web analytics
Kevin MacDonald Racial right

My difference with white nationalism in a nutshell

Kevin MacDonald is probably the most respected figure in American white nationalism, whose message is that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline. Thomas Kuhn used the Rubin vase to illustrate how a paradigm shift works: the experience of seeing either a vase or two faces before exactly the same image engages a subject’s subjectivity. For example, MacDonald tells us at the beginning of this article: ‘The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture’.

I would have said: ‘The Gaza war is giving us an astonishing demonstration of the hypnotic power of Judeo-Christianity in the political culture of the United States’, in the sense that if this continent hadn’t been conquered by Christians (let’s say it had been conquered by the Vikings), the Jews wouldn’t have the power they now have in the US.

MacDonald is seeing the faces of Jewry in Rubin’s vase. I am seeing the Christian cup whose Kool-Aid turned many Americans into demented fanatics of the state of Israel. Exactly the same information, the same ‘vase’, is being processed by me and white nationalists in a radically different way!

See these excerpts from David Skrbina and Tom Holland’s books on the origins of Christianity, and what we might call atheistic hyper-Christianity, to understand what we mean.

Free speech / Free press Kevin MacDonald Painting

Blood libel

In his post on Tuesday, Kevin MacDonald said: ‘The “blood libel” is a reasonable belief given Ariel Toaff’s book on medieval Ashkenazi practices.’

His words caught my attention enough to read the afterword Toaff wrote in the second edition of 2008 of his book that caused a stir the previous year: Paque di Sangue (Passovers of Blood).

Yesterday I read the whole afterword and it seemed to me that MacDonald is right to consider Toaff a sound scholar. However, what Toaff says is something much more nuanced than the cartoonish way of looking at the issue, inspired by Christian imagery (see e.g., Hieronymus Bosch’s painting).

But it did Toaff no good to be not only a sound scholar but the son of a highly respected rabbi of Rome. He was cancelled as the vilest Goyim by the same forces that cancel us.

The Toaff scandal reminded me of yesterday’s article by Gregory Hood in American Renaissance, which opens with the words ‘The single most important cultural change of the last 10 years is not transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, or even social media. It’s the end of free speech.’

What Hood omits is that there never was, really, freedom of speech in the West. Alexis de Tocqueville was right from the start: you are allowed to speak only if you refrain from breaking the taboos of the unwritten law, even in the land of the famous First Amendment. So-called freedom of speech has always been a hallucination of those who have been sailing strictly within the waters of accepted discourse.

Kevin MacDonald

Waking up…

A couple of days ago The Occidental Observer (TOO) published an article that contains this sentence:

After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, Paul’s psyop was taken to the next level by other Jewish gospel writers… In the year 326, the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and that was the end of the Roman body politic but the beginning of the assault on the Great White Race.

As I have said before, TOO edited by Kevin MacDonald is already waking up to the Christian Question! I just left a comment with a link to our new PDF, Neo-Christianity.

Kevin MacDonald Mexico City

For Spanish-speaking folk

Do you remember my article under the long title ‘Enrique Krauze, Mexico’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual, Hates Trump (and White, Protestant America)’ that was published almost four years ago in The Occidental Observer?

Enrique Krauze has just published a thick autobiographical book.

I obtained a copy of his book earlier this week and find it fascinating, as Krauze recounts how he was raised by his Jewish family in Mexico City after they fled Poland with Hitler’s rise to power. What he says about Nazism and the Holocaust also fascinated me, as it is rare in Mexico for Jews to speak openly about their philias, phobias and abismal fears, and even more so in books that become bestsellers (as Krauze’s book is becoming)!

I live to the uttermost south of the big city, where apparently no Jews live (in Mexico City, Jews are concentrated in Polanco and Las Lomas). In a café where I used to play chess, years ago I spoke, very briefly, with a Jewish scholar of chess, about Hitler. But I have never had a long conversation with one of them on the subject—which is why I was so interested in the book by Krauze that the Spanish publisher TusQuets has just released (Krauze is even going to Argentina and Chile this month to continue promoting his book!).

Of course: such a book could only be of interest to Spanish speakers who are aware of the Jewish question. Here I can only say that my short 2018 article that Kevin MacDonald accepted for his webzine caused me some trouble, though not serious, in the city where I live.

Bible Carolingian dynasty Christendom Franks Judaism Kevin MacDonald Merovingian dynasty Old Testament

The Holy Hook, 1

Editor’s note: With the subtitle of ‘Yahweh’s Trojan Horse into the Gentile City’, this essay by Laurent Guyénot was published, complete, on May 8, 2019, in The Unz Review.

