Kevin MacDonald http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/ writes a great deal on Jewish activities, Jewish racialism, Jewish psychology, Jewish history, Jewish Zionism, Israel, Jews in America, Jewish customs, laws, Jewish humour, etc, etc, if it’s of Jewish concern and interest than Kevin Macdonald has probably written or spoken about it at one time or another, he talks a great deal about Jews and Zionism, and because he is non-Jewish himself, this has attracted some criticism from Jewish sources who are very sensitive when it comes to matters like this; a non-Jew for example discussing Jews and offering criticism. So it is that Kevin MacDonald has attracted some criticism in return from certain sensitive Jewish sources, but at the same time he has received praise from other Jewish sources, who welcomed such timely criticism, they themselves as Jews, saw the need for reform at various times and did not mind that a Gentile was reiterating their own convictions. In fact all Jews seem to find something in Macdonald’s work that they cannot help but agree with, even Jews who of course yell and shriek ‘anti-Semite’, ‘neo-nazi’, ‘racist’, when they hear any Gentile even dare mention anything at all other than praise, even these Jews on reflection usually find themselves agreeing with Macdonald’s academic arguments, sometimes cheering him on, sometimes even considering him a guilty pleasure, yes, many Jews, especially the hawkish Zionist, the cynical Zionist would and does find Macdonald’s writings very appealing, even though he is a Gentile.
What is the basis of Macdonald’s academic arguments and critique? He is an advocate of “evolutionary psychology” and he has sought to explain the Jewish mind and behaviour in purely biological Darwinian evolutionary terms. And he basically comes to the conclusion that Jews behave as they do because they are hard-wired to do so, just another biological group competing with other biological groups for food, resources and mating partners. And from this Darwinian perspective Macdonald than argues that the reason why Jews have experienced anti-Semitism in the past is that they as a group, a racial group have out-competed other racial groups for resources and mating partners, and the main reason that Macdonald proposes for this is that the Jewish racial biological group has practiced a type of racial intelligence eugenics, so they have evolved over time to be more intelligent than other groups. And that groups of Gentiles have reacted like any other group of animals would when they are confronted with a superior group of animals who are more likely to out-compete them for limited resources that are available. Macdonald sees this anti-Semitism as a perfectly natural instinctive result of one group losing out to another, his view of the German National Socialists was that they just tried to do the same thing as the Jews were doing! A “mirror image” of Judaism! Indeed Macdonald actually endorses this type of Darwinian competition and views it as inevitable. Now of course being a Zionist correct professor from the Zionist halls of Academic Americana, Macdonald makes sure that he does not deny the holocaust, and suggests that it did occur and happened merely and as the end result of an impersonal biological chain reaction. I suppose that Kevin Macdonald has no problem with being deceitful about this, because he sees deceptive behaviour as being purely advantageous in the competition for the ‘survival of the fittest’ game, just like competitors on the American ‘Televitz’ game show ‘Survivor’, lying and being deceitful is all “part of the game”! So Macdonald has no problem with lying, he is willing to claim that the Holocaust actually happened, when in reality it never took place, for the same reason as the Jews; lying and cheating and deceiving is all part of the great evolutionary game of life or so they think. And he goes on further in his theorizing to suggest that perhaps seeing that the Jews have been in his eyes ‘successful’ then perhaps his own group of Gentiles should do the same, becoming more like the Jews and learn from their tried and tested environmental strategies.
So it is apparent that Kevin Macdonald, even amongst the obligatory accusations of ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘neo-nazi’, is actually, at least in his eyes, seeing the Jews in a favourable light, their success should be emulated, its perfected naturally, desirable in fact now, he extends this to the hawkish Zionist Jews, the extreme right so to speak of Judaism;
“But the bottom line is that the Zionists were successful. Israel would not have become a state without a great many deeply ethnocentric Jews willing to engage in any means necessary to bring about their dream: a state that would be a vehicle for their ethnic interests. It would not have come about without the most radical among them people like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, and their supporters – a group that now includes the entire organized American Jewish community. The impending dispossession of Europeans will only be avoided if people of their ilk can be found among the political class of Europeans.” – Kevin Macdonald ‘Understanding Jewish Influence II’
Well Macdonald has already answered my title question, he is not a mild dove reformer of Judaism but a cynical Zionist in the order of a Jabotinsky or a Ariel Sharon, to the “Which Way Western Man?” question Macdonald would answer ‘to Zion by any means necessary’! The end justifies the means, any act of depravity and criminal savagery or deceit is good as long you are acting in the interests of your ethnicity, as long as your ‘ethnocentric’, that is the most important evolutionary trait for worldly success! Macdonald thinks that this is perhaps the best way, after all it worked for the Jews….But no, that is not success! Firstly I do not consider the Jews a ‘success’, no true Aryan would consider the Jews a success, but only as a terrible failure, a ghastly unmitigated disaster, like a cluster bomb going off in a fine china shop! With the folly of the Gentiles only adding more fuel to the explosion.
