Marco de Wit February 23, 2021



In his Culture of Critique trilogy professor Kevin MacDonald shows how many Jewish dominated intellectual movements have developed a culture of critique that undermines those ideas and values that protect White group interests.

These intellectual movements include the Freudian psychoanalysis, Boazian anthropology, Marxism, the New York Intellectuals, Frankfurt School and even neoconservatism.


Link to Wikipedia



Note the almost all encompassing nature of the Jewish critique that includes everything from philosophy and psychology to literature, biology, economics and politics. It is this systematic culture of critique that has in many ways turned the White Western science, culture and society on its head.


But how about various other schools of thought? What about philosophical movements such as rationalism, historicism, empiricism and post-modernism? And what about various religious or anti-religious movements such as New Age, agnosticism or atheism? And what about ethical theories such as utilitarianism. Or aesthetic movements such as modern art?


One has to only compere these movements to traditional Western world view. It has been quite deductive starting from the laws of logic and proceeding through rationalism and natural law to objective notions of beauty. This is why the Culture of Critique has had to attack rationalist philosophy and even the laws of logic with philosophical relativism and then proceed to relativize everything from psychology and morality to ethics and aesthetics. Then it has been easy to also destroy the concepts of race and nationalism. Therefore it is possible to divide Culture of Critique into smaller parts and logical stages.

  1. Relativist science
  2. Freudian psychology
  3. Anti-Christian morality
  4. Subjective ethics
  5. Modernist aesthetics
  6. Boazian multiculturalism
  7. Cosmopolitanism
  8. Open borders
  9. Anti-Gentile Frankfurt School
  10. Globalism


1. Relativist science

Rationalism is the original Western philosophy developed by the Stoics, Scholastics and Kantians. Rationalist philosophy developed not only the laws of logic and mathematics but also laws of natural and social science. It developed classical economics and political science. At the same time it helped to limit the power of the state and helped create Western liberty.


In philosophy rationalism was first attacked by historicism. In Germany this intellectual movement was also known as the Historical School and in America it was known as the Institutional School. It claimed that there are only laws of natural science but no universal social laws. In human sciences there is only history. Economics, political science and sociology are just part of history and especially the study of institutions. In the 1800’s historicism took over more and more universities all over the world. Many Jews enthusiastically developed historicism into more relativistic direction until it further degenerated into Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology and finally into absurd postmodernism dominated by Jew Jacques Derrida and homosexual  Michel Foucault.


In the middle of 1800’s Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed Marxism which attacked both rationalism and historicism. It claimed to have found laws of history which inexorably will drive the world toward communism. At the same time it tried to undermine rationalism with polylogism. It claimed that there is no universal logic but the logical structure of the mind differs among different social classes. Logic too is relative. Bourgeois logic is outdated and must give way to socialist logic. Many Jews supported Marxism because it gave them a weapon against the whole Western civilisation. Socialist movements were led by Jews like Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, Otto Bauer, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kuhn and Trotsky. Even Lenin had a Jewish grandfather.


In the beginning of the 1900’s the logical positivists challenged all other philosophies with extreme empiricist pan-physicalism by claiming that only the methods of natural sciences are scientific. Even history and economics can be studied with the methods of the natural sciences. Human societies can be studied with the methods of the laboratories. Utilities of individual actions can be summed up or at least predicted reasonably well with mathematical formulas and equilibrium models. Jews Otto Neurath and Richard von Mises dominated the Vienna Circle and Ludwig Wittgenstein helped make positivism popular among philosophers. Neurath even applied positivist principles in practice first in War economy planning bureau and then in 1919 as an economic Czar during the short-lived Communist rule in Munich.


Rationalism was now attacked from all sides. However, rationalism did not totally oppose historicism and empiricism because it believed they both have a place in science. Historicism was useful in study of history and empiricism in natural science. However, they were mostly unsuited for economic and political science. They poisoned economics and politics with relativism which inevitably leads to interventionism or full-blown socialism. In fact, states and their governments tend to support relativist philosophies because they give rulers and bureaucrats a free hand to rule, tax and regulate.


