• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

General

Scott Atlas: Restoring Trust in Health Care

April 5, 2025/1 Comment/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Scott Atlas: Restoring Trust in Health Care

Keynote Speech, Independent Medical Alliance conference, Atlanta, April 5-7, 2025

“Restoring Trust in Health Care”

Independent Medical Alliance conference

Atlanta, April 5-7, 2025

Scott W. Atlas, MD

Robert Wesson Senior Fellow | Health Policy

Hoover Institution, Stanford University

April 5, 2025

First, Thank you to the organizers, and to my many friends and supporters here. It’s great to be here – surrounded by people who believe in personal freedom!

At the recent international Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) forum in London, I was invited to address the question, “Can Institutions be Reformed?” Begun with Jordan Peterson, ARC joins voices from all over the world to discuss how to refresh the institutions and best values of Western heritage, values that provided the world with history’s most successful societies, particularly the commitment to freedom.

I asked that audience to first consider:

why, at this moment in history, are we finally focusing on how institutions should be reformed, or if institutions can even be reformed?

After all, for decades we have been aware that our institutions were failing – editorialized, dishonest journalism; wasteful, corrupt government; and agenda-driven schools and universities increasingly unbalanced toward the left, with many conservative faculty and students often self-censoring, afraid to offer unpopular views.

The answer?

It is COVID, the pandemic mismanagement specifically — the most tragic breakdown of leadership and ethics that free societies have seen in our lifetimes.

COVID fully exposed the massive, across-the-board, institutional failure, including the shocking reality of overt censorship in our country, the loss of freedoms and the frank violation of human rights – in this country, one explicitly founded on a commitment to freedom.

Yet, oddly, the pandemic remained invisible at the ARC conference, unmentioned by dozens of speakers addressing freedom. It was the elephant in the room – just as explaining the truth about lockdowns, the pseudoscience mandates on masks and social distancing, closing churches and businesses, prohibiting visits to elderly parents in nursing homes while they die – all are missing from post-election discussions today in the United States, including, notably, any of the very public statements and proclamations from the new administration about health care today.

Today, in the wake of COVID, we are left with an undeniable crisis in health. Trust in health guidance has plummeted more rapidly since 2019 than any other government institution, with almost two-thirds now rating the FDA and the CDC as “only fair or poor”. Half of America no longer has much confidence in science itself. Trust in our doctors and hospitals dropped from 71% in 2019 to 40% in 2024. The loss of trust is part of the disgraceful legacy of those who held power, who were relied upon to use critical thinking and an ethical compass on behalf of the public, who were handed the precious gift of automatic credibility and almost blind trust.

To understand how to move forward to restore trust, it’s important to first acknowledge basic facts about the pandemic, and keep repeating them, because truth serves as the starting point of all rational discussion. And we must live in a society where facts are acknowledged.

Remember — Lockdowns were not caused by the virus. Human beings decided to impose lockdowns.

– Indeed, lockdowns were widely instituted, they failed to stop the dying, and they failed to stop the spread – that’s the data:
Bjornskov, 2021; Bendavid, 2021; Agarwal, 2021; Herby, 2022; Kerpen, 2023; Ioannidis, 2024; Atlas, 2024.

Lockdowners ignored Henderson’s classic review 15 years earlier showing lockdowns were both ineffective and extremely harmful. They rejected the alternative, targeted protection, first recommended on national media in March 2020 independently by Ioannidis, by Katz, and by me Atlas – and then repeatedly for months – based on data already known back then, in spring 2020. It was not learned 7 months later in 2020, when the Great Barrington Declaration reiterated it, or in 2021, or 2022, or more recently.

And the Birx-Fauci lockdowns directly inflicted massive damage on children and literally killed millions, especially, sinfully, the poor. “The US alone would have had 1.6 million fewer deaths (through July 2023) if it had the performance of Sweden”, according to a review of 34 countries. Bianchi calculates that over the next 15-20 years, the unemployment alone will cause another million additional American deaths – from the economic shutdown, not the virus.

Beyond a reckless disregard for foreseeable death from their policies, America’s leaders imposed sinful harms and long-lasting damage on our children, the totality of which may not be realized for decades. Mandatory school closings, forced isolation of teens and college students, and required injections of healthy children with experimental drugs attempting to shield adults will be a permanent black mark on America.

It is also worth remembering that this was a health policy problem.

While credentials are not the sole determinant of expertise, I was the ONLY health policy scholar on the White House Task Force and advising the President. Virology is NOT health policy; epidemiology is NOT health policy. And while physicians are important in contributing, they are not inherently expert in health policy. Those are only pieces of a larger, more complex puzzle. The stunning fact is – I was the only medical expert there focused on stopping both the death and destruction from the virus and the death and destruction from the policy itself.

As Hannah Arendt observed in “Eichmann in Jerusalem”:

“What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality.”

More than massive incompetence, more than a funamental lack of critical thinking, we saw the disappearance of society’s moral compass, so pervasive that we have rightfully lost trust in our institutions, leaders and fellow citizens, trust that is essential to the function of any free and diverse society.

Why did free people accept these Draconian, unprecedented, and illogical lockdowns?

This is the question. And the answer reveals the reason for today’s silence on the pandemic.

Clearly, censorship and propaganda are key parts of the explanation, tools of control that convinced the public of two fallacies – that a consensus of experts on lockdowns existed, and dissenters to that false consensus were highly dangerous.

Censorship first was done by the Media companies themselves – when it counted most

  • In 2020, before the Biden administration, when school closures and lockdowns were being implemented:
  • May 2020, YouTube bragged about its “aggressive policies against misinformation”;
  • August 2020, Facebook shamelessly admitted to the Washington Post it had already taken down 7 million posts on the pandemic;
  • My interviews as Advisor to the President were pulled down: by YouTube on September 11, 2020, by Twitter blocking me on October 18, 2020.

You might think the public – in a free society – should know what the Advisor to the President was saying?

And what was the response to Truth at America’s universities, our centers for the free exchange of ideas, including Stanford, my employer?

Censorship: character assassination, intimidation, and to me, formal censure.

Why is Censorship used? To shut someone up, yes; but more importantly, to deceive the public – to stop others from hearing, to convince a naïve public there is a “consensus on truth”.

TRUTH is not a Team Sport.

Truth is not determined by consensus, or by numbers of people who agree, or by titles. It is discovered by debate, proven by critical analysis of evidence. Arguments are won by data and logic, not by personal attack or censoring others.

I am proud to be an outlier – happily proven right when the inliers are so wrong – but Cancel Culture is effective because it stops others from speaking. I received 100’s of emails from doctors and scientists all over the country, including from Stanford, from other professors, and from inside the NIH – saying “keep talking, Scott, you’re 100 percent right, but we’re afraid for our families and our jobs”. And indeed, no one at Stanford Medical School – not a single faculty member there – spoke publicly against their attack on me. Only Martin Kulldorff, then a Harvard epidemiologist, wrote in and publicly challenged the 98 signatories at Stanford to debate on whether I was correct or not (none accepted that challenge!).

But that alone doesn’t explain today’s silence about that extraordinary collapse. It is not simply “issue fatigue.”

It is also that so many smart people, including many claiming to support the new “disruptors”, bought into the irrational measures – when it counted most, when our kids and particularly the poor were being destroyed, in 2020… uncomfortable to discuss and admit, but far more fundamental than the Sars2 origin, or Fauci, or the vaccine. That acquiescence, that silence, that cowardice, and that failure to grasp reality are inconvenient truths that no one wants to admit.

Today, disruption is sorely needed, and many are basking in the resounding victory of history’s most disruptive politician, President Donald J. Trump.

As promised, his new administration is moving quickly, disrupting on several fronts – national security, energy, trade, justice, immigration, and perhaps most importantly with Elon Musk’s effort to eliminate government waste and fraud, and protect our money. After all, the government has no money – it’s ALL our money, taxpayers’ money!

In health care, important changes in the status quo have also begun, first with Elon Musk’s much needed DOGE, streamlining tens of thousands of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats while exposing massive fraud and waste in programs like Medicaid.

And Secretary of HHS Bobby Kennedy has also provoked an important, new national dialogue, with his “Make America Healthy Again” mantra focused on wholesome foods to achieve the goal everyone readily supports – good health for themselves and their children. And no doubt, ensuring safety of all drugs and eliminating corruption in pharma and the food industry are also crucial to health. I am a strong supporter of those ideas.

We also have two excellent appointments in health – my friends and colleagues, Marty Makary to FDA and Jay Bhattacharya to NIH. Both Marty and Jay are highly knowledgeable, have top training and expertise, and are committed to critical thinking, to legitimate science, and most importantly to free scientific debate.

But I am concerned that most are simultaneously eager to “turn the page” on the human rights violations, the censorship, the true “constitutional crisis” – NO setting the record straight, NO official recognition of facts, NO accountability? The ultimate disruptor won, and his disruptor appointees will now be in charge – so all is well?

Silently turning the page on modern history’s most egregious societal failure would be extraordinarily harmful. Failure to issue official statements of truth by the new government health agency leaders about the pandemic management would prevent closure for the millions who lost loved ones and whose children suffered such harms. And it would completely eliminate all accountability. Remember, ONLY public accountability will prevent recurrence, and accountability is necessary to restore trust in institutions, leadership, and among fellow citizens.

My second concern – Yes, the era of trusting experts based solely on credentials must be over … but will that backlash against the failed “expert class” usher in a different wave of false belief? We cannot forget that legitimate expertise is still legitimate; that known, solid medical science is still valid; that unfounded theories based on simple correlations are not scientifically sound.

And we do not want to inadvertently replicate the cancel culture that harmed so many, with another wave of demonizing anyone who doesn’t 100% support the new narratives. It’s already begun – that if you disagree with any of the incoming opinions, then you must be “bought by pharma!” Blind support is just as bad as blind opposition; critical thinking must prevail.

What reforms are needed now?

  • The first step to restore trust is formal, official statements of truth on the COVID lockdowns, masks and other pseudoscience mandates from new HHS NIH FDA CDC CMS leaders.
  • We need to forbid – by law – all shutdowns and reset that the CDC and other health agencies are (only) advisory. They recommend; they give information—they don’t set laws. They don’t have the power to set mandates. And if our guaranteed freedoms are not always valid, especially during crises, then they are not guaranteed at all.
  • We need to add term limits (?5 years) to all mid- and top-level health agency positions. We cannot continue the perverse incentives of career bureaucrats accruing personal power, like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx with their 30-plus years in government.
  • All new heads of HHS, FDA, NIH, CDC, and CMS should be prohibited from post-govt company board positions in health sectors they regulate for ~5 years. It’s unethical, an overt conflict-of-interest. Why hasn’t that been announced?
  • We need to forbid drug royalty sharing by employees of the NIH, the FDA, and the CDC. $325 million of royalties were shared with pharma by those people over the ten years prior to the pandemic. That’s a shocking conflict-of-interest.
  • We should forbid all mandates forcing people to take drugs. First, the essence of all ethical medical practice is informed consent. And what kind of a ‘free country’ requires you to inject a drug into your child or yourself? No – that’s antithetical to freedom. In public health, you give the information…You shouldn’t need to force anything legitimate, but you do need to prove the case.
  • We need to require the immediate posting of discussions in all FDA, CDC and NIH meetings. They work for us. What are they saying? We should know in real-time.
  • We need accountability for all government funding. We have 15+ universities getting >$500M/yr from NIH alone. The essence of research is free debate. If they’re thwarting that with intimidation, like faculty censures, why would they be entitled to US taxpayers’ money?

More broadly, I and others are working on policies to ensure the free exchange of ideas – the essence of all legitimate science, the basis for the mission of education.

Ideological gatekeeping in public discourse has no place in free societies, especially in science and health.

Here’s the point – the solution to misinformation is more information. No one should be trusted to be the arbiter of truth.

Ultimately, most solutions come from individuals, and ultimately, it is individuals, not institutions, who will save freedom.

I fear we still have a disastrous void in courage in our society today.

To quote CS Lewis, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”

We cannot have a peaceful, free society if it’s filled with people who lack the courage to speak and act with certainty on Hannah Arendt’s “elementary questions of morality”.

Finally, to the young people here, never forget what GK Chesterton said:

“Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.”


‘Honest Medicine: Redefining Health’ conference in Atlanta.

You can learn more about the Independent Medical Alliance at this website, and can follow news from the ongoing Atlanta conference at this blog.

Posted at Malone News, a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-04-05 09:21:042025-04-05 09:21:04Scott Atlas: Restoring Trust in Health Care

Who’s Defying Court Orders Again?

April 3, 2025/1 Comment/in General/by Ann Coulter

Who’s Defying Court Orders Again?

In case you’ve missed the 1 million New York Times headlines announcing a “constitutional crisis,” here are a few typically calm, laid-back notices from that straight-down-the-middle newspaper:

Trump Dares the Courts to Stop Him

With Deportations, Trump Steps Closer to Showdown With Judicial Branch

The president is challenging the constitutional order

The Radical Legal Theories That Could Fuel a Constitutional Crisis

The easily excitable Harvard University political scientist Steven Levitsky told the Times that Trump’s “intensifying conflict with the federal courts is unusually aggressive,” adding that the administration’s “increasingly open, authoritarian behavior is unlike almost anything I’ve seen.” (As the co-author of “How Democracies Die” and “Competitive Authoritarianism,” we know he’s not given to overreaction.)

