This is the transcript by V. S. of Greg Johnson’s interview with Kevin MacDonald on Trump, 2015, and the Next Current year. To listen in a player, click here . To download the mp3, right-click here  and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to our podcasts, click here .
Greg Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. My guest today is Professor Kevin MacDonald.
Kevin, welcome to the show!
Kevin MacDonald: It’s great to be here, Greg.
GJ: It’s great to have you back. It’s been a while. It’s been too long.
What I’d like to do today is talk about 2015 and I’d also like to talk about 2016 since we’re right on the cusp between two years. 2015, I think, has been a year of great changes. Most of them positive. What are your thoughts on the situation? Has 2015 been a good year for White Nationalism and White advocacy?
KM: I think it has in a lot of ways. Certainly we’re seeing it with the Donald Trump phenomenon that the White working class base that is horrified, I think, by the changes that are going on in this country is finally getting a voice in Donald Trump. They’re very angry. People are really understanding that the Republican Party is completely corrupt. But because Donald Trump is a celebrity, because he’s a billionaire, he has a voice, and people are tuning in.
This could be revolutionary. We don’t know yet, but this is very encouraging. Quite a few of the themes he’s bringing up are what we call “implicitly White.” They’re things related to Mexican immigration, things related to Muslim immigration and terrorism, and things like that. Those are things that would be completely off the radar if Trump was not running, and he says this repeatedly in his stump speeches now that all the talk about immigration would not have been there without him and it’s very true.
Of course, we’ve been saying these things all along. You’ve been saying them at Counter-Currents, and we’ve been pushing this. But I think this is potentially a breakthrough that we should talk more about.
I think the other thing is the currents that were happening even before Trump. I think that there are a quite a few new voices on our side on the alternative Right. I think that they tend to be young, they tend to be brash, they tend to be disrespectful, in-your-face kinds of guys. The people behind the “cuckservative” idea, which is really an excellent meme to have out there. But those are the big things that have happened this year and I’m very encouraged by it.
GJ: Yeah, I would agree. I think that whatever happens with Trump, whether he gets the nomination or not, whether he wins the presidency or not, he’s already broken through a lot of taboos about what can be discussed in the political realm in America. He put immigration back on the table. He put Muslim exclusion out there, which even shocked me, frankly. It surprised me how popular the idea was and how it resonated among ordinary Americans. He also has put economic nationalism back on the table and the dismissal of political correctness. When he said the words, “Only Rosie O’Donnell!” I thought, “My God, he could have won the presidency right there.” And then he went on to say he’s tired of political correctness. That really struck a chord with a lot of people. Even people who I know who tend to be centrist-types, they really liked that. They thought, “Wow. This guy is making politics not only entertaining again, but he’s also articulating a lot of things that the political establishment just agrees not to talk about.” They’re not going to compete on these issues, right? They have principles. Unfortunately, the trouble with the Republicans’ principles is that they’re the same principles as the Democrats for the most part.
KM: Yeah. You almost had the feeling that there are just millions and millions of White people who were waiting for someone to say those things in public. If you listen to Fox News, if you listen even to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or those people, you don’t hear these things and suddenly this is out there and they just went along with it.
I agree. It is shocking. As you say, when he talked about Muslims in that way. Or even talking about Mexican immigrant criminality. I was thinking that if I was a politician trying to appeal to mainstream America I wouldn’t have said those things. He’s going further than what I would have said or would have thought was politically possible! It is truly amazing.
The other thing I’d like to mention about how he’s changing things is he’s not knuckling under to these neo-conservatives on things like Syria and the Iraq War. Of course, they’re furious about that. People like Bill Kristol are talking about a third party if Trump gets the nomination now. It’s that serious. He is breaking completely with the entire Republican establishment, whether it’s the neo-cons or these basic beltway conservative types with all the money and everything. It’s really an amazing phenomenon.
GJ: Yeah, I was really impressed with his views about foreign policy type issues as well. He seems to have this naïve notion that if you’re going to run for president of the United States you should actually look out for US national interests. No one informed him that that’s not the way it’s done. He basically gets a zero on his neo-con report card. Although he is obviously quite pro-Israel. He has five children and two of them are married to Jews. One of them lives in Israel. And two of his grandchildren, I guess, are Israeli citizens. So, he’s obviously not anti-Semitic, but he just has the quaint idea that American foreign policy should put America first. Who had ever heard of such a thing!?
The other thing where he departs from the neo-con line is he doesn’t agree with their neurotic and reflexive hatred of Vladimir Putin, which cracks me up.
