The Stark Truth: Kevin MacDonald on Anti-Immigrant Riots in Israel

June 4, 2012

Israeli riots

Robert Stark and returning guest Professor Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • Bill Kristol and Jeremy Ben-Ami on Israel;
  • Kristol bragging about “Arabist” being purged out of the GOP;
  • Israeli anti-immigrant riots ignored by the organized Jewish community and the mainstream Western media;
  • Muslims deciding the French election.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:

The Stark Truth: Kevin MacDonald on Anti-White Hostility & Israel-First Policing

March 16, 2012

Israel Firster and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz

Robert interviews Kevin MacDonald. Topics include:

  • Anti-White hostility in the media–Menachem Rosensaft, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Weinberg, and Arthur Goldwag;
  • Alan Dershowitz policing Jewish opponents of a war with Iran.

Professor Kevin MacDonald hosts The Occidental Observer, a site presenting original content touching on the themes of White identity, White interests, and the culture of the West. He’s the author of several insightful books. He’s appeared on The Political Cesspool, submitted several articles to VDare, and is a Director of the American Third Position.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:

The Friday Show: Kevin MacDonald on the South Africa Project

March 2, 2012

South Africa Project rally, Los Angeles, Feb. 27, 2012

Mike Conner & Matt Parrott host; Dr. Kevin MacDonald is guest in 2nd & 3rd half-hours. Topics include:

  • The MSM article downplaying & twisting of a nationwide anti-genocide rally by the South Africa Project into an Occupy-related event;
  • MacDonald’s participation in the rally and take on street activism;
  • MacDonald’s thoughts on cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt school;
  • News bag — another hoax crime defaming Whites, Jewish woman winning coveted Chimpout of the Week award, and update on Oetzi, the ancient European Iceman.

27 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Mike
Contact Matt

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald on the WASP Question

February 28, 2012

Kevin MacDonald and the WASP Question by Fraser

Tom Sunic and Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • Andrew Fraser’s book, The WASP Question;
  • The Puritan revolution, American Revolution and Civil War;
  • Aristocratic structures traced to Indo-Europeans;
  • Egalitarian impulse traced to Nordic hunter-gatherers;
  • Protestantism, Anglicanism, and rationalism;
  • Strengthening White identity.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald on “Guilt by Association”

January 3, 2012

guilt by association

Tom Sunic and Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • The psychological underpinnings of guilt by association and self-denial against the backdrop of Ron Paul’s White supporters;
  • The question of whether the presidential candidate should shrug off the liberal media or rather distance himself from his “politically incorrect” supporters;
  • The important essay, A Real Case Against Jews (1928) by the Jewish scholar Marcus Eli Ravage on Christianity and Judaism, including Gentile love-hate relationship towards Jews.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: The American Third Position Party—The Hope of Our Future?

December 27, 2011

American Third Position logo

Tom Sunic and Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • The American Third Position Party (A3P)—its goals, its agenda, its attitude toward non-European immigration;
  • The A3P’s platform, which is neither “left” nor “right”;
  • The A3P’s main goal, to reach out to Americans of European ancestry and particularly to disenfranchised White workers, farmers and students who have become victims of the discriminatory affirmative action policies;
  • The recent nomination of the A3P presidential candidate, Mr. Merlin Miller and his running mate, Prof. Virginia Abernethy.

To find out more about the A3P:

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald on Media Pathologization

December 20, 2011

Breivik and Emma West

Tom Sunic and Professor Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • The media’s pathologization of Whites and how the irresponsible and violent behavior of some Whites feeds into the already negative imagery doctored up by the media against White nationalists;
  • The mimicry of Zionism by some US presidential candidates in their effort to please the Jews and thus exempt themselves from any putative charges of a “shut up” word “antisemitism”;
  • The role of the American Third Position Party and its candidate for the presidential election, Mr. Merlin Miller.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: MacDonald on Jewish Psychology

October 25, 2011

Kevin MacDonald

Tom Sunic and Kevin MacDonald, in the third of three consecutive interviews, discuss the meaning of Zionism and Judaism and their historical transformations. This week focuses on Jewish psychology.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald on Christian Zionism

October 18, 2011

John Hagee

Tom Sunic and Kevin MacDonald, in the second of three consecutive interviews, discuss the meaning of Zionism and Judaism and their historical transformations. MacDonald also draws parallels between self-perception of Gentiles vs. Jewish self-perception. Questions raised also focus on the “genealogical proximity” between Judaism and Christianity and the role of Christian Zionism and their “false consciousness”, forcing them to be more “Jewish” then Jews themselves. How does this all play out in the US political arena?

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald on Gilad Atzmon

October 11, 2011

Cover of 'Wondering Who'

Topics includes:

  • Kevin MacDonald’s review of Gilad Atzmon’s recent book, The Wondering Who?;
  • The phenomenology of the “self-hating Jews” — from Jesus to modern times;
  • Israel – as a superego of the White House and the Hill;
  • Turkey and Israel, long time allies from the Ottoman times — till now;
  • Current events in USA – fraud and failure of the Lehman’s and the bank system.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

Revolt against Civilization: Knud Eriksen interviews Kevin MacDonald

June 29, 2011

Kevin MacDonald at 'Revolt against Civilization', 2011

This interview was recorded during “Revolt against Civilization,” a two-day private seminar organized by Dr. Lindtner of the Danish Society for Free Historical Research [Danish: Dansk Selskab for Fri Historisk Forskning; Web site:] and held in Aalborg, Denmark, on May 28 and 29.

Please check out the event main Web page on VoR for all speeches and interviews related to this event.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Revolt against Civilization: Presentation by Kevin MacDonald

June 20, 2011

Kevin MacDonald at 'RevoltAgainstCivilization', 2011

“Jewish Intellectual Movements in the 20th Century,” by Dr. Kevin MacDonald

This speech was given at “Revolt against Civilization,” a two-day private seminar organized by Dr. Lindtner of the Danish Society for Free Historical Research [Danish: Dansk Selskab for Fri Historisk Forskning; Web site:] and held in Aalborg, Denmark, on May 28 and 29.

Please check out the event main Web page on VoR for all speeches and interviews related to this event.

18 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 19 min.

The Sunic Journal: Sunic & MacDonald in Sweden, Part I

June 14, 2011

Kevin MacDonald

For three weeks, The Sunic Journal broadcasts the speeches by Dr. Kevin MacDonald and Dr. Tom Sunic, given as part of a lecturing tour in Sweden, from May 30 to June 2, 2011, organized by “Forum Evropa.”

This week’s broadcast is Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s speech entitled “Nationalism and Individualism in Multicultural Society”.

Related Posts:

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Kevin MacDonald

December 21, 2010

Tom Sunic & Kevin MacDonald discuss:

  • Recent improvements at the The Occidental Observer Web site;
  • SPLC denounced by Republican Congress members for smearing the Family Research Council as a “hate group”;
  • The ongoing English translation of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, and MacDonald’s commentary;
  • The psychological tendency of the Jews to engage in self-deception with respect to their ethnocentric behavior;
  • The strategy of Geert Wilders and others who would ally with Zionism in order to oppose Muslims in Europe.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Tom:

Radio Free Indiana: Interview with Dr. Kevin MacDonald

October 27, 2010

Dr. Kevin MacDonald

Matt Parrott interviews Dr. Kevin MacDonald, a professor, relentless advocate for White American families, and author of Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism. Topics include:

  • Ethnic competition and the diversity racket;
  • Christian Zionism;
  • White culture.

About Kevin MacDonald

Professor MacDonald hosts The Occidental Observer, a site presenting original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. He’s the author of several insightful books. He’s appeared on The Political Cesspool, submitted several articles to VDare, and is a Director of the American Third Position.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Matt:

The first A3P National Conference, Sat. Jun. 19, 2010

June 23, 2010

The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network is pleased to replay four speeches given at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party (A3P), which was held Sat. Jun. 19, 2010.

Speech by Dr. Tomislav Sunic

7 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 32 min.

Speech by Dr. Kevin MacDonald

Dr. MacDonald says that White working class and middle class people are the natural constituency of the A3P

4 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 20 min.

Speech by A3P Chairman Bill Johnson

7 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 33 min.

Speech by Mark Weber

Mark Weber talks about the difference .

7 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 30 min.

The ADL: Managing White Rage -Kevin MacDonald

December 8, 2009

A recent Haaretz article on the state of the Jewish world contained the following:

In general today, one of the long-term challenges for the American Jewish community is evident in demographic forecasts that predict that in two or three decades, certain minority groups are expected to become a majority in the United States. A recent ADL poll showed that 12 percent of Americans hold anti-Semitic views — but among African-Americans, the figure is 28 percent, and among foreign-born Hispanics it is 35 percent.

“If 20 years from now the largest caucus in Congress is Hispanic, they will have a great deal to say about where foreign aid goes,” says [ADL head Abraham] Foxman. “On church-state issues and all kinds of social issues — some of which impact directly on the Jewish community and some indirectly — they will have a great influence. We are working on it now, so as they become the majority force, there is a sensitivity, a relationship. It’s a major challenge.”

Jews tend to have a very large blind spot when it comes to immigration. Norman Podhoretz recently published a book titled Why are Jews Liberals? The basic pitch is that American Jews should support the Republican Party because it’s better for Israel. Podhoretz never proposes that Jews should actually become conservative — just support Republicans because they’re better for Israel. It never occurs to Podhoretz to oppose immigration for the same reasons alluded to by Foxman, his fellow Jewish activist and unregistered agent for a foreign government — to wit, that a future America with a non-White majority may well have much higher levels of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment than an America with a White majority.

Podhoretz claims that American Jews have a religious devotion to liberalism — religious in the sense that it is wonderfully impervious to empirical reality or even a reasonable view of Jewish interests. But Podhoretz’s pro-immigration brand of “conservatism” is open to the same charge — that it’s not in the interests of Jews.

Is Jewish support for immigration really irrational? Stephen Steinlight certainly thinks it is, stating, for example,

“Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, ‘You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet.’”

In fact, Steinlight even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews: “Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking our percentage of the population — to a fraction of 1% in 20 years.” And he points out that there is also a problem with Latinos because they are

steeped in a culture of theological anti-Semitism that’s defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.

The idea that Jewish support for immigration is irrational fits well with the hostility that even Jews like Steinlight have toward the traditional people and culture of America. Steinlight’s hostility toward the restrictionism of 1924–1965 is palpable. This “pause” in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe. He describes it as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” Jewish interests are his only consideration, while the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans are described as a “thoughtless mob” because they advocate a complete moratorium on immigration. (See here.)

Such hostility is likely to be blind to rational calculations of self-interest — at least for most Jews. Just as the vast majority of Jews can’t bring themselves to vote Republican because of fear and loathing of all those conservative Christians — a major theme of Podhoretz’s book, Jews can’t bring themselves to oppose immigration because of fear and loathing of Europeans and their culture.

Nevertheless, the fact that Jews are doomed to follow their gut hostility about Europeans and their culture doesn’t mean that they aren’t making rational calculations about the future. Foxman’s comments indicate what is doubtless the mainstream Jewish attitude about a non-White future: It presents problems, but the problems are manageable if the organized Jewish community makes alliances with the looming non-White majority.

