June 20, 2009 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
43:03
20090620_Hour_2
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populous radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Welcome back, everyone.
Welcome back to tonight's second hour of the Political Cesspool Radio Program.
It is Saturday, June 20th.
We have already had an outstanding program in and of itself.
During that first hour, we were joined by Political Cesspool guest Dr. F. Roger Devlin.
Dr. Devlin's been on the show a couple of times to great fanfare.
A lot of people out there in the listening audience are fans of his works and his writings.
But tonight, Dr. Devlin was not on to talk about any of his signature issues.
Rather, he was on to report live as our official correspondent at Pat Buchanan's American Cause Conference.
And Roger Devlin was there on the convention room floor as he was giving us an update as to what was going on there in Tyson's Corner, Virginia.
A lot of political cesspool guests were on the stage and in the crowd, people such as Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Peter Brimilow, Babe Buchanan, Lou Barletta, and others, they were all there.
Dr. Devlin had the chance to speak with some of them and was giving us a full accounting during that, our first hour.
And if you missed it, don't forget, you can always access any of our live programs on demand in the broadcast archives at thepoliticalcesspool.org.
As I mentioned, it is June 20th, and June, last June, a year ago, was a very big month for us.
We had Pat Buchanan on, along with Dr. Virginia Abernathy, three of the crewmen, the surviving crewmen, I should say, of the USS Liberty.
Police officer Drew Lackey was on the program.
He, of course, was the gentleman who fingerprinted Rosa Parks in that iconic photo.
Dr. Tom Sunik was on the show last June, and he has been on since.
But a guy who is on the line with us right now, a hero, and I am talking a true hero as far as I'm concerned, a man who has not been on the program since last June is Dr. Kevin McDonald.
And we are so honored to have Dr. McDonald back on the program right now, live from Long Beach, California.
Winston Smith in the studio now co-hosting with me.
Winston, if you would please inform the audience as to this man's biography.
It would be my pleasure, James.
My friends, Dr. Kevin McDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach.
He holds a master's degree in evolutionary biology and a PhD in biobehavioral sciences, both degrees awarded to him by the University of Connecticut.
Dr. McDonald's research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives on culture and on developmental psychology and personality theory and on the origins and maintenance of monogamous marriage in Western Europe and ethnic relations, specifically group evolutionary strategies.
Fascinating topics.
It truly is.
It may sound like highbrow academia, but if you've ever read any of Dr. McDonald's work, you will find out that his work is completely accessible and of the highest caliber.
Dr. McDonald is a prolific author, having written more than 100 scholarly papers and reviews.
And he's authored and edited several books with beautifully provocative titles like A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Separation and Its Discontents Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, The Culture of Critique, an evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in 20th century intellectual and political movements, and Cultural Insurrections, Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism.
Now, with such titles, Dr. McDonald is squarely in the crosshairs of the usual gang of anti-Gentile, anti-Christian, and anti-white thugs, including one Harvard University psychology professor who admits to criticizing Dr. McDonald's work without having read Dr. McDonald's work.
But you can read Dr. McDonald's work for yourself by following his articles at The Occidental Observer and at V-Dare.
And you can find out more about him by visiting his website at www.kevinmacdonald.net.
Dr. McDonald has experienced and withstood the worst of the worst.
He is a man who has paid the price and has not just survived, but prevailed by living his life with no retreat, no surrender, and no apologies.
And it is therefore our very great pleasure to once again welcome into the political cesspool, Dr. Kevin McDonald.
Dr. McDonald, how are you this evening, sir?
Well, that's quite an introduction.
I'm feeling good, and appreciate your introduction.
Yeah, it kind of makes you like the guy about whom it is written, doesn't it?
Yeah, it's actually a lot easier these days that they've stopped attacking me at the university, and the SPLC hasn't done much, and the ADL hasn't done much lately.
So, you know, as you say, if you just hang in there and stand up to them, as long as we have the First Amendment, we'll all stay out of jail.
But if they stop that, well, we may end up in jail.
I don't know.
It'd be a pleasure to share a sale with you, Dr. McDonald, and I'll tell you, you're one of the few guests, and we've had some big ones on this show that gets a 10-minute introduction.
That's the kind of respect we have for you.
But that being said, and it has been too long since we've had you back on the show, Winston, I know you primarily have done a lot of research in preparation for this interview.
Where would you like to begin tonight with Dr. McDonald?
