Episode 35: Kevin Macdonald, 'The Culture of Critique'
This episode, Daniel (finally) tells Jack all about antisemitic academic Kevin Macdonald and his antisemitic book of antisemitism masquerading as science, 'The Culture of Critique', the influence of which ranges throughout today's far-right. Content Warning. TRANSCRIPT: https://idtg.net/35 FULL TRANSCRIPT LIST: https://idtg.net/ * Show Notes: (NB: Our mention of Elizabeth King's Twitter-ban is out of date. She's back, apparently. Hooray!) Kevin Maconald at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist) Kevin MacDonald at the SPLC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist) Kevin MacDonald Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOOEdit "The Culture of Critique" PDF at the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/CultureofC The Occidental Observer: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ TOQ Live: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVL-NtVxGUTAuba3QpIqiZg Judith Shulevitz, "Evolutionary Psychology's Anti-Semite." https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/01/evolutionary-psychology-s-anti-semite.html "MacDonald’s central thesis is that Judaism is best understood not as a religion but as a blueprint for an experiment in eugenics–a “group evolutionary strategy,” he calls it–designed to maximize a single trait: intelligence. For thousands of years, he says, Jews have separated themselves from their neighbors, choosing to confine themselves to a closed society with strict rules against marrying outside the group. They have lived by policies of extreme group loyalty and obedience to rabbinical authority, which served to maintain their racial purity; and they practiced low-birth-rate, high-investment parenting, which is the royal road to a high group I.Q. They conferred social status (which brings along with it the most desirable women) on men according to their brilliance–indeed, says MacDonald, study of the Talmud was nothing more than a casuistic exercise meant to weed out the dim. Eventually, their highly developed genes for mental and verbal acuity, as well as their social aggression (also carefully bred-in), gave the Jews powerful tools that enable them to dominate neighboring ethnic groups in the endless war of all against all for food and resources." [...] "Are MacDonald’s peers aware of what he’s writing in the name of a field long accused of fostering–unfairly, many of them would say; by Jews, MacDonald would say–sexist and racist stereotypes? Do other evolutionary psychologists have an opinion on MacDonald? Culturebox called several well-known members of HBES, specifying in her voice messages that she was writing an article about MacDonald. Few returned her phone calls, but those who did said they’d never read his Jewish trilogy. Two leading scholars said they had read papers of his on other subjects and found them “muddled”; one academic said she had been forced to reject a paper by MacDonald on child development for an anthology she was editing. When Culturebox described the contents of MacDonald’s books to them, they expressed extreme shock and said he contradicted the basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology. “The notion that Jews are a genetically distinct group doesn’t make it on the basis of modern population genetics,” said John Tooby, the president of HBES and a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Also, he said, “group-selection theory”–the idea that natural selection can occur at the level of a group (such as a bunch of Jews) as opposed to individuals–was debunked in the 1960s, and though some scholars are working to bring group-selection theory back, it remains a minority view." George Michael, "Professor Kevin MacDonald's Critique of Judaism: Legitimate Scholarship or the Intelleetualization of Anti-Semitism?" "Kevin MacDonald was bom in 1944 and raised in a traditional Catholic family in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Growing up, he attended Catholic schools and obtained a BA in philosophy from the University of Wisconsin in 1966. While in college, he became involved in the campus anti-war movement. Interestingly, several of his roommates were Jewish, which, as MacDonald later recounted, opened his eyes to Jewish involvement in radical causes. One incident in particular that left an impression on him was when Jewish student radicals recruited him to give a speech in order to present a supposedly non-Jewish veneer to their politics. During this phase in nis life, MacDonald entertained dreams of becoming a jazz pianist, i Several years later, however, he abandoned both his musical career and radical politics to enter graduate school at the age of 30." From the introduction to CoC: "CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors— the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews. "Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against CofC. (See also my website: www.csulb.edu/~kmacd). I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of CofC. There have been complaints that I am viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner. This is definitely not the case." Kevin MacDonald's statement to the court in the Irving/Lipstadt case: https://web.archive.org/web/20010415064434/http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/statement_court.htm "The main point of my testimony is that the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-gentile interactions. As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist as well as the evidence compiled by historians leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with segments of the gentile community. Anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been a pervasive feature of the Jewish experience since the beginnings of the Diaspora well over 2000 years ago. While anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior have undoubtedly often been colored by myths and fantasies about Jews, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish writing that reflects the reality of between-group competition exactly as expected by an evolutionist. Particularly important have been the themes of separatism—the fact that Jewish groups have typically existed as recognizably distinct groups and have been unwilling to assimilate either culturally or via marriage to the wider society, the theme of economic, political, and cultural domination, and the theme of disloyalty."
Hello and welcome to I Don't Speak German, the anti-fascist podcast in which I, Jack Graham, and my friend Daniel Harper have conversations about the far-right's conversations.
Daniel tells me what he learned from years of going where few of us can bear to go and listening to what today's far-right, the alt-right, white nationalists, white supremacists, Nazis, etc.
Talk about and say to each other, in their safe spaces, their podcasts, their YouTube videos, their live streams, etc.
The Waffle SS, I call them, and do they waffle.
Daniel listened, so we don't have to.
Needless to say, these are terrible people, and they say terrible things, so every episode comes with a big content warning.
Daniel and I talk freely about despicable opinions and acts, and sometimes we have to repeat the despicable things that are said, including bigoted slurs.
So be warned.
And this is episode 35.
Hi Daniel, how's everything?
I'm doing great.
Everything is perfect.
Thankfully we don't have to talk about Nazis anymore.
They're all beaten.
They're all gone.
They're all gone, yeah.
So this is now going to be a My Little Pony podcast.
Oh yeah, yeah.
Ah, I do speak pony.
Yeah, no, sadly, it's a beautiful dream, listeners, but it's not true.
They're still out there.
They're still out there.
Yeah, so, yeah, there's been a lot of news lately.
There's been a lot of news lately.
You might have been expecting us to cover that news in this episode.
We're not going to.
We're not going to.
We zig where the audience expects us to zag, ultimately.
That's right, yeah.
The whole thing is like, you know, hey, why talk about the Andy Neill kill list?
Why talk about the Richard Spencer, you know, being revealed, being who he is to the world, which everybody should have seen if they paid ten minutes of attention, or just listened to episode one of this podcast?
Why talk about Nick Fuentes and the TPSA Grouper War in this episode?
Um, except we could have done that and then avoided talking about Kevin MacDonald for another week, and I thought about doing it.
I really did.
Yeah.
But, um, no, we're gonna do that next week.
We're gonna do a whole episode just kind of like covering those issues just so that we don't, um, you know, do the, do the, um, you know, edging thing with the, uh, with the Kevin MacDonald episode again.
So, uh, yeah, we're gonna, we're gonna do Kevin MacDonald.
That's right.
We're going to finally take the plunge.
We're going to reach completion on KMEC.
That's right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's right.
Yeah.
Pull off the scab.
Pull off the plaster and reveal the festering sore beneath.
And also, you know, we wouldn't want to be relevant or anything.
Bloody hell.
No.
Why do that?
You know, really, ultimately, the goal is to make this podcast as irrelevant to current events as possible.
Yeah, yeah.
And yeah, so this is finally, at long last, the long-promised Kevin Macdonald Cult of Critique Jewish Question episode, and yeah, we...
We should.
I mean, this is delicate stuff.
I want to say at the outset we're going to be talking about this.
We're going to be talking about antisemitism and neither of us is Jewish.
That's just a fact.
That's just a thing that's true.
We're going to have to ask for the audience's indulgence and latitude to an extent, I think, in case we get things wrong or get our tone wrong or something, because we're talking about something that You know, neither of us have personally experienced ever, although, you know, we know people who have experienced it.
I mean, I should probably, I mean, this is something I have not, like, it's not something that's hidden at all, and it's not something that, like, I feel like I'm not comfortable talking about, but it is something that I try not to put on this podcast, but, you know, my wife is, like, ethnically Jewish.
