veteranstoday--2020-10-27--Studies in Anti-Semitism: Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique

Kevin MacDonald , The Culture of Critique : An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements , Praeger , 1998 , $ 65.00 , 379 pp .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 multiculturalism and Third World immigration .
Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immoral in others .
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity — but only for others .
Ever since the 19th century , they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of Gentile society : patriotism , racial loyalty , the Christian basis for morality , social homogeneity , and sexual restraint .
At the same time , within their own communities , and with regard to the state of Israel , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack in Gentile society.Why is this in the interests of Jews ?
Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core .
The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully , which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years — even without a country — has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national identities .
In Prof. MacDonald ’ s view it is therefore in the interest of Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any people among whom they live .
Jewish identity can flower in safety only when Gentile identity is weak .
“ Something is happening : we are becoming the first universal nation in history … If you believe , as the author does , that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose , then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.
” Jewish neo-conservative Ben Wattenberg , The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong ( New York : Simon & Schuster , 1984 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman : “ American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief — one firmly rooted in history — that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors , as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups .
It is this belief , for example , not approval of homosexuality , that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘ gay rights ’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , in effect , that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society ’ s homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe .
They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think Gentiles will accept .
Likewise , as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests , Jews may support deviant movements , not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews .
[ Image : The Jewish Anti-Defamation League ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Classroom ” catalog . ]
Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that Republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway .
His reason ?
“ I ’ d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention.
” This man apparently distrusts white Gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong .
What is good for Jews appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
Earl Raab , former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University , makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way .
Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority , he writes , “ We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
” He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tends to make it irreversible… ” — just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also irreversible .
“ The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European .
And they will all be American citizens .
We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country .
We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century .
That climate has not yet been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our population tends to make it irreversible — and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever .
( Earl Raab , Jewish Bulletin , February 19 , p. 23 ) “ It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed … In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age , the Jewish community had a leadership role in effecting those changes.
” ( Earl Raab , Jewish Bulletin , July 23 , 1993 , p. 17 ) “ For me , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the appearance of the sky , which seems to me to curve over the city , to the ancient kind of evidence that is there .
I felt that way the first time I was there , and I ’ ve had that feeling on occasions since .
The first time was in the 60 ’ s .
I had a sense I was in a different place , a spiritual place that stretched back to the beginning of history , of Jewish history .
If I sat down and tried to figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that feeling , I don ’ t think I could .
It was just a sensation I felt right away.
” ( Earl Raab , online Hadassah Magazine ) “ If America is losing its leadership edge and resolve [ to protect Israel ] , then we are all in trouble .
This is where and why America ’ s Jews must remain focused on Israel.
” ( Earl Raab , Jewish Bulletin of Northern California , October 30 , 1998 ) The ADL ’ s Earl Raab served for thirty-five years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish Community Relations Council and is currently Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University .
Raab , like most Jews and all Jewish organizations , promotes multiracialism and Third World immigration in the United States and other majority-White nations , while supporting Jewish racialism ( aka Zionism ) and a Jews-only immigration policy in Israel .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanations for differences in human culture or behavior .
Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his followers — with the notable exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict — were all Jews with strong Jewish identities : “ Jewish identification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests , particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies , has been the ‘ invisible subject ’ of American anthropology.
” By 1915 , Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters , and that environment counts for everything .
They completely recast anthropology so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration , integration , and miscegenation .
They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential , the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression .
The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts for all human differences , every inequality in achievement can be eliminated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents was a Jew .
Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917 , when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters , he saw so many white faces that he stormed out , complaining that it was a white organization .
Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the “ civil rights ” transformation of America .
He quotes a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress who claims that “ many of these [ civil rights ] laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of idyllic [ Third-World ] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture.
” The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would transform them , it was necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition .
Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School .
What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt , Germany , during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took power .
Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley .
The organization was headed by Max Horkheimer , and its most influential members were T.W @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authoritarian Personality 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 signs of a dangerous and defective “ authoritarian personality.
” Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate , all group loyalties — even close family ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inheritance.
” In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity , the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty .
Prof. MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence : “ Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality , including idealizing rebellion against parents , low-investment sexual relationships , and scorn for upward social mobility , social status , family pride , the Christian religion , and patriotism.
” Of the interest here , however , is the movement ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.
” Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open immigration .
It brings about the “ diversity ” Jews find comforting and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world .
He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration ; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it easier for their own people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently promoted open borders for all comers .
Moreover , whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues , Jews of every political persuasion have favored high immigration.This , too , goes back many years , and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort .
Israel Zangwill , author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot , was of the view that “ there is only one way to World Peace , and that is the absolute abolition of passports , visas , frontiers , custom houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage .
Although the Statue of Liberty , properly known as Liberty Enlightening the World , was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American political traditions , the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it into a symbol of immigration .
Affixed to the base of the statue several decades after its construction , the poem welcomes to America “ huddled masses yearning to breath free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
” Prof. MacDonald has discovered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American strength have been made by Jews for a long time .
He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to believe that “ Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races , all religions , all nationalities.
” Of course , there had never been such a tradition .
In 1952 , the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that “ our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionaries .
However , in Prof. MacDonald ’ s view , Jewish commitment to leftist causes has often been motivated by the hope that communism , especially , would be a tool for combating anti-Semitism , and by expectation that universalist social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve Gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews .
The appeal of universalist 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all , while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as Jews.
” Prof .
MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for supporting the Bolshevik revolution .
Czarist Russia was notorious for its anti-Semitic policies and , during its early years , the Soviet Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews : it ended state anti-Semitism , tried to eradicate Christianity , opened opportunities to individual Jews , and preached a “ classless ” society in which Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all conflict was economic rather than ethnic , many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism .
Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both atheism and the solidarity of the world ’ s working people , they took pains to preserve a distinct , secular Jewish identity .
He reports that Lenin himself ( who had one Jewish grandparent ) approved the continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism , and in 1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Rappoport , the French Communist leader : “ The Jewish people [ are ] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community in history … The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identification from the “ respectable ” right .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time what passes for “ social justice ” has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of Gentile society , but are Jews deliberately undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be wrongs ?
Prof .
MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support for liberal causes , but then escalates his indictment by arguing that “ the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves.
” In other words , many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first convinced themselves otherwise .
A Jew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white may also have convinced himself that America benefits from a multitude of cultures .
Having convinced himself he can more effectively convince others .
Many Jews , Prof. MacDonald argues , are not even conscious of the extent to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their political views .
He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his surprise at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war : “ I had not known how Jewish I was.
” This is an arresting statement from a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest Jewish spiritual leader of his time .
And whether or not it affects their politics , Jews certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood .
Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying , “ most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another Jew , despite heavy camouflage.
” Always to think in terms of “ friends or foe ” is no insignificant matter .
Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals : “ Surface @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiculturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats , the Jewish element would have been clear .
Prof. MacDonald writes that in fact , “ the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content .
Gentile intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to view them as aspects of Jewish-Gentile cultural competition or as an aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda.
” Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests.
” This standard may seem unduly harsh — until it is applied to white Gentiles .
Third-World immigration , affirmative action , anti-discrimination laws , and forced integration are clearly not in the interests of whites , yet many whites embrace them , thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their racial identity .
Finally , Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some Jews , because of centuries of conflict with Gentiles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy it : “ a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the Gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic.
” He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as “ using his skill , reputation and popularity to undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order.
” “ The truth is that Mozart , Pascal , Boolean Algebra , Shakespeare , parliamentary government , baroque churches , Newton , the emancipation of women , Kant , Marx , and Ballanchine ballets don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the world .
The white race is the cancer of human history.
” 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the world , and their desire to rise in the world , engage in personal promotion , and achieve public acclaim … ” He also believes Jews have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival : “ Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor : Cohesive groups outcompete individual strategies.
” He notes that there has never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white immigration ; it was a cohesive , determined minority that beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
American Renaissance , June 1999 .
Prof. MacDonald ’ s essay on “ Jewish Involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online in PDF .
Also see ( off-site ) his study of Jewish evolutionary strategies and his homepage .
For the Jewish role in Marxism and its crimes see Murder of the Romanovs .
MacDonald ’ s Culture of Critique can be purchased from National Vanguard Books .

Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, $65.00, 379 pp. Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements — 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 multiculturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald’s most profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty — that while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of Gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others. Celebrating Diversity Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity — but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of Gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in Gentile society.Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years — even without a country — has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald’s view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when Gentile identity is weak.
Cultural Genocide “Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in
history … If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Jewish neo-conservative Ben Wattenberg, The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 84. –Irmin Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman: “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief — one firmly rooted in history — that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.” He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society’s homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think Gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews. [Image: The Jewish Anti-Defamation League’s “Resources for the Community and Classroom” catalog.] Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that Republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? “I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention.” This man apparently distrusts white Gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country. Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University, makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority, he writes, “We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.” He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as Gentile whites decline in numbers and influence. In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, “[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.
Earl Raab: Multiculturalist in America, Zionist in Israel “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We 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 — and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, February 19, p. 23) “It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed … In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community had a leadership role in effecting those changes.” (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, July 23, 1993, p. 17) “For me, just being in Jerusalem is spiritual. From the appearance of the sky, which seems to me to curve over the city, to the ancient kind of evidence that is there. I felt that way the first time I was there, and I’ve had that feeling on occasions since. The first time was in the 60’s. I had a sense I was in a different place, a spiritual place that stretched back to the beginning of history, of Jewish history. If I sat down and tried to figure out exactly what it is that gave me that feeling, I don’t think I could. It was just a sensation I felt right away.” (Earl Raab, online Hadassah Magazine) “If America is losing its leadership edge and resolve [to protect Israel], then we are all in trouble. This is where and why America’s Jews must remain focused on Israel.” (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, October 30, 1998) The ADL’s Earl Raab served for thirty-five years as Executive Director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council and is currently Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. Raab, like most Jews and all Jewish organizations, promotes multiracialism and Third World immigration in the United States and other majority-White nations, while supporting Jewish racialism (aka Zionism) and a Jews-only immigration policy in Israel. –Irmin Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his followers — with the notable exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict — were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: “Jewish identification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the ‘invisible subject’ of American anthropology.” By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs. The entire “civil rights” movement can be seen as a natural consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization. Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the “civil rights” transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress who claims that “many of these [civil rights] laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters.” While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald’s words, “American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and esthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture.” The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack. Authoritarian Personalities In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the institute’s activities: “Research would be able here to transform itself directly into propaganda,” he wrote. (Italics in the original.)Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the Frankfurt school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality 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 signs of a dangerous and defective “authoritarian personality.” Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties — even close family ties! — are “prejudice.” As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the conclusion that prejudice “could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy — by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in Gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof. MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even described Jewish group identity — only that of Gentiles: “behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary strategy is conceptualized as pathological in Gentiles.” For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about 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 countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.” Of the interest here, however, is the movement’s success in branding ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later, the French-Jewish “deconstructionist” Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote: The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue … The idea is to disarm the bombs … of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants … As Prof. MacDonald puts it, “Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.” Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged “hate-monger,” and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: “The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.” Immigration Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open immigration. It brings about the “diversity” Jews find comforting and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have favored high immigration.This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of the view that “there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses … ” He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage. Although the Statue of Liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes to America “huddled masses yearning to breath free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to believe that “Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities.” Of course, there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that “our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples.” This, too, was at a time when U.S. immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority. It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning. Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the effort to dismantle the “white Australia” policy, one reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: “The strengthening of 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 universalist social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve Gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews. The appeal of universalist ideologies is tied to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be exempt: “At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by Gentiles would result in Gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as Jews.”Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism, tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual Jews, and preached a “classless” society in which Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism. Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both atheism and the solidarity of the world’s working people, they took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in 1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He writes that despite the official view that all men were to be brothers, “very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire Soviet era.” Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof. MacDonald quotes Charles Rappoport, the French Communist leader: “The Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community in history … The disappearance of the Jewish people would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man into a wild beast.” This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position incompatible with “unity and human community.” Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from Communism only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel. Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun’s short-lived 1919 Communist government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that at the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues that in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American leftists: Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted. Their commitment as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment to the left.Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number, the Soviet Union’s severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for many when he explained, “If I must choose between the Jewish cause and a ‘progressive’ anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew.” According to Prof. MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high levels of immigration and were active in excluding white racial identification from the “respectable” right. Objections There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald’s thesis. The first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a “light unto the nations” or a “chosen people.” This is echoed today in the Jewish self-image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time what passes for “social justice” has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of Gentile society, but are Jews deliberately undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be wrongs?Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that “the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves.” In other words, many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to become less white may also have convinced himself that America benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more effectively convince others. Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the extent to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his surprise at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war: “I had not known how Jewish I was.” This is an arresting statement from a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying, “most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage.” Always to think in terms of “friends or foe” is no insignificant matter. Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: “Surface declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading.” He notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as “anti-Semitic” if used by Gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who has said “they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have no such interests …” Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was hidden. If multiculturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats, the Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in fact, “the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to view them as aspects of Jewish-Gentile cultural competition or as an aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda.” Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of an intellectual movement by recruiting token Gentiles for visible positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in the American Communist Party that Gentiles often saw through it and resigned. But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a difficult test: “The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests.” This standard may seem unduly harsh — until it is applied to white Gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in the interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their racial identity. Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some Jews, because of centuries of conflict with Gentiles, actively hate Gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: “a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the Gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic.” He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as “using his skill, reputation and popularity to undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order.”
The Cancer of Human History “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.” Jewish author Susan Sontag, Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57. –Irmin In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-Gentile relations on Jews: “They may have become so odious and so hostile to mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle.” Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald’s view, the explanation lies in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews — at 115, a full standard deviation above the white Gentile average — and to “their hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and achieve public acclaim …” He also believes Jews have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival: “Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individual strategies.” He notes that there has never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority. Prof. MacDonald believes 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. *** American Renaissance, June 1999. Prof. MacDonald’s essay on “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy” is online in PDF. Also see (off-site) his study of Jewish evolutionary strategies and his homepage. For the Jewish role in Marxism and its crimes see Murder of the Romanovs. MacDonald’s Culture of Critique can be purchased from National Vanguard Books.


