I am giving a talk in Finland next month, and the organizer, Tuukka Kuru, asked me to answer some questions so that attendees would have a better idea of where I am coming from. They were translated into Finnish and posted here.

* * *

Hello Mr.Macdonald! How would you describe yourself to the Finnish audience, most of them haven’t heard about your exciting life and career!

I am a retired psychology professor who became aware of the disaster unfolding for our people while doing research for my books particularly the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique (hereafter CofC). Since retirement, I have continued to write on all the issues facing our people. Right now I am finishing up a book on Western peoples, to be titled Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future.

2.) You have done years of research on Evolutionary Psychology and wrote several books about group behaviour and group evolutionary strategies. What is the meaning of “group evolutionary strategy”? Is there different kind of strategies for different kind of populations?

A group strategy is essentially a way of getting on the world in which group-level processes are important. These processes include: a.) How are group boundaries policed? (E.g.: Who can be a group member? Is membership to be based on ethnicity or being a good citizen?); b.) What shall be policies toward ”cheaters”? (E.g., How are people who attempt to be part of the group without paying the costs of group membership, such as observing rules like paying taxes and marrying within the group, treated?) c.) How are group members expected to treat other group members and outsiders? d.) Who are acceptable marriage partners? (E.g., should group members be allowed to marry people from outside the group?)

There are a variety of different group strategies. I describe some of them in my work on Judaism and in Diaspora Peoples which describes the Puritans, Mennonites, Roma and Overseas Chinese. Each of these groups has a somewhat different strategy. For example, Roma have a very different group strategy than Jews or Overseas Chinese.

3.) The Culture of Critique (1998) made you famous person in international nationalist circles and even I have one copy of the book in my bookshelf! Many public figures, like Patrick Little and Mike Enoch, have stated that the book was the turning point in their political life and many anti-racist organizations have labeled it as intellectual basis of modern anti-Semitism. What is Culture of Critique and why it has made such a impact around the world?

CofC describes various influential intellectual movements centered around ethnically conscious Jews who were attempting to change the culture of the West to serve specific Jewish interests. Several specifically Jewish interests were involved: ending anti-Jewish attitudes, promoting and legitimizing immigration to the West from all the peoples of the world in the belief it would make Jews safer, pathologizing national identities among White people based on race or ethnicity, and de-legitimizing the interests of the traditional peoples of the West in maintaining their cultural and demographic dominance.

I don’t like to call my work ”anti-Semitic.” It attempts to portray Jewish groups and Jewish activism as accurately as possible and to describe the real conflicts of interest between Jews and the peoples of the West. Perhaps ”Judeo-critical” would be better.

4.) Many people have noticed time to time that the Jewish population is greatly overrepresented in various radical and far left-movements. Jewish activist groups have formed intellectual core in various left-leaning human rights groups around the Western world, most clearly seen in USA during the segregation era, South Africa during Apartheid, and nowadays in multicultural Europe. Nationalists have argued whether the overpresentation is just coincidence or a manifestation of Judaism itself. How should we see this connection between the Jews and the left-leaning politics?

This is a complicated area which I discuss in Chapter 3 of CofC. Basically there are several interrelated facets to Jewish leftist activism: Jews tend to have hostility toward non-Jewish power structures, motivated in part by the fact that Jews tend to see their history in the West as one long tale of persecution of blameless Jews—termed the lachrymose view of Jewish history. Moreover, Jews tend to believe, with some reason, that historical anti-Semitism has been more characteristic of the right than the left. For Jewish intellectuals, a major lesson of the National Socialist era in Germany was a belief that non-Jews, particulaly in a genetically homogeneous European-based culture, could rise up against them. Moreover, Jews have often seen leftist activism as a key to obtaining power for Jews by diminishing the power of traditional elites (e.g., Jews supported the 1848 revolutions in Europe and the Bolsehvik Revolution in Russia aimed at toppling non-Jewish elites seen as anti-Jewish). Given that anti-Semitism has historically been more common on the right than the left, once Jews have obtained power, they have typically promoted punishment for actions and ideas they see as anti-Jewish. A good example illustrating this is Jewish involvement in the Bolsehvik Revolution which overthrew the Czar who was seen as a persecutor of Jews. This resulted in Jews becoming an elite in the Soviet Union — an elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of Russia. This in turn brought about an era of mass murder of millions of Russians as well as severe punishments for anti-Jewish ideas and actions.

