Prof. Kevin MacDonald joins Carolyn in the 2nd hour of the program to discuss his recent article at The Occidental Observer online magazine, “Israel and the NSA Scandal.” He also talked about his even newer article, “Bill O’Reilly: Exploiting the race card but avoiding the real issue.”

In the first hour, Carolyn makes a case for nationalist, ethnic identity as being a more powerful motivator for activism than European or White identity. She uses the surprising success of the Jobbik party in Hungary and the Golden Dawn party in Greece, both of which are entirely nationalist, Christian, and openly express disapproval of Jewish interference in their countries. Carolyn thinks many “Americans” would react equally strongly if they understood how the American homeland they take for granted has been stolen and is doomed to end with the loss of the White majority. She touts the idea of a new political party that points out the negative effects of the overwhelming Jewish power in the U.S., and discusses the idea further with Kevin MacDonald in the 2nd hour. (See here for an example of how the leader of such a party should present himself in the public venue.)

Prof. Kevin MacDonald, author of the famous trilogy on Jewish evolutionary strategy, and Blogger Tanstaafl of Age of Treason have both written about Jewish-turned-Christian Blogger Lawrence Auster (recent photo shown at right) and been written about by him in return. Look here for Tanstaafl.  In this program they consider:

• Why Auster is someone worth writing about;
• Comparing Auster to an Alan Dershowitz;
• Jewish ethnocentricity as a biological trait or imperative vs an ideology;
• How approval for the term “the Other” changes whether used by Jews or Whites;
• Why Jews are so anti-White;
• Can we afford to have Jews in White nations if we want them to remain White;
• How to get over fear of being called names;
• Dilemma of young, white males in today’s multicultural society;
• And a few more things, too.

Calls from Rick, Stuart, Patty and Rodney added to the program in the 2nd hour. Carolyn apologizes for her telephone foible and for missing the program’s ending … again.

Franz Boas

More on how Franz Boas and other jews flocked to anthropology specifically to oppose a racial understanding of human nature.

The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences. – Ruth Benedict

Anthropology has from the beginning been dominated by jews. The purpose of jewish anthropology is to make the world safe for jews. One of the main tactics jews use is to disguise what they’re doing as a high-minded pursuit of more general interests.

A good example is found in Herbert S. Lewis’ The Passion of Franz Boas (PDF), published in “American Anthropologist” journal Volume 103, Issue 2, pages 447–467, June 2001.

Lewis defends Boas from criticism made by the children of the anti-“racist” revolt he led. The core of this defense is a recounting of Boas’ life-long efforts to thwart an understanding of reality which assigns significance to race. Some children of the revolution see Boas himself as a “racist” because he did not deny the existence of race. Others complained that he was only promoting jewish (or “white”) interests.

By the 1960s the many facets of the thoroughly though cryptically judaized culture of critique had pathologized and demonized and prevailed (at least in intellectual/academic circles) not only over “racist” Nordic champions such as Madison Grant, but Whites generally. As jewish involvement increased they shifted the understanding of race from real, to insignificant, to imaginary, to the self-contradictory anti-White/anti-“racism” of today – where “race” is supposedly a construct of the evil White race, who used (and still uses!) it to exploit and oppress all the other, innocent “people of color” (i.e. everyone who isn’t White).

Lewis’ defense amounts to the argument that Boas did great service at the start of this progression. His hand-waving and smoke-blowing was, as usual for jews, used to obscure the Who/Whom – who was served by whom and at whose expense – behind a pretense that everyone benefited.

Lewis concludes by quoting Michel de Montaigne:

I see most of the wits of my time using their ingenuity to obscure the glory of the beautiful and noble actions of antiquity, giving them some vile interpretation and conjuring up vain occasions and causes for them. What great subtlety! Give me the most excellent and purest action, and I will plausibly supply fifty vicious motives for it. God knows what a variety of interpretations may be placed on our inward will, for anyone who wants to elaborate them.

This criticism applies all the more to contemporary anti-“racist” interpretations of the White men who were beginning to understand the significance of race. Boas and his tribe have prevailed, for a while at least, by pathologizing and demonizing their enemies while disguising their own motives, thus obscuring the racial nature of the conflict.

One substantial criticism of Boas and the broader jewish influence in anthropology and social science was ignored by Lewis.