She's not practicing, etc., etc., but, you know, My wife is Jewish and like if I say that all the Nazis listening are not gonna go like of course he's completely controlled by you know his Ethnic interest and his wife is manipulated behind the scenes or whatever, you know, or like he can't be a proper white man and like believe in genocide of the Jews because Of his of his, you know personal interest.
No, I would have been against you fuckers regardless You know, but it doesn't much matter to us in our day-to-day life that my wife has an ethnic heritage that you know is not quote-unquote white by Nazi standards.
But it matters enough that I feel like it is worth kind of just mentioning that, you know, there's a reason that this stuff hits me as closely as it does in some ways.
Let's put it that way.
Yeah.
But, yeah, that disclaimer having been issued, that arse is hopefully covered, we can continue.
Except that there was one bit of news we wanted to talk about now, wasn't there, before we get into the Kevin MacDonald goodness.
Yeah, just highlighting here at the beginning that the journalist Elizabeth King, I will link to her, I guess now former Twitter profile and some information on her.
She is someone who has been covering the far right for a while.
She's a freelancer.
She's been kind of struggling to, you know, kind of make ends meet.
And apparently a bunch of Nazi fucks mass reported her account for nothing.
And she has been permanently banned from Twitter for the second time.
And that's happened just this afternoon as we're recording this.
And that's a really shitty thing.
And so I just wanted to highlight that.
I'll put a link in the show notes, and so everybody can go bug Twitter support about that.
And we'll put whatever little bit of energy that we have behind that, because she's great, and I definitely would like to see her back on Twitter.
So yeah, Elizabeth King, if you're listening to this, whatever I can do to help, that's what little I can do.
Thank you.
That's a great name, isn't it?
Elizabeth King.
Wow.
Imagine being called Elizabeth King.
That's so cool.
Some people are called Jack Graham.
That's rubbish.
But Elizabeth King, that's an amazing name.
It is.
And she is pretty awesome.
We have talked about possibly her coming on the show.
She's probably too good for this show, but she might slum it with us one day, so we'll see.
Everybody is.
Everybody's too good for this show.
I'm too good for this show.
I am not.
This is the slum that I deserve to live in.
Absolutely, yeah.
By your genetic heritage.
My genetic heritage, yes.
That's right.
My race-mixing self deserves to be in this.
Somehow, the evolutionary psychologists can tell us how, somehow, when we were evolving on the African savannah, there was a gene developed for being on shitty podcasts.
And you've got it, Daniel.
I did, I did, I did, yep.
That's what happened.
Okay, yeah, so that's a segue into Kevin Macdonald.
So, Daniel, who the fuck is Kevin Macdonald?
So, Kevin Macdonald is, he's an academic.
He studied philosophy in undergrad.
He went to, I think, Stanford.
Hold on, let me... I guess I'm gonna have to do this seriously, I apologize.
Because I did, let me pull this up.
It's getting serious, folks.
He's put his glasses on.
You can't see, but I can.
You're gonna cut all that out, I hope.
Maybe.
Kevin McDonald!
Well, Jack, I actually have from a very nice piece written by a man named George Michael, who I assume is not the singer.
Probably not.
It's the latter.
It's the latter.
"Critique of Judaism: Legitimate Scholarship "or the intellectualization of antisemitism?" It's a nice summary.
It is.
- It's the latter.
It's the latter. - It is. - Spoilers. - Kevin MacDonald was born in 1944 and raised in a traditional Catholic family in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
Growing up, he attended Catholic schools and obtained a BA in Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin in 1966.
While in college, he became involved in the campus anti-war movement.
Interestingly, several of his roommates were Jewish, which, as Macdonald later recounted, opened his eyes to Jewish involvement in radical causes.
One incident in particular that left an impression on him was when Jewish student radicals recruited him to give a speech in order to present a supposedly non-Jewish veneer to their politics.
During this phase in his life, MacDonald entertained dreams of becoming a jazz pianist.
Several years later, however, he abandoned both his musical career and radical politics to enter graduate school at the age of 30.
So, in graduate school, he becomes drawn to what was then called sociobiology, later called evolutionary psychology.
He studied the evolutionary behavior of wolves, did his PhD thesis, became a child psychologist, ultimately, and a few years later started publishing material about how the Jews have a genetic
Interest a genetic group interest to maintain their own heritage as opposed to kind of an a quote-unquote European or white society that they that surrounds them he wrote three books the first which is Separation is no no pardon me the first is a people who shall dwell alone the second is separation and is discontents and the third is the culture of critique and Very nice intellectual sounding titles there.
I have read all of Culture of Critique.
These are, you know, which one did I say came first?
The People That Should Dwell Alone is the first one.
Okay.
Sometimes I get those two confused.
So I have read all of Culture of Critique.
I was trying to reread the whole thing for this podcast, but it's really insipid thing to read.
So I have skimmed the other two to sort of get the sense of the contents.
And I have listened to many, many hours of this man talk, because he will appear on any Nazi, racist, fascist, quote-unquote, anything podcast that will take him.
And don't worry, we will talk about some of these places where he has appeared.
One thing that I am always kind of curious about is, you know, sort of the, um, his political background.
Like, was he convinced of this, you know, sort of, you know, scientific anti-Semitism from the time that he was, uh, you know, like, was he convinced by it honestly, like, in his scientific studies?
Or did he sort of reach these conclusions based on his kind of personal thing?
And Spoiler alert, The Culture of Critique is like, we've mentioned this many times on this podcast before, it is the book that gets recommended that when people say, how did you get red pilled on the JQ, the Jewish question, how did you become an anti-Semite?
The cultural critique is the source.
That or some appearance that Kevin Macdonald did on a podcast or radio show or a YouTube show or whatever.
He's been everywhere.
He's done many, many appearances with American Renaissance, which is hypothetically not anti-Semitic, and yet Yeah.
Interesting.
and give speeches for them.
So, you know, tells you what that's worth, right?
Yeah.
He is...
This is like the guy.
And really what he's done is taken this sort of...
The old school anti-Semitic tropes from literally millennia past and has repackaged them as this sort of evolutionary psychology bullshit.
And one thing that I have like...
What I thought about doing with this was to try to really dig into the books and do a real analysis.
But A, you read the cultural critique, even if you read the introduction to this book.
I put a link to it.
It is available for free as a PDF.
You can read it at your leisure if you choose to.
You'd think the Jews that run the world would have stopped this getting out, really, wouldn't you?
Well, it's been taken off of Amazon, and that's really the way you know.
He did produce a brand new book as of a couple weeks ago, and that one is still up on Amazon.
I haven't found a free copy of that one, so I haven't read it yet, and I haven't even looked at it.
But apparently it's all about how great Northern European Gentiles are, and how that is genetically composed, and that the Northern European Gentiles have a genetic propensity towards individualism, and this individualism makes You know, Northern European stock, that we are genetically predisposed to be kind to outsiders.
I mean, this is all kind of material that comes from the other books.
Like, he's just kind of repeating this material.
But he's now written a whole book elaborating on these theses.
Well, I gotta, you know, having lived among northern Europeans my entire life, I can tell you, you know, individualism and kindness to outsiders, bang on mate!
Those are our defining traits, you know, you couldn't, you've just summed us up!
Jesus!
His big idea, seriously, and this is, this is like, this is supposed to be science, and I was gonna pull, like, quotes from these books that, like, demonstrate the, like, vapidity of it, And I will, like, I will write this up at some point and, like, publish it and I just didn't want to, like, have to make you, like, listen to, like, you know, 20 minutes of me reading aloud from these books.
But, like, he admits, like, so it's all built on this kind of edifice of evolutionary psychology and I hesitate, as someone not within that field, to say evolutionary psychology is 100% bullshit.
There are biologists, professional evolutionary biologists, who will declare very clearly that evolutionary psychology is 100% bullshit.
The more moderate, reasonable position is that evolutionary psychology is about 90% bullshit.
That seems to be more the median position.
I'm not a scientist at all, let alone a biologist, but I have looked into this.
This is a subject that interests me.
I have looked into evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
Obviously not having any qualifications in this area, I have to say, you know, you can't just take my word for it.
