[00:00]

Ford: I’m here with Andrew Joyce, who’s got a book coming out called “Talmud and Taboo”. So Andrew, can you to tell me about your forthcoming book?

Joyce: Yes. Well anyone who has taken a look at my articles at the Occidental Observer, or in the Occidental Quarterly and some of the other sort of Alt-Right journals will be familiar with the subject matter that I deal with. And the book is no exception to that.

The book really concerns, in the broadest capacity possible jewish influence, jewish history, and aspects of jewish culture, from the perspective of a White European who possesses, I would argue, a level of ethnocentrism that would be equivalent to many within the, I suppose, inner core of the jewish community, to the extent that it would represent people who are highly ethnocentric, or certainly care for their ethnic interests and see themselves as a group to a very strong degree.

So the book, I guess, is the response of a highly identified, strongly identified European against similar ethnic feelings within the jewish community.

Breaking it down it looks at jewish influence in academia, in particular the writing of history. And also in contemporary politics. There’s some nineteenth century politics and I also look at some offshoots of literature and how jewish influence has manifested itself in relation to efforts to promote the concept of jewish genius, with particular focus on, Spinoza and some other figures.

The book really is a collection of what I have regarded as my best materials at the Occidental Observer and the Occidental Quarterly, with some new material, but most importantly the [word unclear] edition.

What really makes it a book is I’ve written a quite lengthy introduction of some fifteen thousand words, or so, in which I try and condense, not jewish history in its entirety, but certainly the history of jews in Europe into a kind of easily digestible narrative, pulling out some of the main themes in that history. Some of the major problematic areas of interaction between Jews and Europeans.

Ford: What precisely is your ethnic background? Are you English? Are you Irish? What are you?

Joyce: My own ethnic background, I actually have no Irish in me. I was born in Ireland. But I was raised in several different countries actually. I come from a military background. And in terms of my immediate ethnic background my parents, there’s English, Welsh, and Scottish there. And nothing else, as far as I can tell. I’ve done quite extensive work on my own family tree. And certainly on my father’s side I’ve researched back to the fourteenth century. I haven’t been able to go back anywhere as far on all my mother’s side, but it’s predominately English people from Yorkshire. And also the south of Wales to the extent that there were sort of English and Norman settlers in that part of Wales.

Ford: It’s interesting how dramatic the differences are between say, the English and their genetics, and the type of variety they create in the Irish. So when you had the Irish coming to the United States, it took many generations to assimilate them, because they’re much more ethnocentric than the English. And much more likely to commit crimes, and to be drunk. And it’s interesting the dramatic genetic differences, you know, within that still pretty similar geographic locale and how they play out in the way group statistics play out.

Joyce: The Irish are fascinating! I have many, many Irish friends. And, I have a great deal of respect for them I would agree with you that the Irish possessed a heightened sense of ethnocentrism, to a degree. It’s kind of become perversely plastic and the late 20th century. In the way that we have this kind of “plastic paddy” phenomena, where you have the sort of the orange beards and the Leprechaun hats that accompany St Patrick’s Day tomfoolery.

But yes, going back into the middle the nineteenth century, certainly through, say the 1940s there was a very, very strong drive for Irish nationalism. A very strong emphasis on the importance of ethnocentrism within Ireland during that period. There are substantial differences between the English and the Irish.

I think overall those differences have been exaggerated at times. And some of the recent genetic studies, for example a book called “Blood of the Isles” it was discovered that the English and the Irish, and also the Scots and Welsh share a lot more in common genetically that was ever thought previously. And this was down to the fact that the study of English DNA revealed that there was a lot more remnants of the pre Celtic even, and certainly pre-Germanic sort of settlers within, … The remnants were still there of their DNA.

So this kind of image that people have in their minds of the Anglo Saxons, of all of all these German tribes migrating from Saxony, and Freesia, and some of those German lands, and basically pushing the Celtic or pre-Celtic peoples into the Celtic countries of Wales or Scotland, are largely a myth. There was a great deal of intermixing there. Certainly between a relatively small group of Saxons, and many of the indigenous tribes that the Romans would have been familiar with, for example.

So yes, there are differences there. I think they’ve been overplayed. But certainly if you look at the studies produced by someone like Richard Lyn on IQ. The IQ gap between English and Irish has been very substantial at times. And the Irish IQ actually has been remarkably low for Western Europe. It was on par I think with, or was it, with Romania and some other incredibly impoverished European countries.

Ford: You’ve mentioned that the beginning that you are someone with a strong European identity. What about English identity vs European identity?

Joyce: Yeah, this is a question I get asked quite frequently. I was actually contacted not so long ago on social media by a guy who, he had a question, I think he was French. But he asked me:

“Did I think it was right, …”

It was a hypothetical question:

“Did I think it was right, for example, if a sizable German population came into France and assumed positions all power and influence in the top levels of French government, …”

And he basically said:

“You’re describing yourself as a White nationalist. So, if these are fellow Whites, at kind of problem would you have with such a scenario?”

The first thing I said, well, I conceded that the problem that he posed was a good one. But at the same time it was quite unlikely scenario. And thirdly, in order to give him a straight answer to it. I said:

“No. I don’t think that that would be a good idea.”

I think that, because of the threat, some people would argue obviously against me. Certainly a Social Justice Warrior say there is no threat to the White race currently. But I do perceive it there to be a broad demographic threat to the White race as a whole. And I do believe that the White race is being targeted for what it is.

For those reasons alone, I think we need strategies which are in some respects international. I think that some of the threats that are being posed to us are international in nature, and certainly their international in their scope and in their strategy. And we need a response that is going to work on that level.

For example, if I was to support any sort of White nationalist government, or English nationalist government that is race aware and is keen to redress the demographic decline, et cetera, et cetera, such a government may well, hypothetically, take hold over England and then succeed to some extent. But the international community would still bring enough pressure to bear on that country, on England, in that hypothetical scenario, to the extent that any gains that it may make would be minuscule.

And certainly if you look at the modern apparatus of international government sanctions, and the worst case scenario of military responses, I don’t think that any White country can go it alone, so to speak. I believe in a kind of pan European strategy, if you will. And by that I don’t mean anything remotely similar to the European Union.

But, I do believe that Whites must learn to come together and operate in different nations, towards the same goals, in the same way, for example, the jews have all operated across borders in order to look after their interests and achieve their ethnic goals.

Ford: At the beginning of his book, The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald makes the point that people of northwestern European heritage tend to be about the least ethnocentrist people around while, jews and other Middle Eastern people tend to be very highly ethnocentric. But, you know, under a certain level of stress people from northern Europe can start to become increasingly ethnocentric. I’m wondering how much of your strong European identity is a response to say, strong jewish identity, and the challenge that presents to your people?

Joyce: I would say that plays a large part in the development of my own ethnocentrism. I think that ethnocentrism can arise from a number of positions within the mentality of the person. One way in which ethnocentrism can develop is on an emotional level.