Well, for the benefit of our listeners who have never encountered you, Dr. McDonald, would you please explain why and how you became interested in and an expert on Jewish political and societal influence?
Well, it was pretty much an accident.
I developed this theoretical approach in evolutionary biology, psychology, and so on.
I had the idea that groups could constitute themselves and be affected.
That's sort of a heresy within the field of evolutionary biology.
It's always been sort of the idea that natural selection works at the individual level.
So I had this whole theory of how it could work at the group level by instituting this cultural mechanism.
So I focused on them because Jews are so important to history.
I had done work on the Amish and the overseas Chinese, and they're interesting, but they're not really historical players the way Jews are.
You really want to understand the way groups work, a really influential, important group that's had a huge effect on history in certain eras.
Well, obviously, that's the group to work on.
So I got into it and then started doing the reading.
I started reading the Old Testament and just went from there.
I started at the beginning and I'm sort of writing my own ending.
Do you approach it strictly academically or has your research nudged you into a more activist role or is it a combination of the two?
What has your research done to your thinking personally?
I think it has had a big effect.
I mean, once I really understood some of these historical events, at least as I would say I understand them, I realized that quite often there have been conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews, and particularly Western Europeans, white people, and so on, that they have seen themselves and they have acted against the interest of white people and Europeans.
And since I'm a white person and a European, I started to think in terms of being active because I think that the conflicts of interest are normal.
And then we should get over the idea there's something shameful or evil about it.
People have been doing this forever.
Certainly Jews have no, they don't apologize for being very active, for having a sense of their self-interest, for having a, for being very group-oriented and so on.
So yes, because of my reading, because of sort of realizing that Western peoples are being displaced, we're being dispossessed from lands that we've controlled for hundreds of years, I believe that I think that makes sense for people or all people, not just me, to become active, to think about what we can do to change things.
Because no other people has allowed themselves to be dispossessed from their lands voluntarily.
And it certainly has happened by military conquest many times, but it hasn't just happened just because people have decided that it's a good thing to do, to just allow millions and millions of people to come in, to change their culture, to pretty much give up on having control, which we've had for centuries.
So this is an enormous change, and I don't think it's in my interest.
And yet I see that I see Jewish activist groups historically playing a very important role in this dispossession.
So that is my rationale for thinking that the organized Jewish community, that people should oppose what they are interested in, what they're trying to do.
I mean, immigration is a good example.
The organized Jewish community is 100% behind massive non-white immigration.
Well, I oppose that.
And so we should understand that there are conflicts of interest here.
These are simply normal human interactions.
But in the year 2009 in America, we can't really talk frankly about conflicts of interest, even though they are absolutely normal to human affairs.
Well, we are going to continue to talk frankly about just such issues on the other side of our next commercial break, which is quickly forthcoming.
Our guest right now is the very venerable Dr. Kevin McDonald, a scholar, an intellectual, a hero, a man who has paid the price.
We're going to continue our discussion with him on the other side.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't forget to check out our website, thepoliticalspool.org, where you can find many more interviews just like the one we're conducting right now.
And I got to tell you, Dr. McDonald, listening to you right now, you are a soft-spoken man of great intellect, and everything you are saying, it's apparent that it's coming from the heart.
It is not meant to offend anyone just to, it seems as though a message that validates and reaffirms that which makes us great.
And you're standing up to preserve our way of life and our cultural heritage.
And to see the attacks that you have had to endure just for saying something so sensible is, well, it's terrible.
We'll talk more about that right after this.
Okay, bye.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
I don't want to waste a lot of time with talk, at least not talk from my mouth when we have a guy like Kevin McDonald on the show.
I do want to remind you that our guest right now is Dr. Kevin McDonald.
He is a professor at California State University in Long Beach.
And Winston Smith has done a great deal of research and preparation for this interview tonight.
I'm going to quickly turn it back over to Winston.
But before I do, Dr. McDonald, I want to continue on with a thought that we were touching on just before the break.
I was listening to you.
You're very well spoken, obviously articulate, and you ground your arguments with reason and logic and facts and scientific data.
And you don't do it to be offensive.
It seems as though the left always employs the tactics of shouting us down, hysterical arguments, fanatical tirades.
And we don't do that, yet someone as articulate as you, you're the one who gets attacked for being some sort of a sort of a villain.
Did that originally surprise you?
Because I know I guess it did me back about four years ago when this show began to take off, the amount of hatred that came our way from really speaking a quite loving message.