5.) How would you define the “JQ”, and how should it be discussed in countries which have a really small number of Jews, like in Finland?

The Jewish Question is essentially the question of the extent and quality of Jewish influence in particular societies, as discussed, e.g., in CofC. Ever since the Enlightenment, Jews have wielded influence far beyond their numbers in all the societies of the West, including, e.g., Sweden (here and here) and Australia (here and here), which have very few Jews but where Jewish media ownership or influence and the activism of individual Jews have made a great impact. Jewish influence on issues like migration and multiculturalism can be indirect — an important but underresearched topic. For example, the EU is pressuring all member states to accept migration, including states such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and now Italy which have governments hostile to migration. The EU is dominated by Germany, France, and the U.K. which have a strong Jewish presence and whose Jewish communities have exerted their influence by promoting generous immigration and refugee policies. This would apply to Finland as well since it is an EU member.

Moreover, another indirect effect has occurred because of the power of the United States in the post-World War II era. Once mass migration and multiculturalism became dominant in the US after 1965, it’s not surprising that it filtered into the rest of the Western world. Western culture is significantly international — it is more-or-less characteristic among all the Western nations. Imagine being a Finnish professor attending an international academic conference where, because of the pre-eminence of the English-speaking and especially the American academic establishment, the most prominent people in the field are all on the left and promoting migration and culturalism. There is a great deal of social pressure to adopt similar attitudes. American media, such as the New York Times and Hollywood, also has a significant presence throughout the West as well, particularly among educated people, and American media is decidedly pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism.

6.) You work as a editor of the Occidental Observer, which promotes White identity, interests and culture. Have you always been pro-White identitarian, or has there been some kind of transformation period in your life? What is the biggest reason that made you White Nationalist?

I only became a White nationalist in the late 1990s in doing my reading for CofC. I began to realize what was happening and why it was happening. The current culture of the West is suicidal in the long run. We have to understand how and why this has happened. I emphasize not only Jewish influence but also Western individualism and the liberal, post-Enlightment tradition which I believe have made Western societies uniquely successful but also uniquely susceptible to Jewish activism.

7.) Nowadays its trendy to say that race is just a “social construct” and beneath the skin we are all the same. At the same time David Reich, professor of genetics at Harvard, told to New York Times that race is biological reality. Nicholas Wade made the same statement in his book Troublesome Inheritance in 2014. Why is race is important biological tool to you Mr.Macdonald and how do you justify your point of view?

Like many others who have read the population genetics literature, I have concluded that there are genetic fault lines between peoples who have been separated for thousands of years. These fault lines are not absolute, and they may blur even more in the future because of miscegenation. The West, e.g., is not homogeneously European genetically at this time because of non-European immigration, but ancestral genetic differences between peoples differences are still apparent. Individuals of European descent cluster together genetically much more closely than they do to people from other geographical areas.

8.) Race can be seen as a difficult concept to understand in Finland, and many nationalists have stated that it has no use in current Finnish society, as they are promoting “shared values” instead of shared ethnicity. This same division between the civic nationalists and ethnonationalists can be seen in many countries all around the Western world. What is your opinion about civic nationalism? Do you see it as a workable concept at all?