So for example in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, in daily interactions with with jews many of the peasant populations lost money, they lost possessions, whether it was through the money lending system, the tavern system, petty pawn brokering, or different things. In general and cumulatively, and together, the Russian peasantry was losing out to the Jews. And this gave way to a groundswell of resentment, and to anger. And I think that was a huge point in fueling the development of ethnocentrism in that part of the world, at that time.

Have I ever been ripped off by a Jew? Or have I ever been financially exploited or otherwise? No! My own journey towards a more ethnocentric outlook bears a a lot of similarity to Kevin MacDonald actually, about how he describes his development. I think in his introduction to Culture of Critique he does say something like:

“This has been an intellectual journey. When I wrote ‘A People that Dwell Alone’ I was sort of pushing this from a purely intellectual standpoint but as time has gone on I discovered more things. I’ve become more aware of my own ethnic interests.”

And I think that my own journey has been roughly similar, although I think I started significantly younger age than Kevin MacDonald. I’m not sure what age he was when he started writing Culture of Critique. Certainly by the time I was about twenty years old, I had a fairly well developed sense of ethnocentrism.

One of the things that I would add actually my sense of ethnocentrism was, even to this day when I write something like “my people”, or “our people”. These phrases actually don’t sit well, they don’t come out of my mouth or my pen easily. It’s still something that I’m not exactly sure why. But I find it difficult. It doesn’t slip off the tongue. And certainly there’s a lot within my own culture that currently I’m not very happy with. There’s a lot in the past that I’m proud of, but sometimes it can difficult .

One of the great things that Western Europeans, or Europeans in general are good at, perhaps human beings are good at is, a kind of self-criticism, or a critical approach of one’s self. And sometimes that takes a conscious overpowering in order to really assert, that:

“Yes, okay, my tribe has its flaws, but it’s my tribe! And it has to be defended if it is to have a future.”

So in terms of ethnocentrism, yes, it’s fairly strong in me. It’s not, I wouldn’t say it’s sort of ADL strong, or SPLC strong! [chuckling] But it’s definitely stronger than the average. And the reason it’s got there is, I think is largely due to an intellectual process. At times there are things that have infuriated me during that intellectual process. But overall, it’s been through study and observation of facts, as I have interpreted them.

[16:18]

Ford: I think I heard in a previous podcast that you did. That in high school you wrote a critique of Schindler’s List, so you must have been pretty red pilled on the Jewish Question in high school!

Joyce: Well the thing is at that point I knew very little about Jews in high school. When I was very young my mother sent me to a Presbyterian Sunday school. And it was one of those branches of the Presbyterian, … A small breakaway factions of the Presbyterian Church where jews were revered! And my first encounter with jews was that they were the apple of God’s eye. That they originated in some far off sunny land. It certainly wasn’t cloudy, windy, rainy. Northwest Europe.

And they had all these exotic fruits, you know, there was talk of pomegranates in the Old Testament. And all this was made much of and discussed with great fanfare within that Sunday school. But between that very young age that I attended that school, and that essay that I wrote on Schindler’s List, there was nothing. There was a blank space!

I didn’t encounter any jews, read anything about jews. It was only really when I encountered the high school curriculum, in which the rise of the Nazis, the “Holocaust”. And within the curriculum was Schindler’s List that they really came out. And even at that stage, when I critiqued the film, from what I thought was just a purely analytical perspective. But I should also say that even at that young age my personality was quite contrarian.

And so I was led to believe that this was a film I should feel sad, or that I should have great sympathy with the victims as portrayed in this film. It would have been much my personality at the time to adopt the opposite approach. So I would have adopted a kind of a hostile approach to the mainstream narrative presented within that film. I think anyway.

This is me, you know, some, almost two decades later reading something back to my younger self. A flawed exercise perhaps, and certainly I need to be very careful in how much I read back into my younger self.

But was I well versed in the JQ [Jewish Question] at the age of fifteen, or sixteen? No, I wasn’t. I wouldn’t claim to be that precocious or a child that was well read at that age. I just had a film in front of me in which I saw flaws. And certainly had some level of bias in its presentation. And I just wanted to argue against it.

Ford: So what about at university? What did you study? And how did that bear on your developing response to the jewish question?

Joyce: I studied history and literature. And that is something that I stuck with throughout my academic career. Again I didn’t study anything explicitly jewish at any point during that. I did focus on twentieth century United States history.

And that really didn’t even offer much scope in terms of looking at Jews. I did encounter some reference with the jews, or I think, I guess from the age of eighteen, or nineteen. From Nixon, the mentions that he made in the Watergate tapes, for example. And I also encountered Jews again through, I guess a more in-depth study of the “Holocaust” during that time. But only ever as part of a broad sweep, you know, this general classes on the 20th century international history, 20th century European history.

But at the age of, I think it was coming to the end of twenty, I might have turned twenty one. And I was wanting a good meaty book that was also controversial. I just wanted something that would capture my interest. And I heard about this book by Daniel Goldhagen, called the [word unclear] Willing Executioners [? Hitler’s Willing Executioners]. And it was a book that was largely hammered actually by the critics. And certainly I read many criticisms from some jewish critics, who said that it was awful. Purely from a professional standpoint.

But I wanted to know [chuckling] what “bad history” looked like! So I read it, and I thought it was actually fascinating! I actually liked the way Goldhagen wrote. It was a very well written book, even if in terms of its argument, it was very deeply flawed. But I enjoyed reading it, none the less.

It stimulated me to start reading independently, and use some of the skills I learned picking up my degree and later my PhD., into a broader study of what went wrong in Europe, in the early 1940s. Because there were certainly mass killings. And they certainly did occur right across Europe at the time. And I wanted to know why. I wanted to dig deeper.

So I got Paul Johnson’s “History of the Jews” and started from there. And then I just branched out. And I read as much as I could, whenever I could. And over the years that knowledge accumulated and expanded, and I started developing my own ideas.

But within a couple of years really started with my current work with Kevin MacDonald, which was both affirming in a sense. In the sense that I found echoes of my own thoughts in his work. And also it was directional in the sense that it pointed me in the areas that I wanted to go, or felt that I should go.

And certainly having read, even by the time, I think I just finished reading Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”, when I find Kevin MacDonald’s work. And at that time I had read one, or two, maybe three or four actually of the nineteenth century seminal texts on the jewish question. And for all of their plus points there was a certain vulgarity or bluntness of approach in many of those texts that wasn’t there with Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald’s work is very clear! It’s very exact! And that has very unique in terms of writing about the jewish question.

Historically, writing for the jewish question has involved lots of emotion, a little bit of analysis, and quite a lot of, just bitterness! Which is understandable. It is an emotive and emotional subject matter when you look at it’s, all it’s implications, for jews underpinnings, and Europeans.

But it has taken us a long time to get to the point where Europeans can write at least somewhat objectively about this subject matter. It’s been getting better over time. I think that Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” actually was a leap forward in the sense that there’s a break from some of the writings, certainly from French writers like Drumont, [words unclear], and some of the, … Well Germany always had a traditional sort of intellectual anti-semitism, if you want to give it that title.

But MacDonald’s work really was, marked, a huge break from the past.

[24:57]

Ford: We keep talking about the Jewish questions, so my definition of the jewish question is that it’s Gentiles are asking:

“What do we do about the jews in our country?” [chuckling]

 

What’s your understanding of the definition of the Jewish Question?

Joyce: That’s fairly, that is nice and concise! I actually like it! But, it’s almost like we’re jumping the gun a little bit, in terms of what do we do. For me the jewish question is really two questions. What we’re asking when we talk about the jewish question is, do Jews really possess more influence in European societies than they should?

And then sort of the second part of the jewish question would be, what you just said there. Would be like, well what do we do about it? How do we manage this? And within each of those questions are a lot of smaller questions. The jewish question is a nice title for what are endless socio-economic, political, and cultural questions.

And I think that before we talk talk in any sense of about what are we going to do about jews. We really need to be very careful about what we mean about jewish influence, how we understand it, where next itself manifest, how it makes itself manifest.

And only when we fully understand those things can we even begin to discuss remedies. Now I know that in Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald says something along the likes of, we might need something like affirmative action in order to redress certain manifestations of jewish influence in European societies.

For example, jewish over-representation in the universities, and in some professions. This has been attempted before. It’s been attempted countless times before with the quota system, with the numerous clauses that were in place in the United States. When did that end? I think sometime in the 1920s.

Ford: No, like the 1960s.

Joyce: 1960s? Wow!

So efforts to kind of curb via legislation, or codes, or admissions requirements, and things like this, they have kind of come and gone. They were also in place in Russia. They were also present in different parts of Western Europe at various times.

Then they were an effort at a solution. And for me, it’s just so far down the line I never think about solutions, to use [chuckling] a dubious term, “solutions to the jewish question”. I’m more interested in simply investigating it’s manifestations.

Ford: How old were you when you read Culture of Critique?

Joyce: I think I was maybe twenty two at the time. I think twenty two.

Ford: And I don’t know anyone can be the same after reading that book.

Joyce: No. It was transformative! As I said I was already on some of the track. Culture of Critique wasn’t the first MacDonald’s books that I read. I was, as I said, I was predominately interested in anti-semitism. I came away from Goldhagen’s book wanting to know more about why people didn’t like jews.

As I said, I didn’t have any personal interaction with them growing up, so I reached the age of my early twenty’s, without ever having met a single jew.

And I was fascinated! I just thought:

“Why all this trouble? Why all these centuries of conflict and bloodshed? There must be a reason.”

So my own investigation did not begin with wanting to find out about jews, or the Jewish Question. My investigation started with wanting to find out about anti-semitism, and why it came about.

So the first book that I read of MacDonald’s was his book on anti-semitism, “Separation and Its Discontents”, which was an evolutionary analysis of anti-semitisms it was, and remains, my favorite of MacDonald’s books. I like “Culture of Critique”. But everyone adopts a position on the jewish question that reflects some sense, some aspect of their personality. For example, Martin Luther was a thunderous preacher. And his approach to the jewish question was that of thunderous preacher. “On the Jews and Their Lies” is just a long ranting sermon about jews, and about eternal damnation, all the things that really appeal to Luther.

And, on the other hand, you’ve got the kind of journalistic type people, like Wilhelm Marr who coined the term anti-semitism. He wrote the pamphlet tract, “The Victory of Judaism Over Germany”. And his book, … And also I would argue Drumont’s as well, “La France juive” [1886 by Édouard Drumont], “Jewish France”, those are written by journalists. And the tone of their text that they develop are journalistic texts. So they always sort of err on the side of the exposé! The whole tone of the book is “let’s expose the jews”. And they bounce from one revelation to the next. Some are more authentic than others.

So, and then you course you have the academics who think everything can be solved by breaking them down into minute parts and analyzing it and putting it together and developing theories about it. And the first two books, by MacDonald, were the most truly academic in my opinion. And certainly the second appealed most to me.

The Culture of Critique on the other hand, certainly while being a very academic book — and I don’t take anything away from that regard — but it’s content, and also some of its tone, because MacDonald does shift his tone in that third book, and some of his phraseology certainly adopts a more journalistic tone. There is more in there that has a kind of a journalistic feel, there’s something of the exposé about it. Particularly when he’s talking about Freud. He gets into some aspects of this, and the Frankfurt School, exposing the jewish nature of the Frankfurt School. It’s exposing the jewishness of Freudianism.

So “Separation and Its Discontents” has always been my favorite. And it was a good primer in a lot of ways, anyway, for Culture of Critique.

But yeah, I read it! It sits on my bookshelf. I think it’s an absolute tremendous, timeless classic that will be read and re-read in decades to come. And perhaps centuries.

But I would say that it didn’t dramatically, or radically change any aspect of my thinking. It helped in my development. I just wouldn’t say that there was a transformative effect.

[32:39]

Ford: What subject did you get your PhD in?

Joyce: My PhD was, … I don’t want to be too specific, but it was on a quite famous 19th century literary figure. But the thesis took in quite a good bit of nineteenth century British history, economics and literature.

And I think that the breadth of reading on that, certainly just in terms of how to craft a piece of history, helped me along in my development. Certainly, the analytical approach. I still have a great fondness for literature. I do write a lot about jews, obviously, for Kevin MacDonald.

But recently, I’ve kind of intertwined that with my passion for TS Eliot, Ezra Pound. I have in the past written some pieces in the Occidental Quarterly which has taken in some of the works of Charles Dickens, and some other nineteenth century authors.

Ford: When did you arrive on the scene, of the Alt-right writing under, you know, Andrew Joyce? Was it two or three years ago?

Joyce: No, no, no. It’s been longer than that actually. I’ve been in contact with Kevin MacDonald for at least eight years. Well, yeah, at least eight years. And we corresponded for a long time, about a number of different topics. And I think it’s about six years ago now. Five, or six, years ago, I suggested that I’ll send him a piece of writing and perhaps he’d want to publish it at the Occidental Observer.

And he did. But I read written little bits, little blog posts anonymously. And I’d read the lengthy pieces in chat forums and things previously.

So it wasn’t like a sort of a radical and sudden appearance on the scene. It developed incrementally over time. But I think it was in 2012 that I first wrote for the Occidental Observer under Andrew Joyce. And at first I didn’t have the time — I still don’t have the time — [chuckling] to write as much as I do. But first I wrote something every six months, four, or five months. It is quite a distance between the pieces that I was producing.

And then a couple of years ago, I just started pushing myself a little bit more in part. I think I do have a contribution that I could make. I have read a lot of stuff, at this point. So, I’m going to try and up the work rate and increase the input.

