Derbyshire vs. MacDonald Revisited

I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say that Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is one of the most important books of our age. Despite this fact, it has garnered remarkably little attention in traditional spheres, particularly academic circles. Of course, the reasons for this are obvious — the book is critical of Jewish behavior, it helps Gentiles understand how Jews are working against Gentile interests, and it shows that Jews control much of the content of academic and media discussion.

At the same time, MacDonald and his works have garnered immense attention from those who are often harmed by Jewish behavior or are excluded from areas of cultural construction, including many in the loosely-defined “Alt-Right.” Further, Prof. MacDonald has been indefatigable in his efforts to spread his views, appearing on countless podcasts and other Internet shows, speaking at conferences, etc. In my estimation, MacDonald is the hands-down intellectual leader of resistance to Jewish attacks on the White race, and in our circles he is honored as such.

Recently, a young man in the academic arena chose to address MacDonald’s work, which has given MacDonald a chance to once again defend his various theses on Jews. The academic is Nathan Cofnas, a graduate student working toward his doctorate in the philosophy of biology at the University of Oxford. (He is not a professor yet, though as a potential graduate of Oxford with a Ph.D.  —  and as a Jew who has published an attack on MacDonald —  his chances of gaining a good tenured teaching position are almost guaranteed.)

Fortunately for us, Spencer Quinn, a prolific writer for Counter-Currents, has ably summarized the debate between MacDonald and Cofnas. See Parts 12, 3 and 4.

This leaves me free to bring back a similar older debate among MacDonald, John Derbyshire, and Joey Kurtzman. Though these debates deserve a revisit based on their own merits, the fact that Cofnas has now revived similar discussions makes previous discussions all the more relevant.

I first wrote about Derbyshire’s opinions of KMAC’s work way back in 2008, then again in 2012. For the purposes of this current piece, I will crib liberally from those original two essays, though the links within have often not survived well.

Derbyshire’s first major piece on MacDonald appeared in the March 10, 2003 issue of The American Conservative under the title “The Marx of the Anti-Semites.” (Editors chose the title, not Derbyshire.)There Derb’s take on the book was mixed, beginning with “The Culture of Critique includes many good things. . . . Kevin MacDonald is working in an important field.” He even validates an important point of MacDonald’s work: “These Jewish-inspired pseudoscientific phenomena that The Culture of Critique is concerned with — Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on — were they a net negative for America? Yes, I agree with MacDonald, they were.”

Derbyshire, however, then concludes that “This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book.” What? That’s odd. I suspect I’m not the only reader sensing an unexplained contradiction here. (See MacDonald’s reply.)

To be fair, Derbyshire is a writer caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. While he aims to write honestly — wherever the chips may fall, as he implies — he’s also exquisitely aware of the risks a non-Jew takes when writing in a forthright manner about things Jewish. Worse, as a self-described minor name in American journalism, he fears that any criticism of Jews may well spell career destruction.

Derbyshire made an excellent case for this risk in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, the Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post,  or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Yes, he was confident. After all, one of Derbyshire’s exchanges was titled “Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You: Criticizing Jews is professional suicide.” Despite this conscious awareness of why he wouldn’t give MacDonald’s work the praise it deserves, Derbyshire still feels qualified to act as an honest interpreter of MacDonald’s works and intentions. As I say, odd.

Then we’re back to Derbyshire admitting that he finds the parts about the “partly malign influence of Jews on modern American culture very persuasive.” And then it’s back to snark, referring to MacDonald’s work as “some rather abstruse socio-historical theories cooked up by a cranky small-college faculty member.” This last crack, of course, recalls Judith Shulevitz’s nasty comment in her 2000 Slate article: “A man in his 50s, MacDonald is still an associate professor of psychology at a third-rate school, California State University in Long Beach.” (She was wrong; MacDonald was a full professor, though he’s now retired.)

Derbyshire continued to be schizophrenic on issues involving Jews, praising, for instance Yuri Slezkine’s exposé, The Jewish Century. (See MacDonald’s review of Slezkine.) While Derbyshire wrote that, after reading Slezkine’s book, he finally understood the importance of the assertions about the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution, he still thinks Jews have been A-OK on the whole. I guess as long as you’re breaking goyische eggs to make that utopian omelette, it’s acceptable.

But let’s review what Slezkine wrote about Jews in the USSR: “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.” Estimates are that up to twenty million non-Jews died during this “rise of the Jews,” prompting Slezkine to call such Jews “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Elsewhere in the world, however, Derbyshire felt that Spain suffered greatly for expelling its Jews, and America without its great wave of Jewish immigrants indisputably “would have been worse off.” One wonders about such claims. Frankly, I’m more inclined to agree with the conclusions MacDonald so often reaches when it comes to the impact of Jewish behavior on White populations, particularly with respect to America.

