A Review of a Review: Kevin MacDonald’s Review of Guillaume Durocher’s ‘The Ancient Ethnostate: Biopolitical Thought in Ancient Greece’

Kevin MacDonald’s review of Guillaume Durocher’s, ‘The Ancient Ethnostate: Biopolitical Thought in Ancient Greece’, is an extremely important article for continually deepening one’s understanding of what has befallen us in the West. Moreover, it is really a short course in essential thought for rebuilding a civilization lost and that can be actualized anew in even greater ways—and hopefully made more resilient than before. Lesser students, such as myself, can look forward to hours of remedial education that are gotten simply investigating the savory side topics of history and philosophy encountered along the way in reading material from scholars such as these.

An important companion work to Durocher’s to have by your side for this “course” would be MacDonald’s, ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future’.


The question for Europeans is not the trite one of pitting the concepts of cooperative behavior and individualism against each other, but rather it is a project of how to accomplish the goals of survival, flourishing and ethnic longevity in a manner that is in accord with their make up as a people with particular biological and cognitive identities (neurocultures). There are some modes of individualism and of cooperativity that produce an effective common good, and some that must be jettisoned.


Any ethnic grour race could, in principle, embrace this project in ways that are general as well as specific, and that are fitting for themselves as a people or that borrow from what they choose from Europeans. Thus, there is nothing intrinsically hostile or ill-willed in Europeans pursuing and striving for virtues and goods as they see fit. What must be recognized by Europeans as unacceptable is cultural parasitism and political subversion—obviously deleterious to the central interests of Europeans as Europeans. Functionally-vital borders go a long way towards producing a mutually-thriving global community should that concern be taken up, more appropriately, elsewhere.


MacDonald’s review takes up the key issue of melding aristocratic hierarchy and egalitarian collectivism in order to protect social cohesion. White males who are paying attention should realize that they are being robbed of opportunity for enterprise, political potency and reproductive opportunity. In my unoriginal assessment, not only have outside forces acted to bring this about, but co-ethnics–empowered by radical and greedy psychological and economic individualism and unleashed by the tools of contraception, mass media and materialism–have stolen position and females from their kinsmen to such an excess as to destroy social, ethnic and racial cohesion. (This was an argument presented decades ago by George Gilder in ‘Men and Marriage’.)


MacDonald’s treatment of eugenics, especially within an evolutionary perspective, may discomfit some, especially those viewing this from a Post-war, American, Christian perspective—particularly Protestant and liberal Catholic ones. To those so left not at ease, I dare offer a view that, in earlier and more traditional Catholic cultures, especially ones where the Church was integrally identified with the nation, a type of soft eugenics was indeed practiced. At the extreme, those infants declining from an anatomical, physiological or psychological ideal need not be left to die (or worse), but could be cared for in dedicated institutions, but there was no provision for permitting them to engage sexually—the ‘sine qua non’ of modern, social ideology.


Nor were those who ranked low in marriageability destined to psychological misery and marginalization, but instead theological and social structures were embraced which provided for roles, fraternities and security in society for those not ranking high in reproductive potential, nor commanding great attention in the game of courtship, but who could render contribution to the common good—perhaps even contributions deriving from great talents. Despite not reproducing, their lives were given meaning and could be supplied with essential sociality as well as being lived alongside those with substantial gifts and who might otherwise have faired well in marrying, but who simply chose to live celibate lives of service offered to God.


Thus, sexual competition, along with tendencies toward crass economic competition observable in modern cultures, was diminished–by diffusion throughout the society–in importance culturally and psychically. The common vision was of societal cohesion here on Earth (the Church Militant) and in Heaven (the Church–read “community”–Triumphant). Many psychiatrists would be forced to seek new careers as G.P.s or appliance salesmen were this vision to be instituted in an instant.


But I am in danger of distracting the reader from the excellent purposes, topics and work of Kevin MacDonald in his review of Guillaume Durocher’s book. Please consider reading the article linked above.


Assuming, safely, that readers of the Second Society Project, or sites such as Gab.com, are interested in parallelism, reconstitution and/or the rebirth of society and civilization, of all that was valuable and that was destroyed, and–indeed–all that may still await emergence—the labors of thought by Guillaume Durocher and Kevin MacDonald are worth every moment committed to them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s