Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?

by Robert Morgan

Kevin MacDonald is more or less a charlatan who, by exclusively focusing on Jews, is unable to explain a great deal of self-destructive white racial behavior. For example, in his magnum opus The Culture of Critique, he confines his analysis to the twentieth century without considering what went before, so naturally a distorted picture results. He neglects to even note in passing that in the nineteenth century, an America nearly 100% white and Christian, in the grip of a religious mania, tore itself in two in order to free their negro slaves and grant them full citizenship and the vote.

All the rest of the racial disaster that has unfolded since then has only been a matter of living up to commitments written in the ocean of white blood shed in that conflict.

It would seem that almost the only way to explain this behavior in the absence of a “hostile elite” (trade mark) is to say that Christianity itself from the beginning has been a Jewish plot to undermine the white race; and indeed, some (Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others) have taken this tack. For MacDonald, this isn’t a satisfactory alternative though, since that would entail giving credit to Jews for white civilizational accomplishments (or at least, what MacDonald considers accomplishments) during the period of Christendom’s expansion. It would amount to admitting that there’s been a symbiosis between whites and Jews that has been at times beneficial to whites.

Because he tries to view everything through this distorting lens of cultural conflict between Jews and whites, and to scrupulously avoid indicting Christianity, he has to come up with absurdities like “pathological altruism”, and white “guilt”, which supposedly the Jews are able to manipulate and direct outside of white control. He sees these psychological mechanisms as rooted in genetic difference between the races, yet is unable to explain why pre-Christian or non-Christian societies never suffered from such problems. Ancient Rome even had plenty of powerful Jews and didn’t; nor, at least until after the Christian takeover, did it have a “hostile elite”.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

I placed a quotation mark after the title only because I believe that MacDonald is still useful when trying to debunk the lunatic fringe in white nationalism. (See, for example, what I responded here to a regular visitor who literally considers Jews as non-human, demonic entities.)

Published in: on June 6, 2019 at 2:35 pm  Comments (6)  

6 Comments

  1. “an America nearly 100% white and Christian, in the grip of a religious mania, tore itself in two in order to free their negro slaves and grant them full citizenship and the vote.”

    Plenty of biographical data exists on Abe Lincoln to dispute the above statement. The case can be built that Dishonest Abe was an opportunist head case who didn’t mind sucking tariffs from the south’s money crops to fuel the north’s industrial growth. and his priority was keeping the union together at all costs. No secessions allowed . Freeing the negro slaves was simply a useful issue as long as it worked to draw troops to Abe’s union cause.

    I’d rather 50 sovereign state fiefdom’s draw each others’ blood than a bully central government running amok over subservient member states. (Dream on. Never happen. The Broken States of American will disappear first.)

    • Sorry but there’s no data.

      The claim that the American Civil War was other than what Morgan stated above is a fashion within the racialist right for obvious reasons: it debunks monocausality (as the fact that the Iberians screwed big time sans Jews debunks the same single-cause hypothesis in the Americas).

      In the past few months, at Unz Review Morgan went to lengthy pains to explain to those self-righteous, Xtian, racialist righters that what moved Lincoln and the Yankees was exactly that: a specific form of Puritanical morality that demanded the liberation of Negroes.

      Have you reviewed Morgan’s dozens of posts on that site on the matter of Lincoln et al (see also one of the 2015 posts on this site: here)?

      • i’ve read enough of Morgan’s posts to detect bias, though i still like to read him. (No one is above reproach.) Look beyond the horizon a bit: Andrew Lytle and his group of southern agrarians. And the mad man (not really) Edgar Lee Masters. (And these two authors are only a tips of the ice bergs. The post civil war propagandists have done their job well in trashing the south. As with most conflicts, the winners control the post mortem narratives.)

      • i’ve read enough of Morgan’s posts to detect bias, though i

        Next time I’d capitalize the two ‘i’ :)

  2. But jews are non-human demonic entities that use human vehicles to accomplish their satanic rebellion against order and truth.
    Christianity indeed has been a disaster for Europeans. But jews were definitely a nuissance in ancient Rome too. Just read Cicero.

    • You are not reading what I wrote or what? I said that the commenter in question claims that Jews are, literally, non-human demons. Did you miss it? (As to Cicero, he is quoted in the very masthead of this site, the Rome vs. Judea essay.)

      Please don’t comment here again unless you thoroughly familiarize yourself, at least, with my masthead. Thank you!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: