During Stage 3 Episode 6 of the Radical Agenda, I had two separate guests. In the first portion, I spoke with Weev of the Daily Stormer about the censorship his website has recently been subjected to. In the second portion, I spoke with Kevin MacDonald, a retired college professor who has written three books on Judaism and anti-Semitism from an evolutionary perspective.
Below is the text of the introduction to the show;
While the entire episode is informative and entertaining, I thought I would release the MacDonald interview separately, because the two conversations took on decidedly different tones. This segment was far more intellectual and far less bombastic, which could prove useful as introductory material for new listeners.
Here at the Radical Agenda, we started off as a very libertarian production. Radical even, hence the name. If you had asked me for reading suggestions during the first hundred episodes, I probably would have pointed you toward Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, or Ludwig von Mises – all of them Jews. Though I still largely maintain my fetish for liberty, if you asked the same question today, I’d suggest Adolf Hitler, George Lincoln Rockwell, and Kevin MacDonald. I’m fairly confident at least one of those names rings a bell to you, and as you’ve probably guessed, my new favorite authors are most decidedly not Jewish.
When one looks at the group behaviors of Jews, you can start to see why Jews would take issue. Whether in the atomized, hyperindividualistic outlook of the libertarian, or in the hypercollectivized “anti-racist” perspective of the communist, any effort to analyze world events through the racial lense meets horrified outcry, though never any meaningful refutation. The moment one attempts to even understand patterns of ethnic or racial group behavior, they are condemned as a thought criminal, a Nazi, a fascist, an ignorant racist, a deranged and sick individual. Without ever having a fact corrected or argument refuted, they are written out of polite society by groups who see no conflict between their openly ethnocentric nature, and their utter contempt for all other ethnocentric groups.
It should come as no surprise then, that Kevin MacDonald has been called the “neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, was denounced by many of his colleagues, and had his teaching duties reduced before retiring from his position as a psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach. All without being refuted or corrected in any meaningful way, of course.
Refuting Mr. MacDonald might prove difficult. He has a Masters degree in evolutionary biology, and a Ph. D. in Biobehavioral Sciences, both from the University of Connecticut. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives on culture, developmental psychology and personality theory, the origins and maintenance of monogamous marriage in Western Europe, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He is the author of more than 100 scholarly papers and reviews, and he is the author of Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (1988), A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). He is also the editor of the Occidental Observer. The “backward, ignorant, racist” trope is not going to work on this guy.
While I was in the custody of the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail, I had the time to read some of Kevin’s work. A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents, and Culture of Critique, a trilogy of well sourced, scholarly research on Judaism and anti-Semitism, from an evolutionary perspective. I was impressed with the material in all the ways one can be impressed with a book. His literary talent combined with in depth explanations of the subject matter, serves to thoroughly inform the reader on very a very complex topic without becoming a a tedious read. Indeed I had trouble putting these books down.
Simultaneously, one can understand why, though Mr. MacDonald shows no hostility to anyone in his work, Jewish groups consider the material “hate speech” and thought crime. The gentile reader is almost compelled to see Jews as a threat to his way of life, and the continued survival and well being of his people. Indeed, Mr. MacDonald posits that anti-Semitism, far from being some sort of mental illness as our chosenite moral crusaders would have us believe, is a survival mechanism developed by non-Jews throughout the world and throughout history to ward off the negative consequences that come with Jewish presence in gentile societies.
It is unfortunate in the extreme that Jewish groups see no reason to refute anything Mr. MacDonald has to say. I would far rather not view the world in this fashion, but when the only response to scientific research is cries of heresy and smear campaigns, the honest observer is compelled to see that only one side of this conflict is making any effort to understand the realities of our world, while the other side is interested only in subterfuge. Calling someone an anti-Semite and a Nazi is not an argument, and indeed these perpetual cries of persecution are exactly the type of behavior topping the list of complaints anti-Semites like myself have with the people who are vastly overrepresented in every measure of success our society has to offer.
Below are the notes I made before the interview, including questions
Your work has been very influential on my worldview. I think like most people I was told my whole life that we should only judge people as individuals and not as groups, which can make study of the Jewish question seem taboo even before the ADL tries to shut you out of the banking system. Could we maybe start off by trying to understand the reason for studying group evolutionary strategies, more broadly?
Whenever one attempts to explain issues concerning Jewish influence, you come across some really common complaints, anti-Semitism being the most obvious one, which we’ll get to, but I think as we try to introduce new listeners to the subject matter I think it might be helpful to address the so called “conspiracy theory” angle first. And what I already understood to some degree, and your work helped me better understand was, this isn’t some situation where we imagine a bunch of criminals sitting around in a smokey backroom somewhere, rubbing their hands together and cackling about how they’re going to screw the goyim. Rather, these are patterns of behavior that it might help our technical listeners to compare to firmware in a computer. It’s not completely unalterable, but it’s sort of there by default, operating in the background largely transparent to the user, but informing everything that happens in the system. Does that metaphor make sense to you, or can you help me come up with a better way of delivering the concept?
