Der Movement roundup.
Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola's writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang. It's ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.
Buchanan is more right than he knows. Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!
It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion. Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit - Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.
I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.” Emphasis added:
Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/tooby&pinker.htm …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…
In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.” It has merely been criticized. Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.” This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.