For instance, are the vulgar performances of Sarah Silverman part of the “wonderful vitality” Derbyshire attributes to American Jews? Harvey Weinstein? Jewish pornography? Wall Street corruption and fraud in amounts Gentiles can barely imagine? As MacDonald argues in the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, as American culture has become progressively more influenced by Jews, it has become far less healthy, at least for majority Whites.

Again, when Derbyshire writes that “it’s a scandal that Kevin’s books are not more widely reviewed and read” and that shutting them out from the public forum is “absurd and unfair,” I applaud him. But I wish he had more consistency and courage when it comes to this issue.

Some years later, Derbyshire entered into a dialogue with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com. Surprisingly, Kurtzman comes across as the greater booster of MacDonald’s work, writing that:

MacDonald has presented us with a fascinating and genuinely novel examination of the history and internal workings of the Jewish world. His trilogy is a hell of a read. To any Jewcy readers tired of pious, ‘hooray-for-us!’ Jewish historiography, or just interested in seeing traditional Jewish history through a kaleidoscope, I happily recommend it.

The Derbyshire-Kurtzman exchange is excellent, and links seem to remain intact, so I recommend reading each post, then finding the next link at the end of each post.

There’s also Derbyshire’s meditations on Jon Entine’s thoughts on Kevin MacDonald. Derbyshire commented on a column on VDARE in which Entine, author of Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People, alleged that MacDonald said, “I’m a scientific racist” and likened MacDonald’s work to “The Protocols of Zion.” Entine then summed up MacDonald’s work as making the argument that “Jews have an almost diabolical, biologically programmed plan of dominance.”

Not surprisingly, MacDonald vehemently disagreed, stating, “I never wrote anything like ‘the devious nature of Jews.’ Such a statement would be an outrageous overgeneralization. Rather, I simply stated that Jewish identification and interests among the Boasians were unstated in their public writings and that the movement was couched in the language of science and universalism.”

For some reason, however, Derbyshire concluded that “Entine’s account seems fair to me.”

I’ve read so much of what Derbyshire has written about MacDonald yet I simply can’t square Derb’s conclusion about MacDonald’s work. Again, this draws me back to Derb’s exchanges with Kurtzman, where in one of them we read :  “The first thing you hear when you go into opinion journalism is ‘don’t f*ck with the Jews.’”

Fair enough  —  and again, I’m trying to be understanding of Derbyshire’s position as a relatively weak Gentile facing off against the Goliath of Jewish institutional power. Still, I’m a little disgruntled at how far Derbyshire is willing to go on some things, but not the JQ. After all, he is not afraid of breaking many taboos, having written VDARE columns such as “Gypped By Gypsies In Canada” and “Orientalia: ‘Chineseman’, ‘Chinaman’ And PC.” Yet he remains, in his words, careful not to “f*ck with the Jews.”

OK, let’s acknowledge that he was fired by National Review for writing too frankly about Black criminality in his Taki Magazine essay “The Talk: Nonblack Version.”  The gist of “The Talk” to his young children was that they should “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally” and “Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” Well, we know that Jewish influence at The National Review has always been strong, especially now,  and we have ample evidence that Jews have been using Black Americans in their war against Whites for a long time now. In that sense, Derb was still “f*cking with Jews.”

Needless to say, Derbyshire is hardly alone in being sidelined, try as he might not to antagonize the Jews. In the last year alone we’ve seen any number of open critics of Jewish behavior punished in one way or other, either through de-platforming, doxxing, demonitization, jailing, physical assault, lawfare or a combination of the above.

Despite that, individuals on the Alt Right continue to push for White interests, as we’ve seen with The Right Stuff crew, Andrew Anglin and Chris Cantwell. (Unfortunately, there now seems to be some bad blood among them.) David Duke soldiers on, directly addressing the JQ almost daily, and lovers of fiction can still get Harold Covington’s quintet of Northwest Novels (scroll down to individually select the five novels). Also, one can read Catholic traditionalist E. Michael Jones, whom I’ve reviewed numerous times (here, here, here, and here).

Former TOO contributor Lasha Darkmoon and her writers also continue to address the JQ, and if you’re interested in views from the extreme Left, one could do worse than read essays and short books from Prof. James Petras. Counter-Currents still addresses the JQ, but it’s here at TOO that readers can consistently find new and provocative fare about this critical topic.

In any case, I can understand why Derbyshire was torn about all this, and had he continued to write things some Jews might not like, he’d be paying a price similar to what Richard Spencer and others are paying now. In that sense, Derb’s a practical man, though he’s still paid a price that is not negligible. On the whole, I guess I’m thankful that he did that long exchange with Joey Kurtzman, which I hope readers will go back and copy before it, too, disappears.

And I’m thankful that Kevin MacDonald responded to Nathan Cofnas, keeping the JQ in play despite robust attempts to shut discussion down. Stay tuned for more TOO essays on this topic.

32 replies
  1. ariadnatheo
    ariadnatheo says:

    “I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is one of the most important books of our age.”
    No, you’re not exaggerating. In this video Patrick Little refers to it about 100 times during the interview by a Jewish reporter and says (not verbatim) that it was the watershed that “woke him up to the truth.” The reporter looks very nervous and avoids looking him in the eyes and you get the feeling he is gathering biographical information and statements that can be used to crucify Little. Little probably has as much of a chance to be elected as a snowflake in Jewish hell (a hotter section of hell). He is articulate, lucid and very well informed.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiHW9zc6X8

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Patrick Little refers to [Culture of Critique] about 100 times during the interview by a Jewish reporter”

      Little also refers to Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf many, many times so what does that say to you? I’m not sure if he does in this interview, there was too much background noise for me to listen to it, but in others he does, and in conjunction with CoC, too, and also David Duke. I wonder how Kevin would react to Little, because of that.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Carolyn,
        Little’s reference to Hitler and Mein Kampf could mean many things. I had a high school history teacher, in the 60s, who was a WWII injured vet. He would almost foam at the mouth speaking about Hitler and what he did to the Jews encouraging us to read Mein Kampf, because it was “all in there”. So, As a blank slate 18 year old, I found a copy and read it. I found it extremely boring. The few Jews that I knew, including one that married into the family, weren’t really “Jewish”, they were Canadians who happened to be Jews.
        Fast forward 20 years, during which I had studied overseas, met. interacted and worked with dozens more, as well as having heard and read “revisionist” versions of events, Mein Kampf meant something completely different to me. Today, with the misinformation about Hitler slowly but surely being cut away, Mein Kampf has proven to be largely correct.
        In recent years, I have found many websites, such as this one,
        https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html that have filled in many blanks. Unfortunately, my “pidgen” German is nowhere near the level needed to truly understand the material in German.
        It is not glorifying Hitler, it’s an observation. He had many flaws, and the entirety of National Socialist doctrine would not fit for most of us struggling to correct the path our countries have been on, something that Hitler made abundantly clear: it was a German solution for German problems.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Thanks, Curmudgeon,
          I sincerely appreciate your good intention but after reading this twice I am not entirely sure as to what point you are trying to make to me. Unless it is the same as came from Pierre de Craon and before him, Poupon Marx—that Hitler had many flaws or faults and therefore should not be ‘glorified,’ or even too highly praised. But senate candidate Patrick Little is doing just that.
          Little’s references to AH and MK, in the three or so full-length video interviews I have watched, are of a totally positive nature and quite numerous. Little’s meaning is not in doubt and does not in any way resemble the attitude of your high school history teacher. I think your quandry is that you don’t want to dismiss Patrick Little because you appreciate his pro-white message and praise for Kmac and CoC, but wish to downplay his inclusion of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. In the words of the two gentlemen mentioned above, it is okay to reassess one’s views of Hitler from demon to legitimate world leader, but we must not carry his legitimacy too far.
          Strange, isn’t it, how no one complains when even article authors published here glorify Winston Churchill without making mention of his many flaws. I assume that’s because although they know what the flaws were, his ‘great deeds’ (which only he could have accomplished, it is believed) outshine them.
          But without doubt AH’s great accomplishments in the realm of actually improving the lives of the German people were way beyond what WC was able to, or even cared to, bring about in the lives of the British people. Same with Roosevelt in the USA.
          Hitler sought mightily and successfully to avoid war with his neighbors while he brought about this improved life for Germans and recovery from the unjust Versailles Treaty. If you read David Hoggan’s detailed account of the diplomatic exchanges that led from WWI, 1914 to the Polish-German War in 1939 (The Forced War), it is clear that Adolf Hitler was the most responsible statesman of all the actors in that drama, which revealed quite ugly moral flaws and faults in the others. From that engineered war, the die was cast that Germany would not be allowed to live and all Hitler did was to fight for the life of his people. If you still think it’s important to emphasize the “many flaws” of AH and his National Socialist doctrine, go at it. But don’t advise me to.

          As a postscript, I’d like to add that no one here has any idea of how to stop the now impending destruction of the entire white, European race. It’s not coming from what Hitler did, but from what his enemies did to him. This is the confession I’m longing to hear for I believe it’s the only way to heal our collective soul and make us strong again.

