Dr. Kevin MacDonald discusses his book The Culture of Critique, arguing that Jews historically allied with elites through money lending and tax collecting, fostering anti-Semitism when these groups became oppressive. He contrasts Western individualism with Jewish collectivism, citing Joseph Henrich's research, and claims Christians commit a "category error" by equating all prejudice with immorality. MacDonald asserts Jews lobbied for multi-ethnic immigration post-1930s to avoid homogeneous white societies, citing Bolshevik leadership in the 1917 Revolution as evidence of ethnic group interests overriding national ones. Ultimately, he suggests discussing distinct Jewish group dynamics remains taboo despite being an objective analysis of historical power structures. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why We Ask for Reviews00:13:47
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
Today, we have a special guest.
We have Dr. Kevin McDonald, who's going to be joining us on the show.
He has recently written The Culture of Critique.
This is a book that's exploring Jewish influence throughout the West over the centuries.
And so we're going to be asking him a series of questions and dealing with some of the history, understanding where we are, why we are where we are, and where we might be heading.
So that's today's episode.
Stay tuned.
All right, we're here.
We're here.
Dr. McDonald, welcome to the show.
Just right here at the intro, tell us a little bit about yourself.
You were a teacher and professor for a long time.
So, what you taught, where you taught, and I guess a little bit of what inspired you all the way back in the day when you wrote the first edition to write this book and explore the themes that you did.
Yeah.
As you were saying, I'm a retired professor.
I spent about 30 years at Cal State Long Beach, psychology department.
And my background, I was an evolutionary.
Biology.
And, you know, I combined evolutionary biology with psychology, but I got into the idea of groups as being important in evolution, which was quite controversial at the time.
I came out with my first book on Judaism in 1994.
And basically, it was about how Jews dealt with other peoples, how they disciplined their own people, and how they got out in the world in traditional societies.
And And then I wrote a book in 1998 on anti Semitism.
And as an evolutionary biologist, I did not think that it was entirely the fault of non Jews.
And so, you know, each one of those, the major outbreaks of anti Semitism throughout history, in my view, is that they were, they involved Jewish behavior that the non Jews, Disliked.
I mean, Jews have a long history of making alliances with elites at the top of the society.
In traditional societies, it would be the kings, the aristocracy.
And when the aristocracy was oppressive, the Jews were the face of that.
They were into money lending, and the aristocracy took a cut of that.
They were into tax collecting.
The aristocracy, of course, took a cut of that.
And So, they were much hated really throughout history.
And they did not have much power, really.
They had some power and they were always connected with these elites.
But when you had the Enlightenment, their power really changed, took off, and they got involved in the media, they got involved in universities.
The book on anti Semitism was called Separation of Discontents, 1998.
And the same year, It started out as one book, but it became two.
It took a long time to get published.
But it got published by the same academic publisher as the first one, the Prager Publisher.
And so it came out in 1998.
And the idea there was that just focusing on the 20th century and Jewish influence and what are they up to?
What do they want?
And so that.
Again, it was controversial in my field to have the idea that groups were important.
I got the idea originally in the 1980s.
I talked about the ancient Spartans.
What they would do is they'd take their children away from their parents, they would train all the boys to be soldiers, and they were a huge military force to be reckoned with in the ancient world.
But the cultural critique is all about.
Culture and about Jews got involved in the media, they got involved in universities, and so on.
And so that was the first edition, was 1998.
Second edition came out in 2002.
And this is the third edition of Culture of Critique.
It's got a fan base, shall we say.
It's been quite well known in certain circles.
And the idea, again, is about Jewish influence in the 20th century.
So I have chapters on Jews in the left.
I have chapters on, because there's just a long history of Jews being involved with the left going back to the 19th century.
And the.
A chapter on psychoanalysis.
I have a chapter on the neoconservatives, which is new to the third edition.
Because when I wrote the original in 1998, the neoconservatives weren't that important.
They were hardly well known.
But actually, if I was paying attention, they were pretty well known even then.
But after 2002, you started to see 2003, the war in Iraq.
And neocons were all over that.
And there was some deception involved and a lot of that sort of thing.
And so that was another chapter.
And I brought that up to date.
But I mean, they're still very powerful.
And Marco Rubio is often considered a neocon.
But I have a question.
Yes?
I was just going to ask you're writing and focusing on groups.
You've said that a couple of times.
And I think that's really important because I don't think that.
The typical Westerner, especially of European descent, thinks in terms of groups.
Maybe thinks in terms of groups if we're talking about group identity in the realm of politics or the realm of religion, but certainly not ethnically.
Whereas I'm under the impression, you can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I think that ethnically speaking, virtually every people in the world thinks of themselves as a group to varying degrees, except for white people.
And so if I was drawing a spectrum, Right.
I think that's fair to say.
So I think that if I was like drawing, you know, it's a sliding scale, a spectrum, you know, varying degrees.
I, you know, from some of my reading and some of my just personal experience, I would say that Jews would be on the high end of that scale in terms of group identity on the basis of ethnicity.
We are Jewish ethnically, and that is a group, and we belong to each other.
We're working towards each other's benefit, those kinds of things.
And then I would see somewhere in between there, you know, you'd have blacks and Hispanics and various other peoples.
And then I would see Europeans at the far end of the scale.
So if Jews are like a 10 in terms of viewing themselves as a group, I would say that the average European is a zero, you know, and doesn't think that way at all.
Do you think that that's fair?
Yes.
I wrote a book in 2019, it came out, and it's called Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.
And the whole point is that the West is individualistic, and we don't identify with groups as well.
And that has been corroborated, by the way, with Joseph Henrich's book.
It's called The Weirdest People in the World, because we are the weirdest people in the world.
We're the only culture in the world that really emphasizes individualism.
And we don't identify with groups very well.
We don't have, when we see strangers, we don't make invidious attributions about them.
We tend to be individualists.
Actually, a great example right now is Tucker Carlson.
You know, he's got a lot of hot water because he interviewed Nick Fuentes and all that.
But when you look at what he writes, and he consistently does this, he says, group identities are horrible.
You know, that if you have group identities, you're going to have warfare, you're going to have ethnic hostility and all that.
So he completely avoids that.
He misses that.
Yeah.
We saw his interview with Nick, and we appreciate Tucker.
I think he does a lot of good.
And I think the backlash against him is unmerited.
You're allowed to interview whoever you want.
If somebody wants to do a more hostile interview and try to pin Nick to the floor, then they can do it.
But he's allowed to interview Nick and do what he wants.
But one of the portions of that particular interview where I found myself disagreeing with Tucker is that Tucker is like, Well, when it comes to, I just don't judge people on a group level.
And I think that he's a Christian.
We're Christians as well, Wes and I.
And we talked about this recently, but there's different.
Categories.
Westerners need to be, and Christians for that matter, need to begin to think in different categories, Christians, different theological categories.
So, if you are a Christian and that's your conviction, then it is true that on the basis of God's judgment, and specifically God's perfect, just, and eternal judgment, God is going to render that judgment on an individual basis.
So that when each person stands before God on that final day, it's going to be, what have you done with your life?
And if you're Christian, then namely, did you trust in the Lord Jesus?
But it's going to be on the basis of their works.
And we have ample New Testament texts that talk about that.
On that final day, Matthew chapter 7, they'll say, Lord, Lord, but I did this and I did that.
And so it does seem to be individually, this judgment.
But the idea that as people in a temporal plane, as finite creatures, that we can't make any assessments whatsoever based off of.
Based off of groups, is not only is it not the moral brag that people claim it is, but it's actually even illogical.
You're basically denying that you do something that everyone just instinctively does.
We all do this.
And I'm not even speaking about groups strictly in terms of ethnic divisions, but we do this politically, we do this religiously, we do this ethnically, we do this economically.
You know, the way that somebody is dressed, you know, what car they drive, all these different things.
Symbols of status.
We do it in terms, I mean, companies do it when it comes to hiring, right?
There are entire swaths of fields that I would never be able to get a job in because I didn't go to an Ivy League school.
That's a prejudgment.
It's a prejudice.
And to think that a prejudice, I think that's part of the problem is we as Westerners, we have truncated that word prejudice to where it is inherently and exclusively immoral.
But I think that a prejudice is not inherently immoral.
You can have immoral, you can have prejudice on immoral bases.
But you could also have prejudice that is simply rational and logical, and there's no real morality attached to it, one way or the other.
Do you think that that's fair?
Yes, I do.
And I think it's a very nice analysis, especially from a religious perspective.
Jews are the opposite, they're extremely collectivist.
I mean, you see this now in Israel, where the West Bank settlers, The slaughter that they've engaged in in Gaza, women and children, everybody.
You know, it's this, you know, and I just wrote a thing on Mark Levin.
Mark Levin, he really wants all the people in Gaza to be murdered.
Yeah, he's bloodthirsty.
He is bloodthirsty.
And, you know, it was just him, that's one thing.
But he reflects the attitudes, I think, of the Israeli government and what, you know, they're the sort of right wing within Israel, and they are dominant.
And the American Jewish community is supporting them.
The AIPAC and all, they are, you know, so this is scary.
And, you know, Tucker's way of analyzing this is a losing strategy.
I mean, we live in a world of groups, and more so than ever.
And, you know, blacks, Latinos, Jews, everybody comes into this country and they are encouraged to adopt an ethnic or religious or some kind of identity.
Financial Planning Backwards00:04:57
The silver is mine and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of Hosts.
Yet your retirement dollars keep shrinking daily as Washington prints money out of thin air.
Genesis Gold Group aligns financial guidance with godly principles when others serve only profit.
Their faith centered approach to gold IRAs stands apart in an industry that has forgotten what true stewardship actually means.
Why gamble your family's future on Wall Street's paper promises?
Your 401k and IRA deserve better protection.
Genesis Gold Group transforms your vulnerable retirement accounts into physical gold, something real, something tangible, something that God created with inherent value.
Their faith driven experts walk you through every step, helping you shield your life's work from the financial storms up ahead.
No high pressure tactics, no hidden fees, just guidance rooted in timeless principles of sound stewardship.
So the decision is simple watch your retirement evaporate through inflation or secure it in God's precious metal.
Take action now.
Go and visit rightresponsebiblegold.com.
You can visit today for your free book, The Bible and Gold, and join the thousands of believers who sleep soundly knowing their future is anchored in something unshakable.
Again, that's rightresponsebiblegold.com.
Safeguarding your legacy with God's timeless treasure.
When it comes to your financial future, are you planning forward or backwards from your desired results?
What type of financial culture do you want to create for your family and for your children's children?
We are not called to be wise as doves.
Therefore, simpleton planning simply won't cut it.
Joe Garrison helps families develop and implement a long term culture of excellent financial management.
He starts with your goals, your tithing plan, your retirement, and the legacy that you want to build for your generations.
And then he works backwards to build a real actionable plan to get your family on track.
Now, many of my personal friends have benefited from the financial wisdom of Joe Garrison that he shared for their specific situations.
Do you want to work with someone who strives?
For alpha with your investing, hates taxes, and brokers' insurance, start planning smart.
Call Joe Garresey at six one five seven six seven two five five.
Again, that's six one five seven six seven two five five five.
Or you can find him by going to backwards planning financial dot in M dot com.
Again, that's backwards planning financial dot in as in Nancy, M as in Ministries dot com.
When we think about what powers our modern world, fighter jets, clean energy, even the phone that's in your hand, we rarely stop to ask the question, what powers our power?
See, it all comes down to a handful of critical minerals, and most of these minerals come from overseas.
Now that is a problem.
Saga Metals is working to fix this problem.
Their mission build a secure, independent future for North America by developing domestic sources of titanium.
Lithium and uranium, the materials that our economy and defense depend on.
Their flagship project in Labrador, Canada spans 160 square kilometers with a 15,000 meter drill program underway, driving a potentially world class titanium resource.
Saga has also partnered with global mining leader Rio Tinto, which can invest up to $44 million in Saga's lithium project, a major vote of confidence.
Now, Saga Metals trades publicly under SAGMF in the US and SAGA, that's Saga, in Canada.
With the race to secure supply chains heating up, a company with assets like these won't stay under the radar for very long.
So, learn more at SagaMetals.com.
Again, that's SagaMetals.com.
Prejudgments and Homogeneity00:10:07
To me, it seems like one of the ways that we got off the rails in the West is for one, I think we took for granted that for a fairly decent portion of time, we were largely a homogenous society.
You know, I mean, it was 90% white, European.
And I understand that, like, you know, there were some distinctions, like we weren't very excited about the Irish, and then we weren't very excited about the Italians, you know, and like, so there were, you know, different pockets along the way that came with growing pains and frustrations and tensions.
And some of those were ethnic, some of those were.
Actually, religious.
It wasn't just Italians, you know, it was Catholics, you know, versus Protestants.
And so, and because the Catholics were kind of held at arm's length, you know, initially, some of them turned to crime.
And you have the mob syndicates, you know, in New York and these kinds of things in a similar way that historically Jews who were held at arm's length for various reasons.
There were reasons you can agree or disagree with them, but it wasn't arbitrary.
There were reasons.
And so then they went to money lending, right?
If you can't have land and work the land, then you go to, you know, something else, you're splitting the penny a million times and, you know, making your living off of interest and usury and, All those kinds of things.
But my point is that largely homogenous, yes, Italians, yes, Germans, you know, yes, Englishmen, but largely homogenous in terms of European descent in Western countries, including America, for a very long time, in which you have the luxury.
And I think it was taken for granted.
We didn't quite recognize why we had that.
But you have the luxury in a homogenous society to think more individualistically, to think on the basis of this person, that person, because your country, your nation, your society is one group.
So I think that's.
When I think of causes for what you're espousing, I would name that as one of the causes.