And I try to, as much as possible, to produce content for the Occidental Observer on a fairly regular basis. And sometimes, sometimes there’s nothing to write about! Sometimes you’ve got so much to write about, whether it’s current affairs, or something that you’re reading, or something that’s come into your head, that you don’t have the time to write or, … At the minute I’m writing like three pieces! I just need to get them out on paper.

[36:23]

Ford: How do you deal with the tension between being an activist and an academic?

Joyce: It’s difficult. It’s difficult. Academia is hostile territory for some of my beliefs, so they need to be concealed, almost entirely! Because it’s very sensitive environment. It’s a very, it’s like the spotlight is always shining on anyone who may have any ideas which are dissident to the status quo.

Academia is very difficult. I’ve had many conversations with Kevin MacDonald about this. Obviously he was practically tortured and hounded by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] in the latter years of his position at, the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara?

Ford: He was at Cali State, Long Beach.

Joyce: Yeah, that is right, Long Beach. They made his time there quite terrible towards the end. And I think it was a great relief to him when he [chuckling] finally found his way into retirement!

But the tension. Just, … There is almost there is no tension simply because you cannot allow the two sides to come into contact. To be openly Alt-Right within the university system, within the college system, is impossible!

Ford: Yeah! Well, ..

How, … You’re on the more tough end of dealing with the Jewish Question. Like Kevin is not nearly as tough on jews as you are. [chuckling] How did you end up on your end of the spectrum? You know, you’re to the Right, so to speak, of Kevin MacDonald on dealing with the jews.

Joyce: Umm, … [chuckling] I didn’t realize that I came across so far to the Right of Kevin MacDonald! I think it’s more a matter of writing style, than position. Certainly in conversations that I’ve had with Kevin MacDonald, intellectually we’re sort of in the same position. We’re both kind of questing, and we’re both pushing, and we both are aware of our own interests, our ethnic interests in this entire [?] conflict.

But before I answer, I guess maybe I could ask you a question as to what is it in my work that makes you think I’m particularly hard on the jews?

Ford: I think it’s just a feeling that I get. I mean, also I could point to your essay for Radix Journal in January, “The Jewish Question and Some Answers”. I mean, you really want complete separation between jews and non jews. And Kevin MacDonald has not, you know, advocating anything like that. I mean, that’s a pretty big difference!

Like you and Richard Spencer now advocating for complete separation. While Kevin MacDonald is not calling for something like that. So that’s why I would say that you’re to the Right. Also, it’s just a feeling tone that I get, like when I read Kevin MacDonald I feel, you know, very much that I’m reading, generally speaking, the work of a surgeon.

And when I read you it just feels more hostile. You know, I could be wrong. That’s just the feeling. It’s like I have to put on a thicker layer of armor to engage with your writing on the jews than I do with Kevin MacDonald.

Joyce: Hmm.

Ford: Because, you know, as someone who converted to orthodox judaism who naturally, like everybody who strongly identifies with his group, tends to naturally think of his group being awesome, and members of other groups being less awesome!

And Kevin MacDonald is a challenge to deal with, but I have to put on even more armor to put myself in a place where I can engage with your writings.

[41:20]

Joyce: I think I can understand where you’re coming from. I think of the part of the reason why my work might be seen as a step up in terms of hostility, part of it might be due to the tone I write, and writing style. I do have an abruptness of style where I don’t like grey areas. And sometimes if it comes between taking the foot off the gas, or putting the pedal to the floor, I’ll put the pedal to the floor. So that’s part of a personality thing.

But in another sense some of the things that I have encountered in my research do make me angry! And sometimes that may come across in something that I’ve written. And certainly it’s not impossible that readers could pick up on that sense of grievance in my writing.

In terms of the Radix piece and advocating complete separation. I thought long and hard about the introduction to that interview. If you think back to when it was published it was kind of an iffy time in the Alt-Right in terms of how do you address the jewish Question. Red Ice Radio had a guy called “Reactionary Jew”, I think. Yeah, they had Reactionary Jew from Twitter, on. And they did an interview with him.

And a lot of the kind of 4chan crowd were unhappy that Red Ice had done this. So they started complaining, or some kind of online activism against Red Ice Radio. Which was picked up by The Right Stuff. And The Right Stuff took Red Ice’s side on this matter. And then the 4chan guys that started attacking the Right Stuff guys, which resulted in the doxing of a few of them.

I watched this. This was all very interesting to me, because it was a tussle about do Jews have any say even in how the Alt-Right approaches the jewish question. And I actually didn’t listen to the Reactionary Jew interview, but in the summaries that I heard about it, I think that, … Well this is all secondhand, this is all hearsay, as I said, I did listen to the interview.

But the word on the street, so to speak, was that Lana [Lokteff] had been quite soft on this guy, Reactionary Jew, in the first place. And that’s where the problems all began, that Lana had basically gone, made approving noises to this guy, saying, you know, there could be quite some kind of common ground there. So all of this was floating around and I thought to myself at the time:

“I would actually like to interview some jews!”

Some so-called, Right wing, reactionary jews.

Who I undoubtedly would have some kind of common ground with, in the sense that they were ethnocentric, and I was ethnocentric. And I wanted to ask them some pretty blunt and honest questions, which is the way that I would, with my personality, conduct an interview.

So, at the time I had been exchanging words with a couple of these people on Twitter. Really it was Reactionary Jew I conversed with most. And then he, got the other guy, their rabbi [?], I think he was either a convert, or this is mother, or someone, was not ethnically jewish, but he was very, very strongly identified as a Jew. It was almost like, because he was only half jewish, he had to like make up for it with a super amount of strong jewish identification. He was fascinating to talk to.

So we have some honest discussion. I said:

“Look. Here’s the deal guys. Here’s my email address, let’s us the take a step further.”

So I did this interview and I was happy with the responses. And I said to MacCaddis:

“Look. One thing I’m going to promise you with this interview is that I’m not going to alter your answers any way, shape, or form! What you send me is what will go in Radix. And I will send you a full copy of everything! Even my introduction before it is published and you guys can give me any feedback that you want.”

So I want a really transparent interaction with them where we walked through every step of the way.

Once I had the interview I thought to myself:

“Right how do I introduce this?”

And, it’s funny when you say that I’m really, really hard on the jews Well, there were people on that interview when was posted that were like:

“Oh, you know, Joyce has completely cucked out! [Ford laughs] I was soft on the jews!”

And there were people, a bit like yourself, who read that, … I know you reviewed the interview on your own blog. And I thought many of the criticisms, if not all of them, that you made about that interview in the blog were pretty valid. I don’t dispute, I don’t think that my writings is perfect, or even that was the perfect interview.

But it was difficult for me to frame. But I try to think about all angles of objection, first of all, to publication on Radix. And, you know, the first objection is:

“Look! Jews have no place in any of our publications, or, we don’t need to discuss anything with them. They are the enemy. And they just need to be opposed one hundred percent! We don’t need to listen to a single word they say.”