Kevin Macdonald concludes that the Jews, because of their ‘history’, which he believes is written in the OT scriptures, is primarily concerned with an ideology stressing racial purity that the Jews on their sojourns, after the Diaspora, ruthlessly maintained their superior genetic traits through strict reproductive controls that ensured they kept their competitive edge amongst their Gentile host population, this practiced eugenics ensured their genetics remained segregated and untainted!
“From an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of this ideology is to ensure the continuity of the kinship group, even within the diaspora context in which there are enormous pressures for assimilation and gradual loss of contact with other group members. The results have been extraordinarily effective: as indicated in Chapter 2, Jews have maintained a significant genetic distance between themselves and their host societies for centuries. Indeed they are the only group that has successfully maintained genetic and cultural segregation while living in the midst of other peoples over an extremely long period of time. Johnson calls them “the most tenacious people in history.” – Kevin Macdonald. ’A people that shall dwell alone’
This is just false, no basis in reality whatsoever! We can measure Macdonald’s theorizing against real history, for an example I will use the historical data of Jews in Denmark which we can compare against Macdonald’s false theorizing. I use Denmark as a microcosm, it serves us well because it is small and the Jewish history within Denmark is concise and easily accessible.
Christian IV (reigned 1588-1648) was the first Danish king to establish connections with Jews. King Christian IV appointed Albert Dionis to the post of mintmaster at Gluckstadt on the Elbe in 1619. Dionis was a Sephardic Jew originally from Portugal who had settled in Hamburg and established an import-export business which had links to Denmark. Thus Dionis became the first Jew to be issued a royal Danish letter of protection as he accepted the employment position in Denmark.
Firstly this Jew was offered a position of employment by the Danish King and thus he received a passport that allowed him into the Kingdom of Denmark. No Jew was allowed to step foot inside Denmark without the King’s permission. Now Macdonald cannot explain this as one biological evolutionary group aggressively outcompeting another for finite resources, resulting in the genetically superior Jewish racial group overwhelming the Danes with sheer intellectual and genetic mastery! NO, that is ridiculous, the reality is one lone businessman who was known to be Jew from Portugal was recruited by the King of Denmark to work for him, Dionis was offered a position of employment, and being a position more profitable than his present situation he accepted. Otherwise he simply would never been able to step foot inside Denmark.
After consulting with Dionis in 1622. King Christian IV invited “Portuguese” Jews from Amsterdam and Hamburg to settle in Gluckstadt in the hope that this newly established town would equal the business acumen of Hamburg. To attract business away from Hamburg the King offered considerable incentives – including start-up capital, trading privileges, low taxes, freedom of religion. These incentives attractive as they were did indeed entice many traders and business men to Gluckstadt to set up and establish shop, trade and various industry, amongst the new arrivals were Jews.
Again the only reason that any more Jews were allowed in Denmark is because The Danes invited them along with other traders and business people, an invitation with attractive incentives and protective travel arrangements is hardly an aggressive premeditated Darwinian takeover of one group over another! No the only reason Jews arrived in Denmark was that they were made an attractive offer to go there, a better situation than what they already had, it was the Danish King’s design, his foresight, his idea, and his city which he and the Danes built that some fortunate Jews moved into.
In return the Danish King for all he offered expected that these traders and business people furnish the Royal Court and the rest of Denmark with quality goods. Later some “German” (Ashkenazi) Jews traded in Denmark, but they had to be able to provide a letter of safe-conduct, since the right to trade and live in Denmark only applied to “portuguese” Jews. This eventually changed and German Jews were allowed to travel and trade in Denmark freely. This was only after they had proven that they could be enterprising merchants with disposable capital. This is the historical account of the first Jews in Denmark…
I think I have made my point, but I will add this; The Danish Decree of 1814 had in effect given equal rights to Jews along with the rest of the population, which meant that Jews could play a larger role in public life. A great many social relationships developed between Christian and Jewish families and, when these resulted in marriage, the Jewish partner was usually baptized. In this way the leading Jewish families became Christian because the wealthiest Jewish families actively sought to attract Danish Christians as marriage partners for their sons and daughters, and willingly gave up their Jewish religion to achieve this social goal. This often created division in the Jewish community of Denmark who felt betrayed as their leading families rejected them to become Christians. On the other hand the willing defection and the admiration of the Jews towards their Danish hosts won for them greater Christian favour and understanding, this understanding on the part of the Danes allowed converted Jews to still feel proud of the Jewish heritage and they were encouraged to be proud of who they were. and this settled tensions in the rest of the Jewish community.