The casus belli is that Trump is sending bloodthirsty, murderous, face-tattooed terrorists from your neighborhood, out of the country, to prisons in El Salvador. Hey! One of those guys was only a rapist!

Liberals were cool with President Biden defying federal immigration law to import thousands of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members to rape and murder American girls, engage in human trafficking, seize apartment complexes in Colorado and murder police officers. (By contrast, Islamic terrorists haven’t killed anyone in the U.S. since 2017.)

Only when Trump kicked them out did liberals start wailing about a “constitutional crisis,” which is currently defined as anything that raises Levitsky’s systolic blood pressure more than 10 points.

District Court Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order from the bench insanely demanding that the planes carrying the gang members be turned around and rerouted to the U.S. — no doubt, pursuant to the judge’s authority as commander in chief. The killers were deprived of their “due process”! (To add insult to injury, the in-flight movie was Disney’s new remake of “Snow White.”)Where was the public’s “due process” when Biden was letting these gangsters into the country?

But Trump just keeps sending Democrats’ favorite immigrants to Salvadoran prisons. (Not that I think it would have made a difference to the hero of this story, DJT, but Boasberg’s written order said nothing about turning the planes back.)

This, liberals tell us, is a “constitutional crisis” because Trump is allegedly defying a court order. And God knows, liberals would never defy a court order. Unless they didn’t like it.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the president has near-exclusive control over immigration as part of his management of international affairs. That’s why Arizona couldn’t pass a law abiding by federal immigration laws when President Obama decided to ignore those laws. That’s why, under President Clinton, an 8-year-old boy had to be captured at gunpoint and sent back to a brutal communist dictatorship. That’s also why the court upheld Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

But Democratic states and cities across the country brag about their refusal to obey these consistent rulings from the Supreme Court — not from some dinky little district court judge, I note. They proudly call themselves “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states.” (Because a “I’m pro-rapist mass-murdering drug traffickers, and I vote” sticker wouldn’t fit on the bumper of their Subaru.)

No “constitutional crisis” there!

In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued a blindingly clear opinion ordering Harvard and the University of North Carolina, specifically, and all universities by implication, to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

You might remember it. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard produced no end of wailing from the roughly 2 million DEI wastes of plasma.

In response to the court’s ruling, the Biden administration helpfully sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter, coaching universities on ways to defy the court’s ruling — principally by recycling the exact same arguments already advanced by Harvard and rejected by the court.

Harvard’s leading hysteric, Levitsky, retweeted a video statement from college president and noted plagiarist Claudine Gay, claiming to abide by the decision — while simultaneously using all the buzzwords for not abiding by the decision: “diversity is critical,” “our resolve to continue opening doors” and — my favorite — “we will be working to understand the decision.” It wasn’t that complicated: Stop discriminating. (Next you’ll be telling me Dr. Gay refused to condemn antisemitism on campus, ha ha!)

The results are now in and oh my gosh are universities defying the Supreme Court.

Harvard admissions one year before SFFA v. Harvard:

Black: 15.5%

Latino: 13.3%

Asian: 27.8%

Harvard admissions one year after SFFA v. Harvard:

Black: 14%

Latino: 16%

Asian: 37%

The numbers are similarly unchanged at Yale, Dartmouth, Northwestern, the University of Virginia, Wesleyan, Williams, Bowdoin, Princeton, Duke, etc. etc. In fact, the percentages of black and Hispanic admissions actually went up at most of these schools.

The colleges’ own sworn statements prove that they are brazenly ignoring the ruling. Harvard’s expert told the court that, without giving racial preferences to America’s Brahim class, black people, admissions would drop from 14% black to 6% black. Other universities claimed that the percentage of blacks would fall to about 2% — slightly higher during March Madness.

Just last week, we got a clearer picture of academia’s dogged refusal to stop discriminating when New York University’s webpage was hacked and replaced with the SAT scores for different racial groups admitted in 2024. The average Asian SAT score was 1,485, the average white score was 1,428, the average Hispanic score was 1,355 and the average black score was 1,289 — or two standard deviations from the Asian score.

I can’t help but notice that the Constitution gives Harvard and the University of North Carolina no role whatsoever in our federal government. It’s bad enough to have courts assuming the powers of the presidency, but we have colleges and universities assuming the role of a super-Supreme Court.

Liberals don’t care about respect for the courts. They just like discriminating, and they love face-tattooed, savage Venezuelan gangs.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2025-04-03 19:50:452025-04-03 19:50:45Who’s Defying Court Orders Again?