And that is exactly what they have done. As I noted elsewhere,

Jewish organizations have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington have formed coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A prominent aspect of this effort is the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely tied to the World Jewish Congress which co-sponsors the Foundation’s Washington, DC office and several of its programs. Typical of the Foundation’s efforts was a meeting in August, 2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation’s many programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to “a major Fortune 500 company committed to building a diverse work force,” the Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort. (Jews, Blacks, and Race; Ch. 14 of Cultural Insurrections)

Besides making alliances with non-White groups, Jewish groups may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore. Calls to restrict legal and illegal immigration would inevitably be met by anguished hostility and cries of “racism” by Latinos and others who are the main beneficiaries of current immigration policy. This would increase White racial consciousness. One only has to recall the high-profile marches in Los Angeles and other cities during the 2007 Congressional battles over illegal immigration. Whites around the country were treated to open displays of hostility by Latinos and others.

And of course, support for immigration restriction would come from many of the same groups that Jews fear the most: Whites and Christians. (Podhoretz’s book is a good primer on Jewish hostility toward Christianity and the culture of the West.) Moreover, it would applauded by the racialist right — some of whom at least have explicitly anti-Jewish views. It would also tend to legitimize to legitimize the racialist right because undoubtedly their main concern is the dispossession of White America via immigration.

The campaign to manage White discontent is multipronged. A good recent example is the ADL report, “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” It begins thus: “Rumors about gun confiscations. Angry protests about the government’s tax policies, replete with Nazi comparisons. A resurgent militia movement. Rage at the election of a president deemed to be illegitimate and threatening. Distrust and anger toward the government fueled by paranoia and conspiracy theories.”

Yikes! The peasants are getting their pitchforks.

But then the report shifts into management mode. Particularly important is to keep any vestige of “extremism” out the mainstream media, particularly anything that would legitimate White anger and concerns about the future. Because of the bothersome First Amendment, Jewish organizations cannot simply outlaw all the speech that they dislike, although they would certainly like to do exactly that. We know this because Jewish organizations have been strong advocates of laws against speech around the world whether or not the speech is connected to a violent crime. The ADL was the major force behind the recent Hate Speech law in the US, but that is pretty weak tea for them, since it only criminalizes speech in connection with other crimes.

Since the enactment of police-state controls on speech remains an unfinished task for the ADL, it necessarily resorts to other strategies. Recently Lou Dobbs resigned his show in CNN. Over the years, the ADL has targeted Lou Dobbs several times, including a 2007 article claiming that Dobbs “broadcasts an anti-immigrant message and supports the views and activities of other anti-immigrant activists. … [including] Peter Brimelow, who runs VDare, a Website that publishes racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant articles.” The ADL was especially upset about the following statement in particular, from Dobbs’ book, Independents Day:

Socioethnocentric special interest groups, meanwhile, join in the assault on our borders, demanding multiculturalism rather than assimilation into American society. America’s elites have embraced corporatism, globalism, and mulitculturalism as the unholy trinity of a twenty-first-century orthodoxy that is now at work to deny our traditions, values, and way of life and to render impotent even the idea of America’s national sovereignty.

Dobb’s invention of the word ‘socioethnocentric’ presumably functions to blunt his charge: An important force for open borders is the ethnocentrism of non-European Americans. The ADL is a perfect example. Their ethnocentrism is aimed at helping their own people — a biological imperative, not a sociological one.

The ADL article also targets Pat Buchanan, radio personality Lynn Woolley, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Congressman Steve King (Rep-IA). None of these individuals, with the exception of Buchanan, has spoken out against legal immigration. None has taken an explicitly racial view of White identity and interests.

The latest mainstream media target of an ADL hate campaign is Glenn Beck. The ADL complains that Beck is “fearmonger in chief” — the “intersection of the mainstream and the extreme.” The ADL complains that Beck compared Obama to Hitler and called Obama “a dangerous” man.

The power of the ADL can be seen from the fact that its fatwah against Beck was immediately picked by the MSM. Tim Rutten of the LA Times snapped to attention and chimed in on Beck, citing the ADL report and comparing Beck to Father Charles Coughlin, the radio personality of the 1930s. And just as Coughlin was removed from the air waves because of his views, Rutten wants Rupert Murdoch to get rid of Beck:

Is [Fox] willing to become the platform for an extremist political campaign …? CNN recently parted ways with its resident ranter, Lou Dobbs — who now confirms he’s weighing a presidential bid.

Does Fox see a similar problem with Beck — and, if not, why?

The campaign against Glenn Beck is still in its early stages, and it’s certainly not at all clear that Beck would actually contribute to a real change in a racialist direction. Like other mainstream conservatives, he is at best an advocate of implicit Whiteness — his supporters are overwhelmingly White but he does not explicitly advocate White identity and interests.

In his recent TOO column, Charles Dodgson notes that Nick Griffin’s performance on Question Time “was not adequate to impress the educated classes” — a critical constituency among Whites. The ADL’s campaign to set strict limits on what can be said on TV is really a campaign to manage elite-level discourse aimed at the educated classes. The effectiveness of Jewish influence stems from the veto power it has over all the high ground in American society, particularly the mass media and the academic world. In the ADL’s ideal world, explicitly racialist rhetoric and anti-government attitudes and behavior by Whites would exist only among “extremists” far from the center of political discourse. Purveyors of these ideas would be objects of derision — little more than reliable cash cows to fill the coffers of Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the $PLC.

The fact is that the domination of the mass media and the academic world by elites that are hostile to White identity and interests makes it very difficult for educated Whites to sign on to a racialist movement. Such people are often vulnerable to economic pressures where they work, and, as college-educated people, they have a respect for mainstream academic and media institutions. Having been treated fairly in general, they trust the integrity of the basic institutions of the society. They identify with its basic ideology — America as emerging from its long dark night of evil into the glorious goodness and virtue of the multicultural future.

This is not so much the case with less-educated Whites. These people often have fewer inhibitions and far less to lose by adopting explicitly racialist views. They don’t pay attention to the New York Times. Most importantly, they are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Dodgson directs his readers to this compelling video of a working-class British woman of the type that is the heart of the BNP. These people are former supporters of the Labour Party. They have been completely abandoned by their party which, like the Democrats in the US, is seeking to keep itself in power by enabling a permanent majority of non-Whites. They rightly fear a future in which the White working class will have no power at all.

It may well be the same in America. As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. They are very angry — but they can’t discuss the real reason they are angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like themselves and their culture.

Eventually, all the phony implicit White issues will run out. And when that happens, these people won’t be overtly concerned about health care plans or even about Obama and his radical proclivities. All that will be ancient history. And it will have to get right down to it — that it is indeed about race.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Source: TOO.

The Sunic Journal: Sunic & MacDonald on Politics (Part 2 of 2)

November 10, 2009



Dr. Tomislav Sunic & Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss politics, focusing on the origin, nature, and impact of Jewish power. Topics include:

  • Networking and the importance of donations for volunteer organizations like TOO and VoR.
  • The effectiveness of hostile name-calling and posturing used against academics and Whites and its ineffectiveness against Jews; antisemitism as the cornerstone of Jewish political activity
  • Jewish popular perceptions of Christians and Whites; perceptions of Jews as victims of Western culture
  • Origins of Jewish power and the accumulation of enemies; Jewish alliances with elites in the societies in which they reside
  • What it will take to restore our position as the creators of culture and influence

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 59 min.

Contact Tom:

The Sunic Journal: Sunic & MacDonald on Politics (Part 1 of 2)

November 3, 2009



Dr. Tomislav Sunic & Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss current political topics relevant to the West. Topics include:

  • Social effects of the California’s economic collapse
  • Robert Putnam’s research on “diversity” and lack of trust
  • Obama’s posture on Mideast topics
  • The Goldstone Report & Israel’s reaction
  • The current state of Neocon activity (Iraq, Iran, & Afghanistan)
  • Comparative immigration policies: Israel vs. the West

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Tom:

The Roman Polanski Case: Once Again, It’s Hollywood vs. America -Kevin MacDonald

October 6, 2009

Over 30 years ago, director Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. The details aren’t pretty. According to the girl’s Grand Jury Testimony, Polanski plied her with enough alcohol and Quaaludes to make her dizzy and disoriented. He then had oral copulation with her, followed by sexual intercourse, and ending with sodomy because he did not want to get her pregnant. In her testimony, the girl made it clear that she went along with Polanski’s advances because of fear.