KM: Yeah. That was scandalous to these Republicans that Putin said something good about Trump, and Trump didn’t back down. He sorta said he was flattered by it and he said some nice things about Putin. That is just an absolute bogeyman to these neo-cons. They want to take down Russia.
KM: That’s one of the big reasons why you had this whole confrontation in the Middle East where Russia is supporting Syria and Iran and these neo-cons, the same with Ukraine and everything, they see Russia and Putin in particular as just the worst and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Putin . . . There are still quite a few very wealthy Jews in Russia, but I think he’s taken them out of the political process in a way that they really don’t like. They do not have the political influence that they wanted or would have had if Yeltsin and that sort of thing had continued.
GJ: Putin is very friendly with Jews just like Trump is objectively very friendly with Jews. I even read a story that one of Putin’s daughters is married to a Jewish oligarch just like one of Trump’s daughters is, and yet instinctively a lot of Jews in the United States, especially the Leftist ones and the neo-con ones, they just smell a Fascist for the simple reason that Putin nor Trump seems to think that it makes sense to put Jewish interests before the interests of their own nation. The effrontery of that, in their minds, “How brazen that these people don’t instinctively prefer our interests to their own national interests!” It’s a scandal for Jews.
So, yeah, Putin and Trump both seem to belong to that category of very objectively Jew-friendly goyish politicians who certainly would do everything, I think, to help Jews as long as it was not against their own national interests, but the fact that they have a notion of national interests is offensive to Jews.
KM: Exactly. I think that in a way it’s a marker of Jewish power that they have these Jewish ties, and Trump is still saying very positive things about Israel and all that. But at the same time I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump really believes that. I think he may believe that but still at the same time he’s able to actually distinguish between American interests and Israeli interests in a way that you just don’t see among American politicians very often. Certainly Marco Rubio has got to be the worst.
I wonder. Today, Ted Cruz came out against the neo-cons, saying explicitly, using the word neo-con, saying that we need to get past all this neo-con nonsense and all these foreign wars and all that. I wonder if that’s because of Trump. I think that maybe Trump is starting to open that can of worms up in a way that even other politicians are willing to go there. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but it’s very interesting.
GJ: Well, I think Trump is emboldening a lot of people, and he might even embolden a few Republicans, although they seem to be about the last people to be bold about anything. But yeah, I didn’t hear that about Rubio. I’ve been paying attention to other stuff than politics today.
KM: Yeah, you mean about Ted Cruz.
GJ: Cruz, I mean. Yeah.
KM: Marco Rubio is absolutely hopeless. He is completely prostrate to these Jewish oligarchs in this country. I don’t expect anything from him at all.
GJ: Right. So, Cruz. That’s very interesting. Maybe Cruz is angling for the VP slot.
KM: That’s what I’m thinking, and I think that would be very good, because Cruz is establishment enough. Like when Ross Perot ran with some General that nobody had ever heard of. You want someone who’s a mainstream politician that everybody recognizes. I think Ted Cruz would be perfect actually.
GJ: Yeah, that might be a good ticket. In the back of my mind I sort of have this hope for a pure shitlord ticket, which would be Trump and Coulter, because she’s his biggest fan.
KM: She’s beautiful. I love her.
GJ: Yeah, she’s been a lot bolder. I think what’s happening is that somebody like Coulter says some bold things in Adios America!, Trump gets wind of it, is emboldened a bit, tests the water, because he’s not threatened by speaking his mind, right?
GJ: He’s not as vulnerable as people with less wealth and less celebrity and so he can speak his mind on these things, test the water, and he’s not the kind of guy to back down and apologize even if he’s made a mistake. I think he’s been just pushing deeper and deeper, and now he really realizes that he’s tapping into a great deal of discontent in the American voter, and there’s a natural huge constituency that he’s tapping into. You know, Reagan Democrat types, working class Americans. The thing that’s most amusing is that he actually seems to have a significant number of African-American supporters. Probably more than any other Republican ever would. Another thing that strikes me as interesting is if you look at all of his policy proposals they are extremely centrist.
GJ: They’re not all that radical. They’re very centrist. He’s a kind of conservative populist, and he’s not even socially conservative. He’s just nationally conservative. He wants to put the nation first and take care of the nation. And that’s the sweet spot in American politics. No Republican ever wins without winning over that constituency.
KM: It’s so ironic that these neo-cons are now saying, “Trump is not a conservative. He’s not a true conservative. We have to get a true conservative, and if he gets the nomination we’ll have to run someone who’s a real conservative.” It’s outrageous, because these neo-cons have been pushing the Republican party to the Left for 40 years — at least since the Reagan administration — and now all of a sudden that they’ve got somebody like Trump, who says some things like he’s not opposed to some kind of national healthcare, “He’s not conservative” or “He’s not in favor of limited government. Who’s the guy the Speaker of the House now?
GJ: Ryan, who just signed off on a 1.1 trillion dollar budget.
KM: Yeah! These guys are conservative and want limited government. It’s a joke!
GJ: Yeah, it’s a cliché that only appeals to the mindless at this point.
You were at the NPI conference recently. You spoke there. What was your impression of the crowd.
KM: I was really impressed by it! It was so great to see all these young guys there, and they’re all well-dressed, and they’re well-spoken, and you talk to them and they’re very well-informed. I can’t tell them a thing. They really know what’s going on, and they’re all sort of in the camp of “What should we do now?” now that we understand the situation. It’s just very encouraging to see this.
When I started out it seemed like everybody was old and unhappy and all that. But now I see a lot of young people, a lot of eager people. It’s just very encouraging to talk to these people. I really think something big is happening even apart from Trump that we’re getting into the mainstream media more. They can’t really ignore us that much and I think it’s just very encouraging to see this happen, because even 5 years ago I wasn’t at all convinced it would happen.
GJ: Yeah, I look back over the last 15 years or so that I’ve been involved with all of this and it’s getting on 16 years ago now. I remember the first rooms that I was in, the first meetings I was at. It was people who were all older than me, and most of them were grim, unsmiling, and defensive people.
GJ: I’ve gotten 16 years older, but at the same time there are a lot of people who are significantly younger than me, and younger than I was when I got involved in this stuff, who are smiling and have a sense of humor about this and a sense of optimism. That really, I think, is a remarkable change.
KM: I think they’re psychologically normal, for lack of a better word. They’re not at all neurotic or strange or anything else. They’re just really together people, and that’s the kind of people we need. We need really well-spoken, articulate, personally agreeable kind of people and that’s what we got now.
GJ: Yeah, I agree. I think it’s a tremendous change. Have you been noticing rising traffic at The Occidental Observer this year?
KM: Yeah. I think it’s sort of steady lately, but I think within the last year it was sort of up about 33% of what we used to be on a regular basis and sometimes quite a bit more than that. So, I’m optimistic about that too. We’re doing pretty well. Obviously, I’d like to do more, and financial issues are still sort of there, you know. They’re always sort of there. As you know, it’s a headache to try to run something like this, because you have to put out stuff pretty much every day, and it’s a struggle. But I do think it is paying off, because we get a community of people. I do get a lot of emails saying, “I’m so thankful for your site. You really opened my eyes. I see things differently now.” That kind of thing. It’s really gratifying.
GJ: Yeah, I’m getting the same thing. We’ve had tremendous growth really starting, I think, in August. We’ve had more than a million unique visitors to the website so far this year and the year’s almost over. We’ve had more than 100,000 unique visitors every month for the last several months. Also, by the same token though, we haven’t seen a tremendous growth in book sales or in donations. We’ve just seen a tremendous growth in the number of people who are reading free stuff that we’re putting out there, and so one of the problems that I’m going to have to face in 2016 is figuring out how to make our donor base grow along with the readership. It’s got to stay proportionate.
I kept track of the number of unique individual donors in 2015 and so far we have 331 unique individual donors who are keeping afloat an operation that reached more than 1 million unique individual viewers. So, that is a very tiny percentage of our readers keeping the whole thing afloat, and we need to broaden that base of support, definitely.
KM: I would agree with that. Same thing for Occidental Observer. I think VDare has been very adept at getting funding and they’re doing very well. Sort of a beacon to us all.
GJ: Well, I need to sit down with Peter Brimelow and pick his brain then about what he’s doing right.
One of the big things in 2015 has been the migrant crisis in Europe. What are your thoughts on that?
KM: Well, it is a crisis. It’s a disaster. There are, of course, some encouraging signs. Certainly Viktor Orbán in Hungary is standing up, and probably some other Eastern European countries are not at all happy about this. You do see increasing support for the Front National in France and other anti-immigration parties elsewhere.
It’s frustrating though, you know. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats, I understand, got increasing support because of this, but they’re still well short of a majority, and it’s going to take a majority there and in France. In the second round of voting in France, for example, the Front National was basically shut out of those local constituencies, and the problem is they need to get more than 50% because all these parties basically gang up on them. Even the socialists will go with the moderate conservatives against the Front National, so this is going to take a while but I am encouraged.
Also, the fact that it’s so sudden is waking a lot of people up. When it sort of goes in dribs and drabs. and you don’t notice much of a change from year to year, it doesn’t much matter. But now it’s happened so quickly in places like Germany, and everybody is aware of it. They’re just streaming into Europe. I think that is bound to wake people up, and because these people are who they are, there is going to be more terrorism, and there’s going to be more dysfunctionality and crime. These Africans and the rape gangs are not going to stop, and so Europeans are going to understand — gradually, I think — that they have to do something to preserve their people and their culture. This is horrifying. But, as usual, we see these hostile elites. Unfortunately people like Angela Merkel see their future as becoming . . . Whether it’s Nobel prizes or Time’s Woman of the Year, this is how they feel that they . . . It’s certainly been good for them so far, but that has to change.
GJ: And it is so interesting, all these Jewish organizations lining up to pressure for more Muslim immigration into Europe while at the same time they’re absolutely not taking any Muslims into Israel, which is right next door to Syria.
KM: It’s such an amazing phenomenon! I mean, really, if you think about it. And these people who are the spokesmen for these organizations . . . There’s actually this Israeli organization called Israel Aid or something like that that is doing this. They go outside of Israel, they go to Europe, and they sign up people, they encourage the refugees, they tell them what to do, where to go and all that. They help them. and you get these quotes as if they are the most moral people in the world, you know, they are a shining beacon to humanity when it comes to aid of the downtrodden and all that. Anybody with a 4th grade education could see that this is just massively hypocritical. They would never do this to their own country. But they say it with a straight face. I’ve got to wonder, “Do they believe it?” I just don’t know! You talk about deception and self-deception. Take your pick! It’s just an amazing phenomenon. But they say it with such aplomb, you know? “We’re the good guys! Helping to save the world!” It’s amazing.
GJ: So, what are some of your hopes, your expectations, and maybe even a few predictions if you want to go that far, for 2016?
KM: Oh, my hopes are that Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination, and I do think he could beat Hillary Clinton. I think that Hillary Clinton has a lot of personal negatives and that people don’t like her much. She’s involved in all these scandals with her email and the Clinton Foundation and things from the past. I think that she is beatable. I think Trump can beat her.
I do think that a wild card would be that these neo-cons would definitely prefer — and a lot of the Republican establishment would prefer — Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, because she has quite a few neo-cons on board her foreign policy team. She has been involved in what happened in Libya and Syria and all these things. So she’s got her hands dirty in all that stuff. So, she’s much more on board. I worry that these neo-cons will run somebody else. I don’t know who.
I predict that — it will be a bold prediction, and I know it’s wishful thinking perhaps — Donald Trump can and will win the presidency. This will be one of the most amazing years in American political history.
As far as other things. In Europe, I’m pessimistic in the short-run in Europe, because I think that these elites are now saying, “We can’t have any more in Germany, we can’t have any more in Sweden,” but at the same time they’re not deporting anyone, and I think they’re trying to make the situation manageable and politically palatable. I think that especially Germany is so far gone when it comes to any kind of nationalist feeling that they probably will not unseat Merkel, but I do hope for a revolution elsewhere. The Front National could possibly win in 2017, but again I wouldn’t bet on it because they have to have a majority, and it’s extremely frustrating that the average Frenchman can’t figure out that this is the only way forward for them. So, I’m pessimistic about that.
GJ: Yeah, I tend to be pessimistic in the short-run and optimistic in the long-run precisely because I think these bad things that are going to be happening in the short-run do tend to argue in favor of the policies that we favor. So, I do think in 2016 there’s going to be a lot more terrorism in Europe. We began 2015 with the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. Then November 13th there was this massive massacre in Paris. There will be many more such events in Europe, and I think that the societies that are going to be little islands of peace are going to be the ones like Hungary, which is controlling its borders, Poland, which is saying, “We want absolutely no refugees.” The new prime minister said after the attack in Paris, “Under these circumstances, we can take no refugees.” She’s absolutely right.
GJ: The Czech president, Zeman, is very openly critical of the EU and of the refugee policy. The Slovaks are very critical of this. I think that Orbán is really encouraging resistance in Eastern Europe.
KM: Yeah, he’s a leader. He’s terrific.
GJ: And so I’m thinking that because things are going to get worse in the short-run in the countries that have the largest number of refugees and migrants that that will help the native nationalist parties to build up their constituencies. I think it will be true in Sweden. I think it’s going to be true in France. Germany and England are more problematic, because the Germans are so brainwashed and because their nationalist opposition is so suppressed, and really after the collapse of the British National Party in England there is no organization that really is the standard bearer for British nationalism. UKIP: That’s pretty weak tea.
KM: Pretty weak tea, yeah. As horrifying as it is, I almost hope that there will be more terrorist incidents, because this is something that really fuels the opposition and fuels nationalism and makes people realize that this is not working out, that this is just a grievous mistake, and it’s insane to bring more of these people into their countries.
As much as I grieve for the people who will die in this, I hope that there are more, because people have to wake up to this. The problem is we have this little by little, we give them all this welfare, and the media keeps all of the crime out of the newspapers and television, and people aren’t really aware of how bad it is and how many of them are on welfare and involved in criminality, their low academic achievement, and their lack of assimilation, and their hatred for the West. All that’s kinda . . . You wouldn’t even figure that out on your own if you’re in England or in Germany probably. But when you had these big terrorist incidents, you can’t keep that off the front page. Hundreds of people dying in Paris is not something you can shut up and so those are the things that really get through.
GJ: Exactly. Yeah, I can’t say that I hope it will happen, but I know that it will happen.
GJ: And what we stand for, of course, is policies that would prevent these things from happening, but the truth though about people is that most people learn not by reason but by experience, and the experience that they’re going to have is suffering. The experience is terrorism and the overall decline in their quality of life.
You know, people like us have been predicting this sort of stuff for decades and generations now, and I think more people are finally listening. I do think that eventually groups like the Front National and the Sweden Democrats can put together absolute majorities in their countries.
KM: Yeah, I think so. It will be a while and it’s frustrating that they can’t now. I just can’t understand the mentality of a French voter not voting for the Front National or a Swedish voter. It just boggles the mind, but that’s reality.
GJ: Well, let’s switch gears a little bit. I want to talk about your recent lectures and writing. You’re writing a book on really the nature of Europeans. Can you tell us a little bit about that project?
KM: Yeah, it’s a very difficult long-term project. I’ve made quite a bit of progress. Basically, I see our origins as involving two major cultural-genetic inputs. One are the Indo-Europeans, a very militarized culture, very hierarchical. Extremely militarized. They were able to just conquer everywhere — into Europe, down into India, over to China. An incredible force in the ancient world. That was one of our main influences.
But the other one, a more northern hunter-gatherer mentality, much more egalitarian, much more prone to what I call “moral in-groups,” but in both cases not really involved in kinship to the extent that we see in other parts of the world. Much more individualistic and that in a way is our blessing and our curse, because I think individualism ultimately is a weakness in the modern world with all the media that’s not in our hands anymore. We tend not to have close ties. It’s hard for us to make cohesive groups based on our ethnic interests and so on. But it’s not completely absent, and my hope is that we can mobilize Europeans ultimately around an understanding of our own ethnicity and the moral imperative of preserving our people.
So, that’s ultimately what it’s getting at. First, it’s to understand us from the standpoint of science, anthropology, history, and so on, but also to use that as a sort of rationale for a way forward, to see this also in political terms. By understanding ourselves we can sort of better strategize into the future and understand what we have to do as a people. So, that’s where it is.
Again, it’s a very difficult long-term project and I’ve just come up on some very interesting new material on the history of the family in Europe. It really deepens, I think, the understanding of what was going on. You can sort of see that the Indo-Europeans dominate in especially Northern European culture for so long, but then in the Middle Ages you start to really see the decline of that Indo-European mentality, and the Catholic Church was part of that. Ultimately, my most recent idea is that the Catholic Church really reinforced these egalitarian tendencies from the hunter-gatherer strand of European culture and sent Europe much more in the direction of egalitarianism and ultimately created the modern world.
That is what created the modern world. The rise of representative government and all of these things that are unique to Europe. We are absolutely unique in this regard. But all that’s falling apart now. If we pursue these egalitarian ideologies to their limit that would mean to think that all peoples are the same and they can all come in and all that. We can’t do that. We have to stop some place and really understand, “We are Europeans. We’re different, and we have to have our own space,” basically.
GJ: Are you familiar with the writer who goes as HBD Chick?
KM: Oh yeah, yeah. HBD Chick, yeah.
GJ: My friend Brett wanted me to ask you about her theory about low ethnocentrism in Northern Europe. She argues that Northern Europeans were pretty clannish people like Southern Europeans until the Middle Ages really, when the Catholic Church enforced exogamy, basically, on them and sort of bred the Northern European individualist. Do you think that is plausible? Because, for one thing, Southern Europe was Catholic too, and Southern Europe is still more clannish than Northern Europe, even though they had the same church. So, I’m just curious what your take is on the role of, say, Catholic exogamy rules in lowering the amount of ethnocentrism that you find in Northern Europeans.
KM: Well, that’s the thing. I think she and I are reading some of the same things, but we’re ending up with different conclusions. I think that your argument there is actually one that I am prepared to make that there are these differences between Northern and Southern Europe independent of Christianity. Christianity existed in both places, and you had the Catholic Church in Hungary and Poland and so on. You didn’t see those tendencies there so much.
She also talks about the sort of feudal system of manors. The system whereby you’d have these lords and so on. But again it was very different in Europe than elsewhere, and you can see the individual was very decentralized, and it was not based on kinship from the beginning. At one point, this historian talks about the fact that these tendencies just seem to be primordial, and I think they are.
When the Germanic tribes came into the Roman Empire they certainly conquered these large areas. But it wasn’t long before they started assimilating with the people around them. They didn’t set up barriers, you know? And that’s the thing, I don’t see Europeans doing that. Even these Germanic peoples were not that tribal. And in fact that’s one of the things that really strikes me about the historians that I’m reading. They deemphasize the tribal nature of European culture long before the Middle Ages. Really, you didn’t see it as much, and I’m convinced that these individualistic tendencies were there primordially. They evolved in Northern Europe.
The Indo-Europeans were individualistic in a different way, but actually less so than the Northern Europeans, I believe, and I think I can show that.
But it’s a very complicated situation. I think that is one of the arguments. That Christianity can’t be the whole answer or even the spread of the Germanic feudal system, because it’s simply not coextensive with that. Groups in Eastern Europe retained much more of a sense of kinship long past it in Western Europe was long gone.
GJ: Yeah, that’s very interesting. I just want to talk about some of these basic terms that you’re using. So, one of the phenomena that’s interesting is low ethnocentrism. Northern Europeans tend to be low in their ethnocentrism, which implies that they’re more open to strangers, and it also implies that they’re more open to treating people that they encounter as individuals rather than as members of groups.
GJ: Are those all basically equivalent?
KM: Yeah, I think they all correlate very strongly. They’re just about the same thing, really.
KM: Low ethnocentrism really means that you’re more open to strangers, you’re more altruistic toward strangers, and, as you say, you see people not as members of groups but as individuals. That is something that these Jewish organizations are constantly promoting, the idea that you can’t group people. That’s why they were so horrified when Donald Trump started talking about Muslims, excluding a group of people, see? That is what was so anathema to them, because it really is a collectivist response, because you’re starting to see people in group terms. That is what they really fight to the death about. You don’t want to see things in those terms.
GJ: They don’t want us to see things in those terms. That’s how they see everything.
KM: That’s how they see everything, but they don’t want us to see it that way.
GJ: The people who want you to be blind are usually the ones who are up to something that doesn’t bear being seen, right? They want you to be blind because they’re up to no good. So, when people talk about group-blindness or color-blindness or whatever: Since when is blindness a virtue?
One of the things that I want to address is that there are some commentators in forums on the web who have reacted with some alarm to your recent writing on basically white low ethnocentrism, white altruism, white individualism. They think that this somehow repudiates or contradicts your earlier work Jewish influence. They think that in effect what you’re saying is, “Well, really, it’s White people’s fault — not the fault of Jews — that we’re now in this terrible state where we’re being dispossessed of our homelands.”
How do you respond to that kind of concern?
KM: Well, my analysis is that we have to take both things into account. The Jewish intellectual movements, Jewish involvement in the media take advantage of these tendencies that we have, tendencies towards individualism, tendencies toward empathy towards strangers. One of the papers I wrote not long ago was on the anti-slavery movement in the 18th century. This was before the Jews were there, before there was any Jewish influence, but they were incredibly empathic towards these African slaves and just hated their white masters, even though the white masters were closely related to them.
This is something that we are, and we have to understand it. This is how we are being manipulated now. How many times have you heard whenever Donald Trump says something about Muslims or Mexicans they say, “This contradicts our basic values!” as if America really is a set of values. That’s what they’ve pushed on us. This goes right into our wheelhouse. Americans want to and have to think of what they do as morally OK. All of our wars have been justified as moral imperatives, whether it’s the Iraq War or World War II or the Civil War or World War I. They were all motivated officially and in the minds of a great many people by moral imperatives. So, we have to understand that about ourselves. We are being taken advantage of here. These tendencies are being manipulated by people who are hostile to us. This is not benign at all and so I do have a critical role for Jews.
If we just could have our own culture and keep it apart from other people our individualism is great. We produce high trust cultures. We produce incredible dynamism and incredible inventiveness. We conquered the world! 100 years, 90% of the landmass of the world was dominated by White people. So, we are incredibly talented, but this individualism can be manipulated and ever since WWII especially this has just been a campaign by Jewish activist organizations. I think we motivated Jewish intellectuals and Jewish intellectual movements and so on and they have, every last one of them, they are always emphasizing these moral issues. They understand what it takes to move the masses of White people.