That's true.
I guess it surprised me.
The fact is that so much of the academic world is corrupt.
I mean, you can easily, you know, just issues, say, like race and IQ.
You know, people obfuscate these things.
In fact, an Occidental Observer, that's the internet magazine I'm associated with, we just had an article on Frank Salters, who wrote this wonderful book on genetic interest.
But the fact is, this whole idea has been suppressed for 30 years.
These ideas were there.
The famous population geneticist, William Hamilton, Henry Harpenting, they put those arguments out 30 years ago.
Nobody's ever refuted them.
And yet, if you talk to even important evolutionary psychologists, they just refuse to deal with it.
They will not deal with the fact that ethnic competition is rational.
That people who are trying to preserve their ethnic group are acting rationally from an evolutionary Darwinian point of view.
This has been suppressed.
But that's typical.
I mean, so much to this, as I say, race and IQ is another area.
Certainly Jewish issues that have been suppressed.
You can't get it out there.
And there's a huge amount of complicity in the academic world.
There's a great deal of corruption.
The fact is that the academic left has targeted the university for special interests in trying to dominate these departments, especially in the social sciences and humanities.
And that has been a critically important area of their strategy, their tactics.
And so at this point, yes, we are a small minority.
That doesn't mean we're not right.
We are right.
They don't respond to these arguments.
They simply, as you say, they shout you down, they exclude you, they ostracize you, they don't want to talk about it.
That's the strategy.
And it's been working, so why should they change it?
Well, it's absolutely.
And of course, there's so many double standards out there, and that's something that you realize very quickly when you become involved in this sort of a movement, if you will.
The rise of ethnopolitics is something that is encouraged with all of the racial minorities of America.
It's only a sin when European-Americans are involved in some sort of a...
It's the same thing, Mike, with IQ.
Just today, there was this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a very important academic journal.
It was on IQ and Howard Gardner's theory of IQ.
He doesn't believe in general intelligence, and he's got this idea that there are all these specific abilities.
And this guy was going through there and saying, there is no data to support this.
And yet, if you ask people, you look in the media, which theory is prominent, you know, which is the one that everybody sort of likes.
Well, they love Howard Gardner.
They don't want to have the idea that there's this general intelligence, that it's largely genetic, that we don't know how to change it, that if you are high in general intelligence, you can solve all kinds of different problems, go into different academic areas and so on.
They don't want that idea.
So that idea, even though there's massive data out there, the idea of general intelligence is pushed aside for an idea that just appeals to people.
And there's no data for it.
And that's just typical.
It's been going on for a century.
It's almost psychoanalysis.
There was never a shred of data for psychoanalysis.
And yet, it was just ballyhooted in the press.
It was promoted.
It was hyped.
And so everybody became a Freudian.
And if you ask the person on the street, who's the greatest psychologist of the 20th century, they'll probably say Freud.
That's the only one most people would know of, unfortunately.
Well, that's, you know, again, getting back, Kevin, to something that you and Winston and I were talking about during the commercial break there.
If facts, reason, logic, scientific data, if that's all it took to win this battle, then we would have won it a long time ago.
It's never a concern that we would not be able to out-debate the left.
It's never a concern that we wouldn't be able to win a battle in the court of public opinion.
And in fact, in many cases, popular opinion is still on our side.
But unfortunately, that isn't always enough, as we have found out the hard way.
But Winston, I want to turn it back over to you because I know you have some outstanding questions that we've got to get to Kevin.
Thank you, James.
I appreciate that.
No problem.
Dr. McDonald, why is it that we, that white people, the white race, have allowed Jews to exercise and act upon their genetic drive to dominate, and we've done so to their assistance.
Do we have a genetic drive to be dominated?
What is it about us that will make us assist in our own genocide?
That's a really good question, and something I've been paying a lot more attention to.
I wrote these books on Jews, but it's not entirely a satisfactory explanation.
We have to look at ourselves.
We have to understand that most people probably would not have succumbed to this kind of thing.
And my explanation has to do with individualism.
I think our cultures tend to be individualistic.
There's a strong tendency not to be less ethnocentric, to have fewer barriers between your group and the other group.
You go back in American history, and I've been reading a lot about this lately.
I'm going to be publishing something very soon.
You see this tendency.
People strongly individualistic.
They tend towards assimilation rather than having these barriers between peoples.
I don't think we're comfortable with a lot of barriers as people.
And I think that there's a strong tendency towards a sort of expressive individualism.
People want to sort of do their thing and be who all they can be and all that.
That's our culture.
And it's a very effective culture.
This is the culture that produced science and this high culture that we have that took over the world, basically.
But there's a weakness there.
And I think the, so what, and this is a difficult, complicated argument that has to be made here.
It probably isn't very suited to this kind of medium.
But what has happened, in my view, is that the Jewish intellectuals came in and saw these tendencies and played to them.
They started, if you look at the Frankfurt School, for example, to make the very idea of identifying with your race as a psychopathology.
People would then feel guilty about any sense of having a white identity.
Well, that's something you can do if people don't have very strong ties to their group.
There's just a long history of that.
And this tendency predated the arrival of these Jewish intellectuals.
You look in the 19th century, you see these transcendentalists and other very prominent white intellectual movements.
It's not that they want to be dominated, but they have a tendency to be less ethnocentric, to have a strong moral sense.
And it's moral universalism, where if you look at Jewish ethics, it's all about the group.
It's all about what's good for the Jews.
For these people, it was very abstract.
The whole idea of ethnicity had no moral connotations.
And so it was fragile.
Even in the 19th century, people had a sense that they were Anglo-Saxon, a sense that they were white and so on.
But it was much, you know, they were, it was more and more difficult to justify that, especially when the Jewish intellectual movements came along like WASI and anthropology.
They just said there's no such thing as race.
We'll be back in the middle of the day.
Right after these messages on the show and express your opinion in the political cesspool.
Call us toll free at 1-866-986-6397.
Welcome back to the Political Cesspool Radio Program.
James Edwards here with you, along with my co-host for the evening, Winston Smith.
We are coming to you live from AM 1380, WLRM Studios in Memphis, Tennessee, and of course going out to our affiliate stations on the Liberty News Radio Network.
That includes AM FM affiliates across the country, satellite and shortwave as well.
And of course, the internet at thepoliticalspool.org and libertynewsradio.com.
We are getting you all over the place.
Listeners from around the world, whether you're on the computer or driving in your car tonight, we appreciate you for tuning in as we interview our good friend, Dr. Kevin McDonald, who is a tenured professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach.
And Dr. McDonald, we were touching on something just before the break.
I want to quickly ask you a follow-up to that before we go into the next question.
Is this apparent weakness that European Americans possess?
You were mentioning the fact that this has been perhaps a long-existing weakness, the fact that we don't solidify racially, whereas the other races do seem to be more ethnocentric.
Is this a problem that has become more and more glaring in recent years?
Do you think that the problem existed to this extent, say, back during the war between the states, when the Confederates seemingly had a strong racial identity?
Or do you think that it's just a little more heightened now?
I think that segments of the white population have been more ethnocentric, have had more of a sense of their culture, and particularly white southerners certainly have.
In a lot of ways, I view them as the hope.
This tendency towards this individualism has been most prominent within the sort of very, you know, the East Coast universities, Harvard and Yale, for instance, that derived from the Puritan intellectual tradition.
And that has been the dominant tradition in America.
And what happened, though, is that I don't think that that tradition by itself would have dominated American culture without the rise of these Jewish intellectual movements.
These Jewish intellectual movements took those pre-existing tendencies and exaggerated them and made them more dominant.
These were the points of view of relatively few people.
It was not the, certainly not the view of the common person, say, 100 years ago.
I think white people have had a sense of a racial identity.
And I think the problem has been that the people with a strong racial identity tended to have less education.
It became a sort of mark of being an educated person that you don't do these things.
And that's the kind of problem I'm up against in the university.
I mean, the university has just been taken over by the idea that any identification of white people with their race, with their people, with their culture is just anathema.
It is something that they want to associate with people who have no education, who, you know, just haven't a brain in their head.
As we have said, though, I mean, the fact is we have the facts on our side.
We have the scientific data on our side, but it's an uphill struggle.
And a big part of it is the image that people who identify with their race, their culture, the people are skinheads.
They barely got through high school.
They're taking methadrine or something.
You know, that's the image that is projected by the media.
You know what I wouldn't give.
But that's the image that they put on.
And that's the stigma that we're faced with.
And again, that gets back to the disconnects and double standards and hypocrisies of political correctness.
It's all well and good.
And in fact, it's encouraged.
And I don't have a problem with them encouraging it with the minorities.
Even though, of course, even that in and of itself is a misnomer.
We are, in fact, a very minute global minority.
