"The Social Network"

Is The Social Network a  Jewish movie and, if so, what can we make of it? Of course, if Alan Dershowitz had his way, such a question is completely off limits. The movie is simply a movie written by a screen writer who happens to be Jewish (Aaron Sorkin) about people, some of whom happen to be Jewish. End of story.

That seems to be the take of the vast majority of critics if Wikipedia’s summary is any indication. Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks, who is about as obsessively Jewish as Dershowitz, does see a Jewish message, but you have to read between the lines: Mark Zuckerberg is the symbol of the new Harvard, smart and driven to succeed (i.e., Jewish), but without social or moral graces. “It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct.” And he compares Zuckerberg to the Jews who elbowed out the WASPs and invented their version of Hollywood: “Immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune they were still outsiders. In this movie, Zuckerberg designs a fabulous social network, but still has his reciprocity problem. He is still afflicted by his anhedonic self-consciousness, his failure to communicate, his inability to lose himself in the throngs at a party or the capacity to deserve the love he craves.”

Brooks’ version presents Jews as they want to be seen—smart and driven, sweeping away the bad old WASP Harvard, their minor blemishes deriving from a culture “reticent to talk about social and moral conduct.” No mention of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews in admissions to elite universities. And Brooks would be the last person to produce a serious discussion of the issue of how Jewish culture contributes to lapses in moral conduct.

One obvious subtext is Jewish ethnic networking. The idea for developing a social networking site at Harvard came from the Winklevoss twins and their Indian business partner. The Winklevosses are presented as quintessential Aryans—right out of central casting for a movie on the SS. But when they approach the Zuckerberg character about doing the technical work on the site, Zuckerberg steals their idea,  ditches the Aryans, and forms a partnership with two Jews, Eduardo Saverin and Dustin Moskowitz. In the end, the Winklevosses settled for $65 million.

The other moral lapse is when Zuckerberg screws his best friend Saverin out of his share of the company—an obvious moral failing that was eventually settled for $1 billion. Saverin was taken in by assuming that his friend would not cheat him, effectively signing away his share of the company without knowing it.  Granted Zuckerberg didn’t like what Saverin was doing for the business, but there was an obvious moral failing with how Zuckerberg handled it.

Is there a Jewish story to what Zuckerberg did to the Winklevosses? The reality is that there is a long tradition enshrined in canonical Jewish texts where Jews who commit fraud  or other dishonesty against non-Jews are accepted in the Jewish community, particularly if they are generous to Jewish charities. Certainly not all Jews would have done what Zuckerberg did, but his actions fit into a pattern  of behavior that is tolerated within the Jewish community.

So far, Zuckerberg has attempted to rehabilitate himself by a $100 million gift to the Newark Public Schools. There’s a scene in the movie where Bill Gates gives a talk at Harvard and mentions the possibility that someone in the audience could be the next Bill Gates. Zuckerberg clearly fills the bill in the sense that, like Gates, he is quite adept at flushing his money down the toilet: Test scores are “among the lowest in New Jersey” despite 15 years of state control of the system.

Is there a Jewish story in what Zuckerberg did to Saverin? Like the Jewish victims of Bernie Madoff, Saverin relied on his sense that a fellow Jew would not cheat him. But Saverin got screwed anyway.

This should put Zuckerberg into the lowest level of Jewish hell. So far I haven’t seen any attempt to make it up to the Jews. I think a major contribution to the ADL or AIPAC is in order.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

86 Comments to ""The Social Network""

  1. King of all whites's Gravatar King of all whites
    January 11, 2011 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

    stealing white ideas and claiming credit for themselves….long jewish tradition (E=mc2, stolen by einstein)

    Facebook is peaking right now, will be a has been, uncool, probably by q4 2012….then we will be sold on some other useless schit.

  2. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 15, 2010 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

    TGD: “Eurodele, since you appear to be an expert in Boolean algebra, may I have your opinion on the use of Karnaugh mapping in logic circuit minimization?”

    Perhaps, instead of playing the smart-ass, you’d like to disagree with something I wrote?

    No, I didn’t think so. ;-)

    Look, here’s a piece of friendly advice for you: never wander more than a mile or two off-topic. You don’t want to get lost.

  3. Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
    October 15, 2010 - 4:04 pm | Permalink

    “Kill all Whites!” says Harvard professor.

    “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race… we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

    — Noel Ignatiev, former Harvard professor, current Professor of History at Massachusetts College of Art, founder of the Race Traitor journal

  4. TGD's Gravatar TGD
    October 15, 2010 - 11:23 am | Permalink

    Eurodele, since you appear to be an expert in Boolean algebra, may I have your opinion on the use of Karnaugh mapping in logic circuit minimization?

  5. Kratos's Gravatar Kratos
    October 15, 2010 - 8:34 am | Permalink

    What sorts of people go t these movies?

    Jewish directors, Jewish personnel, Jewish actors. What would a goy learn from such films?

  6. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 15, 2010 - 7:50 am | Permalink

    Dweeb, you’re missing the point. Darwinism has predictive value only if it is not assumed to be an “all-encompassing” template to which all facts must be force-fitted, but is instead treated as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis regarding nature. As soon as it is deemed “all-encompassing” by definition, then it cannot contain information about the specific content of the level of reality (order of predication) to which it refers. (This amounts to a logical theorem in the philosophy of science. If you read my last post carefully, you’ll come to understand it.)

    You’re also mistaken about religion. Religion is “predictive” in two senses. (1) It may predict, for example, that all people will be judged in the end, and that certain individuals are going to “heaven” or to “hell”. (Unfortunately, while an individual may be able to confirm these predictions post mortem, those he left behind when he exited this world cannot do so by observation alone.) (2) That which is behaviorally normative is predictive. Thus, one who is familiar with the “theory” of Christianity can predict that within a truly Christian culture, charitable behavior will more often be preferred to violent behavior than in a control group. One can also predict that a Jewish culture whose hard-core members believe that non-Jews are “cattle” will become predatory or parasitic on non-Jewish host populations, where possible exploiting the beliefs of any Christians therein. These predictions are subject to observational verification.

    If free will does not exist, then the distinction between science and religion is nil (because science is about the content of causality, and religion describes something that was causally determined with respect to some group). But if free will exists, then religion simply takes over as a normative influence where “causality” ends, i.e., in the causally-indeterminate free-volitional realm of human morality and behavior. Thus, we can use the “religion” of academics like Dawkins to predict moral judgments like “racism is repugnant” and their social consequences, and then verify these predictions by observation.

    None of this can be successfully denied, at least in an argument with somebody who knows what he’s talking about. So if you choose to respond, exercise caution … that is, unless you wish to appear, yet again, far less intelligent than you evidently think you are.

  7. Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
    October 15, 2010 - 6:24 am | Permalink

    Xanadu says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 15, 2010 at 6:21 AM

    White Angel,

    What makes you think that God should wish to be verfiable? If his existence were proved beyond any reasonable doubt, there would be no free will. In a God-centered world, in which God’s existence was overwhelmingly indisputable, evil would no longer be an option. You and I would have no choice except to be good.

    Life would hardly be worth living in a universe without evil and pain. Light needs darkness in order to exist as light. And good needs evil as a foil.

    None of this could be if God were verifiable.

    By his very nature, almost by definition, God must exist in hiding. Forever he must remain the Great Unknown.

  8. Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
    October 15, 2010 - 6:21 am | Permalink

    White Angel,

    What makes you think that God should wish to be verfiable? If his existence were proved beyond any reasonable doubt, there would be no free will. In a God-centered world, in which God’s existence was overwhelmingly indisputable, evil would no longer be an option. You and I would have no choice except to be good.

    Life would hardly be living in a universe without evil and pain. Light needs darkness in order to exist as light. And good needs evil as a foil.

    None of this could be if God were verifiable.

    By his very nature, almost by definition, God must exist in hiding. Forever he must remain the Great Unknown.

  9. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    October 14, 2010 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    For religious nuts, in the end everything always comes down to a question of religion. Hence the erroneous idea these hacks persistently advance that atheism is a religion, or Darwinism a religion. Maybe it derives from the equality mania that’s the central focus of their religion; it stems from a deep-seated need to see everyone to look equally ridiculous as they do.

    However, one basic difference between science and religion is that science has predictive value, whereas religion has none. For example, using Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can predict that if the environment is changed is certain ways, some organisms will be favored, and others disfavored. Were the environmental change subtle enough, the changes to the organisms might take thousands or even millions of years to become fully manifest. Religion, on the other hand, would still be sniffing about trying to divine God’s will, or decide whether the proposed change was in accordance with the Bible or not. Even after millions of years it would still be able to come to no firm, verifiable conclusion.

