Vanguard News Network

Dr Kevin MacDonald is surprised when a jewish author misquotes him? One would think that a man of his intellect would understand that it would be a given in dealing with the jew. Dr Willian Pierce was widely misquoted by the jews and he knew why. That is simply the price of doing business with them. I think Dr MacDonald was being very naive, or maybe hoping that a friendly, fellow researcher would allow the truth to be told without spinning it beforehand. Dr MacDonald should know, by now, that everything a jew writes, says, or does, must pass the test of “Is it Good for The Jews?” To allow a jew to interview him and not expect his own words to be twisted into an unfavorable meaning is simply wishful thinking. MacDonald fears the R word, as well he should. The word has brought down Senators and world famous scientists with equal speed. Trent Lott and James Watson to name only two. It is always a very predictable tactic of the jew to attack someone personally if they cannot find fault with their work. They like to distract their opponents. MacDonald should feel great satisfaction in the fact that Jon Entine attacks his character instead of his scholarly writing. It is much easier for Entine to sling mud than to find fault in well-reasoned research. MacDonald should stay out of the mud and continue his scholarly work on the Evolutionary psychology of jews. The ADL would like nothing more, than to see the name-calling begin. Then, they’ll have the goods on him. Right now, Dr MacDonald is on the cutting edge of his chosen speciality, understanding jewish evolutionary survival tactics. He is publishing books which explain and accurately predict what is going on in the world today. We cannot begin to solve the problems we have without first knowing the cause. MacDonald’s observations are accurate and becoming mainstream ideas in explaining everything from immigration to the fiasco in Iraq. It is worth noting that Jon Entine compares MacDonalds work to the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Both bodies of work uncover the hidden agendas of the jews. The jews have managed to place a cloud of uncertainty over the authenticity of the Protocols, but they cannot do the same with MacDonalds books, as they are well-documented. MacDonald is protected, as a university professor, because he has done nothing but reveal the truth. In Canada, that would not save him, as the truth is no longer a defence there. Jews have silenced their critics there. In Canada, as in many European countries, telling the truth can put you in prison. We need MacDonald as an intellectual, not as a foot soldier, in the mud. Our movement has enough drunks, felons, and child molesters as it is. We need respectable people in the mainstream, understanding, and connecting the dots, leading the way for others to follow in their footsteps.

It’s hard to imagine what MacDonald thought a Jew would do with his comments. Of course, they would be twisted.

The astonishing thing was that MacDonald seems to think that it was unfair for his complimentary remarks about Jews to also be twisted. Don’t forget that the Unified Field of Jewish Hatred dictates that Jews hate “anti-Semites” and “philo-Semites” equally, and philo-Semitic remarks are taken as offensive per se.

I wish MacDonald would take the idea of tikkun olam (an ancient Jewish idea) and use it as his model for uncovering and organizing evidence that “healing the world” is to make all the changes that make the world comfortable for Jews and uncomfortable for Europeans and all others.

The model that MacDonald uses is fraught with difficulty especially when he has at hand a satisfactory intellectual doctrine (tikkun olam) that provides a frame for discussing every Jewish innovation as a religious obligation.

I hope Dr. MacDonald isn’t cracking. That stuff about “maybe it’s not genetic” has me worried. Why entertain such a hypothetical in a polemical piece fighting your enemy?

No, Dr. MacDonald is not good or effective fighting in the mud with every jew journalist. In a sense, he has already done the essential scholarly work. I suppose he wants to take more direct action, jump into “the fray.” He should understand, however, that his scholarly work is like nuclear bombs, while his “jumping into the fray” is only like spitballs. General Patton never spent much time on the front line, picking enemy infantry off one by one; he was vastly more effective elsewhere. General MacDonald, with all due respect, sir, go back to your tent!

Mark, you’re right that he should pursue the truth no matter where it leads. That’s his research side. I’m only criticizing his rhetorical skills. In the context of being attacked by a dishonest journalist, one does not bring up and entertain hypotheticals against oneself or one’s position. In private, one should question one’s behavior or thinking and correct it where justified. But in a public argument, you don’t make such a statement as “Maybe I’m wrong” or “Maybe I’m an idiot.” That’s a concession – and concessions are deadly. Again, I’m distinguishing THINKING (which requires saint-like honesty and objectivity) from POLEMICAL ARGUING (mud-wrestling with a lying asshole).

Here’s two “mud-wrestling” strategies by our man (call him A):

Strategy #1:

NIGGER: You be a White honkey cracker! Sheet! Dey’s some niggers WAY smarter than you all!
A: I don’t have the data, but perhaps you are right that some African-Americans than I am. I haven’t thought about it.
NIGGER: See? You don’t know SHEET!

Strategy #2:

NIGGER: You be a White honkey cracker! Dey’s some niggers WAY smarter than you all!
A: Most niggers are stupidier. Here’s the stats. But you probably can’t understand them. So for proof of nigger stupidity, look in the mirror.

Strategy #2 is the correct strategy in argument. The attitude of A in Strategy #1 is the attitude he should have in the lab.

Father John – I recall reading that Thomas Allen is translating the book 200 Years Together. Of course, finding someone to publish and distribute it here is another kettle of fish altogether.

Kevin MacDonald is a brilliant man who has shown great courage–this cannot be contested.

Perhaps MacDonald is better out of the “fray” but the “fray” is upon us.

MacDonald’s words are highly intellectual and out of reach for all who are not firmly ensconced far into the right half of the Bell Curve.

Simplification and distillation of his message for consumption by average White men is required.

We can’t limit ourselves to academic “parlor discussions” which bow to White Western notions of “fair” play if we expect to win.

Winning and survival will necessarily involve a much less oblique discussion of race and a far more plebeian overall presentation.

Pragmatic “them” and “us” propaganda which uses generalizations that MacDonald would shy away from will be required.

MacDonald says Jews never admit fault and are unlikely to apologize for even the most egregious hypocrisy if it is not in their racial interests.

Rather than endlessly discuss this and other characteristics that benefit Jews, we ourselves need to develop the capacity to be just as tenaciously ethnocentric, just as unapologetic, just as vicious and just as ruthless in pursuing our own racial interests.

Ron Paul’s success shows that White people are sick of the status quo and sense that the government does not represent them.

Now is the time to wake them with warts and all racialist truth via all available avenues of delivery.