The girl declined to testify at trial, so Polanski was able to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor even though the Grand Jury charged him with rape of a minor, sodomy, rape by use of a drug, and other crimes. He served 42 days in a psychiatric observation facility before fleeing to France. Since 1997, the victim has urged that the charges be dropped, but apparently did so only after receiving a substantial financial settlement.

Polanski’s life as a fugitive has not exactly been a vale of tears. He has directed a number of movies, some with major Hollywood stars. His 2002 Holocaust movie, The Pianist, was widely acclaimed, winning an Oscar for Best Director, among other awards.

New York Daily News caption: “Film director Roman Polanski has lived a comfortable life while on the lam, including a swanky home in France with his wife, actress Emmanuelle Seigner.”

Of course, we shouldn’t make too much of the fact that The Pianist received quite a few awards, since making movies about the Holocaust is well-known as the key to Oscar success. On the other hand, making movies like the Passion of Christ brings nothing but opprobrium and charges of anti-Semitism. Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries of life.

Be that as it may, Hollywood is not like the rest of us, and the fault lines are apparent in reaction to Polanski’s recent jailing in Switzerland while awaiting extradition proceedings. An L. A. Times article discusses the gap between the attitudes toward Polanski among Hollywood’s elite and the rest of the country:

From Michael Moore’s politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country’s values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case.

Hollywood is rallying behind the fugitive filmmaker. Top filmmakers are signing a pro-Polanski petition, Whoopi Goldberg says the director didn’t really commit rape, and Debra Winger complains “the whole art world suffers” in such arrests.

The rest of the nation seems to hold a dramatically different perspective on Polanski’s weekend capture. Even if decades have passed since he fled Los Angeles before his 1978 sentencing, Polanski must be extradited and serve his time, the thinking goes. There’s no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.

In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski — and the industry’s support of the 76-year-old “Pianist” Oscar winner.

The article goes on to suggest that Hollywood’s refusal to condemn Polanski is simply a matter of protecting their own. As evidence, the article notes that even when Mel Gibson spewed his anti-Jewish rant after being arrested for speeding and drunk driving by a Jewish police officer, no one in Hollywood seemed to care.

Actually, there was quite a bit of negative reaction to Gibson’s comments by the powerful in the movie industry, most notably from Rahm Emmanual’s brother Ari. While over 100 of the most prominent Hollywood celebrities have signed a letter supporting Polanski, I am not aware of even one Hollywood celebrity who went to bat for Gibson over his anti-Jewish comments.

Moreover, the people who matter in Hollywood (not to mention the ADL and a whole slew of Jewish op-ed writers) were up in arms about Gibson’s Passion. Michael Medved has documented Hollywood’s very negative attitudes toward Christianity (and the traditional family, traditional sexual mores, and patriotism [apart from Israeli patriotism; see below]).

There certainly are norms that limit what Hollywood celebrities can and can’t do to remain within the good graces of the community. Endorsing California’s 2008 ballot Proposition 8 that banned same-sex marriage was definitely a bad career move in Hollywood. Opposing same-sex marriage is a career-ender in Hollywood, while supporting a child rapist is a great way to get ahead.

