According to Wikipedia:

Kevin B. MacDonald (born January 24, 1944) is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), best known for his use of evolutionary theory to support his claim that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” MacDonald’s most controversial claim is that a suite of traits that he attributes to Jews, including higher-than-average verbal intelligence and ethnocentricism, have eugenically and culturally evolved to enhance the ability of Jews to out-compete non-Jews for resources. MacDonald believes this advantage has been used by a number of Jews to advance Jewish group interests and end potential antisemitism by either deliberately or inadvertently undermining the power and self-confidence of the European-derived majorities in the Western world.

I talk to Kevin MacDonald by Skype Friday afternoon. Out of everything I’ve read about Kevin MacDonald, most of it negative, I believe this essay, published in the Journal of Church and State, is the most fair and comprehensive.

Luke: “What have you learned from all that controversy and media attention?”

Kevin: “I lost the feeling of being at home in my job. I’m rejected. People don’t want to talk to me. A general lack of collegiality. That’s about it. I’ve gained other friends. I don’t worry about what I’ve lost.”

“The main thing the mainstream media has done is to ignore me. That’s what they do when they don’t want to talk about these things. I’ve been attacked by activist organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. They’ve made my life difficult at the university. It’s hard because it’s a face to face world that you work in. I’d get all these emails that were quite hostile. That was hard. You have to have a thick skin. I have a thicker skin now that when I started out. It used to be very difficult but now it is a lot easier. You get tougher.”

Luke: “I notice your ideas getting distorted in the media. For instance, in one of your books, you said that if America became more balkanized by ethnicity, there might theoretically be steps taken such as to tax Jews more or to restrict Jewish admission to universities, and you were accused of advocating this.”

Kevin: “Exactly. That was part of the Southern Poverty Law Center attack in 2006, just a complete distortion. I’m just trying to say that when you have a balkanized society with strong in-groups and out-groups, you’re going to have that kind of thing. Growing up in Wisconsin, we didn’t have that. It was a homogenous white community. There were Protestants and Catholics but nobody felt that these religious groups were impermeable, but these ethnic groups are a different ballgame. We say around the world that it is hard to contain ethnic conflict and we seem to encourage it.”

Luke: “What do you think of the groups that want to destroy you?”

Kevin: “I think of them as evil. They don’t have any intellectual integrity. As you said, the way they phrased my argument is completely dishonest. I see that over and over again. You start to feel that you are being victimized, that you’re the good guy and they’re the bad guys, and that helps. It always helps to feel that you are on the side of truth, justice and freedom. I don’t see how those organizations can see themselves as taking the high road when there’s such history of dirty politics.”

Luke: “Do you take any personal comfort in your theories that these groups are acting in their evolutionary interest by trying to destroy someone who questions them?”

Kevin: “What they’re doing is perfectly understandable and I guess it is what I would do too. I wish ideas like mine were part of the mainstream conversation, but that’s a ways off. It’s obvious that the mainstream media is intensely policed to keep views like mine out.”

Luke: “You were raised a Roman Catholic. Are you still a religious man?”

Kevin: “I’m not religious at all. I lost my religion when I went away to college. My basic worldview is evolutionary biology.”

Luke: “At what point in your life did you come to identify as a white nationalist?”

Kevin: “It took a while. When I started these books on Judaism, I certainly wasn’t there. I started out in the 1960s on the far left and gradually got more conservative. I voted for Reagan.

“It was in reading and writing these books on Judaism, that it made me much more conscious of my own ethnicity and situation. I started to develop the idea that these Jewish intellectual movements and activist Jewish community, the ADL and so on, were taking positions that were against the interests of people like me and it provoked a sense of identity in myself. It wasn’t really something that was there. Even now the vast majority of people in America don’t have a sense that they are a white person with interests in some kind of a racial struggle or something like that. I developed that because Jews see themselves, these activist Jews, the organized Jewish community see themselves as in a struggle and they see these out-groups as enemies. They see Christianity as an enemy. They see European civilization as an enemy. That’s the perspective I noticed and it affected my sense of what am I doing? I’m just going to sit and record these things. I became an active participant at some point, probably in the 1990s. In writing those last two books, Separation and Its Discontents, and The Culture of Critique. One of the big themes is reactive anti-Semitism. There’s a competition between groups and this provokes animosity in the out-group. I felt that myself. For example, I read about the [1965] immigration law and Jewish motivations to change the immigration law in America from a bias in favor of western European people. That was implicitly saying the United States was a white country and should stay that way. Jews hated that idea. And so I’m thinking, I’m a western European white person. That opposes my interest. I have to be hostile to that. In the same way that they have a sense of their own interest, they pursue them, someone like me has to do that as well or we will lose. The thing about evolution is, you can always decide not to play the game, but you will lose. That’s what’s going on now. White people have decided we’re not going to play that game. We want these universal rights. We want to be morally praiseworthy but they don’t want to win. They don’t want to see the game for what it is. The thing about these activist Jewish organizations — they see the game for what it is. They’ve been struggling for centuries and they understand the importance of winning a conflict.”