  10. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 14, 2010 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

    “And the theory of evolution ‘content-free’ because ‘survival of the fittest’ is circular?”

    No, Dweeb. That’s not what I said. What I said, essentially, was that IF the content of the analytic statement “the fittest survive under the operation of natural selection, and those which survive are the fittest” is unlimited, which is what you imply when you call it an all-encompassing theory, THEN it is free of information.

    Content and information are not identical. Information is that which says whether a given piece of possible content, e.g. a pending scientific observation or the outcome of a proposed experiment, is included or excluded by a theory or statement X…whether or not it maps truthfully to X, or is truthfully described by X. Information consists of “bits”, which are basically answers to true-or-false questions; for a bit to tell you that a statement X is true, it also has to tell you that not-X is false. But in the empirical sciences, where everything hinges on observation, such answers can’t be perfectly known in advance. For any pair of opposite predictions – for any observation statement and its negation, or any hypothetical effect and the null hypothesis – neither can be known with 100% certainty prior to experiment, and no such information can be provided.

    On the other hand, if Darwinism is to be applied only retrodictively, to observations which have already occurred, then clearly, the observational information already exists before the theory is applied, and the theory does not provide it. The same is true if one cheats and says something like “No matter what we observe in the future, Darwinism will explain it!”; this is just a declaration of intent to apply the theory retrospectively.

    Could Darwinism maintain its all-encompassing status through reclassification as logic or metaphysics rather than empirical science? Perhaps, but then a new set of criteria applies, and being logical and mathematical in character, these criteria are even less forgiving than those of empirical science. Suffice it to say that without a lot of high-powered logic, any nontrivial tautological, totally universal form of Darwinism is at best reliant on faith and is therefore something like a religion.

    That you regard Darwinism as “all-encompassing” means that you have at best a very superficial understanding of its scientific meaning, and that you relate to it in this essentially religious way. (I’m not saying that the theory is evolution is properly religious in nature, mind you, but merely that on the basis of your statements, this seems to be the only way that you can personally relate to it.)

    It’s high time that you faced your own religiosity, Dweeb. After all, hypocrisy is supremely unbecoming in one who constantly oozes contempt for the religious beliefs of others.

  11. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    October 14, 2010 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

    You and the Captain must be sure to not allow the Ship of Fools to set sail without you. There is as little foundation for morality in ethnocentrism as there is in anti-racism. Both are equally arbitrary. And the theory of evolution “content-free” because “survival of the fittest” is circular? Don’t let your compulsion to misrepresent concepts you don’t understand mislead you, Bub. I suggest you stick to theology. That’s a far better showcase for your dubious “talents”.

  12. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 14, 2010 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    “Such justifications are meaningless to nature; Darwinism is all-encompassing, and you can’t step outside of it.”

    If Darwinism is “all-encompassing”, then obviously it is information-free. That is, if it can be stretched around any sequence of events at all, then it really explains none. On the other hand, if it has scientific value, then it is falsifiable, which means that it cannot be counted true in advance, which means that it cannot be summarily defined as “all-encompassing”.

    See how that works?

  13. dana pallessen's Gravatar dana pallessen
    October 14, 2010 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    someone above said something about the death of the christian god… their is no christian god.. there is only the jewish god, ( in monotheistic religions, that it). it is the same god as the muslim god… read something about the history of the middle eastern religion(s). also, the jews made their god up…read their book, the history of the jews. in it you will also read that 6 million did NOT die in ww2.

  14. dana pallessen's Gravatar dana pallessen
    October 14, 2010 - 4:48 pm | Permalink

    i think the conmentary on the social network is righton target. is it a jewish film? … you betcha. there is a reason the jews have all those stereotypes.. they are true. how much epitomized can they be than in THIS film…steal ideas, kick out the intelligent whites who came up with the ideas and then make money off the idea. and then of course screw your fellow jew so another jew can win. jews may stick together with their networking and hiring their own, but at the first opportunity, they only think of themselves.

  15. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    October 14, 2010 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    @ Lasha

    Lasha: “Dante … Shakespeare …”

    Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Catullus.

    Lasha: “… cathedrals … ”

    The Seven Wonders of the ancient world, the Parthenon

    Lasha: “… no mysticism, no transcendence … ”

    The sound of water.

    Lasha: “… no saints … no traditional morality.”

    Good riddance.

    Lasha: “All we would have is a moral wasteland.”

    That’s all you’ve ever had, or ever will. You’re just afraid to admit it.

    “What people were at once greater and more bloodthirsty than the Romans, and what nation longer preserved its splendor and freedom? The gladiatorial spectacles fed its bravery, it became warlike through the habit of making a game of murder. Twelve or fifteen hundred victims filled the circus’ arena every day, and there the women, crueler than the men, dared demand that the dying fall gracefully and be sketched while still in death’s throes. The Romans moved from that to the pleasures of seeing dwarfs cut each other to pieces; and when the Christian cult, then infecting the world, came to persuade men there was evil in killing one another, the tyrants immediately enchained that people, and everyone’s heroes became their toys.”
    – Marquis de Sade, Philosophy in the Bedroom, p. 119

    @ Jim

    Jim: “Dawkins said:

    “I don’t think racism is a good thing. I think it’s a very bad thing. That is my moral position.”

    Like many religious people, I suspect his science ends where his morality begins…”

    I think Lasha is right about one thing, at least. The death of the Christian God also entails the death of Christian morality. Any morality concocted without recourse to a transcendant source necessarily has no foundation other than an arbitrary one. Utilitarian morality – “the greatest good for the greatest number”, which Dawkins apparently favors – is a prescription for tyranny and mediocrity. Read Huxley’s Brave New World to see where that ends up.

    @ admin

    I don’t believe man’s “rationality” (quite overrated, in my view) places him outside Darwinism. By rationality, one must mean either his technical talents, which themselves have evolutionary consequences that more often than not have come as a complete surprise to him, or his ability to delude himself that his actions are free, and spring from no other source than his reason; in other words, pure egotism. Such justifications are meaningless to nature; Darwinism is all-encompassing, and you can’t step outside of it. At bottom, man’s much-vaunted rationality is only another fact about him, animal behavior of an unusual kind.

    @ Isn’t this lovely

    Isn’t this lovely: “Truth trumps all, and all who go against truth to remain favorable are despised.”

    Hear! Hear!

  16. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    October 14, 2010 - 11:28 am | Permalink

    I was surprised that, given his reputation, Dawkins didn’t come across as being quite as bright as his interviewer in this article. Maybe it’s just the dynamics of a question and answer format, maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.

    His interviewer (though like-minded) seemed to at least be willing to play devil’s advocate (at times) with opposing views. Dawkins doesn’t really seem to bother with such nonsense. He also doesn’t seem to be very self-analytical about his own morality (or ponder it’s origins) in the way he thinks religious people should.

    I’m not questioning his intelligence, just making an observation.

    Der weiße Engel, thanks for the link to this interesting article.

  17. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 14, 2010 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    “But his meaning when he says that it’s possible to go against Darwinism is more than a little obscure.”

    Much like Jesus (or “Jeebus” to anyone confused by the correct spelling), Dawkins – by invoking moral preference regarding race – is reserving the right to evoke morality over nature, and whether or not he understands it, to raise up the mathematics of social and ecological optimization over natural processes. Unfortunately, he simultaneously implies that deracination via natural selection – e.g., a Green-Beard “misfiring” of kin selection – can be “morally optimizing” even if it can only be won at the cost of a dozen or two IQ points per person in a technological civilization which places a high premium on IQ.

    Dawkins is admitting that on local short-term scales, evolutionary processes do not recognize what is actually optimal for an evolving species; optimization requires judgments beyond those of natural selection, and/or highly unlikely sequences of “lucky breaks”. As others observe, this is blatantly inconsistent with his imbecilic anti-racist academic claptrap which, in making miscegenation of high- and low-IQ populations appear to be a perfectly good thing, denies the value of intelligence in evolution and optimization alike. First the little genius declares the ascendancy of intelligence and morality over evolution for purposes of high-level optimization; then, in almost the same breath, he denies the optimizing value of intelligence and/or the high-level optimization process itself!

    From this, there is only one conclusion to be drawn. Dawkins, both of his dainty little feet in his mouth as always, is a typical self-hating White academic.

