Hello and welcome to I Don't Speak German, the anti-Fascist podcast in which I, Jack Graham, and my friend Daniel Harper have conversations about the far right's conversations. Daniel tells me what he learned from years of going where few of us can bear to go and listening to what today's far right – the alt-right, white nationalists, white supremacists, nazis, etc. – talk about and say to each other in their safe spaces, their podcasts, their Youtube videos, their live streams, et cetera. The Waffle SS I call them, and do they waffle. Daniel listened so we don't have do. Needless to say, these are terrible people and they say terrible things, so every episode comes with a big content warning. Daniel and I talk freely about despicable opinions and acts, and sometimes we have to repeat the despicable things that are said, including bigoted slurs. So be warned.

And this is episode 35. Hi Daniel, how's everything?

I'm doing great. Everything is perfect. Thankfully we don't have to talk about nazis anymore. They're all beaten.

They're all gone.

They're all gone, yeah.

So that's the end of...

So this is going to be My Little Pony podcast...

Oh yeah. I Do Speak Pony. [laughs]

[laughs]

Sadly, it's a beautiful dream, listeners, but it's not true. They're still out there. There's been a lot of news lately. You might have been expecting us to cover that news in this episode. We're not going to. We're not going to.

We zig where the audience expects us to zag. The whole thing is, like, why talk about the Andy Ngo kill list. Why talk about Richard Spencer being revealed as who he is to the world – which everybody should have seen if they paid ten minutes of attention or just listened to episode 1 of this podcast.

Why talk about Nick Fuentes and the TPUSA Groyper war. In this episode – we could have done that and then avoided talking about Kevin MacDonald for another week, and I thought about doing that, I really did. [laughs]

[laughs]

But, no, we're going to do that next week. We're going to do a whole episode covering those issues. Just so we don't do the edging thing with the Kevin MacDonald episode again. So we're going to do Kevin MacDonald.

That's right, we're going to finally take the plunge, pull off the...

We're going to reach completion KMac.

That's right. Pull off the scab, pull off the plaster, and reveal the festering sore beneath. And also, we wouldn't want to be relevant or anything. Bloody hell.

No, why do that. Really, ultimately, the goal is to make this podcast as irrelevant to current events as possible.

Yeah. So this is, finally, at long last, the long-promised Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Jewish Question episode. And, yeah, this is delicate stuff. I want to say at the outset, we're going to be talking about anti-Semitism, and... neither of us is Jewish. That's just a fact. That's just a thing that's true. We're going to have to ask for the audience's indulgence and latitude to an extent I think, in case we get things wrong or get our tone wrong or something. Because we'r'e talking about something that neither of us have personally experienced ever. Although we know people who have experienced it.

I should probably – this is something I have not – it's not something that's hidden, at all, and it's not something that I feel like I am not comfortable talking about, but it is something that I try not to put on this podcast, you know: my wife is ethnically Jewish. She's not practicing, et cetera et cetera. But, you know, my wife is Jewish.

And if I say that all of the nazis listening are now going to go like, of course, he's completely controlled, his wife is manipulating him behind the scenes or whatever, he can't be a proper white man and believe in genocide of the Jews because of his personal interest. No, I would have been against you fuckers regardless. It doesn't much matter to us in our day-to-day life that my wife has an ethnic heritage that is not, quote-unquote white by nazi standards, but it matters enough that I feel like it is worth kind of just mentioning, you know. There's a reason that this stuff hits me as closely as it does in some ways, let's put it that way.

That disclaimer having been issued, our asses hopefully covered, we can continue. Except there was another bit of news.

There was one bit of news we wanted to talk about now, wasn't there, before we get into the Kevin MacDonald goodness.

Yeah. Just highlighting here at the beginning that the journalist Elizabeth King – I will link to her, I guess now former, Twitter profile and some information on her. She is someone who has been covering the far right for a while. She's a freelancer. She's been kind of struggling to make ends meet. And apparently a bunch of nazi fucks mass-reported her account for nothing and she has been perma-banned from Twitter for the second time. And that's happened just this afternoon as we're recording this. And that's a really shitty thing. So I just wanted to highlight that, put a link in the show notes, so everybody can go bug Twitter support about that. We'll put whatever little bit of energy that we have behind that because she's great and I definitely would like to see her back on Twitter.

So, yeah, Elizabeth King, if you're listening to this: whatever I can do to help, that's all I can do. Thank you.

Yeap. And that's a great name, isn't it, Elizabeth King. Wow. Imagine being called Elizabeth King. That's so cool. You know, some people are called Jack Graham and that's rubbish. But Elizabeth King, that's an amazing name.

It is. And she is pretty awesome. We have talked about possibly her coming on the show. She's really too good for this show, but she might slum it with us one day.

Everybody. Everybody is too good for this show. I'm too good for this show.

I am not. This is the slum that I deserve to live in.

Absolutely. By your genetic heritage.

My genetic heritage, yes.

That's right.

My race-mixing self deserves to be in this.

Somehow – the evolutionary psychologists can tell us how – somehow, when we were evolving on the African savannah, there was a gene developed for being on shitty podcasts, and you've got it, Daniel.

I do, yeah.

So that's a segue into Kevin MacDonald. So, Daniel, who the fuck is Kevin MacDonald?

Kevin MacDonald is an academic. He studied philosophy in undergrad. He went to, I think, Stanford. Hold on, let me – I guess I'm going to have to do this seriously. I apologize.

Getting serious, folks. He's putting his glasses on. You can't see but I can.

You're going to cut all that out, I hope.

Maybe.

Kevin MacDonald... [laughs]

[laughs]

Well, Jack, I actually have, from a very nice piece written by a man named George Michael, who I assume is not the singer...

Probably not.

Entitled, Kevin MacDonald's Critique of Judaism: Legitimate Scholarship or the Intellectualization of anti-Semitism? It's a nice summary.

It's the latter. Spoilers!

[chuckles] 'Kevin MacDonald was born in 1944 and raised in a traditional Catholic family in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Growing up, he attended Catholic schools and obtained a BA in philosophy from the University of Wiconsin in 1966. While in college, he became involved in the campus anti-war movement. Interestingly, several of his roommates were Jewish, which, as MacDonald later recounted, opened his eyes to Jewish involvement in radical causes. One incident in particular that left an impression on him was when Jewish student radicals recruited him to give a speech in order to present a supposedly non-Jewish veneer to their politics. During this phase in his life, MacDonald entertained dreams of becoming a Jazz pianist. Several years later, however, he abandoned both his musical career and radical politics to enter graduate school at the age of 30.'