What’s so great about Donald Trump is he’s not dialing into it. He’s the end of political correctness and “stop talking that way” and all this stuff about “values” and all that. That’s to be applauded to say the least.
GJ: Yeah, that’s very interesting. That’s basically how I responded to that argument, which is that, “Look, in any interaction between two groups, you can’t understand that interaction, if you don’t understand the nature of both parties.”
GJ: And there has to be something about us that they are taking advantage of, because they certainly have found a way of getting to the very top of our societies and then running them into the ground. The question then becomes, what is our susceptibility to this? Because we can’t change them, really, but if we can understand ourselves we can change ourselves. We can monitor ourselves in a sense, stop ourselves when we start behaving in naïve and self-destructive ways. So, you’ve got to understand this as an interaction between two different groups of people with distinct natures.
KM: The fact is that there’s never been any society in human history that’s just voluntarily committed suicide the way we’re seeing now. It’s a self-destructive tendency, as you say. There’s something about us that’s allowing this, because I just don’t think that this could have happened to the Chinese or the Arabs. Can you imagine now going into the Arab countries and saying, “Well, you’re evil because you started out as small tribes in Arabia, and then you conquered all these areas and concubinage and all these different things, slavery that was done for hundreds of years,” and try to make them feel guilty about it? They’re never going to feel guilty about it.
What is it about Europeans? The reality of colonialism, which was benign compared to so many things that happened in human history, is something that the English people and the British people are just self-abasing about. It’s like horrifying and guilty. So, what is it about us? I just want to understand that.
GJ: One of the things that makes me angriest is any kind of con artist who basically takes advantage of our good nature, our trust. There was a person I knew who went to Berlin. I guess this was around 1999 or so, and he was getting off the U-Bahn train from the airport, and as he got out of the car of the train carrying his luggage this woman carrying a baby walks towards him and stumbles and drops the baby. And gallant fellow that he was, he dropped his luggage and grabbed the baby before it hit the pavement and then two little Gypsy boys ran off with his luggage.
GJ: It was a scam, basically. And you have to ask yourself how many times a day did that baby hit the pavement to facilitate this kind of scam. But something like that strikes me as far more evil than just hitting someone over the head and taking their luggage, because if somebody knocks you over the head and takes your luggage you’ve lost your luggage and you’ve got a bruise, but they haven’t undermined your ability to trust other people, which is the foundation of our entire civilization.
GJ: And the people who engage in confidence schemes, they depend upon the matrix of trust that makes civilization possible, and they undermine it to their own benefit. I look at white people as the kind of people who have been able to create these vast, complex, high trust societies, because we are willing to take risks when we encounter strangers of being open to them. And it’s a risk every time you’re open to a stranger, because they could be taking advantage of that. The worst kinds of people are these parasitic groups, the free riders, who enjoy the benefits of high trust society, but they fake our virtues, they pretend to care about these things, and then they use our virtues against us.
You see that with Gypsies, and you see that with Jews on a much, much more ambitious scale. But it’s the same kind of scheme where they emulate our individualistic ethics, and yet they are doing it for their own tribal group interests, and they always do it at our expense. If we understand our nature and our tendency to behave this way, we can start trying to correct it. It would be interesting. It would be really interesting if we could come up with, say, a set of tests, questions you can ask, or behaviors you can observe, to help you evaluate whether or not a person who is coming into your circle of influences, your social circle, is one of these people who is faking it in order to exploit you or not. I’ve been taken advantage of many times by people like this, and I’d like to have a handy test to do that.
Well, social psychologists are the ones who can come up with this.
KM: Unfortunately, social psychology is one of those areas that is massively infiltrated by the Left. They’re trying to find ways to get over people’s implicit, natural biases against outside groups. Sort of psychological technology in the service of the Left.
GJ: Right. Exactly. They’re trying to undermine our ability to preserve ourselves rather than augment it.
Actually, this leads into a friend’s question. My friend Nathan wanted me to ask you if you see much hope that social psychology is going to be able to throw off the shackles of political correctness in the next few decades, or is it just going to get worse?
KM: That’s a tough one. They are becoming more self-conscience of it now. A well-known psychologist who’s name escapes me right now published several papers, including one in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, which is a high profile journal, on the fact that social psychology is incredibly biased towards the Left. That doesn’t only mean that they vote Democrat. It means that if somebody was applying for a job they will not hire them unless they give their properly liberal credentials, and if they’re going out for tenure they can’t even hope for tenure if they get any whiff of being conservative even. So, social psychology is the worst area of psychology, but so many of the areas of the social sciences are that way, but I’m not sure that being self-conscious about it really helps any more than all these campus protestors when you tell them. They’re sort of proud of being opposed to free speech. “No free speech for Fascists!” sort of thing. They wear that as a badge, and I don’t think they see scientific objectivity as at all important.