veteranstoday--2020-10-27--Election Notes – October 26, 2020

Election Notes – October 26, 2020

Early voting is open almost everywhere and is generally going smoothly because the later openings have had more time to prepare and to learn from the problems that the earlier states had .
Voting machinery , like all machinery , has been having continuing failures , but they are being addressed .
Post election commissions should be set up to learn why , with plenty of time to prepare and test and with tech support , they continue to fail when the voting starts , which then spawns rumors of voter suppression .
To be fair to the election workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly contributed to stress levels and mistakes being made .
In most states , the polling stations are run by locals who ended up estimating what they need , and where to put locations and how many stations are needed .
Overwhelmed places got dealt with best where governors and mayors could rally help with increased poll workers .
The earlier problems in the primary elections gave early warnings on the tech issues .
In some places , 10,000 volunteer poll workers were quickly mobilized , and often senior citizens , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up being the unsung heroes of this show .
VT salutes them all .
Today something strange happened .
After cruising all the new YouTube videos that were in my 5 to 8 minute maximum time allotment sweet spot , I noticed the least coverage of what the candidates were saying today , almost like someone had throw a switch .
But broadcasters can fix that quickly , as they all now have a large pool of at home Zoom guests they can quickly dial up to do a show .
Topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected path to the magic 270 number for Biden , and Trump losing if he croaks in three of the key Midwest states , the ones he narrowly won in 2016 .
The Rudy and Hunter Biden story seemed to officially die today , being covered over with Borat video clips with the cutie he found to nail America ’ s now most unfavorite mayor .
Amy Barrett was sworn in today , and she also will disappear for a while .
I wonder if she knows that Trump will always be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had expected , the battle seems to be trending toward Covid as the star guest at Trump ’ s necktie party .
Despite Pence having five staff members coming down with Covid , he is not going into quarantine .
The White House was prepared for this , and just designated Pence as a critical worker , who then gets a pass .
The exception of course was made for frontline health workers , and public safety people .
The analysts are saying he will be positioning himself to make a play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the party .
The Pence team will still be going out in the last week , visibily acting as poster children to show the Trump base how to ignore the CDC advice on attempts to cut the peak off the current virus surge .
Masks are few and far between , including on the planes they are flying , other than the security people .
The White House seems think it will kill the focus on Covid by betting more people want the economy opened up to save themselves financially , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have no concern over large numbers of fellow Americans dying from it .
Trump thinks they will save him to save themselves .
I saw one scary medical video with an estimated figure of 3 million dead by the end of February , a number that even shocked me .
Trump will get even more crazy if he does not see the poll numbers turn .
He has bet the farm that the anticipated huge wave of his voters coming in on November 3rd will save the day , so he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all with his force of personality .
Jim 's Editor ’ s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal Jim 's work includes research , field trips , Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more .
Thanks for helping .
Click to donate > >

Election Notes – October 26, 2020
…by Jim W. Dean, VT Editor’s Note:
Early voting is open almost everywhere and is generally going smoothly because the later openings have had more time to prepare and to learn from the problems that the earlier states had.
Voting machinery, like all machinery, has been having continuing failures, but they are being addressed. Post election commissions should be set up to learn why, with plenty of time to prepare and test and with tech support, they continue to fail when the voting starts, which then spawns rumors of voter suppression.
To be fair to the election workers, security issues and Covid complications have certainly contributed to stress levels and mistakes being made. In most states, the polling stations are run by locals who ended up estimating what they need, and where to put locations and how many stations are needed.
Overwhelmed places got dealt with best where governors and mayors could rally help with increased poll workers. The earlier problems in the primary elections gave early warnings on the tech issues.
In some places, 10,000 volunteer poll workers were quickly mobilized, and often senior citizens, the most at risk for Covid-19. They could end up being the unsung heroes of this show. VT salutes them all.
Today something strange happened. After cruising all the new YouTube videos that were in my 5 to 8 minute maximum time allotment sweet spot, I noticed the least coverage of what the candidates were saying today, almost like someone had thrown a switch.
But broadcasters can fix that quickly, as they all now have a large pool of at home Zoom guests they can quickly dial up to do a show. Topics included the usual polls, and the projected path to the magic 270 number for Biden, and Trump losing if he croaks in three of the key Midwest states, the ones he narrowly won in 2016.
The Rudy and Hunter Biden story seemed to officially die today, being covered over with Borat video clips with the cutie he found to nail America’s now most unfavorite mayor. Amy Barrett was sworn in today, and she also will disappear for a while. I wonder if she knows that Trump will always be a scarlet letter hovering around her.
As I had expected, the battle seems to be trending toward Covid as the star guest at Trump’s necktie party. Despite Pence having five staff members coming down with Covid, he is not going into quarantine.
The White House was prepared for this, and just designated Pence as a critical worker, who then gets a pass. The exception of course was made for frontline health workers, and public safety people. The analysts are saying he will be positioning himself to make a play for something in 2021, maybe head of the party.
The Pence team will still be going out in the last week, visibily acting as poster children to show the Trump base how to ignore the CDC advice on attempts to cut the peak off the current virus surge. Masks are few and far between, including on the planes they are flying, other than the security people.
The White House seems think it will kill the focus on Covid by betting more people want the economy opened up to save themselves financially, and are willing to take the risk, and have no concern over large numbers of fellow Americans dying from it. Trump thinks they will save him to save themselves. I saw one scary medical video with an estimated figure of 3 million dead by the end of February, a number that even shocked me.
Trump will get even more crazy if he does not see the poll numbers turn. He has bet the farm that the anticipated huge wave of his voters coming in on November 3rd will save the day, so he can crow once again that he did it all with his force of personality.


veteranstoday--2020-10-27--NATO chief rules out rushed, early exit from Afghanistan