In graduate school, he becomes drawn to what was then called sociobiology – later called evolutionary psychology. He studied the evolutionary behaviour of wolves. Doing his PhD thesis he became a child psychologist, ultimately, and a few years later started publishing material about how the Jews have a genetic interest, a genetic group interest to maintain their own heritage, as opposed to a, quote-unquote, European white society that surrounds them. He wrote three books, the first of which is A People That Shall Dwell Alone, the second is Separation and Its Discontents, and the third is The Culture of Critique.

Very nice intellectual sounding titles there.

Right. These are – which one did I say came first? A People That Shall Dwell Alone is the first one?

Yeah.

Okay. Sometime I get those two confused. I have read all of Culture of Critique. I was trying to reread the whole thing for this podcast but it's a really insipid thing to read. I have skimmed the other two to sort of get a sense of the contents. And I have listened to many, many hours of this man talk. Because he will appear on any nazi, racist, fascist, anything podcast that will take him. Don't worry, we will talk about some of these places where he has appeared. One thing that I am always kind of curious about is his political background. Like, was he convinced of this sort of scientific anti-Semitism from the time that he was – like, was he convinced by it honestly, like in his scientific studies?

Or did he reach these conclusions based on his kind of personal thing? And, spoiler alert: the Culture of Critique is – we've mentioned this many times on this podcast before – the book that gets recommended when people say, how did you get redpilled on the JQ, the Jewish Question, how did you become an anti-Semite? The Culture of Critique is like number one, it is the source.

Yeah.

Either that or some appearance that Kevin MacDonald did on a podcast or a radio show or a Youtube show or whatever. He's been everywhere. He's done many, many appearances with American Renaissance, which is hypothetically not anti-Semitic, and yet he shows up and gives speeches for them.

Interesting.

So, you know, tells you what that's worth, right.

Yeah.

This is like the guy.

What he's done is take in the old-school anti-Semitic tropes from literally millenia past and repackage them as this sort of evolutionary psychology bullshit. And one thing that I have thought about doing with this was trying to really dig into the book and do like a real analysis. But, (a), you read the Culture of Critique – even if you read like the introduction to this book – I've put a link to it, it is available for free as a PDF, you can read it at your leisure if you choose to.

You'd think the Jews that run the world would have stopped this getting out, really, wouldn't you?

Well, it's been taked off of Amazon, and that's really the way you know.

Oh. That's it.

He did produce a brand-new book as of like a couple of weeks ago, and that one is still up on Amazon. I haven't found a free copy of that one, so I haven't read it yet, and I haven't even looked at it.

But apparently it's all about how great Northern European gentiles are, and how that is genetically composed – you know, Northern European gentiles have a genetic propensity towards individualism, and this individualism makes... [chuckles]

[laughs] Aaaah!

This individualism makes, you know, Northern European stock genetically predisposed to be kind to outsiders.

[laughs]

I mean this all kind of material that comes from – [laughs] that comes from the other books. He's just kind of repeating this material. He's now a whole book elaborating on these theses.

Well, having lived among Northern Europeans my entire life, I can tell you, you know: individualism and kindness to outsiders – bang on, mate, those are our defining traits. You couldn't – you just summed us up. Jesus. [laughs]

His big idea – and seriously, this is supposed to be science! I was going to pull quotes from these books that demonstrate the vapidity of it, and I will write this up and some point and publish it, I just didn't want to have to make you listen to like twenty minutes of me reading out loud from these books. He admits – it all builds on this edifice of evolutionary psychology and I hesitate, as someone not within that field, to say evolutionary psychology is one hundred percent bullshit. There are biologists, professional evolutionary biologists, who will declare very clearly that evolutionary psychology is one hundred percent bullshit. The more moderate, reasonable position is that evolutionary psychology is about ninety percent bullshit. That seems to be more the, like, median position.

I'm not a scientist at all, let alone a biologist, but I have looked into this. This is a subject that interests me. I have looked into evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. Obviously not having any qualifications in this area, I have to say, you can't just take my word for it. But I'm pretty sure that it's, yeah, ninety to a hundred percent bullshit. That sounds about right to me based on my reading. People who want a good left-wing take on sociobiology and evolutionary psychology: there are all sorts of great people you can read. There's Steven Jay Gould, there's Steven Rose, there's Dick Lewontin. Find these people's books. They are brilliant.

Yeah, Not In Our Genes has been on my to-read list for a long time...

That book is seminal for me. That is seminal for me, that book.

Sure. The Mismeasure of Man is pretty much that for me. I read that when I was in highschool. There are people who will tell you that that book has been debunked. And I can tell you it has not. [chuckles] In fact, when someone tells you that...

It's been responded to. That's not the same thing.

When someone tells you that book has been debunked, make them justify that. That's really the key, you know. Ask for the references on that. Because, yeah, you can dig into that... people have kind of dug around the edges of that, and really the kind of consensus, as I understand it, from people I respect is, ultimately, the book doesn't go far enough. It is meant to be a book for a lay audience, to demonstrate the basic ideas of how this stuff works, and any respectable population geneticist who looks at this stuff looks at the final twenty percent of Mismeasure of Man, which summarizes the techniques of factor analysis, and goes, yeah, that's the basic stuff that goes into the stuff that I do every day. It's not even worth spending a hundred pages on this but you go, Steven Jay Gould, for doing that.

Like it's such an obvious point, it's not even worth talking about in these kind of circles. And yet evolutionary psychology maintains its allure in this kind of world. Largely because it's been very well funded by literally eugenicist groups that go [into the name of?] the Pioneer Fund. Sorry, we're slightly afield from this. I was hoping to do a full episode on this topic. But there is this sort of idea that these kinds of ideas around evolutionary psychology – this sort of literal Nazi science, with the worst edges of it filed off – gets a really mainstream appreciation within academia, largely based on the fact that they get enough money do to their studies, and they can fudge the details and create enough of a pseudo-academic justification for themselves that they have to be responded to.

Outside of their little bubble of ideological nonsense, no-one uses these results and builds on them to do other things, you know. Like, sociologists don't rely on evolutionary psychology to tell them how to build models, how to do sociology. It's just not a thing.

Oh yeah. One of the tell-tale signs that it's bullshit is that there's nowhere to go with it. You can't do anything with it. It's like creationism. Creationism presents you with no program of study. It gives you nowhere to go. It's just an artificial endpoint. They've just dropped the wall down, artificially. And that's pretty much what evo psych does as well. It doesn't give you any place to go from there. Because it's reasoning backwards. It looks at what is and says, oh, that must be because this. And it comes up with a lovely just-so story. But because it hasn't really explained anything.

19::00

It's just restated the existence of something we all knew was there anyway – or often claimed the existence of something that isn't – it's just a dead end.

Right. The irony being that Culture of Critique and Kevin MacDonald's work is so obviously vapid and shoddy that even other evolutionary psychologists, even the other race realist bullshit artists don't take this fucking shit seriously.