          • Ed Johnson
            Ed Johnson says:

            Well there’s a lot to be said for Patton’s view that we defeated the wrong enemy. Just don’t say it if you have a job or family to protect! … You say that no one has any idea of how to stop the impending destruction of the white race. While I wouldn’t put my goals in racial terms, I certainly would oppose the destruction of the white race and I have lots of ideas. IMO white nationalism is stillborn because it overlooks the utter powerless of American non-whites, who are essentially game pieces. It’s truly laughable to see “white nationalists” carry out the Bill Kristol /Elliot Abrams plan for a “New Cold War” against Islam. So the first order of business is to disseminate a thumb-nail sketch of the real electoral and ideological dynamic, which is the Rainbow Coalition plan, which turns out not to be a coalition but a multi-cultural team under the direction of the globalists. The globalists offer the non-whites freebies and flattery in return for Democrat votes and support for anti-racism campaigns that are in effect anti-white. Once Democrats are in office they pursue a proto-totalitarian anti-white socially radical agenda. The natural and correct response is the populist one which is simply to match the other side’s offer of free stuff in return for support on cultural issues. Since non-whites (other than Hollywood celebrities) are generally hostile to political correctness, they will begin to drift over to the other side. While Trump proved the potency of the white vote, some non-white goodwill would help with the white vote as well as hurting the anti-white vote. I suspect Trump is making modest inroads with his repeated claims of lowering black unemployment.
            The second prong is to see that the Republicans can’t get away with ditching the socially conservative agenda to please their billionaire donors. Here too, causing the red-state public to see the dynamic is half the solution. The GOP promises right-wing legislation but is careful not to deliver.
            Far deeper is the problem that the “pro-white” side cannot express itself without being severely punished. If pro-white speech is criminalized then only criminals will engage in it. Or retired single people with little to lose, etc. The way forward is to build a secure internet platform. Once access is no longer an issue, trolling is by far the best way to build public legitimacy for tabooed ideas. Trolling conveys energy, youth, confidence, defiance: all essential to the success of a movement. The trolling will hit home because it will remind the public of things it knows to be true, and there is a feeling of relief or even mirth when someone succeeds in saying what we all know to be true but were afraid to say.
            As for John Derbyshire, I don’t think anyone should get away with using the harmfully vague term “anti-Semitic” without first defining it. That would be a good theme to focus on.

          • Curmudgeon
            Curmudgeon says:

            Caroline,
            By glorifying, I meant pretend the flaws didn’t exist. One flaw, in my view, is that he assumed others would be as forthright as he was in attempting to resolve issues peacefully. It is a flaw only in the political sense. I am now aware of the many forces and plotters against AH and the NSDAP, both internal and foreign, something that I never would have considered 30 years ago.
            I have long subscribed to the theory that anyone who seeks the highest political office, regardless of the country, is ruthless as well as being flawed. That doesn’t mean that people like Hitler, DeGaulle, and others were not well meaning. Lloyd George called Hitler Germany’s Washington. Other contemporary politicians, such as Ramsay and Moseley, understood the need for NS Germany doing what it was doing, and paid a heavy price for exposing the lies.
            The link I provided contains many essays and booklets, many of them first hand accounts from the 1930s that directly contradict the propaganda churned out by the “Allies” (or more appropriately (((All-lies))) ) during the same period.

            In terms of the NSDAP program, it made perfect, or near perfect sense for Germany, at that time, but not necessarily for countries. Many aspects of the program are still applicable to the Germany of today. With the (((West))) sinking into the depravity of the Wiemar Republic era, I daresay that large parts of the program would be applicable to the rest of us. I suspect Little is in that mindset.

