← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 555 | Posts: 70 | Started: 2002-04-22
2002-04-22 20:26 | User Profile
The Culture of Critique (Review)
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements - largely established and led by Jews - have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty - that while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others.
Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity - but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.
Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years - even without a country - has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman: "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief - one firmly rooted in history - that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so- called 'social' issues."
He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews.
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.
In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible..." - just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also irreversible.
Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his followers - with the notable exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict - were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.
The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the "civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights] laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third- World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture."
The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)
Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the Frankfurt school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics took up its message so enthusiastically.
The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to family - and race - loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective "authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties - even close family ties! - are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy - by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."
But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof. MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even described Jewish group identity - only that of gentiles: "behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."
For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."
In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism."
Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote:
"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants..."
As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world."
Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have favored high immigration.
This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of the view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses..." He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage.
Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes to America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course, there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S. immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority.
It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.
Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: "The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.
Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail. Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation, Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose ground to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However, in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be a tool for combating anti- Semitism, and by expectation that universalist social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be exempt: "At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as Jews."
Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism, tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in 1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He writes that despite the official view that all men were to be brothers, "very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet era."
Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof. MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position incompatible with "unity and human community."
Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from Communism only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel.
Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that at the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues that in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American leftists:
"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment to the left.
Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number, the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof. MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high levels of immigration and were active in excluding white racial identification from the "respectable" right.
Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be wrongs?
Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that "the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words, many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to become less white may also have convinced himself that America benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more effectively convince others.
Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the extent to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his surprise at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war: "I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement from a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no insignificant matter.
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading." He notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as "anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have no such interests..."
Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of an intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and resigned.
But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."
This standard may seem unduly harsh - until it is applied to white gentiles. Third- World immigration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in the interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.
Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."
In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."
Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation lies in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews - at 115, a full standard deviation above the white gentile average - and to "their hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and achieve public acclaim..." He also believes Jews have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival: "Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority.
Prof. MacDonald believe that because of the effectiveness of some Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This, of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that American Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect. Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect that "what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly."
Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.
Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger (1998) $65.00, 379 pp.
2002-04-22 23:07 | User Profile
Well, well, .... There he goes again. Getting the good stuff up before anyone else. Thanks, TD. I just love this stuff.
2002-04-23 00:44 | User Profile
This is an excellent summary of CoC. If you haven't read it yet, it's quite an eye-opener.
2002-04-23 18:20 | User Profile
Looking for reviews of Culture of Critique, we might find Paul Gottfried's
Which I know I remember seeing a thread on sometime back. ÃÂ Maybe we can give this forum some money some time so we can add a search function.
2002-04-23 18:25 | User Profile
Which I know I remember seeing a thread on sometime back. *Maybe we can give this forum some money some time so we can add a search function.
I have some mixed luck with the search function here on the forum. The only advice I can give is to try a few options on it and see what you can come up with. That's the best I've been able to do. Sorry.
2002-04-25 00:33 | User Profile
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.
This is a revelation.
2002-04-25 09:58 | User Profile
CoC is one of the most important books published in the past 20 years, maybe longer.
MacDonald's book FINALLY provides us with the vocabulary necessary to describe the ethnic threat to white survival in objective, scientific terms.
The big problem with it is the price - a staggering $65 for a single hardcover volume. ÃÂ I do not doubt that the price barrier prevented a lot of folks from purchasing a copy. ÃÂ
The good news is that a paperback version is coming out soon. ÃÂ I intend to buy a couple dozen and send them anonymously to acquaintances. ÃÂ We all need to chip in and get this book distrubuted broadly to our people.
Walter
2002-04-25 13:00 | User Profile
Indeed, this book is so important...so DAMNING...I wonder why the author hasn't gotten 'David Irvinged' yet. (But then I notice you can't buy it at Amazon or B&N, so I guess the buzzards are waiting for the paperback edition to descend en masse to wet their beaks.)
Make no mistake, however. CoC is the shizznit, as they say in Cincinnati. Debbie Lipschitz turning purple with store-bought rage ain't gonna cut it here - Tel Aviv better send their biggest guns to bury this inconvenient dose of Truth. Anybody who bothers reading it is going to put the book down convinced, because, unlike Irving's books, which depend upon the reader's detailed knowledge of WW 2, what MacDonald's writing about can be verified in every person's life experience. If you're a sentient adult living in the modern West, CoC rings true to what you've seen with your own eyes - but more importantly, it unifies all the disparate examples into a sinister whole. And THAT is a leap more people need to make....
2002-04-25 21:06 | User Profile
The big problem with it is the price - a staggering $65 for a single hardcover volume. I do not doubt that the price barrier prevented a lot of folks from purchasing a copy.
The good news is that a paperback version is coming out soon. I intend to buy a couple dozen and send them anonymously to acquaintances.
I will be distributing a few copies as gifts, as well.
2002-04-26 05:07 | User Profile
Indeed, this book is so important...so DAMNING...I wonder why the author hasn't gotten 'David Irvinged' yet. (But then I notice you can't buy it at Amazon or B&N, so I guess the buzzards are waiting for the paperback edition to descend en masse to wet their beaks.)
Make no mistake, however. CoC is the shizznit, as they say in Cincinnati. Debbie Lipschitz turning purple with store-bought rage ain't gonna cut it here - Tel Aviv better send their biggest guns to bury this inconvenient dose of Truth. Anybody who bothers reading it is going to put the book down convinced, because, unlike Irving's books, which depend upon the reader's detailed knowledge of WW 2, what MacDonald's writing about can be verified in every person's life experience. If you're a sentient adult living in the modern West, CoC rings true to what you've seen with your own eyes - but more importantly, it unifies all the disparate examples into a sinister whole. And THAT is a leap more people need to make....
Such eloquence. Thank you.
Walter
2002-04-26 05:08 | User Profile
Texas: Nice job. I'm looking forward to reading more of your work.
Walter
2002-05-02 20:02 | User Profile
Il Ragno, All of Professor MacDonald's books used to be available at amazon.com. In fact, The Culture of Critique page had, as you might imagine, a LOT of reviews, most positive. Have they yanked it off since then?
2002-05-02 20:25 | User Profile
You are correct, NE. BUT....
...if you type the title The Culture of Critique into the book-search window it comes up as 56th in a list of 72 books. Even though it is the only exact title-match. (Given that exact matches are invariably the first to appear, I probably gave up after the first 50 provided no matches and got way further from the original phrase.)
You have to type in KM's full name & do an author search to find CoC promptly. Otherwise you could be there an hour digging through every book with either 'culture' or 'critique' in its title.)
2002-05-02 22:28 | User Profile
amazon usually sorts by bestsellers unless you sort in another way.
2002-05-05 03:35 | User Profile
LOL. You want all the bells and whistles, huh? This is the po' folks site, FWI. * I have some mixed luck with the search function here on the forum. The only advice I can give is to try a few options on it and see what you can come up with. That's the best I've been able to do. *Sorry.
Yes, by God I do! *Seriously, what is these functions like the search function you are talking about? Is there supposed to be one here?
Anyway, another interesting MacDonald book is Separation and Its Discontents Which discusses the whole significance of the "Anti-Semitism" talisman that is waved around by neo-conservatives and liberals incessently. As I noted on another thread.
Will on Anti-Semitism, the Gift that Keeps on Giving
Interesting that the standard line of people like Will, following the typical Jewish line that anti-Semitism is something irrevokably bound up in the gentile, and specifically Christian, heart, is so predictable, even passe to Kevin MacDonald. In the preface to his book Separation and Its Discontents, a chapter of which is found here.
He notes > A major theme of this volume....is that intellectual defenses of Judaism and of Jewish theories of anti-Semitism have throughout its history played a critical role in maintaining Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Parts of the book read as a sort of extended discourse on the role of Jewish self-interest, deception, and self-deception in the areas of Jewish historiography, Jewish personal identity, and Jewish conceptualization of their ingroup and its relationship with outgroups. This is first and foremost a book that confidently predicts its own irrelevance to those about whom it is written
2002-11-05 20:35 | User Profile
Bringing this back up for posterity's sake.
2002-11-05 21:05 | User Profile
**You are correct, NE. BUT....
...if you type the title The Culture of Critique into the book-search window it comes up as 56th in a list of 72 books. Even though it is the only exact title-match. (Given that exact matches are invariably the first to appear, I probably gave up after the first 50 provided no matches and got way further from the original phrase.) **
I just tried it, and it came up first.
2002-11-06 06:21 | User Profile
NativeExile and il ragno,
Hey it is still on Amazon.com! I had no problems finding it. And lots of good Customer Reviews too!
The Culture of Critique is sold at Amazon.com
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Human Evolution, b by Kevin B. MacDonald
$27.95 Paperback: [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759672229/]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759672229/[/url]
Hardcover: [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0275961133/]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...l/-/0275961133/[/url]
2003-02-18 20:49 | User Profile
Switching gears just slightly, I'd like to zero in on this part of the MacDonaldian analysis:
"... (the intellectual) movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests..."
So which is it? I think it's likely a bit of both, but the answer is important. If Jews are conscious about what they do, their actions since first arriving in the continental United States are guilty ones indeed. If they are not (and I think MacDonald takes this position), what's been described is a neutral, amoral phenomenon of no more import than kudzu taking over my garden. I imagine that the "self-deception" assertion give MacDonald some academic maneuvering room. He can describe, describe, describe while distancing himself from nasty conclusions you might read about on VNN. It's just monumentally difficult for me to believe that Jews, incredible oddsmakers that they are, are utterly clueless about the consequences of their collective action.
On the other hand, their level of consciousness about the consequences their actions have for Whites is irrelevant in the same way that it's irrelevant what motivates a bear to charge the camp. The threat must be dealt with. Fact is, they've done what they've done, they're doing what they're doing, and we're being destroyed because of it. Whatever it takes, their influence must cease.
2003-02-18 21:49 | User Profile
I think MacDonald stays [u]within the evidence[/u]- he is a social scientist after all. (I just finished reading CofC this weekend, BTW). The requirements of honesty require him to be conservative in his conclusions.
Also, it is quite apparent that all human minds have elements that we call [u]instinctual[/u]. I think that is the only thing that can account for group differences in behavior.
I am sure someone else has written this, but it occured to me this weekend that our higher lobes don't make the decisions- they make excuses for what the lower lobes have already decided upon, and occasionally advise regarding tactics.
I think it was Heinlein who said "Man is not a rational being, he is a rationalizing being." That about says it.
2003-02-19 16:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Feb 18 2003, 20:49 **I imagine that the "self-deception" assertion give MacDonald some academic maneuvering room. He can describe, describe, describe while distancing himself from nasty conclusions you might read about on VNN. It's just monumentally difficult for me to believe that Jews, incredible oddsmakers that they are, are utterly clueless about the consequences of their collective action.
**
There's a certain dualism there. MacDonald calls it "deception" and "self-deception" as you note. In his words I think "the best deceivers are the deceived"
see also my CoC note on their influence today
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6214&view=getlastpost]The Decline of the WASP[/url]
2003-04-30 08:06 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/mac.htm]http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/mac.htm[/url]
Jewish success has depended on the evolution of a highly intelligent group of people using eugenics: MacDonald has written three books dealing with Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Following is a review of his three books with commentary on eugenics.
Eugenics is a rather easy endeavor, one that has been used by farmers and breeders for thousands of years, without understanding the genetic principles involved. And nations likewise have been concerned about the quality of the gene pool, without understanding what mechanisms were responsible. Only in the last fifty years, because of propaganda and the Holocaust, have we turned our backs on what has been evident to most people for thousands of years--if one group reproduces faster than another, then the genetic capital or quality of the average citizen will change. And typically, wealth has improved only to set up the mechanisms for dysgenic family practices to occur, the elite stop having as many children as the underclass.
In Dr. Kevin MacDonald's first book in 1994, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy--as part of the Seymour W. Itzkoff series on Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence--he discusses how Jewish eugenic practices led to the increase in intelligence of Western Jews to a level far above the average of the people they lived among. Jews average IQ is now 117 versus an average of 103 for Caucasians. His book details how this came about, using a selection process for intelligence that included not allowing outsiders to become Jews, while encouraging the less intelligent Jews to defect. So we know from this model that eugenics works and it is very beneficial for those who practice it. The problem is, the structure of Western culture is highly dysgenic for non-Jews and will remain that way until we can change the way we behave in the context of structuring participating population groups in a program to raise the average intelligence. That subject is addressed in his third book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. In this book he predicts that Western culture will revolt against multiculturalism and return to a more ethnocentric nationalism similar to the events that led up to the Holocaust.
Complete article is at [url=http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/mac.htm]http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/mac.htm[/url]
The following are some more reviews of Kevin MacDonald's books:
The following is from [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm[/url]
Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
Originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT
é 2001 Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90840-0901 kmacd@csulb.edu
November 2001
The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC) was originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed, not only because it is difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence.
CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitorsââ¬âthe European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews.
Complete article is at [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm[/url]
The following is from [url=http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/jew.htm]http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/jew.htm[/url]
INDOCTRINATION AND GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES: THE CASE OF JUDAISM by Kevin MacDonald in "Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare: An Evolutionary Perspective" edited by Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Frank Kemp Salter, 1998.
Indoctrination is a phenomenon that occurs within groups and, as a result, raises fundamental evolutionary questions regarding the relationship between the individual and the group. It has long been apparent to evolutionists that highly cohesive, altruistic groups would outcompete concatenations of individualists. The purpose of this chapter will be to develop the idea of a group evolutionary strategy and to support the contention that indoctrinability is an adaptation that facilitates the development of such groups. With few exceptions, the data relevant to these theoretical interests will be drawn from historical and contemporary Jewish communities.
For purposes of this chapter, a group is defined as a discrete set of individuals that is identifiably separate from other individuals (who themselves may or may not be members of groups). Groups become interesting to an evolutionist when there are active attempts to segregate the group from the surrounding peoples, a situation that results in what Erikson termed "cultural pseudospeciation". Creating a group evolutionary strategy results in the possibility of cultural group selection resulting from between-group competition in which the groups are defined by culturally produced in-group markings. Theoretically, group strategies are underdetermined and unnecessary. A group evolutionary strategy may be conceived as an "experiment in living" rather than the outcome of natural selection acting on human populations or the result of ecological contingencies acting on universal human genetic propensities.
Complete article is at [url=http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/jew.htm]http://home.attbi.com/~neoeugenics/jew.htm[/url]
The following is from [url=http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/books/r_macdon.html]http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/bo...s/r_macdon.html[/url]
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism Kevin MacDonald Praeger Publishers, Westport CT, 1998 325 pages, ISBN 0-275-94870-6
Reviewed by Louis Andrews
Contents
Preface vii
Chapter 1 A Social Identity Theory of Anti-Semitism 1
Chapter 2 The Ideology and Practice of Anti-Semitism 27
Chapter 3 Reactive Anti-Semitism in the Late Roman Empire 89
Chapter 4 Reactive Anti-Semitism During the Medieval Period 115
Chapter 5 Naziism as an Anti-Semitic Group Evolutionary Strategy 133
Chapter 6 Jewish Strategies for Combating Anti-Semitism 177
Chapter 7 Rationalization and Apologia: The Intellectual Construction of Judaism 207
Chapter 8 Self-Deception as an Aspect of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy 247
Chapter 9 Is Diaspora Judaism Ceasing to be an Evolutionary Strategy? 263
Bibliography 279
Index 313
Complete article is at [url=http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/books/r_macdon.html]http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/dec98/bo...s/r_macdon.html[/url]
The following is from [url=http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda01.html]http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda01.html[/url]
A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy
A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994, Kevin MacDonald. Review by John Hartung, PhD.
Mortimer Ostow just published Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism, a recent contribution to the genre of literature that explains anti-Semitism as a mental illness whose epidemiology can be understood through "psychoanalytic interpretation of ... specific antisemitic myths, including pre-Christian early and medieval Christian, 'racial' and post-modern Muslim antisemitism ... the pogrom mentality, including the Nazi phenomenon, antisemitic fundamentalism, and black antisemitism."
In distinction, Kevin MacDonald recently published A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, which is a prelude to Separation and its discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. In these two works, only the first of which can be considered here, MacDonald argues that the worldwide, age-old phenomenon of anti-Semitism is not a disease state vectored by myths, but is instead what should be expected given the nature of human intergroup competition and the competitive attributes of Judaism.
Complete article is at [url=http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda01.html]http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda01.html[/url]
The following is from [url=http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda02.html]http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda02.html[/url]
A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy
A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994, 293 pp. ISBN 0-275-94869-2. Kevin MacDonald. Review by H.J. Eysenck Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 19, No. 1p. 121., July, 1995.
Readers put off by the inane title of this book may take reassurance from the sub-title. This is in fact a potentially very important contribution to the literature on eugenics, and on reproductive strategy. Taking the Jews as his example, MacDonald carefully traces their history in relation to the explicit theory that they have always followed certain practices that amounted to a definite eugenic policy as far as intelligence (mainly verbal intelligence) is concerned. He uses this development to explain the undoubted high intelligence to be found in modern Ashkenazi Jews, and the truly remarkable successes they have scored --Nobel prizes, chess world championships, and much, much more. Why Ashkenazi and not Sephardic Jews? And only verbal and not non-verbal IQ? MacDonald attempts to answer these questions in one of the most interesting chapters of his book.
The enormity of Jewish and non-Jewish differences in IQ is not always appreciated; there are certainly far fewer studies devoted to it than to the black-white differences of about I SD so often obtained in so many different samples all over the world. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jewish children is about I SD above that of white controls. Thus there is a 2 SD difference between black and Ashkenazi children, truly difficult to explain on environmental grounds alone! Equally interesting is the disproportion of verbal and performance tests, with verbal IQ much higher than performance IQ which goes in the same direction as in the black population, and is in an opposite direction to that found in Chinese and Japanese children. The differences observed between the two types of intelligence among the Jews are clearly significantly greater than those found in other groups. The correlation between verbal and performance tests is about 0.77 in the general population, hut only 0.31 among Jewish children. Differences of 10-20 points have been found in samples of Jewish children; there is no other group that shows anything like this size difference.
Complete article is at [url=http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda02.html]http://lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/aptsda02.html[/url]
The following is from [url=http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html#article3]http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html#article3[/url]
Cherchez le Juif
A provocative analysis of the causes of white decline.
reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements ââ¬â largely established and led by Jews ââ¬â have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.
Complete article is at [url=http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html#article3]http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html#article3[/url]
One of Kevin MacDonald's books is available online at [url=http://www.questia.com/PageManagerHTMLMediator.qst?action=openPageViewer&docId=27989890]http://www.questia.com/PageManagerHTMLMedi...&docId=27989890[/url] Also see [url=http://www.1stbooks.com/cgi-bin/1st?partner~1st|type~6|Data1~8622]http://www.1stbooks.com/cgi-bin/1st?partne...#124;Data1~8622[/url] and [url=http://home.att.net/~genocides/nazis.htm]http://home.att.net/~genocides/nazis.htm[/url] and [url=http://home.att.net/~dysgenics/whither.htm]http://home.att.net/~dysgenics/whither.htm[/url]
2003-06-10 12:31 | User Profile
Greetings:
I have read MacDonald's trilogy. The man is verbose, repetitious ... and entirely convincing. His information sources are thorough; many were written by jews.
Of course, he has been met with slobbering outrage by those who feel most uncomfortable with his analysis. One particularly upset critic wrote an appeal to a colleague about 'how to deal with FRINGE academics'. An aspersion, I guess, on MacDonald's non-affiliation with the Ivy League. Her colleague was less stricken, pointing to the 1st Amendment and academic freedom.
But 'fringe' he is not. MacDonald has hit the sacrosanct with a credible, but ever so gently scholarly, dissection of their behavior - and damn their 'special status'.
He is one of a few who dare question the taboo subject of jew complicity in their own problems. And the bogus 'schools of thought' some of them have foisted on a gullible semi-educated majority.
I'm glad he has published the Culture of Critique in paperback.
It is still a tough read, but now is within reach of the purses of many who may have wondered what the hell is the basis of the untouchability of one uniquely 'special' group of people.
Analytic
2003-06-25 02:20 | User Profile
Simply the best book I have ever read. I intend to purchase it soon. I have yet to read his other work. I look forward to it. I only wish my professors were like him.
2003-06-25 02:46 | User Profile
In this book he predicts that Western culture will revolt against multiculturalism and return to a more ethnocentric nationalism similar to the events that led up to the Holocaust.
This is frightening. Jews are way ahead in this game, and could likely steer such nationalism in a direction harmful to Whites. Another world (White vs. White) war is not acceptable.
We really have our work cut out for us. I think a back-door approach will be necessary.
2003-06-25 04:42 | User Profile
In this book he predicts that Western culture will revolt against multiculturalism and return to a more ethnocentric nationalism similar to the events that led up to the Holocaust.
This is frightening. Jews are way ahead in this game, and could likely steer such nationalism in a direction harmful to Whites. Another world (White vs. White) war is not acceptable.
We really have our work cut out for us. I think a back-door approach will be necessary.
Steer such nationalism in a direction toward their own advantage? I don't think that's the most likely thing in the world, given the great pains Jewish ideologies such as Critical Theory and multiculturalism have gone to in an attempt to anihilate nationalism. Somehow, for all Franco's faults, I don't seem him as Feinstein in disguise (A real Feinstein would be more cleverer) :lol:
There is a sense though you may be right vis a vis nationalism, albeit of an ersatz variety. Look at the Iraqi war. (or WWII, for that matter). When they need to the Jewish establishment can really push the goyim's patriotic button.
2003-07-06 05:15 | User Profile
Texas, that was a very well written and intriguing review of Mr McDonald's book and I intend to buy the paperback, ASAP. Thanks.
My inititial reaction is skeptical on one level and in agreement on another. While I understand the idea of 'evolutionary strategies' as applied to non-sentient living species in adapting to ecological niches in their environment, I dont think it easily extends to describing the conduct of people excep in the most general manner. Is the Jew that opposes open immigration any less a Jew, or just defective? The leftist Reform leadership of the Jewish community has certain common beliefs, but there are many Jews who do not go along with that leadership and oppose it openly. So it is not correct at a micro level to make the assertions that McDonald makes.
I also disagree with the notion that the Jewish group behavior is adamant. As their environment changes, so shall their behavior. As a result of some monolithic kabal? No, but because those who find a way to prosper in the wider society will rise to the top leadership among their community. This will change the consensus of that community.
The environment of the USa has changed radically since the 1960's. Blacks are very sympathetic with anti-Jewish views and are often vocal about them. The defeat of a few black politicians for not supporting the war on Iraq has created huge resentment of them among blacks and that resentment was merely compounded on what already existed thanks to the influence of guys like Callipso Louis Farakhan. The Hispanic/Mexican community is almost Catholic to the point of being extreme, and if Jews do not feel comfortable with a majority of largely secular Americans, how will they feel about living in the midst of a Balkanized America in which the former majority was their most sympathetic ethnic group?
And Jews are starting to wake up to this.
But I am more concerned about the future. When the next HUGE Depression hits in the near future, ten years or so, and the banks start falling and the finacial houses start to collapse over the tidal wave of bankruptcies and the dollar is worthless, then the first to feel the pain and to blame the Jews will be Mexicans and blacks.
So I think the 'group strategy' of Jews will change as their environment has changed.
And what does one do? The American people are waking up also, but how can lead them if you are promoting a point of view that is intrinsically inimical to their values system? What, you think you can hand out McDonalds book for them all to read?
Come on!
2003-07-06 05:40 | User Profile
Texas, that was a very well written and intriguing review of Mr McDonald's book and I intend to buy the paperback, ASAP. Thanks.
My inititial reaction is skeptical on one level and in agreement on another.
Gottfried's Review of CoC[url=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2000/Chron0600.htm] A Race Apart[/url], started from a viewpoint mirroring some of your skepticism, as was previously noted on this thread.
So I think the 'group strategy' of Jews will change as their environment has changed.
Precisely. Any good group strategy is flexible. What is less flexible of course is the group itself.
And what does one do? The American people are waking up also, but how can lead them if you are promoting a point of view that is intrinsically inimical to their values system? What, you think you can hand out McDonalds book for them all to read?
Dr. MacDonald's book deals with this. As to its reach and influence, I don't know. Communism came close to taking over the world, and socialism still lingers, even though very few peole have ever read Das Kapital.
That is why Jewish and multiculturalist groups work so hard to ban these types of books.
2003-07-11 17:47 | User Profile
Kevin Macdonald for Newbies:
Here some links to several of his writings, including some chapters of his books. A intro to Kevin Macdonald's books: [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm]http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm[/url]
Kevin MacDonald on Hellenism cf. Judaism, and the Jewish Role in the 60s Counterculture & New Left. from 1) A People That Shall Dwell Alone (2) The Culture of Critique: [url=http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/macdonald.html]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/macdonald.html[/url]
Chapter five of Separation and its Discontents by Professor Kevin MacDonald (Praeger Press 1998): "National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy [url=http://home.att.net/~genocides/nazis.htm]http://home.att.net/~genocides/nazis.htm[/url]
Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements: [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm[/url]
The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances, Chapter 5: [url=http://www.geocities.com/roundtable_research_editions/frankfurt_resed.html]http://www.geocities.com/roundtable_resear...furt_resed.html[/url]
the Jewish Role in the 60s Counterculture & New Left: [url=http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/macdonald.html]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/macdonald.html[/url]
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881 - 1965: A Historical Review: [url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews2.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews2.html[/url]
Kevin MacDonald's review of a book by J. Schatz, The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland [http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/schatz.html] (1991): [url=http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/poland.html]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/poland.html[/url]
2003-07-12 04:27 | User Profile
Kevin Macdonald for Newbies:
Here some links to several of his writings, including some chapters of his books.
Thanks Madrid. I had misplaced some of these, and had been looking for them, including for my signature.
2003-07-20 00:40 | User Profile
The Hispanic/Mexican community is almost Catholic to the point of being extreme, and if Jews do not feel comfortable with a majority of largely secular Americans, how will they feel about living in the midst of a Balkanized America in which the former majority was their most sympathetic ethnic group?
Notice that most of the leadership of the Mexican-American community is of Sephardic Jewish descent.
2003-07-20 21:29 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]No one has any idea what jews really cost.[/SIZE]
Here is the Harvard medical class of 2006
[img]http://www.i3mm.com/~guest2/weeds.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.i3mm.com/~guest2/weds.jpg[/img] "
This is what Professor MacDonald is talking about
[url=http://www.hsdm.med.harvard.edu/pages/classes/predoc/class06/main.htm]http://www.hsdm.med.harvard.edu/pages/clas...lass06/main.htm[/url]
2003-07-22 23:59 | User Profile
I highly highly recommend you read this book ( you can also get it from the Noontide Press and electronically from 1stBooks for only $5 - although I recommend buying the book in softback) and if you have the time, the other two volumes that preceeded it. ( You can get the other volumes from MacDonald for about $25 each. He has his own web site. ) It gives you a historical overview of the hatred that Jews have for gentiles and especially for western civilization. They've been hacking away at us while playing the role of victim for several hundred years. And because they have controlled the media, publishing industry, and the film industry for so long, each of us has a Jew planted in our brain by virtue of their brainwashing.
Basically I think they are trying to redo history. They want to take us back to the time of Babylonia and establish a Jewish empire. The new religion will be the holohoax as a replacement for Christianity. They will enslave everyone they allow to live. And they don't think the planet can support more than one billion people so that tells you what they have in mind.
Little Jews at the bottom of the pyramid are their pawns. They are harmless except that they protect the really evil ones at the top - the Rothschilds, Schiffs, and other bankers who are aligned with organized crime ( which is largely Jewish) plus the gentile trash that has largely deserted their own like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. They are ones leading the globalization effort to destroy nations and races and mush us all together.
If we don't get our act together not only will America be finished but so will the white race.
2003-07-23 00:07 | User Profile
I have one other comment. MacDonald talks about evolutionary strategy but in some ways the defining characteristic of Jews is their selfishness and solipsism. They are the ultimate narcissists. Everything is defined in terms of what "is good for Jews." There seems to be no other criteria and no appeal to fairness, or justice, or truth or anything else. A few Jews escape this mentality but the really diehard Jews are totally emersed in themselves and their tribe.
It's so extreme that in my opinion it's a form of mental illness. I really think Jews are a race of criminal psychopaths. Totally lacking in empathy for other beings and capable of doing anything and I mean anything to survive. I think that's why they do survive. Gentiles are so namby pamby they don't even realize that they are in a life and death struggle with these people. And Jews have done a really good job of making criticism of Jews taboo. A lot of people would rather die than criticize Jews or think badly of them.
2003-08-03 12:50 | User Profile
Below is the first of a three part article by MacDonald, which may be his latest comments on the nature of god's pets.
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/...erstanding.html[/url]
-Z-
2003-08-03 17:58 | User Profile
[url=http://home.att.net/~professorboris/Music/Jewish.mid][color=red][SIZE=3]Press for music[/color][/SIZE][/url]
[SIZE=3]The Jews and destructive immigration policies[/SIZE]
The Johnson Act of 1924, which Celler opposed, sought further restriction by cutting the total annual number of immigrants and limiting each nationality to 2 percent of its total number in 1890, virtually eliminating immigrants who were not from England, France, Ireland or Germany.
Johnson ââ¬â A ââ¬ËJewish Poodleââ¬â¢
[img]http://www.muslimamerica.net/ussl/Pres_Johnson.jpg[/img]
Finally, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law an act that eliminated national origins as a consideration for immigration, culminating Cellerââ¬â¢s 41-year fight to overcome discrimination against Eastern European Jews and Catholics.
Professor Kevin MacDonald
[img]http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Nimblsse6.jpg[/img]
In the case of the reversal in U.S. immigration policy, there simply were no other pressure groups that were pushing for liberalized, multi-racial immigration during the period under consideration (up to the enactment of the watershed immigration bill of 1965).
Nor were there any other groups or intellectual movements besides the ones mentioned in Culture of Critique that were developing images of the U.S. as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society rather than a European civilization. ... another motivation has been to lessen the power of the European-derived majority of the U.S. in order to prevent the development of an ethnically homogenous anti-Jewish movement...."
< [img]http://www.truthinmedia.org/images/us-immigr.jpg[/img]
"Jewish influence on immigration policy was facilitated by Jewish wealth, education and social status," notes Prof. MacDonald. How did they do it? They bought the influence. They bought the politicians; they bought the media; they bought Hollywood; and then they told their vassals, many of them gentiles, what they want the rest of the mutts to think
Jews Created the White-Killing 1965 Immigration Act
Jewish Congressman Emmanuel Celler [D-NY] recruited the non-Jew, Sen. Philip Hart [D-MI] as his frontman for their landmark 1965 immigration bill, aka the Hart-Celler Act. Hart-Celler was the law that destroyed America by deliberately flooding the U.S. with non-Whites, following organized Jewry's wishes.
President Lyndon Johnson only mentioned the Jewish politico Celler -- twice -- while signing the 1965 Immigration Act on Oct. 3, 1965; he did not mention Sen. Hart, even though Hart's name appears first on the Hart-Celler Act.
Jews push non-White immigration for Western countries to hide Jews from 'anti-Semitism' within those countries. That this strategy ruins those Western countries matters not to the Jews.
Unintended consequences of Hart-Celler Here [1/3 down page]
[We note, for the sake of honesty, that the non-Jew Kennedys were original pointmen for Hart-Celler. This is not surprising, given how American politicians eagerly cozy up to Jews -- who have power far beyond their numbers. More on that Kennedy/Hart-Celler topic
2003-10-28 02:11 | User Profile
I found out about Dr. Kevin Macdonald book's last year while lurking on Stormfront still then I had no idea of the importance of his books. I first just thought it was just like any old book on Jews and thier influence. Then I read it and realized that his book explained everything that had happen to us and everything that will happen to us and our civilization. I must say it is the most shocking and eye opening book one can read being a young man looking to the future. Thier are just no other books like this, it still amazes me how it all happened it really is unbeliveable.
2003-10-28 02:59 | User Profile
Yes, KMacD is THE ONE.
Also, you can't beat David Duke's "My Awakening." Trust me.
:king:
2004-01-30 21:31 | User Profile
Some guy upload the complete "The Culture of Critique" book in:
[url]http://www.solargeneral.com/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf[/url]
And now it is free for all.
Regards,
M.
2004-01-30 22:58 | User Profile
Amazing.
Was this done with K. MacDonald's permission?
2004-05-07 06:32 | User Profile
I'm reading this book slowly and meticulously, sucking up every detail, each page brings new and stunning revelations, although it's not easy reading.
Kevin MacDonald should be awarded with a Nobel Prize! The hard part is, how to get this knowledge disseminated to a wider public? Is there any indication, that this book is being read by students of anthropology, psychology, or sociology, or will it be one more revalatation being trashed under piles of accusations of anti-Semitism or silenced to death in the academic world?
Does anybody know if any of Kevin MacDonaldââ¬â¢s books have been published in other languages than English?
It should most certainly be translated into the languages of the new European Union States, Poland, Czech Republic, [url="http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/Hungary_FreeSpeech.html"]Hungary[/url], Estionia, Slovenia, Litauania and Latvia.
In these countries where there still is a broad based natural scepticism towards the workings of the Jews, this work of science ought to replace the more obscure antisemitic literature, to be able to withstand the pressure which is mounting already, with these modern scientific arguments.
Does anybody know if there any institutions that would fund such translations? It could be done at a relatively cheap price, since wages in these countries are still very low. It might be the last chance, to build a stronghold against the ongoing Judafication of Europe, aided by various anti-nationalist and "anti-racist" organizations of the EU.
It is to be expected, that the EU will embark on the same doctrine of government sponsored brainwash which is allready in place in the old countries. Including rewriting history according to Jewish wishes and furthering the Cult of the Holocaust, which is to replace religion and critical thinking.
[color=black]Eastern Europe[/color] might still be saved, but something has to be done. I'd be interested in coming into contact with Eastern Europeans, to initialize some platform of communication and exchange, because as it stands now it seems there is no communication of any kind between Eastern and Western European nationalists and dissidents.
Any links to websites where Eastern Europeans dissidents communicate in English, German or the Scandinavian languages would be welcome.
[color=black]The Culture of Critique[/color]: This book is particularly hard to read for anybody who does not have a [u]very[/u] good understanding of the English language! For the sake of [color=black]Danes[/color] and other [color=black]Scandinavians[/color] reading this; a Danish translation of part of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique can be found here:
[url="http://upps.t35.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php"]Jødisk involvering i den psykoanalytiske bevægelse[/url] Dansk oversættelse af dele af "Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement" Kapitel 4 af Kevin MacDonalds bog The Culture of Critique [url="http://upps.t35.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php"][size=1]http://upps.t35.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php[/size][/url]
Also of interest at this mainly Danish website: (This page is still at a free webhost, though it usually works fine, from time to time there are problems, so try again later if there is a problem.)
German politician [url="http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php"]Martin Hohmann's alledged antisemitic speech /url [url="http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php"][size=1]http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php[/size][/url]
[url="http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php"]Martin Hohmanns pÃÂ¥stÃÂ¥ede antisemitiske tale /url [url="http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php"][size=1]http://upps.t35.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php[/size][/url]
[url="http://upps.t35.com/"]Upps Front page[/url] Upps, om jødernes rolle i samfundet Bl.a. Analyser af mediebegivenheder der involverer Jøder, Jødedommen osv. Download link Culture of Critique full text in English: [url="http://www.solargeneral.com/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf"]http://www.solargeneral.com/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf[/url]
Hermes
2004-05-07 07:33 | User Profile
Perhaps the reason there are not ten million copies of CofC sold, is the same reason that O.D. does not have a 100,000 readers a day, as Amerikwan's are busy scraping every day enough money to eat, and those who have high income can't be bothered..
Yes! 50 years of intergration and immigration, was only possible with our [url]www.deliberatedumbingdown.com[/url] Notice, how the illegal's really did not get going till the early 80's, with the 1986 Reagon/bush amnasty of Mexmongals then pouring in to U.S. The am"Nasty" only came out after 60% of CA. voted for prop 187, the white whore Gov. of CA. laughed and spit in the whites face's. So, thus the invaders really got cooking by the 1990 census, and doubled by 2000..
Oh, sure it was happening earlier than 80, but this was only possible to have full fledged invasion, with a dumbed down "Nation" of a NON READING DEBASED people. With out the dumbing down, could the alien "NATION" destroyers have gotton away with flying in primitive Hmoogs, Congoids and other savages to 141 small all white towns across the U.S.? I say no...
2004-06-02 06:36 | User Profile
The Culture of Critique
([url="http://mosaisk.com/"][size=1]Upps[/size][/url][size=1] has moved to add free website domain name: [/size][url="http://mosaisk.com/"][size=1]http://mosaisk.com[/size][/url])
I'm reading this book slowly and meticulously, sucking up every detail, each page brings new and stunning revelations, although it's not easy reading. **Kevin MacDonald should be awarded with a Nobel Prize! ** The hard part is, how to get this knowledge disseminated to a wider public? Is there any indication, that this book is being read by students of anthropology, psychology, or sociology, or will it be one more revalatation being trashed under piles of accusations of anti-Semitism or silenced to death in the academic world?
Does anybody know if any of Kevin MacDonaldââ¬â¢s books have been published in other languages than English?
It should most certainly be translated into the languages of the new European Union States, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estionia, Slovenia, Litauania and Latvia.
In these countries where there still is a broad based natural scepticism towards the workings of the Jews, this work of science ought to replace the more obscure antisemitic literature, to be able to withstand the pressure which is mounting already, with these modern scientific arguments.
Does anybody know if there any institutions that would fund such translations? It could be done at a relatively cheap price, since wages in these countries are still very low. It might be the last chance, to build a stronghold against the ongoing Judafication of Europe, aided by various anti-nationalist and "anti-racist" organizations of the EU.
It is to be expected, that the EU will embark on the same doctrine of government sponsored brainwash which is allready in place in the old countries. Including rewriting history according to Jewish wishes and furthering the Cult of the Holocaust, which is to replace religion and critical thinking.
Eastern Europe might still be saved, but something has to be done. I'd be interested in coming into contact with Eastern Europeans, to initialize some platform of communication and exchange, because as it stands now it seems there is no communication of any kind between Eastern and Western European nationalists and dissidents.
Any links to websites where Eastern Europeans dissidents communicate in English, German or the Scandinavian languages would be welcome.
The Culture of Critique: This book is particularly hard to read for anybody who does not have a very good understanding of the English language! For the sake of Danes and other Scandinavians reading this; a Danish translation of part of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique can be found here:
Jødisk involvering i den psykoanalytiske bevægelse Dansk oversættelse af dele af "Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement" [url="http://mosaisk.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php"]Kapitel 4 af Kevin MacDonalds bog The Culture of Critique[/url] [url="http://mosaisk.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php"][size=1]http://mosaisk.com/makow/Freud-Psykoanalyse-Judaisme.php[/size][/url]
Also of interest at this mainly Danish website:
[color=black]Danish Social Democrat Torben Lund, member of European Parliament under fire from International Jewry (anti-Semitism allegations)[/color] [url="http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Anti-Semite-en.php"]Read[/url] [url="http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Anti-Semite-en.php"][size=1]http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Anti-Semite-en.php[/size][/url] [size=1][/size] Socialdemokraten og medlem af Europa Parlamentet Torben Lund angrebet af Internationale Jødiske organisationer. [url=http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Antisemit.php]Læs[/url] [size=1][url="http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Antisemit.php"]http://mosaisk.com/Torben-Lund/Torben-Lund-Antisemit.php[/url][/size]
German politician Martin Hohmann's alledged antisemitic speech ([url="http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php"][color=blue]complete text in English[/color][/url]) [url="http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php"][size=1]http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Anti-Semitic-speech-by-German-politician-Martin-Hohmann.php[/size][/url]
Martin Hohmanns pÃÂ¥stÃÂ¥ede antisemitiske tale ([url="http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php"]komplet tekst pÃÂ¥ dansk)[/url] [url="http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php"][size=1]http://mosaisk.com/Martin-Hohmann/Antisemitisk-tale-af-CDU-politiker-Martin-Hohmann.php[/size][/url]
[url="http://mosaisk.com/"]Upps Front page - [url="http://mosaisk.com/"][url="http://mosaisk.com/"]http://mosaisk.com[/url][/url][/url] Upps, om jødernes rolle i samfundet - Upps, about the role of the Jews in society Bl.a. Analyser af mediebegivenheder der involverer Jøder, Jødedommen osv.
[color=slategray]Download link Culture of Critique full text in English: [/color][url="http://www.solargeneral.com/library...eOfCritique.pdf"][color=slategray]solargeneral.com/library...eOfCritique.pdf[/color][/url] [color=slategray]The link to the pdf file is sadly enough no longer found at [url="http://http:<a%20href=/"][color=blue]Solargeneral[/color][/url]...[/color]
size=1[/size]
Hermes
2004-06-19 18:56 | User Profile
In checking out MacDonald's article, he indicates, what is the crux of the matter, I suspect--that, jews are able to cooperate... which is indicative of a kind of maturity. Others even who are ethnocentric can't apparently to the same degree (yet)? Also it behooves human beings, to come from the perspective of having been victimized, because it places one's perspective in tune with reality. Our frail, vulnerable bodies, by comparison with the rest of the better equipped, animal kingdom, made humans prey for most of our genetic history. Prior to our discovery and manipulation of fire, after which we slowly became the dominant predators. But that has been a brief period next to what preceded it.
The great human paradox is that bio-chemically in other words physically we need to believe we are more than victims...which paradoxically also made us in evolution more than the victims, we had been. (Who knows what we can become...for better or worse? In the animal kingdom we're rather "weird"? Err, I say old chap, said one lion to another, have you ever seen a monkey quite like that?)
And so... belief / culture is a PHYSICAL necessity of human beings.
Then the human question becomes how to believe in ways we need to, without "believing our own act" and thus losing touch with the eternal fact, (barring any change of reality or mother Nature, "divine intervention" for the better), that we are, the subservient victims of everything, ultimately, and even if there is a God, of himself as well... "under God".
Most people I have noticed are not "mature" enough, (yet?) to accept the latter part of that human reality and paradox. They must overly-believe: and thus believe their own act. Probably to help physically, further sublimate, the barbarian or savage within. And that's a good thing, for their own personal evolution, and for society. However those "types" of people, given their maturity, can't cooperate very well in the mundane with each other even when also ethnocentric. They're mostly still heroes or something, legends in their own minds. Which, again given the human reality and paradox is necessary and good. ("Long live Achilles, and his heel.")
Except when someone goes "postal", or in finally feeling the need to organize, a people can only manage to do it, around going to war. That would perhaps be an imprudent war, although not necessarily, if the physical need for it, would have otherwise resulted in civil war? If I was that Pope I'd probably say, hey guys, it ain't me, it's 'them'... over there! ... that's right... over there! ... (whew!)
I would venture to say most jews aren't sophisticated enough to be aware of the human paradox, fully enough or consciously. However that also reflects nicely, where everyone else still is at in reality as well.
Ideally it might be nice if most jews knew they didn't have to stay prudently in touch with being victims, simply because they've been victimized by other people. But because more importantly, and more accurately, we're all victims, period. I doubt most jews are that mature, personally speaking. That's ok, that's good, for their own personal evolutions.
Although mature enough to successfully cooperate, and acclamate themsleves of necessity, to the levels of maturity of the society around them. That don't make'em "God's pets". I think God is like my little brother "Mikie", he don't like nobody.
I think MacDonald's work is important, since there's been such a dearth of its type of exploration. It's physical. It appeared when it appeared. However I of course am spirit (oh, wait, am I over-believing...-?-no wonder, I could never get along with nobody? I kid, I kid.)
I like to say, no one thing is true, it is all true. Life is absurd, as well as everything else. Carry on, ol'chaps, who knows what we might become...for better or worse. We can lose of course, only cowards think they "can't" lose. But we can also win.
2004-06-23 09:23 | User Profile
Yes...however I'm not in love with ideas for their own sake. A thought, on the other hand, is something complete in itself, and something you can do. Like say, for example don't confuse motion with action. A thought is difficult, an idea easy...both are good. Why-?- We do both. Need to, PHYSYICALLY.
But don't forget (how can you "forget", at one level or another), at the super-position of the spirit of all things...we're "connected". USE thought at whatever level it works for you, thought, ideas, wishes, etc. to MANIFEST what you want. You CAN, so do that through meditation or prayer etc. Don't doubt it. It's next or higher and fine. DO it. At that level. It teaches. As well as going down, as I have had to into the rabbit hole of the PRIMAL. Do what WE need to.
Two schools of thought, so far: even at the super-position we're subservient, i.e. "under God". The other newer perspective, at that level, we're "equal". No. There's a third school, it's both. BOTH includes, even at the level of the super-position of the spirit of all things, paradox: until God says otherwise. In other words until we're ready. That's today's third, or real, paradigm. For who can, until ready, look into the face of the Almighty, and live? But who isn't "equal", once they Can? You'll know that, when it happens, not until.
Until then your ego isn't "bad", it's just what it is. That's the LAW. So if you're too high, the Law will send you down to get jiggy, with it. Or if too low, have you climb, up "niggers", whatever'color...black, white, red, yellow. Funny, too, thank God. God, in my opinion (intuition), likes thoughts: something complete in itself and something you can DO. So do it. VISUALIZE, what you want. It's higher, and it teaches. What else does, today? Nothing. So we can safely say it's God's will. Get "jiggy" with it. Or climb up... but don't piss God off, never a good bet.
Pray, meditate, at whatever level these occur, to you. DO it. I apologize if I sound dictatorial, in the age of equality. In that regard though, it's all good.
Joy. Can't get to heaven here or hereafter until we pass the sweet angel of joy. I like joy. Hey, I'm PRIMAL, "joy good." Down to earth AND in heaven...
It's the only way to be a victim, AND more... "Thanks God." (But, if possible, don't pay too much attention to me...I ain't that good, sadly.) Am I "crazy"? No. It's the third paradigm. Dig'it. ViTHualize, if Spanish, from Spain, or Visualize, if not. "See?" No, seriously. I can't slap ya's down, much as I'd like to, there's too many of ya's. VISUALIZE. Or if still necessary, get down that rabbit hole, like I had to. What-?-are you better than me?
2004-06-23 20:35 | User Profile
The above two post(s) of mine are me talking to me (UNIVERSAL). In other words talking with YOU, too. We're more similar than different, even though each like a snowflake or fingerprint, unique... The present, changes the past, (PHYSICALLY) when the present is ready to change. Why? Since the relative exists within the ABSOLUTE. In this sense, the more things change, the more they remain the same within the LAW. However to our sense of things, because of time...time, we HAVE, to become, it can seem very different and thus "change". That's freedom.
In the three dimensional world of height, width, depth, to which we are (happily and/or sadly) consigned, momentarily, we have freedom within narrow margins. We notice the LAW (because we can) and then we create little laws. All of this, is just the way it is and FINE. It's US.
But GET READY to also, since you can, latch on to those golden threads that lead to the other kingdoms...also right here, not in a relative but in an ABSOLUTE sense. When you latch on to them, they become relative too.
That's why even at the level of God, there's paradox FOR us, until there isn't. It's what it means the doors to the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN are open. There's no feeling more true than getting there and finding them closed. Had that feeling enough? That's YOU. They're Open. So latch on to the golden threads of (thought) i.e. meditation, prayer...and let yourself go in, to the extent you can. And this isn't a "judgemental" thing, when it is said, "to the extent you can". Reality is ALSO love, so it means what's good for you.
Having eyes, do you see? You can. Having ears, do you hear, you can.
Do I personally care? Teach us to care, and not to care. No, I don't care personally. Right now I've got to go to work, in the relative (and ABSOLUTE) world. VISUALIZE. Get my drift? I'm just the common man except that being us, we're uncommon TOO. I like us. Like us too. Like you.
I do, for what it's worth, and if you don't hate yourself, you know it's worth plenty.
OR also go down like I did the rabbit hole of the PRIMAL. Too. Truth or Dare-?-this is truth, that's on the other hand - the dare.
Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not a "bumpkin". There's politics too, except it's shit and boring even though we have to do that as well. But that's another "topic". VISUALIZE in that arena too.
2005-03-25 15:17 | User Profile
Needle,
You're living up to your nym with all these links to the same post about Cosmothesism. Don't be surprised when the others retaliate.
2005-03-25 15:32 | User Profile
Needle,
I believe they would take issue with you about your comment implying that they are like the Jews.
I'll let them deal with you if they wish.
I think I'll see if I can get a forum set up for religious cults.
2005-03-25 15:51 | User Profile
Whatever, Needle.
2005-03-25 16:21 | User Profile
Needle,
It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was my way of saying I wasn't going to waste time with you. That is your business if you want to believe in this. You can worship a stump as far as I am concerned. I would appreciate that you identify the link you keep posting by [U]name[/U] (say, Cosmothesim) so others will not waste their time going to the same post. It is starting to look like spam.
2005-03-25 16:47 | User Profile
Spam.
2005-03-25 17:32 | User Profile
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by Kevin MacDonald [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759672229/qid=1095262828/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-9557728-4415943]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/075...9557728-4415943[/URL] [IMG]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/mybooks3.jpg[/IMG]
**BOOKS ON JUDAISM FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ** [URL=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm[/URL] I have written three books on Judaism within a modern evolutionary perspective. These books are in the Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence series edited by Seymour W. Itzkoff and published by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of the Greenwood Publishing Group.
2005-04-02 13:23 | User Profile
Steven Pinker
Popular science writer [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker"]Steven Pinker[/url], Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT"]MIT[/url], has criticized MacDonald's ideas, stating they "do not pass that threshold for attention-worthiness", though he admits he has not read the Critique trilogy. He accuses MacDonald of enaging in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"]ad hominem[/url] argumentation, criticizes his use of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection"]group selection[/url] in his theories, and claims that MacDonald does not make sufficient use of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_group"]control groups[/url] (other ethnic minorities) when writing about Jews. He also claims MacDonald's ideas "collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language."
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Steven_Pinker[/url]
2005-08-09 14:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=neoclassical]Steven Pinker
Popular science writer [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker"]Steven Pinker[/url], Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT"]MIT[/url], has criticized MacDonald's ideas, stating they "do not pass that threshold for attention-worthiness", though he admits he has not read the Critique trilogy.[/QUOTE] Isn't that the way that today's pseudo-intellectuals like Pinker argue? They attack the messenger and his message, without bothering to really read what he has to say.
Of course, if Pinker had read MacDonald's writings, then he would undoubtedly have been guilty of a crime himself--in the eyes of the Thought Police (those politically correct neo-Kahns who run the media). And he might have had to seek a job elsewhere (such as monitoring people's comments at Original Dissent--just kidding).
It's almost comical how many of today's educators are close-minded bigots who refuse to look at others' opinions and findings--if these thoughts contradict the established politically correct doctrine.
Meanwhile, these educators ask their students to be open-minded. Hypocritical? Not in their eyes. You can have any opinion you want--you can be as open-minded as you want--just so long as it doesn't contradict their narrow and dishonest view of reality.
For instance, a (non-Jewish) teacher at a nearby college recently had an article written about her in the paper, saying how great she was in promoting the "Holocaust" dogma. The article went on to say that some younger gentleman contradicted her findings publicly, to which the university's response was to call the police (as we can't have people openly voice dissent when it comes to something of this nature, the Thought Police contend).
In any case, I wrote her, and suggested that she read Prof. Arthur Butz's book, "The Hoax of the 20th Century," and I would pay for a copy for her (or she could download it for free in PDF format - [url="http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/"]http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/[/url] ).
The teacher's response was that she wouldn't dare to read something like that, no matter what the case. She told me she had read a book by David Irving, who was a "Holocaust denier." (This is absolute rubbish, as Irving doesn't deny such.) She said that she would mention to her students that there were hateful websites out there that promoted contradictory statements. And that was all she would do--never exhibiting even a hint of objectivity.
Yes, of course, that must be it--vho.org is simply a hateful website because it publishes facts that she can't refute. But isn't that typically the case with those who argue in support of the Holocaust? If that's not the case, why are so many countries making it illegal to argue about it?
The truth of this matter is that since Jews cannot argue about such matters (as their propaganda would be exposed to the masses), they must forever promote laws that restrict Freedom of Speech to ensure that their dirty little secrets aren't shown to the public-at-large. What else could be a rational explanation for their deceitful and dirty tricks to suppress Free Speech?
If there are people out there who believe this leftover WWII-propaganda that Jews promote, I'd like to recommend that you take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and watch a couple of free online videos that can be found at my website:
Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at WWII
Understanding Anti-Semitism: Why Do Some People Dislike Jews?
[url="http://www.HonestMediaToday.com/products.htm"]http://www.HonestMediaToday.com/products.htm[/url]
There, you'll discover what truly occurred, and not the made-for-TV Jewish-propaganda that you see every week or so.
2005-08-09 15:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=albion]The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
by Kevin MacDonald [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759672229/qid=1095262828/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-9557728-4415943"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/075...9557728-4415943[/url] [img]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/mybooks3.jpg[/img]
**BOOKS ON JUDAISM FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ** [url="http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm"]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm[/url] I have written three books on Judaism within a modern evolutionary perspective. These books are in the Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence series edited by Seymour W. Itzkoff and published by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of the Greenwood Publishing Group.[/QUOTE] [color=navy]How should we define Jews--as a race, a nation, a nationality, an ethnic group, a religion, or simply a tribe with a maternal-bond?[/color]
center [/center]
2005-08-09 17:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Popular science writer Steven Pinker, Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, has criticized MacDonald's ideas, stating they "do not pass that threshold for attention-worthiness", though he admits he has not read the Critique trilogy. He accuses MacDonald of enaging in ad hominem argumentation, criticizes his use of group selection in his theories, and claims that MacDonald does not make sufficient use of control groups (other ethnic minorities) when writing about Jews. He also claims MacDonald's ideas "collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language."[/QUOTE]Very embarrassing arguments that totally undermine Pinker's standing as a scientist.
How can Pinker say MacDonald argues ad hominem, if he hasn't read the books? There is no ad-hominem argument whatsoever anywhere in the trilogy.
And what's wrong with group selection? As David Sloan Wilson has demonstrated, if you believe in "individual" selection (as Pinker purports to), you necessarily believe in group selection; what most people (including Pinker) think of as "individuals" are themselves groups of lower-level units.
Finally, the notion of "control groups" is truly bizarre.
2005-08-09 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Notice that most of the leadership of the Mexican-American community is of Sephardic Jewish descent.[/QUOTE] Jews will rule over the Mexicans with an iron hand anyway because Mexicans don't have any money. Under Capitalism 50 Jewish millionaires have infinitely more power over the government than 500,000 Mexicans.
2005-08-09 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=yummybear]They've been hacking away at us while playing the role of victim for several hundred years. And because they have controlled the media, publishing industry, and the film industry for so long, each of us has a Jew planted in our brain by virtue of their brainwashing.[/QUOTE]
If anyone still doubts that Jews control the mainstream, try making any political/racial statement in public which conflicts with the Jewish worldview and notice how immediately the majority of the people around you will either "correct" you or they will get incredibly uncomfortable and hope that you change the subject.
2005-08-30 06:15 | User Profile
Pinker shows his true Kohl-ors with the publication of "The Blank Slate." He surely had a chance to demolish a few PC shibboleths in the form of "there are no races" and other such nonsense, yet he did not do so.
Yet, what has been undoubtedly THE most publicized un-PC study on intelligence to be published in the last few years? It's undoubtedly that recent story about the superior nature of Jewish intelligence that got quite a wide bit of press.
Well, as an eternal optimist (not really, but play along) I'm going to take this publicity since 'Jews' are equal to 'whites' in the public mind. If it takes more articles about 'Asians being smarter than Mexicans' or 'Jews being smarter than Yanamamo Indians' to start getting the point across, well - I'm all for it. Reason being - once you let the cat out of the bag, it's not much of a stretch for people to realize - since their senses have obviously failed them - that there are differences between white/black intelligence and white/mestizo intelligence. In fact, I am in favor of ANY research that shows the disparate nature of human intelligence as it relates to race for this very reason.
In sum, while Pinker played the predictable Safe Card necessary to join the elite realm of contemporary Jewish Propaganda Publishin' (Gould, Diamond, etc.) he has nevertheless helped open Pandora's box. Perhaps Pinker's book was just an effort to help push new genetic evidence into a Jewish-friendly mould.
2005-09-11 09:19 | User Profile
center[img]http://www.savethemales.ca/kmacdonald.jpg[/img] [/center]
centerPart 1 /center[url="http://easylink.playstream.com/currentissues/currentissues%20MacDonald%20.wvx"]http://easylink.playstream.com/currentissues/currentissues%20MacDonald%20.wvx[/url][/center]
centerPart 2 /center[url="http://easylink.playstream.com/currentissues/currentissuesmadsen.wvx"]http://easylink.playstream.com/currentissues/currentissuesmadsen.wvx[/url][/center]
[left]This very interesting interview was recorded last week by Current Issues TV located out of Louisiana. It starts at approximately the 30 minute mark and runs over into the second link -- [img]http://socaleuro.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbs-up.gif[/img][/left]
[left]More interesting interviews at link below, Rep. [color=black][font=Arial]Paul Findley, activist Mark Farrell and Friends of Zundel to name but a few[/font]:[/color] [url="http://www.currentissues.tv/"]http://www.currentissues.tv/[/url][/left]
2005-09-17 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]If anyone still doubts that Jews control the mainstream, try making any political/racial statement in public which conflicts with the Jewish worldview and notice how immediately the majority of the people around you will either "correct" you or they will get incredibly uncomfortable and hope that you change the subject.[/QUOTE] I've edited the introduction and somewhat "dumbed it down" for the masses..
[size=3]Fundamental to the transformation of the United States as a result of massive non-European immigration was the decline of ethnic consciousness among European peoples.[/size] It is fascinating to contrast the U.S. immigration debates of the [u]1920s [/u]with those of the [u]1950s and 1960s[/u]. [u]The restrictionists of the 1920s unabashedly asserted the right of European-derived peoples to the land they had conquered and settled. There were many assertions of ethnic interest -- that the people who colonized and created the political and economic culture of the country had a right to maintain it as their possession. This sort of morally self-assured nativism (even the word itself now has a pathological ring to it) can be seen in the statement of Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, a prominent restrictionist.[/u]
[size=3][u]By the 1940s and certainly by the 1960s[/u] it was impossible to make such assertions without being deemed not only a [size=5]racist[/size] but an intellectual Neanderthal. Indeed, Bendersky (2000) shows that such rhetoric was increasingly impossible in the 1930s. One can see the shift in the career of racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard, author of books such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and numerous articles for the popular media, such as Collier's, Forum, and The Saturday Evening Post. Stoddard viewed Jews as highly intelligent and as racially different from Europeans. [u]He also believed that Jews were critical to the success of Communism[/u]. However, he stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s. [size=5]The Jewish Anthropologist Franz Boas led a revolution in the field and suddenly it was proclaimed that race didn't exist, and the formerly popular theorists who believed that race was important for explaining human behavior became isolated as so-called fringe figures[/size]. Stoddard himself went from being a popular and influential writer to being viewed as a security risk as the Roosevelt administration prepared the country for war with National Socialist Germany. [/size]
Another marker of the change in attitude toward Jews was the response to Charles Lindbergh's remarks in Des Moines, Iowa on the eve of U.S. entry into World War II. Lindbergh's advocacy of non-intervention was shaped not only by his horror at the destructiveness of modern warfare -- what he viewed as the suicide of European culture, but also by his belief that a second European war would be suicidal for the White race. In an article published in the popular media in 1939 shortly after the outbreak of World War II, he stated that it was a war 'among a dominant people for power, blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all' (Lindbergh 1939, 65).
In order to maintain their dominance over other races, Lindbergh believed that whites should join together to fend off the teeming legions of non-whites who were the real long-term threat. Lindbergh was not a Nordicist. He took a long-term view that Russia would be a white bulwark against the Chinese in the East. He advocated a racial alliance among Whites based 'on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, [and] an American nation' (p. 66). However, the Soviet Union under Communism was abhorrent: 'I tell you that I would a hundred times rather see my country ally herself with England, or even with Germany with all of her faults, than with the cruelty, the godlessness, and the barbarism that exist in Soviet Russia. An alliance between the United States and Russia should be opposed by every American, by every Christian, and by every humanitarian in this country' (in Berg 1999, 422). Lindbergh clearly viewed the atrocities perpetrated by the Soviet Union to be worse than those of Nazi Germany.
[size=5][u]Lindbergh's famous speech of September 11, 1941 stated that America's Jews were one of the principal forces attempting to lead the U.S. into the war against Hitler[/u][/size], along with the Roosevelt administration and the British. Lindbergh noted that Jewish reaction to Nazi Germany was understandable given persecution 'sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.' [size=5][u]He stated that the Jews' 'greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our Government[/u].[/size]' And, most controversially, he stated, 'I am saying that the leaders of both the British and Jewish races, for reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war' (in Berg 1999, 427).
Lindbergh's speech was greeted with a torrent of abuse and hatred unparalleled for a mainstream public figure in American history. Overnight Lindbergh went from cultural hero to moral pariah. [size=5]Jewish influence on the media and government would be difficult to measure then in 1941 as it is now, but it was certainly considerable. In a booklet published in 1936, the editors of Fortune magazine concluded that the main sources of Jewish influence on the media were their control of the two major radio networks and the Hollywood movie studios (Editors of Fortune 1936). [u]They suggested that 'at the very most, half the opinion-making and taste-influencing paraphernalia in America is in Jewish hands'[/u][/size] (p. 62) -- [size=4]a rather remarkable figure considering that Jews constituted approximately 2-3% of the population[/size] and most of the Jewish population were first or second generation immigrants. [size=4]A short list of Jewish ownership or management of the major media during this period would include [u]the [/u][u]New York Times[/u] (the most influential newspaper, owned by the Sulzberger family), [u]the New York Post[/u] (George Backer), [u]the Washington Post[/u] (Eugene Meyer), [u]Philadelphia Inquirer[/u] (M. L. Annenberg), [u]Philadelphia Record[/u] and [u]Camden Courier-Post[/u] (J. David Stern), [u]Newark Star-Ledger[/u] (S. I. Newhouse), [u]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[/u] (Paul Block), [u]CBS[/u] (the dominant radio network, owned by William Paley),[u] NBC[/u] (headed by David Sarnoff), [size=6][u]all of the major Hollywood movie studios[/u][/size], [u]Random House[/u] (the most important book publisher, owned by Bennett Cerf),[/size] [u]and a dominant position in popular music[/u].2 Walter Winchell, who had an audience of tens of millions and was tied with Bob Hope for the highest rated program on radio, believed that opposition to intervention 'was unconscionable, a form of treason' (Gabler 1995, 294). Winchell, 'the standard bearer for interventionism,' was Jewish. He had close ties during this period to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which provided him with information on the activities of isolationists and Nazi sympathizers which he used in his broadcasts and newspaper columns (Gabler 1995, 294-298)
[u]There is no question that the movie industry did indeed propagandize against Germany and in favor of intervention[/u].[size=5] [u]In May, 1940, the Jewish owned Warner Brothers studio wired Roosevelt that 'personally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices[/u]'[/size] (in Gabler 1988, 343). [size=5]Later in 1940 Joseph P. Kennedy lectured the Hollywood movie elite that they should stop promoting the war and stop making anti-Nazi movies or risk a rise in anti-Semitism[/size]. Immediately prior to Lindbergh's Des Moines speech, Senator Gerald Nye asserted that foreign-born owners of the Hollywood studies had 'violent animosities toward certain causes abroad' (Gabler 1988, 344-345). Representatives of the movie industry, realizing that they had the support of the Roosevelt administration, aggressively defended making 'America conscious of the national peril."3
[size=5][u]Harvard historian William Langer stated in a lecture to the U.S. Army War College that the rising dislike of Nazi Germany in the U.S. was due to 'Jewish influence' in the media[/u][/size]: [indent][size=6]You have to face the fact that some of our most important American newspapers are Jewish-controlled[/size], and I suppose if I were a Jew I would feel about Nazi Germany as most Jews feel and it would be most inevitable that the coloring of the news takes on that tinge. [size=4]As I read [u]the New York Times[/u], for example, it is perfectly clear that every little upset that occurs (and after all, many upsets occur in a country of 70 million people) is given a great deal of prominence. The other part of it is soft-pedaled or put off with a sneer. So that in a rather subtle way, the picture you get is that there is no good in the Germans[/size] whatever. (In Bendersky 2000, 273)
On balance, it would seem reasonable to agree with Lindbergh that Jewish influence in the media was significant during this period. Of course, this is not to say that Jews dominated the media at this time or that other influences were not important. [/indent]
[size=3][u]It is also noteworthy that U.S. military officers often worried that Roosevelt was influenced to be anti-German by his [size=4]Jewish advisors: Samuel I. Rosenman, Felix Frankfurter, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr[/size][/u]. (Bendersky 2000, 274), and they worried that Jewish interests and the British would push the U.S. into a war with Germany. Both Frankfurter and Morgenthau were strongly identified Jews and effective advocates of Jewish interests within the Roosevelt Administration[/size]. Morgenthau actively promoted Zionism and the welfare of Jewish refugees (e.g., Bendersky 2000, 333ff, 354ff). Both supported U.S. involvement in the war against Germany,[size=4] and Morgenthau became well-known as an advocate of extremely harsh treatment of the Germans during and after World War II.[/size][size=4] [/size]
The fact that the vast majority of U.S. Jews were indeed in favor of intervention and that Jews did have a significant effect on public attitudes and public policy had become irrelevant. [size=4]As Lindbergh himself said, the choice was 'whether or not you are going to let your country go into a completely disastrous war for lack of courage to name the groups leading that country to war -- at the risk of being called 'anti-Semitic' simply by naming them[/size]' [size=5]America had entered into an era when it had become morally unacceptable for Whites to discuss Jewish interests at all. Whites were told to pretend that Jews didn't have any self interests like other people and therefore you couldn't criticize them. We are still in that era.[/size]
**By the time of Lindbergh's 1941 speech, Jews not only had a prominent position in the U.S. media, they had seized the intellectual and moral high ground via their control of other intellectual and political movements. [size=4]Not only were Jewish interests declared beyond the bounds of civilized political discussion, [u]assertions of European ethnic interest became not acceptable[/u][/size]. [size=4]Such assertions conflicted with the [u]Jewish Anthropologist Franz Boas's dogma that genetic differences between races were trivial and irrelevant[/u]; to discuss European ethnic interests conflicted with [/size][size=5][u]the Communist belief in the equality of all races and that nationalism and assertions of European ethnic interests were declared reactionary evils[/u][/size]; **
[size=4][u]The rise of a de-ethnicized managerial elite of Whites who don't have any interest in pursuing White ethnic interests is easily observable in politicians such as former President Bill Clinton and now Senator Hillary Clinton.[/u] People such as these are[/size] interwoven with a critical mass of ethnically conscious Jews and other ethnic minorities and this is an enormously important fact for the future of this nation. [u][size=4]The simple fact that these White elites having no concern for White interests just would not exist in a Non-Jewish dominated society[/size].[size=4] They are opposed to White interests precisely because a Jewish dominated society forbids those patterns of thought[/size][/u]. [size=4]In other parts of the world the pattern of a race working against their own interests does not exist. [u]No Japanese politician runs on a campaign of being unaware of being Asian[/u]. [u]No Japanese politician sides with minorities against his own ethnic group[/u]. Therefore, the behavior of "White self hatred" is unique to the world's politicial structure. [/size]
[size=3][u]It is instructive to look at the way Europeans in the U.S. saw themselves a century ago[/u]. Americans of European descent thought of themselves as part of a cultural and ethnic heritage extending backward in time to the founding of the country. The Anglo-Saxon heritage of the British Isles was at the center of this self-conception, but Americans of German and Scandinavian descent also viewed themselves as part of this ethnic and cultural heritage. They had a great deal of pride in their accomplishments. They had conquered a vast territory and had achieved a high degree of economic progress. They saw themselves as having created a civilization with a strong moral fabric -- a country of farmers and small businessmen who had developed into a world economic power. They believed that their civilization was a product of their own unique ingenuity and skills, and they believed that it would not survive if other peoples were allowed to play too large a role in it. They saw themselves as exhibiting positive personality traits such as courage in the face of adversity, self-reliance, inventiveness, originality, and fair play -- the very virtues that allowed them to conquer the wilderness and turn it into an advanced civilization. [/size]
[size=3][u]Americans at the turn of the 19th century looked out on the world and saw their own society as superior to others. They saw themselves and other European societies as reaping the rewards of political and economic freedom while the rest of the world suffered as it had from time immemorial -- the despotism of Asia, the barbarity and primitivism of Africa, and the economic and political backwardness of Russia and Eastern Europe. [/u][/size]
[size=3][u]They saw themselves as Christian, and they thought of Christianity as an essential part of the social fabric and their way of life. Christianity was seen as basic to the moral foundations of the society, and any threat to Christianity was seen as a threat to the society as a whole[/u]. When these people looked back on their own childhood, they saw 'a simple, secure world of commonly accepted values and behavior'-- [u]a world of cultural and ethnic homogeneity[/u]. They had a strong sense of family pride and regional identification: They had deep roots in the areas in which they grew up. They did not think of the U.S. as a Marxist hell of war between the social classes. Instead they thought of it as a world of harmony between the social classes in which people at the top of society earned their positions but felt a certain sense of social obligation to the lower social classes. [/size]
**The early part of the 20th century was also the high water mark of Darwinism in the social sciences. [size=4][u]It was common at that time to think that there were important differences between the races -- that races differed in intelligence and in moral qualities. Not only did races differ, but they were in competition with each other for supremacy[/u][/size]. **
**[size=6]That world has vanished[/size]. [u][size=5]The rise of Jewish power and the removal of the specifically European nature of the U.S. are the real topics of my research[/size][/u]. The war to disestablish the specifically European nature of the U.S. was fought on several fronts. [u][size=4]The main thrusts of Jewish activism against European ethnic and cultural interests have focused on three critical power centers in the United States: The academic world of information in the social sciences and humanities, the political world where public policy on immigration and other ethnic issues is decided, and the mass media where 'ways of seeing' are presented to the public.[/size][/u] **
[size=5]At the intellectual level, Jewish intellectuals led the battle against the idea that races even exist and against the idea that there are differences in intelligence or cultural level between the races that are rooted in biology[/size]. [u]They also spearheaded defining America as a set of abstract principles rather than an ethnocultural civilization[/u].[size=4] [/size][size=5][u]At the level of politics, Jewish organizations spearheaded the drive to open up immigration to all of the races of the world[/u][/size].[size=5] [/size]
[size=5][/size]
[size=5][u]Jewish organizations also played a key role in furthering the interests of other racial and ethnic minorities, and they led the legal and legislative effort to remove Christianity from public places[/u].[/size][size=5] [/size]
[size=3][u]The first bastion of the old American culture to fall was elite academic institutions and especially the Ivy League universities. The transformation of the faculty in the social sciences and humanities was well underway in the 1950s, and by the early 1960s it was largely complete. The new elite was very different from the old elite it displaced. The difference was that the old Protestant elite was not at war with the country it dominated. The old Protestant elite was wealthier and better educated than the public at large, but they approached life on basically the same terms. They saw themselves as Christians and as Europeans, and they didn't see the need for radically changing the society. [/u][/size]
[size=3]Things are very different now. Since the 1960s a hostile, adversary elite has emerged to dominate intellectual and political debate. It is an elite that almost instinctively loathes the traditional institutions of European-American culture: its religion, its customs, its manners, and its sexual attitudes. In the words of one commentator, 'today's elite loathes the nation it rules'. A good example is Stephen Steinlight's comments on the immigration restriction of 1924-1965 (see above). [/size]
[size=4][u]This 'hostile elite' is fundamentally a Jewish-dominated elite whose origins and main lines of influence are described in my work[/u]. [u]The emergence of this hostile elite is an aspect of ethnic competition between Jews and non-Jews and its effect will be a long-term decline in the power of European peoples in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world[/u]. [/size]
[size=4][u]Bendersky's (2000) recent book The 'Jewish Threat' shows strong resistance to the decline of European rule among U.S. Army officers in the period from World War I to well into the Cold War era and shows that similar attitudes were widespread among the public at that time[/u]. But their resistance was nullified by the decline of the intellectual basis of European ethnic hegemony and by political events, such as the immigration law of 1965, which they were unable to control. [/size]
[size=4][/size]
[size=4][size=6][size=5]In the end, the 1965 law passed because it was advertised as nothing more than a moral gesture that would have no long-term impact on the ethnic balance of the U.S. [u]However, to its activist supporters, including the Jewish organizations who were critical to its passage, immigration reform was what it had always been: a mechanism to alter the ethnic balance of the United States[/u][/size].[/size][/size][size=6] [/size]
[size=6][/size]
[size=6][/size] [size=4]The basic Jewish strategy is that Whites will no longer view themselves as having any White ethnic interests while in contrast the Jews will continue to view themselves as Jews and will actively pursue specificially Jewish interests to better their own people. [/size] [size=4][/size] [size=4][/size]
2005-10-06 06:55 | User Profile
I think the influence of the Jews is highly overrated. I think the real driving force in the Culture War is the Gay Lobby. The Jews have been around for a long time, but it has only been since the emergence of the Gay Lobby that we have seen these developments. Of course no doubt you will point to all the Jewish names in the Gay Lobby, but then Jewish Culture activly selects for homosexuality and it is to be expected that they will be overrepresented. But to assume that Jews have so much power is to assume that they are incredible supermen. One has to look at the forces and their disposition in the Culture Wars and most are not Jewish at all. The Gays have the numbers. They vastly outnumber the Jews and the Jews would not be able to influence so much without the support of the Gays. It is about time it was realised which dog is wagging which tail. Keith
2005-10-06 07:19 | User Profile
[url]http://www.churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/jewish_leaders_gay.htm[/url]
2005-10-06 07:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Keith Rex]I think the influence of the Jews is highly overrated. I think the real driving force in the Culture War is the Gay Lobby. The Jews have been around for a long time, but it has only been since the emergence of the Gay Lobby that we have seen these developments. Of course no doubt you will point to all the Jewish names in the Gay Lobby, but then Jewish Culture activly selects for homosexuality and it is to be expected that they will be overrepresented. But to assume that Jews have so much power is to assume that they are incredible supermen. One has to look at the forces and their disposition in the Culture Wars and most are not Jewish at all. The Gays have the numbers. They vastly outnumber the Jews and the Jews would not be able to influence so much without the support of the Gays. It is about time it was realised which dog is wagging which tail. Keith[/QUOTE]
Well, the Jews are both intelligent [having IQs roughly 15 points higher than gentiles] and they have amazing political and social skills. And they have lots of money as a rule. Those features have allowed Jews to dominate the political Left in the Western countries.
2005-10-07 05:02 | User Profile
It is also to be remembered that orthodox Jews are extremely hostile to any form of homosexual practice. It is said that when you have 2 Jews you have 3 factions. A much longer list would include non Jew homosexuals. Religions attract homosexuals because they like dressing up and all that pointless ritual, so you will get a lot in the Roman Catholic Priesthood. However they have always been there and so have the Jews. This "liberal" movement is very modern and I think one has to be more broad to explain it. Keith
2005-10-07 06:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Keith Rex]I think the influence of the Jews is highly overrated. I think the real driving force in the Culture War is the Gay Lobby. The Jews have been around for a long time, but it has only been since the emergence of the Gay Lobby that we have seen these developments. Of course no doubt you will point to all the Jewish names in the Gay Lobby, [B]but then Jewish Culture activly selects for homosexuality and it is to be expected that they will be overrepresented.[/B] Fascinating little bit of cultural analysis here Keith. Explain?
But to assume that Jews have so much power is to assume that they are incredible supermen. You sound just like Fade. Is that you Fade? :wink: > One has to look at the forces and their disposition in the Culture Wars and most are not Jewish at all. The Gays have the numbers. They vastly outnumber the Jews and the Jews would not be able to influence so much without the support of the Gays. It is about time it was realised which dog is wagging which tail. Keith[/QUOTE]Gay dog wagging tail. Hmm - sounds sort of kinky :lol:
Back to your cultural analysis Keith though, where do gays come from? In historical cultural terms homosexuality, like celibacy, can hardly be inherited or transmitted. It is a vestigal phenomenon, which can't be understood without looking at the parent organism. I think your basic cultural analysis is suspect here.
2005-10-07 06:22 | User Profile
Dear Oki, not Fade? New poster from Australia. Actively selects: The exceptionally high rate of homosex ( which Jews deny) is not due to overprotective Jewish mothers as some claim, but due to the fact that Gays love ritual while normals find it boring and normal Jews find Jewish girls are dogs and marry out. Gay Jews just do what mum tells them to do. ( marry a nice ( ugly) Jewish girl) Where do Gays come from? Big Question and so very not PC to even ask, I cannot direct you to helpful site, but will answer questions. Stress in mothers causes Gay boys. It is an evolved population control. In famine more boys born Gay - less in good times. To get rid of the Gay population all that is needed is to improve the health standards of women who get pregnant. This was all proved scientificly in the 1960s, but the Gay Mafia used its massive power to have it suppressed. Keith
2005-10-16 05:37 | User Profile
start with the protocols and the commie manifesto.
those came out of the yahoodi mind.
and those prescribe gayness among other things for those they wish to dominate.
2005-10-16 13:38 | User Profile
van helsing, are you aware that Kevin MacDonald doesn't believe in the authenticity of of "Protocols"?
Petr
2005-10-17 04:38 | User Profile
The detractors always refer to The Protocols as a "forgery" - never as a satire - which is what they are. Really dumb people cannot understand satire. Like they imagine that Macavellie was being literal. Actually he was a Republican and hated Monarchy and his work was pure satire. Of course no real Conspiracies set out their plans in detail and then leak it to the enemy - except the case of The Morgantheu Plan which was deliberately leaked to keep Germany in the war for another year. Roosevelt was afraid that Germany would offer a truce and stop him from his plan of total destruction and world domination. But only a fool would imagine that Jews would put their plans in writing and then leak them. Real conspiracies work by winks and nods - not by constitutions. Keith