My paper on Jewish influence blows up

My paper “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence” has generated considerable controversy. Springer Nature has put up the following statement at the beginning of the article:

04 January 2022 Editor’s Note: The Editor-in-Chief and publisher are aware of concerns raised with the content of this article and are investigating. Editorial action will be taken as appropriate once investigation of the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

The good news, of course, is that they are saying that I will be able to “respond in full.” This could get very interesting.

Meanwhile, I have come across two media accounts of the controversy. Justin Weinberg’s The Daily Nous, described as “news for and about the philosophy profession, useful information for academic philosophers, links to items of interest elsewhere, and an online space for philosophers to publicly discuss it all. The site is maintained by me, Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina.” The article, “Philosophy Journal Hosts Debate on “Jewish Influence” (updated),” by Weinberg, begins with a quote from the hostile Wikipedia article on me where I am labeled an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist,  and evolutionary psychologist.”  Weinberg:

Philosophia is edited by Asa Kasher (Tel Aviv). In response to questions about the publication of these articles, he wrote that the papers were refereed prior to publication, but that it was “a mistake” to publish them, explaining that he was “not aware of the general background of the debate” and that he is “sorry for treating the discussion as an ordinary philosophical debate.” He added that further comments from him may be forthcoming.

Yesterday, Moti Mizrahi (Florida Institute of Technology) who was until last night the associate editor of Philosophiawrote on Twitter: “I had nothing to do with the publication of this [McDonald’s] paper in Philosophia. I’ve asked the EiC to reconsider its publication in Philosophia.” Later in the day, he announced his resignation from the journal.

Weinberg seems particularly interested in publicizing my brief section titled “Should Jews be welcomed in White advocacy?” The idea of White advocacy is so far beyond the pale at this point that such a discussion is sure to anger activist Jews—and so obviously anathema that Weinberg included a screen shot of the section. I knew that the passage would result in anger, and one reviewer suggested I delete it. But Cofnas had argued that it’s no mystery why Jews don’t join White advocate movements that take a dim view of the effects of Jewish activism, so I thought it was important enough to keep in.

There is a sort of irony here because I started out my academic career by majoring in philosophy and then becoming a graduate student in philosophy, both at the University of Wisconsin. At the beginning I loved philosophy but gradually, due to the upheaval of the 1960s and having developed the idea that philosophy was really irrelevant to the contemporary world, I dropped out. A very difficult decision at the time, but probably the right one in the long run because by the time I came back to academia several years later, I had decided that biological, evolutionary perspectives on human behavior were what I was really interested in. Anyway, publishing an article in an academic philosophy journal is kind of a homecoming for me, and I’d have to say that my article is hardly evidence that an article in academic philosophy journal is irrelevant to the real world. Irrelevant articles don’t ignite furious public debate among activists.

It’s interesting that one section of my article discusses my personal experience with the New Left as a philosophy grad student; another discusses the general rise of Jewish academics to positions in elite universities: ‘Hollinger (1996: 160) notes that “One force in this [culture war of the 1940s] was a secular, increasingly Jewish, decidedly left-of-center intelligentsia based largely . . . in the disciplinary communities of philosophy and the social sciences.’ Lipset and Ladd (1971), using survey data of 60,000 academics from 1969, show that the 1960s were a critical period for the rise of Jewish academics in elite universities who were in general well to the left of non-Jewish professors.” The influx of Jewish faculty and the retirement of non-Jewish faculty were certainly obvious at the University of Wisconsin during that period. I can’t find an official history of that period in the department, but I can think of around 10 Jews, including Haskell Fain (my advisor, a good guy!), including most of the younger faculty.

The other article appeared in The Algemeiner, “a global news destination published online and in print, serves as an independent media voice covering the Middle East, Israel and matters of Jewish interest around the world”: “Israeli Philosophy Journal Scolded for ‘Legitimizing’ Notorious White Supremacist by Publishing Article on ‘Jewish Influence.’”

An Israeli academic journal stirred controversy this week after its publication of a paper on “Jewish influence” by notorious white supremacist Kevin MacDonald, prompting the resignation of its associate editor and a condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

On Sunday, the peer-reviewed Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel journal published the essay by MacDonald, a retired California State University-Long Beach professor and a virulently antisemitic figure influential in the US white supremacist movement.

Notice both articles use quotes around the word ‘influence.’ The Algemeinger article also baldly refers to my work as “antisemitic” and, like Weinberg, it emphasizes the section on Jews joining White advocacy movements, as in:

In a lengthy piece defending his earlier antisemitic work, MacDonald called Cofnas’ assessment of Jewish “influence” on US history “inadequate,” arguing among other things that “Jews should be allowed to join [pro-white] movements if they acknowledge the role and the power of the Jewish community in transforming America contrary to white interests and direct their efforts at converting the Jewish community to pro-white advocacy.”

And we hear from the predictably outraged ADL:

The report’s author, ADL Center on Extremism Senior Research Fellow Marilyn Mayo, told The Algemeiner on Tuesday that MacDonald’s body of work was “blatantly antisemitic,” and said that publishing his article was “not a mistake that can just be shirked off.”

“I think it’s disappointing that a journal based in Israel would publish the work of an antisemite,” Mayo said. “Promoting the work of an antisemite in an academic journal legitimizes it.”

But rest assured, the ADL’s attempt to have the article withdrawn is not about censorship. It’s about truth.

“It’s not about censorship, but looking at what someone is saying and whether you’re validating views that are antisemitic or racist or promoting ideas that have proven to be conspiratorial and not true,” she continued.  “Of course, in academia there is understandably a drive to present all different kinds of views, and that’s understandable — but it is also incumbent upon institutions and journals to vet what’s put out there or put it in context.”

The phrase “ideas that have proven to be conspiratorial and not true” is a classic. Which ideas is she referring to? There are literally dozens of ideas discussed in my paper. Is she saying that the activist—c Jewish community didn’t really organize, lead, fund, and perform most of the work of the most important anti-restrictionist organizations active from 1945–1965? Is there no basis to my claim that they recruited prominent non-Jews, such as JFK and Hubert Humphrey, as spokesmen for immigration? Did Jews own the three major television networks and Hollywood studios during that period? Did Jewish academics attempt to shape public views on race? Was the activist Jewish community hopelessly split between different perspectives so that in aggregate they had no influence—or were there virtual consensuses during particular times and places? To name a few.

And something Ms. Mayo should be able to comment on directly. Cofnas claimed that I maintained that Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes re Israel vs the U.S.—concerned about demographic eclipse in Israel if there was a one-state solution, but championing replacement-level immigration in the U.S. In response I noted that the ADL described Tucker Carlson’s claim that White people are being replaced in the U.S. as “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” and noted that Carlson put up a screen shot from the ADL website pointing out that Jews in Israel would be in danger if Jews became a minority. Why was this statement removed from the ADL website? I accessed it on the ADL website at the time Carlson mentioned it, but the link that worked in April, 2021 ( now says, “You are not authorized to access this page.”

Of course, there is no attempt to dispute my assertions on these matters. Nothing concrete that I could respond to. We’ll see if anyone else does. But rest assured, the vast majority of academics will be intimidated by such pronouncements and will stay inside their safe spaces. Being labeled an “anti-Semite” is the kiss of death for pretty much everyone these days.