  18. Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
    October 14, 2010 - 8:00 am | Permalink

    Der weiße Engel @ October 13, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    He’d probably be praised for it [i.e., Darwin] by a lot of people, especially Christians, as he’d then be standing foursquare for “the brotherhood of man”, “racial harmony”, and all that rubbish the disciples of Rabbi Jeebus like to delude themselves with.

    White Angel,

    As usual, you go too far. The designation “Rabbi Jeebus” is inappropriate and unhelpful. I would urge you to speak more respectfully of the founder of Christian civilization.

    But for his seminal influence, we would have no Dante, no Shakespeare, no Bach, no Beethoven, no awe-inspiring cathedrals, no saints, no mysticism, no transcendence, no traditional morality. All we would have is a moral wasteland. As indeed we have now, in the days of his eclipse when the storm clouds gather…

    I would urge you, White Angel, to turn over a new leaf and recant. It is not too late.

  19. Isn't this lovely's Gravatar Isn't this lovely
    October 14, 2010 - 4:26 am | Permalink

    How amusing to watch Dawkins contradict himself time and time again, as he strays from science to avoid unwanted political associations.

    Truth trumps all, and all who go against truth to remain favorable are despised.

  20. The Amazing Gregory's Gravatar The Amazing Gregory
    October 14, 2010 - 2:39 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Dawkins, has anyone seen his appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher a week ago?


  21. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    October 13, 2010 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Dawkins said:

    “I don’t think racism is a good thing. I think it’s a very bad thing. That is my moral position.”

    Like many religious people, I suspect his science ends where his morality begins…

    “…It [kin selection] does not favor a generalization of nepotism towards millions of other people who happen to be the same color as you…”

    So the 75,000+ fans of the New England Patriots (or Green Bay Packers or Nebraska Cornhuskers) who all gather in one place with intense feelings of group loyalty towards each other (and their team) based on the color of their matching jackets/jerseys couldn’t POSSIBLY feel group loyalty towards each other based on the color of their skin.

    I’ve often wondered if the insane sports fandom of the last 30 years (with it’s clearly identifiable team colors) wasn’t some sort of surrogate racism (racialism) to fulfill a genetic need for aggressively loyal color based group affiliation in a “color blind” world.

    • admin's Gravatar admin
      October 14, 2010 - 9:25 am | Permalink

      @Jim: The Dawkins quote fails to grasp the Frank Salter analysis: It may be true that kin selection did not make us psychologically inclined toward nepotism toward other people of our race, but in an age of mass migration, it is rational to do so. Rational analysis based on very basic evolutionary thinking implies that we have a very large genetic interest in people of the same race compared to the hordes of non-Whites who are invading traditionally White homelands. Kevin M

  22. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 13, 2010 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    @ CHRIS MOORE: Here are a few things, among many I have noticed in this deliberate use of media to help dumb down Americans: The use of quick cut editing techniques that will sequentially montage many (try counting them) potent images in the space of only a few seconds, or less. I call this “story Image Compression.” I believe this to be a deliberate and powerful brainwashing tool; an attack on the attention span of the viewer and that it is especially harmfull to the the young. There is also the device called (I think) the “Steadycam.” This is a photographers harness that holds and counterbalances the camera and is used to give the effect of immediacy and intimacy; a feeling of “being there.” It is not as jerky as a hand held camera but still imparts that same sense of being “in on the action.” this technique, which is great for showing the viewer what it is like on the football field is often employed in inappropriate settings to let the camera “float” around it’s subject like a slow fly around a carcass. The camera is never at rest, even in scenes that are nearly static. Both of these techniques are distracting to deep contemplation of whatever message is being imparted and have the effect of fragmenting the viewers perception and thus his ability to focus his attention for any great length of time on whatever is supposed to be going on. I have also noticed the disappearance of sports announcers and gameside commentators with real personality who, in times past were often as much a part of the show as the players. These dynamic characters and there were some great ones, who delivered pithy comment and analysis during play, have been replaced by anonymous voices that are mostly overshadowed by the delivery of white noise from the crowd to the viewer; thus creating an irritating, alienating and nearly communicationless viewing experience. Basketball and football are bad in this way, but soccer is just insane.

  23. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    October 13, 2010 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Dawkins on racism and the genetics of kin selection:

    Skeptic: In a Darwinian sense, isn’t it somewhat meaningless to argue about any supposed displacement of “superior” beings by “inferior” beings, or that evolution “is going backwards.” Don’t such arguments turn Darwinism on its head ?

    Dawkins: Because whatever evolves is, by definition, superior? There’s nothing nonsensical about saying that what would evolve if Darwinian selection has its head is something that you don’t want to happen. And I could easily imagine trying to go against Darwinism. I don’t see why that’s inconsistent. I can easily imagine saying that in a Darwinian world, the fittest, by definition, are the ones that survive and the attributes that you need to survive in Darwinian sense are the attributes that I don’t want to see in the world. I can easily see myself fighting against the success of Darwinism prevailing in the world.

    Skeptic: Shortly after publication of The Selfish Gene, you wrote a letter to the editor of Nature [the leading British science magazine, similar to Science here in the US], in which you stated that kin selection theory in no way provides a basis for understanding ethnocentrism. You said you made this statement, in part at least, to counter charges that were being made in the UK at that time by Marxist critics that Selfish Gene Theory was being used by the British National Front to support their Fascist ideology. In retrospect, do you think you went too far in trying to distance yourself from some would-be and very unwanted enthusiasts, or not far enough?

    Dawkins: As to distancing myself from the National Front, that I did! The National Front was saying something like this, “kin selection provides the basis for favoring your own race as distinct from other races, as a kind of generalization of favoring your own close family as opposed to other individuals.” Kin selection doesn’t do that! Kin selection favors nepotism towards your own immediate close family. It does not favor a generalization of nepotism towards millions of other people who happen to be the same color as you. Even if it did, and this is a stronger point, I would oppose any suggestion from any group such as the National Front, that whatever occurs in natural selection is therefore morally good or desirable. We come back to this point over and over again. I’m definitely not one who thinks that “is” is the same as “ought.”

    Skeptic: How do you evaluate the work of Irena”us Eibl-Eibesfeldt, J.P. Rushton, and Pierre van den Berghe, all of whom have argued that kin selection theory does help explain nationalism and patriotism?

    Dawkins: One could invoke a kind “misfiring” of kin selection if you wanted to in such cases. Misfirings are common enough in evolution. For example, when a cuckoo host feeds a baby cuckoo, that is a misfiring of behavior which is naturally selected to be towards the host’s own young. There are plenty of opportunities for misfirings. I could imagine that racist feeling could be a misfiring, not of kin selection but of reproductive isolation mechanisms. At some point in our history there may have been two species of humans who were capable of mating together but who might have produced sterile hybrids (such as mules). If that were true, then there could have been selection in favor of a “horror” of mating with the other species. Now that could misfire in the same sort of way that the cuckoo host’s parental impulse misfires. The rule of thumb for that hypothetical avoiding of miscegenation could be “Avoid mating with anybody of a different color (or appearance) from you.”

    I’m happy for people to make speculations along those lines as long as they don’t again jump that is-ought divide and start saying, “therefore racism is a good thing.” I don’t think racism is a good thing. I think it’s a very bad thing. That is my moral position. I don’t see any justification in evolution either for or against racism. The study of evolution is not in the business of providing justifications for anything.

    Skeptic: In The Extended Phenotype you talk about the Green Beard Effect, and last night Napoleon Chagnon, the President of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, actually dyed his beard green before introducing you. What is the Green Beard Effect and why do you mention it only to then dismiss it as being too improbable to be a factor in evolution?

    Dawkins: I use The Green Beard Effect as a way of explaining kin selection. If you imagine a gene that has two pleiotropic effects that apparently have nothing to do with each other (and in practice that’s common enough), if one of its effects is to give somebody a label, such as the Green Beard, and the other is to give somebody a propensity to act altruistically towards individuals so labeled (that is, Green-Bearded individuals), then theoretically that gene will spread. The Green Beard Effect is a way in which a would-be selectively altruistic gene can recognize copies of itself in other individuals. That means that the gene can propagate itself by looking after copies of itself when it has the opportunity to do so. That’s relatively easy to understand. But as far as I know, in practice Green Beards don’t exist. But kinship is a kind of statistical Green Beard. Although your brother is not guaranteed to contain the gene that’s making you practice “fraternal” behavior towards him, the odds that he has that gene are statistically higher than the odds that a random member of the population has it. Kinship is therefore a statistically watered down version of the Green Beard Effect that actually works.

