CHUD REVIEW : CULTURE OF CRITIQUE

The Culture of Critique is the apotheosis of the "Culture of Critique" trilogy by Kevin Macdonald, an evolutionary psychologist professor. The history of this series is dramapilled in itself, basically this guy was big on group selection theory and noticed the jews existing as a specific group as a diaspora, so he decided to do some research on them. The first two entries, "Those who dwell alone", dealing with jews since their separation from Judea and the formation of Rabbanicial judaism, and "Separation and its discontents", dealing with the conflicts that arise between jews and gentiles, received great reviews from the mainstream jewish community and rabbis who loved the work....Then Kevin Macdonald turned his attention to the 20th century and caused gigaseethe, by the end of the research he had swallowed a redpill so massive that he dedicated the next twenty years to non-stop seething at jews

Culture of Critique reminds me a lot of "The Rising Tide of Color" by Stoddard in that it starts the book with a brief overview of the state of the world at the start of the 20th century. Kevin Macdonald comments on the state of the United States in the year 1900, saying they were a proud and confident people who had just conquered almost an entire continent, had a healthy vibrant culture and had a proper understanding of race. Then he contrasts that with 1999 (the present) where whites in the United States are being reduced to a minority, whites are afraid to assert their own racial interests and American culture has become self hating and unsure of himself.

The answer, he says, is because of the JEWS, specifically ashkenazi jews that arrived around that time from Europe.

He identifies four intellectual movements responsible for dissolving white racial identity. Boasian anthropology, which asserts that all races and cultures are equal and that claims of cultural superiority are invalid. Marxism, which promoted universalism and the dissolving of national differences. Freudian psychology which pathologized healthy behavior as being a sign of mental illness. And Cultural Marxism, which likewise pathologised all in group selection as being a sign of mental disorder and leading to fascism. These destructive intellectual movements, Macdonald asserts, were pushed by jews who identified strongly as jews, specifically as a strategy to dissolve the identity of the society around them. Basically he's asserting that jews acted in bad faith, and had their own self interest at heart when they pushed these ideas. His charge is intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, as they never turned it inward and focused on the most insular culture of all.

This is where I learnt something from the text, something that !chuds and !nonchuds alike can take home. The process MacDonald described gets laid out in full, and you see one charismatic jewish leader (Freud, Boas, Ardorno, etc) get a place in a university chair somewhere, and then start an inner cult with dedicated students. These students all then venture out and dogpile the opposition with WORDS WORDS WORDS, they work to seed themselves in university chairs elsewhere, falsify research blatantly, until they're in a position to say "It's the mainstream consensus". You seen it especially with Boasian anthropology, with Margarat Bead just openly bullpooping about Samoan society and lying about her research to push that theory of cultural relativism. By the time the intellectual dishonesty was discovered it was too late, they were already embedded in university chairs everywhere and writing all the textbooks. It was a march through the institutions.

The book is filled with anecdote after anecdote of jews acting two faced and having double standards (and there is a lot). Stuff like Einstein smugposting about how nationalism is an infantile disease, and then soyfacing hard and rushing to fundraise for Israel, the "great hope of the jewish people". Rabbis in the 1980s bragging with triumphant joy at the demographic shift, saying we've passed the point where brownshirts can be marching on our street, the implication being that the sacrifice of american homogeneity was worth it if it protected the chosen. The other thing that MacDonald noticed was the shift in jewish participation in a movement in regards to its alignment of jewish interests. When Stalin turned out to be a bydlo country yokel who hated the master race, suddenly jews dropped communism in the 1950s and started forming neoconservatism on the other side, with a massive shift in support following the Arab Israeli wars.

What makes the whole trilogy hilarious to read is the transition from enthusiastic academic interest in a subject that interests him to just pure butthurt. It's like watching the kid being made fun of realize they're not laughing with him, they're laughing at him, it's that exact same hilarious loss of innocence. The paranoia, hatred and contempt for jews is absolutely dripping from the pages by the closing chapters of the Culture of Critique. He finishes off by indirectly saying the nazis were right and we need to become nazis again. He does this by saying "Nazism is a mimickry of the jewish evolutionary strategy...whites must become like jews to survive". Which taken together means he wants to answer the jewish question exactly like the nazis did.

My personal opinion....I'm not really entirely convinced. 100 years is a long history and jews have been involved in a lot of intellectual activity, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to fill an entire book of two faced smarmy behavior taking place over a hundred years for any group that writes and studies as much as the jews. Plus with an intermarriage rate of 50%+ I don't really see it as a successful strategy to dominate like Macdonald thinks it is, you don't mix with the people you're dominating. Even the most racist South African would be roping if the intermarriage rate was anything like that during apartheid. Of course Kevin MacDonald copes and says "no no, you see, marrying and breeding with whites is part of their strategy ". But it just seems like he's schizo on this point.

I'd give it a read still, I learnt a lot about the history of certain intellectual movements, and I learnt how dog-piling works well in academia to advance your own theories. I'm sure in twenty years time we'll find out a lot of the current mainstream consensus was made by a similar sort of dogpiling.