In fact, it is glaringly obvious that Hollywood’s attitudes reflect its Jewish sensibilities. A recent example is the reaction to attempts to boycott an Israeli film at the Toronto International Film Festival. The protestors described Israel as an “apartheid regime” and dismissed the work of the filmmakers as “Israeli propaganda.” A long list of the Hollywood best and brightest signed a petition in opposition to the protest — “a who’s who of Hollywood’s elite with a cast that runs from the executive suites to the sound stages and cuts across generations.” Even a Jewish writer in the L.A. Times couldn’t help but notice the ethnic angle in this rally-around-Israel response:

In today’s Hollywood, signs of Jewish ethnic pride are everywhere. Judd Apatow’s recent “Funny People” was populated with a host of openly Jewish comic characters, as is the new Coen brothers film, “A Serious Man,” a drama … that is, in part, about a troubled Jewish man who looks to his rabbi for guidance. And, of course, one of the biggest hit films of the summer was Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” which features as its heroes a scrum of tough-talking, baseball-bat wielding, Nazi-scalp-taking World War II-era Jewish soldiers.

So when trying to come up with a theory for why Hollywood would stand alone in supporting Polanski, a good bet is to suggest that Hollywood’s stance reflects its Jewish identity.

A clue to understanding Hollywood’s views on Polanski comes from a well-known sociological study comparing the attitudes of the Hollywood elite to the attitudes held by the general public and by traditional (non-Jewish) elites of pre-1960s White America (i.e., leaders in politics, business, and the military, as well as Protestant and Catholic religious figures). The largest difference between Hollywood and the other groups was on “expressive individualism.” Expressive individualism taps ideas of sexual liberation (including approval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage), moral relativism, and a disdain for (Christian) religious institutions. The movie elite is also more tolerant of unusual or deviant lifestyles and of minority religions and ethnic groups.

In short, the attitudes of Hollywood reflect the left/liberal cultural attitudes of the wider Jewish community — attitudes that are hostile to the traditional people and culture of America and the West. Whatever else one might say about him, Polanski is Exhibit A for the category of unusual or deviant lifestyle. Polanski’s behavior is exactly the sort of thing that Hollywood would see not as moral turpitude, but as reflecting a cutting-edge, unconventional lifestyle choice of a creative, talented person.

As I elaborated elsewhere, the Jewish intellectual movements that came to dominance in the US after WWII abandoned their Marxist roots in favor of promoting radical individualism among non-Jews. They did this not because of their allegiance to the ideals of the Enlightenment, but as a useful tool for ending anti-Semitism and preventing mass movements of the right.

One aspect of radical individualism was lack of racial identity for Whites. For the Frankfurt School, the ideal non-Jew was someone who was completely detached from all ingroups, including his race, his Christian religious affiliation, and even his family.

Indeed, a White person with a sense of ethnic pride was analyzed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder — a diagnosis that was not applied to any other race or ethnic group. Polanski can thus exemplify expressive individualism while at the same time demonstrating his Jewish identity by making a Holocaust movie. For non-Jews, expressive individualism means not identifying with your race or ethnic group.

Another aspect of radical individualism is disinhibited sexuality. Psychoanalysis was especially important as an intellectual tool to undermine the traditional American sexual mores deeply embedded in the Christian religious tradition of American culture.

The deviant, perverted sexuality of Polanski fits well with expressive individualism, although it is doubtless a rather extreme version. On the other hand, the responsibilities of monogamous marriage, family, and parenting do not fit this cultural profile. Nevertheless, expressive individualism is a cultural pattern that has influenced a sizeable portion of the White population. It may not have been disastrous if America had remained 90% White. But with mass immigration of millions of non-Whites, many with high fertility, it is certainly speeding up the decline of White America. The centrality and legitimacy of expressive individualism in the contemporary culture of the West are an important components of the culture of Western suicide.

Expressive individualists basically want to express themselves with their own carefully cultivated, unique personal qualities. They advocate minimal controls on individual behavior, especially on sexuality. Expressive individualists prize creativity and the unconventional — a central aspect of the 1960s counterculture. At a relatively tame level, they want consumer goods that reflect their taste and individuality: They express their personality with their choices in cars, clothes, and music — Stuff White People Like, such as Vespa motorcycles, non-White cultural icons, and expensive camping equipment. (My take.)