    Skeptic: Could there be selection for a mechanism that would operate like this–“those who look like me, talk like me, act like me, are probably genetically close to me. Therefore, be nice, good, and altruistic to them. If not avoid them?” And could that mechanism later be programmed to say “be good to someone who wears the same baseball cap, the same Rugby colors, or whatever?” That is, could evolution have a produced a hardware mechanism that is software programmable?

    Dawkins: I think that’s possible.

    More at: http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_3.php

    His admission of the possibility of a Green Beard Effect seems to provide a theoretical basis for a genetically-based ethnocentrism. But his meaning when he says that it’s possible to go against Darwinism is more than a little obscure. It seems elementary to me that any action to “go against” Darwinism must take place within the framework of Darwinism. White people, for example, could be said to “go against” Darwinism when they use birth control to refrain from overpopulating the planet. Yet the likely result of this is simply that other races, who have no such scruples, will then prevail in the Darwinian struggle, and they will overpopulate the planet. On the other hand, if everyone on earth refrains equally from overpopulating, then that doesn’t really go against Darwinism either, does it? Because then there is no struggle. But we are not faced with any such utopian scenario, of course. The very existence of human races and implied differential successes in their various struggles to survive guarantees that there will be conflict between them and various strategies adopted, including, as KMD says, cultural/memetic ones.

    My reading of Dawkins is that, on the race question, he is one of the many academics who prefers being well thought of to actually telling the truth and being completely realistic; that he’s just afraid to enter into a well-known minefield that has destroyed many academic reputations and careers. On the other hand, sometimes I think maybe he really believes man can create a miscegenated “utopia” where race has lost its significance, and he sees that as a goal of some sort. Human races engineering their own destruction could be another possible meaning for his idea that humans can “go against Darwin”. But if that’s what he means, why doesn’t he just say so? He’d probably be praised for it by a lot of people, especially Christians, as he’d then be standing foursquare for “the brotherhood of man”, “racial harmony”, and all that rubbish the disciples of rabbi Jeebus like to delude themselves with.

  24. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    October 13, 2010 - 2:32 pm | Permalink

    @ Felix

    You are being generous with the Jews. The ancient Middle Eastern expert Herodotus (484BC – 424 BC) never heard of them.

  25. Patrick R's Gravatar Patrick R
    October 13, 2010 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for the link Kevin, I will certainly print it off. I certainly believe that Richard Dawkins is trying to enhance his personal goals by “demolishing” group selection. I certainly think that he concedes that you are correct, just like Hamilton; however, I doubt he would publicly maintain that your position should be injected into academic discourse. I do like Dawkins, I think he is a stupendous zoologist; but I do not take his position on race seriously at all. Have you fallowed the debates between David Sloan Wilson and Dawkins? The following sums it up perfectly…

    “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”

  26. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    October 13, 2010 - 1:38 pm | Permalink

    “But worse than that, I believe they are deliberately using media in a process of dumbing-down (devolving) non-Jewish Americans in an effort to blind them as to who is doing what to whom,…”

    You’re right. This serves two purposes for the Jews.

    (1) It renders the Goyim all but unable to resist them.

    (2) It provides them with a convenient rationale for dominance: “These Goyish cattle are so stupid they need us to manage their affairs for them, and for whatever service fee we deem appropriate!”

    Don’t underestimate the value of this rationale; it is that of which colonial empires are made. Combine it with Jewish historical delusions and open race-hatred of Whites, and its toxicity becomes genocidal.

    “…and in partnership with curriculum-setting lefty government elites who, for example, have systematically destroyed most of America’s public schools and turned them essentially into warehouses and indoctrination centers.”

    The same applies to America’s universities. Nowadays, it can be easier for a Black with an IQ of 100 or a Jew with an IQ of 125 to gain admission to an elite university than for a non-Jewish White with an IQ of 160+ (i.e., a genius).

    This situation is reflected in the wholesale replacement of quality instruction with bullshit PC/multiculturalist gasbaggery. It has also resulted in a rapidly growing number of very talented White people serving hungry Jews in restaurants, mixing drinks for tipsy Jews, driving cabs and limos for Jews on the go, and cleaning Jewish mansions in cute little French maid uniforms. And that’s if they’re “lucky enough” to find work at all.

    Sometimes one looks at what the Jews and their political whores have done to the descendants and near-relatives of this country’s founders, and one has a hard time remembering that they deserve to live at all.

  27. October 13, 2010 - 11:40 am | Permalink

    Kevin MacDonald: “people manipulate culture to advance evolutionary goals.”

    Hence the concerted Jewish effort to dominate Hollywood/mass media via discrimination against non-Jews, Jewish ethnic-networking, Jewish whispering campaigns, etc, and then going about utilizing Jewish-dominated mass media to cultivate an anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-nationalist, Judeophile culture.

    But worse than that, I believe they are deliberately using media in a process of dumbing-down (devolving) non-Jewish Americans in an effort to blind them as to who is doing what to whom, and in partnership with curriculum-setting lefty government elites who, for example, have systematically destroyed most of America’s public schools and turned them essentially into warehouses and indoctrination centers.

    Of course, most Jews can afford to send their own children to private schools, or tap into Jewish private school scholarship programs, so they can receive a proper education. They can’t really shield their children from the effects of the crass and pornographic mass media; on the other hand, being crass, crude and contemptuous (toward the goy, at least) is an attribute within the insular Jewish cult that is ravaging America…

  28. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    October 13, 2010 - 10:51 am | Permalink

    Jacobson says in an interview: “What a Jew is has been made by the experience of 5,000 years, that’s what shapes the Jewish sense of humour, that’s what shaped Jewish pugnacity or tenaciousness.”

    There is not a shred of archaelogic evidence that the Jews even existed beyond 3,200 years ago. Not a tablet. Not even a potsherd. Like so many other things about them, including the holocaust, even their antiquity does not stand up to objective scrutiny

  29. October 13, 2010 - 10:23 am | Permalink

    The man who coined “meme” does not or desires not to completely appreciate its implications.

  30. admin's Gravatar admin
    October 13, 2010 - 10:16 am | Permalink

    Re Geiseric: Memes are indeed useful but they are far from a complete theory of culture. He doesn’t seem to get the idea that people manipulate culture to advance evolutionary goals. Kevin M

  31. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    October 13, 2010 - 10:06 am | Permalink

    Kevin: I completely agree with what you said about Dawkins. His vulgar epistemology seems a bit out of place in the 21st century. His memetic concept seems interesting though.

  32. Xanadu's Gravatar Xanadu
    October 13, 2010 - 8:16 am | Permalink

    On the awarding of top prizes

    Dear B——,

    I was not surprised to learn this morning that British author Howard Jacobson had won the Booker Prize for Literature. I don’t suppose his being a Jew had anything to do with it? Or the fact that there is strong Jewish contingent among the Booker Prize judges?

    These are the same “cognoscenti” who gave Salman Rushdie, ardent Zionist and author of the Islamophobic novel The Satanic Verses, the Booker Prize also — though not for that pretentious and mind-numbingly tedious novel.

    Given the politically correct credentials of the Booker Prize judges with their Zionist affiliations, the fact that the Booker Prze should finally go to Jewish comedian Jacobson is only to be expected.

    Jacobson himself is a man of slender talents, a cheap exhibitionist oozing with chutzpah and giving off the characteristic reek of “sexual liberation.” His Booker Prize is certainly not won on merit. It is a classic case of affirmative action.

    Someone ought to do an academic study into the Jewish machinations that take place behind the scenes in all these prestigious prize-giving events — events which naturally confer instant canonization on the lucky winners.

    Perhaps we will then understand how warmonger Henry Kissinger and warmonger Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Best wishes,

    Lasha Darkmoon

  33. Xanadu (aka Lasha Darkmoon)'s Gravatar Xanadu (aka Lasha Darkmoon)
    October 13, 2010 - 8:07 am | Permalink

    “No mention of discrimination against Whites and in favor of Jews in admissions to elite universities…”

    This post may seem slightly off-topic but is neverheless highly relevant to the subject being discussed here: it is about the Jewish networking that helps to promote the interests of Jews at the expense of WASPs.

    I received this email this morning from a top official at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry who raises concerns about the recent awarding of the Booker Prize for Literature to British author (and Jewish comic) Howard Jacobson.

    I copy and paste this VIP’s email in its entirety:

    The Museum of Sex in New York currently has a prurient exhibit on the Sex Life of Animals.