Luke: “I only came out this week as a [Jew friendly] white nationalist and I had great trepidation doing it because the rest of society looks at you as a Nazi. Did you have any trepidation?”

Kevin: “I’ve been called that so many times it is beyond count. It is completely one-sided. Jews strongly identify as Jews, blacks as blacks. They’re encouraged to have organizations that defend their interests. For whites, it is a pathology. I feel sorry for you. I know it’s very hard. It’s easier now. But going back a few years, it was difficult getting those names thrown at me.”

Luke: “Did you have any idea at the time of the repercussions to you personally and professionally?”

Kevin: “I think I did, although at first I fooled myself that this would be really interesting and people would want to discuss it. It would be an intellectual bomb, but you realize after a while, that’s not going to happen. The main strategy used against me is not to vilify me, except locally at my university and some media, but the main track has been to ignore me, to just marginalize, so people don’t talk about it, don’t think about it. They don’t want to talk about this. There’s never been a thorough review of my book The Culture of Critique by somebody who’s critical of it. You would think that this book, which has gotten a certain cult status, you’d think that some mainstream Jewish intellectual would go after it and write something sensible, academic, critical, well-referenced. But it is not part of their world. It’s not kosher.”

Luke: “I was impressed by George Michael’s summary of your ideas.”

Kevin: “He’s written some good stuff. He published that in an academic outlet but it didn’t have much impact. He’s honest. He presented my ideas well. But like so many academic papers, they’re just out there and they’re not referenced. There’s just a pall over any discussion of these ideas.”

To publish papers in mainstream psychological journals, MacDonald has to avoid the topic of Judaism. “I’ve published regularly, one or two papers a year, but it is harder and I have to avoid things related to Judaism. That’s the price you pay. Psychology is still strongly a science. There’s a real peer-review system, but certain topics, like social psychology, are political. They do police these things. They consider themselves an arm of social activism on the left. Same with anthropology and other social sciences.”

Luke: “How many peers in your department have stayed on friendly terms with you?”

Kevin: “A couple of guys have but it’s under the table. We don’t hang out like we used to hang out, go to lunch on campus. If I were to go to lunch or dinner with somebody, it would be off-campus and nobody knows about it. It’s a pervasive social ostracism thing. It was hard to take at first.”

Luke: “When did you realize that race was more than a social construct?”

Kevin: “Coming up in my graduate studies in evolutionary biology, it always seemed common sense. You have different races and biologically they’re different. You can chart how far apart genetically these groups are. Races are simply biological descent groups… Medical science has to deal with race because some races are more prone to disease than others. They react differently to medication… It’s only this politically motivated campaign that these cultural marxists have had to destroy this concept of race. They get the media and have prestigious academic institutions on their side.”

Luke: “Would most of your peers in evolutionary psychology understand these basic differences?”

Kevin: “Evolutionary psychology is part of the mainstream academic world. What happened there is that at the beginning, you had E.O. Wilson and his famous book SocioBiology. That got a lot of hostility from Stephen Jay Gould and those people.

“In the late 80s and early 90s, you had the development of evolutionary psychology, but they divorced themselves from the sociobiology thing and made up this story there were no differences between humans and they would only study those adaptations that were universal to everyone. The science of evolutionary psychology specifically avoided any talk about differences, any talk about genetic variation. They didn’t want to talk about intelligence. They have a whole theory that intelligence can’t exist. Evolutionary psychology has been dominated by this political correctness. They’ve managed to get rid of the legacy of behavior genetics, eugenics, sociobiology and carve out a narrow evolutionary psychology.”

“I was friends with J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn and people like that. Frank Salter. Those guys are strong race realists. We managed to have a group of people. When I went to conferences, I could always seek out someone like Phil Rushton. We could talk and have dinner and catch up… He was always complaining about this. Phil Rushton’s an interesting case. He published all this stuff. He was just a workaholic. He published hundreds of things. Books. Any number of scientific papers. And he remained. He published in the journal Intelligence. It’s an outlier. It publishes stuff on IQ that is really scientific.

“Phil Rushton always felt that his work on race differences would be very mainstream and he would get a lot of acclaim for that and he would be invited to give addresses at Harvard and stuff. But it never happened. And he died last year. The Bell Curve came out and he was very optimistic about the effects of that but that did not happen.”

Luke: “What did you think of his book, Race, Evolution and Behavior?”