Oh yeah!

We'll talk about one of those guys... because there is a guy named Nathan Cofnas who has responded to the Culture of Critique, and responded to Kevin MacDonald, in some academic journals.

I had a look at some of those, yeah.

His answer... so the big thing of Culture of Critique, the whole argument is that Jews – and again, I don't believe any of this. It's so difficult to talk about this stuff, to keep it light and to describe the ideas and not make it sound like I'm to some degree amused.

I am amused because it's ridiculous and stupid. It's horrifying. I just want to be clear, I'm about to describe this terrible thing that is absolutely nonsense but I'm going to try to do it in a funny way. The basic thesis is that the Jews have this genetic and cultural propensity – notice that I'm using the two words interchangeably here because MacDonald himself doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between the two...

[sarcastic] Oh, sorry, you don't mean to say that he's fuzzy on his terms, that he doesn't define his terms clearly? You shock me! You shock me beyond belief! [laughs]

In the introduction to one of the books he literally says that we're working on this group-evolutionary strategy iea and this is controversial in some quarters. [laughs] But we're just going to move along and assume it's true.

Now, again, I'm not a biologists Group selection, genetically based group selection, has been disproven – it's been junk science since the 60s as far as I can tell. You get a slight effect from a very close relative, like an uncle giving their life for their brother's kid or something like that. Mathematically, you can get slight evolutionary advantage to that, that level of altruism.

There is no way to explain that other than genes, you know. [chuckles] It could be a kid you've known his entire life and he's your brother's kid. You love your brother and you love his kids.

D

Well, even...

There's no social explanation for that. It has to be the genes, obviously.

Even in animal species – you can demonstrate there is a sort of evolutionary hypothesis for altruism, sacrificism myself for a very, very close relative. But once you get beyond literally that close, there is no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. If there is a biologist, an evolutionary biologist listening to this who can either confirm or deny that, I would love to see that. But the little bit of layperson research I've been able to do – I can't find anyone who claims that specifically. That there is any real evidence outside of like very close familial relations.

So MacDonald just assumes this.

Right, he just assumes it's a thing. He's very cagey about this, in interviews and even in the texts that he writes. He'll basically say, well, okay, if he can't say it's genetic, we say it's cultural, but culture derives from genetic factors.

23

Maybe we don't know everything. And then when he's really pushed, he'll just kind of go, look, this is a metaphor. It's just a metaphor that we're using to describe kind of absurd behavior.

Yeah. You need to define your terms. If you can explain this behavior genetically, is it directly genetic, where the genes control behavior, or is it mediated by culture? This is what they all do. I know they're not all as bad. And I know you don't really want to get into the evo psych, sociobiology conversation. But I just have to say this: this is what Dawkins does. Dawkins is not a nazi. I don't doubt he distances himself from people like MacDonald. But Dawkins does this as well. Dawkins set up metaphors, and then he treats them as if they're real things, and then when people call him on it he goes, well, it's a metaphor. [sighs]

Right. But then you're using your biologist hat. You're using your credibility as a biologist to then justify that.

And then they use this idea of, well, we know that certain kinds of behavior – based on genome-wide association studies, you can get genetic scores – this is well beyond what we're doing with Kevin MacDonald today.

Yeah. Sorry.

They'll use this sort of science, real science, to justify claims completely outside of science. They say, well, we know that this might be partly genetic, and therefore it's worth talking about some genetic propensity – without having any kind of rigor to it. Ultimately, there's no rigor to any of this. It's just, you know, we think that these factor are possibly part genetic, therefore they can be selected for. No. That's not something we get to assume. Any person who knows anything about how evolution actually works know that selection, natural selection, is only a minor feature in much of what we know as evolutionary history.

And they're many many other mechanisms. There's the founder effect. There's drift. There's simple mutation. [laughs] There's all kinds of stuff.

Things have to...

There's all kinds of stuff that is not a straightforward selection event in the way that we naively think of it.

Absolutely. Let's not get drawn into this rabbit hole. This is a rabbit hole I could get drawn into because this was a big obsession of mine about ten years ago. Dawkins no less. Let's crash on.

Talking about this topic... there's a ton of great stuff out there. I'm hoping to get a biologist on to talk about some of this, who can explain this with some degree with authority, as opposed to you and I just using our layperson's understanding and rant at it.

Yeah, that would be great.

Again, even by the standards of evolutionary psychology and even by the standards of what I think is pretty clearly pseudo-science or, you know, tinged with pseudo-science – I'm trying to be as kind as I can be to that field and kind of go, these are experts who are basically spreading bullshit, but it sounds good and so it has to have some level of respectability. Even those guys mostly don't respect Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald tells this story – we've got this group behavior of the Jews, that they are a people who maintain a genetic lineage of their own, who don't merge with the broader, quote-unquote, northern European society.

That white people and Jews are kind of two separate groups. And that over the course of the last few hundred years, and it particular since the late nineteenth century, that there are these Jewishly run organizations that have acted in the Jewish interest against the white interest. Well, let's just read – I've got a little bit here that I kind of quoted from the introduction of Culture of Critique. This is MacDonald himself justifies this. He goes on and on and on about this. Let's give him a few words of his own. I'm going to read here from Culture of Critique.

He says, 'Culture of Critique describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western society in a way that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or a semi-cryptic manner.

Several of these Jewish movements, e.g. the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples, have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors – the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position – not only their traditional homelands but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture, and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group-evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political, and cultural dominance with non-Jews. Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against the Culture of Critique. I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of Culture of Critique. There are many complaints that I'm viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner. This is definitely not the case.' [chuckles]

And then he goes on and he does like four segments where's he talking about – essentially, his argument goes...

He thinks that Judaism itself is a group-evolutionary strategy.

Exactly. That's literally the thing that he believes, yes.

So how can he possibly say he's not treating it monolithically? He's treating the entirety of Jewish existance through that one lens, as if all of it is an evolutionary response.

Whites and Jews have different group strategies. This is based on genetic selection factors in our history.

This whole view of culture is about reifying people into these distinct groups, where they're just determined in this way. You can't do that and then say, no, I'm not treating them as a monolithing group.

What he's saying is, I'm not saying that every Jewish person acts this way. I'm not saying that every Jew does that.

Well why don't they. If it's genetic, why don't they all act that way.

I'm saying there's a genetic propensity that leads them to be overrepresented in these movements, and that wherever you find these anti-white, anti-European movements working against white group identity, you always find Jews at the forefront of that movement. And so, again, it's literally just arguing that Jewish people are subverting, quote-unquote, traditional white norms.

I'm going to need mechanisms for how it's mediated. You know, why isn't is every one of them? Why is it only a propensity? What does the propensity have to interact with in order to activate? Et cetera. Is any of that in ther? I'm guessing probably not.

No. It's really mostly just a list of Jewish people doing things through history.

It's like when Nick Griffin of the British National Party wrote his big proof of the Jews controlling the media in Britain. It was basically just a list of Jewish prople on television, you know. [laughs]

That's all it was. It was, oh, Vanessa Feltz has her own TV show, that proves it.

So they use, like, Franz Boas. Franz Boas is basically the guy who coined the term racism. He was an anthropologist in the early 20th century, sort of like the father of, quote-unquote, Cultural Marxism. He was actually in the literal Frankfurt School. Not the conspiracy version but he was actually part of that school.

Yeah, the real one, not the SPECTRE-est fantasy. Not the Frankfurt School that was run by a guy stroking a cat. [chuckles]

Doctor Claw... Boas, and Boasian anthroplogy, goes in from a realistic view of the science. What Boas does is correct for racist assumptions that went into physical anthropology.

Old-school anthropology, the early anthropologists, what they would do is look at, like, the shape of the skull. "It's clearly pressing on this part of the brain in this way and it's creating an increased propensity for violence," et cetera et cetera. And modern-day evolutionary psychologists, sort of the Quillette crowd, is basically saying, like, "we know based on raised testosterone levels that this is a thing that's causing increased violence among various different kinds of people, and it's not really their fault, but ultimately we have to keep that in mind." And the Boasian revolution was essentially saying, like, there are cultural factors that are more important than this baseline physical anthropology stuff.

So they don't like Boas because he was debunking their shit before they came out with it.

We was debunking their shit and really kind of lead the charge on this. He did a lot of great work. And let's be clear, modern-day anthropologists do not take Boas at his word.

I mean, the field has moved a long way from that. You can definitely poke holes in a lot of the stuff that Boas did. I mean, he believed too strongly in the plasticity of skull shapes and that sort of thing. He was kind of in that era of, you know, you bring people from Africa into more northern climates and after a generation or two the skull shapes change and this is a sign that – which isn't true, there still a genetic heritage involved, and Boas is right on some of the key issues of it, but you can kind of pick things out of Boas that are functionally wrong. He just didn't have modern genetics at his disposal at that point. So you can find people arguing with him, and then the racists – what they do is, they look at that and go, well, clearly, he was just a completely bullshit artist.

He was just, you know, a Jew who was trying to subvert this already existing real science, this cultural anthropology bullshit that's just telling us not to be racist.

And ultimately we should believe in the old-school racist science. And this is not the degree that – MacDonald doesn't quite go that far. But he looks at this sort of history of movements – there was a time, and let's not deny modern-day anti-Semitism in the world among academics et cetera et cetera, let's not pretend that doesn't exist – but for many many years Jewish people were specifically excluded from mainstream society. They were excluded from the scientific community. They were excluded from better medical schools. There was this kind of segregated group of people who were Jewish who were working in particular industries, et cetera et cetera, but they didn't get access into mainstream science.

As that started to relax, in particular after World War II – for some reason we realized maybe being mean to Jews was bad, you know. Maybe this has consequences.

At the very least we realized it looked bad and we didn't want to be associated with that bad PR image, yeah.

And so as Jewish people start coming into mainstream science, and as the science starts to change, and as this revolution against overtly racist heritage happens, you know, nowadays – what MacDonald is essentially arguing is, he's noticing that when you invite Jews into these sciences then suddenly things change and we're not allowed to be as racist anymore, and this is them.

Yeah.

The idea that the science might be more accurate seems to not occur to him. I mean, that's slightly unfair.

He does sort of respond – like, at one point he even says that, like, you can't say quantum physics is a Jewish plot because he believes quantum physics is accurate, you know. [laughs]

Alright.

Although there are people –

Oh, yeah.

I have listened to people who say that the Newton-Einstein dichotomy is essentially a gentile-Jewish thing.

[laughs]

Einsteinian relativity and this kind of Jewish quantum mechanics is like, oh, we just don't know where the particle is, is a particle or a wave? And that's all meant to subvert reality around us and pretend that things aren't as they are.

That's right, it's designed to confuse the goy. It's designed to undermine the goyim sense of reality.

Right! It's like in Lovecraft – I mean obviously he's not talking about quantum mechanics per se, but even at the time there was that sense of it.

Now MacDonald specifically uses quantum mechanics as a – he believes quantum mechanics is real, because he's used a computer and computers don't work if quantum mechanics isn't largely accurate. We're just going to kind of leave that there. [laughs] The amount of things that do not work if quantum mechanics is not real is mind-boggling. So, you know, very few people will deny basic quantum mechanics and relativity these days. It's just kind of impossible. You'd have to be really, really ignorant of the science to do that. [crosstalk 37:36] Daily Shoah on an episode and it was hilarious when they had to correct themselves in the next episode because they got so many email about it. It was hilarious. It was great.

If there were, as with creationsism, if there were profits in it... if the political economy was conducive in one sector, there would be a massive industry catering to denying quantum mechanics. It just so happens that there is no opportunity for anyone to cash in on it, so nobody's bothering to do it.

Right.

Although I don't want to give them ideas. Maybe that will be the next thing, you know.

Who knows. In five years, they'll be pushing, you know, go back to Newtonian mechanics in schools. That'll be the new thing. Let's not give them any ideas. But no, MacDonald argues, effectively, that – again, there is no sense that this is accurate or not. There is no sense of, like, well maybe Boas was right. It's sort of this assumption that these two groups, quote-unquote the Jews and the gentiles, are working at cross-purposes, against each other, and that it's ultimately just a question of power and group interest and who is combating whom. Even the example that – and MacDonald himself gives this example in interviews.

He says I went to school, I went to college, I worked in the anti-war movement, I noticed that a bunch of the people who were fighting against the war were themselves Jewish, and that they didn't want to be at the front of the room, they wanted to put me, the gentile, up there, like they were hiding their involvement. [sarcastic:] As opposed to responding to the anti-Semitism in society, you know.

I thought when you said that, does it not occur to him that they might want to do that because, you know... if they are the only people visible, they'll get people saying, well, this is just a bunch of Jews. Because they know they're in an anti-Semitic society. It obviously never occured to him that that might be a problem.

Right. But then he seemingly never asked the question – was the Vietnam war a good idea? Does that mean that we should have been in Vietnam?

Yeah, that's right.

You ran into a bunch of evil Jews who were against it.

Oh, but it turns out that Henry Kissinger [laughs] was one of the architects of the Vietnam war. This gets into one of the – this is the funniest, absolutely most batshit idea that is imaginable, in all the years that I've spent working on this. I'm going to tell you now about the kosher sandwich. Would you like to know about the kosher sandwich?

Oh, please, tell me about the kosher sandwich.

The basic idea...

It is Schrödinger's kosher sandwich?