Kevin MacDonald’s The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences, is Chapter 2 in “Culture of Critique”, subtitled “An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements”, first published in 1998:

Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 188ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data. He also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (p. 200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (Lenz 1931, 674; see also comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]). 1 In sociology, the advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre–World War II period resulted in “a level of politicization unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but also that the sense of America as a consensual experience gave way to a sense of America as a series of conflicting definitions” (Horowitz 1993, 75). In the post–World War II period, sociology “became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded

It was jews who were joking.

An endnote refers to Lenz’s observation concerning the “jewish fondness for Lamarkism”:

The jewish inclination toward Lamarckism is obviously an expression of the wish that there should be no unbridgeable racial distinctions.

MacDonald adds:

The obvious interpretation of such sentiments is that Jewish intellectuals opposed natural selection because of possible negative political implications. The suggestion is that these intellectuals were well aware of ethnic differences between Jews and Germans but wished to deny their importance for political reasons—an example of deception as an aspect of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy (SAID, Chs. 6–8).

Lenz states that the Jewish opposition to discussion of race “inevitably arouses the impression that they must have some reason for fighting shy of any exposition of racial questions.”

Back to MacDonald’s main text:

This chapter will emphasize the ethnopolitical agenda of Franz Boas, but it is worth mentioning the work of Franco-Jewish structuralist anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss because he appears to be similarly motivated

Lévi-Strauss interacted extensively with Boas and acknowledged his influence (Dosse 1997 I, 15, 16). In turn, Lévi-Strauss was very influential in France

Levi-Strauss’s most significant works were all published during the breakup of the French colonial empire and contributed enormously to the way it was understood by intellectuals. . . . [H]is elegant writings worked an aesthetic transformation on his readers, who were subtly made to feel ashamed to be Europeans. . . . [H]e evoked the beauty, dignity, and irreducible strangeness of Third World cultures that were simply trying to preserve their difference. . . . [H]is writings would soon feed the suspicion among the new left . . . that all the universal ideas to which Europe claimed allegiance—reason, science, progress, liberal democracy—were culturally specific weapons fashioned to rob the non-European Other of his difference. (Lilla 1998, 37)

Degler (1991, 61) emphasizes the role of Franz Boas in the anti-Darwinian transformation of American social science: “Boas’ influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated.” Boas engaged in a “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture” (p. 61). “Boas, almost single-handedly, developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science” (p. 71).

Boas did not arrive at the position from a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question. . . . There is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological outlook—racism—which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society. . . . there is a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public. (Degler 1991, 82–83)

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Prof. Kevin MacDonald assesses the situation for White Advocacy as 2012 comes to a close. After the wake-up call of the national election, now there is the shock of the 20 children murdered in their kindergarten classroom in Connecticut.  Discussion during the 2nd hour included:

• The good news is a crop of new writers and Internet sites that focus on White people’s issues;
• The bad news is we can’t get onto mainstream TV, even for an interview;
• Very strong anti-communist America First movement in the 30’s and 40’s was ended in an instant by Pearl Harbor, essentially a false-flag event;
• Strategies to use when The Second Amendment is seriously challenged in 2013 in the wake of the Connecticut shootings;
• The dismal state of psychiatry  today, and the overuse of poorly understood drugs;
• Blame for most of what’s gone wrong can be placed on the liberal revolution that began in the 1960’s.

Problems with the call-in system plus human error caused some delay at the beginning of the 2nd hour.

In the first hour, Carolyn attempts to put some finality to her researches into the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion by showing that the origin and authorship still cannot be known for certain. Thus the value of the Protocols lies in its ability to reveal changes in Western nations that result from wars and revolutions, as they have actually occurred, and how they were carried out and by whom. If this is not good enough for some people, then they will see the Protocols as having no, or too little, value. Carolyn still rates this document as having, on balance, an important contribution to make.

Prof. Kevin MacDonald, author of Culture of Critique,  is Carolyn’s special guest in the 2nd Hour. He elaborates on his recent article at The Occidental Observer in which he describes our situation as critical and says that White people really have to wake up to the reality.  In the 1st hour, Carolyn does a monologue analyzing the national presidential election results, using an article at American Renaissance and another at Real Clear Politics. Some points made by MacDonald:

• The Republican Party can no longer win elections;
• It can recruit non-whites, which would mean repudiating its base and its traditional principles, or become a permanent minority White party;
• The Jewish elites in the Republican Party will definitely turn it into a carbon copy of the Democratic Party;
• All our White Advocacy groups combined have no real power;
• Europe’s nationalist parties may accomplish something before we in the U.S. do;
• Libertarianism and Christian-Zionism are both very bad for Whites’ racial interests;
• Secession is being brought forward as a possibility to point out how few options we have.