Is the Church the whore of Yahweh?

I concluded an earlier article [‘Zionism, Crypto-Judaism, and the Biblical Hoax’ —Ed.] by what I regard as the most important ‘revelation’ of modern biblical scholarship, one that has the potential to free the Western world from a two-thousand-year-old psychopathic bond: the jealous Yahweh was originally just the national god of Israel, repackaged into ‘the God of Heaven and Earth’ during the Babylonian Exile, as part of a public relations campaign aimed at Persians, then Greeks and ultimately Romans. The resulting biblical notion that the universal Creator became Israel’s national god at the time of Moses, is thus exposed as a fictitious inversion of the historical process: in reality, it is the national god of Israel who, so to speak, impersonated the universal Creator at the time of Ezra—while remaining intensely ethnocentric.

The Book of Joshua is a good eye-opener to the biblical hoax, because its pre-exilic author never refers to Yahweh simply as ‘God,’ and never implies that he is anything but ‘the god of Israel,’ that is, ‘our god’ for the Israelites, and ‘your god’ for their enemies (25 times). Yahweh shows no interest in converting Canaanite peoples, whom he regards as worthless than their livestock. He doesn’t instruct Joshua to even try to convert them, but simply to exterminate them, in keeping with the war code he gave Moses in Deuteronomy 20.

However, we find in the Book of Joshua one isolated statement by a Canaanite woman that ‘Yahweh your god is God both in Heaven above and on Earth beneath’ (2:11). Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, makes that statement to two Israeli spies who spend the night with her, and whom she hides in exchange for being spared, together with her family, when the Israelites will take over the city and slaughter everyone, ‘men and women, young and old’ (6:21). Rahab’s ‘profession of faith’ is probably a post-exilic insertion, because it doesn’t fit well with her other claim that she is motivated by fear, not by faith: ‘we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach’ (2:9). Nevertheless, the combination of fear and faith is consistent with Yahweh’s ways.

The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem—a scholarly translation by the Dominicans of the École Biblique, which served as guideline for the English Jerusalem Bible—adds a following footnote to Rahab’s ‘profession of faith to the God of Israel’, saying it ‘made Rahab, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.’

I find this footnote emblematic of the role of Christianity in propagating among Gentiles the Israelites’ outrageous metaphysical claim, that great deception that has remained, to this day, a source of tremendous symbolic power. By recognizing her own image in the prostitute of Jericho, the Church claims for herself the role that is exactly hers in history, while radically misleading Christians about the historical significance of that role. It is indeed the Church who, having acknowledged the god of Israel as the universal God, introduced the Jews into the heart of the Gentile city and, over the centuries, allowed them to seize power over Christendom. [Red emphasis by Ed.]

This thesis, which I am going to develop here, may seem fanciful, because we have been taught that Christianity was strongly Judeophobic from the start. And that’s true. For example, John Chrysostom, perhaps the most influential Greek theologian of the crucial 4th century, wrote several homilies ‘Against the Jews’. But what he is concerned about, precisely, is the nefarious influence of the Jews over Christians. Many Christians, he complains, ‘join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts’ and even believe that ‘they think as we do’ (First homily, I,5).

‘Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?… For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless?’ (First Homily, V,1-7).

To John’s horror, some Christians even get circumcised. ‘Do not tell me,’ he warns them, ‘that circumcision is just a single command; it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of the Law’ (Second Homily, II,4). And so, with all its Judeophobia (anachronistically renamed ‘anti-Semitism’ today), John Chrysostom’s homilies are a testimony to the strong influence that Jews have exerted on Gentile Christians in the early days of the triumphant, imperial Church. And no matter how much the Greek and Latin Fathers have tried to protect their flock from the influence of Jews, it has persisted as the Church expanded. It can even be argued that the history of Christianity is the history of its Judaization, from Constantinople to Rome, then from Rome to Amsterdam and to the New World.

______ 卐 ______

Note of the Editor: This is exactly what apologists of Christianity, like the secular Kevin MacDonald, fail to understand (see e.g., how he misunderstands John Chrysostom in his preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ).

______ 卐 ______

We commonly admit that the Church has always oppressed the Jews and prevented their integration unless they convert. Were they not expelled from one Christian kingdom after another in the Middle Ages? Again, this is true, but we must distinguish between the cause and the effect. Each of these expulsions has been a reaction to a situation unknown in pre-Christian Antiquity: Jewish communities gaining inordinate economic power, under the protection of a royal administration (Jews served as the kings’ tax collectors and moneylenders, and were particularly indispensable in times of war), until this economic power, yielding political power, reaches a point of saturation, causes pogroms and forces the king into taking measures.

Let us consider for example the influence of the Jews in Western Europe under the Carolingians. It reaches a climax under Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious. The bishop of Lyon Agobard (c. 769-840) left us five letters or treatises written to protest against the power granted to the Jews at the detriment of Christians. In On the insolence of the Jews, addressed to Louis the Pious in 826, Agobard complains that the Jews produce ‘signed ordinances of your name with golden seals’ guaranteeing them outrageous advantages, and that the envoys of the Emperor are ‘terrible towards Christians and gentle towards Jews.’ Agobard even complains of an imperial edict imposing Sunday rather than Saturday as market day, in order to please the Jews. In another letter, he complains of an edict forbidding anyone to baptize the slaves of the Jews without the permission of their masters.[1]

Louis the Pious was said to be under the influence of his wife, Queen Judith—a name that simply means ‘Jewess’. She was so friendly to Jews that the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz hypothesizes that she was a secret Jewess, in the manner of the biblical Esther. Graetz describes the reign of Louis and Judith (and ‘the treasurer Bernhard, the real ruler of the kingdom’ according to him) as a golden age for the Jews, and points out that in the emperor’s court, many regarded Judaism as the true religion. This is illustrated by the resounding conversion of Louis’ confessor, Bishop Bodo, who took the name of Eleazar, had himself circumcised, and married a Jewess. ‘Cultured Christians,’ writes Graetz, ‘refreshed themselves with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the apostles.’[2]

The Judaization of the Roman Church at this time is appropriately symbolized by the adoption of unleavened bread for communion, with no justification in the Gospel. I say ‘the Roman Church’, but perhaps it should be called the Frankish Church because, from the time of Charlemagne, it was taken over by ethnic Franks with geopolitical designs on Byzantium, as Orthodox theologian John Romanides has convincingly argued.[3]

The Old Testament was especially influential in the Frankish spheres of power. Popular piety focused on the Gospel narratives (canonical gospels, but also apocryphal ones like the immensely popular Gospel of Nicodemus), the worship of Mary, and the ubiquitous cults of the saints, but kings and popes relied on a political theology drawn from the Tanakh.

The Hebrew Bible had been a major part of Frankish propaganda from the late sixth century. Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, the primary—and mostly legendary—source for Merovingian history, is framed on the providential ideology of the Books of Kings: the good kings are those who support the Catholic Church, and the bad kings those who resist the growth of its power. Under Louis the Pious, the rite of anointment of the Frankish kings was designed after the model of the prophet Samuel’s anointment of King David in 1 Samuel 16.


[1] Adrien Bressolles, ‘La question juive au temps de Louis le Pieux,’ in Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, tome 28, n°113, 1942. pp. 51-64, on https://www.persee.fr

[2] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), vol. III, ch. VI, p. 162.

[3] John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.

Kevin MacDonald

Kevin MacD reviews Skrbina’s book

Last year Kevin MacDonald reviewed The Jesus Hoax, and I replied to him in the comments section of his webzine. David Skrbina also replied to him in that thread, his final words were: ‘I close with the request to read my book, The Jesus Hoax, in full. The above review by Kevin MacD, while excellent, leaves out many essential details. Many critical commenters here simply do not understand the full picture (FYI, I’m not Jewish, not a Zionist, and not a leftist). It’s fine to be critical, but please be a knowledgeable critic’.

As can be seen in that thread, more Christians than non-Christians comment on The Occidental Observer. But even the non-Christians of white nationalism fail to proclaim what I proclaim: that the primary cause of white decline is not Jewry, but Christian ethics. (Modern Jewish subversion is only an epiphenomenon of the great weakening of Aryanism by accepting the moralistic codes of Semitic writers.)

I don’t want to dwell too much on MacDonald’s long review because neither he nor any white nationalist has answered what I have so often said about miscegenation in Constantinople and Latin America: something that gives the lie to MacDonald’s claim that there was a time when an ‘adaptive Christianity’—his words in the book-review—flourished and served Aryan DNA.

No such animal ever existed, as we have seen and will continue to see in our translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s ten books.

I must end this post by reiterating Skrbina’s request on The Occidental Observer to read his book, albeit in excerpts as I will continue to do on this site for the rest of the week.

American civil war Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.