            Your postscript raises very valid points. I have a solution to the problem, but it would take thousands to carry it out. The thousands could never be assembled because we live in police states and are continually spied upon, and I don’t have the resources of AIPAC, the CFR or the myriad of other alphabet organizations working against us. JB Campbell has a plan (many actually) as well https://www.jbcampbellextremismonline.com/sep-2011—oct-2013/category/time%20to%20destroy%20the%20cfr
            Our enemies are the new generations of Hitler’s enemies. I too am pessimistic about our future, as I see that even my own children, in spite of my best efforts, seem oblivious to the dangers.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            @ Curmudgeon,
            Clearly, you have no specific claims to make about Hitler’s “many flaws”, but you still want to hang on to your idea that we need to bring up his flaws. Every human being is flawed, so citing that Hitler was not shrewd enough against the powerful politicians and Jews who had ganged up against him is certainly not a moral flaw, is it. It’s pretty hard to be shrewd enough when the leaders of the UK, USA, Soviet Union and World Jewry, and lets not forget Poland, are all conspiring against you, and you’ve basically got no one on your side.
            I do not glorify Hitler. It is others who want to turn him into a divinity or a comic-book hero. I seek for the truth and tell it. For example, here: http://carolynyeager.net/what-i-learned-about-adolf-hitler-hermann-giesler about Hitler’s “ruthlessness.”
            Some news that just broke exemplifies the situation we are in today, and why we desperately need to change it. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/06/02/afd-chief-nazi-era-speck-bird-poop-in-german-history.html
            I think everyone would agree that the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party is good for Germany and Europe. Their parliamentary leader, Alexander Gauland, is being lambasted for calling the Nazi era a “speck of bird shit” in the nation’s 1000 year history in an address to the party’s youth organization. While I don’t go along with the “bird shit” analogy, I’m sure he’s wanting to find a legal way to open up the insane view of the Third Reich in Germany for more discussion, for public talk, for some breathing room – so I applaud him. Of course, the left/Globalists do not want that and are screaming bloody murder for his execution.
            This is why it’s so important that we free ourselves from this PC history vise-grip that we’re in, so we can discuss it openly without labeling others, frothing at the mouth or arresting people. It starts right here.

            True statement: “Our enemies are the new generations of Hitler’s enemies.” That says it all.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      Huge mistake for Patrick Little to agree to be interviewed by an enemy – in a place chosen by this enemy, yet. He is overconfident: typical white guy assuming that everyone, even a person who hates him, will deal with him honestly. This reminds me of that long interview Zundel gave a reporter from Israel. He just spilled his guts, not thinking things through at all. Like a child, almost. “If this guy will interview me, it’s okay for me to say anything!”

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Barkingmad.

        01 I would have agreed to the interview venue chosen [ ? ] by the so-called reporter, then sought out an alternative and insisted on the change of location at the very last moment.

        02 With today’s poisons, the old Royal Food Tasters are of no use. He freely ate and drank what he was served.

        03 He spoke of obsessively paying off his boat, whose large interior cabin is featured on another video giving an interview to a reporter from Japan’s oldest paper.

        Any boat enthusiast or salesman could give you the make and model, perhaps the year of the boat. I would never have joined him on it without wearing a blast suit.

        All of us can imagine the LA Times report on his fiery death after a head-on with a gravel truck and the approving nods of the too-much-sun Christian-Zionists out there.

        04 The so-called reporter was the consummate pro; probably the best that the Mossad admittedly embedded in the US could muster.

        05 Not a thing was omitted to completely undo him on all levels; in all functions. Even the exact date of birth – for an astrological assessment.

        06 Said reporter was interested in Little’s travels from pro to con, almost to the point essential for those who would study and program the prevention of the repetition of this trajectory in individuals and even the masses.

        07 Patrick was terrific, superbly informed, logical and fearless: remaining pleasant throughout. I particularly enjoyed his denigration of convoluted theories to their more appropriate, disarming body-parts and -functions: and his inarguable view of cause and effect.

  2. Edward Brown
    Edward Brown says:

    ‘Elsewhere in the world, however, Derbyshire felt that Spain suffered greatly for expelling its Jews, and America without its great wave of Jewish immigrants indisputably “would have been worse off.”’

    I knew he was iffy but I didnt know he was this bad

    • John W
      John W says:

      I am lead to believe that Mr. Derbyshire is lead by his better angles to deploy his conservative credentials (arguably x-Tory) without subjective overreach. You will not hear of him, I don’t think, disrespecting the Traditional English in favor of the Empire, or attempting to bring AH into context to the detriment of received popular history, or calling for the US Military to turn on ol’ ZOG and deploy to Israel in order to restore moral order in the Universe.

      But neither will you find him with a firm grasp on the American Revolution as counterweight to the British Empire Worldwide, or the LaRouche meme of the Venician/Dutch Banking system; enabler of Jewish Money Power visa vi the temptation and swindle of English people.

      “The Derb” to some extents epitomizes the idea of two cultures separated by a common language.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      On Derbyshire saying the Spaniards suffered from expelling the Jews.

      A Hasbara once said that and I noted that after the expulsion of the Jew Spain went through one of the greatest expansions and wealthiest periods in their history. The Jews response, “well they fell 200 years later”. I got a good laugh out of that.

  3. Armor
    Armor says:

    Derbyshire agreed that Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on, were a net negative for America, but he still said, inconsistently, that America would have been worse off without the Jews.

    Presumably, he thinks White Americans would have been better off without the Blacks. In fact, both groups are a financial weight on White people. The Blacks are worse in the area of street violence, but the Jews are responsible for bringing in migrants with violent tendencies.