Civic nationalism is promoted by elites throughout the West as an acceptable way of promoting some sense of social cohesion within a nation while avoiding any sense that nationalism should be based on shared ethnicity. This is the so-called ”proposition nation” concept—that, for example, Americans are united only sharing a commitment to democracy and any and all peoples can participate. The problem with this is that in the long run, the traditional populations of all Western countries will be replaced by other peoples. This is a moral travesty, and the irony (really hypocrisy) is that many of the same people who are promoting migration to the West, deny the existence of race, and promote the proposition nation concept are deeply concerned about advancing their own ethnic interests in doing so by, e.g., getting more of their people to come to the West and obtain political and cultural power. Africa is expected to have 4 billion people by the end of the century, and there will always be pressure for them to settle in Europe and elsewhere in the West because their countries are poverty ridden and politically unstable. In the long run, our people would be dwindling, powerless minority in societies they have dominated for hundreds or thousands of years. This is obviously a maladaptive outcome for White people. We need to have a sense of our ethnic interests in maintaining power in our homelands in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.

9.) The USA has been a forerunner in cultural deconstruction, which have destroyed the mainstream White racial identity and replaced it with other group identites and sub-cultures. It has been stated in CofC that the start of this process goes all way back to Franz Boas, former Jewish anthropologist and socialist/ethnic activist. What are the true reasons behind this deconstruction? Why especially White identity is targeted on these policies?

The answer to this is essentially the answer to why Jews like Franz Boas have been on the left (see above): 1) hostility toward the people and culture of the West because of historical grievances; 2) a desire to end anti-Semitism by promoting punishment for actions and ideas and actions they see as anti-Jewish and historically more common on the right; 3) by promoting theories of anti-Semitism in which anti-Semitism is portrayed as evil and Jews are always innocent victims; 4) and fear that Western majorities could rise up against them, as well as a desire to increase the power of their own group.

10.) Finland became part of the “multicultural experiment” on early 1990’s, when our country accepted the first Somali refugees from Russia. Nowadays mainstream politicians and journalists have stated that “Finnishness is a open concept” and “Finland has always been multicultural”. Its not unusual to see comments which state that there has never been “Finnish nation” and we are all just mixture between all other populations. I’m sure that all of this sounds bit too familiar to you also. Can you tell us some backstory of the multicultural experiment and people behind the concept?

Such claims are common throughout the West these days. In CofC I trace the Jewish promotion of multiculturalism to philosopher Horace Kallen. His ideas were picked up by the mainstream Jewish community, Jewish activists, Jewish organizations, wealthy Jewish political donors, etc. These ideas became more-or-less official dogma among American Jews who wanted an ideology where they could be full citizens of the U.S. but also retain a strong ethnic and cultural identity as Jews.

11.) Numerous Jewish groups have promoted multiculturalism and open migration all around the Europe, and the large portion of those migrants are coming from Islamic countries. There has been numerous headlines from France and Sweden telling us that Jews have faced violence and persecution in the hands of Muslim gangs. Yet they still strongly support the policies that let those non-European people in. Is there some particular reason why the Jews prioritize white nationalist movements over the Muslim ones?

Muslim immigration is indeed leading to problems for the Jewish community, particularly in the U.K. where Muslims are very anti-Israel and are an important part of the Labour Party coalition. Jeremy Corbyn is widely seen as an anti-Semite. So far this has not changed the policies of the big Jewish organizations, but most Jews now vote for the Conservatives, and Jewish financial support of Labour has dried up. Street-level violence by Muslims against Jews is also a problem in the U.K., France, and elsewhere and has led to some emigration by Jews, especially to Israel. But this tendency has not affected Jewish elites. They are not affected by street-level violence and they still have very large influence throughout the West. I don’t see the official stance of Jewish organizations toward Muslim immigration changing any time soon. They tend to see homogeneous White societies as potentially far more dangerous than a multicultural society and they believe that Muslim anti-Jewish attitudes, although hostile, can be effectively managed. They may be wrong about this as the situation in the U.K. suggests.

12.) How do you see the endgame of the current multicultural experiment? Is Europe becoming continent-sized Lebanon or South Africa? What happens to US if we cant change the current trend in next 40 years?