But I'm pretty sure that it's, you know, yeah, okay, 90 to 100 percent bullshit.
That sounds about right to me based on my reading.
And if people want a good left-wing take on sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, there are all sorts of great people you can read.
There's Stephen Jay Gould, there's Stephen Rose, there's Dick Lewontin.
Find these people's books.
They are brilliant.
Yeah, Not In Our Genes has been on my like to-read list for a long time.
That book is seminal for me.
That is seminal for me, that book.
Sure.
The Mismeasure of Man is pretty much that for me.
I read that when I was in high school, and you know, there are people who will tell you that that book has been debunked, and I can tell you it has not.
But, you know, and in fact, when someone tells you that... It's been responded to, that's not the same thing.
When someone tells you that book has been debunked, make them justify that.
That's really the key, you know?
Ask for the references on that because, yeah, you can dig into that and people have kind of dug around the edges of that and really the kind of consensus that, as I understand it from people I respect, is that ultimately the book doesn't go far enough.
Is that it is meant to be a book for a lay audience to sort of like demonstrate kind of the basic ideas of like how this stuff works.
And, um, you know, that any, like, respectable, like, population geneticist who kind of looks at this stuff, um, honestly kind of looks at, like, the final, like, 20% of mis-measure of man, which, you know, summarizes the techniques of factor analysis, and then goes, yeah, that's the basic stuff that goes into the stuff that I do every, like, like, it's not even worth spending a hundred pages on this, but, like, you go, Stephen Day Gould, for, for doing that.
Um, you know, like, it's such an obvious point, it's not even worth, um, talking about in, in these kind of circles.
And yet, evolutionary psychology maintains its allure in this kind of world, largely because it's been very well funded by literally eugenicist groups that go under the name of the Pioneer Fund.
Sorry, we're slightly far afield from this.
I was hoping to make a full episode on this kind of topic.
But like there is this sort of idea that these kinds of ideas around evolutionary psychology and this sort of like literal Nazi science, with the with the kind of worst edges of it like filed off, gets a really mainstream appreciation within academia.
Largely based on the fact that they've just got enough money to kind of do their studies and they can kind of fudge the details and and sort of like create enough of a you know sort of like pseudo academic justification for themselves that they have to be responded to.
Um, but that, like, outside of their little, like, bubble of kind of ideological nonsense, um, no one, like, uses these results and, like, builds on them to do, like, other things, you know?
Like, sociologists don't rely on, like, evolutionary psychology to sort of tell them, you know, how to build bottles of how to, you know, kind of do sociology.
It's just not a thing.
Yeah.
I mean, it's one of the telltale signs that it's bullshit is that there's nowhere to go with it.
You can't do anything with it.
It's like creationism.
Creationism presents you with no program of study.
It gives you nowhere to go.
It's just an artificial endpoint.
They've just dropped the wall down artificially, and that's pretty much what Evo Psych does as well.
It doesn't give you any place to go from there, because it's reasoning backwards.
It looks at what is and it says, oh, well, that must be because this.
Right.
And it comes up with a lovely just so story.
But because it hasn't really explained anything, it's just restated the existence of something that we all knew was there anyway, or often claimed the existence of something that isn't.
It's just a dead end.
Right.
And the irony being that like culture of critique and in Kevin MacDonald's work is so obviously vapid and shoddy that even other evolutionary psychologists, like even the other like race realist bullshit artists.
Oh, yeah.
Don't take this fucking shit seriously, you know.
And we'll talk about one of those guys because there is a guy named Nathan Kofnes who has responded to the cultural critique and responded to Kevin Macdonald in some academic journals.
I had a look at some of those, yeah.
Yeah, his answer.
So the big thing of culture critique, the whole argument is that Jews And again, I don't believe any of this, and it's so difficult to talk about this stuff, to keep it light, and to describe the ideas and not make it sound like I'm, to some degree, amused by it.
I am amused by it because it's ridiculous and stupid.
It's horrifying.
I just want to be clear, I'm about to describe this terrible thing that is absolutely nonsense, but I'm going to try to do it in a funny way.
The basic thesis is that the Jews have this, like, genetic and cultural propensity, and notice that I'm sort of using the two words interchangeably here because McDonald himself doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between the two.
Oh, sorry, you don't mean to say that he's fuzzy on his terms, that he doesn't define his terms clearly?
You shock me!
You shock me beyond...
In the introduction to one of the books, he literally says that we're working on this group evolutionary strategy idea and that this is controversial in some quarters, but we're just going to move along and assume it's true.
Now, again, I'm not a biologist.
Group selection in terms of like like like genetically based group selection has been like Disproven like it's it was it's been junk science since the 60s as far as I can tell You get a slight like like an effect from a very close relative like an uncle giving their life for
for their uh for like their their uh brother's kid or something like that you can get like a slight sort of like mathematically you can get like an evolutionary advantage to that like that that level of altruism there's no there's no way to explain that you know other than genes you know the idea that it could be a kid you've known his entire life and he's your your brother's kid so you love your brother and you know there's no social related explanation for that that could possibly it has to be the genes obviously
Well, even in even in like animal species, and I mean, you can sort of like demonstrate, okay, there is a sort of like evolutionary hypothesis for, you know, like altruism, you know, like sacrificing myself for the for the cost of a very, very close relative, like to that degree.
But once you get beyond like, literally that close, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it whatsoever and um if there is a if there is a biologist an evolutionary biologist listening to this who who can um either confirm or deny that i would love to see that um but but the the little bit of kind of layperson research i've been able to do i can't i can't find anyone who who claims that specifically um that there is any any real evidence of this outside of like very very close familial relations
um but mcgdonald just assumes this right he just assumes it's a thing and basically like he's very cagey on this like in interviews and even in sort of the the text that he writes um he He'll basically say, well, okay, so if we can't, like, kind of say this is genetic, we say it's cultural, but, like, culture derives from genetic factors, and maybe we don't know everything, and then when he's really pushed, he'll just kind of go, well, look, this is a metaphor.
It's just a metaphor that we're using to describe, you know, kind of, like, absurd behavior.
Yeah.
I don't...
Yeah, so you need to define, again, you need to define your terms.
If you can explain this behavior genetically, is it directly genetic, where the genes control the behavior, or is it mediated by culture?
This is what they all do.
I know they're not all as bad, and I know you don't really want to get into the Evo Sykes sociobiology conversation, but I just have to say this.
This is what Dawkins does.
Dawkins is not a Nazi.
Dawkins, I don't doubt he distances himself from people like McDonald, But Dawkins does this as well.
Dawkins sets up metaphors and then he treats them as if they're real things.
And then when people call him on it, he goes, well, that's a metaphor.
Right.
But then you're using your biologist hat.
You're using your credibility as a biologist to then justify that.
And then they use this sort of idea of, well, we know that certain kinds of behavior based on genome-wide association studies, you can get genetic scores.
This is well beyond what we're doing with Kevin McAllen today.
But they'll use this sort of science to, like real science, to sort of justify completely outside of, to say, well, we know that this might be partly genetic and therefore it's worth kind of talking about some genetic propensity without having any kind of rigor to it.
Like ultimately, there's no rigor to any of this.
It's just, you know, we think that these factors are possibly, you know, in part genetic.
Therefore, they can be selected for and like, no, they can't.
That's not something we get to assume, you know, any person who does anything about.
You know, how evolution actually works, knows that, like, selection, you know, like, natural selection is only a minor feature in much of, you know, what we know as evolutionary history.
And there are many, many other mechanisms.
There's the founder effect, there's drift, there's simple mutation, you know, there's all kinds of stuff that is not, like, you know, a straightforward selection event in the way that, you know, Yeah, absolutely.
Let's not get drawn into this rabbit hole.
This is a rabbit hole I could get drawn into because this was a big obsession of mine about 10 years ago.
Dawkins and all this.
But yeah, let's crash on.
Yeah, I'm talking more broadly about kind of this topic.
I mean, there's a ton of great stuff out there, and I'm hoping to get a biologist on to kind of talk about some of this, who can kind of explain this with some degree of authority, as opposed to you and I just kind of using our early persons, you know, rant at it.
But again, even by the standards of evolutionary psychology, and even by the standards of this sort of You know what, what I think is pretty clearly.
Yeah.
pseudoscience or you know like tinged with you know like i'm trying to be sort of as kind as i can be to like that field and kind of go like these are experts who are basically spreading bullshit but it's it's what it's well it sounds good and so like it has to have this some level of respectability um but even those guys don't mostly don't respect uh kevin mcdonald and there is so so mcdonald tells this story of
and so we've got this like group uh behavior that uh of the jews that they are uh a people who maintain a a genetic lineage of their own who are not um you don't kind of merge with the broader kind of quote quote northern european society that european
That white people and Jews are kind of two separate groups, and that over the course of the last few hundred years, and in particular since the late 19th century, that there are these Jewish we read, Jewishly run organizations that have acted Well, let's just read.
I've got a little bit here that I quoted from the Introduction to Cultural Critique, and this is how MacDonald himself justifies this.
He goes on and on and on about this, but let's give him a few words of his own.
I'm going to read here from Cultural Critique.
He says, Culture Critique describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century.
I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity, either in an overt or a semi-cryptic manner.
Several of these Jewish movements, e.g.
the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples, have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors, the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in the traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues.
Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political, and cultural dominance of non-Jews.
Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that I have been leveled against this cultural critique.
I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of Cultural Critique.
There have been complaints that I am viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner.
This is definitely not the case.
And then he goes on and he does like four segments where he's kind of like talking about it.
Essentially, his argument goes... He thinks that Judaism itself is a group evolutionary strategy.
Exactly.
That's literally the thing that he believes.
Yes.
Yeah, so how can he possibly say he's not treating it monolithically?
He's treating the entirety of Jewish existence through that one lens.
As if all of it is an evolutionary response.
And that, like, whites, quote-unquote whites and Jews, have, like, differing kind of group strategy.
And this is based on, like, genetic selection factors in our history.
And, you know... This whole view of culture is about reifying people into these distinct groups, where they're just determined in this way.
Right.
You can't do that and then say, no, I'm not treating them as a monolithic group.
Well, and this is basically what he's saying is like, I'm not saying that every Jewish person acts this way.
I'm not saying that every Jew does.
Well, why don't they?
If it's genetic, why don't they all act that way?
I'm saying there's a genetic propensity that leads them to be over-represented in these movements.
And that wherever you find these, you know, anti-white, anti-European, you know, working against sort of like white group identity, You always find Jews at the forefront of that movement.
And so, again, it's literally just arguing that Jewish people are subverting, you know, kind of, quote unquote, traditional kind of white norms.
I'm going to need mechanisms for how it's mediated.
You know, why isn't it every one of them?
Why is it only a propensity?
What does the propensity have to interact with in order to activate, etc.?
Is any of that in there?
I'm guessing probably not.
No.
It's really mostly just a list of Jewish people doing things through history.
It's like when Nick Griffin of the British National Party wrote his big proof of the Jews controlling the media in Britain.
It was basically just a list of Jewish people on television.
That's all it was.
Oh, Vanessa Feltz has got her own TV show.
That proves it.
So they use Franz Boas.
Franz Boas is basically the guy who coined the term racism.
He was an anthropologist in the early 20th century, sort of like the father of quote-unquote cultural Marxism.
He was actually in the literal Frankfurt School, not the sort of conspiracy version, but he was actually part of that school.
Yeah, the real one, not the sort of the Specter-esque fantasy that they've Not that not the Frankfurt school that was run by a guy stroking a cat, you know Dr. Claw You know that Boaz and sort of Boazian anthropology goes in and you know in from from a you know, sort of like realistic view of the science what Boaz does is
Correct for racist assumptions that went into physical anthropology.
And so, you know, kind of old school anthropology, the early anthropologists, what they would do is kind of look at like, and then the shape of the skull is clearly like pressing on this part of the brain in this way and is creating an increased propensity for violence, etc, etc.
And, um, modern-day evolutionary psychologists and modern-day, you know, sort of the Quillette crowd is basically saying, like, well, we know based on, like, kind of race testosterone levels that, you know, this is a thing that's, you know, causing increased violence among, you know, various different kinds of people, and it's not really their fault, but ultimately, you know, we have to, um, kind of keep that in, and, um, The Boasian Revolution was essentially saying, like, there are cultural factors that are more important than this kind of, like, baseline physical anthropology stuff.
So they don't like Boas because he was debunking their shit before they came out with it.
He was debunking this shit and really led the charge on this and did a lot of great work.
Let's be clear, modern day anthropologists do not take Boaz at his word.
The field has moved a long way from that.
You can definitely poke holes in a lot of the stuff that Boaz did.
He believed too strongly in the plasticity of skull shapes and that sort of thing.
He was kind of in that era of, you know, you bring people from Africa into more northern climates and after a generation or two, you know, like the skull shapes change and this is a sign of, you know, like, you know, that, you know, this is a sign that, which isn't true.
There's still a genetic heritage involved, and Boaz is right on the key issues of it.
But you can't pick things out of Boaz that are just functionally wrong, where he just didn't have modern genetics at his disposal at that point.
So, you can find people kind of arguing with him, and then, like, the racists, what they do is they kind of look at that and go, well, clearly he was just a complete bullshit artist, and he was just, you know, a Jew who was trying to subvert this, like, already existing real science, this cultural anthropology bullshit.
Like, that's just telling us not to be racist, and ultimately, we should believe in the old-school racist science, you know?
And this is not the degree that, like, McDonald doesn't quite go that far.
But he looks at this sort of like history of movements like there was a time and let's not deny sort of modern day anti-semitism in the world among academics, etc, etc.
You know, let's not pretend that that doesn't exist.
But for many, many years, you know, Jewish people were like specifically excluded from mainstream society.
They were excluded from The scientific community they were excluded from you know the you know better medical schools and so there there was this kind of segregated Group of people who were Jewish who were kind of like, you know working in the you know, particular industries, etc, etc But they didn't get access into into You know sort of mainstream science as that started to relax and particularly sort of after World War two for some reason
We realized that maybe being mean to Jews was bad.
Maybe this has consequences.
At the very least we realized it looked bad and we didn't want to be associated with that bad PR image.
And so as Jewish people start coming into mainstream science and as the science starts to change and as the revolution against this overtly racist heritage happens, You know, nowadays, you know, uh, you know, it's sort of like what McDonald is essentially arguing is that, um, he's noticing, you know, you invite Jews into, into these, like, sciences and suddenly, like, things change and we're not allowed to be as racist anymore.
Like, and this is, this is, this is them, like, the idea that, like, the science might be more accurate seems to not occur to him.
I mean, that's slightly unfair.
He, he does, he does sort of, like, At one point he even says that you can't say that quantum physics is a Jewish plot because he believes quantum physics is accurate.
Although there are people, I have listened to people say that the Newton-Einstein dichotomy is essentially a Gentile-Jewish And that like Einsteinian relativity and like this kind of Jewish quantum mechanics where like, oh we just don't know where the particle is.
Is it a particle or a wave?
And that's all meant to like sort of like subvert reality around us and like pretend that like things aren't as they are.
That's right.
It's designed to confuse the goy.
It's designed to undermine the goyim's sense of reality.
Right.
And you get hints of that in Lovecraft.
I mean, obviously, he's not talking about quantum mechanics per se, but even at the time, there was that sense of it.
Now, McDonald specifically uses quantum mechanics as a – he believes quantum mechanics is real because he's used a computer.
And spoiler alert, computers don't work if quantum mechanics isn't largely accurate.
But, you know, we'll just kind of leave that there, you know.
The amount of things that do not work if quantum mechanics is not real is mind-boggling.
So, you know, very few people will deny sort of basic quantum mechanics and relativity these days.
It's just kind of impossible.
You've got to be really, really ignorant of the science to do that.
We did a daily show on an episode and it was hilarious when they then had to correct themselves in the next episode because they got so many emails about it.
It was it was hilarious.
It was it was great.
If there were, as with, you know, creationism, if there were profits in it, if the political economy was conducive in one sector, there would be a massive industry catering to denying quantum mechanics.
It just so happens that there's no there's no opportunity for anybody to catch in on that.
So nobody's bothering to do it.
Although, I don't know.
I don't want to give them ideas.
Maybe that'll be the next thing, you know, the next thing in the Nancy scene.
Who knows?
In five years, I'll be, you know, pushing, you know, like, you know, go back to Newtonian mechanics in schools.
Yeah.
That'll be the new thing.
Let's not, let's not, let's not give them any ideas.
But no, McDonald argues, effectively, that, you know, again, there's no sense that this is, that This is accurate or not.
There's no sense of like, well, maybe Boaz was right.
It's sort of this assumption that these things that these two groups, quote unquote, the Jews and the Gentiles, are working across purposes against each other, and that it's ultimately just a question of like power and group interest and who's sort of like combating whom.
I mean, even the example that, and McDonald himself gives this example in interviews, where he says, like, I went to school, I went to college, I got involved in the anti-war movement, I noticed that, like, a bunch of the people who were, you know, fighting against the war were themselves Jewish, and that they didn't want to be at the front of the room, they wanted to put me, the Gentile, up there.
And they were hiding their involvement, as opposed to responding to the anti-Semitism in society.
I thought when you said that, does it not occur to him that they might want to do that, because if they're the only people visible, they'll get people saying, well, this is just a bunch of Jews, because they know they're in an anti-Semitic society.
That obviously never occurred to him, that that might be a problem.
But then, he doesn't ask, like, he seemingly never asked the question, like, but that doesn't really, like, was the Vietnam War a good idea?
Yeah.
You know, like, does that mean that, like, we should have been in Vietnam?
You know?
Yeah, that's right, yeah.
You ran into a bunch of, like, a bunch of evil Jews who were, like, against it.
Oh, but, like, it turns out that Henry Kissinger was with the architects of the Vietnam War.
And this gets into, like, one of the, like, this is the funniest, this is the absolute most batshit idea that is imaginable.
That, like, of all the years that I've spent working on this, I'm gonna tell you now about the Kosher Sandwich.
Would you like to know about the Kosher Sandwich?
Oh, please, tell me about the Kosher Sandwich.
The basic idea... It's a Schrödinger's Kosher Sandwich.
I don't think Schrodinger was Jewish.
He was anyway.
No, but he doubted quantum physics, so maybe he's their guy.
So the idea of the kosher sandwich is, so you look at like American politics, for instance, and you find there are Jewish people high up in both the Democratic and Republican parties.
And you look at this kind of like any issue, any kind of intellectual issue, Should we go to war or not?
Kissinger is pro-Vietnam War and then you got these kind of Jewish activists against it.
You know, there are Jews kind of in both sides, many sides, however many sides, but particularly kind of both sides, forming the bread of the kosher sandwich and like keeping the limits of political discourse away from anything that is overtly anti-semitic.
And this is true for every movement except for the one that says, hey, maybe we should murder all the Jews.
And therefore, the movement that says maybe we should murder all the Jews is the correct one because it is the only one that is devoid of this Jewish influence.
So, hang on a minute.
And so, let me summarize this, in case you missed this.
So, the presence of Jewish people in all areas of our society, as there are blue-eyed people who agree and disagree on politics, okay?
But, like, the existence of Jewish people at the top ends of, like, kind of political discourse, when they agree, they are colluding together against white people to subvert them and eventually annihilate them.
When they disagree, they are setting the balance of the debate.
Again, Yeah.
as a way of crushing white people and to essentially the slow white genocide, etc., of white people.
And we know this because of the existence of Jews in these positions.
It's literally a tautologist thing.
It is, yeah.
What he's literally saying is the Jews are evil because the Jews are evil.
That's it.
Now, McDonald himself doesn't use this kosher sandwich language.
This is something that's kind of been adopted This is a big like like Mikey like Eric Stryker kind of idea This this gets you know, it's kind of spread around the sort of like the the cool family This is popular.
This is a really big idea.
It's not usually stated quite that you know, but What they do is they notice that, like, there are all these things I don't like, and there are Jewish people involved in those things, and therefore the Jewish people are responsible for those things, because back in the day there weren't Jews around.
Yeah.
Right.
Okay.
Yeah, because if.
And so and so I'd like to I mean, how do you how do you how do you even respond to this?
Right. - It's all right.
How do you convince somebody who genuinely believes this stuff?
And, you know, I'm slightly oversimplifying.
I mean, there is, there's kind of more going on here.
But, like, basically, you know, to almost a person, like every person we've talked about on this show, believes some version of this.
This animates everything.
Yeah.
You can't, because it's designed to be impenetrable.
It's hermetically sealed.
It's unfalsifiable, right?
Yeah, exactly.
It explains everything, and as they say, you know, when something explains everything, it explains nothing.
It's, what's the phrase, epistemic closure.
It's actually sealed against, it's not just epistemic closure, it's epistemic sealant.
It's just completely, it's completely closed.
You can't crack it open.
You know, if they're on both sides in disagreement with each other, that proves the same thing as if they're all on one side.
Right.
There you go.
And so the only way to get away from this influence... And it's all predicated on the thing it's supposed to prove as well.
The thing it claims to be proving is the predicate that it's based on.
So it's ridiculous.
And so what they do is they then like the way they justify it to each other and the way they justify it to themselves is to say, well, Jews are overrepresented in these sort of like powerful elite positions and like say, like American society and, you know, in Hollywood, we don't like Hollywood is degenerate and nonsense and you know, like, you know, etc, etc, etc.
The porn industry is run by Jews and there are like, clear historical reasons why, you know, for instance, you know, Jewish people were like relegated to the theater for centuries.
And, you know, when the first movie studios were founded, they were founded by Jewish people.
And yeah, there's nepotism that happens as if nepotism doesn't happen in all powerful people of all walks of life.
You know, they look at, you know, Jewish people overrepresented and say, you know, in kind of industry and in sort of like intellectual positions, et cetera, et cetera.
Things are true.
You know, the Jews are, I think they're the most successful minority.
American society in terms of income and status and so on there are there are material historical reasons that you know contingent material historical reasons for why this is happened they are heavily represented in certain kinds of jobs and professions again there are material historical reasons for why this happened you know it's not a conspiracy and it's not a genetic survival strategy
Well, and you get like a handful of like families that like work in, you know, the banking industry who, you know, drive that, you know, kind of average income way up.
You're going to get this like extreme dichotomy, even if there are many, many poor Jewish people, which there are clearly, you know.
Absolutely.
You can trace most of these material historical reasons I'm talking about back to anti-Semitism, actually.
Well, I mean, I don't even want to push back against, I mean, like, the idea that you've got this, like, Jewish people are not, like, you know, evenly, homogeneously spread throughout, like, the U.S.
population as well.
Jewish people are, like, concentrated in, like, major cities, again, for historical and cultural reasons, not, like, they have a genetic propensity to stick together or whatever, you know?
And so, You can make, if you were to take Jewish populations versus Episcopalians in the United States.
Episcopalians do just about as well as Jewish people do.
Why?
Episcopalians, for historical and contextual reasons, are overwhelmingly concentrated in either New England, which is the wealthiest portion of the United States, or in pockets of cities around the country.
You can tell a similar story with Indian Americans.
who very, you know, kind of new minority in sort of America in the American scene, who are brought in as cheap labor by the tech industry.
And so, you know, the fact that there aren't, you know, like Indian people, you know, people from the Indian subcontinent working as, you know, plumbers and working as, you know, like retail.
I mean, they're, you know, like not to say, you know, they are disproportionately in these kind of tech industry jobs.
That doesn't mean that like there's some genetic propensity for like Indian people to work against.
I mean, it's just nonsense.
It just ignores any kind of sense of, you know, and this kind of correlation causation thing.
It's just, you know, it comes up over and over and over again.
The whole like black crime statistics, you know, as if African-Americans are, you know, homogeneously spread throughout the culture and, you know, are committing crimes at higher rates for reasons that come to do, you know, you know, show me that evidence and like, maybe that is, maybe they're sure.
Like, you know, I'm happy to look at the evidence.
I think it's racist bullshit.
I don't believe it for a second, but at least then you'd have an argument instead of like, just like we noticed that incomes are higher or whatever, you know, it's completely nonsense, you know, from, from the get go.
Yeah.
You just notice certain facts about the world as they stand to the extent that these people engage with facts at all.
And then you amputate all cultural, social, political history.
And you just explain it all through completely essentialist, artificial, you just jump straight to these, jump straight to these essentialist experiences.
Explanations cuz that's that that's the aim.
That's the pre-existing aim is to find essentialist ways to Single people out so that so that you can justify prejudice.
That's that's why they that's why they end up there because that's where they wanted to go right and you know in the in the American context in terms of you know, this sort of uh, you know,
You know, differentiation between, you know, kind of kind of Jewish influence or whatever, among the American right, you know, this, this neoconservative, paleoconservative split, which we've talked about a couple of times before, the neoconservatives being the sort of like, kind of world dominating post World War Two empire builders, you know, the kind of Cold Warriors were kind of neocons, and the paleocons are kind of reaching like, like less interventionist, more socially conservative, You know, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, the neoconservatives ended up being for, again, complex historical and cultural reasons, ended up being like much, you know, most of the people who were Jewish in that split ended up on the neocon side.
So then it's like all Israel controls.
The U.S. foreign policy.
And, you know, like we give money to Israel as a way of, you know, it's just a gift.
Like we're just – the United States is using its military might as a wing of Israel and not the United States gives tens of billions of dollars to Israel in military, quote-unquote, aid essentially as a loan, which allows us to then go engage in the military aid essentially as a loan, which allows us to then go engage in the military adventurism that We're getting, you know, like, nice country you got there.
It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
Here's a few billion dollars.
Why don't we stick around and help you out with this little problem with your neighbors?
Which seems to be, again, an overly simplistic, I'm not trying to, but makes much more sense than there are the shadowy cabal of Jews who are controlling the U.S.
military apparatus from Israel.
Regardless of what, you know, you can pull some quote from Haaretz or, you know, whatever and go like, oh, there's this, you know, there's some Jew admitting that they control US foreign policy because they're like puffing each other up in op-eds or whatever.
I mean, again, this is still worth responding to, but like, it's so prevalent.
We kind of have to, right?
Yeah.
And so, it is worth doing a little thought experiment here.
Think about the filthy Greeks.
I want to think about the Greeks.
both the Greeks.
I want to think about the Greeks.
You know, since 1877, 69% of U.S. presidents have belonged to Greek organizations.
The foundations of this quote-unquote democracy in the United States, they come from this little group of Mediterranean just kind of sitting there in Greece.
Like, why does this group that didn't even fucking speak a northern European language, why are they the ones that get to, like...
Be quoted in our founding documents.
Why do they have this hugely outsized influence in terms of their actual population numbers in Western Europe?
It's just this kind of disgusting thing.
You can run through history and find this Greek influence.
It just runs through our culture constantly.
You find this thing.
Why are there Greek columns in front of every US federal building, every state building?
You've got this Greek architecture.
Why can't we have Western European architecture?
It's just been invading us for thousands of years, and particularly in the last few hundreds.
I mean, it's kind of just disgusting, right?
You say Western European architecture.
I mean, that's all from the Renaissance.
You know, the kind of stuff you're talking about.
Obviously, Western European architecture.
That's Renaissance architecture.
That's the gold standard, right?
Well, the Renaissance, that was the filthy Greeks.
Infiltrating Western culture, wasn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, there you go.
And they got their hooks into the Catholic Church.
They melded Aristotelianism with Christianity.
That became the official doctrine of Europe.
Neo-Aristotelianism or Neo-Platonism or whatever it was, that was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church for centuries.
Those sneaky Greeks.
God, they even took over the Roman Empire.
I mean, I know they got conquered by the Romans, but you look what happened.
The Roman gods, yeah, that's just the Greek gods in code with different names.
Even the names of the planets, man.
Yeah, that's right.
They're Roman names, but these are ultimately, they were originally named by the Greeks, and the Greeks are just hiding their influence by putting the Roman names on them.
We even use the Roman calendar as a way, like it's all just this secret Greek influence on our society.
Yeah, yeah, Saturn, huh?
What are you hiding, Kronos?
In lots of areas in the United States.
You can walk into any food court and you can find a pita restaurant.
Who the fuck eats pita?
This isn't a Western, this isn't a Northern European thing.
Why is there pita bread available at every grocery store around me?
We really need to be looking into this.
We really need to be asking much more serious questions about the Greek influence on our society.
It's really it's really bizarre.
They have these secret societies these little fraternities and sororities where they take like all these kids these like healthy Western white kids and they just come in and they join these Greek societies and they put their funny little Greek letters all over there and they go and they get wasted and they become fucking degenerates and then like what are they doing?
They're just there and then they just help each other out as part of this like Greek influence.
It's really just vile and disgusting.
Yeah, and it's just Every four years what does the entire world do obviously it's that you know it's the illuminati organizing at the olympics yeah, replete with arcane symbolism and it's all about you because it originated with loads of naked guys and of course that leads you back to the back to the fact that the filthy greeks invented homosexuality obviously in an attempt to undermine our area manhood.
And when do the Olympic Games count?
They started back in 1896, which is right around that era when you've got, you know, cultural criticism of the Bible, and you're starting to see, like, you know, that's when all this started.
I mean, I think this whole, like, Jewish influence thing, it's really just a way of deflecting from the real villains of history, and those are clearly the Greeks.
I think you're right.
Yeah, I think you're right.
They even have their own churches.
Particularly, you've got Protestant sects, you've got Catholic sects, and then you've got this, like, Greek Orthodox thing.
Like, why don't they get their own fucking churches?
Like, this just seems bizarre to me.
Yeah, and why do they get to declare it Orthodox as well?
Like, the rest of us are unorthodox?
Is that what you're saying, Greco?
It's chilling, man.
You've G-pilled me.
I hope there's not now a new movement of Nazis who actually start believing this.
That would be really sad.
Yeah, I'm just imagining some guy sat listening to this going, fucking hell!
These guys are onto something!
We're going to get quoted in Alex Jones in like three years.
He's going to be like, it wasn't the globalists.
It started with a G. I've got a new bet.
I found this amazing podcast.
Got a new pitch, guys.
I don't speak Greek.
Greek could be the spinoff.
Jesus Christ.
And I promise you, like, hours and hours and hours of listening to these guys goes to no much more...
sense than what we just made up on the fly, essentially, about these Greek societies.
You can build this idea of genetic propensity, right?
Okay, the Greeks, they're a seafaring people in antiquity, and so they have this kind of broad scope of their vision.
And so they look out and they see this kind of like broader perspective than the more landlocked peoples.
And yet they're also fighting amongst each other because they have these mini city-states.
And so this makes them both, you know, this sort of like warlike people but also outward looking.
And this leads to this sort of like dominance over the more serene and sedate northern European peoples.
And so that's how they're, you know, you can write this sort of, like you can just make it up, right?
You can look at sort of, you know, this reality, you target this particular group, and then you can just sort of like write a just-so story that sort of makes it work, you know?
And you can do this with blue-eyed people, tall people.
It's inkblot reasoning.
That's all it is.
Right.
I mean, it's a Rorschach test, and so, you know...
Anyway, sorry to kind of go into that nonsense.
I thought that was great.
That made the point, I think, pretty forcefully.
Because that is literally what this guy does, you know.
He spins this evo-psych, sociobiology, just-so story.
I mean, that's kind of what sociobiology always does.
But, you know, this guy does it on a grand scale in order to justify his anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
And, you know, the Jews, they've had to Oh, God.
You know, they've had to develop this group evolutionary strategy, and they've done it by breeding intelligence into their children.
Oh, God.
You know, it's just exactly like what we just did with the Greeks, except with the Jews.
And it's just to justify anti-Semitism.
That's all it is.
So there's one more guy I'd like to cover.
We could go on and talk about Kevin Macdonald for ages, and there's so much more to him.
I put a bunch of links to more Kevin Macdonald stuff.
Yeah, he testified at the Irving trial, didn't he?
He did, yes.
He was the only one that Irving subpoenaed, asked to testify, who didn't have to be subpoenaed.
He came to testify voluntarily.
Yeah, I actually have a little quote here from him.
I'm going to read a little bit.
This is part of his reason, sort of the basics of his testimony.
Although he himself apparently is not a Holocaust denier.
No, I don't believe he is.
I don't believe he is.
I think he was more kind of like, we'll read this out.
What he says, essentially, is the Holocaust is the Jews' fault.
It's a natural reaction on the part of the gentler.
Right.
The Europeans, the white people, Adolf Hitler is like, well, we'll read this out now.
The main point of my testimony is that the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-Gentile interactions.
As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist, as well as the evidence compiled by historians, leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with the segments of the Gentile community.
Anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been a pervasive feature of the Jewish experience since the beginnings of the diaspora well over 2,000 years ago.
While antisemitic attitudes and behavior have undoubtedly been colored by myths and fantasies about Jews, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish writing that reflects the reality of between-group competition exactly as suspected by evolutionists.
Particularly important have been the themes of separatism, the fact that Jewish groups have typically existed as recognizably distinct groups and have been unwilling to assimilate either culturally or via marriage to the wider society, the theme of economic, political, and cultural domination, and the theme of disloyalty.
That's from McDonald's statement about what his testimony was in the Irving trial and why he did it, and that's available on his website.
I put a link to it.
I actually put a link to an archive link because it's no longer at his website, but yeah.
There's lots of, on the SPLC's page about him, there's lots of curated quotes from his blogs and stuff like that, and you will find plenty more shite like that.
I mean, literally, I mean, he doesn't quite go so far to say like Hitler is the is sort of sort of the ultimate response, like the sort of the natural response to like Jews existing in your society.
But he pretty much does.
And certainly the sort of community around him.
He says antisemitism and the Holocaust were a mirror to Judaism, doesn't he?
And certainly where he's coy about it, his admirers are less so.
You see, Jews act a certain way, and when they start acting all Jewish... All verbally intelligent and ingroupy.
And having all these left-wing ideas.
Confusing the truth.
That's right.
Undermining our Aryan certainties with, you know, things like Marxism and stuff.
There's just this natural response, and that natural response is like, expulsion, get the fuck out of my society, get away from me.
And that's just a natural thing that's just, you know, we shouldn't feel good about it, we shouldn't feel bad about it, we just feel this is just a natural thing that we do.
Yeah, it's value, like a cat hunting a mouse.
That's it.
The number 109, if you see anything that's 109 related, there's this kind of trope that Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries.
Nobody seems to have the actual list.
I haven't gone through and verified it, but it's a meme.
And so sometimes when you see somebody say 110, When?
Or, you know, like, looking for 110?
That's literally saying, like, it's time for us in America, in the United States, or in the Western world, in Europe.
I see it mostly in the American context.
But it's time for us as Americans to make this happen again.
To realize this and to complete that Jew-Nazi cycle one more time.
That's something that Enoch used to say a lot.
The Jew-Nazi cycle.
Nazis rise up and make coherent and reasonable societies and then Jews come and subvert it and then they just get kicked out over and over and over again.
There's a cycle of history that we run through every few decades.
Well, MacDonald himself does call for a heavy duty discrimination, doesn't he, to achieve parity again after the fact that the Jews have now basically taken over the Western world So in order to get back to parity with them, we're going to have to relentlessly discriminate against them.
I mean, he actually advocates that, doesn't he?
Oh, no, definitely.
Usually the sort of the nice version is, you know, Jewish people need to be kept to, they're about 2% of the U.S.
population, so they need to have no more than 2% of the representation in any like kind of like any boardroom or any like government body or any, you know, kind of kind of organization needs to be no more than 2% Jewish as a way to to kind of keep their influence at uh reasonably that's the nice version so again um or fighting police state against jews that's that's the nice version that's the polite version yeah yeah i'm betting he's not demanding 50 represent 51 represent representation of women in all contexts
i think you know women are people well this is it because you know that that particular social inequality that is natural that's genetic that's inherent Whereas this other social inequality that doesn't benefit me, that's somehow, despite the fact that it's in the genes, that is somehow artificial.
I love how they do this.
With no evidence.
It's all meant to justify a pre-existing belief.
It's all meant to justify the politics they want to hold.
And so they spin themselves around in this pseudo-intellectual justification.
The other really brilliant idea, which we should definitely kind of, there are two more things that I'd like to cover in this episode.
Again, we could talk about Kevin Macdonald for days, but you know, one is this idea of pathological altruism.
Oh yeah, yeah.
And this is the idea that white people, northern Europeans, northern and western Europeans, have a pathological altruism.
towards outgroup people that we have uh evolved to be like uh unusually individualistic and you can see this in our you know in sort of our societies where we we like to build homes and kind of like single family dwellings and sort of like farm alone and you know this is all genetically and not culturally or historically materialist
so this is like a genetic propensity and that this um inclination towards individualism makes us kinder to uh to outgroups than uh we would be otherwise that's kind of this is a pathology as can clearly be seen in the europe's history of you know centuries of imperialism and colonialism and genocide and slavery that was that was just very nice white people trying to bring the benefits of civilization to lesser people jack yeah i mean
That's it's just we built all those railroads.
We gave them like medicine I mean look the population of Africa is like it's floating right now, and that's really bad for the environment That's really bad for society.
I mean like global warming.
It's really coming from this like explosion of a population in Africa and And China and all that sort of thing.
And you know, it's really just white people were just too nice and just gave them all this medicine that they're just not smart enough to take care of on their own.
And so like really, I mean, I'm sorry that it has to be this way, but you know, it's just white people, white people are just, you know, you've got to, we've got to learn to like take our own side on this.
We've got to learn to, to, to do the, to do what's best for us and what's best for us is ultimately what's best for the rest of the world.
Even if it means like nuking Africa.
Yeah, that's right.
That's the solution.
Western Europe, Euro-American culture, white people generally.
We've just got to say to Asia and Africa, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
Sorry.
And this is literally something, this is again slightly off of what McDonough himself would say, but Jared Taylor goes almost to that degree, you know, on this stuff, you know, in terms of like kind of justifying colonialism, and I'm told that in McDonough's new book he expressly deals with this kind of colonialism question.
Again, if somebody gives, if I can get a PDF of that, I will definitely kind of take a look at that and see, but The pathological altruism thing, I mean, that is a key part.
You know, different people will leave this out or put it in or emphasize it or not, but it is a key part of the Great Replacement myth, isn't it?
It's the idea that we've You know, for some reason, because of white guilt or something, we're determined, certainly the left are determined, and women because of their, some reason women are genetically predetermined to want to welcome immigrants or something.
We're just determined to let all these immigrants in from these other cultures who are just going to breed us out of existence.
And yeah, I mean, McDonald's certainly talks about immigration.
He certainly thinks that, you know, the Jewish influence, it's part of the Jewish group survival strategy to To propagate and hegemonize in white society, things like, you know, left liberal ideas and left wing ideas and so on, which lead to multiculturalism and immigration.
So, yeah, I mean, McDonnell can be seen as providing a quote unquote intellectual spine to stuff like the Great Replacement idea, can't he?
Oh, no, absolutely.
And, in fact, we're going to cover white genocide in a, like, not the next episode, but the one after, which is, you know, effectively a follow-on from this general idea.
I just didn't want to do it all in one episode for obvious reasons.
But, yeah.
The other thing, and I do want to close out with this, is that there is one guy who's been kind of pushing back against McDonald's, most prominently in the public eye in the last couple of years.
This is Nathan Kofnes.
Kofnes is essentially a race realist evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist.
His argument is not that, you know, it's that Jews are not, like, sort of a genetically distinct race for, like, the obvious reasons that you and I can name, and there's some back and forth on that, etc, etc, but his argument is not Jews are over-represented in these organizations for historical and material reasons, but, well, Jewish people just have higher IQs, and a higher IQ is just sort of the way that, you know, it's just a justified thing, right, you know?