Right, so the reality here is very different to that theorized by the professor of psychology for the University of California; Kevin Macdonald. Kevin Macdonald seems to understand very little of history, the example I have given could be applied over and over again and extended to many, many different nations and kingdoms throughout history.
All Kevin Macdonald wants to achieve is some plausible justification for racist Zionist behaviour and any racist behaviour for that matter, so he falsifies history and uses spurious science to achieve this, he is a Cynical Zionist from a Zionist Correct American Academic Institution. Kevin Macdonald serves nobody’s interest except himself and other hawkish racist, deluded, irrational Zionists. His extreme views and biased theories may have found some audience with Jewish Zionist racists and White Nationalist Gentiles (BS Gentiles), which Macdonald calls ‘ethnocentric’, but the last thing our movement wants is more cynical Zionist hawks and their Boromir Syndrome Gentile hangers-on.
Sieg Heil!



September 2nd, 2010 at 6:15 am
[...] link: Kevin MacDonald: A Reformer of Judaism or Cynical Zionist … Tags: Denmark, Denmark Travel, eventually, eventually-changed, german, german-jews, historical, [...]
September 3rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
How interesting, if one talks about racial studies while sucking up to Jews, they manage a stable career, but researchers and authors like David Irving and Ernst Zundel go to jail.
Research + result that’s part of status quo = ok
Research + result that’s not part of status quo + jew friendly = minor turbulence, but ok
Research + result that’s not part of status quo + bashing gentiles = likely controversy resulting in apology
Research + result that’s not part of status quo + truth about jewry = jail
September 4th, 2010 at 4:09 am
I had to make an edit in my post, because it’s important to make the distinction between Zionist Correct (ZC) and Politically Correct (PC), Kevin Macdonald is Zionist Correct. The Glossary menu is very important, so I refer to it now;
‘Zionist Correctness (ZC)’: taking a position contrary to mainstream Political Correctness (PC) in a way that is benficial to Zionism (e.g. Islamophobia, race-baiting)
I could add to this, in Macdonald’s case, his Zionist Correctness is also in his appeal to Darwinian evolution and Survivalism and Natural Selection for justification of Zionism, these are all non-Aryan theories and scientifically proven to be false.
The arguments of self-preservation, ethnocentric nationalism, ethnocentric racialism and naturalism are all appeals to non-Aryan concepts, whether one agrees or not with the science (we do not agree), Macdonald’s arguments and theories are of no use to us, they should be denounced.
September 4th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
[...] http://delendaestziobot.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/kevin-macdonald-a-reformer-of-judaism-or-cynical-zi… [...]
September 8th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I think it matters little if some of his research flatters some ethnocentric Jews out there. There are those who openly boast about their power, and those who prefer to shoot the messenger because the message happens to expose their power. What has Kevin MacDonald said that is patently false? If anything, the data should motivate Aryankind through a better understanding of what we’re up against today. How is self-preservation and naturalism a non-Aryan concept? A lot of what you’ve written here just kind of puzzles me. Do you sincerely doubt that Kevin MacDonald has the best interests of his/our people at heart? We needn’t all take an identical approach in this struggle, and we needn’t agree on every point. I think it is right and good that have thinkers operating across the spectrum, rather than focused on a singular point or field of study. Why should arguments his theories be denounced. On what grounds, exactly? I know it cannot be your intention, but I believe this is a divisive approach. On Ironlight, as I’ve said before, I may not agree 100% with every last article or documentary I post. In fact, I sometimes post material in which only a small percentage is useful and agreeable to me. I trust my readers to sift through the data and make up their own minds on the matter. I appreciate your counterpoint, but I think the lines you tend to draw are a little too bold at times. Respectfully, W.