    I’ve not read Jacobson but I am sure he is appalling, his recent award of the Booker prize is exciting the mainstream press in the Anglo-sphere this morning:


    Jacobson says in an interview:

    “I’m not by any means conventionally Jewish. I don’t go to shul. What I feel is that I have a Jewish mind, I have a Jewish intelligence. I feel linked to previous Jewish minds of the past. I don’t know what kind of trouble this gets somebody into, a disputatious mind. What a Jew is has been made by the experience of 5,000 years, that’s what shapes the Jewish sense of humour, that’s what shaped Jewish pugnacity or tenaciousness.”

    Yours sincerely,
    (Name and position withheld),
    Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    My reply follows:

  34. Patrick R's Gravatar Patrick R
    October 13, 2010 - 4:55 am | Permalink

    Hello Kevin, I know this message is way off topic, but I read your article about how chimpanzees do not like open borders, but it is now closed to comments. Anyway, I am sure you know that George C. Williams passed away, a terrible loss indeed. As you know, he is regarded as the intellectual who “demolished” group selection, a principle reason why this school of thought is discarded from conventional thinking in evolutionary biology. Richard Dawkins emphasized this point once again in his article detailing Williams life and unfortunate death.


    My question is this: do certain groups of evolutionary biologists rebuff group selection because of the profound implications it can have on sociobiology, or do you think they batter group selection on intellectual grounds only? My strength in evolutionary biology is concerned with universal common descent and the mechanisms that drive evolution; however, I am somewhat new to altruism and group selection. Perhaps you can fill me in?


    • admin's Gravatar admin
      October 13, 2010 - 7:50 am | Permalink

      Patrick R: I think the problem is that Dawkins and many others are incredibly thick-headed about cultural group selection. They restrict the debate entirely to the genetic level, where it gets very messy. It’s like they turn off their thinking and think that humans are basically like every other animal, but we are not. This is my latest rendition:
      But I do think that these guys are typical academic leftists, so they do not want to see the implications of this very powerful idea. Kevin M

  35. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    October 13, 2010 - 1:07 am | Permalink

    WGA won’t help says:
    October 10, 2010 at 6:55 PM

    Hmm, let’s see who runs the Writers Guild of America, West.

    Writers Guild of America, West:
    John M. Wells(Jew/White European) – President
    Tom Schulman(Jew) – Vice President
    David N. Weiss(Jew) – Secretary-Treasurer

  36. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    October 13, 2010 - 12:48 am | Permalink

    Chris Moore, your argument doesn’t hold water. Jews were a big problem and were recognized as such long before Christianity even existed.

  37. October 12, 2010 - 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Facebook is an information-harvesting device. Like putting your head on a Zionist chopping block. Stupid goyim….

  38. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    October 12, 2010 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Making a movie entails the inputs of so many different people that there must be much ambiguity over just who is entitled to credit for what. You can contemplate how those who run Hollywood and are willing to cheat people might have the opportunity to gain a competitive advantage over anybody who is honest.

  39. Finrod's Gravatar Finrod
    October 12, 2010 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    @ Jason Bates: I really like your posts. Nothing like inside information. I read an article accusing Brian Singer of similarly hanging around film schools to copp ideas from aspiring film students. I wish you would elaborate at greater length.

  40. TGD's Gravatar TGD
    October 12, 2010 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

    James O’Meara wrote:

    “Speaking of Facebook, am I the only one who has noticed the resemblance btw Zukerberg and Bill Gates, who signed a contract with IBM to provide an operating system he didn’t have, then sent a flunky to Seattle to buy DOS from some guy for like 15k without telling him about the IBM deal.”

    This fellow is Seattle that Gates bought the operating system from had plagiarized it from Dr. Gary Kildall, the founder of Digital Research in Pacific Grove, CA. Kildall (of Norwegian origin) was the pioneer in writing operating systems for microcomputers as they were called back then. His system was called CP/M and even today, any executable line of code with the extension .com, such as command.com (not to be confused with URLs) is from Dr. Kildall.

    It is doubtful whether Bill Gates himself actually negotiated the terms of the purchase of QDOS (which is supposed to stand for “quick and dirty operating system”) from the plagiarizer in Seattle. Gates business partner, the very Jewish Steve Ballmer, probably did most of the arranging.

  41. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    October 12, 2010 - 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Dr. I. Asimov, one of heros in the field of Sci-Fi when I was a youth, was once asked how he felt about all the anti-semitism he had to endure growing up. He answered that he didn’t realize there was any. It was something he thought that many Jews had clearly exaggerated. I wonder how popular he was among the Jewish community?

  42. wahrheit's Gravatar wahrheit
    October 12, 2010 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Funny how “German” makes a reasonable and fact-based comment (though even he has to trot out the all-purpose Jewish baddies Dershowitz and Foxman) and it gets completely ignored in favor of insane fantasies about Jews. Y’all suck.

  43. October 12, 2010 - 10:32 am | Permalink

    Re the use of “Satanic” vs. “Darwinian,”

    the point I was trying to convey was that so much post-Christian “rationalism” and its lexicon are a farce and a fraud, for example supposedly “scientific” Communism, or “global warming” or Keynesian economics — all built on illusion and sand, and all of which so often go hand in hand with the Jewish agenda and swindle.

    Vis-à-vis the Jewish question, a rationalist might say, “Jews merely seek to survive. They’re Darwinian.” But that simply doesn’t explain their premeditated malice and murderous hatred towards dissidents who don’t believe they’re “the Chosen” going all the way back to Jesus Christ, early Christianity, later Christianity, contemporary Christianity, contemporary Islam…a malice apparently motivated by Judeofascist belief that they have a monopoly on God, and intend to prove it by destroying all believers who beg to differ, and enslaving everyone else.

    And yet, to hear supposed “rationalists” tell the tale, Jews are simply trying to survive, and should be left alone to pursue whatever course they want, no matter how murderous. And if you disagree or try to interfere…you’re dead.

    This is how post-Christian “rationalism” and “science” are utilized by Zionist Jewry to fulfill their murderous agenda.

    Does this mean I’m anti-rational and anti-science? No, I simply recognize that Christianity is the bodyguard of human advancement as demonstrated by the achievements of Western Civilization under its tutelage before it was poisoned by saboteurs, the stunted, and profiteering opportunists; and that Christianity and its own lexicon are designed to cut to the quick through evil entities and their collaborators who seek to twist “progress” for sinster purposes.

    What do you get out of people who might identify themselves as Christians, yet spit upon Christianity by adopting only its most superficial, farcical and caricatured form, while simultaneously declaring themselves to be “scientific,” “rational” and “secular,” and dedicated to the pursuit of “democracy” and “freedom”? You get the Clinton/Blair/Bush juggernaut — all of whom, not coincidentally, ended up pursuing the interests of the Judeofascist agenda to the hilt. And all of whom essentially “evolved” from Protestantism only to find themselves enthrall to the Judeofascist pharisees.

    Of course, those and the millions like them who “evolved” from all Christian sects and of post-Christian “rational” sects can’t admit their folly, even to themselves, because they still instinctively know the consequences of compromising their souls. So if they have their way, they’ll continue their tantrum and drag us all “forward,” kicking and screaming — all the way back under the Judeofascist thumb.

    They bet it all on their partnership with the Jews, and they lost. Now, as typical of their demographic, they don’t want to take responsibility and admit or accept the consequences of their decision. Too damn bad for them. They can “progress” into oblivion alone.

  44. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 12, 2010 - 10:21 am | Permalink

    @ SPOOKY: I think it is important to understand the mindset of your enemy. I don’t see any more coddling of the Jews in Hoffman than in say, Dr. Darkmoon’s last article (or mabe it was a link) when she admonished the attitude of a communicant, calling it a sickness because of his rage at the Jews; wanting to find a rope and hang them all. He signed off calling her a “Jew lover.” I am not here to fight for Hoffman’s cause. I know he helped to clear up a lot of confusion in my mind regarding the peculiar behavior of Jews from his perspective, just as Prof. KMacD has from his. I want as much as I can get from as many different perspectives as I can get it from. I am here to learn. I don’t participate in Hoffman’s blog because he requires bloggers to create a Google account and I don’t want Google reading my mail. Perhaps this is an example of the kind of attitude in Hoffman that you are pointing to. We all have our peculiarities and I don’t think his are toxic. I believe “JUDAISM DISCOVERED” is a valuable resource. Other than that, I find nothing in your post that I disagree with.

  45. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    October 12, 2010 - 9:11 am | Permalink

    Hoffman is not Catholic.

