocate ideas and views that would never have had any chance in the pure state of nature. Anyone in a primitive tribal society who claimed to be a free-floating atom with no ties or obligations to the tribe would quickly perish or be eliminated. Excessive individualism is therefore a sign of degeneration, and although its consequences are not immediate, they will not fail to materialize in the long run, and in competition between groups, it is fatal.
The course has been set, and unfortunately we have a weak team. It is therefore regrettable that Mr. Kragh Andersen, despite his great positive efforts, is indirectly contributing to weakening us further. Personal freedom is a luxury that can be granted to the individual when the whole is healthy and strong. In such an ideal situation, one would naturally strive for a happy medium that would benefit both the individual and the people, and the framework for individual personal freedom could be quite broad in a culturally and ethnically homogeneous society, but we are not in an ideal situation. No, we are facing the greatest crisis in the history of the West, and if the individual Westerner and the people are to survive, it is imperative that we now learn to think and act collectively. More than ever before, we need to play as a team, otherwise we have lost in advance, and any form of personal freedom will be halal slaughtered by our conquerors.
Note
Danmarks Frihedsraad 