    In the cultural field, the Blacks would have little impact on us without the Jewish interference through government and the media. White people would not go to school with Blacks, would not be interested in rap music, and would not watch Black people on TV.

    In contrast to the Blacks, the Jews have a huge destructive influence on our culture. We can largely escape Black culture by staying away from them, but we cannot escape Jewish influence, direct or indirect. They have taken over our society as a whole and largely destroyed it.

    Studies about “multiculturalism”, like Robert Putnam’s work, will tend to focus on the racial coexistence between Whites and other races, and how racial diversity destroys social trust, but what really destroys White society and White self-confidence is mainly Jewish interference. Blacks and Mexicans destroy us by simply replacing us. Jews destroy us by taking over our media, our communications, our institutions, and discarding our natural elites. Then, they use our former institutions to push things like the third-world invasion, race-mixing, anti-Whitism disguised as “antiracism”, liberalism, Ayn-Randism, the idea that we need an atomized society, and all kind of rubbish.

    Not only are we submitted to Jewish vulgarity and the new Jewish ethics, but we now have little access to real White intellectuals, real White artists, and normal White people who share our European mindset. We are not allowed to have our own media, and everyone in the administration has been formatted according to the Jewish ideology. As a result, we have become strangers in our own society. It has become harder for us than for our grand-parents to talk to each other and build relationships with fellow White people.

    The Jews have been subverting our morality and our ideals, beginning with our collective will to survive as White nations. According to them, it is morally wrong for us, as White people, to care for our race. We should only try to get richer, use our money to get more sex, forget any notion of transcendence, and accept our racial annihilation.

    There is something vulgar in living like that, and it goes much further than the vulgarity of Sarah Silverman. The Jews may have vulgar manners, but the ideals they want us to adopt are even more vulgar and contemptible.

    • Jett Rucker
      Jett Rucker says:

      Derbyshire evidently discounts the massive evidence that Jews in America were instrumental (crucially so) in involving the US in both World Wars. And then, of course, they eschewed dangerous or unprofitable involvement of their own persons in said war.

      Or maybe he never saw it. Reports of same are, of course, ruthlessly suppressed, and punished where and as they happen to appear.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      Armor’s comment was truly outstanding. Extremely well written, well thought out, and a brilliant summation of the existential crisis that Whites now find themselves in.

  4. Occidental Fan
    Occidental Fan says:

    Derbyshire’s equivocation hasn’t helped him. The SPLC have got him in their Big Black Book of Horrid Hateful Hate-Filled Haters under precisely the same heading as KMac:

    John Derbyshire, a VDARE contributor. Derbyshire’s antipathy towards multi-racial societies stem from anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theories. “Jewish elites in the media, arts, show business and the intelligencia have immensely disproportionate influence” in U.S. immigration policy,” he said during the American Renaissance 2015 conference.

    White Nationalists To Gather This March for VDARE’s First National Conference

  5. Caryl Johnston
    Caryl Johnston says:

    Re: Influence of Jews in USA: as long as the United Stats was nominally Christian and the ruling class white Anglo-Saxon protestant — for all their faults: Jews could play a great creative role. Jazz is the great contribution of the USA to music– a threefold contribution of blacks, whites and Jews. But once these important fences crumbled the toxic side of Jewish presence began to become more and more visible. Next time you listen to “All the Things you Are” or another of the great standards, reflect with sorrow how short is the time of true creative flowering in any culture…. especially ours. As Toynbee put it: great cultures commit suicide. Look around you.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Stratford Ontario Canada, a pleasant town situated in my neck of the woods, is known for the Stratford Festival, formerly the Stratford Shakespearean Festival, birthed in 1952 by Harry Thomas Patterson. During the first two decades the theatres’ playbill was strictly Shakespeare, but by the mid 1970’s plays by Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams and Eugene O’Neil were occasionally added to the bill, a bit of revenue and spice, and the Stratfords fame grew. At this point Canada’s Jews took an interest and soon Jewish plays , subtly Jewish that is, Jewish authors and song writers but not overtly Yiddish, became prominent on the playbills; Guys and Dolls, Our Town and Cabaret, and then came that slap to the goy face, that horror, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Shakespeare turned in his grave. The pinnacle of Jewish victory at Stratford came in 2000 when Fiddler On The Roof and The Diary of Anne Frank appeared…roll over Beethoven er uh Shakespeare. But it gets “better”, they’ve gone full circle. The 2018 season was proud to announce that women would be playing traditional male roles such as Julius Caesar and Prospero! Two nights ago Opening Night at the Stratford Festival was cancelled due to a bomb threat. I feel so good. Is there hope afterall ?