  46. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    October 12, 2010 - 9:07 am | Permalink

    I’ve read plenty of Michael Hoffman and I respect his work on Secret Societies and twilight language. But his approach to the Jews is ridiculous. I don’t need to know every iota of Jewish practice to understand why their Covenant is no longer valid.

    Hoffman believes we need to deeply understand all of their strange practices so that we can feel sorry for them and make the gentile world appropriately welcoming. Because if they catch a sniff of anti-semitism, they become more recalcitrant and stronger, their beliefs bolstered. Well, I’m sorry. This is completely absurd. There will be Jews who convert and there will be Jews who do not. No matter what the approach. After all, how watered down has gentile society become in the last 500 years? And how has that worked? Oh, they’re not converting en masse because we don’t really understand them and they can still catch a whiff of anti-semitism. Are you kidding me?

    IT IS NOT MY FAULT, OR YOURS, that people decide to remain Jews. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO CHANGE OUR CULTURE,OUR LANGUAGE, OR OUR THOUGHTS, SO JEWS DON’T FEEL THREATENED. People remain Jews not because they are trapped by rabbinical tyranny, people remain Jews because it’s freakin’ awesome to have the power of self actualization granted the mind when one is taught they are a member of the chosen people.

    Hoffman has a special brand of nonsense. Oh, gee. He dissects the Talmud. Wow. Really? Jews believe twisted stuff? Gee, wow. Never could have guessed that. So while we’re busy studying their deepest “ways” do you think we might take our culture back? Naah. Because unless we know everything about them we’ll be anti-semitic when we do it and it won’t work.

    Listen. Maybe Hoffman has discovered the secret to it all. The secret that Church fathers couldn’t uncover in 1400 years of monastic life and study. Something they overlooked. Or discounted because they weren’t in the right spirit. Great. I wish him well. But I’m kind of averse to things that DON’T MAKE SENSE. And I’ve attempted to dialogue with him numerous times. But he’s like a Jew. His strange beliefs give him a somewhat unkind intellect towards “auslanders.” I’m sure he considers what goes on at this site as eminently destructive. But at least it goes on. The same can’t be said for the comments on his site, which he maniacaly censors.

    All this said, I’m still glad he’s out there. I just think he’s as wrong as the day is long on his approach to the Jews.

  47. Jason Bates's Gravatar Jason Bates
    October 12, 2010 - 8:29 am | Permalink

    3D, my work brings me into contact with jews on and off. I work in CGI/special effects. While this part of film work is for the most part devoid of jews – they really don’t have a large presence in technical and visually creative aspects of film and video – we do have to deal with them on certain projects, and I can tell you they behave the same way to this day in terms of your remarks about Tin Pan Alley. The number of people I personally know who have had screenplays or ideas outright stolen is rather amazing. The jews know they have the town, the legal system, the media, for the most part, behind them all the way. Yes, Aaron Sorkin is known as someone you might not want to mention original ideas around. For instance “his” script for “A Few Good Men” is among those he allegedly swiped. A story was made up about him writing the script on cocktail napkins, his sister in the marines supposedly giving him the idea for the story because she was headed to Guantanamo to defend some Marines in a court martial involving a serious hazing incident. In truth, it turned out a Marine who had been at Guantanamo had written the story, etc., had been robbed outright by the studios, with connected people getting the story to Sorkin, etc. The Marine was paid off in a settlement, with it made clear he would never work in Hollywood. This is a story repeated constantly in this town, yet these things receive very little press. Most people are unaware of Steven Spielberg having to pay out buckets of money for apparently copping the story for “ET”. Once one hears the story behind this piece of Hollywood dirt there is no doubt that the secular God of the jews did in fact “borrow” the ET story from a local playwright.

  48. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    October 12, 2010 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    David Brooks said:
    “Immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune they were still outsiders.”

    Still more hypocrisy and projection. No wonder Freud had to invent psychoanalysis. Constant self-deception ultimately destroys even the strongest psyche.

    Isn’t that the fundamental essence of Judaism: To keep oneself an outsider? Them vs. Us?

    Before whining about being “outsiders,” they should first take to task their “prophets” and “wise” men who bred into them the fear and loathing of anyone not of the tribe.

  49. HA's Gravatar HA
    October 12, 2010 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    $100M to Newark schools won’t teach them to read or write but they’ll surely know more about the Holohoax than gang-bangers in any other city.

    Don’t know anything about the Zuckerberg story but I wonder where someone gets the capital to turn a little start-up into a multi-billion dollar company. Is that discussed in the film? Is that the real ethnic nepotism we should be concerned about?

    • admin's Gravatar admin
      October 12, 2010 - 8:06 am | Permalink

      @Felix: $19000 came from Savarin, but the really big money ($500,000) came from Peter Thiel, a Jewish venture capitalist. Kevin M

  50. October 12, 2010 - 12:51 am | Permalink

    Speaking of stealing ideas, Thomas Edison and the Jews (2/3s of which concerns Disney) would make a good film. Especially if, say, Mel Gibson were to fund and direct it.

  51. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 12, 2010 - 12:46 am | Permalink

    @ SPOOKY: It is clear from your post of 10-11-10-12:25 PM that you have read nothing of Michael Hoffman ll’s work. Not wanting to come off as a tangental gadfly, I must say that I am NOT the one who brought up the subject of Michael Hoffman ll. That being said, I respond to your post only because it offers an opportunity to introduce a topic that I think will add much to this conversation. READ THIS: “JUDAISM DISCOVERED, A Study Of The Anti Biblical Religion Of Racism, Self Worship, Superstition And Deceit.” by Michael Hoffman. This is an eleven hundred page expose’ of Judaism, extracted from the pages of the unredacted edition of the Talmud by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Nothing like this book has been offered to the World since “THE TRADITIONS OF THE JEWS” By Johan Andreas Eisenmenger, 1748 A.D. This is an important book and one which, I believe will provide a powerful adjunct to the work of Prof. Kevin MacDonald and add much depth to this on line conversation.

  52. FORP's Gravatar FORP
    October 12, 2010 - 12:40 am | Permalink

    @O’Meara: Microsoft never brought in Jobs. The back-stab at that point in history was against IBM. MS and IBM were partners in building OS/2 but, to make a long story short, MS went with Windows, and the partnership fully died when MS released Windows NT, which had a lot of OS/2 in it supposedly. (Apple did sue MS for copyright infringement of its user interface (look-and-feel) but that was a case of copying something in the open rather than a dispute arising from any work/partnership.)

    The sad point of the Facebook discussion is the obvious power of Jews in the new sector of online social media. The combination of Jewish money and Asian tech labor is going to be an increasing problem for Whites in the tech sector.

  53. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 11, 2010 - 11:27 pm | Permalink

    @ JAMES O’MEARA: There is one other assertion made in your post of 10-11-10 7:03 AM, regarding the positions of Michael Hoffman ll that I would like to address: “Judaism as a demonic cult.” Hoffman is not the first to make this claim. I refer to two works: “Secret Societies And Subversive Movements” by the great historian Nesta Webster (1920’s) and “Occult Theocracy” by Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), 1933. Edith Starr Miller was an an American East Coast Blue Blood and married, at a tender age into the upper crust of what Hoffman would call the British “Judeo-Masonic Criptocracy.” Lady Queenborough died suddenly and mysteriously, at the age of 45 shortly after the publication of her book. The Lady described Judaism, not as a religion but as a secret society masquerading as a religion; “A sect, with Judaism as a rite.” To bolster that assertion she quoted Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786): “Judaism is not a religion, it is a LAW religionized.” If you talk about secret societies, you talk about the occult. If you talk about the occult, you talk about satanism. We might be super sophisticated enough to not believe in Lucifer, but THEY do! And THEY have all the money.

  54. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 11, 2010 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    @ SVIGOR, 10-11-10, 838:PM: Your logic gets by me. Square that up a bit and try again.

  55. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 11, 2010 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

    JAMES O’MEARA: Your reference to Michael Hoffman ll as presenting a “Calvinist” position and supporting the idea of “Luther as the true Moses” rings just a bit strange in my ear. I have read a lot of Hoffman and I don’t recognise either of those claims in what I have seen. I will ever stand for correction in the face of good evidence. So, gimmie some. My impression from Hoffman’s writing is that he is a traditional (pre Vatican ll) Catholic. And Luther as the true Moses? Just wild.

  56. October 11, 2010 - 8:38 pm | Permalink

    “3D says:
    October 11, 2010 at 5:31 PM”

    Consider the possibility that people who use rhetoric like “Satanic” are doing us more harm than good. Consider the possibility that our people are in the grip of a pathology, and need to be communicated with accordingly. If someone has a phobia about being screamed at, do you treat him by screaming the truth at him, even if it only seems to make him withdraw? Or would a more conversational tone be a good idea?

    Characterizations like “Satanic” are anathema to most of our peoples’ sensibilities. It’s like an own goal, or shooting yourself in the foot.

  57. October 11, 2010 - 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Heh, “do Jews cheat Jews?” Is the Pope Catholic? Jews are an extremely low-trust people, and low-trust goes hand in hand with untrustworthy (obviously there are exceptions, and culture plays a part; ceteris paribus, you’re less likely to be cheated by the assimilated Jewish merchant than Avi the Israeli).

    This is part of why Israel’s so fragmented; vampires can’t live off other vampires. A cruel metaphor, I know, but accurate so far as it goes. In a nutshell, Jews are both highly ethnocentric, AND untrusting/untrustworthy. Insofar as they cheat to get ahead, they’d rather cheat non-Jews. Look at what Jews are capable of on their own; Israel’s no paradise. Low-trust, high-ethnocentricity, collectivist groups thrive among high-trust, low-ethnocentricity, individualist groups.

    And “cheat” is a bit harsh too, when you consider what legalists/materialists they are; to their minds, if it wasn’t in the contract, well, that’s YOUR problem. Jews have a strong culture of will-to-power and to their minds, letting a few handshakes or promises get in the way is just stupid.

  58. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    October 11, 2010 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    to Brooks, “immigrant” equals “jewish.”

  59. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    October 11, 2010 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

    David Brooks said:
    “Immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune they were still outsiders.”

    Frank Capra (Catholic from Italy) and John Ford (born to recent Catholic immigrants from Ireland) and Alfred Hitchcock (Catholic from England) were outsiders?? I DON’T THINK SO. They were outsiders to jewish controlled Hollywood, maybe.

    Capra served in the military in WW1 and WW2, receiving a distinguished service medal, and was also active in anti-communist political movements. Ford served in WW2 in the Navy at Omaha beach. Had Billy Wilder done the same, maybe he wouldn’t have been such an “outsider.”

    (Non-immigrant John Huston also served in WW2, and Jimmy Stewart flew a couple dozen bomber missions before becoming a general in the Air Force.)

    • trappist_john's Gravatar trappist_john
      January 19, 2011 - 3:19 am | Permalink


      Intriguing piece of trivia is that Billy Wilder filmed the iconic death camp scenes in Buchenwald after the liberation.

  60. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 11, 2010 - 5:31 pm | Permalink

    @CHRIS MOORE: No. I do not believe that “Whether one wants to characterize their (the Jews) motives as “Darwinian” or “Satanic” (is) merely a matter of semantics.” When asked what he would do if he were Lord Of The Universe; Confucius replied: “I would call things by their right names.” This seeming innocuous statement becomes more profound the more you ponder it. If you mean Satanic, say Satanic. If you mean Darwinian, say Darwinian. And be prepared to defend your use of either one and know what each means. I have no problem with the concept of Lucifer; Satan, The Devil, The Ancient Deceiver, The Adversary, The Father Of Lies. Any person who does not see Devilish, Aversarial, lying deception in the activities of the Jews and perceive this obvious parallel, is operating from a set of blind prejudices that have been installed in him by the same forces he seeks to combat and overcome in the world.

  61. 3D's Gravatar 3D
    October 11, 2010 - 4:06 pm | Permalink

    @ WGA won’t help: Your comment regarding Aron Sorkin being an expert plagiarist and the fact that the studios “steal screenplays, ideas, etc. everyday from the goyim” brings to mind the history of early “Tin Pan Alley”, established around 1885 in New York City. The original “Tin Pan Alley” was located on west 28th st. between fifth and sixth avenues and contained a gaggle of music publishing companies, instrumentalists and songwriters. This area was heavily populated with Ashkinazi Jews newly arrived from eastern europe and steeped in the Yiddish tradition of frenetic music today known as Klesmer. The era of American popular music was then in it’s infancy and was widely distributed as sheet music. Stephen Foster and John Phillips Sousa were two of the early stars of this modern phenomenon. A “hit” in this enterprise meant big money for the author of the piece and his publishing company. These jews would advertise in goyish papers and magazines, soliciting ideas and promising great rewards for the clever songwriter. The offerings that poured in became a virtual gold mine of ideas. The instrumentalists would dissect the offered melodies, looking for any clever turn of tune or time. The writers would peruse the lyrics for verbal ideas. It only takes a little alteration to turn YOUR song into a DIFFERENT song. A clever turn of melody, in only four beats, can become the basis of a whole new composition. The most insideous aspect of this scam is this: The ideas that poured in from the American Heartland to the offices of these aliens, who played an alien form of music, allowed them to create a new and ostensibly “American” form of music, liberally seasoned with alien sensibilities. But to American ears of that time the sounds that reverberated from those buildings sounded like the crashing together of Tin Pans.

  62. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    October 11, 2010 - 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Once, just outside church when I was a kid, my Sunday School teacher, a contractor in the building trades, remarked that Jews will cheat each other in business. He and my left-leaning mom were chatting outdoors. My mom became annoyed and let him know it. The man was actually quite pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. He was originally from the Netherlands and had been in the Dutch resistance during the war (still had his fake identification papers). Reading about Mark Zuckerberg brought that occasion at church to mind.

  63. Alexander's Gravatar Alexander
    October 11, 2010 - 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Wish I had a social network.

  64. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    October 11, 2010 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Hoffman believes Jews are bigger victims than victims of Jews. If people aren’t responsible for their own beliefs than there is no hope whatsoever. Hoffman’s rabbit hole is deep, and I’m sure it’s lonely down there. As it should be.

  65. dan neil's Gravatar dan neil
    October 11, 2010 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    No James I noticed this also..??

  66. October 11, 2010 - 9:51 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Facebook, am I the only one who has noticed the resemblance btw Zukerberg and Bill Gates, who signed a contract with IBM to provide an operating system he didn’t have, then sent a flunky to Seattle to buy DOS from some guy for like 15k without telling him about the IBM deal? Or how he brought in Jobs to work on a graphic interface, ‘abandoned’ the project, then brought out Windows?

  67. October 11, 2010 - 9:47 am | Permalink

    Speaking of Hoffman and anti-Jewish Jews, this popped into my mailbox today from the man himself:

    “I am often mocked for stating that Judaism is a form of anti-Judaic
    hatred. This is a big laugh to my detractors.

    “The mockers seem to have conveniently forgotten, however, that Jesus
    Christ’s mission was to free Jews from the kind of covert Jew-hate which
    is what Phariseeism and its successor, Orthodox Judaism, surely

    “The devil has arranged for Judaic people to suffer grievously with
    enormous legalistic burdens, pathological anxiety and Babylonian
    superstition imposed upon them by rabbis known as “halachic
    adjudicators.” These “holy sages” contradict and overthrow the Bible. ”


    Renowned Rabbi Yisrael Abuhatzeira Declares that Judaic Women Will Burn in Hell for Wearing Fake Wigs [http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/10/baba-sali-rabbi-women-will-burn-in-hell.html]

  68. October 11, 2010 - 8:53 am | Permalink

    “The Tollbooth” (2004)

  69. October 11, 2010 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    @ Jeff Maylor and Daybreaker,

    What else but “satanic” can characterize, for example, Jewry’s concerted efforts to draw America into the Iraq war by “facilitating” the 9/11 attacks (and I suspect I’m being charitable with that characterization), and using their elite/insider status in Big Media and Big Government to advance false evidence that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks and had WMD that it intended to use in an attack on America? And then on the heels of that, again going about using their insider status to frame Iran for invasion?

    And of course, as readers of this site will recognize, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Judeofascism’s premeditated crimes against humanity.

    Isn’t whether one wants to characterize their motives as “Darwinian” or “Satanic” merely a matter of semantics, like Marx substituting “History” for “God”?

    Thank you very much, but I’m not going to allow Marxism to dictate the terms of my rhetoric. The post-Christian West’s allowance of Judeofascists and their scum ball collaborators to dictate the terms of debate was its biggest mistake. Post-Christian elites may be turned off by such terms as “satanic,” but then post-Christian “elites” are the most likely scum balls to collaborate with Judeofascists in the sell-out and plunder of the West.

    Maybe we should all be appealing to Christians and Muslims and salt of the earth types who still possess an iota of humanity instead of trying to play by the rules of the rigged game set up by the Judeofascists and their sociopathic “elite” collaborators.

  70. Hapnin''s Gravatar Hapnin'
    October 11, 2010 - 7:42 am | Permalink

    If you read the book and the stuff online, especially the expose in the Harvard school newspaper, Zuckerberg et al. stole a lot more than the idea from their classmates. Allegedly, they stole the substantial amount of code that was already underway for the project.

    In the movie, Zuckerberg is portrayed to say “Your code is nowhere on Facebook”, but I imagine it had since been changed. It’s like pointing out that today’s cars are nothing like the model T, but that Model T was an important crutch to getting the capital to advance the project. I thought the movie was disingenuous on that point.

  71. October 11, 2010 - 7:03 am | Permalink

    As KMcD points out, there are two issues here.

    First, Jewish “creativity” actually based on theft and fraud against the goyim. This has been standard since the Emancipation, as Israel Shahak has documented; there is no evidence from the Old Testament through 1800 of any kind of Jewish creativity… or “sense of humor” for that matter.

    The second point is more subtle; Jews preying on Jews. Is there no honor among thieves? Oy, honor is for the goyishe kopfs.

    Michael Hoffman II was the first I saw pointing this out, from his weird Calvinist position [Judaism as a demonic cult created by deicides, Luther as the true Moses, etc.] It would support Baron Evola’s view that “anti-Semitism” is valuable only as a symbol. The enemy is not “the Jew” but the Jewish mentality, which can turn on the Jew himself, or even manifest itself among Aryans. The Jew is only a tool of lower, more occult forces.

  72. JAC's Gravatar JAC
    October 11, 2010 - 6:42 am | Permalink

    I must be one of the few people who hasn’t signed up with a social networking site. I’ve thought about it because it is a good way to get in contact with people you haven’t seen. I don’t know how people organizing high school reunions used to get in touch but last year the people setting up my 10 year reunion used Facebook to contact everyone. Thus I didn’t know about it until someone else sent me an e-mail asking if I’d be there.

    The only reason I still haven’t signed up with Facebook is because I learned it’s Jewish owned.

  73. Ed's Gravatar Ed
    October 11, 2010 - 6:41 am | Permalink

    As if lack of funds is the cause of public school failure? What a joke.

    I read an interview done by one of the Winklevoss brothers where he stated something like, “Take anything Mark says and turn it 180 degrees, and it approximates the truth”.

    Funny, but the same thing is true of Dershowitz as I wrote in the other comments thread. It seems to be a common theme.

  74. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    October 11, 2010 - 3:57 am | Permalink

    Jeff Maylor, I think you are right on the mark.

    It’s because all this conflicts is perfectly explicable in mundane Darwinian terms that Kevin MacDonald has been able to analyse it successfully.

  75. Me's Gravatar Me
    October 10, 2010 - 8:17 pm | Permalink

    When it comes to Aaron Sorkin, I always remember the episode of the West Wing where they were discussing why America was a victim of Middle East terrorism. “Because they don’t like some of the countries we support. We support Egypt.”

    Yeah, that’s it. All those Middle East terrorist are up in arms because the U.S. supports Egypt.

  76. Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
    October 10, 2010 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I really enjoyed this article and the response by Chris Moore. However, I think that statements like the following are over the top.

    “The truth is, to NOT single them out as the pursuers of the satanic agenda that they are is a recipe for some kind of apocalypse, and is a sanction of Jewish supremacist mass murder.”

    There is no evidence, nor could there be of a “satanic agenda”, whatever that would be. Statements like that take our discussion out of the real world of social dynamics to something that is easy for the other side to caricaturize. Ethnic conflict is all too earthly in it’s origin.

  77. WGA won't help's Gravatar WGA won't help
    October 10, 2010 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

    It’s worth noting that in Hollywood Aaron Sorkin is known as the “King” of plagiarists among writers. The studios steal screenplays, ideas, etc. everyday from the hopeful goyim but this guy is top dog. That’s why they alway call him a ‘genius’. To try and cut off the complaints, the truth.

  78. October 10, 2010 - 2:24 pm | Permalink

    The writer of the screenplay (Aaron Sorkin — The American President, The West Wing) is a lefty Jewish supremacist in the “progressive” Zionist vein. The subtext of so much of the work from Jewish media mavens like him is the “Jewish plight” angle, wherein so many of the world’s positive seminal events/accomplishments/ideas revolve around Jewish movers and shakers of history, going all the way back to the bible. Pursuit of “The Jewish plight” angle is an industry unto itself, designed to implant in people’s minds that Jews are supreme beings (in fact, near Gods) who deserve all of the prestige, wealth, favoritism and even wars and mass murders perpetrated on behalf of their “survival” that the world can confer upon them.

    Of course, if Christians, Whites, Englishmen, Germans, Greeks, Western Civilization advocates, Persians, Muslims, Turks etc set themselves up as being chosen by God or History in movies, literature, general culture, etc. and were to pursue that concept relentlessly as the Jews do, they’d be accused (usually by Jewry or its “secular“ functionaries) of being supremacists. But it’s perfectly acceptable for Jews to publicly and sub-textually advance a general dogma of their own choseness and supremacism.

    Those who tolerate or enforce this double standard are essentially acquiescing to Jewish supremacism and its murderous agenda, and in many ways have even converted to Jewry’s vision of the world, wherein Jews are stand-ins for Gods, and all other human beings are animals.

    In some ways, that’s why Jewry is so smug…they’ve convinced so much of the Western world that they’re the only people worth celebrating and preserving; the rest of us are just their supporting cast and their farm animals.

    And then, after ruthlessly, relentlessly and murderously singling themselves out in pursuit of Jewish supremacism, they have the chutzpah to complain when they are allegedly “singled out” for condemnation. The truth is, to NOT single them out as the pursuers of the satanic agenda that they are is a recipe for some kind of apocalypse, and is a sanction of Jewish supremacist mass murder.

    All these supposedly do-gooder “defenders of the Jews” so widespread in the West are actually enemies of peace, prosperity, and general humanity.

  79. Hapnin''s Gravatar Hapnin'
    October 10, 2010 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

    The most amazing thing about Social Network is that such a movie would be made at all. It suggests that Zuckerberg is very much on the outs with the Jewish community. Note too that his significant other is an Asian.

    I found the movie to be incredibly nuanced and thoughtful. The Jewish screenwriter Sorkin seems to have a very ambivalent view of the larger Jewish community. There are also many hints of this in his next most recent movie Charlie Wilson’s War, which was also excellent. Tom Hanks’s character actually announces “I am elected by Jews” in one scene. Sorkin seems to conciously contrast the honor of old Anglo elite with that of the new Jewish elite. But still, he seems to inject many subtle barbs at the Winkelvoss twins, for example, when he has one of them say “We showed up Thursday for a race that was run on Monday”. A hint to how the writer really sees it.

    Did anyone else note the scene in which the Winkelvii appeal to Larry Summers, then president of Harvard to intervene in the matter, and Summers refuses? Summers is the same person who facilitated the oligarchs in siphoning all the material wealth out of Russia, remember.

  80. They R TheivesAll's Gravatar They R TheivesAll
    October 10, 2010 - 1:54 pm | Permalink

    More should be written about what Zuckerberg did to the Winklevosses. After all, he stole their idea. Period. For all the endless propaganda we see and hear about “jewish creativity” the fact is that jews have shown a talent for synthesizing or outright stealing the ideas of others, while demonstrating precious little of what could be called true creativity.

  81. German's Gravatar German
    October 10, 2010 - 1:33 pm | Permalink

    “Like the Jewish victims of Bernie Madoff, Saverin relied on his sense that a fellow Jew would not cheat him.”

    I think this is an overstatement. Jews know very well that cheating is quite common among the tribe. I think Reviolo Oliver writes in one of his essays he knew a jewish businessman who hired only gentile accountants because he wanted to avoid to be a victim of fraud.

    And to be honest, what Zuckerberg did to Saverin is quite common among Ayrians as well. Here in Germany the most succesful social community is STUDVZ. This network is a complete rip-off from facebook. And political correct censorship there is more common than at “facebook”. As far as I know the founders are not Jews (Germans and one Arab).

    All in all I wouldn’t be too harsh on Zuckerberg. I might be wrong, but he seems not to be in the league of Foxman or Dershowitz.

  82. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    October 10, 2010 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    A College Story: How the Jews Celebrate Christmas

    On Christmas morning the Jews go to the store. Open the cash register. Hold hands, and sing, “What A Friend We Have In Jesus”.

Comments are closed.