[ Editor ’ s Note : It comes as no surprise that NATO does not want to get out of Afghanistan any time soon .
The reasons are the usual ones .
First , any deployment closer to Russia is always a good thing , and any possible excuse to maintain it is sufficient .
Peacetime armies are always wanting to keep some troops trained to a war fighting capability .
That includes the limited fighting we see NATO engaged in from their operational capacity inside their bases .
Along with the US , NATO acts as a palace guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has always needed foreign protection .
The other main reason , more important , is to keep intelligence gathering skills tuned up , especially with electronic gathering .
Language skills need to be maintained , and the myth of defending Europe from attack from Eurasia has to be maintained to justify NATO ’ s existence at the level it is at .
Keep in mind my report last year how Germany said it could take five more years before its infantry soldiers all had two pairs of boots .
That really shocked me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s cut of the drug trafficking business , which involves the use of military aircraft as the preferred method of transportation , typically flying into Camp Bondsteel in Romania as a first stop .
The cash is divided and used in a number of ways , including flowing into political campaigns and the usual luxury items .
Rural Afghanistan people bear the brunt of fighting the Taliban , which is much more motivated , and the US justifies its existence by providing Kabul troops air cover when it can .
Westerners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the salt of the earth attitude Afghanis have toward what they view as foreign invaders .
Sure they love the dollar , and there are many of them to get , but other than that , they have no use for outsiders , as you could say they are caught in a time warp , partly due to their own making .
If left on their own , they will continue killing each other over who is going to be the boss and get the bigger cut of the graft pie .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t steal it , then the guy coming behind them will , which is absolutely a sure thing .
It will just be a smaller pie if the US and NATO left .
The Russians sure as hell would not be going back .
China might want to step in , but they would probably live to regret it… Jim W. Dean ] Jim 's Editor ’ s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal Jim 's work includes research , field trips , Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ > > First aired on PressTV before being blocked The Press TV Brussels correspondent used up most of the segment time , which started late , 10 minutes , which is usually do to more news clip coverage , so hence my longer intro than usual above .
JD Note : The video link to this interview has been broken…Jim The NATO chief has ruled out an early exit of the western military alliance from Afghanistan , as violence continues to flare in the war-torn country .
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security conditions allow it to leave .
The remarks came less than a week after the US said it will cut the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 25-hundred , early next year .
The comment also comes at a time when the rising violence threatens to thwart ongoing peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group .
US-led NATO forces have maintained their presence in Afghanistan since 2003 .
The alliance currently has around 12000 forces there , more than half of them from the U.S .

…from PressTV, Tehran
[ Editor’s Note: It comes as no surprise that NATO does not want to get out of Afghanistan any time soon. The reasons are the usual ones. First, any deployment closer to Russia is always a good thing, and any possible excuse to maintain it is sufficient.
Peacetime armies are always wanting to keep some troops trained to a war fighting capability. That includes the limited fighting we see NATO engaged in from their operational capacity inside their bases. Along with the US, NATO acts as a palace guard for the current Kabul regime, which has always needed foreign protection.
The other main reason, more important, is to keep intelligence gathering skills tuned up, especially with electronic gathering. Language skills need to be maintained, and the myth of defending Europe from attack from Eurasia has to be maintained to justify NATO’s existence at the level it is at.
Keep in mind my report last year how Germany said it could take five more years before its infantry soldiers all had two pairs of boots. That really shocked me.
And last, there is defending one’s cut of the drug trafficking business, which involves the use of military aircraft as the preferred method of transportation, typically flying into Camp Bondsteel in Romania as a first stop. The cash is divided and used in a number of ways, including flowing into political campaigns and the usual luxury items.
Rural Afghanistan people bear the brunt of fighting the Taliban, which is much more motivated, and the US justifies its existence by providing Kabul troops air cover when it can. Westerners still cannot get their heads wrapped around the salt of the earth attitude Afghanis have toward what they view as foreign invaders.
Sure they love the dollar, and there are many of them to get, but other than that, they have no use for outsiders, as you could say they are caught in a time warp, partly due to their own making.
If left on their own, they will continue killing each other over who is going to be the boss and get the bigger cut of the graft pie. They think, correctly, that if they don’t steal it, then the guy coming behind them will, which is absolutely a sure thing.
It will just be a smaller pie if the US and NATO left. The Russians sure as hell would not be going back. China might want to step in, but they would probably live to regret it… Jim W. Dean ]
Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>
First aired on PressTV before being blocked
The Press TV Brussels correspondent used up most of the segment time, which started late, 10 minutes, which is usually do to more news clip coverage, so hence my longer intro than usual above. JD
Note: The video link to this interview has been broken…Jim
The NATO chief has ruled out an early exit of the western military alliance from Afghanistan, as violence continues to flare in the war-torn country.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says the military alliance will stay in Afghanistan until security conditions allow it to leave. The remarks came less than a week after the US said it will cut the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 25-hundred, early next year.
The comment also comes at a time when the rising violence threatens to thwart ongoing peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group. US-led NATO forces have maintained their presence in Afghanistan since 2003. The alliance currently has around 12000 forces there, more than half of them from the U.S.


veteranstoday--2020-10-27--How Safe is Air Travel?

How Safe is Air Travel?

Health Editor ’ s Note : Is air travel safe ?
What are your chances of getting COVID-19 while being on an airplane ?
This study offers an example of one airline trip to Ireland .
Seven hour flight to Ireland , only one-sixth capacity , everyone wearing masks and the end result was 13 infected passengers which resulted in a total of 59 cases after visits to family and friends .
With everyone wearing a mask , and with one-sixth passenger capacity…..that would seem safe enough because there would have been space for physical distancing .
This did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the flight and the extra numbers came from those 13 spreading the virus to others .
For me , no air travel……Carol Air travel has accelerated the global pandemic , contributing to the spread of coronavirus disease ( COVID-19 ) throughout the world .
We describe an outbreak that demonstrates in-flight transmission , providing further evidence to add to the small number of published studies in this area .
This study depicts the nature of transmission on board , despite implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions .
We demonstrate widespread in-country transmission as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the risk of importation , and to curtail onwards spread .
Fifty-nine laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 from six of the eight different health regions ( Regions A–H ) throughout the Republic of Ireland were linked to an international flight into Ireland in summer 2020 ( Figure 1 ) .
An outbreak case was defined as positive PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ( SARS-CoV-2 ) ( naso-pharyngeal swab ) in either a passenger or a contact of a passenger .
Thirteen cases were passengers on the same flight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large international airport , flying into Europe from three different continents ( Groups 1 and 2 ; Group 3 and Group 4 ) .

Health Editor’s Note: Is air travel safe? What are your chances of getting COVID-19 while being on an airplane? This study offers an example of one airline trip to Ireland. Seven hour flight to Ireland, only one-sixth capacity, everyone wearing masks and the end result was 13 infected passengers which resulted in a total of 59 cases after visits to family and friends.
With everyone wearing a mask, and with one-sixth passenger capacity…..that would seem safe enough because there would have been space for physical distancing. This did not work because at least 13 were infected on the flight and the extra numbers came from those 13 spreading the virus to others.
For me, no air travel……Carol
A large national outbreak of COVID-19 linked to air travel, Ireland, summer 2020
Air travel has accelerated the global pandemic, contributing to the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) throughout the world. We describe an outbreak that demonstrates in-flight transmission, providing further evidence to add to the small number of published studies in this area. This study depicts the nature of transmission on board, despite implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. We demonstrate widespread in-country transmission as a result of imported infection and give recommendations to reduce the risk of importation, and to curtail onwards spread. Fifty-nine laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 from six of the eight different health regions (Regions A–H) throughout the Republic of Ireland were linked to an international flight into Ireland in summer 2020 (Figure 1). An outbreak case was defined as positive PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (naso-pharyngeal swab) in either a passenger or a contact of a passenger. Thirteen cases were passengers on the same flight to Ireland, each having transferred via a large international airport, flying into Europe from three different continents (Groups 1 and 2; Group 3 and Group 4). Read More:
Carol graduated from Riverside White Cross School of Nursing in Columbus, Ohio and received her diploma as a registered nurse. She attended Bowling Green State University where she received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History and Literature. She attended the University of Toledo, College of Nursing, and received a Master’s of Nursing Science Degree as an Educator. She has traveled extensively, is a photographer, and writes on medical issues. Carol has three children RJ, Katherine, and Stephen – one daughter-in-law; Katie – two granddaughters; Isabella Marianna and Zoe Olivia – and one grandson, Alexander Paul. She also shares her life with her husband Gordon Duff, many cats, and two rescues. Carol’s Archives 2009-2013