🚀 go-pugleaf

Isn't McDonald also the same person who lost a libel suit in British court?

"People's Commissar" <tanijantsang@www.com> wrote in message
news:uj118dsjamsu50@corp.supernews.com...
> Isn't that easier? Just copy and paste it instead of asking people to "go
> fetch it on this url or that url."
>
> The Culture of Critique
>
> Review By Stanley Hornbeck
>
>
>
> The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
> Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Prager, 1998,
> $65.00, 379 pp. -Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California
> State University-Long Beach, CA, USA
>
> 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, and 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 of 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 Silverman:
> "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 Silverman 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. Silverman 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 Brandies 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, "[w] e [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 Meade 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, changing the
> environment could eliminate every inequality in achievement. 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 "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 esthetically repressive
> (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was
creating
> ethnographies do 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.
> Max Horkheimer headed the organization, 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 drawning 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 psychoanalysis, 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 counter cultural 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
>
> 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 Agnail, 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 contraction, the poem welcomes to America "huddled
masses
> yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
>
> Prof. MacDonald has discovered that Jews have made implausible arguments
> about diversity being a quintessentially American strength 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 multicultural 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 universalistic social
> solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile loyalties that
might
> exclude Jews. The appeal of universalistic 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 Jewish ness 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 people hood 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, "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 Jewish ness 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 people hood. 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
> Orthodox Jews had promoted multiculturalism or mass immigration or The
> Authoritarian Personality 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 interest." 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 Hein rich 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 out compete 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.�
>
> Stanley Hornbeck is the pen name of a Washington, DC, - area businessman.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> HOME
>
>
> "Phil" <marbleton2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com...
> > An interesting review of Prof. McDonald's book, "The Critique of
> > Culture".
> >
> > http://www.carolontheweb.com/links/critique.htm
> >
> > However, it does not excuse them from pushing immigration, etc, in the
> > USA, while demanding another standard for Israel. The book does offer
> > much in way of explanation.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > Phil
>
>