Read it all here.

Kevin MacDonald Old Testament Racial right

Why I am so critical of them

To many racialists, my constant criticism of white nationalism may seem excessive. But I do so and will continue to do so, for a very specific reason.

The platform that Kevin MacDonald provides, at least in the first and third books of his trilogy on Jewry, could potentially be ideal for understanding the West’s darkest hour: Whites and Jews have been engaged, for over two thousand years, in an ethnic war in which only one can come out alive (the best of the Gentiles, says the Talmud, must be exterminated; that is, the competing Aryans).

Instead of constructing an ideological edifice in which this fundamental premise serves to understand the Christian problem, bearing in mind that Christian ethics is the poison that is killing the Aryan, most contemporary racialists turn a blind eye to what is right under their noses: the JQ and the CQ are one and the same (again, remember Nietzsche’s long quote in The Fair Race).

Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to start quoting our friend Gaedhal’s letters so that, drop by drop in many posts to come, we can better understand the mind of Jewry—and the schizophrenia of white racialists who worship the god that wants to exterminate them. In his missive today, Gaedhal informs us of the following (note how psychotic, from this point of view, it is to admire Saul, David and company):

‘…lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.’

Numbers 23:9b KJV

‘Nations’ above is, in the Hebrew text, ‘goyim’. The Jews do not see themselves as part of the family of nations. They see themselves as separate, distinct, superior, and wish to dominate and enslave the gentile nations. Later on, in the Bible, one of the gentile nations tricks Israel into letting them live by becoming their slaves!. They become hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The reason why David was preferred by Yahweh to Saul is because Saul let some of the Goyim live—in disobedience to Yahweh’s strict command to exterminate them all!—whereas David did not. David was perfectly obedient to Yahweh in this respect, yea, a man after Yahweh’s own heart in this regard. It became a saying in Israel that Saul killed thousands of Goyim but David killed tens of thousands of Goyim.

Holocaust Kevin MacDonald

Carolyn Yeager confronts KMD

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for replying! I wrote that you had ‘never admitted that [you] seriously doubted that “it” occurred as generally described’. So it’s not what you have said but what you have failed to say. Also, publishing someone else’s articles in your capacity as editor of The Occidental Observer is not equivalent to a statement from you.

In 2017, you participated in a videocast of Torah Talk with Luke Ford, a non-ethnically Jewish student of Torah and Talmud. One of Ford’s young students asked you the clearly unexpected question: ‘What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?’ I quote your answer word for word:

Yeah, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I haven’t seen anything that would really, you know, convince me. And I, frankly, haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know, how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly, and all that is something that I don’t think is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Definition of ‘third rail’: A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature.

I’d like to insert here that IF it’s not important whether the H. actually happened, how can there be a culture about it that is important? We need to know whether it happened or not—if not, there can be no culture based on it. You were also asked your feelings about Adolf Hitler. You answered:

Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality… got in the way of [the generals] carrying out their strategic military [goals] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was… horrible, that was a disaster.

There was more, which you can read for yourself at [Carolyn’s site].


______ 卐 ______


Editor’s Note: Read the whole exchange at The Occidental Observer.

Kevin MacDonald

Throne revisited

Three years ago, on 19 May 2019, the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, premiered. Because of how popular this HBO series became among normies, I’ve tried to use Tyrion’s message in the finale about the stories we tell ourselves.

What strikes me most is that the story being told by American white nationalists is, like the story told to the plebeian German under the Nazi regime, the story that the Jews wrote for our consumption, the New Testament: a story where the heroes and protagonists are Jewish.

It reminds me that I recently watched the special edition DVD of the 1959 film that won so many Oscars: Ben-Hur. Commenting on the opening of the film with images from Nazareth, Charlton Heston was talking to another film pundit, who remarked that the people in red clothing were the ‘bad guys’ of the movie, i.e. the Romans. It was implied that the good guys were the Jews!

It is alarming that American racialists keep coming up with these stories in which the Aryans are the bad guys and the Jews the good guys, as if telling us such stories had nothing to do with the empowerment of the Jews in the West!

Never mind that Game of Thrones is rubbish (I criticised each of the 73 episodes in On Beth’s Cute Tits). What matters is my use of the finale to say something that reminds me of Goethe’s words: The hardest thing to see is what is in front of you.

And indeed, today’s racialists, unlike Hitler, are unable to see what is right under their noses: that to tell us a Jewish story for two thousand years is pure poison for racial preservation, and that the first thing we must do is to tell us the Aryan story.