The expected result will be more and more conflict between groups, with White populations coalescing politically on one side and non-Whites (and Jews and sexual non-conformists [LGBTQ]) on the other. I call this the racialization of politics, as traditional politics based on social class gives way to conflicts between various identity groups aligned against the White majority. We already see that in the U.S. and there are similar trends elsewhere. Because Whites will be a minority in these projected societies they will lose power and be at the mercy of other peoples who often have historical grudges against them (e.g., Blacks regarding slavery)—not a good prospect.

13.) What is your opinion on “Pan-Europeanism”? Do you support little nation states with unique culture, people and language or larger Pan-European empires, as Mr. Richard Spencer does?

Yes, I support Europe maintaining its traditional peoples, languages, and borders. The EU was a great idea until the globalists took over. But there is nothing wrong with having common markets and free travel, although a free labor market has problems because it lowers the wages of native workers. However, I wouldn’t approve of all Europeans being able to achieve permanent citizenship anywhere they want in the EU because that would erode national cultures over time.

14.) Many people who are attending our conference are trying to find the suitable method to save our western civilization and our beloved nations. As we can see, there is no easy way out in the current situation, but we have to win, and we need right tools to ensure that. What kind of actions you propose for the next 5, 10 and 20 years? What is our greatest threat at the moment and how should we respond to that?

Sorry, but I don’t have any sure-fire ideas that can help our cause beyond what we already see. Certainly there are good signs, particularly the rise of populism in Europe, the popularity of the steadfastly anti-migration governments in Eastern Europe and now Italy. The election of Donald Trump was also based on his populist campaign rhetoric, but he has had a very difficult time enacting them and seems to be surrendering on a lot of his proposals, so overall he is a disappointment.

The fact that populism is rising despite massive opposition by elites in the media, corporations, Christian religions, and the academic world throughout the West shows that there is hope for the a White resurgence. We all have to ask ourselves what we can do to further our cause. For me, it is writing and maintaining a social media presence. Some may be able to donate money, and others could become active in nationalist organizations and political parties which now exist most Western countries. In the U.S., where the two-party system will remain dominant for the foreseeable future, activism within the Republican party is a possible option.

15.) How do you define “White Nationalism” and should we see it as supreme identity of all people of European origin or more like short-term alliance between different white nations against the common multicultural threat? Do you see whiteness strictly as a biological entity, or more like cultural and traditional institution?

White nationalism is simply the idea that Whites have interests as Whites in policies such as immigration and multi-culturalism — policies which erode and will eventually destroy the demographic basis of White power throughout the West. In the U.S., there has always been a Black/White racial divide, so it’s natural to make common cause and identify as a White person, as opposed, e.g., to an Irish-American or Polish American. And by identifying as White, they have much more power collectively than in separate hyphenated groups.

Europeans should also realize that they have interests as Europeans but also in retaining national identities. One way to think about this is that Europeans are closely related genetically and therefore share common ethnic interests. But they also share a common culture and have for a long time, beginning in the Middle Ages with the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church. Europeans have to realize that their culture is unique and uniquely valuable and that it is to some extent a product of European genes — the subject of my forthcoming book. Moreover, for the foreseeable future there will be pressure to migrate to Europe from many parts of the Third World. I don’t see this changing in our lifetime. Africa has a very high birthrate and chronic political instability and poverty. Tens of millions of Africans would love to move to Europe and elsewhere in the West and there will be far more in the future who wish to do so. As noted above, pan-European institutions are a good idea and would definitely help defuse some of the destructive nationalism that has been such a problem in the past.

16.) Many people don’t realize that neoconservatism is strictly Jewish concept, and the founders of the movement were mostly ex-members of the academic Radical Left which separated from the Soviet led state-communism. How did neoconservatism became such a powerful institution in United States and what are the intellectual origins behind the movement?