Kevin: “It’s a very important book. He brings all this stuff together. It’s not just IQ. The subtitle of that book is, ‘A Life History Perspective.’ He’s putting it into the wider context of life history theory. The idea that some species have a shorter life span. Among humans, individuals with a shorter life span hit puberty earlier, have babies earlier, have lower intelligence, and so on. To this day, I can’t find anything wrong with it. When people like Stephen Gould criticize it, all they do is say he looked at penis size and they criticize him for that and laugh at him for that without taking him seriously. There are these differences and they are correlated. That’s what a good theory does. It brings together disparate data like brain size, when did you get your first teeth, when girls menstruate for the first time, all these things are brought together into one theory and that’s an awesome achievement. But you don’t see it discussed. You’re excluded.”

Luke: “Charles Murray said he went into a clinical depression for six months after The Bell Curve came out because he took such a shellacking.”

Kevin: “It was a great book. It was a brave book.”

Luke: “Arthur Jensen in his book G notes… that IQ differences in and of themselves account for the different crime rates [by race].”

Kevin: “Crime and IQ. Why do those go together? Again, with Rushton’s life history strategy theory, they all mesh with one way of dealing with the world. It’s a theory in the back of my mind for how to see the world. I’ve never seen anyone refute that theory.”

“The education establishment is tone deaf on [IQ]. All kids are equal. But they can’t close these gaps.”

“It’s a story of suppressing the truth in the interest of this egalitarian ideology.”

Luke: “Now your first book on Jews [A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994)] received a positive reception. By the time of Culture of Critique, that seems to be where you left the mainstream. Did you realize when you were writing that you were leaving polite society?”

Kevin: “That and Separation and Its Discontents (1998), I knew would be much more difficult for people to get into. I had quite a few reviews, all positive, of A People That Shall Dwell Alone. It was basically descriptive. I was going on mainstream Jewish history and just plugging it into this theoretical framework based on evolutionary biology. It wasn’t controversial. But when you get to Culture of Critique, then all of a sudden, people won’t review it anymore. I’ve had one real review in the academic literature — by Frank Salter. People don’t want to talk about it. If they could come up with a valid critique of it, they would have. That’s what they did with Rushton, with the Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was too big to ignore. They had this big public discussion. And ten years later, what do we have? We have nothing. There is no influence of The Bell Curve on public policy anywhere in this country.”

Luke: “I notice that in your books, many of the points you make have been made before, including by Jewish scholars, and therefore should not be controversial. It’s either the spin you put on the points or the rhetoric or where you break new ground. What is it?”

Kevin: “Yes. For example, it was easy enough to find Jewish scholars who said the Frankfurt School was a Jewish cult, that psychoanalysis was a Jewish movement and even Boasian anthropology. These individual Jewish scholars are not bringing it all together and finding these patterns. It’s one thing to say psychoanalysis is Jewish, I think everybody sort of knows that, but when you put that in context with other intellectual movements and they’re also Jewish and they’re all on the left, and they’re all motivated by ending anti-Semitism, and you also say they’re very unscientific and they all work by establishing a consensus among an elite as opposed to any kind of empirical reality, then you are really saying something. I would quote Jewish scholars to make points along the way but the big synthesis was something they never did and would probably be horrified by.”

To back up my assertion that many of MacDonald’s critical points about Jews have been made by reputable Jews without harm to their reputations, here are highlights from a 2005 column by Dennis Prager:

* Jews (outside of Israel) are indeed overwhelmingly liberal and disproportionately left of liberal as well. * Most Jews are frightened by anything that connotes right-wing—such as the words “right-wing” and “conservative.” * Liberal Jews fear most religion. They identify religion—especially fundamentalist religion and especially Christianity—with anti-Semitism. * Despite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world. The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every “ism” of the Left. These include liberalism, socialism, feminism, Marxism and environmentalism. Jews involved in these movements believe in them with the same ideological fervor and same suspension of critical reason with which many religious people believe in their religion. * The Jews’ religious fervor emanates from the origins of the Jewish people as a religious people elected by God to help guide humanity to a better future. Of course, the original intent was to bring humanity to ethical monotheism, God-based universal moral standards, not to secular liberalism or to feminism or to socialism. Leftist Jews have simply secularized their religious calling. * Liberal Jews fear nationalism. The birth of nationalism in Europe planted the secular seeds of the Holocaust (religious seeds had been planted by some early and medieval Church teachings and reinforced by Martin Luther). European nationalists welcomed all national identities except the Jews’. That is a major reason so many Jews identify primarily as “world citizens”; they have contempt for nationalism and believe that strong national identities, even in America, will exclude them.

Lawrence Auster, a Jew who converted to Christianity, responded:

“As Prager describes it, the overwhelming majority of Jews oppose, fear, and regard as evil everything that our society is based on: conservative values, free enterprise, religion, Christianity, even nationhood itself, and they are compelled to these anti-American views by what they see as their religion.”

In their 1982 book, Why The Jews? The Reason For Antisemitism, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin wrote a chapter on “Non-Jewish Jews and Antisemitism.”

