🚀 go-pugleaf

> marbleton2002@yahoo.com (Phil) wrote <40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. : 

>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.

The link doesn't work. Must be the Jewish Conspiracy.

"Phil" <marbleton2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com...
Fill, why did you cross post this to a firearm discussion group, Talk
Politics Guns?

> An interesting review of<snip>Clinton ...

"WILLIAM J. CLINTON:
SENTENCED TO LIFE

When I first heard Juanita Broadrick's tearful description of how Clinton
held her face in his mouth as he raped her, I sent E-mails to news
organizations saying I wished he were dead. When the Secret Service arrived
I told them I still wished he were dead, and so what? I told them to send me
to jail if they didn't like it.
They looked at each other, each wishing the other would suggest something to
do with the suburban grandmother holding her wrists together waiting to be
cuffed and hauled away. Instead they told me they protected "the office" and
they had to make sure I wasn't serious. But I WAS serious, I told them.
Clearly stumped by this unlikely terrorist, they sent me on my way.
But I believe society will exact a greater revenge from this inglorious gas
bag if he lives...."

"Clinton has become a caricature of himself. A boozy, impenitent southern
pol -- a gasbag of diminishing importance and a source of shame to those who
defended him in better times."

http://www.carolontheweb.com/links/life.html

"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".
>
McDonald is an educated and erudite asshole.  He uses his intelligence and
his education only to substantiate his hatemongering.

Anyone who swallows what he says (or even worse, promulgates it) is as bad
an asshole.

'Nuff said.

Robert Frenchu <begone.spamming.pinhead@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<qv5uiu827ecqprfkal70knbhhh9fuik4i3@4ax.com>...
> > marbleton2002@yahoo.com (Phil) wrote <40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. : 
>  
> >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.
> 
> The link doesn't work. Must be the Jewish Conspiracy.

Sorry about the error folks; try this.

http://www.carolontheweb.com/links/critique.html

Phil

The Jews wrote the law.  I put the Jews and the Commies in the same boat.

We need to convert the Jews by teaching them "do unto others as you would
have them do to you."

The "State" doesn't own anything, nor technically does anyone else.  I can
explain America's philosophy more or less even to the nihlist lying commie
bastards and the quarelling Jews - both of whom assume a tyrannical God or
State.

They both tell the lie within the lie.  Our philosophy is life and freedom,
yet we have the glitch of justice.  Justice is making me angry because it is
being misused and severely corrupted.  Abuse it, and loose it.  The correct
response to anyone trying to harm you is "fuck you" yet everyone knows that
harming other's bodies or property is not okay.  The tyrannical state
imposed laws are a threat to the American people, their psyche's and the
Constitution.  You have all been, and are all being brainwashed by liars.


"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

"Che'Gu Maru" <chgumaru@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:<agneeq$1h85$1@news.hal-pc.org>...
> "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".
> >
> McDonald is an educated and erudite asshole.  He uses his intelligence and
> his education only to substantiate his hatemongering.
> 
> Anyone who swallows what he says (or even worse, promulgates it) is as bad
> an asshole.
> 
> 'Nuff said.

Well put, Moshe.

Bret

Robert Frenchu <begone.spamming.pinhead@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<qv5uiu827ecqprfkal70knbhhh9fuik4i3@4ax.com>...
> > marbleton2002@yahoo.com (Phil) wrote <40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. : 
>  
> >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.
> 
> The link doesn't work. Must be the Jewish Conspiracy.

The Jews and Negros form a voting bloc. The Jews have an agenda, it's
always for immigration, gun control, diversity, etc. The Negroes just
sort of wander into the polling spots.

Respectfully,

Phil

> bcantwell2002@yahoo.com (Bret) wrote <505e4427.0207122316.435259a9@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. : 

>Robert Frenchu <begone.spamming.pinhead@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<qv5uiu827ecqprfkal70knbhhh9fuik4i3@4ax.com>...
>> > marbleton2002@yahoo.com (Phil) wrote <40d221c9.0207120946.15ccecfc@posting.google.com> in talk.politics.guns. : 
>>  
>> >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.
>> 
>> The link doesn't work. Must be the Jewish Conspiracy.
>
>The Jews and Negros form a voting bloc. The Jews have an agenda, it's
>always for immigration, gun control, diversity, etc. The Negroes just
>sort of wander into the polling spots.

Right. I've seen them together on the street corners, talking to each
other. And then again at the Sooper Sekrit meetings. Laughing,
pounding each other on the back, kissing each other's cheeks, I tell
you, it's disgusting.

They're up to something, those people. I think they hate you, Bret.

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

Professor MacDonald, despite the emotions evoked by what he wrote, evident
on these thoughtless responses - wrote down some solid facts.  And?

In terms of strategy, he is noting a very good strategy on the part of many
Jews that did, indeed, do these things.  Successfully :)  So what?

If you felt threatened as a people (with GOOD reasons) wouldn't you pull off
the same things?  If not, you'd never survive *as a people* for so long.

I realize that the neo-Nazis must love MacDonald - but they are no-brains
who see some kind of demonification of the Jews.  This is not the case at
all - as I read it - and btw, as I actually saw it back then for myself.
MacDonald is clearly pointing out not just what some Jews got together and
did for themselves, but the unspoken is pointed out -  how STUPID the
Christian populations of the West were during all of this.

Jews are smarter.  I know this.  Everyone who's ever dealt with them knows
this.  Even their little kids are smarter than most people.  They emphasize
this to their children from the get go:  USE YOUR BRAIN.  So what?

Ever see the way nerds are treated in school by the stupid jock types?  What
if the nerds got together and used their brains to think up a strategy?
Well?

As for trying to make mockery of the Black Jewish alliance - well there is
such a thing.  It's not the Jewish-Irish alliance, or the Jewish Italian
alliance or the Jewish Slavic - and so on.  Such a thing exists - and is
only recently being eroded by what one might clearly call African American
Nazis - Farrakhan's group and their minister of propaganda, Public Enemy.  I
guess Jews were surprised to find out that African Americans could be as
vicious in viewpoint as the Germans?  Yeah, guess so.

Jews are raised believing that they are better, they are the CHOSEN special
people of God himself.  Everyone else is below them.  They know that the
story in Genesis is a story about them - not about anyone else.  They
believe this, or are indoctrinated in this rhetoric from birth on.  Guess
this is proof that nurture works.  They are told it, and they act
accordingly.

You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile.

Cheers.

"Che'Gu Maru" <chgumaru@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:agneeq$1h85$1@news.hal-pc.org...
> "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".
> >
> McDonald is an educated and erudite asshole.  He uses his intelligence and
> his education only to substantiate his hatemongering.
>
> Anyone who swallows what he says (or even worse, promulgates it) is as bad
> an asshole.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
>

"Bret" <bcantwell2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:505e4427.0207122312.66ab6c6e@posting.google.com...
> "Che'Gu Maru" <chgumaru@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:<agneeq$1h85$1@news.hal-pc.org>...
> > "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".
> > >
> > McDonald is an educated and erudite asshole.  He uses his intelligence
and
> > his education only to substantiate his hatemongering.
> >
> > Anyone who swallows what he says (or even worse, promulgates it) is as
bad
> > an asshole.
> >
> > 'Nuff said.
>
> Well put, Moshe.
>
> Bret

Thank you, Herr Grubernickle.

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
>
>

You may read the various anthropological and psychological journals if you
wish. But what it boils down to is that they are little boys with smaller
penises trying to compensate for their own various inadequacies in life.