I delve into this in my paper, ”Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement.” It started with a group of former leftists who became disillusioned with President Jimmy Carter because he opposed West Bank settlements in Israel. They wanted to make pro-Israel policies a bi-partisan issue in US politics and therefore targeted especially the Republican Party because Jews were relatively unrepresented there (~70–80% of Jews consistently vote Democrat). They were also motivated by increasing anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, and Republicans were generally far more hostile toward the USSR than Democrats. In other policy areas, they have not eschewed their liberal positions, particularly on immigration and multiculturalism, although some advocate assimilation instead of multiculturalism. (Multiculturalism and assimilation both result in the ethnic displacement of White populations). The basic result is the the GOP has moved to the left on immigration and multiculturalism.

As with all Jewish movements, neoconservatism is well-funded and has access to the elite mainstream media. They established think tanks and journals, and they developed bases in elite American universities, especially Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago; wealthy Jewish neoconservatives centered in the Republican Jewish coalition have been an important part of GOP funding. Jobs and positions of influence have been open to people, including non-Jews, who take their policy positions.This has been a big key to their success. It’s not only about Jews, but also about willing non-Jews who benefit one way or another by participating.

Neocons rose to power during the Reagan Administration, elbowing out the paleoconservatives, and have dominated Republican foreign policy ever since, at least until Donald Trump talked about the U.S. disengaging from the Middle East. (Neocons have been strong advocates of American wars in the Middle East and want the U.S. to remain their indefinitely—obviously because of their attachment to Israel. Now they want war with Iran.) As a result of Trump’s rhetoric on foreign policy and immigration, many neocons became Never-Trumpers, but they may try to return if the Republicans change back to their previous positions after Trump is gone.

17.) What is your opinion on USA-Israeli relations and the power of the Jewish lobby inside the State? Should USA change its policy in Middle East? Do you support isolation policy, or some other doctrine?

The Israel Lobby continues to have a dominant influence on American foreign policy. I have written a lot about this, but see also John Mearsheimer Steven Walt’s The Israel Lobby, a book that was condemned by Jewish activists as ”anti-Semitic” but is a thoroughly researched, honest account of the influence of the Lobby.

American wars in the Middle East have been costly disasters, trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and many thousands of severe injuries — for no discernible benefit to the U.S. The U.S. should withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan and should never have invaded Iraq. Israel is armed to the teeth and is well able to defend itself.

18.) What is your opinion on NATO? Should it be disbanded or expanded from the current state?

Like the EU, NATO is a good idea at its beginnings. It had an important function in creating a military alliance against the USSR during the Cold War. But since the 1990s and with a strong push from U.S. leadership, it expanded into Eastern Europe, antagonizing Russia. Russian hostility is justified because there were promises not to expand to the east after the collapse of the USSR. The entire U.S. foreign policy establishment hates Russia: neocons and the Israel Lobby hate Russia because of Russia’s Middle East policy supporting Iran and Syria. Many Republicans hate Russia as a sort of remnant of their anti-communism. And now the Democrats hate Russia because they see hating Russia as as a weapon against Trump whom they are accusing of collusion with Vladimir Putin. Abandoning NATO is thus seen as selling out to Russia by the American foreign policy establishment. Trump seems to want to leave NATO but at this point he is only asking for NATO governments to pay their fair share.

19.) Leading world powers, USA and Russia, are both becoming increasingly multiracial and prone to inner conflicts in the future, while China has maintained its Chinese majority population. Will this trend somehow affect global power balance?

Having a multicultural, conflict ridden nation—as I believe the U.S. is fated to be and indeed already is—will certainly weaken it in the long run. Russia may be saved by its tradition of autocratic government: these new people and cultures may not be able to exert much power, at least in the foreseeable future. China has many things going for it—a relatively homogeneous population ethnically, negligible immigration, a nationalist government pursuing national interests, high average IQ, and now a great deal of wealth. However, there are things that could hold it back, e.g., a tradition of corruption and a lack of inventiveness.

20.) Name three unexpected things about yourself that isn’t mainstream knowledge!

I grew up during the 1960s couter-cultural revolution and aspired to be a jazz musician. I am now pursuing music as a hobby. My first research was on the personality and behavioral development of wolf cubs, which eventually led to a career teaching mainly developmental psychology of children and courses in personality.