Among non-Jewish Jews there have been some who, in addition to their alienation from Jewish roots, have not felt rooted in the non-Jewish society in which they lived and who in the course of the last century have helped to cause intense Jew-hatred. These are radical and revolutionary Jews. It must be understood that the reasons for the antisemitism they engender are unique. First, their challenges to non-Jews do not come from within Judaism. Second, they not only challenge the non-Jews’ values, but the non-Jews’ national and religious identity as well. Third, they are as opposed to Jews’ values and identity as to non-Jews…

The association of Jews with revolutionary doctrines and ideological social upheaval has not, unfortunately, been the product of antisemites’ imaginations. The names Marx, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoview, Luxemburg, Bela Kun, Mark Rudd, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Noam Chomsky, and others come immediately to mind. The phenomenon of the utterly disproportionate role played by Jews in Leftist revolutionary causes has often been commented upon…

First, these Jews have inherited a tradition of thousands of years of Jews challenging others’ values…

Second, and most important, radical non-Jewish Jews are rootless. They do not feel rooted in either the Gentiles’ religion or nation or the Jews’ religion or nation, and they may very well have become revolutionaries in many instances precisely in order to overcome this rootlessness or alienation. Since they refuse to become like the non-Jews through identification with their traditional religious or national values, they seek to have the non-Jews become like them, alienated from traditional religious and national values…

As a consequence of their lack of rootedness many non-Jewish Jews have felt it necessary to turn radical and work to tear down traditional and national values and institutions in the name of “universalism.”

Luke: “Is it fair to say that most of the points you make in your books have been made by completely accepted Jewish scholars?”

Kevin: “Hmm. I would say a lot of it. For example, Paul Johnson. One of the first things I did when I decided to write these books was to read Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews. He’s a British historian. Not Jewish. He talked about this Jewish intellectual blossoming after the enlightenment and Jewish intellectual domination. That got me the idea. People are aware of this. You’ll see Jews in Commentary and elsewhere with a huge sense of pride that Jews came out of the ghetto and dominated the West. It’s not hard to find Jews who talk about Jewish intellectual domination. I take it for a different spin, that these movements are conflictual. There are conflicts of interest over how you construct culture. These people are constructing culture in a way that benefits them and disarms the white majority. Think of Boasing anthropology. The ultimate end point of this is that race does not exist. That disarms anyone who says that the United States should be a European derived society as it was originally. These ideologies have been used to combat the interests of Europeans. That’s what I get into and these Jewish scholars never do. They wear it as a badge but they don’t see the downside of it from the standpoint of Europeans.”

Luke: “Do you think that if you had made all of the same points but given them a pro-Jewish spin, then you wouldn’t have had this campaign of destruction against you?”

Kevin: “That could be true. You think about Paul Johnson. There are other people like that. They’re just in awe of Jews. And then it’s OK. If I had just talked about this as an element of Jewish IQ and Jewish accomplishment, and never talked about the practical consequences for conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews, then I would have been fine. Who knows? Maybe I’d be writing for Commentary.

“My whole awakening came when I began seeing these groups as having conflicts of interest with people like me and that even asserting this was viewed as anti-Semitic, as evil, and a Nazi. The ADL at one point said that MacDonald is resurrecting themes of anti-Semitism that were common in the early 20th Century. And that’s true. I was reading [Immanuel] Kant, the philosopher, and he had this view of Jews as a nation, not really a religion, and that they pursue worldly goals. If you look at anti-Semitism in the early 20th Century, there were a lot of complaints about Jewish involvement in the media. A lot of complaints about Jewish involvement in financial scandals and in Communism. When the Bolshevik revolution happened, the role of Jews was a huge topic on the right in Europe and that fed into National Socialism. I’m resurrecting some of those things. Absolutely. A lot of my writing isn’t original. It’s resurrecting ideas and applying them to the contemporary world right now because Jewish involvement in the media is still an issue. Political pressure for a war in Iraq and a war in Iran are all with us right now.”

MacDonald’s words reminded me of what Steve Sailer wrote in 2010:

To quantify the statement that “Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration,” in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.

Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy. Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood. This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.

Luke: Jews in the media disagree about many things but there are certain things they agree on and they do act on those interests.

Kevin: “That’s right. They’re totally in agreement in things like immigration, refugee policy, Church and State. There’s no mainstream Jewish organization opposed to immigration. Opposition to immigration has almost disappeared from the mainstream media. Things like VDare are about the only things available. Peter Brimelow says we have to do this because mainstream journalism is completely asleep at the switch. They don’t care. There are all these stories about immigration that do not appear in the media because of Jewish influence.”

Luke: “What do you see as the original contributions of your books on Jews?”