And I can understand that sentiment. But at the same time, from an intellectual point of view, it’s almost like:

“Well if won’t even discuss anything with them, there’s no point in really studying them, or anything else, neither. There’s no point in studying our interactions, or the history of it, you know, Culture of Critique can go out the window, or in the trash can. And so many other publications that have been produced over the centuries as well.”

Actually, engaging in some kind of dialogue even if you go into it with a certain amount of bias. Like, for example, if you want to make the argument that I went into that interview with those two jews with a fully loaded set of preconceptions, biases, and hostility, that still does not preclude the fact that elements of that interview could be useful to me and also to them.

So for me there was always going to be some kind of usefulness in interacting with these people, as I said, to some critics, and some people, who applauded the interview. I would interview Heidi Beirich [SPLC] if she let me. I would interview her for Radix, for the Occidental Observer. If you wanted to. Or Abe Foxman [former head of the ADL], or anyone else, in what I would regard as a jewish establishment.

Because, if we are confident of our position, we can’t guarantee that we’ll ever get honest answers to our questions, but if we are truly confident of our position, then we will take all of our arguments and all the questions that we have to pose, and put it’s of these people who we have designated as our opponents. And in my opinion, rightfully so.

So that interview was free and explained in accordance with how I understood it would be perceived. And I also wanted to explain to people why the interview even took place. And perhaps the only thing I left out in that introduction was, it was to satisfy, in some respects, my own curiosity.

A lot of the things that I write about, the things that I engage in are part of my own intellectual journey, which is ongoing. This is still something that I try to understand as time goes on.

I think Kevin MacDonald is still learning and developing things within his own mind, and his own understanding too. Although I think in recent years, certainly in last five, or six years, his emphasis and his focus in terms of what he is seeking to understand, have shifted inward in the sense that he has stopped looking so much for anything new on the jewish side. And he’s now looking into White pathology, the origins of Europeans. He’s trying to understand European man more.

Whereas I think I’m so really deeply in the stage of trying to understand why jews operate within European societies, and how that provokes responses from those societies. And how that vicious cycle, it sort of perpetuates itself.

[51:07]

Ford: And part of what you’re talking about when you give the framework for the Radix essay and interview is a problem faced, but everybody who belongs to a group. And that is the problem of virtue signaling and purity spiralling.

So, for instance I’m in Orthodox Judaism, so there’s always a strong incentive to be more religious, and more observant of jewish law, and more of a warrior for jews and jewish causes, than the next jew! So there’s always this inherent tension in any group that your more pure, you are more devoted to the cause, stronger in your devotion to the cause than the next guy. And it’s a real obstacle for honesty! [laughter] You’re always under, … Like I know in Orthodox Judaism you’re always under the pressure to show how observant you are, and how devoted you are to jews.

And so there’s a strong incentive then to deceive, or to say things that you don’t believe, or do things that you don’t believe, in order to appear more pure and more virtuous in the eyes of your group. And it seems to me that the same sort of dynamic, you know, operates in White Nationalism, along with every other group.

Joyce: It certainly does to an extent. And within any group you also have a certain type of person, or persons, who may not have anything particular original to contribute to the discussion, but they will find some sense of self-worth within that movement by acting in a certain capacity. And that capacity is to be the the guardian of purity spiralling, or the perpetual critic. And that’s the person who will just sit there all day long and say:

“Oh he’s cucking hard, or he’s selling out, or he didn’t name the jew on this one thousand two hundred sixteenth occasion! He didn’t mention jews this time. What’s going on there?”

And you go find this level of autism, you know, periodically within any movement, or any organization. It’s someone who has nothing else to say, so they will just simply engage in that behavior. It’s not helpful! I agree that it’s a barrier to honesty.

The question of jewish interactions in Europe, in European societies, and visa versa Europeans have responding to jews being in their midst, is so complex! It’s incredibly demanding! I mean, I’ve really lost count of the number of books I’ve read on the subject. I have not a hope of ever counting up the number of academic journal articles I’ve read on the subject matter, or the references in the literature and art. It is mind blowing the amount of effort, time, and ink, that has been consumed in dealing with this question!

And some people will prefer not to engage in even the slightest bit of effort to understand any of it, and will simply just say:

“Oh, it’s all the jews!”

And if you don’t say that, you’re cucking then. So you have to contend with that. But also you have to understand the emotional reactions, you actually understand the problem where in. And unfortunately, there’s no beating around the bush here, Whites are in really rather demographic decline across the board. We are losing rapidly our dominant position, and even our ancestral homelands! It does not look good! This is a very high pressure environment!

Perhaps the time of calmly analyzing this problems academically is drawing to a close. Simply, because of circumstances and the environment that we are in. That is unfortunate. It’s always unfortunate in any situation in which time runs out for calm discussion and the war drums start beating in the distance.

It is certainly not a situation that I want to see in my lifetime. It’s not a situation that I want for my children, or my grandchildren. But there is a certain hopelessness, certainly that I feel about the situation that may well preclude Kevin MacDonald’s of the future from having their voices heard, because for all the SPLC, the hysteria about the work of Kevin MacDonald he is certainly not an extremist! And he is certainly not any of those slurs that they made against him.

He is actually, in my opinion, a voice of incredible reason! His appeal is actually is at the end of the Culture of Critique is astonishing in a lot of ways, and in some ways touching. And it reminded me in some respects of the work by Hilaire Belloc, “The Jews”, 1922 in which the whole book is basically an appeal! It’s an attempt at reason that said:

“Look! We have friction here in our society. And if we ignore this friction it will continue to increase. If we lie about the friction it’s really going to set this tinder box on fire.”

And, of course, Belloc’s warnings were ignored. And just over ten years later we had the advent of a explicitly anti-semitic government in Germany, in which things really were forced onto a new level.

And this is just something that has occupied my thoughts a lot recently, actually. For how much longer will the Occidental Observer type material, have any kind of sway. Or we go towards the simplest message. For example, the Daily Stormer type content. And that’s not to take anything away from the Daily Stormer either. It presents a message that is broken down so simply that it can be digested by just about anyone. Certainly the popular message is always going to be the most powerful.

[58:09]

Ford: Right. I mean the Daily Stormer and David Duke are aiming at, you know, 100 IQ. The Occidental Observer is aimed at an audience with an IQ 120.

Joyce: Mmm, …

Ford: Obviously any successful movement is going to have different messages for different levels of IQ. So that’s why I get up upset by Daily Stormer and David Duke, because I see them as appealing to the 100 IQ crowd, and so they’re obviously not going to have the nuance of someone who aims his work at the 130 IQ crowd. I mean your work is aimed at people north of 120. It’s not acceptable to people with a 100 IQ.

Joyce: Yeah, … [chuckling] I’m always surprised, you know, I meet some people, I met some people at an Alt-Right meeting in Washington DC, I guess a year and a half ago now. It was all young guys, some of them were subscribers to the Occidental Quarterly and certainly read some of my work, but they explained to me that they weren’t regular visitors to the Occidental Observer because the stuff is heavy, it is dense. It does require a significant level of background reading and education.

You know, the last time I looked at Alexa, I was just having a quick glance at the ranking of the Occidental Observer. But it breakdowns visitor educational background. How they gather this information, I don’t know. Whether it’s by survey, or whatever. But the majority of people that visit the Occidental Observer had not just a first degree, but a higher degree. So I guess that is when you when you are talking about Masters and PhD’s, you are talking about an IQ level in the range of what you just described. So yeah, and then in a way that limits your audience. But that kind of argument still needs to get out there.

And in terms of leaders, and culture shapers, you really have to reach people with that level of IQ if you have any kind of influence too.

Ford: Yeah. One thing that makes me pessimistic about the relationship between Whites and Jews, is that I can’t think of many historical examples of White cohesion and Jewish strength going together in a country. Can you think of any examples of that?

Joyce: Not genuine examples. No. Some of the more, … There have been examples given for what you’ve just described. One of them would be the growth of commerce in the Netherlands from the late sixteenth century, onwards. So you’ve got the growth of the Amsterdam jewish community, the development of merchant shipping, their involvement in the financing of that. And you have a genuine rise and growth in the geopolitical power of the Netherlands at the time.

The question is how interlinked or deliberate is any of that, or is it purely coincidental? Unfortunately, the dominant pattern in history, certainly when you look at England in the Middle Ages, in France, and some of the German principalities, but most definitely in Eastern Europe, where jews were strong and they did not derive their strength in those periods from within themselves.

It wasn’t that the jews arrived extremely powerful and just kind of stamped down the peasantry. It was that they came in and they were opportunistic, talented, in certain areas, certainly in the financial areas. And their entry into European society, and into some of these countries, was just so perfectly timed. And the system of government was so perfectly set up for the entrance of a middleman minority like the jews at that time, that that’s what the strengths really came from. And as long as jews were strong, the development of a middle class was pretty much precluded at that point in time.

But, I hesitate to say just because, … Again this issue of nuance. Just, because the jews were a strong position does not necessarily mean that the peasants were completely down trodden for that reason. There was a whole system of government going on at the time, where the king and the nobles were dominant. The jews came in just under them, sometimes alongside the nobles. The peasants were always going to be the peasants.

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t exploited by jewish money lending, but it does mean that were on a lower level.

Ford: And then you’re also about the American South prior to the Civil War. No rabbi in the American South spoke out against slavery. Like jews in the American south prior to the Civil War had no problem with slavery. And jews were quite popular in the South. They got along better in the South, than in the North. And jews it was that played a prominent role in the Confederacy. So to me that’s one example of jewish, … There are very few numbers in the South but, you know, they got on great! Jews and Whites seemed to have gotten on great in the American South prior to the Civil War.

And also jews in say, nineteenth century England, you know, there’s just a small number. But England continued to flourish. And the small number of Jews also did well. So these seem to me to be examples of Jewish strength and White cohesion growing together.

Joyce: Well, … I would certainly debate the example of nineteenth century England. I think it’s always important to say, if we’re talking even about jews and those in the American South getting along well, it’s important to talk about who’s getting along well? Let’s just break it down. We are talking in both cases, in England and the American South of relatively small numbers of jews. Which is always going to lead to slightly better relations, in some circumstances.

But the problem with England in the nineteenth century, is yes, there were a relatively small number of jews. They were all quite well assimilated. They weren’t from [word unclear] immigrant class. They where not engaged in kind of petty money lending that gave rise to a lot of resentment in Eastern Europe. But on the other hand there were other problems. Yes, there was intermarriage, the beginnings of intermarriage into the English aristocracy. So you could point at that and say:

“Look that is them getting on well. The British Empire is at its strength.”

But there were also problems and antagonisms. There were issues, for example, the Marconi scandal, the Indian silver scandal. And these big governmental, financial, scandals of the nineteenth century in Britain involved Jewish nepotism. For example, a lot of the high positions within the British Empire were occupied by, really only three, or four, jewish families! They were the Nathan’s, the Montefiore’s, the Goldsmith’s, and who were the others? I think, …

Ford: Rothschilds!

Joyce: Yeah, … The Rothschild’s weren’t explicitly involved in the sense of taking named explicit positions within the British Empire. But they were intermarried with those families. They were intermarried with the Nathan’s and the Goldsmith’s and the Montefiore’s and some of the others there, the Montague’s. So, they were all intermarried. They were called “The Cousinhead”. Because they were literally all cousins to each other. And they all married each other’s cousins. So there was higher level of consanguinity going on at the time.

A lot of it was about being jewish. A lot of of it was about seeing themselves as an aristocracy. And, of course, aristocrats tended to arrange marriages within themselves, even the non-jewish nobles of the time. So inbreeding was sort of the order of the day in terms of trying to keep wealth within a certain family circle, and also influence.

But certainly jews were very prominent in a lot of the scandals of the day. So there were difficulties there. There were objections to jewish influence in those positions, particularly when we see the coming of the Boer War, which was denounced by many socialist politicians actually at the time, as a war for the jews. For jewish diamond mines in South Africa. And certainly the British Army at one point was described by one socialist politician as the “Janissaries of the jews”.

See: Andrew Hitchcock with Dr Peter Hammond – “Remembering the Late Great Stephen Mitford Goodson!” — TRANSCRIPT

So, there were problems. But are there any terrific examples of a growth in jewish power and a non jewish population that also seems to be growing, and doing well, at the same time? Nothing really stands out.

Ford: How do you see Israel? As an inspiring example of an ethnostate, or what?

[68:55]

Joyce: As an ethnostate? Yes. It’s a pretty good example obviously. It’s a State founded on ethnic principles. It’s immigration policies, it’s walls. It’s explicit and unapologetic description of itself as a jewish state is admirable. And something that any White nationalist really if he’s honest would want to replicate for himself and his own.

However, I’ve always been hesitant to go beyond that in terms of anything valuable I see in the State of Israel, because it just doesn’t stand on its own two feet. None of what we see in terms of how it performs on the international stage is truly authentic. Because so much of what it is and how it performs is backed by copious amounts of non-jewish aid in the form of military support, financial support, diplomatic support. It’s like Israel has some kind of umbilical cord attachment to the West!

Ford: Yeah. Yeah. Going back to Kevin MacDonald. I’m thinking that one can regard all of Kevin MacDonald’s major points about Jews as true. But then you get the implications of what should we then do, just all over the map. And it doesn’t seem to me like there’s a straight line between, you know, accepting the basics of MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology analysis of jews, and then, what we then do. It seems to me like the implications are quite varied.

Joyce: They are. And we can come back to this thing of my advocating the complete separation of jews and non-jews. Which some could say that’s incredibly harsh. It’s inhumane, it’s unnecessary, it’s impractical. There are any number of criticisms which could be made against such a proposal. However, when we even begin to think about alternatives, the effort involved in trying to devise any number of social solutions would be so vast that we would have to eventually come to some kind of questions for ourselves in terms of:

“Is this worth it? Or has this been tried before and failed?”

And in many cases we would say:

“Yes. That has been tried before and failed!”

Because there is nothing new under the sun. And, you know, whether it’s quotas, whether it’s, you know, go right book whether it’s some form of ghettoization, whether it’s limiting jewish ability to enter into certain professions.

All this has been done before. All of it has failed. It’s really difficult to be original in terms of coming up with solutions in this field of social interaction and ethnic relations. Because, as I said earlier, [chuckling] this is something that has been written about for centuries, portrayed in art. It has been the subject of sermons, fulminations, publications, screeds, legal proceedings, legislative acts, … Everything has been done under the sun! And we always seem to find ourselves back at square one with this stuff.

So, … It’s, you know, solutions are something that I try to stay away from! It’s really difficult!

The only thing I would come back to the issue of “effort”. Is it worth it? And I go through the same sort thought process when I think of multiculturalism.

Even on my best day, and with the best of will, and if I get out of bed on the Right side and the sun is shining, and, you know, my kids have done their homework, and all the chores are done, whatever it might be. Everything’s going well. And I listen to some person on TV talking about multiculturalism, how good it is, and how, you know, some black school in London has just won some kind of prize for doing some kind of academic contest, … Even on my best day, in those circumstances, I still have to think:

“What with all the other difficulties, is it still worth it? Is it still worth it.”

I mean, are all of these gang rapes by Muslim immigrants, and all of this crime that we are seeing in the multicultural society, and all the money, … I mean, the amount of money that is invested in trying to make the multicultural society even seems somewhat sane is got to be phenomenal!

A book should be written one day on the financial cost of multiculturalism! We all know the human cost. We all know the cultural cost. But I’m certain that the financial cost, in terms of the funding that some minorities require just to function in Britain. The The cost of the NHS [National Health Service], the cost of education, the cost in policing the crime, the cost in foreign aid, and all the other financial aspects of this. It’s huge! And that’s just one aspect of it! Is it worth it? It’s not worth it in my opinion!

And we have to kind of put on our super rational hats on when we deal with this topic, I was listening to radio show a couple weeks ago, where they were talking about developing machinery in which the human consciousness will be able to leave the human biological body and be uploaded on to some kind of hard drive. And they were discussing the scientists behind this as hyper rational people. There are people that literally are so black and white, so committed to just blunt reason that nothing is out of the question! And ethics doesn’t really play a part. And morals doesn’t com into it. Because they’re just looking at the end goals.

Perhaps in some ways, that’s what I am. It’s the hyper rational person. I look at all the difficulties, I look at two thousand years, or more, of bloodshed, of heartache, and wars, and constant antagonism, and cultural decay, and the resurgence and then decay again after generation! Is it worth it?

[76:22]

Ford: Richard Spencer made this great point he said:

“One of the challenges of dealing with the Jews is that they are in our head!”

Meaning that Jews have lived within Western civilization for over a millennia. And many of unspoken assumptions, ways of thinking, come from the Jews and are just automatically absorbed by non-jews, so it’s hard for non-jews trying to think about, you know what’s best for their people, to separate out what is jewish, and what is authentic to their own tradition.

Joyce: Yeah. I would agree with that to an an extent, although I think Richard gives, he always gives Jews too much credit with a statement like that. I don’t agree with it fully. I think that we imbibed a lot of ideas from jewish intellectuals, and some jewish interactions in our culture. But would I go so far as to say that they are really at our heads in a really strong sense, and a real literal sense of that statement? I don’t think. So I also think that it would be wrong to assume that we aren’t in jewish minds to the same extent.

I remember a quote from a guy called Anthony Julius who was jewish lawyer to Princess Diana some years ago, during her divorce from Prince Charles. And he wrote a book, “Trials of the Diaspora — a History of Anti-semitism in England”. It’s not a very good book at all. I wrote a review critiquing it for the Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer, also.

But in it he wrote that one of the attractions of anti-semitism was that it gives a troubled non-jew an opportunity to appear as an expert in something. It’s kind of a typically arrogant statement from Julius. It’s a perfect Julius statement to come out with. But one of the things Julius, even if I were to grant him that, which I don’t, but even if I was to grant him that, and say:

“Julius, there are some people who really don’t have much going on in their lives, you know, just like any kind of crank conspiracy theorist, this gives them an opportunity to appear as an expert on something, and they can a few quotes and sound smart, Jews suffer with exactly the same thing!”

Jews like to appear as experts on the anti-semitism.

It is in so many of the books that I’ve read on anti-semitism but Jews, there’s such a level of naivety and arrogance in the writings of those books. And I’m thinking in particular of historians like Robert Wistrick [?], Leon Placoth [?], and what’s his name? Not Jerrery Katz, he’s actually not that bad. But certainly Robert Wistrict. Striekter [?] was another one. But just the level of naivety there! They think that they can be completely objective when looking at anti-semitism when, of course, they can’t. Because they’re one of the warring parties.

I think the only truly objective history of anti-semitism is probably yet to come. And it will come from somewhere like China, or a different continent. Not Africa, because [chuckling] you probably won’t get that many good books written from Africa, anyway!

But it might it might be left to the Japanese, or the, or the Chinese to really write some kind of more impartial account, anyway. But there’s an arrogance there, there’s a naivety there. But I think that we are in the jewish mind as much as the jews are in ours.

Ford: It’s a shame that there’s no term like “anti-gentilism”, because as a convert to Orthodox Judaism I know that there’s just as much antipathy towards Gentiles among many jews, to varying degrees, as there is antipathy to jews amongst Gentiles to varying degrees.

Joyce: Yeah, … It’s there. I mean, I’m certainly aware from all my research, I believe that there is a deeply ingrained hostility among jews towards Europeans.

When you look at the, even the philosopher of someone like Leavenas [?], a Jewish philosopher. When he discusses European he talks about the Greeks, and how jews should not be like the Greeks. And he doesn’t mean the Greeks literally in terms of the ancient Greeks, but he means the Greeks in terms of, … That’s all Europeans.

And the reason why he’s using the terminology is this is going back to the [word unclear] [name of people]. This is going back to the original conflict between the jews and the Hellenes in ancient times. And it was a conflict that they largely believed to be ongoing. It just kind of fluctuates in different times and it adopts different phases. We are all familiar with this terminology that is used a lot by strongly identified Jews, :

“Anti-semitism is a virus that mutates.”

It’s not! It’s just that it follows Jews wherever they go. So the only concept they can come up with to rationalize it is:

“Oh! It’s just a virus just keeps adapting no matter what we do! It keeps adapting!”

But in truth anti-semitism has never had to adapt, because jewish behavior has never adapted, it has never changed! Jewish behavior has been largely continual, and remarkably stable, and consistent, over many centuries, if not millennia.

For that reason anti-semitism really has not changed, even if we were to regard it in some fairy-tale land as a virus, it’s a virus that has never had to mutate because all the arguments always been the same! Whether you pick up your Cicero or whether you pick up your Kevin MacDonald, the argument there is the same:

“Jews are highly cohesive, they stick together, they look out for their interests.”

Literally! The same argument made by Cicero is made by Kevin MacDonald, separated by some two thousand years the argument is the same! How is this a virus that’s mutating? Where is the mutation? Where is the change? There is no change.

[83:27]

Ford: Right, … But I mean, for much of European history in the last two thousand years it seems like much of the animus directed against jews came from theological differences, that the very existence of Jews argues against the theological truth of Christianity.

Each day that there are jews walking around their they are crucifying Christ anew. So that’s a different dimension of the incentive to have negative views of jews.

Joyce: That’s part of that. But I think the theological argument has been overplayed.

There is a book by a jewish historian called Dan Cohn-Sherbok called “The Crucified Jew” [The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism (1997) ] and he really overplays it. He basically says that anti-semitism began with Christianity. When in truth we know that in ancient pagan times there were criticisms made of jews as being highly ethnocentric, and that they separated themselves from other peoples. That they were in money lending and different forms of financial exploitation.

What we see of the Christian era, is yes, there was still was a theological overlay that was placed on top of those grievances. But those earlier grievances never went away. So we see, for example, as much as [Martin] Luther in all “The Jews and Their Lies” in the sixteenth century he may well rant against the jews as sort of the sons of Satan, or as deniers of Christ, et cetera, et cetera. A large part of the book is still taken up with some very old themes that we had already seen in pagan times and in the pre-Christian era.

So anti-semitism does not fundamentally change with the advent of Christianity. It takes on a new complexion for a while, but fundamentally it remains the same. So there is no dramatic alteration in that anti-semitism over a historical time. It is remarkably consistent.

As I say, if you really pick up the works, for example, church fathers, Ambrose, some others, you get many of the complaints within those texts
Don’t appeal as much as theological reasoning as you might suspect, if you were basing your understanding of the subject purely works [word unclear] like the “The Crucified Jew” by Cohn-Sherbok.

Ford: There maybe some great analogies to the topics that we were talking about that can kind of reduce the emotion, if we simply look at the world of animals and the world of plants.

And there’s a perspective called “invasive species”. Just a quote from Wikipedia:

“An invasive species of a plant, fungus, or animal species, that is not native to a specific location, which has a tendency to spread through a degree you believe to cause damage to the environment, human economy, or human health.”

So, when you introduce a people who are not native to the location it is very likely to have negative consequences for the native populations. Such as the United States and the land mass of North America when Europeans came here, you know, the Europeans were going to triumph or the Native Americans are going to succeed in repelling them. The two groups are not going to live in peace.

And so, when you bring eucalyptus trees to southern California — I’m from Australia, I love eucalyptus trees, I’ll walking around something California seeing eucalyptus trees — but they have this property whereby they kill out, you know, [chuckling] others plant, or tree, that falls under it’s branches. So they also suck up a lot of water resources.

So I’m thinking the naturalistic perspective of invasive species is a way for people to approach the difficult and emotional laden topic that we’ve been discussing, with a less emotion. And just, seeing the human interactions and human immigration as just another form of invasive species of nature.

Joyce: I agree with that to an extent. The only thing I would say is that I would be very cautious about appealing to the animal kingdom, or the plant kingdom in that respect, or even microbiology, before I would start talking about types of virus, or insect, or whatever it might be. Because there is an element of dehumanization there. And jews are humans! There are human beings! I think that needs to be kept in mind at all times.

They have different. Interests to Europeans. They pursue their interests very aggressively in my opinion. That needs to be met aggressively. But I think we can never lose sight of the fact they are human beings.

If I was to look for analogies, that would enable us to deal with the subject in a less emotional way, I might not look necessarily to things like plant species and things like that. I think it might be more helpful to look at similar middleman minorities.

For example, Indians in Uganda, or the Chinese in other parts of South East Asia. Where they have performed functions and reached levels of influence that are broadly similar to those of the jews in Europe and European societies. There are some differences, for example, jews tend to be very unique in the way that they become actors culturally, and the way they seem to have a detrimental cultural effect on their surrounding societies. The analogies are not perfect.

However, I think that I would stand by my argument that we need to see Jews as human beings, and always to conduct our struggle for our own self-determination against negative jewish influence with our heads held high. And in order to do that I think we should always look at our opponents of the eye, and that does not entail writing them off as, on a level, or in any way some way, as some kind of virus, some kind of bacteria, infection, cancer, or insect.

Ford: OK, great! Is there, I’m going to throw the interview to a close, but I want to leave you with any final words, or any final topic, that you feel are necessary.

Joyce: No. I think this has been a very, very, enjoyable interview, one of the most enjoyable I’ve given. Actually your questions have been terrific.

One thing I would sort of leave off with is that it looks like this is going to be a very interesting remainder to Donald Trump’s presidency.

I was always a Trump skeptic. I did publish a piece on the Occidental Observer some time ago about Jewish intermarriage. And I did always say that the Jewish intermarriage into the Trump’s family was always going to be problematic on some level. And would probably make itself manifest quite early into his presidency.

All that had to be set aside for a time I think across the Alt-Right. I think many of us had our suspicions about Trump, and perhaps for those reasons, but the prospect of a Clinton presidency was just so horrific, that the gamble had to be taken.

So we find ourselves not only post election, and post Trump victory, but by we find ourselves post Trump realisation in the sense that some of the predictions that we were hoping would not come true, have come true. And certainly looks like, in terms of foreign policy and in some other aspects of culture, it doesn’t look like much is going to change.

Ford: Well, thank you Andrew. This interview is recorded on April 30th of 2017. Thank you very much for your time.

[92:59]

END

============================================

See Also

top

Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

David Duke Interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

TOO – Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – Talmud and Taboo — Part 01 – Jun 30, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 2 – And then one day… – Jul 20, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 4 – The Man Who Put the Jews on Trial – Aug 3, 2020

Andrew Joyce – T&T 5 – The Return of the Bucket – Aug 5, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 6 – The Antisemite’s Handbook – Aug 11, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 7 – The TOO Takedown – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – BLM – Irish Edition – Dec 31, 2020 – Transcript

Horus – Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Merchant of Venice – Abusive Victim-Identity Syndrome – Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Barbara Lerner Spectre

Luke Ford – JQ Debate with Age Of Treason – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

============================================

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

============================================

PDF Download

top

* Total words = 12,592
* Total images = 13
* Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 9: Feb 2, 2022 — Added Age of Treason transcript link. Improved formatting.

Version 8: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 7: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 6: Oct 18, 2020 — Added last 15 more minutes of transcript.  Transcript text now complete = 93 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 17, 2020 — Added 9 more minutes of transcript. Added 2 more images. Total transcript complete = 78/93 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 16, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 69/93 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 15, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 51/93 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 14, 2020 — Added another See Also link. Added 6 images. Added 17 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 33/93 minutes.

Version 1: Oct 13, 2020 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 16/93 minutes.