And the second cause, and this bothers me because I'm a Christian.
In fact, I don't know if you're aware of this, but I actually am a pastor.
And so it bothers me, but I want to own the impetus because I want to lead the way for Christians to repent.
You would think that's kind of a Christian principle.
But I think that Christians are actually the distinct Christian faith of the West is one of the reasons that we've gotten into this problem because now I think it was a category error.
So I don't think that the Bible intrinsically or inherently forces you to think this way.
But I think misinterpreted it does.
I think that Christians conflated, if I was kind of what I said earlier, but to put it in a nutshell, Christians conflated the perfect eternal judgment of God, which I do believe is individual, with temporal, societal, national judgments from humans.
So we conflated the eternal and final judgment of God with the temporal judgments of people.
And that is a massive category error.
And so, in the spirit of Christianity, When not thinking in categories and not exercising a lot of discernment in the spirit of trying to be Christian or what we thought was Christian, right?
Well, like, what's, you know, if you were to just, you know, think of one of the core tenets of Christianity is it will be like Jesus, you know, and Jesus being God, be like God.
Okay, well, how does God judge?
Well, God judges, he judges perfectly, he judges eternally.
But there's another aspect of that God is omniscient.
Right?
God knows everything.
The reason that we make prejudgments, it's not because God is morally perfect and we're fallible.
The reason why we make prejudgments, and that's the only category of views.
We're like, God doesn't do prejudgments, and we do, because he doesn't make prejudgments because he's moral, perfectly moral, and we do because we're immoral.
And so then we made prejudice inherently immoral.
But there's another category.
Maybe God doesn't make prejudgments because, not because of morality, but because of omniscience, knowledge.
God knows everything.
And we're finite.
So maybe it's less about our fallenness where prejudice steps in and more about our finitude, the fact that we don't know everything.
So when I'm meeting someone for the very first time, it's not the immoral impetus of arrogance or hostility.
It's actually more the fact that I have nothing to go off of because I'm finite, because I'm not omniscient.
And so all I have is those things which are initial and witnessable and visible and apparent, their dress.
Their ethnicity, their accent, their speech, those kinds of things.
Or if it's on social media, their political affiliation, you know, are they Republican or Democrat?
And so I just think we got off the rails.
And sadly, I think one, we took for granted a homogenous society.
Two, we tried to live up to our Christian expectations, but we committed a category error and conflated God's perfect, eternal, omniscient judgment as though that was the only standard for any element of judgment.
From finite creatures in a temporal plane.
That's part of how I would account for this category here.
Yeah, I was raised Catholic, and I mentioned Joseph Heinrich's book called The Weirdest People in the World.
Weird because we are so unique, but he attributes the Catholic Church as being the major force in producing individuals and making the West what it is.
Uh, I don't go that far, but I do think that the Catholic Church had a huge role in Western history, and of course, now Protestantism.
But the point is that we have to understand the role of Christianity.
And when you talk about homogeneous society, yes, there were definitely conflicts in American history between Irish and so on.
But the fact is, we developed a homogeneous society, and people, you know, it was 90% European, and it was a very cohesive society.
It was.
Became the most powerful society in the world.
And let's face it, it was an enormous success.
But the reality is that the Jews, I mean, I have a chapter on Jews and immigration policy.
Jews did not like the homogeneity of the West.
And especially after the 1930s when they saw what happened in Germany, where you had a homogeneous Christian society rise up against the Jews.
And, you know, they saw white Christians basically as proto Nazis.
And so they felt they would be much safer in a society with a lot of different ethnic groups.
And so they very intensely lobbied for multi ethnic, multicultural immigration.
And that's what we have.
That makes a lot of sense.
And yeah, and it seems like they play kind of both sides of the field.
That, like, you know, Jews certainly have more long standing ties with the political left in the American context.
But as you said, more recent development in the past decades with neocons on the right.
But it does seem that there's still a concert effect working in tandem.
That, you know, I feel like Jewish influence on the political right wages wars that create refugees, and Jewish influence on the political left opens doors, thinking of Toledo, you know, and welcomes them into Western countries.
And so, even though they may sharply politically Disagree with one another, you know, a Ben Shapiro with, I don't know, whatever, you know, a Chuck Schumer, that the effect still seems, you know, to work out.
You were going to say something less.
I was going to say from a group kind of evolutionary analysis, a minority acting in that way makes a lot of sense.
So if you're a minority in a given country, as the Jews were in Europe, and honestly, you're not liked very much, there's reasons that Europeans hate the Jews.
There's reason Jews hate the Europeans.
So, you're a minority in a country, multiple countries, you're not liked very much.