September 9th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Ironlight,
The answers to your question on preservationism and naturalism are in the Aryanism Glossary, they are non-Aryan in sense of that which it is defined, which can be found on this blog or the Aryanism website. I would suggest you read the articles posted by ‘Aryan Sanctuary’ about Kevin Macdonald on the Aryanism Blog.
Our method IS to take an identical approach, that is why we single out Kevin Macdonald as being Zionist Correct, which he is, in his own words, and we are anti-Zionist, we also reject Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as science, and any appeals made to pure naturalism as a moral basis, or pure preservationalism as a goal. Also, Kevin Macdonald’s portrayal of history is incorrect and he in no way serves our interests, there is no problem with Ironlight posting a Kevin Macdonald article as long as it is seen in the correct light otherwise it is just being contradictory if we are to be affiliated.
Please read through the Aryanism.org website and our postings on Kevin Macdonald again and reconsider.
Regards.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:59 am
I would be happy to read the articles you’ve referred to here, but as for what’s been written already (here in this article), it is going to to take more time to clarify where and why I disagree. An abbreviated form is to say that I feel you’ve summarized and effectively condemned Prof. MacDonald’s work based on some misunderstandings. Most of these, it appears to me, anyhow, are more a problem of semantics than genuine core-philosophy. I wonder if you and Kevin might actually debate this topic amongst yourselves in the meantime, and post the exchange here and on T.O.O., for I think it would illumine and resolve more than a few of the misunderstandings I’ve referred to and mend an unnecessary/counterproductive rift. Over the years, I’ve heard these kinds of condemnations about literally every single folkish patriot (the more esteemed, the more mud has been slung). I should clarify that do not see eye to eye with Professor MacDonald on all or even most issues, but there are key points where I think he is correct and well qualified to have formed his conclusions. Above all, I just think you have misread his message. This isn’t to say you’re incapable of accurately interpreting his work at all. I just think think the way he’s phrased certain things turned you off in a major way, and the rest has perhaps been a matter of connecting the dots. I think MacDonald can appreciate, in a dispassionate way, the success of certain organizations in terms of evolutionary strategy. I think he is of the position that we should understand our enemy, no emulate him. There is always going to be a certain overlap in strategies, but it is wise to distinguish as well what separates the success of one people from another. I do not think he promotes adopting the Jewish/Zionist strategy. I think he’s simply saying, they’re winning, and we are most certainly losing, and this is because we have ceased to exert our own ethnic interests and defend our living space. There are, of course, reasons for this destructive shift, and they are directly related to the ascension/expansion of Jewish-Zionist power. To reverse this trend, we need to understand how our opponent succeeded — not to emulate him, but to counter him in a manner peculiar to our folk. Like, if we’re losing, a change is in order. To reject this is to ignore the simple reality. To fail to adapt in some sense to the new challenges we face is frankly suicidal. Anyhow, I’ll read what you’ve suggested, and this response isn’t meant to be conclusive. I just feel like this can, and really should, be straightened out. Ideally, Kevin MacDonald himself would be the best person to defend and clarify his positions. I think he would be puzzled, though, to read some of what’s been written here, as it does not portray things, I think, as they truly are upon closer examination. All for now.
Best,
W.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Ironlight,
Aryanism is quite clearly at odds with Kevin Macdonald, he is a Zionist in his own words, and promotes concepts contrary to Aryanism, the articles we have written suffice to make this obvious, without need for any further debate, I see it as elementry. I understand his work very well, and can confirm that it is totally at odds with Aryan concepts. It is now just a matter of making a descision, of course if one is unable to understand our position, then they would not be able to understand why we would condemn Kevin Macdonald, I am sure he himself would find it hard to understand, but it is not a matter for further debate, just a matter of picking a side now.
HEIL!