I recently posted a blog item on the passing of E.O. Wilson. It was generally laudatory, and notes that he emphasized the roles of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin in the academic attacks on him. But one wonders if he was intimidated from publicly noting that their Jewish identities growing up in a radical Jewish subculture influenced their views, as discussed in  Chapter 2 in The Culture of Critique. I recently came across an interview EOW did for Quillette in 2011 where he elaborates on Gould and Lewontin. He singles out Gould and Lewontin among the many academics who had condemned Sociobiology:

Furious ideologically based opposition had built up in 1978. That opposition had been fanned by a small number of academics including [paleontologist] Stephen Jay Gould and [evolutionary biologist] Richard Lewontin and two or three others on the Harvard faculty who thought this was a very dangerous idea and said so. These people helped organize the so-called “Science for the People” movement, or the branch of it called the “Sociobiology Study Group.” Their purpose was to discredit me personally for having brought up such a dangerous and destructive idea. …

Even before the Internet, there were colleagues I’ve had to watch closely, out of self-defense. Gould and Lewontin could change your identity to evil. Until the end, Gould was continuing to speak out against studies on human genetics and the biological basis of human behavior. At every opportunity, he would put the needle in.

On the ease of academic publishing if you are on the left:

Gould and Lewontin could publish fast and easily. In the early days of forensic DNA analysis, Lewontin came out with a tremendous blast against it and, to my astonishment, he actually had a paper published in Science. He said that since the odds of making a mistake with an African American was greater than making a mistake with whites, forensic DNA analysis was racist and should not be used. He was talking about how the chances of making a false match by chance alone was one in, say, 150 million (I’m just making up numbers here to illustrate his point) in African Americans, while in whites it was something like one in 300 million, so we shouldn’t use the technology. Of course, soon afterwards we saw not people being unjustly convicted, but people being freed when their convictions were overturned, many of whom were African Americans who had been wrongly convicted!

On the other hand, as EOW noted in a 1994 book Naturalist (345), Lewontin imposed the highest scientific rigor on those attempting to publish ideas he disagreed with: “By adopting a narrow criterion of publishable research, Lewontin freed himself to pursue a political agenda unencumbered by science. He adopted the relativist view that accepted truth, unless based on ineluctable fact, is no more than a reflection of dominant ideology and political power.”

Going back to the Quillette interview, EOW on Gould’s Machiavellian personality:

I have a certain cynical feeling towards Gould. Gould was going around attacking racists wherever he found them, especially in the early part of his career. He was the great anti-racism crusader. He acted as though other scientists were all racists or incipient racists. He almost implied that he was the champion who would step out of science as a scientist and fight racism everywhere. He had a technique. I knew him when he was a graduate student following me around. He used to be very polite and solicitous. I watched him develop into a very different kind of person.

So Gould was polite and solicitous as a graduate student and likely as an untenured faculty member, but as soon as he had power and security at an elite academic institution, he became a different person—probably a common phenomenon as second- and third-generation Jews were ascending the ladders to elite status in American society. Indeed, EOW notes “I knew [Gould] well enough to know he sought fame and riches. He sought that out.” Lewontin also enjoyed an upper-middle-class lifestyle:

Here was a guy who was an intense Marxist, who spent so much time rallying on behalf of the proletariat, who was all about the class struggle. And he struck me absolutely as a BMW-driving, Cambridge-living, Romance-language-phrase-dropping snob.

This contrasts with EOW’s description of Ruth Hubbard, another Harvard professor who rejected his work:

I always thought of [Hubbard] as burning with a pure fire. She believed all of this. She was dedicated in an honest way to all of this. She was doing other things, too. She was putting herself into civil rights movement, she was an early environmental activist. She was on the wrong side of the problem that culminated in [Napoleon Chagnon’s] difficulties, but at least she was sincere.

Hubbard seems to have been the sort of WASP idealist discussed extensively in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Chaps. 6 & 7), but that was definitely not how EOW saw Gould and Lewontin. I am wondering if Wilson ever thought about their Jewish identities and how that impacted their work. He must have known they were Jewish and he must have known about the Jewish radical subculture they grew up in. From Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique:

Gould learned his Marxism “at his Daddy’s knee” (see Gould 1996a, 39), indicating that he grew up as part of the Jewish-Marxist subculture discussed in Chapter 3. In a recent article Gould (1996c) reminisces fondly about the Forward, a politically radical but also ethnically conscious Yiddish newspaper (see Ch. 3), stating that he recalls that many of his relatives bought the newspaper daily. As Arthur Hertzberg (1989, 211–212) notes, “Those who read the Forward knew that the commitment of Jews to remain Jewish was beyond question and discussion.”

Did he think their personalities had something to do with their Judaism? Their political commitments? We’ll never know, but it’s  pretty clear that if he had mentioned these issues, his life would have been turned upside down once again, just like in the 1970s. I very much doubt he wanted to go there.

82 replies
  1. Pip
    Pip says:

    The god of the Jew, Yahweh, is racist and so are his “Chosen People”!


    7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

    7 The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. 10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

    11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.
    12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. 13 He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. 14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

    17 You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” 18 But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. 19 You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. 20 Moreover, the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished. 21 Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. 22 The Lord your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. 23 But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. 24 He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them.

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”


    Foreword — Daat Emet

    For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

    1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

    2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

    3. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.

    4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

    5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

    6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.

    7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.

    8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

    9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

    10. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

    11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

    12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”

    15. Gentiles are likened to animals.

    16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
    20. Their members(genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
    21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

    R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.

    Tzfi’a 3
    Rabbi David Bar Chaim
    Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Superb exposition .

      In other words , as far as pious Jews are concerned , the biblical OT “mankind” refers only to Jews and not to gentiles .

      Therefore we can judiciously conclude that the Lord God instructed/authorized/commanded ancient Judah Hebrews ( now called “Jews” ) , but not gentiles , to assume ownership/control of the world according to the holy scripture of

      The Jewish Torah / KJV / Book of Genesis / 1 : 26 .

      • William Gruff
        William Gruff says:

        The Jews are entitled to rule the world because the god of the Jews gave it to them. How very convenient for them.

        • George Kocan
          George Kocan says:

          The Jews of the New Testament are not the Jews of today. The Jews of today are Christians, adopted sons of Abraham. The others lost their patrimony with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem circa 70 AD. A lot of Jews do not even believe in God anymore. So, how can they claim what God promised them?

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            The “JQ” is moot until it is properly transformed into the [ WQ ] ; explicitly , the question of whether or not White peoples want to remain enslaved to “the Jews” in this world in this life ?

            The WQ is far from a settled issue for many Whites especially Christian ones .

            “The Jews” are commonly understood to be the ones intimately related to Israeli Jews or the Ashkenazi Jews . The questions about whether “the Jews” are
            [ real Jews ] or [ original Jews ] or [ atheist Jews ] are also usually moot .

          • George Kocan
            George Kocan says:

            It is moot as long as people do not talk about it. I think the subject deserved attention, especially because so many Jews are atheists and still rely on the Bible for their moral authority.

  2. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I’ll bet a paper on Irish influence would not even raise an eyebrow. Chicago politics has a long history of corruption under Irish “influence.”

  3. Karl
    Karl says:

    As an aside, since the ADL is mentioned in this article:

    That the holier-than-thou, hypocritical, “Woke”, anti-Christian ADL is a “human rights group” is a bad joke.

    The ADL must be continually exposed as the fraud it is, as you do here.

    Thank you.

  4. Pat Kittle
    Pat Kittle says:

    Cut to the chase — ask hostile Jews the following question:

    “What is the harshest criticism of Jews (or Israel, or Zionism) that you would accept without calling it “anti-Semitic”?

    If you are ignored (very likely), persist! I’ve done this over the years, and so far only two Jews (after much deflection) offered a response.

    One said it’s OK to criticize Israeli hamburgers.

    The other said it’s OK to criticize Israel for not doing enough for Jews.

    I’m not making this up. Try it!

    • Jimmy Hat
      Jimmy Hat says:

      Ask them to point out something jews as a people have ever done that’s wrong.
      They cant do it.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        This is the best comment, because it’s the best strategy. It needs to be made clear to the public. Arguing in an academic style gets NOwhere; they know how to respond. Pat Kittle’s previous comment was good too. Thanks, Jimmy Hat.