It would make a lot of sense that if possible, so your high IQ, your high achievement, your in group preference, that you would leverage those things to say, how can I make this country the most welcoming, the most accepting, the most mobile?
How could I be most mobile in the society so I can make life good for me, especially coming from the 20th century?
20th century was not great.
Your pogroms, your concentration camps, all these different things happened.
So, it of course makes sense.
The 1950s, the 1960s, and the 70s, neoconservatism on the right, immigration policy.
I believe it was one of the two heart sellers, the senator and the representative that sponsored the immigration bill.
One of them, a Jewish, I believe, is Emanuel Hart.
It would make sense that both sides, no matter where you place them, they would say, How can we make this country most welcoming?
And your title of your book, The Culture of Critique, they were very critical of the WASP, the white Anglo Saxon Protestant, because the 40s and the 50s and 60s, A lot of institutions were gatekept from Jews.
You recount a story of a young Jewish scholar just bristling that there were men's clubs in Columbia and other Ivy League institutions they had no access to.
And so they set to work, and it didn't take five years or 10 years.
It took multiple generations.
But that critique of that culture and taking a sledgehammer to its foundation, sledgehammer to immigration policy, that's the thesis of your book.
That's what they did.
And it largely created the situation we have right now, where by and large, Europeans, who once were the majority in America, very soon will no longer be.
The Culture of Critique00:03:55
Yeah.
Yeah, they actually lost the battle in 1924.
1924 immigration law severely restricted immigration and emphasized Western Europe.
Jews took that very personally as an insult, and they still have that grudge against white America, by the way, that they were kept out.
Because at the time, the Jews that came in were very orthodox.
They were either very orthodox or very much on the left.
This is at a time right after the Soviet Union was established.
People were very afraid of what was happening.
There's some leaking out of the horrifying events in the Soviet Union, and Americans did not want this.
And so they restricted immigration.
But so 40 years later, they succeeded.
And there was a constant effort that entire time establishing organizations, establishing panels of experts.
Getting John F. Kennedy to write a book.
He didn't actually write it, he put his name on it.
Same with Hubert Humphrey.
And so it was a full court press on immigration.
And, you know, there was a real fear, especially after World War II, about what could happen in a homogeneous white Christian society.
And so here we are.
Yeah.
What are you.
In 2025, sort of reaping the results of that.
Right.
Hey, friends.
Grey Toad Tallow is a family business making skin care the way that it should be simple and clean.
The company began as a personal mission to find healthier, more affordable solutions to common skin problems without the chemicals that are found in most products today.
Now, that search led to crafting balms from grass fed, grass finished animals that were naturally rich in vitamins and healthy fats, which is exactly what your skin craves.
These balms fight dryness.
They calm eczema and psoriasis along with other stubborn skin issues without containing all the nasty toxins.
Gray Toad Tallow offers everyday soaps, balms, and beard balm for men.
To experience some of their products, grab a balm sample pack.
Each batch is made with care in their home and shipped directly to their customers.
For skin care, the way that God designed, natural, clean, and effective, visit graytoadtallow.com.
Use code WRITE15 for 15% off your order today.
Again, that's graytoedtallow.com.
And if you want 15% off, then add the promo code WRITE15 today.
America is a country that was founded for the purpose of allowing Christians to do their duty before God and not to have their consciences ruled by the doctrines and commandments of men.
Reese Fund exists in order to see the Ten Commandments properly applied, not just as a plaque on the wall, but to actually be used in business as though.
Their commandments from God that we're supposed to obey.
Our goal is to find businesses and to buy them and to build them up.
We want to find manufacturing businesses and use them to make sure that we can maintain our capacity to do things here.
Reef Fund, Christian Capital, boldly deployed.
I was going to ask: so, what would be your personal thoughts as someone who has studied this subject matter for quite some time and looking at the lay of the land and where we are today?
Do you have any hope?
Rise of a New Elite00:15:26
Do you feel like it's over?
What do you predict or what do you suspect the coming years might look like?
Well, we have to keep fighting and we can't give up.
But I do fear what would happen to a white minority population if they really lost power.
You see what happened in the Soviet Union when the Russians lost power, you see what happened in Gaza when Jews controlled it completely.
And they just wipe people out.
So it's a very dangerous situation that we are in.
And certainly, white people will have power even when they become a minority, but they will have dwindling power.
And you're still going to have this Jewish elite.
I mean, the thing is, especially in the third edition, I emphasize in the introduction, which is like 100 pages.
Excuse me, I get a problem here.
That the real story here is the rise of a new elite.
If you go back to the beginning of the 20th century, you have this WASP elite centered in the Ivy League universities, Wall Street, the State Department, and politics.
And that is what has been eclipsed.
So, a gradual rise of the Jews beginning in the 1920s, I suppose you could say, but there's a lot of 80s feminism in the 1920s.
Henry Ford, very famously.
Wrote the Dearborn Independent.
And later in the 1930s, you had Father Charles Coughlin, and he was a Catholic priest, had a huge radio audience, and he was railing against the Jews and the bankers and all that.
But after World War II, anti Semitism just declined to nothing.
And you saw the rise of the Jews in universities, even more so in the media.
Jews have been in the media since the 1920s, 1910s, because the New York Times was owned by Jews.
And very specifically, it was funded by Jacob Shepherd, one of these very wealthy Jews.
And they got a Jewish editor and owner there.
And the whole point was to help the Jews.
And then, you know, NBC was Jewish, CBS was Jewish.
And so when I grew up, you had three networks ABC, CBS, NBC.
They were all owned by Jews.
And so, huge position in media.
And that's important because media has influence.
We're seeing less influence now, the legacy media, but it certainly has influence.
And I'm very concerned about Larry Allison, who's an extremely wealthy owner of Oracle, more or less.
He.
Has bought up CBS and more importantly, he bought up TikTok.
Correct.
And he installed Barry Weiss as head of CBS.
Now, Barry Weiss, if you know her, she is a fanatic Zionist.
You're not going to see any criticism of Israel on CBS.
And they are going to be gung ho for any war that might benefit Israel.
So the media is still important and it's still a large inter Jewish ownership.
Certainly, there have been some good things that have happened, like Elon Musk taking over Twitter and installing a much more free speech regime.
And that's all to the good.
I'm so sorry.
But anyway, the point is that there's a rise of the Jews after World War II, especially in the 1960s.
I lived through it at the University of Wisconsin.
I was a student there.
The Jews were totally involved.
Jewish students were really called red diaper babies because their parents were communists in the 1930s.
And their children in the 1960s became the sort of cutting edge of the radical movement of the 1960s.
So I have a chapter on that.
But I lived through it, as I said.
It was very striking.
I had Jewish roommates.
I went to these protests.
But it never felt quite right with me.
And then afterwards, I gradually moved to more conservative positions.
I voted for Gerald Ford, for example.
And anyway, that's sort of my story there.
Yeah.
Dr. McDonald, I'll give you a second here and lay the premise because I want to hear from you on Bolshevism, specifically 1917.
The Bolshevik Party with Russia, you had the collapse of basically the last of the Christian emperors.
And so discontent among the peasants led to provisional government.
I think it lasted just for a short number of years.
Then you had different groups vying for power the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks.
And ultimately, as we know from history, the Bolsheviks were successful in October of 1917.
Now, the history of the Bolsheviks is not as simple as to simply say, They were all Jews.
But what's fascinating, and I think applicable to our time, the Bolsheviks were mostly comprised of non Russians.
So you go into Jewish involvement in the book.
We don't have time to get into all of that here, specifically in leadership.
What's also fascinating is as you have a natural Russian aristocracy replaced and an uprising of the people that are furious, they're mad, they want regime change, the party that succeeds is not a party homegrown.
Of the people of Russia, that with a political solution that makes sense for a Russian people.
It's outsiders, it's people not native to the land, those that have come in and said, We'd like a piece of this and we'd like some of that.
We think there's ways that this could be improved here.
And Jews largely involved in the leadership of it, coming in and saying, This seems like a great moment.
This seems like a great opportunity.
The people want this.
And a relatively small party in Russia brought about the system that, again, was established for till 1989.
Close to 80 years and untold bloodshed in the millions.
But again, don't miss the point.
Jews, yes, but also leading, you could say, a multinational, multi ethnic coalition that was critical of the existing stock, the existing culture, the existing people that were there from the outside, commandeering, taking it over, and then going on to commit probably the worst crimes as far as crimes against a given people.
That I would say just about we've ever seen in the modern world.
And I don't see that as a one off.
That type of resentment, that type of hatred, that type of just anger towards the ruling class.
And here's what they did to you, and here's what they've taken from you.
We saw some of that just in 2020 with Black Lives Matter.
We're going to burn down cities.
We're going to shoot cops in the head because they've done this to us.
And so I don't think the Bolshevik Revolution, and I would love to hear your thoughts, it's not the first time that ethnic conflict has been or will be exploited towards violence and towards regime change.
What do you think of that?
That is quite correct.
And that's exactly my analysis in Chapter 3 of Cultural Critique.
What happened with the Bolshevik Revolution was that a non Russian ethnic group, well, not just one group, but a lot of them, but Jews were certainly very prominent, the most prominent of the other ethnic groups.
And they had no mercy.
There's hatred towards the Russians.
And there's one lesson that comes out of this you don't want to get in a situation where you are a minority or a majority that is ruled by a Hostile ethnic group, and of course, that's what we have here now, where our elite is hostile towards the people and culture of America the Christian culture, traditional Christian culture of America, the white, um,
homogeneous majority that really was there when I was growing up, really until uh, after the 1965 immigration law and changing gradually after that.
But now we've imported, uh, you know, many, many millions 65 million or something and.
And now we are on the verge of being a minority.
If you look at the children, most children are non white in this country.
So we have a huge problem ahead of us.
And we have to, you know, as an evolutionist, I don't think human nature is going to change.
I think that the hostility, and we already see the hostility toward white people, we're blamed for everything.
And we're the bad guys of human history.
And When you have that attitude, it's very widespread.
And you even see it, you know, in places like MSNBC and other major media figures.
So that's a very scary proposition.
But yeah, they were very committed.
They hated the Russians.
They hated Christianity.
They loved burning down the churches or making the churches into reading rooms or something.
And then that went on for, you know, Decades.
But especially in the first, you know, Jews actually lost power in the Soviet Union after World War II.
They did.
They started getting pushed out by Russians.
And then you had the movement of neocons in this country, neoconservatives.
One of the big issues early on was that Jews were being persecuted in the Soviet Union.
Can't have that.
And so they got the bill to allow Jewish emigration from Russia.
It was a big deal.
And so Jews have definitely been involved in the first decades.
And those were the ones, those first decades, there were until 20 million Russians were murdered.
Think about that 20 million.
I mean, it's mind boggling to even imagine it because people were just executed summarily.
If you had a bourgeois background, you were automatically suspect.
Brutal time.
They had no problem with group identity.
So Europeans won't think in groups.
But your enemy, if it comes to that in ethnic warfare, they will absolutely use categories to bucket you.
Well, but I was a supporter of BLM.
I'm a progressive.
It's not very likely that that would save you if it came to that point.
Irena, who bled out and died alone on a train, was a supporter of BLM.
It did not save her.
Right.
The black man, oh, oh, you're one of the good ones.
No, he didn't care.
I want to hear from you.
Maybe this is the last movement we'll cover on neoconservatism.
Because that switch that happened, a lot of people don't realize, like you said, Jews very prominent.
I mean, Karl Marx was Jewish for one.
Others, Joseph Stalin was not Jewish.
Jews very represented early on in the Soviet Union.
But eventually, like you said, it turned on them.
And obviously, Germany and other European countries, they were not very welcomed as well.
And so, neoconservatism, it's not as simple.
It's not simply for Jews, for Jewish interests.
And you get into, in the book, the criteria for examining something as a Jewish interest.
It needs to be explicitly for, it needs to have the weight of Jewish organizations behind it.
But with the switch to neoconservatism, Jews saw on the left that they were unwelcome.
And then what happened in the 60s and 70s is they said, Our interests, the protection of Israel, among other things, for the Zionists, that doesn't seem to be in their interest at all.
They're not going to protect us, they're not going to look out for us.
And so you have this movement, and people think, Well, Jews and leftist movements, but neoconservatism, I mean, conservatism is right there in it, is also a movement very much so to advance Jewish interests.
And what will often happen in these movements, which you explain well in the book, it won't always be comprised of Jews or even be the majority.
But they will have people that are friendly to their interests serve at the face.
And so then when criticism comes, well, it seems like this whole organization exists for Jewish interests.
They can say, well, hold on.
This Jew is not involved in this movement.
And here in this movement, George W. Bush, Nikki Haley, they're not Jewish.
They're not advancing Jewish interests.
That's one of the ways that criticism is.
Deflected.
So if you could, I would love to hear Strauss and Jaffa come to mind, among others, the progenitors and the leaders of neoconservatism, the fathers of it as an idea, their involvement, and then how you would make the best defense that neoconservatism, in some ways, perhaps not all, is still a very Jewish movement, even despite being on the right.
Yes, I mean, and because Jews are only two or 3% of the population, they have to make allies, always have had to.
And that's especially true if you're involved in a political movement.
You have to try to get votes ultimately.
And so, with the neocons, that was always very important.
And they, early on, had people like Jane Kirkpatrick and other people like that.
And some of these people really have the same ideas.
They strongly back Israel, and maybe for religious reasons, maybe for, you know, Foreign policy reasons that you know it's good for America, but the point is, they are then welcomed into this movement because they're on page with that.
And so, what the Jews have been very good at is establishing a very elaborate infrastructure.
If you have ideas that these people like, you can get a job, you can get a job, you can work for them, write for them, advocate for them, lobby for them, and they'll welcome you because they need allies.