But nevertheless, yes, it seems as though it's some sort of a sin or a blasphemy to share that racial solidarity if you happen to be European American as if it comes at the expense of anyone else.
And certainly that's not the case.
We just want to be able to love our family and respect our traditions and cultural heritage and heroes and legacy just the same as anyone else.
And unfortunately, we're being deprived of that at this time and not only deprived of the opportunity to be proud of who we are, but in fact, we are attacked ferociously for trying to do that.
But what I was saying is what I wouldn't give for Kevin McDonald to be on some of these CNN programs and given a level playing field to debate one of these pseudo-intellectuals of the left.
I mean, this would be something that we needed, but it's so hard to do it when you have a controlled media monopoly, but that is a topic for another day.
Right, and even conservatives don't allow this kind of stuff.
Well, I mean...
I could see it on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
Yeah, well, you know, of course, to call Sean and Rush conservatives is, of course, and I know you understand that.
But see, this is what we've got.
Tom Cannon, of course, is on our side.
Tapping Cannon is the real deal.
Anybody that's come on this show, that's the litmus test, and that's Pat.
Tappy Cannon is a real hero.
He really is.
He's been out there for a long time.
And I think that he is entirely on page and understands the situation as well as anybody.
And he gets the message out well.
He gets the message out, as you do, sir, in a way that is non-offensive.
And certainly we don't want to be offensive.
We need people coming into our fold.
And you don't do that by projecting the militant stereotype, but that is unfortunately the image that they try to place upon us right now.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
In the mainstream media.
But Winston Smith, take it away.
Dr. McDonald, during the presidential campaign, candidate Barack Hussein Obama became the darling of Jewish organizations.
He said all the right things, and he wowed the Jews with his speech to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, or IPAC.
But now it seems that President Barack Hussein Obama is making some pretty strong overtures to Muslim organizations and Muslim countries.
And he's committed some embarrassing faux pas in his dealings with Israel, not the least of which is that recent photograph of him displaying the soles of his shoes while talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a posture that many Jews see as a supreme insult.
How has the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama affected Jewish influence in America culture and government, especially since he has surrounded himself with neocons and hardcore leftist Orthodox Jews like Ram Emmanuel?
That's a very good question.
I mean, certainly it is surprising.
When we, as you say, you're going into the election and in the immediate aftermath of the election, when he got Rah Emanuel in there and David Axelrod, if you look at his foreign policy, Dennis Ross, who's an old pro-Israel activist, he was kind of high position in the State Department.
So the assumption was that this would be business as usual.
And then, you know, he suddenly said that he wanted to have a freeze of the settlements in Israel.
It was very surprising and a shock because the Israeli government is the most right-wing government they have ever had in their history.
They control about 75% of the votes there are committed to the settlement movement.
They want, not only want the settlements that they have, they want to keep building and expanding those settlements.
They do not want peace with the Palestinians.
They would be happy to just drag this out forever.
So Obama, you know, when he demanded this stop to the settlements, it's just an amazing thing.
Very surprising.
And I think that we haven't seen what is going to happen exactly.
In the New York Times today, there was an article saying that it could be that they'll paper this over, that the United States will make some concessions.
But if they do, you know, there'll certainly be repercussions in the Muslim world.
And I'm not sure that Barack Obama wants to go there.
I think that people like Jimmy Carter have his ear.
And I think that Barack Obama is perhaps an honest leftist.
That is, he really does see what Israel is doing as anathema.
And I am shocked.
I mean, I'm still surprised because if you look at where this money came from, around at least 50% of the money of the Democratic Party came from Jews.
They're, as you say, strong pro-Zionist people like Haim Sabin, who's a very prominent donor to the Democratic Party.
It is very surprising that this is happening.
But it is happening, and I think it's for real.
But I don't think that we can say that Barack Obama is going to win this one.
I think that necessarily.
There's going to be a battle here.
The Israel lobby has just begun to fight.
Certainly the neocons are up in arms about it, but also a lot of liberal Jews.
This caught them by surprise, and they're not quite sure what to do yet, I don't think.
Winston, before you go to your next question, I'd like to quickly take a caller from Ohio.
We have Brian on the line.
I know a lot of people are trying to get through tonight and have the ear of Dr. Kevin McDonald.
We're going to try to open up the lines for at least a couple of calls.
Brian, are you with us?
Yes, I am, Mr. Edwards.
Hi.
Great to have you.