    • Nigel McKenna
      Nigel McKenna says:

      The word “anti-semitic” is such an emotionally laden trigger word. It seems even the dull + ignorant, those with no interest in politics or history, realize right away what this means(and they react fairly predictably). Amy Goodman(Democracy Now channel) interviewed a person from Israel(her name escapes me right now) and the interviewee then said this is a tactic the ADL uses, i.e anti-semitism, to deflect criticism of Israel and Zionism. It seems to have worked very well doesn’t it.

  5. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    I’m pleased to see all the reaction. It can hardly have been unexpected. The surprise is that the article was printed in the first place. I’m very glad it was and may the debate continue. Or should it be declared over and Mr. MacDonald has won?

  6. Martin V
    Martin V says:

    A reminder that with them it’s never a question of philosophy but of casuistry. As I perused the article (excellent) I was listening to a re-stream of the (I don’t know what kind of ) vice-presi-c**t read out her lie- and chutzpah-laden 1.6 Commemoration screed, written for her by some beschnozzed D.C. subversive…clearly written with a view to making us cringe…. Imagine what these demons would do if we were a demographic minority. We do not need philosophy, folks, but action. But how?

    • Robert Webb
      Robert Webb says:

      To get a glimpse of what these “demons” would do just check out what the leather clad ,coke snorting Cheka did to the Russian people. Their torture methods where absolutely demonic and non-human.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        This one of several videos I have seen regarding solid objects and even active life forms in the vaccines. The implications are monstrous and dwarf any similar circumstance or parallel endeavor. See for your self, a group of German doctors and researchers are reviewing their findings in image form:

  7. John Alder
    John Alder says:

    And every summer colleges,universities and high schools crank out thousands upon thousands of Marxist indoctrinated students who enter corporate America and continue the work of Hebrew termites.

  8. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    Thank you Kevin for keeping us posted on these developments! Great to hear about spittle flying over your meticulously documented work on Jewish influence. May the winds of change blow it all back in their faces.

  9. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Thank you, Kevin for what you have done for our people.

    It has been an honor to know you, and I know songs will be sung of your courage long after we are both gone and when our Folk are finally safe in a homeland of their own.

  10. Billy Thistle
    Billy Thistle says:

    Nothing of substance, just that Ted Kennedy (not JFK) and Hubert Humphrey (spelling) were the gentile front men for increased immigration.

  11. Fred Penner
    Fred Penner says:

    One has to wonder….why do the Jews believe they cannot be questioned or criticized? Are they insane?
    Does all of Jewry suffer from megalomania and ego-inflation?
    While they openly spew anti-white bile everywhere……do they imagine there will be no pushback?
    Of all the groups on this earth, the Jews seem to be unable to handle the truth regarding their own behavior.
    They seem to think that the rest of us should just blindly obey them even as they destroy us!
    It’s CRAZY.

    • John Alder
      John Alder says:

      Semitism causes antisemitism. Jews are always looking for the cause of people not liking them and never consider the need only look in the mirror for the cause of their woes.

  12. Peter
    Peter says:

    I’m sorry an intellect like Dr.MacDonald has to put up with the insults of these hate filled, racist Jews but with some exceptions, so many Jews behave that way. They are often intolerant, always right and always good, even when they’re subjugating their countrymen and throwing them in gulags. It’s now starting to happen in the USA with Attorney General Merrick Garland in charge of making sure White Trump supporters spend the rest of their lives in jail.

    “It’s not about censorship, but looking at what someone is saying and whether you’re validating views that are antisemitic or racist or promoting ideas that have proven to be conspiratorial and not true,”

    When I read the above quote I could not help thinking of what historian David Irving once said to a disgusting group of Jews that were doing their best to stop him from making a speech on WW II to a group of enthusiasts (they were censoring him). Unfortunately, the Jews have removed or made the speech impossible to find now on Youtube or elsewhere. An especially vile Jew asked Mr. Irving if he was putting the blame on Jews for what happened to them at Auschwitz (which we now know actually didn’t happen) and he responded that “the short answer is yes”, that if they hadn’t behaved as they had thru the ages, the Russians, Galicians, Poles and the rest would not have treated them as they had (or supposedly did), that self awareness and criticism is needed by Jews, as the Marxists do. My description does not do it justice.

    I’m also reminded a little of a speech by Dr. Goebbels. The National Socialists, whose movement originated in Munich were battling to advance their influence in Berlin, a Jewish stronghold. They dominated the media there (it is apparently the same wherever they are in numbers) but the National Socialists were gaining strength and media influence and Dr. Goebbels commented on this. In other words, there too they had the power to censor, insult and defame until they no longer did.

  13. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    If Jews call MacDonald a ‘white supremacist’, why doesn’t he react in kind and call them ‘Jewish Supremacist’ like David Duke does? Jews are clearly tribal-supremacist. Just ask the Palestinians.

    Also, can we just drop the habit of calling these Jews ‘leftists’ or ‘radicals’? If so-called Jewish ‘leftists’ have been profoundly Jewish and put Jewishness uber alles, they should be regarded as essentially rightist or even ultra-rightist. Calling them ‘leftist’ because they held some leftist views or ideas in the past(or pretend to in the present) would be like saying National Socialism was ‘leftist’ because of the ‘socialism’. (Of course, some idiots make such an argument, though I think it is acceptable to designate fascism as left-right, which is what I prefer.)

    Now, were there genuine Jewish leftists? Yes, and many of them sincerely abandoned Jewishness and just join with humanity. Many Soviet Jews just race-mixed with goyim and became part of Russian folks.

    But plenty of Jews affected leftist outlooks as a means to weaken goy racial identity. Stanley Kauffmann the famous theater/film critic said he gravitated toward communism in the 30s cuz, esp during the Great Depression, the future was either going to be fascist or communist. For Jews, communism seemed the safer bet though not ideal.

    Jews rule the West, and their power needs to be exposed. Jews hide the power by pretending to be ‘leftist’, and the depressing thing is so many rightists and white people actually do Jews a favor by using that label, thus creating the impression that people like Soros are ‘leftist’.

    No, Jews are ultra-rightist imperialists, and their so-called ‘alliances’ are just a means to manipulate goyim. Just like the British Empire and French Empire used one bunch of subjects against another bunch of subjects, Jews do the same. British used Hindus in Africa, French used African troops in Vietnam. Likewise, Jews use white soldiers to invade Muslim lands but also use BLM thugs to attack and intimidate whites.

    We can inch closer to the truth ONLY IF we call most Jews what they really are: Ultra-right Jewish supremacists in ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ clothing. Jews are for ‘equity’? ROTFL.
    That must be why Merrick Garland, who calls white Trump voters ‘terrorists’, is all about equal justice for Israeli Jews and Palestinians – NOT! No, Jewish attitude toward whites is no different from its attitude toward Palestinians. Both are seen as subject peoples, and if they resist, they are labeled as ‘terrorists’.

    Would true leftists do such a thing? Leftism has a lot of problems, but its saving grace is universal values and equal justice. There is NOTHING in current Jewish Power that is for those things. The likes of Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are ultra-rightist Jews who hide behind ‘progressive’ facades. And Jews use BLM just like British Empire used foreign troops to subjugate people in the colonies.

    In the slaughter scene in GANDHI, those soldiers who shoot at the crowd are not local Hindus. Today, Jewish Power uses white soldiers in similar manner to destroy the Middle East.

    The real fight isn’t between the white right and the Jewish left. PLEASE STOP USING THAT TERM. It’s between white right vs Jewish ultra-right. White Right, most of it anyway, is nationalist and wants white homelands for whites and, furthermore, respects the national rights of other peoples, i.e. let nonwhites defend their own homelands.

    In contrast, ultra-rightism is supremacist, and Jews fit the mold. Jews not only impugn white identity and white territoriality but those of others as well. Look what Jewish Power has done to Libya, Syria, Iraq, and etc. Look how it forces all Americans to sanction Iran while also forcing All Americans to send our taxes to Israel, a nation with illegal nukes and one that occupied Arab lands. And notice how BDS is suppressed all over the US. Even the constitutional right to boycott Israel is denied to Americans.

    White Right wants whites peaceful in their own lands and Arabs/Muslims peaceful in their own lands. Jewish Ultra-Right wants whites to be replaced in their own lands and for white cucks to fight Wars for Israel to destroy any nation or people hated by Jews/Israel.

    Jewish morality is garbage. So, Jews will say Russia is aggressing in Ukraine when Jews pulled off the coup in Ukraine. Jews will say there is ‘genocide’ in Xinjiang as a human rights issue, but NO ONE better say anything about the Zionist ‘genocide’ of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. One thing for sure, China tries to do more for Uighurs than Israel for Palestinians.

    Using ‘Jewish’ and ‘Left’ together is music to Jewish ears. Jewish Power loves to hear that word melody because it lends the false impression that Jewish Power is ‘progressive’ and at odds with ‘far right white supremacism’.
    What Jews fear most is being outed as ULTRA-RIGHT IMPERIALIST SUPREMACISTS. Instead of calling Jewish Power ‘leftist’, call it ‘left-masked’ or ‘left-larping’. It’s a con-game, like what goes on in David Mamet’s films.

    There were true Jewish leftists in the past, but most of them either melded into goy society through assimilation or intermarriage OR they returned to tribalism via Zionism or came to love capitalism out of Jewish Pride(as it was capitalism that truly sent Jews over the top as the masters of the world).

    Even now, there are genuine Jewish leftists like Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate. Though misguided on many issues, they seem principled and sincere. But such Jews have zero power.

    Jewish Power in the Democratic Party and GOP is totally ultra-right imperialist supremacist.
    So, how about we stop using the ‘left’ label to describe Jewish Power?

    I don’t care if Gould grew up under a Marxist father. He was a Jewish supremacist through and through from the looks of it. His ‘anti-racism’ was just obfuscation to misdirect people from the reasons of Jewish Power, ie. there is a genetic factor. And the same goes for Lewontin as well.

    But as long as Jewish Power goes on being called ‘leftist’, it will keep humming along.

    Imagine you’re a Satanist who pretends to be a Christian to serve Satan, but your enemies keep referring to you as a ‘Christian’. Would you just love it?

    It can begin with a new policy at Occidental Observer. No more calling Jewish Power ‘leftist’. Start calling Jewish Power ultra-rightist, imperialist, and supremacist. That will give ADL a heart-attack.

    • anonym
      anonym says:

      I’d just call them ‘fake’. Like the example with E.O Wilson in the article:

      “Here was a guy who was an intense Marxist, who spent so much time rallying on behalf of the proletariat, who was all about the class struggle. And he struck me absolutely as a BMW-driving, Cambridge-living, Romance-language-phrase-dropping snob.”

      They use ideologies as tools, or weapons. Values and principles doesn’t matter to them. Today’s left, right and liberalism is empty vessels for Jewish power. A ‘left’ who doesn’t care about decling wages, poverty, outsourcing and exploitation is no longer left. A right who doesn’t care about justice, tradition and stabile state institutions, is no longer right. Liberals who want to censor and silence is no longer liberal.

      Likewise for Jewish jurists and scientists. It’s all about telling fantastic stories and convincing people through gaslighting. They’re born salesmen, and everything they peddle is a vice. Hence all the lying; otherwise no one would buy into the poison they sell.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      Given their considerable success among the herd with introducing new words to define their new anti-White concepts, I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations in your last paragraph.

      Let TOO, KM and all authors and commenters start that forthwith.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      It’s better for us to do that. These Jews operate from the gutter but it’s not thought of as the gutter because Jews can say anything they want about Whites/Europeans but Whites can’t say anything negative about Jews. That is what has to change.

  14. Peter Baggins
    Peter Baggins says:

    Great summary of the nefarious Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and the “Science for the People” gang. I remember these days well as a vigorous defender of E.O. Wilson and my outrage at how he was treated by these dishonest intellectual thugs.

  15. Lord Shang
    Lord Shang says:

    Dr. MacDonald: You may well know this, but in case you don’t, the late Austro-libertarian economist Murray Rothbard in the early 1990s wrote a biographical piece (maybe in Chronicles, or the Rothbard-Rockwell Report) in which he discussed growing up as a New York City Jew in the 1920s and 30s among what was virtually a “communist sub-culture”. Everyone around him except his own parents was a communist. The Jewish communist milieu of the earlier 20th century in East Coast America was a key theme in Philip Roth’s I Married a Communist.

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      Lord Shang, excellent point. This “communist sub-culture” is so well known among some that children born into it are dubbed “red diaper babies.”

      My first exposure to this narrative came with the book “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties” by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.

      Horowitz really drove home the message of this Jewish/Communist milieu in “Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey” (1996). Of particular note are his descriptions of the searing hatred for the harmless goyim around them in America.

      Finally, this next book (which I don’t remember much about) also describes this tribal community: “Red Diaper Baby: A Boyhood in the Age of McCarthyism” by James Laxer.

      Descriptions follow:

About “Destructive Generation”: As leading New Leftists in the Sixties, Peter Collier and David Horowitz were intimately involved in the radicalism of the day. Later on, they became the first of their generation to publicly reject the objectives of that revolutionary era and point out the cultural chaos it had left behind. Part memoir, part political analysis, part social history, DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION is the compelling story of their intellectual journey into and out of the radical trenches.

      Telling stories of the New Left’s most famous (and infamous) personalities and events, Collier and Horowitz reveal the destructive legacy of the Sixties and the way in which that decade continues to cast a long shadow over politics and culture today. When it was first published more than a decade ago, DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION was a controversial bestseller that some critics compared to Whittaker Chambers’ powerful political testament, WITNESS. This new edition contains new material which makes this classic work more relevant than ever in our own divided time.
      About “Radical Son”:One of the most compelling and important political memoirs in recent American history— republished after more than twenty years with a new introduction by the author.

      In a narrative that possesses both remarkable political importance and extraordinary literary power, David Horowitz tells the story of his startling political odyssey from sixties radical to nineties conservative. A political document of our times, Radical Son traces three generations of one American family’s infatuation with the radical left from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the collapse of the Marxist empire six decades later. David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left and an editor of Ramparts—the magazine that set the intellectual and revolutionary tone for the movement.

      From his vantage point at the center of the action, he populates Radical Son with vivid portraits of people who made the radical decade, while unmaking America at the same time. We are introduced to an aged Bertrand Russell, the world-famous philosopher and godson of John Stuart Mill, who in his nineties became America’s scourge, organizing a War Crimes Tribunal over the war in Vietnam. There is Tom Hayden, the radical everyman who promoted guerrilla warfare in America’s cities in the sixties, married film legend Jane Fonda, and became a Democratic state senator when his revolutions failed.

      We meet Huey Newton, a street hustler and murderer who founded a black militia that became the Sixties’ most resonant symbol of black power and black militance. Horowitz’s encounter with Newton and his Black Panthers, the most celebrated radical group of the Sixties, becomes the focal point of the story when a brutal murder committed by the Panthers changes his life forever, prompting the profound “second thoughts” that eventually led him to become an intellectual leader of conservatism and its most prominent activist in Hollywood.

      About “Red Diaper Baby: A Boyhood in the Age of McCarthyism”:

      Originally published in 2004, Red Diaper Baby is James Laxer’s compelling and extraordinary memoir of growing up in a communist family during the height of the Cold War. When Jim was born in a Montreal hospital, his father was living in hiding under an assumed name. And when it came time to begin school in Ottawa, Jim was enrolled under a false birth date. Throughout his childhood he was repeatedly instructed not to tell anyone what his father did for work.

      Laxer’s parents were dedicated members of the Communist Party, true believers in an ideology that was generally reviled and had been outlawed during much of World War II. From an early age, Laxer was collecting signatures on ban-the-bomb petitions, delivering Party flyers door to door, attending eccentric left-wing Camp Naivelt, and campaigning for the charismatic J. B. Salsberg, a Communist MPP in the Ontario legislature.

      Dramatic, humorous, and full of period detail, Red Diaper Baby offers a rare look at the McCarthy years through the eyes of a child. It also explains a great deal about Laxer’s eventual and crucial role in the founding of the Waffle faction of the NDP, his continued engagement with the left, and his evolution into one of Canada’s preeminent intellectuals.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      “For example, I presume Carol Browner is a WASP female, but I was stunned to find that “Miss” Browner has a little kid named Zachary Podhorzer, she being clearly married to a Jewish male named Michael Podhorzer. (One paper got it wrong and said that her kid’s last
      name is Podhoretzer, and for a chilling moment I was afraid that Norman had placed another relative into an influential position, but I was fortunately set straight the next day:) Then there is the curious case of Madeleine K. Albright, female, eminent Democrat insider, and the new Ambassadress to the United Nations, raised back in her honor to cabinet-level rank. Sounds like aWASP female, right? But no, it turns out that Mrs. Albright is divorced from Mr. Albright, and that she is a Czechess born in Prague, and daughter ofCzech dissident JosefKorbel (hence the “K”). But Czech what? Was Josef a Catholic? Protestant? Or Jew? If Jew, then we can add a Jewess to the top-level Clintonians. But who knows? Once again, the media have been deficient, and I must await further clarification from my Czech sources.

      While we are on the Jewish Question, we can now deconstruct the alleged “white male” nature of the Clintonian “economic team.” We have,
      so far, on the economic team the following: Secretary of Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, elderly white male Texan (surely Texas is big enough and brassy enough to deserve its own category); Leon Panetta, director of Office of Management and Budget, Italo-American male; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, head of Council of Economic Advisors, WASP female; still the remaining four top-level economic teamsters are all Jewish: Robert Rubin, co-head of Goldman-Sachs, head of the new National Economic Council, Jewish male; Roger Altman, of the Blackstone Group, Under Secretary of the Treasury); Jewish male; Alice Rivlin, Deputy head ofOMB, Jewish female; and Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, Jewish male. In short, of the seven top people on the Clintonian economic team, we have: one male WASP Texan; one Italo-American male; one Jewish-American female; three Jewish American males. Boil it all down, and shuffle things around, and what looks superficially like white male dominance becomes Jewish dominance.”

      Rothbard, M. (2001). The Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essay of Murray N. Rothbard. Center for Libertarian Studies.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        Regrettably late, a couple of indelible memories:

        01 That bitch Albright was interviewed by a female [ CBS ? ] interviewer, one on one, shortly after the neocons’ PNAC, et al, War on Iraq.

        On that occasion, she mentioned her birth in Czechoslovakia. She said, that she was raised by two successive Catholic families and only later found out, that she was Jewish: i.e. Christians had saved this Jew from certain extinction.

        02 During the said MSM interview, she was asked what she thought of the loss of circa 400,000 Iraqi children, and ” WHETHER SHE THOUGHT THEIR LOSS WAS WORTH IT ” ?

        Unsurprisingly, and typically, this proud and lucky survivor of the ” Holocaust “, after a second’s delay, answered: ” Yes, I think it was !!! ” [ Not quite Ilya Ehrenburg, but close enough ! ].

        03 Spend a nano-second assessing her visage, affectations, lecturing speech and mannerisms.

        04 Robert Rubin is another favorite of mine. While at Goldman Sachs, he structured Maxwell’s theft of millions from his 400-some companies’ pension funds. [ ” Robert Maxwell “, as from Jan Ludvik Hyman Binyamin Hoch, also from Czechoslovakia, where, prior to the German takeover, his father, a butcher, was indicted for selling dead stock for human consumption. ]

        R.M., as in Labor M.P. from 1940 – 1945; [ of all years ! ].

        05 England’s CROWN PROSECUTION OFFICE indicted Rubin for structuring the huge theft.

        06 They ” settled ” for 200 million, IN ORDER TO HAVE R TAKEN OFF THEIR DOCKET AND THUS ENABLE R TO BE APPOINTED SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BY BILL CLINTON, [ himself CHOSEN D Nominee at the Bilderberger conclave in Baden-Baden, Black Forest, in June 1991.

        07 R, as SoT, subsequently interfered with the Federal Banking Regulators, who had downgraded campaign-contributing City Bank.

        08 Maxwell ” fell ” off his yacht ” Ghislaine,” off Spain and, honoring his enormous services to Israel, was buried on its Mount of Olives among like-minded neighbors.

        09 Maxwell’s victims, thrown on welfare by his companies’ bankruptcies, demonstrated by the thousands, en masse, carrying placards demanding:


        And, that’s only the good part; as they say.

  16. Servenet
    Servenet says:

    Clearly, whites, without advocacy leadership devolve into boiling frogs. That half the white electorate should vote for a demented buffoon who was a shill for a patent viciously anti-white system with a non-white vice president who was so over-the-top repulsive in every conceivable way, after all the evil that has cascaded across the continent especially in the past two years resoundingly testifies to white flaccidity and fecklessness in the absence of strong advocacy leadership. And then, why is it there HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH LEADERSHIP IN GENERATIONS…if ever, this side of the Atlantic? Is there, has there not been a single strong man who loves his racial kind or even his own grandchildren? How did this utterly perverse scenario actually come to play out? Scheduled for minority status from 90% to 49% IN MY OWN LIFETIME. The die is cast. Divine intervention for the sparing of a remnant somewhere somehow is the only hope that remains. Tell me different. Tell me how.

  17. Kevin MacDonald
    Kevin MacDonald says:

    I added this paragraph:
    And something Ms. Mayo should be able to comment on directly. Cofnas claimed that I maintained that Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes re Israel vs the U.S.—concerned about demographic eclipse in Israel if there was a one-state solution, but championing replacement-level immigration in the U.S. In response I noted that the ADL described Tucker Carlson’s claim that White people are being replaced in the U.S. as “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” and noted that Carlson put up a screen shot from the ADL website pointing out that Jews in Israel would be in danger if Jews became a minority. Why was this statement removed from the ADL website? I accessed it on the ADL website at the time Carlson mentioned it, but the link that worked in April, 2021 ( now says, “You are not authorized to access this page.”

  18. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    The fact that the Jews just keep building walls around, and creating prisons with name calling and labeling for those who confront them proves how inane and idiotic they are and that so many of them are incapable of objective examination of facts.

    In this case I don’t think it would be; ‘stooping to their level’ to call them a name or, two Kevin. Jewish Supremacist as Andrea above mentioned is a good label because it’s- the truth. I would even ask them why they hate white people, white Christian peoples so much.

    The Jews despise the truth because they believe that ‘they,’ create the truth and that truth of course always benefits them and disparages us. Just hit ’em hard with the facts for all of us, it’s really all you can do. No one better to do that than you Kevin.

  19. Guillaume Durocher
    Guillaume Durocher says:

    During one of his lectures, Robert Sapolsky mentions there was an ethnic dimension to the controversy around sociobiology in the 1970s: E. O. Wilson (and some others) being White Southerners and their leading critics (Lewontin and Gould) being New York Jews.

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      Yes indeed. I remember that well. I had just happened to read Sociobiology in 1984 and soon after “Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature” by the two authors you mention plus Steven Rose came out. I remember being troubled by so many things about their “nurture” arguments vs. Wilson’s “nature” stuff. Having never been told about the Tribe, however, I couldn’t begin to put my finger on it. In addition, it never occurred to me then that scholars might not be arguing in good faith. But in the long run, I learned some important lessons from that debate, and needless to say was thrilled when KMAC wrote explicitly about Gould’s ethnic dishonesty. I wonder if E.O. Wilson ever talked about the Tribe explicitly, if only in private.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          Thanks for the link .

          Please be careful about making assertions like this __

          ” Of course objectivity is impossible. . .”

          since anyone ( including myself ) could take that as a fact without going to your link to find out otherwise ; and then eventually we would have to deal with their nonsense .

        • George Kocan
          George Kocan says:

          I learned about Marx’s polylogism many years ago. That’s for the reminder. I wonder, are we supposed to believe “polylogism” a universal truth?

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            There is only one valid fundamental logic and it is employed by engineers to make your computer viable . Marx would have been correct if he meant that each different class has its own [ rationale ] which is not exactly the same as “logic”.

  20. Tom G.
    Tom G. says:

    Allways one step behind.

    I do appreciate Mr. MacDonalds work and it certainly of great importance to our people.

    However, the fault with any analysis of what for example anti white jews does is that it is not taking into account that there is a lot of threats coming from other races and race mixed peole at large and that there is a lot of hatred of white poeple.

    So if one oly focus on immigration one might miss the threat of chinese state sponsored espionage on innovation, and industry.

    One may also miss, by focusing on the past new strategies of groups of people.

    Such as the vaccine as the ultimate holocaust of whites through gene change. Or the obvious killing of democracy for white people in the USA by letting africans vote to begin with and lately by the obviously fraudulent election in the USA.

    Will these tendencies ever go away, such as the focus on racial mixture of whites and africans by for example many in the afforementioned group?

    What is the reason for these policies. Some ideas:

    1. Getting rid of competition.
    2. Racially mixed backgrounds of those who make the propaganda or a majority of a group that act with the afforementioned goal.
    3. Revenge. A strategy of war. A holocaust by mixture, genechange through racial mixture. As a revenge for the holocaust directed at the forementioned group.
    4. Religios cultural motivations, an eye for an eye, ruling the world (snakes), becoming what many become due to not accepting Jesus.
    5. Fear.
    6. Wanting to force through conflict alljews to move to Israel (ethnical conflict could lead to this).
    7. Getting more jews to the USA, but this would make no sence with for example Sweden.
    8. Using non whites as an army against whites in fight for resources and territory and controll (UN, large cities, countries). look at all the jews in power now in the USA government. Thanks to the democrats and the non whites that wote for them. Having this army as a security against racial awakening and action.

    I mean as with any strategy adopted by a group, it is individual reasons to why an individual would follow and support such a strategy and the mentioned possible causes may come into play in various different degrees for different individuals in the group.

    Regardless the strategies adopted has had a catastrofic effect. Which may to a jew be nothing comapred to the holocaust. So we are talking about extreme perspectibes regardless.

    But I think these factors above has come into play and has been taking advantage of by community leaders pushing these things aggressively. And I do think these strategies were into place before wwII but nore people from the mentioned cultural group could be easily recruited to this after wwII.

    I think one matter is gypsy arab afro-jews. I.e. jews that are mixed with all these groups and know it.

    Another factor may be these leaders being in anti-white secret societies…

    Regardless it seems quite obvious it has indeed been a strategy adopted by community leaders and those with influence in the media, academia, music, politics, movies, television, advertising and more…

    I guess Mr. Kevin MacDonald sees this as a group evolutionary strategy.

    But I have read several of Mr. MacDonalds books aswell as many articles here. But I still don’t have a clear picture of what an evolutionary strategy is and what a group evolutionary strategy is.

    Is it:

    A. An effect of evolution that cause genes to be prevailent in a group that then cause group actions from a majority in this group. OR IS IT:

    B. A strategy adopted by a majority in a group that cause an evolutionary effect on a group.

    So is it A, or B, or both.

    With respect to B above, is the idea that it is for example adopted by a group strategies that paint the majority population as the enemy and also benefit ingroup preferences and ethnical ethnocentrism, cause more and more etno centric and people that are racist towards others in the group because they have more sucess due to etno centrism and sticking together and helping each other and pushing down other groups can result in sucess for those who do this. Also ethnic hatred and stealing from other groups can be sucessfull.

    So is it way for thieves to use a group to steal from others?

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      Nobody doubts that there are other factors. Re GES, I define it in my first book, A people that shall dwell alone. Combination of genes and culture and could apply either to majority or minority group.

      • Tom G.
        Tom G. says:

        Thank you for the clarification Mr. Kevin MacDonald.

        I looked a bit more on this evolutionary perspective and do find it interesting.

        I will read A Peaple that Shall Dwell Alone when I get the chance to.

        B From what I gather so far GES seems to be a perspective where Darwins ideas about evolution is applied to groups. I.e. trying or attempting to clkarify what has led to certain traits or attitudes being more common in certain groups.

        And also seeing jewish culture and religion as a group evolutionary thing where it causes certain genetic traits to come to the forefront in a group.

        I.e. what libtards would call “racism” to a degree maybe?

        I personally think this may be true to a certain degree.

        But also see other factors such as religion, historic events, mixing of different ethnical groups with different evolutionary directions to various degrees, people being ruled or hijacked by being mixed, fears…

        And also trying to explain jews being smart by mainly Talmudic things being prioritized in the community is simplified in my opinion.

        My perspective is that jews were allways smart and unique.

        I think they became more stupid by mixing with other groups against GOD’s will and so on a majority of them. And still they have high IQ.

        Also a lot of jews have success even when not being backed by jews.

        By this I am in no way saing the GES is wrong, I do think there is something to it and it is an intersting perspective.

        I do think many jews are extremely etno centric, connected to mossad wherever they live and so on.

        I also think revenge is a part of jewish culture that can not be ignored.

        And the effects of this is certainly horrible and do hope we see a change soon.

      • John Mitchell
        John Mitchell says:

        My approach is that jews were a white people living inthe middle east probably moving there from somewhere else.

        GOD ordered them not to mix with arabs and blacks.

        GOD also stated they were special, GOD’s chosen people and the rest of the world was like the drops falling from the bucket that was the jewish people.

        They were extremely smart and gifted and this was diluted with those jews who mixed with the groups mentioned against GOD’s will.

        And it is stated in the bible that if too many jews did not follow GOD’s order they would loose Israel and be struck by catastrophies.

        This is the same for white people. GOD’s orders not to mix must apply to all white people therefore if whites mix with non whites they will b struck by large catastrophies, loose their land (covid vaccines, election fraud, replacement immigration … ).

        It’s all chrystal clear and in the bible.

        The jews who mixed with non whites knew this was against GOD’s will and their first goal was to make all jews racially mixed.

        This has now happened to a majority of jews.

        Their second goal according to me is to make all white people racially mixed.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” The jews who mixed with non whites knew this was against GOD’s will and their first goal was to make all jews racially mixed.”

          Their ultimate goal is to acquire and retain ownership/control of all the world ; specificly , ownership/control of all worldly resources and especially of dominion over all peoples of the world ; to wit ___

          “” And God said
          … let them have dominion over
          … all the earth ,
          and every creeping thing
          that creepeth upon the earth .””

          ( verbatim quote , except ellipses , from :
          The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV
          / Book of Genesis / 1:26 )

          where “them” = [ the Jews ]
          and “creeping thing” includes also [ humanity ] .

          The ILLuminati NWO globalist Jews have nearly consummated their ultimate goal of world dominion ; and there still is no significant indication that USA nonjew Whites , in particular , can escape from the Jewish domninion .

  21. Swan
    Swan says:

    The thing is, you can show them fact after fact and they will still say with a straight face that it’s not true that you’re only motivated by irrational hatred towards them. The famous quote, some attribute to Solzenitzen, “We know they are lying, they know they are lying, ….” . Had to have been made in reference to the Jews running the Soviet Union even if it wasn’t Ole Alexander who said it. . It seems part of there strategy is to never admit to anything and use their power to deflect. Like E.M. Jones said. “They’re good kommisars”

  22. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    “” [ Lewontin ] adopted the relativist view that accepted truth, unless based on ineluctable fact, is no more than a reflection of dominant ideology and political power.” “”

    He is correct — no ?

    An “ineluctable fact” could only be a scientific fact which is supposed to be devoid of political ideology ; all other kinds of facts are nothing more than established popular fabrications , of ephemeral political powers-that-be , until proven otherwise .

  23. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    The question “Should Jews be welcomed in White advocacy” is, I think, one of the more important and provocative questions discussed here, or anywhere.

    My answer is “Why not?”

    Before people understandably (though not necessarily reasonably) jump on me for being naive, or maybe for seeming a shill, I ask them to give this post an earnest reading.

    UNQUESTIONABLY, Jewry’s main tendency is, and has long been, one of enmity toward European Civilization. “Implacable hatred” is not too strong a phrase. Whatever Jews’ motivations are, they presently do everything that people wrongfully labelled “anti-Semites” say they do. (There ARE actual anti-Semites too, people rightfully regarded as such: they are, according to my definition, persons hostile to Jews simply for being Jews; but almost all of them are self-professed Christians, simpletons who are unwittingly the accidental result of ancient Jewish efforts to harm Europeans.)

    BUT, at least in my possibly erroneous perceptions, there are just as unquestionably exceptions to the rule. I’ll mention a few off the top of my head:

    1) Mary Lefkowitz, the academic who’s controverted and crushed “Afrocentric” notions according to which European Civilization was created by black Africans (this valiant woman exposed herself to racist abuse for OUR sake, e.g.: when she humiliated a black Afrocentrist in a debate, the latter disconcertedly said “A White woman has no right to speak about black history, especially a Jewish one”);

    2) Amy Wax, the academic who maintains that European culture is superior and America is better off with White immigration;

    3) Stephen Miller, the Trumpist official attacked for possessing White-Nationalist literature and under Trump was a stalwart foe of the invasion over the Mexican border, additionally urging that that border be militarized with 250,000 U.S. troops;

    4) Daniel Pipes, historian and President of the Middle East Forum, who opposes the Third-World invasion of Europe, and has gone to Hungary to defend Orban against Jewish charges of anti-Semitism, and sided with Orban against Soros;

    5) Ron Unz, who manages one of the most honest sites in the political Internet, where even Holohoax-denial is kosher;

    6) the Holohoax-deniers David Cole, Gerard Menuhin, Ron Unz, and the late Benjamin Freedman; plus Norman Finkelstein who condemns the political and financial exploitation of whatever European Jews suffered during the Second Great War;

    7) Mark Levin, the Rightist radio- and TV-commentator who correctly characterizes the present America-devastators as Marxists and whose “Carthago delenda est” to his audience is “You have to get involved and stop what’s happening or you will lose your country”;

    8) David Horowitz, writer and social commentator whose message is substantially the same as Levin’s;

    9) Edwin S. Rubenstein whose study “The Color of Crime” depicts the actual war that Afroamerica has long waged on Euroamerica, exposing the Leftist Jews’ media/academia myth of an America in which racist violence is White-toward-black;

    10) Isi Leibler of the Jewish World Congress, who decries the Third-World invasion of Europe, contending that allowing Asian and African Muslims into Europe not only results in Muslim violence against Jews there but understandably arouses European resentment toward Jews who promote the invasion.

    I can think of more examples, but will stop at these from the top of my head.

    Now, I can hear retorts to the tune of “Well that’s the Jews for you–they take both sides so as to control the situation.” Or, similarly, “They just say and do such things to keep us off balance, to get us to believe that not all Jews assail us.”

    Well, these COULD be right. But I’m not convinced. To my mind they seem more than a little paranoid. I mean, I find it a bit much to believe that there can be NO diversity of conviction and conduct within a human group. I mean, there can’t even be ONE Jew who really thinks differently from the majority of his fellows? And if there can be one, there can’t be more than one?

    I think that if I can be suspicious enough to refuse to take yes for an answer, and feel that no Jew can ever be benevolent toward us, I can also be suspicious enough to suspect that the people who tell us so are true anti-Semites (most likely self-professed Christians whom I don’t trust as far as I can throw Gibraltar) who don’t want us to think well of any Jew, even if Jewish advocacy could help our cause (because, perhaps, Jews are evil for rejecting and killing lol the Christian god).

    Assuming the Jews I enumerate above are on the level, they’re not the first to side with Europeans. Witness the Jewish princess and queen Berenice who, in love with the Roman general and future Emperor Titus, supported the Roman suppression of the Jews’ Great Revolt of 66-70 CE. True, she was part of the Herodian Dynasty, put in power by the Romans; but she did more than she had to, and in any case showed that Jews will side with non-Jews if they think their interests are served; and I do believe that the Jews I list above are perceptive enough to know that they’re better off if European Civilization endures.

    Moreover, I personally have been benevolently treated by Jews who had no ulterior motives, who had nothing to gain except perhaps some pleasure from doing a kindness. So I believe that Jews can benefit us without secretly wanting to do us harm. Of course, I COULD be wrong. I welcome anybody to make any argument that can convince me otherwise and enlighten me.

    Now, to appeal to authority is usually a poor measure, but I will say anyway that Jared Taylor has invited Caucasoid Jews to join the White-Nationalist cause, and I can’t account Taylor a likely dupe. Also, like me, Taylor evidently has got past the notion that Caucasoid Jews are of another race, and so it’s not as though he’s welcoming non-Whites to be advocates for White society. (As for me, I see an ethnic difference in Caucasoid Jews–as I see ethnic difference between Greeks and Swedes, but not a RACIAL one; and I believe that my categorizations are aligned with science and reason.)

    Well, let me say this. Since, in number and overall influence, Jews are overwhelmingly Leftist and Talmudic, I’d be ecstatic if they all did Aliyah–if they all moved to that Eastern-Mediterranean land which they wouldn’t have but for non-Jewish Whites. Where the USA is concerned, I wish to Pantheos that they’d go and take with them their ADL and SPLC and CNN and NYT, etc. HOWEVER, I’d be seriously put out if any of the people I enumerate above were subjected to any adversity…. And as long as no such general Aliyah occurs, I must lean toward welcoming whatever such figures can do that might help our cause.

    Again, please tell me if you think I’m deluded and how I’m wrong.

    P.S. Perhaps the whole question hinges on whether we can accept Jews’ White advocacy without there being unacceptable strings attached? Can Jews advocate for White interests without assuming too powerful a place in our movement, so that if in fact they are being underhanded our general effectiveness won’t be greatly impaired? If the answer is YES, what objection could there be to welcoming White advocacy by Caucasoid Jews?! How is a beneficent act a malignant one if in its train there isn’t a sure drawback?

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Allow me to correct your notion that David Cole (aka Stein) is a holohoax denier–he certainly is not and, according to him, never was. He holds that 2.5 million Jews were murdered in “gas chambers” in the so-called Action Reinhardt camps and by shooting in Russia although no evidence exists — no mass burial of corpses or ashes can be accounted for and the ‘believers’ don’t want to look. [Remember how Katyn was discovered!] Cole also ridicules real revisionists, even his former mentors and friends Ernst Zundel and Bradley Smith. Lowlife. Ron Unz and Norman Finkelstein are not holocaust deniers. Benjamin Freedman I don’t know.

      Similarly, Mark Levin IS a holohoax believer and Israel defender 100%, and becomes as irate against those who aren’t as he does about Marxists & liberals in America. He supports America as a haven for Jews like himself to enjoy equal freedom and opportunity.