I don't think Schrödinger was Jewish.

No, but he doubted quantum physics, so maybe he's their guy.

The idea of the kosher sandwich is... so, you look at American politics for instance. And you find there are Jewish people high up in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

And you look at this... any issue, any kind of intellectual issue. Should we go to war or not? Kissinger is pro Vietnam war, and then you got these Jewish activists against it. There were Jews on both sides, many sides, however many sides there were. But particularly both sides. Forming the bread of the kosher sandwich, keeping the limits of political discourse away from anything that is overtly anti-Semitic. And this is true for every movement except for the one that says, hey, maybe we should murder all the Jews. And therefore the movement that says maybe we should murder all the Jews is the correct one, because it is the only one that is devoid of this Jewish influence.

Hang on a minute.

Let me summarize this. The presence of Jewish people in all areas of our society, as there are blue-eyed people who agree and disagree on politics.

But the existence of Jewish people at the top ends of political discourse... when they agree, they are colluding together against white people to subvert them and eventually annihilate them. When they disagree, they are setting the bounds of the debate, again as way of crushing white people and essentially genocide them – you know, the slow white genocide et cetera et cetera. And we know this because of the existence of Jews in these positions. It's literally a tautology, this thing.

It is, yeah. What he's literally saying is, the Jews are evil because the Jews are evil. That's it.

Now, MacDonald himself doesn't use this kosher sandwich kind of language. This is a Mike Enoch, Eric Striker kind of idea. It's kind of sprung up around this sort of cultural milieu.

This is popular?

This is popular. This is a really big idea. It's not usually stated quite that directly, you know, but... what they do is, they notice, there are all these things I don't like. And there are Jewish people involved in those things. And therefore the Jewish people are repsonsible for those things. Because back in the day there weren't Jews around.

Yeap. Right. Okay.

[chuckles]

Yeah, because if – [laughs]

And so, I'd like to – how do you even respond to this, right? How do you convince somebody who genuinely believes this stuff... I'm slightly oversimplifying, I mean there more going on here. But basically, to almost a person – like, every person we talked about on this show, believes some version of this. This animates everything.

Yeap. You can't, because it's designed to be impenetrable. It's hermetically sealed.

It's unfalsifiable, right?

Yeah. Exactly. It covers, it explains everything. And as they say, when something explains everything, it explains nothing. It's, what's the phrase, epistemic closure. It's actually sealed against – it's not just epistemic closure, it's epistemic sealant. It's completely closed. You can't crack it open, you know. If they're on both sides, in disagreement with each other, that proves the same thing as if they were all on one side.

Right.

There you go.

The only way to get away from this –

It's all predicated on the thing it's supposed to prove as well. The thing it claims to be proving is the predicate that it's based on. So... it's ridiculous.

What they do is – the way they justify it to each other, the way justify it to themselves is to say, well,

Jews are overrepresented in this sort of powerful positions in American society, you know, in Hollywood. We know Hollywood is degenerate nonsense, you know, et cetera et cetera et cetera. The porn industry is run by Jews. And there are clear historical reasons why. You know, for instance, Jewish people were relegated to the theater for centuries and when the first movie studios were founded, they were founded by Jewish people, and yeah, there is nepotism that happens. As if nepotism doesn't happen in all powerful people of all walks of life. They look at Jewish people overrepresented in, say, industry and intellectual positions, et cetera et cetera.

The things are true. The Jews are – I think they're the most successful minority in American society in terms of income and status and so on. There are material historical reasons, contingent material historical reasons for why this has happened.

They are heavily represented in certain kinds of jobs and professions, again, there are material, historical reasons for why this happened. It's not a conspiracy and it's not a genetic survival strategy.

You get like a handful of families that work in, you know, the banking industry, who drive that average income way up. You're going to get this extreme dichotomy, even if there are many, many poor Jewish people... which there are.

Yeah, absolutely. You can trace most of these material historical reasons I'm talking about back to anti-Semitism, actually.

I want to push back against the idea that they get is – Jewish people are not evenly, homogeneously spread throughout the US population as well.

No.

Jewish people are concentrated in major cities for, again, historical and cultural reasons, not because they have a genetic propensity to stick together or whatever.

No.

And so, you can make, if you were to take, say, Jewish populations versus Episcopalians in the United States – Episcopalians do just about as well as Jewish people do. Why? Episcopalians, for historical and contextual reasons, are overwhelmingly concentrated in either New England, which is the wealthiest portion of the United States, or in pockets in cities around the country. You can tell a similar story with Indian Americans, who are a very new minority in the American scene, who are brought in as cheap labor by the tech industry. The fact that there aren't Indian people, people from the Indian subcontinent, working as plumbers and working in retail – they're disproportionally in these tech industry jobs.

That doesn't mean that there's some genetic propensity for Indian people to work against – I mean it's just nonsense.

It is, yeah.

It's this kind of correlation-causation thing. It comes up over and over and over again. The whole black crime statistics – it's like African Americans are homogeneously spread throughout the culture and are committing crimes are higher rates for reasons that come to do – show me that evidence, and maybe – sure, I'm happy to look at the evidence. I think it's racist bullshit and I don't believe it for a second, but at least then you'd have an argument instead of just, like, we noticed that incomes are higher or whatever. It's completely nonsense, from the get-go.

Yeah. You just noticed certain facts about the world as they stand, to the extent that these people engage with facts at all, and then you amputatute all cultural, social, political history.

And you just explain it all through completely essentialist, artificial – you just jump straight to these essentialist explanations, because that's the aim. That's the pre-existing aim, is to find essentialist ways to single people out so that you can justify prejudice. That's why they end up there: because that's where they wanted to go.

Right. In the American context, this sort of differentiation between Jewish influence or whatever among the American right – there is this neoconservative-paleoconservative split which we've talked about a couple of times before. The neoconservatives being this sort of world-dominating post-World War II empire builders. The cold warriors were kind of neocons. Paleocons are less interventionist, more socially conservative, et cetera.

Well, the neoconservatives ended up being – again, for complex historical and cultural reasons, most of the people who were Jewish in that split ended up on the neocon side. So then it's like, Israel controls the US foreign policy. And we give money to Israel to – it's just a gift, the United States is using its military might as a wing of Israel and not – the United States gives tens of billions of dollar to Israel, military quote-unquote aid, essentially as a loan, which allows us to then go and engage in the military adventurism that we wanted to engage in. Nice country you have there, be a shame if something happened to it, here's a few billion dollars, why don't we stick around and help you out with this little problem with your neighbors.

Again, I'm overly simplistic, but it makes a lot more sense than this shadowy cabal of Jews who are controlling the US military apparatus from Israel, you know. You can pull some quote from Ha'aretz or whatever and go like, oh, there's some Jew admitting that they control US foreign policy because they're puffing each other up in op-eds or whatever. Again, this isn't even worth responding to, but it's so prevalent we kind of have to, right?