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Yes, the year 2000 was a watershed. My late uncle opined that we were doomed when Victor Rabinovitch was installed a the President of the Canadian Museum of History (Civilization at the time) following brother Robert at the CBC a year earlier.
        “One in charge of propaganda and the other in charge of our history” was his lament.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Curmudgeon, as one who keeps abreast of Canadian politics, you would recall the fiasco of the Jews demanding a ca, 20% proportion of a federally-funded museum in Ottawa, commemorating Canadian war losses, for their Holocaust exhibit.

          This was vehemently opposed by the Head of the Canadian War Amps, Cliff Chatterton [ with whom I had more than one conversation ].

          Some Jewish Senator got involved; they generously withdrew their demand, ONLY TO GET THEIR VERY OWN MUSEUM NEAR THE PARLIAMENT BUILDING, which, if memory serves, required the re-routing of a major arterial route into Quebec.

          Chatterton correctly never understood the connection between the holocaust and Canadian lives snuffed out. I informed him about the machinations of the Canadian Government, London, Wall Street and Washington in getting Trotsky, wife, two sons and five fellow-travelers released from Canada, after RN Captain Machin’s arrest of this party from aboard the ” SS Christianafjord ” [ former appellation for Oslo ] en route NYC to Norway, on April 3, 1917.

          [ I have a copy of Machin’s original arrest order, signed by him, in my possession, garnered from the National Archives in Ottawa, while rummaging in their Trotsky file ]

          Three weeks later Canada released all nine to continue to Finland, thence to Petrograd, to take over [ as planned ? ]from Kerensky, who, unlike all others of his Provisional Government, was never arrested but found himself on 91st Street on the affluent Upper East Side of Manhattan.

          Trotsky was present at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, ending the war in the East, affording the Kaiser the transfer of ca. 800,000 troops to the Western Front to kill your very own at a heightened rate during the last days.

          A friend in Ottawa showed me a photo of an aunt; an exemplar of ideal western womanhood in her early twenties. She lost her love on the second last day before Armistice, to forever remain a spinster.

          I also have a copy of a letter from Lawyer Aleinikoff, of West 57th Street, to the Post Master General of Canada, in his cabinet capacity. I’m thinking of putting it in a plastic envelope to prevent its Jewish, whining, disinformation and verbosity from dripping over other documents.

          Aleinikoff greasily implores the Post Master to inveigh for the release of Trotsky, since T was en route to Petrograd to shower the greatest blessings on the Russian oppressed masses. Bread, land, eternal peace, true democracy and all the rest of that Disney Production.

          Lying through his teeth, since especially he would have listened to Trotsky’s speeches to overflowing crowds at Madison Square Gardens; days before: just down the Avenue.

          Speeches which made the British Secret Service deploy five men to shadow the nine on board.

          Was it not a grand-nephew of Schiff, who told journalist Knickerbocker of the New York Post, that his uncle had spent 20 million on the Revolution, termed ” OUR THING ” by at minimum, NYC Jewry ? Ten thousand of which T had on his person, when he had been jailed at Amherst Prison POW camp, north of RN-extraterritorially-administered Halifax, N.S. [ I also have the three pages, in English and German, where he gives, in his writing, his personal details; signed ].

          And, since we are into disappointing details already, The Canadian Legion was established by Ottawa, as listening posts against Bolshevist activities, especially in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, since the slowly repatriated troops had been heavily propagandized by them while waiting for idle weeks.

          So says a 22 page study and planning paper by Ottawa.

          That much for the additional beneficial and essential effect by Jews on North American civilization.

          • Charles Frey
            Charles Frey says:

            The machers of that ‘ Russian ‘ Revolution realized, that a change from Czarism to Proletarian Dictatorship was quite a jump. They therefore arranged for the Social Democrats’ Feb-Nov interlude. It was they who had the Czar abdicate and also eliminated the Pale of Settlement restrictions and criminalized anti-Semitism.

            Even the contemporaneous calendar of Russia had February, the date of the erstwhile liberal Revolution, before April, the date of Aleinikoff’s greasy, mendacious, disinformation-bristling letter to Ottawa pleading for T’s release ” in the interest of all humanity “. [ I still hear the typical sing-song whining cadence of his letter which would make a good case study for the new forensic sciences computer-program to determine, almost with certainty, who and of what ethnicity or mother tongue wrote what ].

            The February Revolution was deliberately moderate to appeal to the greatest possible number of supporters: never intended to be allowed as the end-product of the
            [[[ machers ]]]. Both bandits were parked in NYC and Switzerland: ready and financed to the hilt.