I think most people when they try to understand this subject matter get confused by what they see as contradictions. There is a certain stereotype of Jews being greedy and all about money for example, so when I first started associating them with communism that seemed like cognitive dissonance to me and I had a great deal of trouble processing that. As another example, if you think of Jews as a religious group, it might be difficult to understand why they would be promoting sexual degeneracy, atheism, and abortion. But when I installed the coincidence detector browser plugin, I sure enough started seeing a lot of parenthesis in leftist propaganda on the Internet, and realized that this did in fact warrant further investigation. It seems to me, that this makes more sense when we are thinking in the context of a group strategy as opposed to an individual one, where different members of the group can play both sides against the middle, so to speak. George Lincoln Rockwell gives the analogy in White Power of “Friends of the Captain” vs. “Friends of the Crew” where Jews are stirring resentment between labor and capital in both directions with the goal of creating class warfare and disharmony in the gentile society for the benefit of Jews. Am I doing a good job of explaining that, and can you help us get a better idea of this phenomenon?
When I first started talking about this kind of subject matter, I tried to explain that what I was doing wasn’t racist or anti-Semitic, but rather just honest inquiry into meaningful phenomena happening within our society. When I got fired from broadcast radio for talking about race and IQ as it pertained to blacks and some of the problems going on with those folks, one of my cohosts now infamously said to me “That true statement is racist” and I was shocked by this because I always thought racism was defined by its sheer irrationality and despicable motives. Whether that was ever really the definition of the word I’m no longer certain, but today it seems that racism has been defined as the mere study of race in even the most objective and scientific manner, and anti-Semitism literally means doing anything that some Jew somewhere disapproves of, have you found it to be otherwise, and how do you deal with the venom that people throw at you over your work?
One of the most toxic, antiscientific notions pervading throughout our entire intellectual arena seems to be that race is a mere social construct. A conjured mythology that white people used as an excuse to justify our crimes against our moral superiors. When one understands the subject matter, it is difficult to believe that anyone takes this idea seriously, not only because of the evidence all around us in everyday life, but the fact that differences between racial groups was pretty well established science not so long ago. In Culture of Critique, you seem to trace this back to a Jew named Franz Boaz, not sure if I’m pronouncing that name right, can you tell me a little about his work, and how Jewish influence in the social sciences helped elevate this nonsense to the prevailing religion of modern time?
I’m kind of embarassed to admit this, but I didn’t even know that Freud was Jew before reading your work. Not that I knew a whole lot else about him before then either. Can you tell us a little bit about psychoanalysis and how it impacts the field of psychology and or psychiatry today?
That seems to feed into a larger pattern of Jews trying to pathologize gentile behavior, and of particular interest I recall you talking about a book called The Authoritarian Personality, where the Jewish authors essentially claimed that anyone showing what we would describe as a healthy family structure as exhibiting some sort of disorder, and you see this recurring pattern of it getting citations from other Jewish social scientists, and those citations, however bogus, granting legitimacy to the study, which causes it to be taken seriously by gentile scientists as well.
I read a book last year titled Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with science, which talked about the Science Wars and the Sokal affair where, this guy submitted a paper titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” to an academic Journal called Social Text just to see if they would publish what he described as “liberally salted with nonsense” and declared, without the slightest evidence or argument, that “physical `reality’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.” Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)
He described his motives as follows
In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.
The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the dubiousness of its central thesis and of the “reasoning” adduced to support it. Basically, I claim that quantum gravity — the still-speculative theory of space and time on scales of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter — has profound political implications (which, of course, are “progressive”). In support of this improbable proposition, I proceed as follows: First, I quote some controversial philosophical pronouncements of Heisenberg and Bohr, and assert (without argument) that quantum physics is profoundly consonant with “postmodernist epistemology.” Next, I assemble a pastiche — Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity — held together by vague rhetoric about “nonlinearity”, “flux” and “interconnectedness.” Finally, I jump (again without argument) to the assertion that “postmodern science” has abolished the concept of objective reality. Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions.
In its concluding passages, my article becomes especially egregious. Having abolished reality as a constraint on science, I go on to suggest (once again without argument) that science, in order to be “liberatory,” must be subordinated to political strategies. I finish the article by observing that “a liberatory science cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics.” We can see hints of an “emancipatory mathematics,” I suggest, “in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory; but this approach is still heavily marked by its origins in the crisis of late-capitalist production relations.” I add that “catastrophe theory, with its dialectical emphases on smoothness/discontinuity and metamorphosis/unfolding, will indubitably play a major role in the future mathematics; but much theoretical work remains to be done before this approach can become a concrete tool of progressive political praxis.” It’s understandable that the editors of Social Text were unable to evaluate critically the technical aspects of my article (which is exactly why they should have consulted a scientist). What’s more surprising is how readily they accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda, and how oblivious they were to the article’s overall illogic.
Why did I do it? While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their existence but downplays their practical relevance. At its best, a journal like Social Textraises important questions that no scientist should ignore — questions, for example, about how corporate and government funding influence scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic relativism does little to further the discussion of these matters.
You can imagine, if he had not revealed his con, this nonsense gaining traction in the social sciences. That this admitted con, could become science just as accepted by the consensus today as global warming, just by this guy leaving his scam undiscovered. And this I think speaks to perhaps the most toxic part of this whole thing, that we literally can’t even conduct science with these influences in our midst.