Kevin: “In the first book, the big deal there was to simply talk about groups. When I wrote that book, groups were on the outs in evolutionary biology. The whole thrust of sociobiology and E.O. Wilson was that evolution works at the individual level. My argument was that that might be true of animals, but humans are different. We can police groups. We can get rid of people who are cheating and dissenting. One of the big themes of my first book was how Jews police their own groups and how they got rid of people who were not on board. Someone who didn’t go along with Jewish business practices between other Jews or didn’t pay their taxes or married a Gentile, they’d be excluded.

“The Culture of Critique is the most important book. It has a conflict theory of culture that I haven’t seen anyone else come up with, where you see these various intellectual movements as ethnically motivated and conflicting with the interests of other people. I’ve managed to publish that as a theoretical thing in the evolutionary literature, but I did not include Jewish intellectual movements as examples. I included other examples of conflict over the construction of culture. The role of Jews is off the table and cannot be discussed in polite society. That is a true index of their power.”

About 15 years ago, I got a lot of heat for my essay on the role of Jews in the pornography industry. I then used similar tools in my book-length analysis of Dennis Prager’s life and thought.

Luke: “Many of the points you make are also in Ernest van den Haag’s book The Jewish Mystique, including Jewish eugenics.”

Kevin: “Right. When I first started to write, people told me about that book. I read it. The other big one is John Murray Cuddihy‘s book, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity, was a preliminary version of The Culture of Critique.”

According to Wikipedia:

Cuddihy has been described as a “Catholic atheist,”, and “a brilliant yet eccentric critic of contemporary American Jewry”… In The Ordeal of Civility, Cuddihy explicates the wrenching process of adjusting to modernity experienced by the shtetl Jews of the Pale in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who had to adapt quickly from a tribal culture to a modern Protestant civil culture rather than slowly adjusting over the centuries. It is in this context that he locates the efforts of Jewish intellectuals, such as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Claude Lévi-Strauss to facilitate the transition by providing a cohesive narrative that attempts to universalize the experience and thus provide an apologia to both the ingroup of Jews and the outgroup of gentiles.

Luke: “Where would you like to see whites become more like Jews?”

Kevin: “Having a strong sense of their group interest and having a stronger sense of ethnicity. That’s what’s really missing. With Israel, it’s not like South Africa. The American Jewish community is digging in, particularly the people with money like Sheldon Adelson. They have this strong sense of ethnicity and group interest and whites on the other hand, are afraid of their shadows. They’re afraid to be seen as ‘racists’. They’re afraid to be seen as immoral. They’re running around with their tail between their legs. You never see Jews like that. Jews are very aggressive and very assertive. If they lose something, like if an academic society makes a resolution against Israel, they’ll just go after the academic society. They’ll go after universities to prevent funding for that society. They’ll go after state legislatures to prevent state universities from having faculty travel to those societies. It’s just wall-to-wall activism. They’re tough. They’re good at what they do. And we’re not. We’re just completely divided. Whites have all these ideologies. Christian fundamentalism where they love Israel or they think abortion is the biggest issue of the day or they’re worried about gay marriage. That that’s really the problem that society faces. Well, the problem they face in the long run is that they are going to become a minority. That they are going to be victimized. That they are going to lose political power. But they can’t even talk about that. We have to get stronger and stand up. After my three books, I wrote something about Jewish aggressiveness. In your face, but it’s very adaptive. I can’t fault someone for aggressively pursuing their interests. They have a way of morally condemning anybody who disagrees with them.”

Luke: “I grew up a WASP. I converted to Orthodox Judaism. It seems to me that Jews have a higher quality of life.”

Kevin: “Yeah.”

Luke: “When I joined Orthodox Judaism, I joined a people who were smarter, more educated, more sophisticated about applying political pressure, more cohesive, a group that had more cultural and economic influence…”

Kevin: “Interesting. Do you feel at all estranged? Do they completely accept you as a convert?”

Luke: “No, they do not completely accept me as a convert. Much of that has to do with my writing. It’s disturbing. I write a lot about scandals in the Jewish community. That does not go over well… I get in trouble for writing negative things about Jews. I’ve never married, which makes me a freak in Orthodox Judaism. I’ve always been poor because I’ve devoted myself to blogging. If you are poor, you can’t fully participate in Jewish life. I’ve been told in synagogue, ‘We will never accept you.’ But other converts have become Orthodox rabbis and achieved a much greater degree of acceptance. They’ve married. They’ve had children. They’ve sent their children to Jewish schools. There are Jewish laws that a convert should not be in a leadership position.”

Kevin: “What you’re saying about Jews having certain positive qualities is one of the reasons that Judaism is so powerful among Jews, that they have such strong allegiance. They have such a strong sense of pride in their tradition. They think of all these famous Jews, wealthy Jews, Jews who own media, and there’s a sense of pride there. I can understand it. The problem is you have to understand conflicts of interests. They don’t understand the interests that non-Jews have.”