Do you have a quick question for Dr. McDonald?
Yes, I do.
Hello, Dr. McDonald.
In the past, I came across an interview where you had spoiled about the Darwinian theory being attacked by different sources and that it was necessary to maintain respectable discourse or rational way of talking about our interests.
And recently I began thinking about that again.
I was listening to a Christian radio program, and they were interviewing a man who runs.
I'm sorry to interrupt Darwin.
Hold your thought, Brian.
We've got to go to a commercial break.
We'll be right back, and we'll let you ask your question.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
We got to get out of this place.
If it's the last thing we ever do, we got to get out of this place.
Welcome back.
To get on the political cesspool, call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the political cesspool, James Edwards.
We will have the ear of Dr. Kevin MacDonald for this final segment, and then he will have to leave us, unfortunately.
He will have been our guest for a full hour.
A lot of people from across the country trying to call in tonight and ask a question of Dr. McDonald.
He is a very in-demand guest, I guess you could say.
Before we went to that last break, a caller from Ohio, Brian, was trying to ask a question.
We carried Brian over into the commercial break, and he was able to relay that question to Dr. McDonald.
Dr. McDonald, could you succinctly kind of opine on what Brian was asking?
Yeah, I think his point was that Darwinism has been attacked, and certainly it has been attacked throughout the 20th century.
I mean, in my book, The Culture Critique, I talked about Franz Boas.
And there has been a tension between Christianity and Darwinism.
And that's very unfortunate, in my view.
I think that these things can be put together.
But there have been people who have tried to increase the sort of wedge between Christianity and Darwinism.
If you look at Van Stein's movie called Expelled, and I wrote a column on that.
If somebody sends me, if you send me an email, I'll send you the link to that.
But there are people who, there are Jewish activists who try to emphasize how Darwinism leads to the Holocaust.
In other words, they see Darwinism as opposed to Jewish interests.
And I think that's been very true.
I mean, I think, as I said, Franz Boas, but if you look at the whole furor over sociobiology in the 1970s, we talked about the suppression of William Hamilton's work, the suppression of Henry Harpony's work.
Only recently, Frank Salter's really great book on ethnic genetic interests has been put out.
Darwinism is a very powerful theory for understanding the consequences of immigration, for understanding what the stakes are here.
And to really make a very powerful intellectual argument for the importance of bonds between people of the same race, between people of the same family, and to understand that this is a very important part of our life, these bonds that we have with people in the same ethnic group and race.
Very good reply, Dr. McDonald.
And again, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize in advance.
We're just not going to be able to take nearly the bulk of calls that are coming in.
But I do want to get one more caller on before we turn it back over to Winston Smith as he is conducting this interview with me tonight.
Philip, in Pennsylvania, do you have a very quick question for Dr. McDonald?
Yes, Dr. McDonald, I was just wondering if you are briefly aware of E. Michael Jones' writings in the book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
And roughly speaking, although he frames it in a theological framework, the role that you think hostility toward European or possibly Christian culture plays in animating these Jewish political movements.
That's a good question.
E. Michael Jones is very good.
I haven't read his entire book.
I've read substantial parts of it, and I actually wrote a column about it.
It's a very good book, and I think he understands the hostility that Jews have had towards the West throughout their history.
And I think that's something that we certainly agree on.
Now, of course, we disagree on the theological frame.
He's got a theological framework.
I have a Darwinian framework.
But it's amazing how we see eye to eye in a lot of historical events.
So I am an admirer of E. Michael Jones.
Wes from Idaho, you're on the line with Kevin McDonald.
Wes, are you there?
Yeah.
Do you have a question for our guest?
Yes.
Take it away.
It's your time to advance for it.
I thought it was screening.
Yes.
Dr. Kevin McDonald, you mentioned the Old Testament.
What about the Talmud?
Also, can you comment on Franz Boas, the father of modern cultural anthropology?
And last, can you comment on the book by James von Brun, the Kill the Best Gentiles?
Tiles?
All right.
Thank you, Wes.
Dr. McDonald, are you familiar with any of those writings?
I mean, I'm sure you're obviously familiar with the Talmud and Franz Boas.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
I haven't read the Talmud.
It's 27 volumes.
I've read about it and I've read little sections of it.
And, you know, it is the case.
And there's recently a book called Jesus in the Talmud.
There's certainly a lot of hostility that you can see in Jewish religious, in those sources against Christianity.
