Yes, I too, was once a follower of Saint Jordan Peterson, the Canadian mystic. I initially fell for his message that people should be “radical individuals pursuing their rational self-interest”, which he sometimes also called the idea of the sovereign individual [source]. And then I got disgusted with it.
Some people don’t even believe that radical individualism is what Peterson was advocating, but I got Peterson on my radar long before he became the mainstream lobster guy after the interview with Channel 4’s (((Cathy Newman))). For the record, Peterson is wrong to say that the West was built on the idea of the sovereign individual. This is due to a misinterpretation of the word ‘individual’. In Europe, at least, it was the household that was considered the indivisible cornerstone of society. An individual unit was a family, not a person trying to get rich and win fame on his own.
Among the Germanic peoples, the individual who lived without the backing of his kin was called a “nid”, namely a person who had suffered the total loss of his honor. In the German-language book The Spiritual World of the Germanic People, author Jan de Vries explains why individualism was alien to our ancestors, for, “the Germanic man who, using nothing but his own strength, must reach the pinnacle of what he is predisposed to do, will rarely get as far as the man who feels supported by the collective will of his people.”
The collective will of the people is what it’s all about, and it’s the essential key to our long-term survival. The modern idea of radical individualism actually comes from Darwinism that also teaches that individual organisms accumulate unlimited amount of variation and recombination in order to, somehow, become an evolutionary success. Not people, but genes really rule society, and we are all just sacks of meat.
But new molecular research done by Chinese scientists such as Shi Huang counters this Darwinian fantasy of endless accumulation toward godly perfection, in the form of the MGD theory or the Maximum Genetic Diversity theory. Huang frequently explains on his X account that populations of organisms living in a certain habitat have a maximum tolerable level of diversity. If the genetic diversity becomes too great, the population becomes ineffective, unstable. And so, the individuals of these populations are limited by their population. There is only so much room for an individual to accumulate ‘diversity’.
And have you noticed how this idea of endless Darwinism translates into many other aspects of modern Western society? It translates into the belief in endless financial accumulation, which puts billionaires on a pedestal as “high achievers”, when they are really crooks. This Darwinism of accumulation also translates into Western nations opening their borders to endless immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism.
The overarching idea here is that of Tikkun Olam, of healing the world by somehow accumulating all the individual pieces and putting them together. Enter FIFA 2026’s World Cup soccer, which was obviously promoting half-White mixed players as “real English” (Jude Bellingham), “real Norwegian” (Nusa), or “real French” (Kylian Mbappé) players.
The MGD theory by Huang teaches that this level of individual diversity in fact may lead to greater vigor in the first generation, but also to a genetic breakdown of disease, autism, low-IQ, and all sorts of congenital diseases thereafter. The reason being that genetic diversity per se is not useful. The most successful populations have a rigidly optimized group-level genome that makes them superior in their habitat. In other words, mixed Europeans will either die out, flush out, or evolve back into being White under pressure from the European climate itself, and from interaction with the still larger White European group.
“He who believes that the source of his strength lies in his individualism will only soon experience that he has built his house on a narrow and barely load-bearing foundation.” (Quoting Jan de Vries again from his German work.)
So, part of the reactionary movement’s job is to do away with this cult of individualism. This cult didn’t even originate in the “West”, but rather among Jews of the Middle East and their forebears. Their belief in Tikkun Olam dictates that humanity is broken like a puzzle whose pieces were blown across the planet with the wind, and that, therefore, ‘diversity is the cure to Whiteness’. Except, it isn’t. Diversity is the death of humanity.
Jordan Peterson supports this idea in full though hides it from his audiences. Targeting White nations for diversity and immigration, especially pushing race-mixing with White women, will de facto lead to the genocide of White people, whose mixed-race new generations stand little chance at survival in the long run.
“The Germanic man is firmly rooted in his clan,” writes De Vries. “Among our Germanic ancestors, a child had to be introduced into his clan by his father. And just as the Spartans did, the Germanics discarded all children whom they believed were too sickly or weak to become competent men. The care for healthy offspring may appear harsh but was necessary for the survival of the race.”
Now is there any wonder why the greatest disparity in terms of birth rates in the USA lies between urban liberal educated women and rural republican women? Without the urban liberals, the White American fertility rate would lie at its replacement rate. It does not seem plausible under current conditions that White urban liberals will survive the purge of diversity. It’s not a bad thing at all that urban Whites are ultimately discarded, and our race returns to the land for its survival.
If White people want to survive as a group, we can dismiss diversity and genetic accumulation. Instead, our focus would be optimization for the future. We make our group more efficient and more effective, not bloated with cash or genes. We live as a tribe, as kin, as blood. We do away with the meaningless pursuit of “happiness” (material wealth) and instead shall pursue heroism, not for the sake of the individual who needs to be a hero for the attention, but for the sake of a hero who sacrifices himself for the survival of his clan.