And it was not only the states that supported relativism but also Jews. They realized that for thousands of years rationalism had been the backbone of Western science and culture. It produced objective logic and science but thereby also “intolerant” Western culture and the discrimination of Jews. This is probably why so many Jews enthusiastically tried to bring down rationalism with various relativist movements.


2. Freudian psychology

Freudianism was originally a Jewish movement that resembled a rabbinic cult. It not only relativized and pathologized individual responsibility and self-restraint but at the same time weaponized psychology against the Gentiles.


From the beginning Freud was quite hostile towards Christianity and Western culture in general. He saw Jews moral people who were more in touch with their feelings and sexuality. Freud did not like to interact with Gentiles and kept to his Jewish circle. Friedrich von Hayek notes how Freud’s circle was almost totally Jewish.

But the Vienna of the 1920’s and 1930’s is not intelligible without the Jewish problem. Which was not a problem simply of Christians and Jews but a very large middle group in between the two, partly of babtized Jews, partly of Christians who had made friends with the Jews; and there was close contact between the purely Christian group and the mixed group, and again between the mixed group and the Jewish group, but not between the two extremes. I became very much aware of this quite recently, when I was asked whom of the great figures of Vienna I’d known at the time. For instance, Schorödinger, yes, of course; Wittgenstein, yes, of course; and so on. 

Then he came to Freud, and I couldn’t possibly have known of Freud. Why? Because he belonged to the really Jewish group, and that was beyond my ranger of acquaintances. I had a great many very close acquaintances in the mixed group, I constantly moved in it, but to have met somebody in the purely Jewish group was so unlikely that being told that because I was a Viennese, I ought to have known Freud, seemed to me absurd. (Hayek on Hayek. p. 59-60. Emphasis added.)


Freud’s parents came from Galicia which was a kind of promised land for the Jews. It had a very conservative Talmudic culture. Freud’s mother, Amalia worshiped his son and seems to have encouraged him to develop his sex crazed psychological theories. Perhaps the Talmudic culture was a contributing factor.


Amalia and Sigmund Freud. Link to Wikipedia.


Freud was known to have a troubled relationship with both children and women. He tried to excuse the sexual exploitation of children by claiming it was the child who lusted after the adult. Freud’s de facto defense of pedophilia is not surprising considering that it was considered relatively normal in Talmudic culture. Freud might even have systematically covered up sexual abuse of little girls.


The sex craze of Freud and many other Jews was certainly also a reflection of the highly sexed Talmudic culture. It was the Jews who most pushed for sexual revolution and especially the creation of pornographic subculture in the West.  The Freudian sexual revolution was an important part of the Culture of Critique.


Link to Medium


Freud’s relationship with women is also highly troubling. He seemed to consider them vastly inferior and natural hysterics. Freud’s student, Otto Weininger stated in his book Sex and Character:

Thus, whereas F is totally fulfilled and taken by sexuality, M knows a dozen of other things: fight and play, sociability and [Gelage], discussion and science, business and politics, religion and art. . . . F is nothing but sexuality, M is sexual and also something above. (Mises Biography, p. 416. Emphasis added.)


First Freud supported Weininger’s theories but changed his mind after Weininger became critical of the Jews and started claiming that Jews have a female soul. This is why Jews cannot uphold a civilization but tend to destroy it:

In a separate chapter [of Sex and Character], Weininger, himself a Jew who had converted to Christianity in 1902, analyzes the archetypal Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil. Christianity is described as “the highest expression of the highest faith”, while Judaism is called “the extreme of cowardliness”.

Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (or identically, “Jewish”) character. By Weininger’s reckoning everyone shows some femininity, and what he calls “Jewishness”.[15] (Wikipedia)


Hitler was impressed by Weininger’s theories.

In his private conversations, Hitler recalled a remark his mentor Dietrich Eckart made about Weininger: “I only knew one decent Jew and he committed suicide on the day when he realized that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples…”.[21] (Wikipedia)



Freudianism was one of the most important aspects of the Culture of Critique because it attacked the most important part of the individual: His consciousness and instincts. It demonized the traditional view of man as an self-conscious individual who chooses his course of actions. Now man was reduced to a half-craze automaton that was the slave of his instincts and the subconscious.


3. Anti-Christian morality

Western values are based on Christian morality of right and wrong. Relativists try to destroy that moral foundation by denying the existence of absolute moral values. There is no good and bad because they are just relative concepts. This sort of relativism is natural for many Jews because the Talmudic culture is more relativistic. In fact, everything can and should be debated and undermined. Individual himself is a God and he can create his own moral universe. But only if he is smart enough, of course.


Traditionally the Church and its organization were important contributing factors for the emergence of liberty in Europe. The natural law tradition of the Church emphasized the rights of individuals against the state. The organization of the Church also created a balance of power which stopped the state from becoming all-powerful as it had done in all other cultures. However, Jews fear the power of the Church. They see it as an anti-Semitic organization that must be destroyed with atheism or at least broken into thousand sects so that it can not threaten Jews.


This is why so many Jews have been militantly anti-Christian. They claim to be tolerant secularists but at the same time they refuse to criticize the negative sides of the Talmudic culture. The Jews have not only a relativist morality but also a double standard. The Christians and their culture are to blame but never the Jews and their Talmudic culture. Anti-Christianity and secularism clearly support the moral aspects of the Culture of Critique.


4. Subjective ethics

By supporting psychological and a moral relativism Jews laid the groundwork for ethical relativism. However, there was an obstacle. The Church and Western culture in general was largely based on natural law tradition. It gave birth to Western liberty:

Now it is true that the liberal and democratic movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries drew a great part of its strength from the doctrine of natural law and the innate imprescriptible rights of the individual. These ideas, first developed by ancient philosophy and Jewish theology, permeated Christian thinking. .. A long line of eminent philosophers substantiated them. They became popular and were the most powerful moving force in the prodemocratic evolution. (Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, p. 174)


In fact, it was the natural law tradition that had also protected the Jews. Unlike the Eastern empires the people of the West had always believed that Jews have rights too. They could not be enslaved or massacred at will. Despite this many Jews fought hard against the natural law tradition. They developed various relativist ethical systems. One of the most popular among Jewish intellectuals was utilitarianism.  For example, Ludwig von Mises believed that ethics was subjective. Right and wrong are just personal opinions.

The notion of right and wrong is a human device. … All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at. (Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, Chp. 27, Sec. 3)


Utilitarians emphasized that most people want peace and prosperity. Therefore they would logically have to be classical liberals and support peaceful coexistence and liberty. Ethics is not only a matter of taste but also logic.


But what if people do not behave logically? And what about jealousy, envy, impatience, greed, lust, malice and pure evil? Sure, one might even agree that in the long run peace and liberty would make everybody economically more prosperous. But for some economic prosperity is not the highest value. For many prosperity is also relative. Some are even happy to be poor if others are even more poor. Revenge is often sweet and so is dominance. Even more importantly: Often people do not care about the long run. They do not have the patience to wait for years. They want their way now. So they cheat, lie and support aggression. Utilitarians cannot blame them since that is evidently what they value and want.


Ethical relativism is obviously self-contradictory. But why then did so many Jews embrace it and turned against natural law tradition? Perhaps because ethical relativism is often also good for the Jews. After all, Diaspora Jews are in an impossible situation. They live in foreign lands and refuse to assimilate. This could make many of them into liars and cheaters. A relativist utilitarian world view would be very helpful to excuse all that. No wonder many Jews supported the ethical relativist aspects of the Culture of Critique.


5. Modernist aesthetics

If you are a psychological, moral and ethical relativist then you are easily a relativist also in art and literature. Beauty and sentiments are subjective anyway. They are all a matter of taste. There is no such thing as degenerate art.

Many modern art forms have been dominated by Jews. One of the most famous exponents of modern art was  Otto Kallir (originally Nirenstein). In 1923 he founded the famous expressionist gallery, Neue Galerie in Vienna.


Link to


Link to


Wikipedia explains:

In 1923 Nirenstein established the Neue Galerie (still operating, under different ownership, as the Galerie nächst St. Stephan), which opened with the first major posthumous exhibition of Schiele’s work. Eventually, Nirenstein became an internationally recognized art dealer, representing Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kokoschka, Egon Schiele and Alfred Kubin. …

In 1933 Otto Nirenstein legally changed his name to Kallir, adopting a name that had been in his family for many generations. …  

Because the modern artists represented by the Neue Galerie were not subject to Austria’s export laws in 1938, and most were in any case considered “degenerate” by the Nazis, Kallir was able to bring a significant inventory with him into exile. …

In 1939, they emigrated to the United States, bringing a significant portion of his inventory.[5] In the same year, Kallir established the New York Galerie St. Etienne, where he introduced Austrian and German expressionist art to the United States. (Wikipedia)


Art is all around us. Architecture, pictures, music and movies are all influenced by aesthetics. Modern art and relativist aesthetics are a very important part of the Culture of Critique.


6. Boazian multiculturalism

The Culture of Critique was not only limited to psychology, morality, ethics and aesthetics but it tried to also to relativize hard sciences. Jewish professor Franz Boaz was the original race denier who denied that there exists clear average psychological and intellectual differences between races. Boaz and his Jewish dominated network started to take over universities. This despite the fact that IQ tests were developed already in 1905. They standard Stanford-Binet IQ tests showed clear average differences between races, nations and classes. The more proof of racial differences came to light the more the Jews tried to suppress it.

Jews themselves have a very high average IQ. It is hardly possible that they do not believe at all in IQ tests and racial differences. Surely they cannot believe that Australian Aborigines or Kongo pygmies have the same genotypic average IQ than Germanics and Jews? So why do they refuse to listen to hard sciences? Perhaps because race science gives too much credence for nationalist and other “Nazi” ideas. One could also start to wonder about the qualities of the Jews as a group. And that would not be good for the Jews. This is why so many Jews support the race denying multiculturalist aspects of the Culture of Critique.


7. Cosmopolitanism

Since so many Jews support relativism and deny the existence of races and nations it is not surprising that they consider themselves cosmopolites, citizens of the world. However, while pretending to be tolerant multiculturalists they at the same time really hate many nations such as the Germans and the Russians. A shocking example is the famous classical liberal, Ludwig von Mises who preached peace and tolerance but at the same time totally demonized Germans.


Link to article


Jews often demonize Germans but at the same time they are very quiet about the negative sides of Jews and especially the Zionists. Jews can do no wrong because they are eternal victims. This sort of cosmopolitan double standard is an important part of the Culture of Critique.


8. Open borders

Jews often believe in the melting pot. Not only America but also Europe should be a melting plot. But if tens of millions of Japanese, Chinese, Malayans and Africans would move to Australia, Europe and America what stops them taking over in the future? Jews obviously understand the risks but do not care. Open borders are good for Jews.

Jews don’t care what the nation looks like because Jews would be an economic elite anyway. In a multicultural society Jews would not have to be afraid to be singled out like they have been so many times in homogeneous White European countries. Multiracial society would have so many races and nationalities that Jews could even play them against each other. Jews would rule.


9. The anti-Gentile Frankfurt School

The famous Frankfurt School brought all the relativist elements of the Culture of Critique together into a theory of Antisemitism. If you believed in individual psychological responsibility, traditional Christian morality, natural law ethics, traditional aesthetics and values, racial theories, nationalism and immigration restriction there was something very wrong with you. You clearly suffered from an authoritarian personality that gave rise to irrational anti-Semitism. No wonder if you hallucinated that Jews were undermining Western civilization. You were in need of counseling and perhaps also psychiatric treatment.




The founders and members of the Frankfurt school came from Eastern Europe. They knew full well that in Eastern Europe peasants had been horribly exploited by a Jewish hostile elite for centuries. First Jews run an exploitative monopoly economy that reduced the people into serfdom. Then when people managed to gradually free themselves many Jews came back as communists and exploited them even more savagely with massacres, torture and Gulags.


No wonder many people are very suspicious of the Jews. But the Frankfurt School considers these Whites evil and sick anti-Semites! This is the main message of the the Culture of Critique.


10. Globalism





Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*