Yeah.

So it is worth doing a little thought experiment here. Think about the filthy Greeks. I want to think about the Greeks. Since 1877, sixty-nine percent of US presidents have belonged to Greek organizations. The foundations of this quote-unquote democracy in the United States, they come from this little group of mediterraneans, just kind of sitting there in Greece.

Why is it this group that didn't even fucking speak a Northern European language, why are they the ones that get to be quoted in our founding documents? Why do they have this hugely outsized influence, in terms of their actual population numbers in Western Europe? It's just this kind of disgusting thing. And you run through history and find this Greek influence... it just runs through our culture. Constantly. Why are there, like, Greek columns in front of every US federal building, every state building you got this Greek architecture. Why can't we have Western European architecture? It's just been invading us for thousands of years, and in particular in the last few hundred. I mean it's kind of just disgusting, right?

You say Western European architecture... that's all from the Renaissance, the kind of stuff you're talking about.

Obviously, Western European architecture, that's Renaissance architecture. That's the gold standard, right. Well, the Renaissance, that was the filthy Greeks infiltrating Western Culture, wasn't it.

Absolutely.

Yeah, there you go. They got their hooks into the Catholic church. They melded Aristotelianism with Christianity, that became the official doctrine of Europe. Neo-Aristotelianism or neo-Platonism or whatever it was, that was the official doctrine of the Catholic church for centuries. Those sneaky Greeks... god, they even took over the Roman empire. I mean I know they got conquered by the Romans, but look what happened: the Roman gods, that's just the Greek gods in code, with different names.

Even the names of the planets, man.

Yeah! That's right!

They're Roman names, but these are ultimately... they were originally named by the Greeks. The Greeks were just hiding their influence by putting Roman names on them. We even use, like, the Roman calendar as a way of like... it's all just this secret Greek influence on our society.

Yeah. "Saturn", huh. What are you hiding, Κρόνος?

In lots areas in the United States, you walk into any food court and you can find, like, a pita restaurant. I mean who the fuck eats pita? This isn't a Western, this isn't a Northern European thing. Why is there pita bread available in every grocery store around me? We really need to be looking into this. We really need to be asking much more serious questions about the Greek influence on our society. It's really bizarre. They have these secret societies, these little fraternities and sororities, where they take all the kids, these healthy Western white kids. They just come in and they join these Greek societies and they put their funny little Greek letters all over themselves, and they get wasted and they become fucking degenerates, and then what are they doing? And then they just help each other out. That's part of this Greek influence. It's really just vile and disgusting.

Every four years, what does the entire world do? Obviously it's the Illuminati organizing it. The Olympics!

It didn't even think about that one, yeah!

Replete with arcane symbolism, and it's all about – of course it originated with loads of naked guys and of course that leads you back to the fact that the filthy Greeks invented homosexuality. Obviously in an attempt to undermine our Aryan manhood.

And when did they Olympic games start? They started back in like 1896, which is right around that era when you've got cultural criticism of the Bible. That's when all this started. I mean I think this whole Jewish influence thing is really just a way of deflecting from the real villains of history, and those are clearly the Greeks.

I think you're right. Yeah.

They even have their own churches, particularly... you know, you've got Protestant sects, you've got Catholic sects, and then you got this Greek Orthodox thing. Like, why do they get their own fucking churches? This is just bizarre to me.

Yeah, and why do they get to declare it orthodox as well? Like, the rest of us are unorthodox, is that what you're saying, Greeko? It's chilling, man.

You've G-pilled me.

[laughs] I hope there's not now, like, a new movement of nazis who actually start believing this. That would be really sad.

Yeah, I'm just imagining some guy listening to this, going fucking hell, these guys are on to something.

We're going to get quoted in Alex Jones in like three years. He's going to be like, [Alex Jones voice:] "It wasn't the globalists. It started with a G."

[Alex Jones voice:] "I've got a new bit. I found this amazing podcast. Got a new bit, guys."

[laughs] We really ought to start a new podcast, "I Don't Speak Greek", could be the spinoff...

[laughs]

I promise you, hours and hours and hours of me listening to these guys goes to no much more sense than we just made up on the fly, essentially, about these Greek societies.

And you could do the same – you can build this idea of genetic propensity, you know. Okay, the Greeks, they're a seafaring people in antiquity. And so they have this kind of broad scope of their vision. They look out and they see this broader perspective than the more landlocked people. They're also fighting amongst each other because they have these many city states, and so this makes them both a warlike people but also outward-looking. This leads to dominance over the more serene and sedate Northern European peoples, and so that's how they – you can just make it up, right?

Yeah.

You can look at this reality, you target this particular group, and then you can just write a just-so story that makes it work. You can do this to blue-eyed people, tall people...

It's inkblot reasoning. That's all it is.

Right. It's a Rohrschach test.

Exactly.

Anyway. Sorry to get into that nonsense...

No, I thought that was great. That made the point, I think, pretty forcefully. Because that is literally what this guy does. He spins this evo-psych, sociobiology just-so story. I mean that's kind of what sociobiology always does but this guy does it on a grand scale in order to justify his anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. You know, the Jews, they've have to develop this group-evolutionary strategy and they've done it by breeding intelligence into their children, and... it's just exactly like what we just did with the Greeks, except with the Jews. And it's just to justify anti-Semitism. That's all it is.

So there's one more guy to cover and then we go on and talk about Kevin MacDonald for ages.

There's so much more to him. I put a bunch of links to more MacDonald stuff...

He testified at the Irving trial, didn't he?

He did, yes!

He was the only one that Irving asked to testify who didn't have to be subpoenaed. He came to testify voluntarily.

Yeah, I actually have a little quote here from him. I'm going to read all of it... this is part of his reason, the basis of his testimony.

Although he himself apparently is not a Holocaust denier.

No, I don't believe he is.

What he says essentially that the Holocaust is the Jews' fault. It's a natural reaction on the part of the gentiles.

Right. Europeans, white people... well, we'll read this out. "The main point of my testimony is that the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-gentile interactions.

As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist as well as the evidence compiled by historians leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with segments of the gentile community. Anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been a pervasive feature of the Jewish experience since the beginnings of the Diaspora well over 2000 years ago. While anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior have undoubtedly often been colored by myths and fantasies about Jews, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish writing that reflects the reality of between-group competition exactly as expected by an evolutionist. Particularly important have been the themes of separatism — the fact that Jewish groups have typically existed as recognizably distinct groups and have been unwilling to assimilate either culturally or via marriage into the wider society, the theme of economic, political, and cultural domination, and the theme of disloyalty." That's from MacDonald's statement about what his testimony was in the Irving trial and why he did it.