A tendency toward expressive individualism is part of the individualist strain in traditional American culture. But it was a marginal phenomenon — confined to areas like Greenwich Village and the art world. When I was growing up, expressive individualism was certainly not part of the culture of the schools and churches in small-town Anglo-German Midwestern America.

Expressive individualism became an integral part of the counterculture of the 1960s — especially the hippie component of the 1960s counterculture. At that point, as Eric P. Kaufmann points out, it became ingrained in American mass culture, spreading from the intellectuals to the better-educated people in the mass media, the universities and the government. My view is that this movement of expressive individualism to the center of American culture was brought about by the Jewish intellectual movements that I describe in Culture of Critique—particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School (and their allies among the New York Intellectuals and their propagandists in the organized Jewish community and the media). At their core, these movements are hostile to the traditional Christian culture of America, its sexual mores, its ethnic pride, and even the idea that White people have a right or a legitimate interest in maintaining its status as a political majority. These movements rationalized and promoted this strand of individualist American culture at the highest level of intellectual discourse.

And because Hollywood fundamentally reflects Jewish attitudes on culture, it is not at all surprising that it would defend someone like Polanski whose behavior can only be described as reflecting the exact opposite of the traditional culture of America.

Another telling example that reflects the Jewish promotion of expressive individualism among non-Jews can be seen in Dr. Lasha Darkmoon’s recent TOO articles on Jewish influence in the art world. She notes the predominance of wealthy Jews among art collectors, critics, and gallery owners. While retaining their own ethnic identity, they promote exactly the type of non-Jew prized by the Frankfurt School authors of The Authoritarian Personality: An expressive individualist with no allegiance to his race, his family, the Christian religion, or the traditional culture of the West.

The result is that an extreme expressive individualist, such as British artist Damien Hirst, can earn hundreds of millions of dollars by constructing works of art such as a glass case with maggots and flies feeding on a rotting cow’s head. Or a shark suspended in formaldehyde. A recent show by Hirst sold for almost $200 million.

Hirst is entirely the creation of wealthy Jewish art collector Charles Saatchi who was deeply impressed by Hirst’s maggot-infested cow’s head and lavishly promoted him for the next ten years. Hirst has behaved as the prototypical expressive individualist, including drug and alcohol abuse, and violent and outrageous personal behavior:

Hirst has admitted serious drug and alcohol problems during a ten year period from the early 1990s [at a time when he was being promoted by Saatchi]: “I started taking cocaine and drink … I turned into a babbling fucking wreck.” During this time he was renowned for his wild behavior, and extrovert acts [we psychologists call it disinhibited psychopathy], including, for example, putting a cigarette in the end of his penis in front of journalists. He was an habitué of the high profile Groucho Club in Soho, London, and was banned on occasion for his behavior.

Charles Saatchi’s Creation, Damien Hirst: Promote the Worst Gentiles

An artist wrote the following email to Dr. Darkmoon:

It was with great interest that I read your insightful and well-researched article regarding the art world. I have long been aware of the Jewish role that brought us to this lamentable state. I am a painter and photographer working in a neo-classical style and couldn’t even get arrested at a gallery in the major art markets. I take encouragement however from the fact that there are other wonderful painters carrying on the great tradition and when the dust of postmodernism settles they will be properly recognized.

Such recognition will only come with a complete change at the highest levels of culture production. It is encouraging that the great majority of Americans find Polanski’s behavior repulsive and believe that he should suffer a legal penalty. Similar attitudes are held by an overwhelming majority in France where we see the same gap between the cultural elite and the the rest of the people.

Nevertheless, despite the healthy instincts of most White people, it is quite clear that the heights of culture production in Europe and America are controlled by people who absolutely reject anything resembling the traditional culture of the West. And that is a disaster for our people.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Source: The Occidental Observer.