Luke: “When I go to synagogue, I mix with people who direct movies, write novels, people who’ve helped run presidential campaigns. It’s just a far more interesting and influential group of people than I encountered when I was not Jewish.”

Kevin: “I bet.”

Kevin has a long review of Yuri Slezkine‘s book The Jewish Century. “I liked it. He has one of the best descriptions of Jewish dominance in the early 20th Century throughout Eastern Europe, Germany, Austria. His descriptions of Jews as elites in the Soviet Union is refreshing.”

I bounce my theory of the Torah Corral off Kevin. “God chose the Jews to be the MasterRace of mankind. However, He soon realized that this had cruel consequences for the less intelligent goyim of creation, so to protect them from the depredations of the Jews while still providing free will to one and all, he gave the Jews the Torah (both written and oral) by which they might be fenced in. Rest assured that those Jews who today live on the Torah Corral are no threat to the gentle gentiles of the world. It is the secular liberal Jew, with his notions of Marxism, tolerance of the sodomite and the transgendered, creator both of socialism and feminism, who is the mortal enemy of the gentile world.”

“What do you think about the idea that there is a different threat presented by the secular leftist Jew compared with the traditional insular Orthodox Jew?”

Kevin: “I agree with that. If all the Jews were living in Williamsburg in a tight community. They don’t even educate their children to know about the external world. They don’t have them go to college. If you are insular, you are not going to be influencing public policy. That is very different from the mainstream Jewish community. Paul Gottfried has emphasized the distinction, and I agree with him, between the East European Jews and the German Jews. The East European Jews were just much more aggressive. They were much more hostile to traditional western culture. The German Jews who came to America were an elite. They didn’t have huge social activism. They tried to keep the immigration door open to the East European Jews and were quite successful at that until 1924. The point is German Jews aren’t as hostile and aren’t as aggressive. Paul Gottfried comes from a German-Jewish family. He didn’t have any of that in his family. His father could never understand how the mainstream Jewish community had these views on immigration.”

“There are different Jewish groups and the more Orthodox Jewish groups are more disengaged. They’re not as, shall we say, dangerous to the rest of society.”

Luke: “I go to a traditional Orthodox synagogue. It’s all very right-wing. Nobody there is agitating for gay rights. Nobody there wants more immigrants. Nobody there is friendly towards Muslims. Nobody there wants Freudian analysis. Nobody there supports Boasian anthropology. It’s an insular focus on performing the minute rituals of the Torah.”

Kevin: “I agree with that.”

Luke: “The Jewish community is becoming more insular and Orthodox with every year that goes by.”

Kevin: “I’ve seen statistics that in the future, the vast majority of Jews will come from Orthodox families. Secular Jews are not reproducing themselves. There’s a falling away from [Orthodoxy] too, that every generation of Orthodoxy, some of the children don’t follow Orthodoxy. They become much more liberal. They go to college. I see the Orthodox community as the demographic wellspring of the Jewish community.”

Luke: “Where do you see signs of hope for white America?”

Kevin: “It’s hard to find hope right now… I used to go to conferences and you’d find all these middle-aged guys who’ve been around for a long time and used to being completely marginalized but now you see a lot of young guys and they’re on board and they’re smart and they’re educated and they’re committed to this. They often reject the old people as insufficiently radical. They’re forming their own groups and networks. I’m finding some good young writers with PhDs writing for me under pseudonyms. We are developing an intellectual network. People are going to see that we have a strong intellectual basis for developing a white advocacy movement in America.”

Luke: “How much hope do you have for success? Perhaps even create a white ethno-state?”

Kevin: “It’s a ways off. Things have to be a lot more intense than they are now. We do see signs of it. The Republican party is becoming the party of white America. That includes people of all social classes… When I was growing up, you had class-based politics. Working class whites voted Democrat. Now pretty much all whites are voting Republican because of racial identity. That’s going to sharpen as white America gets on the ropes. If Republicans don’t get a tsunami of whites votes in 2016, whites might say, we can’t win anymore and they might wake up and do something.”

“We need one white billionaire who’s really on board with these ideas. The Koch brothers are not there yet. In British politics, one billionaire got behind the UKIP.”

Luke: “Why aren’t whites better at organizing in their group interest?”

Kevin: “Right now, they’re intimidated. When you talk to them about this, they become ashamed. When they think of whites, they think of slavery and racism. We’re so used to being painted as the bad guy. The average white person is horrified at the thought of organizing on the basis of racial interests. A certain amount of what is going on in the Republican party is implicitly white but they can’t mention race because they’d be excoriated in the mainstream media. They’d be vilified. That’s like the third rail. That is so strongly policed that any politician who wanted to get ahead would be completely put off by that.”

Luke: “I have a sense that millions of white Americans, perhaps tens of millions, don’t particularly like black people and most of them vote Republican and yet Republicans will never campaign on race. They’ll campaign on states rights and cutting welfare and lowering taxes, which are implicitly white issues but they won’t be explicit about what they’re doing.”