      In both these cases (and by extension the rest), since you have to take the bad with the good, it’s better not to have it at all. Especially since their high IQ’s and verbal ability cause Whites to allow them to do what Whites SHOULD be doing ourselves.

      So I don’t agree and think you are wrong.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Thank you Carolyn for your superb revelations on those specified Jews .

        Also , you have now convinced me that you truly are clairvoyant with your last sentence that asserts so precisely what I was thinking but could not figure out how to express it ___

        ” Especially since their high IQ’s and verbal ability cause Whites to allow them to do what Whites SHOULD be doing ourselves.”

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Thank you. Your compliment is appreciated.

          I’d like to add, therefore, how well National Socialist Germany did after removing much of the power & influence of Jewry in their nation through the Nuremberg laws. They were thriving, even though the Jews had been seen as such loyal Germans and so talented and capable, such an asset to Germany. But when Germans stepped up to the plate, they did as well or better, without the baggage.
          Hitler commented on it in a private conversation with the Hungarian leader Miklos Horthy, in 1944, I believe, trying to convince him that his nation would be better off without the Jews.

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            Considered your points and painstakingly responded to each the day before yesterday, but the post didn’t go through. Will now say, in short, that mostly agree re Cole–his rep as denier seems fishy at best; disagree re Unz; never said Finkelstein was denier, only that he opposes Shoah Business (my fault if you misconstrued: I should’ve mentioned him separately and clearly distinguished him from the others; but take another look anyway).

            Re Levin, yes, he’s holohoax-faithful and booster of Israel; but such things are never the burden of his message; and he’s sternly anti-invasion, anti-BLM and anti-CRT. Besides, haven’t you been a fervent admirer of Trump? And is not Trump pro-Israel??? He overstepped his rightful power in doing things for Israel and Jews. Nor was or is a holohoax skeptic. Hosted at least one “commemoration.” Why was he so good for Whites while Levin can’t be at all?

            That our movement (if we can call ourselves one) will be co-opted if we accept White advocacy by a FEW Jews–that’s all there are–probably means we’re inadequate anyway and have nothing to lose by allowing people you evidently think are superior to join our efforts–indeed it may be our only hope…. Hope you’re mistaken.

            Yes, OF COURSE Whites should do it themselves, but that’s not excluded by a few Jews–also White, you know, if they’re Ash or Seph–joining in; and they too can be earnest, if they, and some do, know they’re better off if Euro Civ endures.

            It all boils down to whether any Jews are capable of actually being of use to us without our paying an unacceptable price. You seem to say NO, though you didn’t criticize the others on my list, whose remainder seem to contradict your judgment. I do believe that certain Jews can and HAVE BEEN of use, such as Freedman who renounced Judaism, denounced Zionism, denied Holohoax, and exposed the Zionists’ arraying the USA against Germany in Great (shameful) War, contending that that was grave injustice among other things, especially since D-land had done much for Jews. (Hear his speech at “Benjamin H. Freedman, Alchetron the Free Social Encyclopedia.”)

            Well, hoping this can go through before “comments are closed,” though would rather that you’d seen my first attempt to respond. All the best, keed.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Reply to L. V. — B. Freedman was a long time ago, too long to count w/ the others. Here’s my requirement for a Jew to ‘be helpful’ in White (Euro) society:
            That he reject Judaism (Talmudic and Old Testament) incl. dietary prohibitions/rules; circumcision; synagogue attendance & holy days; belief in Jewish history, incl. “Holocaust.” IOW, that he stop identifying as a Jew.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          It’s not their high IQ and verbal ability that causes Jews to rise so easily in white societies, it’s the fact they operate as a mafia. Or ethnic-networking I believe the euphemism is.
          This is simply proved by the numbers. Considering their tiny population, they would need an IQ of about 10,000 to reach the hights they do, if it was all simply a matter of intelligence. And IQ intelligence is only one kind of intelligence. There are many others.
          A high IQ for a normal person is an advantage a bit, but useless if not allied with all sorts of other character strengths.
          Same with verbal dexterity. Average people just take these types as wide-boys & BS artists if, again, they aren’t paired with honesty, friendliness, good looks(Jews fail here abysmally) or Italians have a phrase that doesn’t translate into English, about soft, kind, trustful eyes(sorry I can’t remember it), or work ethic, people skills, etc, etc, etc.
          This “the Jews dominate our societies because they are oh so clever with their brains and their jibber-jabber patter”, is about as believable as the myth poor oppressed Jews were FORCED into exploitative loan-sharking because the mean old Christians wouldn’t let them labour in construction, farms or factories.
          KM has it correct, these Jews scam their hosts as a group. They are so successful in USA/UK because these nations enforce atomisation on the natives.
          Any other gibberish is just running interference for them.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” It’s not their high IQ and verbal ability that causes Jews to rise so easily in white societies, it’s the fact they operate as a mafia. Or ethnic-networking I believe the euphemism is.”

            Cosmopolitan Jewish mafia gangsterism , that Whites have totally inadequate defenses against other than biblical scripture , is no doubt an inextricable factor , in their “success” , along with the highest average IQ of the Ashkenazi financial tribe , unusually strong ethnocentric loyalties , a unique diaspora history , a sacred theology that commands the acquisition of wealth , and likely the greatest accumulation , in the world , of people intelligence ; which includes also language mastery going back to history’s first recorded devastatingly successful linguistic subversion of the workplace vernacular of the renown ancient Tower of Babel project ( which was the largest engineering affair in the world at the time ) . They are the most formidable of slave masters of humanity ; to wit ___

            “” And ye shall take them as an inheritance
            for your children after you ,
            to inherit them for a possession ;
            they shall be your bondmen forever :””…

            ( verbatim quote from :
            The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV
            / Book of Leviticus / 25 : 46 )

            where “bondmen” = [ slaves ] .

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I SAID: their high IQ’s and verbal ability cause Whites to allow them to do what Whites SHOULD be doing ourselves.

            I did NOT say what you’ve chosen as your argument points. Is there any other reason WE think they should be allowed to do what we NEED to do for ourselves, but are afraid to do, in so many cases? Try again.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Again, please tell me if you think I’m deluded and how I’m wrong.”

      You have oversimplified it .

      The issues involved are way too persnickety for the vast majority of Whites to successfully resolve such as you may have done it .

    • anonym
      anonym says:

      The Jews on the “right” cause just as big problems as the lefties. They gave us the mid east wars, which led to the arab invasion. They created the “anti-jihad” movement, where they call Muhammed a pederast, call Islam an inferior religion (all true but pointless to argue with them about) and behave in an unnecessarily aggressive manner which leads to more violence and hate. (Burning the Koran, for example.) At the same time, most of them, still call us “white extremists” if we want to close the borders and deport the arabs.

      Even Ron Unz and Gilad Atzmon is in favour of immigration (even though they don’t call us names a much when we disagree.)

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Check out this surreal performance art from Mark Levin:
      I don’t know what that is, but white wellbeing is certainly not at the top of his mind.
      As for Stephan Millar, didn’t Anne Coulter claim that Millar was the biggest enemy to immigration restrictionists in Trump’s White House, because he maneuvered to get every America First patriot fired so that he himself would be the only ‘patriot’ left?
      If some Jew emerged at the top of the white advocacy movement after every other person of influence was cut off at the knees, would we trust him?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Thanks for the Levin video – I had not seen it. It couldn’t be more perfect to illustrate what I’m talking about.

        StephEn MillEr is one of the few I do trust. He does support Israel but that is not one of my requirements. I don’t know of any missteps he has made that would indicate he’s not on the up and up. Have no idea what Ann Coulter is talking about and you don’t seem to either. We need more than hearsay on that.

        I’ve donated to S. Miller’s America First Legal which I think is a very smart idea. They actually get something concrete done!

Comments are closed.