September 12th, 2010 at 1:11 am
I intend to dismantle this argument, point by point, if no one beats me to it. Time is scarce on this end, and I know you’re not holding your breath on my counterpoint or anything, but I think it is important that we come to an understanding. I picked my side half a lifetime ago, and your “sides” appear to have been drawn up rather clumsily and in haste. The more I read what has been written above, the more clear it becomes that you must be fairly unacquainted with Professor MacDonald’s work in its proper context, his associations, or those of his regular posters via T.O.O./T.O.Q., etc. That is really the only why I can dismiss this attack — this silly assertion that he is somehow a pro-Zionist hawk, essentially a traitor to his Folk, or that he promotes the abandonment of Western traditions for the sly emulation of the wandering Jew. I also think you have a poor grasp of Darwinian theory if you think that it suggests “might is right” route is the only way to the throne. Cunning and deception have been effective tools for the Jew, but so has his business acumen and his organizational skills. It is an altogether different kind of ruthlessness– one which feigns harmlessness (the victim badge), innocence, and hides self-interest behind a veil of universal values, etc. — and then, once they obtain a strong enough footing, they reveal their true nature. In short, they didn’t barge into Denmark with strength of arms. They weaseled their way in through craft, flattery, and illusion. One may say they are as successful as rats or cockroaches, in strictly evolutionary terms. That shouldn’t be confused with a value judgment. Acknowledging their means to power isn’t a call for emulation. In fact, the closer one studies them, the more revolting his methods should seem. However, can we stand by and pretend our way (or what has sadly devolved as “our way”) is altogether superior or has proven successful in terms of our survival, our empowerment, or our expansion as a people? We don’t need to emulate them. On the contrary. But it is necessary to study and reflect on what has led them to power, insofar as it correlates to the power we by and large surrendered as we rested upon our laurels and let fall the reins. Their shameless methods, as a wandering historical tribe of unmanly dependents are (to quote Lindbergh) “as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours.” It worked for them as it worked for the creeping thing and creatures which hide and deceive and prey through their tricks. Ours has always been a different way, and ours should ever remain a different way. There is no argument here whatsoever — neither from my end, nor from anything I’ve ever encountered in MacDonald’s writing. It’s two different natures and two different approaches, altogether, in terms of evolutionary strategy. It’s not that our way has failed as much as it is that we have, to a great extent, lost our way. Obviously, I mean the true path of our people. Only a few have preserved that inner-starlight to guide us through the darkness. As a tenured professor with CSULB, I believe he has more to lose and more to gain, in the end, with reference to what he says and how much he reveals. This needn’t be condemned as deceptive. I would call it discretion. There is a difference. In any case, type in Neoconservative and Kevin MacDonald, and tell me what you find regarding his supposed “hawkishness.” Are his views really and truly in concert with the Zionist hawks in D.C. and Tel Aviv, or are his views rather a scathing critique? The difference here is a little less subtle. More to come…
-W.
September 12th, 2010 at 2:29 am
Ironlight,
The Jews did not enter into Denmark by stealth, “weaseled their way in through craft, flattery and illusion”, not by cunning in deception did the Jews as a cohesive unit enter into the Kingdom of Denmark. It was as History presents it; the King of Denmark offered one lone Portuguese Jew a job, and invited him to work for him! No planning on the Jew’s part, they simply took up a job offer, because the incentives were good, that’s all.
Ironlight, it will be up to you to make up your own decision, you can stand with Macdonald’s culture with the Gentile Boromirs, or you can stand with us as Aryans within Aryanism, but we will not share any common ground with Kevin Macdonald, we just simply single him out as not one of us, and we give the reasons why and that’s it…No mediation between the two needed or required. Macdonald is Zionist Correct, he is a holohoax believing, Darwinian academic from some Zionist approved school, and he is not one of us, in his own words and the words of Jews he is either a reformer of Judaism or a cynical Zionist, you can decide which, or you can just disagree with us and move to Macdonald’s culture, it’s up to you, I don’t mind if you take your time, but there is not much to discuss further about the subject.
I hope you see the truth.
September 20th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
You’ll certainly be harassed by the Jews if you gain enough publicity with your comments, which makes me feel i’m somewhat a of a success with my own Internet comments and social speeches.
I started my job out asking the Jews for money and support, so it’s possible the Jews have created their own monster with their elitism and antagonism.
Kevin discredits himself hanging with David Duke–although I admire Duke’s attempt to pass a bill for white people–could we all be so bothered as Mr. Duke to support their own kind?
money crank mullins the former useless didnt think much of duke either!
that article is in the Atlantic, wherein Mullins is portrayed rather unflatteringly….
Anyway, Macdonald is a great speaker from what I’ve seen!
He certainly presents a pretty good argument about how Jews have promoted social issues in the name of the Greater Good, that merely support their own cretinous lifestyle!
Jews love to fornicate and thus, Abortion benefits Jews.
Jews are mostly all homosexuals—and I wish to emphasize that more, as it explains the pedophilia and all…because what are the men to do?
Honestly…we are talking about Jewish women being queers here, ok?
The men are mainly just thieves.
Kevin!
Kevin!
Kevin!