            As demonstrated by this lawyer Aleinikoff’s deliberately
            [[[ ANACHRONISTIC ]]] letter.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if it took him 20 minutes to coil his Jewish Pinocchio nose into the elevator before he pushed the close button. And, what has changed: particularly with those Republikuds in Congress ?

            Good luck to ” bomb-bomb-bomb Iran ” McCain; [ for Israel ].
            He’ll rot away luxuriously, surrounded by doctors, friends and Democrats, instead of having his skin pealed off by radiation somewhere in the desert. .

  6. Peter
    Peter says:

    I have not read Professor MacDonald’s books (yet), but he and historian David Irving have had the biggest influence on my thinking. Both are (were) fantastic speakers in their own way. I use the word “were” for Mr. Irving who was a very dynamic speaker when he was younger.

    I wonder if John Derbyshire thinks Jews were good for Great Britain? Maybe they contributed to her strength prior to WW II (I don’t actually know), but David Irving revealed that they paid Churchill off to attack Germany (first in the media, then as Prime Minister) and backed him into power and he oversaw Britain’s WW II victory and bankruptcy and the breaking up of their empire. More than anyone else, Churchill and his Jews destroyed the British Empire and led it to where it is today. If they had not done the same thing to Germany, I might have cheered this, but how can any Englishman not consider Churchill and his Jews the biggest disaster that befell Britain (and all of Europe). I think there are at least a few Russians (and in fact people across all eastern Europe) that view Jews similarly, many being influenced by their parents or grandparents.

    • Arlene Johnson
      Arlene Johnson says:

      Hear hear! There are Jews and there are Jews. There is a Canadian Jewess who started the boycott against the state of Israel. See it here: http://www.truedemocracy.net/boycotts6.htm and then there are Zionists who want Greater Israel who have confiscated the Golan Heights and its water supply, attacked Syria whose president provides protection for the Jews there who live in Old Damascus who also protects the Christian community in Syria.

      In 1290 when the Jews were thrown out of Great Britain due to their meddling in the UK was usurped when Cromwell allowed them back in, only to result in the Bank of England being taken over because Rothschild lied about Napoleon winning the Battle of Waterloo.

      I have Jewish friends so no one can call me anti-semitic, and Semites are not Jews anyway, because Sem is the Greek word for Shem, one of Noah’s sons. See http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj32/39a.html

      That’s enough for now. Just know that I do not stereotype any race of people.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Arlene, the Golan Heights were illegally ANNEXED by Israel, for their oil.

        Genie Oil of New Jersey was/is owned by Rothschild
        [ unlimited funds ], Cheney [ political pull in the Swamp ] and Murdoch, the [ global publisher ]. They own the Golan oil. Both stereotypical and classic, though I agree with your differentiations.

        Haaretz ran an article by a reporter, who was told by Dayan how they provoked the Syrians to shoot first, before overwhelming them. They sent a tractor up the no-man’s land hill to the Syrian lines repeatedly until it drew fire.

        The IDF then used ” self defense ” and annihilated them. A proven and profitable business model, wouldn’t you agree ?

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        “…Just know that I do not stereotype any race of people…”

        A stereotype of a human group (whether defined biologically or culturally) makes as much sense as its average IQ. In other words, a stereotype of a human group is its average character, it being understood that just like in the case of average IQ, there are always outliers on both sides of the Bell curve.

  7. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    John Debyshire writes: “If Americans minded what was happening, they didn’t mind enough to stop it.

    That a Derbyshire could have penned such a statement in the face of 90% of the US population opposing, for decades, the policy that obtained — increasing rates of immigration decade after decade — , without seriously questioning the legitimacy of the polity itself, leads me to dismiss him as a serious commentator. But I do enjoy his Radio Derb podcasts. He’s an entertainer.

  8. Bob Roberts
    Bob Roberts says:

    I’d like to see someone look again at the case of Kevin Myers, who was abruptly fired by the Irish Times after it ran his column about women’s wages that started with an aside deemed anti-semitic. The interview of him by Emma Barnett of the BBC, available on YouTube, is really extraordinary. I’m not generally persuaded by the arguments on TOO, but I find them intriguing and I notice that they are almost never straightforwardly countered in the mainstream press. So what happened to Kevin Myers? Is he still writing? If so, where? And if Jewish media power isn’t responsible for his eradication, then what is?

  9. Marc
    Marc says:

    Many years ago my philosemitic self cheered on Darb’s crushing of the hateful Professor MacDonald in one of those older articles. But then I read Kmac’s rejoinder – and I’ve never been the same. It was like taking – what do the kids call it – a red pill …

Comments are closed.