My retraction experience

April 3, 2025/1 Comment/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Related to Ed Dutton’s article on the retraction of his article, I had the same experience. This link goes to my comments the retraction and to the paper itself.

On January 1, 2022 my paper “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence” was published in the peer-reviewed Israel-based academic journal Philosophia. As I noted at the time:

 

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone. I have updated quite a bit of the material, particularly the scholarly writing on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy—Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. I have always felt that Chapter 7 was the most important chapter in the book. …

Besides updating some critical aspects of The Culture of Critique, the paper emphasizes the point that the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. As I note in the article, the rise of this new elite “implies that vital issues of public policy, including immigration, the civil rights of African-Americans, women’s rights, religion in the public square ([David] Hollinger’s “secularization of American society”[1]), the legitimacy of White racial identity and interests, cosmopolitanism [identifying a “citizen of the world”], foreign policy in the Middle East, and many others will be affected by the attitudes and interests of this new elite.” The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America.[2]

Publication resulted almost immediately in hostile comments from Jewish academic activists, calls for retraction, and condemnation of the journal’s editor for allowing such horrifying breach of academic sensibilities to happen.[3] On January 4th, the publisher, Springer Nature, posted the following statement with 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 editor or whoever was in charge then sent the paper out for three more reviews. The reviews arrived toward the end of February and I sent in my reply in early March.[4] My reply ran to around 9000 words and responded to each of the issues raised (one of the reviewers was simply blowing off steam, so there really wasn’t anything to respond to).[5] I prefaced my reply with the following summary statement: 

General Comments

Far too often the reviewers fail to make an argument or specific criticisms of my work but seem to think that simply providing an invidious summary of my views is sufficient to rebut them. Most surprising to me is that none of the reviewers mention even one objection to the long section on immigration—by far the most critical and longest section in the article (amounting to 13 pages and 6500 words); nor is there any discussion of the rise of the intimately related topic of the rise of a new, substantially Jewish elite in the post-World War II era in the U.S., particularly since the 1960s. This is important because my paper addresses the three “core issues” raised by Cofnas, but the Jewish role in immigration policy is, as I note, “The only claim that, if true, would seriously endanger an important aspect of what Cofnas labels ‘the anti-Jewish narrative.’” The other issues discussed are interesting and important in a general discussion of Jewish issues, but they pale in comparison to the material on immigration policy. And, as noted in the paper, some of the most discussed issues, such as intermarriage and the issue of Jewish hypocrisy—two of Cofnas’s three core issues (not to mention Karl Marx’s Jewish identity), are completely irrelevant to central work Cofnas describes as being part of “the anti-Jewish narrative,” most notably The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC), which is what Cofnas is supposedly criticizing. Moreover, none of the reviews critique my analysis of why higher average Jewish IQ by itself fails to explain Jewish influence (i.e., Cofnas’s “default hypothesis”).

But all was for naught. I was informed in mid-May that the paper would be retracted and (amazingly) asking me if I agreed with this decision, but notifying me that any objection that I had to the retraction would not be included along with the retraction statement. I of course objected and wrote yet another reply, this time to their retraction statement. This is their retraction statement, including specific statements of my scholarly malfeasance:

The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication concerns were raised regarding the content in this article and the validity of its arguments. Post-publication peer review concluded that the article does not establish a consistent methodology or document its claims with well-established sources. The article also makes several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data. Kevin MacDonald does not agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as supplementary information.

Springer Nature formally retracted the paper sometime in early July—the title and the retraction notice are all that remain on the article’s main page,[6] but the article can still be accessed on their site as “Supplementary Information,” with ”RETRACTED ARTICLE” emblazoned diagonally in large-font, bold-face capital letters on every page.[7]  However, anticipating this, I saved a local copy, so it is still available on my website as it originally appeared in Philosophia.[8]

My formal reply regarding the retraction to the publisher, Springer Nature, was as follows:

I disagree with the retraction of my article “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence.” The editors of Philosophia should be ashamed of themselves for retracting this article for such obviously spurious reasons. I am quite aware of the reality that academia has become intensely politicized and that Jews in particular are very sensitive about any discussions of Jewish influence. But I really didn’t think that my article would be retracted without any detailed response to my ~9000-word rebuttal to the post-publication reviews—a response that meticulously responded to every claim made by the reviewers. One expects a reasoned give-and-take in an academic venue, but this retraction is simply an assertion of authoritarian control. And to make matters worse, this response to the retraction statement will not be posted by the publisher.

