I’ve figured out why so many antisemites’ arguments consist entirely of “Kevin MacDonald said so” and why they throw tantrums when you point out that MacDonald got a lot of simple facts wrong, ignored important historical events that didn’t suit his claims, and even changed his mind constantly throughout his books (at least the two that I have read) about exactly what those claims were.
This weekend, I was having a civilized debate with a liberal friend of mine. I cited some facts to support my point and linked to an article to verify the facts. She pointed out that the article was on a conservative news site, so how did she know it was trustworthy? Of course, conservative news sites are the only ones that are at all trustworthy, but rather than try to convince her of this, I spent a few minutes digging up articles on “mainstream” (i.e. liberal) sites with the same facts in them. With the facts established, we were able to get on with debating our interpretations of them.
But if you tell a Kevin MacDonald groupie that “Kevin MacDonald said so” is not good enough for you, they have nowhere else to go. Sure, they can find evidence in any history book that for the past century and a half, Jews have joined corrupt Gentiles in promoting progressivism, a belief system invented by Gentiles while my ancestors were shut up in shtetls, and that progressivism and all its elements – socialism, the insistence that all races are equal, etc. – is clearly bad for humanity. This is, unfortunately, true. But if you want to contend that progressivism is all our fault, or that we’ve been plotting to dominate Gentiles for hundreds or thousands of years, the evidence just isn’t there. Any history book will yield facts that support the contention that black people are not intelligent enough to invent things or create a civilization; the debate between race realists and egalitarians is over the interpretation of those facts. Finding evidence of harmful Jewish behavior from before the publication of The Communist Manifesto (which was a rip-off of works by two Gentiles, Thomas More and Plato) is very difficult. Finding evidence that now we are trying to take over the world or ruin Gentiles also requires selectively interpreting the facts. Kevin MacDonald has to use numerous factual errors and ignore major historical events to support his claims. History books by anyone else, whether they like Jews or not, are not going to contain the same factual errors or ignore the historical events that go against his theories.
So when you point out that Kevin MacDonald is not a trustworthy source, which he isn’t, his groupies have nowhere else to go. His books, and perhaps a few written by his groupies, are literally the only ones which will support his worldview.
Over at Counter-Currents there are at least two articles claiming that St. Paul repackaged Christianity and marketed it to Gentiles to achieve Jewish domination with the Christian ideals of universalism and equality of all humans. None of the gaping holes in this thesis are so much as mentioned. The claim that St. Paul’s goal in life was to dominate Gentiles is not supported except by mentioning that he was a Jew. So of course all he wanted was to dominate Gentiles! That’s what all Jews want, everybody knows that! Haven’t you read Kevin MacDonald? That Christianity was not interpreted to mean that everyone was equal until the Gentile enterprise known as the Enlightenment, a movement which made Christianity weaker than it has been since the time of Constantine, is not explained. Christians spent the better part of the next two millenia depriving Jews of citizenship, expelling us from one country after another, confining us to ghettoes and shtetls and pales, sending the Inquisition to torture us into converting, and conducting the occasional pogrom. This means that if Christianity was indeed an attempt to dominate Gentiles, it was a laughable failure. This is not explained by the articles I mentioned. The only rebuttal I can think of that my enemies might make is that it was only when Europe became more secular and the Nazis led a bit of a pagan revival that the Holocaust happened, and that would require the antisemite making the argument to admit that the Holocaust happened.
That my people have behaved badly since the early 20th century (before that it was only a microscopic handful, i.e. Karl Marx, who were behaving in an antisocial manner) is true. Believe me, I wish it weren’t, but it is.
But saving the White race depends on Whites who acknowledge this without entertaining flimsy theories about the Jews being the sole cause of all bad things. The committed antisemites – that is, the ones who believe we are innately bad no matter what – can’t do it, for a few reasons. One is that they can’t be bothered to gather facts before accepting loony theories, like the Counter-Currents authors mentioned above. Another is, like them and MacDonald, that they are not very logical. Even if they were right about us, when they apply that kind of logic to other things, they will inevitably bring about disaster to Gentiles, never mind us. And finally, they can’t take responsibility. I have, several times in this blog, admitted and deplored the fact that many of my people have behaved in a harmful way in the past century and a half. The antisemites refuse to accept that White Gentiles have done most of this stuff to themselves, or that much of what they deplore is contained in human nature – the nature of all humans. For instance, some of these people believe that a “command economy” will actually work as long as there are no Jews around to muck it up. That every command economy in history has been an abysmal failure, because it goes completely against innate human urges to competition and acquisitiveness, they ignore. The corruption of the modern West is simply the same inevitable decline of every civilization, but this, too, they refuse to admit; nothing would ever decline if Jews didn’t make it decline, according to them. Progressive ideas are also the unavoidable ego-saving mechanism of humans who know themselves to be corrupt and inferior, not a plot from us:
And this answer is that, in the last analysis, civilization always depends upon the qualities of the people who are the bearers of it. All these vast accumulations of instruments and ideas, massed and welded into marvelous structures rising harmoniously in glittering majesty, rest upon living foundations — upon the men and women who create and sustain them. So long as those men and women are able to support it, the structure rises, broad-based and serene; but let the living foundations prove unequal to the task, and the mightiest civilization sags, cracks, and at last crashes down into chaotic ruin.
Civilization thus depends absolutely upon the quality of its human supporters.
This fact is that, while hereditary qualities are implanted in the individual with no action on his part, social acquirements are taken over only at the cost of distinct effort. How great this effort may become is easily seen by the long years of strenuous mental labor required in modern youth to assimilate the knowledge already gained by adults. That old saying, “There is no royal road to learning,” illustrates the hard fact that each successive generation must tread the same thorny path if the acquirements of the past are to be retained. Of course, it is obvious that the more acquirements increase, the longer and steeper the path must be. And this raises the query: May there not come a point where the youthful traveller will be unable to scale the height — where the effort required will be beyond his powers?
Well, this is precisely what has happened numberless times in the past. It is happening to multitudes of individuals about us every day.
Now, among our human categories we have observed that progress is primarily due to the superiors. It is they who found and further civilizations. As for the intermediate mass, it accepts the achievements of its creative pioneers. Its attitude is receptive. This receptivity is due to the fact that most of the intermediate grades are near enough to the superiors to understand and assimilate what the superiors have initiated.
But what about the inferiors? Hitherto we have not analyzed their attitude. We have seen that they are incapable of either creating of furthering civilization, and are thus a negative hindrance to progress. But the inferiors are not mere negative factors in civilized life; they are also positive — in an inverse, destructive sense. The inferior elements are, instinctively or consciously, the enemies of civilization. And they are its enemies, not by chance, but because they are more or less uncivilizable.
The word inferior has, however, been so often employed as a synonym for degenerate that it tends to produce confusion of thought, and to avoid this I have coined a term which seems to describe collectively all those kinds of persons whom I have just discussed. This term is The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives. And this term I shall henceforth employ.
Now how does the Under-Man look at civilization? This civilization offers him few benefits and fewer hopes. It usually affords him little beyond a meagre subsistence. And, sooner or later, he instinctively senses that he is a failure; that civilization’s prizes are not for him. But this civilization, which withholds benefits, does not hesitate to impose burdens. We have previously stated that civilization’s heaviest burdens are borne by the superior. Absolutely, this is true; relatively the Under-Man’s intrinsically lighter burdens feel heavier because of his innate incapacity. The very discipline of the social order oppresses the Under-Man; it thwarts and chastises him at every turn. To wild natures society is a torment, while the congenital caveman, placed in civilization, is always in trouble and usually in jail.
Such is the Under-Man’s unhappy lot. Now, what is his attitude toward that civilization from which he has so little to hope? What but instinctive opposition and discontent? These feelings, of course, vary all the way from dull, unreasoning dislike to flaming hatred and rebellion. But, in the last analysis, they are directed not merely against imperfections in the social order, but against the social order itself. This is a point which is rarely mentioned, and still more rarely understood. Yet it is the meat of the whole matter. We must realize clearly that the basic attitude of the Under-Man is an instinctive and natural revolt against civilization. The reform of abuses may diminish the intensity of social discontent.
Lastly, there is the “misguided superior.” He is a strange phenomenon! Placed by nature in the van of civilization, he goes over to its enemies. This seems inexplicable. Yet it can be explained. As the Under-Man revolts because civilization is so far ahead of him, so the misguided superior revolts because it is so far behind. Exasperated by its slow progress, shocked at its faults, and erroneously ascribing to mankind in general his own lofty impulses, the misguided superior dreams short cuts to the millennium and joins the forces of social revolt, not realizing that their ends are profoundly different even though their methods may be somewhat the same. The misguided superior is probably the most pathetic figure in human history. Flattered by designing scoundrels, used to sanctify sinister schemes, and pushed forward as a figurehead during the early stages of revolutionary agitation, the triumph of the revolution brings him to a tragic end. Horrified at sight of barbarism’s unmasked face, he tries to stay its destructive course. In vain! The Under-Man turns upon his former champion with a snarl and tramples him into the mud.
Source: The Revolt Against Civilization by Lothrop Stoddard
If the White race is to have a future, it is up to White Jews and Whites who can accept that Jews are not the source of all bad things to secure it. Those who blame us for everything cannot do it.