That's on his web site, I'll put a link to it. Actually I'll put a link to an archive because it's no longer at his web site. But, yeah.

Yeah. There's lots on the SPLC's page about him. There's lots of curated quotes from his blogs and stuff like that.

Right.

You will find plenty more shite like that.

I mean, literally – he doesn't quite go so far as to say Hitler is who asserted the ultimate response, like this sort of the natural response to Jews existing in your society. But he pretty much does. And certainly the community around him. There's this...

Oh yeah. He says anti-Semitism and the Holocaust were a mirror to Judaism, doesn't he. And certainly where he's coy about his admirers are less so.

You see, Jews act a certain way and when they start acting all Jewish –

All verbally intelligent and in-groupy and having all these left-wing ideas –

All subverting your society and being degenerate –

Confusing the goy –

When they start acting this way, there's just a natural –

That's right. Undermining our Aryan certainties with, you know, things like Marxism and stuff.

There's just this natural response. And that natural response is like expunging – get the fuck out of my society. Get away from me. That's just a natural thing, that's just... you know, we shouldn't feel good about it, we shouldn't feel bad about it, we should feel this is just a natural thing that we do.

Yeah, it's value-neutral, like a cat hunting a mouse. That's it.

The number 109, if you see anything that's 109-related, there's this kind of trope that Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries. Nobody seems to have like the actual list. I haven't gone through it and verified it, but it's a meme, and so sometimes when you see somebody say 100, when?, or looking for 110, that's literally saying, it's time for us in America, in the United States or in the Western world, in Europe – I see it mostly in the American context: it's time for us as Americans to make this happen again.

To realize this and to complete that Jew-Nazi cycle one more time. This is something that Enoch used to say a lot: the Jew-Nazi cycle. Nazis rise up and make coherent, reasonable societies, and then Jews come and subvert it, and then they just get kicked out. Over and over again. It's this cycle of history that we run through every few decades.

MacDonald himself does call for a heavy-duty discrimination, doesn't he, to achieve parity again. After, you know, the fact that the Jews have now basically taken over the Western world. So in order to get back to parity with them we're going to have to relentlessly disriminate against them. I mean he actually advocates that, doesn't he.

Oh no, definitely. Usually the sort of nice version is, Jewish people need to be kept to – they're about two percent of the US population, so they need to have no more than two percent of the representation in any boardroom or any government body.

Any kind of organization needs to be no more than two percent Jewish, as a way to keep their influence at bay. That's the nice version. So again, [?] police state against Jews, that's the nice version.

That's the polite version, yeah. I'm betting he's not demanding fifty-one percent representation of women in all contexts.

[sarcastic:] You know women aren't people. Come on, Jack.

This is it! That particular social inequality, that is natural. That's genetic. That's inherent. Whereas this other social inequality that doesn't benefit me, that's somehow – despite the fact that it's in the genes, that is somehow artificial. I love how they do this. With no evidence.

It's all meant to justify a pre-existing belief. It's all meant just to justify the politics they want to hold. And so they spin themselves around in this pseudo-intellectual justification. The other really briliant idea which we should definitely – two more things that I'd like to cover in this episode.

Again, we could talk about Kevin MacDonald for days, but, one is this idea of pathological altruism.

Oh yeah.

This is the idea that white people, Northern and Western Europeans, have a pathological altruism towards outgroup people. That we have evolved to be unusually individualistic. You can see this in our societies, where we like to build homes in single-family dwellings, and farm alone, and this is all genetic and not cultural or historic or material – this is a genetic propensity. This inclination towards individualism makes us kinder to outgroups than we would be otherwise. This is a pathology.

As can clearly be seen in Europe's history of centuries of imperialism and colonialism and genocide and slavery.

Oh, that was just very nice white people trying to bring the benefits of civilization to lesser people, Jack. We built all those railroads, we gave them medicine – I mean, look, the population of Africa is exploding right now and that's really bad for the environment, that's really bad for society. I mean, global warming is really coming from this explosion of the population in Africa, and in China, and... white people were just too nice and gave them all this medicine and they're just not smart enough to take care of [themselves] on their own. I'm sorry that it has to be this way but white people are just – you've got to learn to take your own side on this. We've got to learn to do what's best for us and what's best for us is ultimately what's best for the rest of the world. Even if it means, like, nuking Africa.

Yeah, that's right. That's the solution: Western Europe, Euro-American culture, white people generally, we've just got to say to Asia and Africa: no more Mister Nice Guy. Sorry.

And this is literally something – slightly off of what MacDonald himself would say, but Jared Taylor goes almost to that degree on this stuff. In terms of justifying colonialism. And I'm told that in MacDonald's new book he expressly deals with this kind of colonialism question. Again, if I can get a PDF of that I will definitely take a look at that and see. My guess is he's going to make these sort of kind and gentle colonialist arguments. That's where he's going to land on that.

The pathological altruism thing, that is a key part. Different people will leave this out or put it in or emphasize it or not, but it's a key part of the Great Replacement myth, isn't it? It's the idea that we've, for some reason, because of white guilt or something, we're determined – certainly the left are, and women, because they're genetically predetermined to want to welcome immigrants or something –

we're just determined to let all these immigrants in, from these other cultures, who are just going to breed us out of existence. And yeah, MacDonald certainly talks about immigration. He certainly thinks that the Jewish influence – it's part of the Jewish group survival strategy to propagate and hegemonize in white society things like left-liberal ideas and left-wing ideas and so on, which lead to multi-culturalism and immigration. MacDonald can be seen as providing quite-unquote intellectual spine to stuff like the Great Replacement idea, cant' he?

Absolutely. And in fact we're going to cover White Genocide in – not the next episode but the one after, which is effectively a follow-on from this general idea.

White Genocide, yeah.

I just didn't want to do it all in one episode for all these reasons.

Sure.

Yeah. The other thing, and I do want to close out with this, there is one guy who's been kind of pushing back against MacDonald most prominently in the public eye in the last couple years. It's this guy Nathan Cofnas. Now Cofnas is essentially a race realist, evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist. His argument is not that – he says Jews are not a genetically distinct race for the obvious reasons that you and I can name. There's some back and forth on that, et cetera et cetera. His argument is not that Jews are overrepresented in these organizations for historical and material reasons but that Jewish people just have higher IQs. Higher IQ is just the way to justify a thing, you know. Jewish people just get to be there because they're smarter, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Doesn't MacDonald purport to account for that? He says they bred for higher IQ, haven't they, the Jews?

Right, but he says there's this kind of nepotistic – they're working to subvert society. And Cofnas disagrees. He agrees with all this evolutionary psychology bullshit but says it doesn't really apply to the Jewish population, because reasons. And these two have been arguing back and forth on Twitter. I actually follow both on them on Twitter. It's pretty amusing sometimes. They argue back and forth about these things, within the realm of evolutionary psychology. Like a sandwich.

Yeah.

They're arguing without taking into account outside ideas that might better explain the thing that they're doing. And I don't know, I feel like there's a metaphor –

[laughs]

I feel like there's some other thing, some way that we could describe this.

It's almost as if it's some non-kosher sandwich or something.

Yeah, it's on the tip of my tongue. We're nearly there. I can sense it on the horizon. It'll come to me. [laughs]

[laughs] It turns out that when evolutionary psychologists agree, it's just a way of keeping me personally down.

That's right.

But when they disagree, it's just a way excluding me from the conversation.

Exactly. That's proves it. Proof positive.

They must have a genetic propensity, the evolutionary psychologists, you know.

Yeah, now I see. Now I want to research evolutionary psychologists and work out the evolutionary strategies they employ – the group survival strategies they employ to breed these sorts of behaviors into themselves.

The terrifying thing is that using evolutionary psychology techniques I could do it. That's the thing. I could do that.

And it would have as much validity as the rest of evolutionary psychology.

Exactly. I think that's enough.

That's enough, yeah. I think we should stress that this book is – you have said this several times, not only on this podcast but on others [as well] – we should stress that this book is huge on the far right. They are devotees of this. This guy is their absolute intellectual, quote-unquote, hero. This book, the Culture of Critique, is the closest thing we have to a modern-day Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. It kind of does the same thing that the Protocols did in its day, for the anti-Semites of our day. It meets the same need, in a way that is couched to appeal to the cultural sensibilities of today, in the same way that the Protocols were for their day.

John Derbyshire, who is somebody we will talk about down the line I'm sure – John Derbyshire is this kind of old-school paleocon, alt-right grandfather figure.

He has described Kevin MacDonald – this gets complicated given the current company – as the Karl Marx of the anti-Semites. By which he means he's taken old-school anti-Semitism and he's turned it into a scientific structure. He's made it into a full-fledged, self-understanding, self-reflective belief structure. The whole belief, the whole thing that's in the book is basically just old-school anti-Semitism that he's justfying through pseudo-science. That's all it really is. Hundreds of pages of justification that rests on sand, ultimately. It's internally self-contradictory in a lot of ways. I just didn't want to have to pull quotes from it and demonstrate, in this context.

And yet it's hugely influential. I hate to bring up Mike Enoch, but I went back and relistened to the earliest episodes of the Daily Shoah while I was going through that, and there is a moment – they were kind of anti-Semites to begin with, but there is a particular moment where he reads the Culture of Critique and afterwards they're all Jew all the time. It's a hugely radicalizing book for a lot of these guys. They just run right into it. The three books that turn people into anti-Semites, that I hear quoted all the time, are one, The Culture of Critique, two, David Duke's My Awakening, and three, Mein Kampf itself. Those are the ones. And beyond that, Kevin MacDonald does a ton of these shows. He runs a magazine, a quarterly called the Occidental Observer, which originally was a paper magazine and now I think it's just online. There might still be paper copies, I think they still do a print edition, but it's pretty small.

He does a YouTube show called the Occidental Quarterly.

Yeah.

He intersects with James Edwards of the Political Cesspool, I'll put a link to that in the show notes so you can go look at that. Almost every podcast that we've discussed on this show has had Kevin MacDonald as a guest at some point or another. He's hugely influential in this community. He's kind of this grandfather figure. He's one of these old guys. He's at least as important as David Duke.

I'd be very surprised if many of them had actually read Mein Kampf. I've read Mein Kampf. It's a big book and it's very badly written and remorselessly fucking boring. So I'd be very surprised if they'd actually plowed through that, but never mind. And I don't know how effective it would be as a radicalizing tool today, you know. But the Culture of Critique and this stuff, yeah. Because it's couched in this, as I say, this way –

It's esthetics are neutral and detached and scientific and rational and stuff like that. And it obviously answers this need. It's just a load of a priori assumptions, bigotry and so on, decorated with oxymorons and tautologies. Completely evidence-free. But esthetically, it answers this need. It's like permission. It's like, yeah, go for it. That seems to be the role it plays.

Definitely, yeah. The fact that it comes across as – the fact that it has hundreds of footnotes, the fact that it's written in this academic language. Trust me, dig into the footnotes and you find all kinds of sins.

Oh yeah, it bears saying that this has been completely debunked. Nobody takes this seriously who's in any way knowledgeable about this stuff.

But it looks, on the surface, it looks nice, it looks convincing.

It's written in this way, it's clearly researched – I put this in heavy quotes. He's responding to the literature in his field. But it's, again, built on sand and it's internally nonsense. It's just justification for this kind of in-built anti-Semitism. It justifies this kind of pre-existing political belief. It gives you – we'll talk about in the white genocide episode – it gives them a group of people who is doing all of this stuff they don't like. And I think that's the place to end it. We'll talk about it more when we talk about White Genocide, which we will do in two episodes because I want to do the news roundup in the next episode. So yeah, that's where we're going to go.

Okay. So that was episode 35, The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald. A pile of anti-Semitic shite but very, very influential sadly in our world. Next episode will be, obviously, episode 36,

and that will be another news roundup where we will talk about all the things that we probably should have talked about in this episode except that we didn't want to put this one off again. So yeah, come back for that. Thanks Daniel, and thanks for listening everybody.

Cheers. Thanks a lot.

OUTTRO

That was I Don't Speak German. Thanks for listening. We're on iTunes and show up in most podcast catchers. We try to release something every week, with a regular episode every fortnight. Please come back for more. Check out our back catalog of episodes and tell everyone you've ever met about how great we are. You can find Daniel's twitter, along with links to pretty much everything he does, at @danieleharper.

You can find my twitter at @_jack_graham_. Please get in touch if you have any suggestions, tips, information, praise, or anything to say, as long as you're not a nazi of some kind. Daniel and I both have Patreons and any contribution you can make genuinely does help us to do this. Though it also really helps if you just listen and maybe talk about us online to spread the word. If you'd like to give us stars and reviews on iTunes that'd be appreciated too.

Bye for now, and ¡No pasarán!

We need to sell like Greek T-shirts now. I Don't Speak Greek. The Greek Question.

The Greek Question, yeah.

Oh yeah, I meant to say Greek Question. There's a magazine called GQ.

GQ [laughs]

They say it's Genteman's Quarterly.

What is it really?

It's all just a code. It's all just a way of distracting from the real masters of our society: the Greeks. It's all the Greeks! With their unpronounceable names! Go and eat your pita bread, Greek boy!

Their weird alphabet! I was going to sign of with the Greek for good bye but I couldn't remember what it was. Fuck.