I just read an article from a professor over at St. Louis University talking about criminology and that criminologists are ostracized and can’t get jobs and so on and can’t find advisors in graduate school if they want to take biological perspectives on criminology. It’s that bad, and so they don’t care about truth. They’re just going to keep talking about their sociological hypotheses and keep publishing that stuff, and there’s never any concern really with finding out what’s going on. They’ll just keep doing this forever and keep getting their salaries, I guess.
So, I don’t know that it’s going to change. I’m not at all confident of that, because how’s it going to change? They don’t feel the need to bring in someone who is consciously ethnocentric or into biology or behavior genetics. They just want to exclude those people. They don’t feel the need to have a diverse set of opinions.
GJ: Well, that really sort of speaks to the early issue we were discussing. Our virtues are used against us or held against us, because one of the things that the Left loves to do whenever they want something from us is to appeal to tolerance. And yet it’s obvious that they have absolutely no interest in tolerating us.
GJ: Tolerance is something that they use to get favors from us, and it’s never reciprocated at which point you just have to say, “Look, tolerance is just not valuable. It’s not valuable if it’s not reciprocated. It’s just a way we are being exploited and used by people who are basically kind of sociopathic.”
KM: Yeah. It’s been sort of amusing to watch what’s going on at the universities in the past year where very liberal professors are now being attacked by the Left for various reasons. Microaggressions of various kinds. The president of the University of Missouri, this whole incident at Yale, there have been a whole lot of other ones where the far Left is going after the moderate Left or the sort of classical liberal types. These liberals are just sort of stunned. They can’t believe what’s happening, but it’s absolutely predictable. The Left has never been tolerant. You go back to Communism. They don’t believe in free speech. Of course not. And that’s what these people really are now.
GJ: Exactly. I have to confess there’s a bit of Schadenfreude here.
GJ: When I see these people being consumed by the people that they brought in, and they set up.
KM: Yeah, I love it. I love it. And the people at Yale were classic. One was the dean and his wife and they ended up apologizing and apologizing. But it wasn’t enough, you know! Then he’s on a sabbatical, and he probably has to resign from his position. Oh God . . . You know, a well-known scholar and he’s talking about, “Oh, I’ve always been so liberal and blah blah blah!” It’s not enough anymore! Sorry!
GJ: Yeah. Racism is now being color-blind. That’s racism. They’ve moved the goalposts.
KM: They moved the goalposts. They sure did.
GJ: You can’t just be a good white liberal anymore. It’s not enough and I think that in a way that’s playing into our hands. I think that a significant number of people in the center are now going to realize that they simply can’t win at the multicultural game. That it’s basically a scam.
GJ: It’s a way that they’re being conned to give up and give up and give up everything they’ve got to a bunch of rent-seeking parasites and radical agitators. At a certain point people just have to give up on this stuff.
KM: Yeah, I’m just wondering, I mean, say you’re a male in college now. Are you really going to go along with all this stuff? I mean, to be rebellious is not to go along with that stuff anymore. They’ve got to see that they don’t even have any status in those groups. Some of those groups are excluding white people from attending meetings and stuff like that. Well, how long can that last before white people start waking up, at least implicitly, and start to question all this stuff?
GJ: Yeah, that’s my hope. Again, I think a lot of people basically learn through suffering and there’s a whole lot more in store in 2016.
KM: It’s going to be harder and harder for us to move away from it, too. I just posted an article now on Occidental Observer talking about the fact that they’re trying to settle all these immigrants, these migrants, invaders in East Germany, which was until now very, very white. It’s very intentional. They want to just make it so there’s no all-white, all-German communities anymore, so that people can’t move away from it anymore. I think that’s when white people start waking up, when they really can’t avoid it anymore.
GJ: Yeah. Americans have this idea that we fight for our freedom when really the truth is we just run away for it. You know, we ran to the New World, our ancestors did, and we run from cities to suburbs and suburbs to the countryside. We keep moving one more exit down the interstate, and eventually those options are going to be closed off, and there’s going to be no option but to actually fight.
KM: Yeah. Let’s hope.
GJ: Well, Kevin, I think this has been a great conversation. We’ve been going for a little more than an hour, so we probably should wrap up. Do you have any final thoughts? Any final things that you want to communicate to our audience out there?
KM: It’s been a great conversation. Again, I think that the main message that we have here is that we are getting more hopeful that there are things going in our direction, very powerfully now and we should all be hopeful and confident about the future.
GJ: Well, thank you very much.
KM: Thank you!