The Jewish people just get to be there because they're smarter, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Doesn't Macdonald purport to account for that?
He says they've bred for high IQ, haven't they, the Jews?
Right, right.
But he says there's this kind of nepotistic, they're working to overtly subvert.
society and kofnitz disagrees he agrees with all this sort of like evolutionary psychology kind of bullshit but says it doesn't really apply to the jewish population because reasons and these two have been kind of arguing back and forth on twitter i actually follow both of them on twitter it's pretty amusing sometimes but they argue back and forth about these things that kind of within the realm of their um like a sandwich of evolutionary psychology
they're they're arguing without taking into account outside ideas yeah that might better explain the things they're doing and And I don't know, I feel like there's a metaphor.
I feel like there's some other thing that we could, some way we could describe this.
It's almost as if it's some non-kosher sandwich or something.
Yeah, it's on the tip of my tongue.
We're nearly there, I can sense it on the horizon.
It'll come to me, it'll come to me.
Oh, well you know... It turns out that when evolutionary psychologists agree, it's just a way of keeping me personally down.
That's right.
And when they disagree, it's just a way of excluding me from the conversation.
Exactly.
That proves it.
Proof.
They must have a genetic propensity, the evolutionary psychologists, you know?
Yeah, now you see, now I want to research evolutionary psychologists and work out the evolutionary strategies they employ, the group survival strategies they employ to breed these sorts of behaviors into themselves.
Yeah, no, I'm sure.
The terrifying thing is that using evolutionary psychology techniques, I could do it.
That's the thing.
I could do that, and it would have as much validity as the rest of evolutionary psychology.
Exactly.
I think that's enough.
I think we should stress that this book is, I mean you have said this several times, not only on this podcast but on others, but we should stress that this book is huge on the far right.
They are, you know, they are devotees of this.
This guy is their absolute intellectual, quote-unquote, intellectual hero, you know.
And this book, The Culture of Critique, this is the closest thing we have to a modern-day Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
It kind of does the same thing that the Protocols did in its day for the anti-Semites of our day.
It meets the same need in a way that is couched to appeal to the cultural sensibilities of today in the same way that the Protocols were for their day.
I mean, John Derbyshire, who is somebody we'll talk about down the line, I'm sure, but John Derbyshire, who's this kind of old school paleocon, you know, kind of alt-right grandfather figure, has described
Kevin MacDonald is, and this gets complicated given the current company, but the Karl Marx of the anti-Semites and by which he means he's sort of taken the sort of old school anti-Semitism and he's turned it into a kind of a scientific structure.
He's made it into a kind of like a full fledged self.
self-understanding kind of self-reflective belief structure.
But again, the whole belief, the whole thing that's in the book is basically, again, it's just old school anti-Semitism that he's justifying through pseudoscience.
That's all it really is.
It's just hundreds of pages of justification that rests on sand, ultimately.
And it's internally self-contradicting in a lot of ways, which I just didn't want to have to pull quotes from and demonstrate in this context.
But like...
And yet it's hugely influential.
Again, I hate to keep kind of bringing up Mike Enoch, but like, I went back and re-listened to the kind of earliest episodes of the Daily Shoah, you know, kind of when I was kind of going through that.
And there's a moment, like they were kind of anti-Semites to begin with, but there is like a particular moment where he reads the Cultural Critique and afterwards they are like all Jew all the time.
I mean, it really does, like, it's a hugely radicalizing book for a lot of these guys.
They just run right into it.
You know the three books that turn people into anti-Semites that kind of get quoted all the time are, you know, one, The Culture Critique, two, David Duke's My Awakening, and three, Mein Kampf itself.
Like, those are the ones.
And beyond that, Kevin Macdonald does, like, a ton of these shows.
He's he's you know he he runs a magazine like it like a peer quarterly called the Occidental Observer Which is a you know kind of was originally a paper magazine, and now I think it's just online there might be still be paper I think they still do a Print edition, but I'm it's pretty small He does a YouTube show called the Occidental Quarterly.
I mean is that with James Edwards of the political cesspool?
I'll put a link to that in the show notes.
You can go look at that um you know he does like almost every I'd be very surprised if many of them have actually read Mein Kampf, because I've read Mein Kampf.
at some point or another.
He is hugely influential in this community.
He's kind of like, again, this grandfather figure.
He's one of these old guys.
He is at least as important as David Duke. - Yeah, yeah.
I'd be very surprised if many of them have actually read "Mein Kampf" 'cause I've read "Mein Kampf".
That's a big book and it is very badly written and remorselessly fucking boring.
So I'd be very surprised if they've actually plowed through that, but never mind.
And I don't know how effective it would be as a radicalising tool today, you know.
But the culture of critique and this stuff, yeah.
Because it's couched in this, as I say, this way that its aesthetics are neutral and detached and scientific and rational and stuff like that.
And it obviously answers this need.
And it's just a load of a priori assumptions, bigotry and so on, decorated with oxymorons and tautologies.
Completely evidence-free, yeah.
But aesthetically, it answers this need.
It's sort of, it's like permission.
It's like, yeah, go for it.
And that seems to be the role it plays.
No, definitely, yeah.
I mean, yeah, yeah.
And the fact that it comes across as, you know, the fact that it has hundreds of footnotes, the fact that it's written in this academic language, and I mean, trust me, dig into the footnotes, you find all kinds of sins.
Oh yeah, I mean, it bears saying this has been completely debunked.
I mean, nobody takes this seriously who's in any way knowledgeable about this stuff.
But it looks, it looks on the surface, it looks nice, it looks convincing, it's written in this way, it's clearly researched, I put that in heavy quotes, it's clearly got, he's responded to the literature in his field, but It's, again, built on sand, and it's internally nonsense.
And it's just justification for this kind of inbuilt anti-Semitism, but it justifies this kind of pre-existing political belief.
And it gives you, it gives them, and we'll talk about this in the Wet Genocide episode, it gives them a group A group of people who is doing all of this stuff that they don't like.
And I think that's the place to end it.
And we'll talk about it more when we talk about White Genocide, which we will do in two episodes because I want to do the news roundup in the next episode.
So yeah, that's where we're gonna go.
OK, so that was episode 35, The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald, a pile of anti-Semitic shite, but very, very influential, sadly, in our world.
Yeah, and next episode will be, obviously, episode 36, and that will be another News Roundup episode where we will talk about all the things that we probably should have talked about in this episode, except that we didn't want to put this one off again.
So, yeah, come back for that.
Thanks, Daniel, and thanks for listening, everybody.
Cheers.
Thanks a lot.
That was I Don't Speak German.
Thanks for listening.
We're on iTunes and show up in most podcast catchers.
We try to release something every week with a regular episode every fortnight.
Please come back for more, check out our back catalogue of episodes, and tell everyone you've ever met about how great we are.
You can find Daniel's Twitter, along with links to pretty much everything he does, at at Daniel E Harper.
You can find my Twitter at at underscore Jack underscore Graham underscore.
Please get in touch if you have any suggestions, tips, information, praise.
We need to sell, like, Greek t-shirts now.
not a Nazi of some kind.
Daniel and I both have Patreons and any contribution you can make genuinely does help us to do this, though it also really helps if you just listen and maybe talk about us online to spread the word.
If you'd like to give us stars and reviews on iTunes that'd be appreciated too.
Bye for now and no passeran.
We need to sell like Greek t-shirts now.
I don't speak Greek.
The Greek question.
The Greek question, yeah.
Oh, yeah, I meant to say Greek question.
You know, there's a magazine called GQ.
Clearly, that's a code.
GQ.
They say it's Gentleman's Quarterly, but, like, clearly.
What is it, really?
It's all just a code.
It's all just a way of distracting from the real puppet masters of our society.
The Greeks!
The filthy Greeks!
With their unpronounceable names.
They'll eat your pita bread, Greek boy!
Their weird alphabet.
Ah, I was going to sign off with the Greek for goodbye, but I couldn't remember what it was.