And that's always true.
In the academic world, you know, as soon as Jews really climbed the top of the academic world, the Ivy League universities and so on, you started to see departments of Black studies, of Chicano studies, Latino studies, Jewish studies, Asian studies.
Building Powerful Infrastructure00:06:40
These are all allies.
They're all on the left and they're on the same page, basically.
They're all activists.
And so what Jews have always done is recruit other peoples.
You still see that now.
They're actually Jewish organizations that reach out to these non white ethnic groups and attempt to make alliance.
And not so easy with Muslims because of what's happened in the Middle East.
And you see a lot of conflict there.
And Jews are very concerned about the mayor of New York, Mom Dami, because he has made pro Palestinian statements and that sort of thing.
But that's what Jews have to do as a minority group.
They have to.
Recruit non Jews and people like John Bolton, uh, it's come to mind.
But you know, you look at the Wall Street Journal editorial page, all these outlets, Fox News basically, um, they are neoconservative, and uh, so they'll you know, Mark Levin is fascinating in this regard.
I mean, I used to get bored watching Mark Levin on Fox News on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening, whatever it was, and and he just talked about the Constitution and stuff.
And he's the most boring guy you ever heard.
All of a sudden, now with Israel, he is freaking out and screaming at the top of his lungs about everything.
It's not the old Mark Levin because he's really involved in his big cause with Israel and nothing else about this country.
Yeah, that's how it seems.
Go ahead.
I was just going to say, and that's kind of the theme of your book, is that any minority group.
If they had the intelligence and the social mobility, they would do these things too.
That's why Jews have been successful.
They are reasonably intelligent, they have a decent amount of social capacity.
You mentioned as well psychological intensity, they have affect, they have emotion, they feel these things deeply.
And so, any group, if they were capable of it, if Somalians were capable of it, and we see them trying, they would take over and they would have the American Somalian Congress.
Of course, they don't.
But you do have a group here, and we just So much in just reading the book.
This is all just objective fact.
It's not anti Semitic to talk about it.
It doesn't imply terrible and moral solutions.
But we do have to say hey, these group of people, in addition to maybe being American, they've been here for 10 generations.
At some level, they have an allegiance much more narrow and much more self inclined to a small group of people.
And you should be able to say that openly.
Hey, people from Somalia have interests that align with other people from Somalia.
People like we meet for church in a little German town called Wahlberg.
Well, there's lots of things that are very German about that town.
And we would say that there are German descended people with relics of the German homeland that they came from, with German food and German beer and German music and German dancing.
Those are the things that they love.
So, why is it then that there's one group in America that similarly have those interests, but they're socially and politically mobile, high intelligence, and have been very successful?
And that group, we're not allowed to say anything about that dynamic at all.
We just simply have to end that taboo.
It has to end.
We have to be able to say, hey, that actually might not be in America's interest.
And it is being advanced because we know at a certain level you have a biological loyalty to this group of people.
That's all that Tucker is saying, for example.
And he's not seen as a Nazi.
He and Candace Owens, often called Nazis now.
And all he's saying is hey, I'm critical of the fact that the Israel lobby is so influential in American foreign policy.
And they talked about the war with Iran recently, but also the Iraq war.
And this is the general power that they have.
In Washington.
And that is way too much for these people.
So, yeah, we have to combat that.
We have to simply state it.
We have to try to get the facts right as best we can.
And I'm always open for debate on these and what I say.
I try to get good sources.
But it's an uphill struggle.
And I am kept out of the mainstream media, and it really disappoints me.
That is the case.
And I'm sure you probably feel the same way.
But everybody, there are lines that are drawn, and people dare not cross them without severe consequences.
And this is, you know, talking about the Jews is way up there because you're talking about an elite group in the society, well funded, and they fund all their interests and projects.
The infrastructure, the neoconservatives, the left, and much else.
So, a powerful group, and we have to be able to talk about them.
Yeah.
Just to give one more plug for your book, I was going to say over 600 pages, The Culture of Critique, third edition, very well footnoted.
This is a well documented, well researched book.
I think the last 60 pages of it are references, and most of it you're often citing Jews in their own words.
So, just to say you've done a great job of going through here's their own words, here's what they've said.
Make a conclusion for yourself.
Yeah.
Well done.
Well, thank you so much for coming on the show.
We really appreciate it.
And is there anywhere that our listeners could follow you and keep up with your work?
Yeah.
I write on the Oxlow Observer, theoxlowobserver.net, and of course my book, The Culture of Critique.
I also edit the Oxlow Quarterly, which is more academic type articles.
But there's a big focus on Jewish issues, obviously, everything I do.