Kevin: “That’s right. I think there’s some anxiety in white America about blacks. Even though the media does not talk about IQ differences and often times does not portray the true perpetrators of crime, they’ll talk about a gang of youths that attacked some people, but they won’t say they’re black youth, but people watch TV. They get it. They understand that blacks are way more prone to criminality. In white America, we have a stereotype that blacks are prone to criminality. That they’re not very smart. They’re prone to using the welfare system. That huge percentages of black males are not looking for work. That’s the perception and it’s based an awful lot on reality. White Americans believe those things but they can’t talk about them so instead they’ll talk about Obamacare. We’re opposed to Obamacare because it’s an intrusion on personal liberty. What they’re really saying is that we don’t like the idea that all these poor people are going to sign up and we don’t want to pay for it.”

Luke: “Are there any people on the white nationalist right you find scary or do you see them all as allies?”

Kevin: “I try my best to see people as allies. I have eschewed identification with some but I never get public about it. I try to make alliances whenever possible. That’s not easy. I’ve gotten vilified for making friendships with certain people. Tough luck. I see these people doing good things. I know David Duke is vilified all over the place. He’s like a code word for evil, but if you look at his rhetoric, if you look at what he’s doing, the vast vast majority of it makes sense. Greg Johnson in San Francisco with Counter-Currents is doing good things. Why would I want to oppose someone like that? We are on the fringe right now, which attracts a certain kind of personality.”

Luke: “Where do you see similarities and differences between the white nationalist movement in America and Nazism?”

Kevin: “Both were movements of ethno-nationalism. The white advocacy movement as I see it is not going to exterminate anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government we have. It may advocate for separate areas that whites may be able to live in homogenously. It is not going to advocate lebensraum. It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico. There are a lot of differences. It is a very effective smear tactic. Any similarity with National Socialism is anathema.”

“Whites have an identity. The Germans had a sense of racial identity and national identity. That’s sort of what we are advocating, that whites have to have a racial identity.”

Luke: “Is there anything you want for whites that you wouldn’t want for any other racial group?”

Kevin: “No. The main message is universal nationalism… I guess I’m horrified by Israel but Israel is doing what many nations and ethnic groups have done over the centuries. That’s life. I’m an evolutionary biologist… I believe that Koreans have a right to be Korean and restrict immigration and maintain that. Chinese, Japanese, Africans.. The only people in the world for whom that is not appropriate, for whom that is viewed as moral depravity is white people. That’s absurd. It’s idiocy that this is internalized by most whites. It is wrong for whites to want to do anything as whites.”

Luke: If you became president?

Kevin: “I would move to end immigration by non-whites. I’d move to repatriate the non-whites who are here. I’d give them incentives to move out. And consolidate our [white] power. It may not be pretty. Carving out white areas and maybe do some population transfers. After World War II, there was a lot of ethnic realignment in Europe… There are a lot of things that can be done short of gas chambers and genocide. That is not something that I would want.”

“Throughout the white world, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, none of these things [mass immigration by non-whites] were voted on by the majority of the population. Every effort was made to not publicize what was happening. It was illegitimate. Repatriation is not the end of the world.”

“I don’t criticize Israel for [ethno-nationalism]. What I criticize is the hypocrisy of the American Jewish community for on the one hand, [being] gung ho for Israel and ethnic cleansing and apartheid and the settlements and all that, and on the other hand, complaining about any little glimmer that white people might have an interest in controlling the population of their country.”

Luke: “What would be the place for Jews in a Kevin MacDonald society?”

Kevin: “I’d love it if they were Orthodox Jews and sort of kept to themselves. Jews in a democratic society have the right to support their interests. That would be OK if we could really assert our interests and we could have the mainstream media on our side. It’s just not fair the way it is now. We don’t have any voices and the voices we have are marginalized. If someone talks about Jewish influence, like Rich Sanchez mentioned Jewish influence in the media, well, he got fired the next day. We ought to be able to talk about those things. It’s not fair that we can’t talk about the power and influence of other groups.”

Luke: “What would be the role, if any, for Muslims in a Kevin MacDonald America?”

Kevin: “I would do my best to repatriate Muslims. They don’t have any historic claim to the society, or have parts of America be multi-cultural and parts of America be white.”

Luke: “Do you think the practice of Islam is compatible with First World living?”

Kevin: “Not really. The Arabs are hopelessly backward. When they come into European societies, they produce blocks of unassimilable people who really hate Christianity and the West.”

Luke: “What will the continuing diversification of America do to the Jews?”

Kevin: “Jewish organizations have advocated this. Their program is to make these groups housebroken… Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States have been strong proponents of Muslim immigration. They see it as part of the whole multi-cultural thing. They don’t like white Christian society in America and Europe. They see this as good for the Jews but they want to be able to control that. They want a housebroken Islam, which is illusory.”