So the Talmud certainly represents that aspect of Judaism, the hostility.
But it's also a very extremely detailed law book.
This is a sort of legal code of Jews, and it's endlessly elaborated.
And so it's very interesting to read.
I have written about it in chapter 7 in my first book, People That Shall Dwell Alone.
Franz Boas is a chapter on him and culture of critique.
He's one of these Jewish social scientists who strongly identified as a Jew and saw his work in cultural anthropology as destroying Darwinism.
And actually, I think he did.
I mean, his movement managed to dominate departments of anthropology in the United States, certainly by 1925 or so, even before that.
And their view was that race was nothing, that cultural variation was everything.
And there was a strong, you know, there was a lack of emphasis on genetics and what Darwin, how Darwin saw things.
So that was one of the most important intellectual events of the 20th century: the destruction of Darwinism in departments of anthropology.
As far as von Brun, I haven't read his stuff.
I really don't know much about him.
Yeah, nor do I, except for what I've read in the headlines.
But I do want to thank those calls coming in from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Idaho, respectively.
We're going to turn the phones off right now.
I want to give Winston Smith a chance to offer one final question and summation to Dr. Kevin McDonald tonight, who has been our guest for the past hour.
Winston, we've got about four minutes left.
I want to tell our listeners that they can find out more about Dr. Kevin McDonald and his writings by going to his website at www.kevinmacdonald.net.
Again, that's www.kevinmacdonald.net.
There you can find links to his books.
You can find links to criticisms of his works.
You can find links to his responses to criticisms.
And you can also find a link to his own excellent blog.
So I encourage you to go there, www.kevinmacdonald.net.
Dr. McDonald, we expect the usual Pavlovian hostility towards you from the usual gang of anti-Gentile, anti-Christian, anti-white thugs such as the ADL and the SPLC.
But you seem to garner a fair amount of criticism from people we would think would be more accepting and accommodating of your work, people who would be classified as paleoconservatives or white nationalists.
For example, Takyo Ansayo made mention of your, quote, malice and brain-dead stupidity, unquote.
Now, there's a reasoned argument for you.
And you responded by writing, quote, such characterizations must be understood as nothing more or less than attempts to draw boundaries of acceptable political discourse in a way that is acceptable to Jewish interests.
It is exactly the sort of thing that Jewish neoconservatives did to vitiate the American conservative movement by excluding people like Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis, unquote.
Now, your research is meticulous.
Your writing is well-reasoned and pristine and pellucid, and your data is solid.
Now, why do people on the so-called or alleged political right feel the need, even the duty, to draw boundaries of discourse that are acceptable to Jewish interests?
And Dr. McDonald, we have about two minutes before the break.
Yeah, well, I think that's a very interesting phenomenon.
And what I'm talking about here are certain Jews who are associated with the paleoconservative right.
And I think they are concerned that, you know, my writing, I'm skeptical about Jewish motivations and so on.
So they want to exclude me from the paleoconservative right.
And I don't think they're going to succeed in that.
But when they use things like brain-dead stupidity, I mean, anybody who looks at my writing, I understand this is ridiculous.
As you say, I certainly work hard at getting it right.
I try to get my facts right.
I think I've been very honest in how I argue and so on.
When they do this, all they're trying to do is make me radioactive, make me somebody that nobody wants to associate with.
I mean, Pat Buchanan's had this thing happen to him.
Sam Francis, they basically expelled him from the conservative movement.
And they started calling him names racist.
And Pat Buchanan has been called anti-Semi how many times?
There's a huge page on him in the ADL.
They just try to prevent you from being acceptable, somebody you'd want to be proud to cite or to discuss his or her ideas.
That's just a political tactic.
That's all it is.
It's an old Marxist construct.
That's exactly what it is, Dr. McDonald, a Marxist construct.
These are shut-up words used to, I guess, malign and defame people that they can't debate in the court of public opinion.
And hopefully, one day our population and citizenry will mature to the fact that they disregard these malicious slanders from the left and see people and their research for what they truly are.
I hope so.
I think it may be happening a little bit more.
We'll see.
I mean, I don't know.
We are still a very small minority, but I think that as time goes on, there may be political situations that make our ideas more palatable.
I think whites are being dispossessed.
When people children into college, when they then it's going to happen.
Dr. McDonald, I can't thank you enough for being with us this past hour.
There's still one more hour to come tonight in the political sespa, ladies and gentlemen, but we are out of time with Dr. McDonald.