The astonishing thing is that the retraction statement includes the following as the only reasons for the retraction: 

Post-publication peer review concluded that the article does not establish a consistent methodology or document its claims with well-established sources. The article also makes several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data.

But none of the three post-publication reviews ever mentioned that I had failed to provide a consistent methodology, so it’s false that the post-publication reviews revealed this, and obviously I felt no need to discuss this point in my response. And only one reviewer complained about sources, noting that I had cited evolutionary psychologist Edward Dutton. The complaint about citing Dutton is simply ad hominem rather than an honest attempt to dispute what Dutton wrote on Jewish intermarriage—a topic that is, in any case, of only marginal relevance to the main points of my paper. As I noted in my reply, “my practice is that citations should be to information that I consider reasonable and reliable, not what the political affiliations of the authors are.” I cite many authors who have political beliefs that I do not subscribe to, and in fact, the vast majority of my sources come from Jewish authors.

Regarding the issue that the paper contains “several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data,” I responded to each proposed instance in my reply to the reviews. But the retraction statement fails to make an argument for why my rebuttal fails.

All of my responses to this issue made the point that I was not arguing—and it was not necessary for me to argue—that Jews are more ethnocentric than any particular group, only that Jews are indeed ethnocentric [how can anyone deny that Jews are ethnocenric given the current government of Israel?]. For example, in my reply to one of the post-publication reviews, I noted:

The reviewer quotes me: “… Jews under discussion were ethnocentric as indicated by ethnic networking” and comments “Does that mean that blacks are ethnocentric because of their ethnic networking?  Or Catholics?  Or fundamentalist Christians?  This is gibberish because he is making statements about Jews as a group and arguing that they are different from gentiles but he presents no comparison data regarding relative ethnocentrism.”

[My response:] Notice that I do not make a point that Jews are more ethnocentric than any particular group either in the paper under review or in The Culture of Critique—apart from the 2002 “Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique” (pp. xviii–xxxi) contrasting Western European and Jewish cultural forms on a variety of traits.[9] The material in the 2002 preface is a preliminary version of the ideas in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition[10] (2019) and is in no way essential to the argument in Culture of Critique as published in 1998, where the only relevant claim I make is that Jews are ethnocentric—a claim that I document exhaustively. However, for completeness, my view is that Jews are in general more ethnocentric than Western European groups (I make no other comparisons), particularly northwestern European groups—the thesis of my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (2019). My emphasis on the uniqueness of Western individualism is entirely congruent with Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World (2020) … .[11] When Henrich uses the superlative ‘WEIRDest’ (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) in the title, he is emphasizing the uniqueness of the Western peoples; individualism is the polar opposite of collectivism and its associated ethnocentrism endemic to Jewish groups.

Thus there is no rebuttal to my argument that between-group comparisons are irrelevant to the argument presented in The Culture of Critique where the only point was that Jews are in fact ethnocentric as indicated by Jewish ethnic networking, not that they are more ethnocentric than any other group. And in my later writing I did provide comparative data based on Western individualism—data that are irrelevant to the argument in The Culture of Critique; these data show that the individualism of the West is unique among world cultures but such data are not relevant for the argument in The Culture of Critique. None of this is considered in the retraction statement.

This retraction is a disgrace to the academic profession. At the very least, this statement should be included along with the retraction statement so that readers can judge for themselves the legitimacy of retracting it.

To his credit, my opponent all this, Nathan Cofnas, tweeted his disapproval of the rejection.[12]

As far as I know this is the 1st time a paper has been retracted from a philosophy journal for political reasons. I emailed Jonathan Haidt & HxA [Heterodox Academy] several months ago about the threat to KM’s paper but they never replied.

Two important points. The retraction is unprecedented: It’s “the 1st time a paper has been retracted from a philosophy journal for political reasons.” And more importantly, Cofnas’s email notifying Jonathan Haidt, one of the founders of Heterodox Academy, that the paper was retracted got no response. Heterodox Academy represents itself as follows:

Heterodox Academy is a nonpartisan collaborative of 5,000+ professors, educators, administrators, staff, and students who are committed to enhancing the quality of research and education by promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning.

And they note:

All our members have embraced the following statement:

I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.[13]

But apparently some viewpoints are not allowed, and there can be no disagreement on certain issues. Their commitment to open inquiry is a farce.

Jonathan Haidt is well known to me because of his work criticizing the groupthink that is so prevalent in the academic world; I cite him several times in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition in Chapter 8 where I discuss the academic world as one of the pillars of elite power in the West (e.g., “the academic world can accurately be characterized as a moral community of the left in the sense of Jonathan Haidt”[14]). He is Jewish, and one is tempted to conclude that Heterodox Academy is simply another example of controlled opposition in the service of safeguarding Jewish interests in restricting the boundaries of academic debate on Jewish issues.

The following is the published version of “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence,” now titled “The Failure of the “Default Hypothesis of Jewish Influence,” differing only in the formatting in order to make it conform to the style and header space limitations of The Occidental Quarterly.


[1] David. A. Hollinger, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth-Century American Intellectual History (Princeton University Press, 1996), 4.

[2] Kevin MacDonald, “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer (January 1, 2022). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/01/the-default-hypothesis-fails-to-explain-jewish-influence/

[3] Kevin MacDonald, “My Paper on Jewish Influence Blows Up,” The Occidental Observer (January 7, 2022). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/01/07/my-paper-on-jewish-influence-blows-up/

[4] The reviews may be found here: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PhilosophiaCompiledReviews.pdf

[5] My reply: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PhilosophiaReviews.pdf

[6] See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-021-00439-y

[7] See: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11406-021-00439-y/MediaObjects/11406_2021_439_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

[8] See: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Anti-JewishNarrativePDF.pdf

[9] Kevin MacDonald, “Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique.”  http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PrefacePPB.pdf

[10] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future” (CreateSpace, 2019).

[11] Joseph Henrich, The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2020).

[12] See Nathan Cofnas: https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1543422912413466624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[13] See: https://heterodoxacademy.org/our-mission/

[14] Jonathan Haidt, “Post-partisan Social Psychology.” Presentation at the meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX, January 27, 2011.

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-04-03 11:04:172025-04-03 11:04:17My retraction experience

Tucker Carlson on Trump Threats to Iran

April 2, 2025/2 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Tucker Carlson sends out an email with current news stories, including one today on Trump’s threats to bomb Iran. What’s a bit surprising, given Carlson’s support for Trump, is this criticism of the Trump administration: “While the president’s administration has made meaningful efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine, it continues to maintain a blindspot when it comes to Iran. Its rhetoric toward the Ayatollah-run nation, including threatening to bomb its homeland, has increased tension between the White House and Tehran, and Washington’s continued and unconditional backing of Israel has led to U.S. service members being thrust into harm’s way at the hands of the Houthis in Yemen.” Such a sentiment is not present in the Fox News article that the comment links to.

Iran Reportedly Considering Striking U.S. Base

Iranian military commanders are reportedly considering a preemptive strike on a joint U.S.-U.K. Indian Ocean base as an attempt to deter Donald Trump from launching an assault on their home soil. The base sits on one of the Chagos Islands, roughly 2,400 miles south of Iran.

While the president’s administration has made meaningful efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine, it continues to maintain a blindspot when it comes to Iran. Its rhetoric toward the Ayatollah-run nation, including threatening to bomb its homeland, has increased tension between the White House and Tehran, and Washington’s continued and unconditional backing of Israel has led to U.S. service members being thrust into harm’s way at the hands of the Houthis in Yemen.

Conservatives must step back and remember that a hot war with Iran will almost certainly cause thousands of American deaths and cost the United States tens of billions of dollars. Plus the carnage brought by future acts of terrorism on U.S. soil may be even higher.

The White House should take every action possible to reduce the chances of such a conflict. It must not fall for the neocons’ propaganda. Refraining from baiting the Islamic Republic into killing Americans would be a great place to start. Read more.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-04-02 12:58:592025-04-02 12:58:59Tucker Carlson on Trump Threats to Iran

Candace Owens goes off on the Israel Lobby

April 1, 2025/7 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

CANDACE HAS TAKEN OFF THE GLOVES 🥊

“You’re like disgusting little goblins… you’re all frauds and you’re gonna get exposed”🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/cC0nqU2NEA

— TrueBlueRebel (@pepedownunder) March 29, 2025

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-04-01 10:40:202025-04-01 10:40:20Candace Owens goes off on the Israel Lobby

Wokeness at UBC: Bicycles for BIPOCs and a punctuation-free Ph.D. dissertation

April 1, 2025/6 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

University of British Columbia seems to be on the far end of super-woke. I get emails from someone monitoring the situation: ‘

Bikes for BIPOC

This is a bike redistribution program for UBC students who are Black and/or Indigenous and/or People Of Colour to promote access to bikes as a mode of autonomy, safe and reliable transportation, health and joy. The aim of this program is to support BIPOC students and address inequalities of material wealth and access to transportation. We approach bike distribution with a Racial Justice lens and seek to provide accessible transportation to folks who are typically not prioritized in the bike industry.

Why an Architect Wrote a 52,438-Word Dissertation With No Punctuation

An architect pursuing a doctorate at the University of British Columbia wrote his 149-page, 52,438-word dissertation without any periods or commas. Patrick Stewart, 61, who belongs to the Nisga’a, a group of indigenous people in British Columbia, told Canada’s National Post that his dissertation, entitled “Indigenous Architecture through Indigenous Knowledge,” was designed to raise awareness about “the blind acceptance of English language conventions in academia” and to make a statement about “aboriginal culture, colonialism.” And he claimed there is “nothing in the (UBC dissertation) rules about formats or punctuation.” When he defended his punctuation-free dissertation, the examiners accepted it unanimously.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-04-01 08:11:462025-04-01 08:11:46Wokeness at UBC: Bicycles for BIPOCs and a punctuation-free Ph.D. dissertation

Macron and Corruption: Judge in Le Pen’s case is close ally of Macron

March 31, 2025/3 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

The normalization of banning political opposition will go nowhere good.

Robert W Malone MD, MS

Emmanuel Macron is a lame-duck president without a parliamentary majority. He has turned France is another EU-corrupted government – stopping free and fair elections by use of the courts.

Macron’s judges took claimed finance violations and turned it into a criminal complaint to bar his populist opponent from being able to challenge him. Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen’s staffers were being paid by the EU to work with MPs. But they commingled work processes and worked for French MPs too. This is not embezzlement. This is a finance violation. It should never have ended up in a court of law.

Macron is evil — he arranged for this court verdict by choosing a close ally as the judge of Le Pen’s court case. Marine Le Pen, who heads the National Rally (RN) party was convicted of embezzlement and barred from running for public office for five years, sentenced to four years in prison, with two years suspended and two under house arrest, and was fined €100,000 ($108,000).

To be clear, this court case was based on a technicality — the EU claimed she used money meant to hire one category of employee, and instead, they claim she and other party officials hired people to work on national issues. The EU claims that money intended for European Union parliamentary aides was used to instead pay for staff who worked for the national party issues — between 2004 and 2016. So, just like the lawfare used against Trump, they used finance violations that mainly occurred over two decades ago to take down the opposition party to Macron.

The decision effectively removes her from the 2027 presidential race, where she was seen as a leading candidate. So broad are the political implications that most of Le Pen’s opponents said the Paris court had gone too far.

This is the same France that has imprisoned the CEO of Telegram because he permits free speech.Macron has become a dictator.

We can expect large political protests in France in the coming months – but it is doubtful that they will make a difference.

Either arresting conservative political opponents or banning them from running for public office has been normalized. It has recently happened in Brazil and Romania.

In Germany, similar tactics are being used. Except there,  they are just trying to ban the entire conservative Alternative for Germany (AFD) party outright.

Germany’s constitution allows the Federal Constitutional Court to ban parties deemed to “seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order.” With this in mind, the courts and the deep state have already begun to find ways to ban the AfD from elections. The German parliament is set to debate an application for a ban on the AfD in a plenary session for the first time next week.

In the United States, liberals and liberal courts tried to stop President Trump from running for office. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to run for president in Colorado after ruling that he engaged in an insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned this decision, remember that it was only due to the intersession of the Supreme Court that these antics came to an end for the last round of elections. We can be sure that tactic will be used again in future elections.

Now, these same liberals are using lawfare to stop President Trump’s political agenda. They have flooded lower courts with liberal judges, who are using their positions in ways not intended by the US Constitution to impede Trump’s foreign and domestic policies.

Be careful what you wish for:

In Romania, my friend George Simion, who is conservative, has now risen to the top of the polls after the presidential candidate Călin Georgescu was banned from holding office.

The people in Romania know what a totalitarian government looks like and they are not having it. If Călin Georgescu can’t run, the people will transfer their votes over to the candidate that Călin Georgescu endorses, and in this case, that is George-Nicolae Simion.

The graphic above shows that Georgescu received 22% of the vote in the fall election and Simion received 13% of the vote. For a total of 35% of the vote total. In a poll conducted in March 2025, Simion has picked up most of Georgescu’s support and is polling at 30%, putting him well in the lead for the May 4 presidential election.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-03-31 11:55:572025-03-31 11:55:57Macron and Corruption: Judge in Le Pen’s case is close ally of Macron
Page 94 of 234«‹9293949596›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • American Free Press
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles Magazine
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Raven's Call: A Reactionary Perspective
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • VDare
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only