Luke: “Islam reformed is no longer Islam.”

Kevin: “There’s a lot of anti-Semitism in France right now and almost all of it is Muslim. This will happen elsewhere. Jews have been picked on in Sweden by Muslims. that may happen in a lot of places. Jews [Jewish activist organizations] still advocate Muslim immigration. They see the West as an enemy, more than Islam. They don’t take seriously that these people are very competent and a strong threat.”

Luke: “What do you think of the Scandinavian peoples asking strangers to live among them?”

Kevin: “Their descendants will curse them. This is a northern European pathology… These people do not make good immigrants. They have low IQs. They’re prone to crime.”

Luke: “Are Jews perfidious to their core or do you think you could make common cause with fellow white nationalists who happened to be Jewish?”

Kevin: “You could. I would advocate making common cause with anybody who’s on board with the interests of white America. If they’re Jewish, that’s fine. I can see why Jews would accept that. They might fear the future of multi-cultural America. You will have groups who are not sympathetic to Jews. Abe Foxman is worried that these hispanic groups are not going to be concerned about the Holocaust, are not going to be as prone to guilt, they’re not going to be as empathic about the suffering of Jews. You’ve got Muslims coming in who have a big history of conflict with Israel.”

“The organized Jewish community as far as I can see is 100% opposed to a white state anywhere. One of the themes of Culture of Critique is the development of the idea of America as a proposition nation with no ethnic basis. All we are is a democracy. We’re about human rights. There is no ethnic basis to America. That was the result of Jewish intellectuals. At the same time, the Jewish community is gung ho for an explicitly Jewish state… I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the hypocrisy. They don’t accept the right of any white group to have a state. They wouldn’t even accept the idea that Sweden or England should be a white Christian state… I have to see the activity of Jewish organizations in this country as absolutely opposed to my interests.”

“When I grew up, America was 90% white Christian people, that’s a higher percentage than Israel is Jewish… Why couldn’t America have insisted that we are a white state? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to have the same thing you have for yourselves?”

Luke: “All things being equal, including IQ levels, Jews are going to out-compete you much of the time?”

Kevin: “Correcting for IQ, there’s also ethnic networking… There’s something else going on there… This is keeping people out and not distributing their movies…”

Luke: “Jews way out-perform their IQs. Latinos way under-perform their IQs. We out-perform because we have more drive for social and economics success than people with similar IQs. And we’re better at it because Judaism is a this-worldly focused religion while non-Jews such as Christians have a lot of beliefs about Heaven.”

Kevin: “There’s some truth in that.”

Luke: “Some of it is that the Jewish way of life is craftier. When I became Jewish, I saw how the world worked in a more realistic fashion than the naive way I was raised. Jews are much more comfortable, for example, with the natural passions such as ambition and sexuality.”

Kevin: “I think you’re right… To the extent that anybody has Christian religious beliefs at the center of their life, they’re going to be dysfunctional. They’re not going to be able to compete. Jews cut to the chase. They go right to what is in their interest. So many Christians are dominated by [concerns that don’t benefit them]. Christian Zionism is a perfect example. This does not benefit them in any way… No Jew would do that. Jews see that and say, ‘Let’s take these guys to the bank.’ And why not? That’s what makes Jews such a tough competitor because they do see the world more realistically.”

Luke: “Jews are much more ready to write a check to solve a problem when the non-Jews I grew up amongst would [look] askance at anything that looked like bribery.”

Kevin: “Right. We talk about this in white advocacy. Whites are very timid about asking for money. Jews are not timid. We talk about that.You go into a synagogue. I’ve never been in a synagogue, but I hear they say, we’ve got to have some money for this cause and they’ll hit on people and they’ll shame you if you don’t contribute and they’ll be blatant about it. We’re so polite and we don’t want to get on people’s nerves. Jews are not like that.”

Luke: “If someone is causing us trouble, we’ll write a check. That’s the way the world works.”

Kevin: “I imagine they’ve had enemies they’ve bought off like that. The other thing that Jews are so good at is creating this infrastructure. Neo-conservatives have all these think tanks. There are all these career opportunities for going along with the neo-conservative line. You want a job? You want a nice career? You’re going to be on the op/ed page and get a job with the government, all these things are available to those who go along with them.”

Luke: “The most comprehensive sex survey in America was done by the University of Chicago. It was released in 1994. It found that Jews had more sexual partners than any other group. In my experience, Jews have fewer hang-ups and inhibitions about enjoying a wide sex life without the pathologies associated with black promiscuity.”

Kevin: “Jews are more liberated. When I was growing up, I had all these inhibitions about sex because I was a serious Catholic… Jews are also more extroverted. That’s linked to aggression. Being in your face. That’s linked to sexuality.”

Kevin writes, “Is Immigration really a Jewish value?”

Chaim Amalek writes: