Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”

Kevin MacDonald


Jewish Eugenics, by John Glad. Washington, DC: Wooden Shore Publishers, 2011; 464pp. (Downloadable at either www.whatwemaybe or www.woodenshore.org. These sites also have Glad’s Future Human Evolution.)

John Glad begins Jewish Eugenics by noting that “much of what might be termed  ‘accepted eugenics narrative’ is in crass discordance with the historical facts” (p. 8). In other words, we are about to enter one of those academic minefields where “truth” is rigorously cleansed to make sure it is compatible with ethnic interests. Indeed, “writing books about Jews used to be a far easier undertaking than it is today, with Jewish anxieties over ‘anti-Semitism’ having been so elevated as to render dispassionate scholarly discourse nearly impossible” (p. 8).

I am not so sure that dispassionate scholarship is impossible, but it is surely the case that findings that diverge from the self-image desired by any ethnic group will surely be vigorously contested by academic activists or, more probably, consigned to oblivion. Dr. Glad assures me that in his case, it is the latter, writing of his frustration at the silence that has greeted his work. Welcome to the club.

As a university professor, Glad is quite attuned to the politics of having a good career. Critics of eugenics, like the notorious Ashley Montagu (a disciple of Franz Boas), get fat honoraria for delivering superficial, factually challenged lectures sponsored by numerous academic departments and programs. (Glad characterizes a lecture by Montagu as “an impressive demonstration of indoctrination” [p. 91].) On the other hand, those who defend eugenics “are subjected to academic shunning” (p. 91), their books are not used in classes and not purchased by academic libraries. They get no invitations to attend conferences or deliver lectures.

Advertisement

Broken down to its bare essentials, eugenics aims to incorporate human reason to influence the future human gene pool. Rather than let nature take its course, the idea is to plan our genetic future with the same care and rational concern as we plan the future in other areas, such as urban planning or animal husbandry. In general, eugenicists have prized traits like high IQ and behavioral restraint, seeking to maximize these traits in the population, and to minimize low IQ, genetic diseases, and psychopathogy.

The logic behind eugenics is impeccable. In its classical form, it proposes that qualities such as health, intelligence, and moral character are socially valuable. Eugenicists were correct that there are strong genetic influences on these traits, and they argued that society can promote these qualities by policies such as discouraging reproduction of people with negative traits (negative eugenics) and encouraging reproduction of people with positive traits (positive eugenics). Many of those who advocated eugenics were leftist social radicals with utopian visions, including Jewish radical Emma Goldman who “was arrested on a morals charge for distributing a 4-page pamphlet in English and Yiddish entitled Why and How the Poor Should Not Have So Many Children” (p. 162). (Goldman’s extensive Wikipedia biography leaves out any mention of her advocacy of eugenics.)

In the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology—indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. “You are reading a book on a topic that supposedly not only does not exist, but one that is even inconceivable” (p. 10). Given this motivation, it is not surprising that when Glad refers to what he labels the “eugenics-bashing industry,” that he notes that the industry is “mostly Jewish” (p. 21). “Even as Russia was shaking off the mythology of Lysenkoism, the West was celebrating its betrothal to Lysenko’s heirs. An intellectual coup d’état had taken place, and many of the purge masters were Jews shoving aside other Jews” (p. 27).

Nevertheless, the reality is that Jews have been prime beneficiaries of eugenic practices. Glad’s thesis is that “for all its excesses, eugenics has been an astounding, indeed an existential success for Jews, molding them into a uniquely resourceful and intelligent people, and the current assault on eugenics by an understandably emotion-driven minority Jewish faction represents a frontal assault on the very essence of Judaism” (p. 11). This group has intimidated Jewish supporters of eugenics, at least in Western countries. As we shall see, a watered down version of eugenics is alive and well in Israel.

Surprisingly perhaps, Glad ignores the vast amount of population genetic research showing substantial genetic commonalities among widely dispersed Jewish populations, instead quoting two gynecologists to the effect that although “contemporary Jews share several chromosome markers and polymorphisms as well as genetic mutations … there is no such thing as a Jewish genome and Jews are no more likely to share sequences with fellow non-Jews than with each other” (p. 39). While it is true that there is no such thing as a Jewish genome (no one ever said there was, probably because the idea is incoherent), there is a great deal of evidence against the latter claim (seeherefor discussions of recent papers in Jewish population genetics).

For Glad, then, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, Judaism is nothing but a cultural construct, albeit one with a particular eugenic dynamism. That is, according to Glad, Judaism is not about preserving an ethnic coherence but about creating a superior group with no ethnic connotations. My view is that it is both about ethnic  coherence and that eugenics was an important force in shaping modern Jewish groups, particularly the Ashkenazim.

A prime area where Jews have benefited is intelligence. Glad accepts the idea that Jews are smarter on average as a result of eugenic practices, although he doesn’t provide any detail on exactly how this happened or how much smarter they are. He rejects a purely internal model of selection for intelligence within the Jewish community such as proposed in Chapter 7 of my A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, claiming that it “would probably reduce the absolute number of high IQs. In any case, ‘marrying brains’ would be a zero sum game if practiced only within one’s own community” (p. 29).

Neither of these arguments is coherent. In traditional societies, assortative mating for intelligence resulted in a higher mean intelligence for the group as a whole because intelligent people tended to be wealthier, and wealthier people had more children.  Within-group assortative mating for high intelligence was a standard part of the eugenic argument from the beginning—nothing more than Darwinism applied to human mating. It’s the same in animals were it is common for females to select mates with desirable qualities to pass down to the offspring. Doing so is not a “zero sum game” even in small breeding populations. The important thing is that some genotypes contribute to evolutionary success more than others and are therefore passed on disproportionately.

Supporting the theory of eugenic selection within the traditional Jewish community, Glad quotes well-known Jewish anthropologist Maurice Fishberg writing in 1917 who claimed that in traditional Jewish society “wealthy persons and scholars were little concerned with the physical appearance of their future sons-in-law. Intellectual abilities were the main thing. If a bridegroom was a significant, promising scholar, even a physical defect was ignored” (p. 168). (Interestingly, Fishberg also notes that in addition to eugenic practices, traditional Jewish communities encouraged everyone to marry, even people with gross mental and physical defects. Eugenics can still work under such circumstances if the well-endowed have more children, as was the case in traditional societies.)

A standard aspect of eugenic thinking was that natural selection wasn’t doing its job anymore because of medical science and welfare benefits for low-IQ people, with the result that the average genetic potential  for IQ was declining. Lothrop Stoddard (The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man), for example, was keen on this point, and among recent exponents of eugenics, Richard Lynn and Helmuth Nyborg make the same argument.  Such arguments can easily be tied to concerns about the future of the race. For example, Stoddard argued that without eugenics the White race would gradually degenerate and be in a relatively less competitive position vis-à-vis other races. It would seem that Lynn and Nyborg are similarly concerned about the future of Europeans.

Glad proposes “infiltration theory” as an alternative to internal eugenic selection, proposing that Jewish IQ increased as a result of the infiltration of high-IQ non-Jews into Jewish groups. While there is a great deal of evidence for eugenic practices for IQ within Jewish groups as prescribed by canonical Jewish religious writing, Glad does not provide evidence for his infiltration hypothesis apart from non-Jewish Soviet citizens attempting to emigrate to Israel in order to flee the USSR.Even if true, this would not explain why higher Jewish intelligence was apparent long before the late 20th century.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Jews had a policy of admitting high-IQ non-Jews. In traditional societies — and Jewish IQ was clearly shaped well before the modern spike in intermarriage — non-Jewish representation in the Jewish gene pool was always illicit and occurred at very low rates. A substantial percentage of the genetic inflow in traditional societies may have resulted from rape, an unlikely source of eugenic benefits. It is an intriguing possibility that genetic inflow from Europeans contributed substantially to Jewish intelligence. However, I know of no data that show this.

Glad’s data suggesting a 9.1% intermarriage rate in Germany in 1875 may be correct, but this is far higher than occurred in the pre-modern era and, in any case, it is unlikely that the offspring of mixed marriages remained within the Jewish community.  Glad quotes a Jewish publication from 1845 discussing “the great evil” of marrying a non-Jew (p. 113); as a quote he provides from 1846 shows, in those days (far more than now), the intermarried couple and their children would be banned from the Jewish community, so that there could be no eugenic effect on the Jewish gene pool.

Recent studies suggest there was some admixture in founding populations but that marriage within the group was the rule after that. And in any case, there are subsets of the Jewish population that have remained completely untouched by intermarriage—particularly the Orthodox and in Israel. Indeed, the importance of retaining racial purity was a prime motivation for the racial Zionists in establishing Israel (see below). Oddly, given that Glad believes that Judaism is nothing but a culturally created eugenic group, he bemoans the high rates of intermarriage because of its effects on “uniquely Jewish genes” (p. 34).

Glad sees Jewish intelligence as entirely benign vis-à-vis the people and culture of the West. He quotes Seymour Itzkoff’s Fatal Gift: Jewish Intelligence and Western Civilization: “Had Western civilization been able to proclaim the truth that Jewish accomplishment was not part of a sinister conspiracy to take over the world, here a people apart, tainted with peculiar cultural traditions, could we have not been able to stop the insanity of ‘National Socialism’ and other pseudo-egalitarian crusades against human accomplishment?” (p. 21).

The problem with Jews is not that they are intelligent or that they are an elite. All societies necessarily have elites, and because of their high intelligence and ethnic networking, Jews have tended to be an elite throughout history. The problem has been that Jews in European societies have tended to form a hostile elite, supporting policies, such as massive non-White immigration, that are not in the interests of the great majority of the non-Jewish populations. (Glad mentions “Jewish-promoted immigration of non-Jews” [p. 111] without discussing why Jews are thus motivated.)

Indeed, Glad has a wonderful quote from German Studies scholar Sander Gilman illustrating well the hostility of Jews toward the people and culture of Germany, and showing as well that Jewish scholars often have very sharp axes to grind when they approach their academic subjects:

I will no longer hear the libel of anti-Semites within the field; I reject their claim for a ‘fair hearing’ within the profession because their fair hearing will be used, as it always has been, to vilify me, to dehumanize me and my pain. The Holocaust remains and must remain for me … the central event of modern German culture, the event toward which every text, every moment in German history and, yes, culture, moved inexorably. I am not neutral. I am not distanced, for serving as an outsider does not mean to be cool and clinical, it must mean to burn with those fires that define you as an outsider. My stereotypes of the German (and my awareness of them) lead me to examine the stereotypes that the German has of me. It is from this that I must move. For me this is not the age of ‘post-modernism,’ it is the post-Holocaust age. That is the silent marker for our present world, and our work is to understand the world of the German in the light of that moment in history. (p. 88)

It’s easy to find similar statements by important Jewish intellectuals (reviewed in The Culture of Critique). The problem is that the academic world is full of Jews like Gilman brimming with hatred because of their perceptions of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the past. Obviously one cannot expect unbiased points of view in their scholarship.

The greater problem is that people like Gilman generalize their hostility far beyond Germany and Germans to the entire people and culture of the West. And of course, these attitudes pervade not only the academic world but also Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and SPLC, as well as Jews in the media and in politics.

Glad is also a bit facile in discussing Jewish assimilation, citing sporadic claims by individual Jews to have assimilated in Germany prior to the rise of National Socialism without evaluating the evidence that the great majority of Jews retained a sense of separateness and sense of cultural alienation from Germany. (Sander Gilman is an exemplar of this attitude in the contemporary world.) This alienation is generally true now throughout the West: For example, even though Jews are in some sense assimilated to American culture and indeed have had a very large impact on American culture, in general they retain a strong sense of Jewish identity that informs their attitudes and behavior. Compared to the traditional White people of America, their attitudes are far more favorable to massive non-White immigration, and they tend to be far more hostile to traditional icons of American culture, such as Christianity in the public square. Jewish assimilation has therefore not precluded hostility toward and conflicts of interest with the traditional people and culture of America.

Glad shows that Jews were prominently involved in the assault on biology in the social sciences. He calls attention to Marx, Freud, and Boas and notes the special role of Jews in the furor over E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology (all themes of The Culture of Critique). He also mentions three other villains of the assault on biology discussed in The Culture of Critique:  Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. Jews also were the main force behind Lamarckianism in the USSR and in the West, at least until certain critical experiments were shown to be frauds.

Glad is particularly colorful in describing E. O. Wilson’s opponents:

Wilson’s attackers were not Bible-belt fundamentalist preachers with eighth grade educations, but his sophisticated secular Jewish colleagues at Harvard — evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin —precisely those who logically could have been expected to be his most enthusiastic supporters. … Wilson’s opponents were soon emulated by a largely Jewish cottage industry of anti-Darwinian scholars and activists who reviewed each other’s books and appointed each other to academic positions. (p. 77)

Glad is also correct when he describes the basic trajectory of the New Left: “The New Left fused with the counterculture to produce a ‘revolutionary consciousness’ with overwhelming Jewish participation and leadership” (p. 78). However, as the left identified Israel as “Kosher imperialism” after the Six Day War, “Jewish participation in leftist activities fell off, and the belief that eugenics had been the driving ideological motor triggering genocide of the Jews became accepted Holocaust narrative” (p. 78).

At the same time that Jews dominated the left in the Diaspora, Zionist Jews have always had a strong attraction to eugenics and biology (reviewed also in Chapter 5 (p. 152ff) of Separation and Its Discontents).  The following are some choice quotes from Glad:

  • Proto-Zionist Moses Hess: “The Jewish race is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries” (p. 115).
  • Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of the now dominant Israeli right: “The preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own…. If you should ask me in a sense of revolt and outrage: but surely in that case you want segregation at all costs! I would answer that one must not be afraid of words and not of the word ‘segregation’” (p. 136).
  • Arthur Ruppin, a prominent early Zionist: Jewish racial pride “was passed on all the more easily thanks to the racial haterd of the Jew for the non-Jew, and its reaction — the racial hatred of the non-Jew for the Jew” (p. 139). Notice the claim that racial hatred is a fundamental, presumably biologically-based human emotion.

Glad notes that “the major Anglo-American eugenicists came out forthrightly against racial hatred” while at the same time “eugenicists were arrested, exiled, and murdered under both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention facing fierce hostility in the United States.” Nevertheless, “it is also true that antipathy toward Jews was evident among an undetermined minority of eugenicists.” Here Glad singles out Madison Grant and his views on Africans and Jews. Regarding the former, Grant claims that having Blacks adopt the accouterments of White culture does not make them into White people—a claim that is surely quite within the mainstream of the racial research of Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton. Grant expressed similar concerns about the lack of assimilability of Polish Jews “whose dwarf stature, peculiar mentality, and ruthless concentration on self-interest” (p. 62).

It is perhaps odd that Glad is eager to dismiss genetic arguments on Jewish behavior at the same time that he enthusiastically argues that Jews have in fact used eugenics to promote certain traits, particularly intelligence. It is unclear what Grant meant by the “peculiar mentality” of Eastern European Jews, but it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that the upward mobility and intense activism displayed by this group can be attributed at least partly to genetic causes. On the face of it, a strong sense of self-interest vis-à-vis outgroups would be a very advantageous trait to have in intergroup competition. I have arguedthat hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness are traits that distinguish Ashkenazi Jews. If, as Glad argues, intelligence is a result of Jewish eugenics, I see no reason why he should preclude the other traits as being exaggerated as a result of eugenics, producing what Grant terms a “peculiar mentality.” In fact, all of these traits show substantial heritability and thus are prime candidates for eugenic selection.

Where Glad is at his best is in discussing the Jewish politics of eugenics. He notes that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has an exhibit that states that eugenics caused the Holocaust. This mantra is also endlessly repeated in the mass media. Glad rebuts this assertion by first quoting from a Rabbi’s sermon given in 1926: “”Whether regarded hygienically, morally, or religiously, the whole purport of the Torah, the Law of Moses, is to separate Israel from the rest of mankind as a Chosen People, in order to be a noble people, a well-born race of men for their own superior happiness, as well as, by way of example, to be a blessing to the world” (p.  63). And he shows that eugenic practices are alive and well in the contemporary Jewish community, especially genetic screening for Jewish genetic diseases. Indeed, “eugenics lies at the very core of Jewish identity” (p. 64).

Glad notes that many Jewish scientists contributed to the academic journal Eugenics Quarterly prior to its name change to Social Biology in 1985. In the list provided, I note Benson E. Ginsburg (a behavior geneticist, expert in wolf behavior, and my Ph.D. thesis advisor) and Nathaniel Weyl (who published on Jewish intelligence and accomplishment). But more surprisingly, the list includes Ashley Montagu and Melville Hershkovits (disciples of Franz Boas), as well as Richard Lewontin and Jerry Hirsch (both prominent opponents of behavior genetics and sociobiology); all are discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as ideological opponents of Darwinism as it applies to humans. Glad’s list would seem to show that Eugenics Quarterly published articles from a wide variety of views indeed, including some from an anti-eugenics perspective.

One element of the campaign against eugenics is the association between National Socialism and eugenics. Glad defuses this by showing that Churchill was also an advocate of eugenics, deeply concerned about the propagation of the feeble-minded and unapologetic about the conquests that Whites as a “stronger race” carried out against other races.

But Jews have been able to have their cake and eat it too:

The upshot of the situation is that a group of largely Jewish activists have so successfully undermined the very eugenic mechanism that made Jewry what it is as to pose an existential threat to Jewry. But Jewish common sense … has not only continued to hold sway in the practice of eugenics, it has even managed to surf the scientific tide of newly found genetic knowledge— all the while paying lip service to the Holocaust-from-eugenics gospel. (p. 72)

The movement against eugenics was part of a much larger picture for Jewish activists:

In 1975, the UN General Assembly … declared that Zionism is “a form of racism and racial discrimination,” essentially declaring the state of Israel to be illegitimate. As a counterbalance, Jewish groups massively funded the Holocaust Memorial Movement.  In it turn, the Holocaust Memorial Movement attacked the eugenics movement with every increasing fury.

However, the last 20 years has seen a huge upsurge of identifying eugenics as the cause of the Holocaust. Between 1945 and 1992, only one book associated the Holocaust with eugenics. Since that time, 51 books have mentioned this connection.

The supposedly causal relationship was accepted with no mention of Jewish participation in the eugenics movement, of the fact that eugenics was popular among the left and the right, of the condemnation by Anglo-American eugenicists of Germany’s National Socialist Regime, or of Jewish eugenicists who had perished in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. The eugenics-is-evil message was imprinted, almost indelibly. (pp. 79-80)

Since [the beginning of the crush of books on the Holocaust in 1968], four decades have passed, and all the while a cohort of Jewish writers continues to attack the eugenics movement, which supposedly threatens at any moment to rip out the stake driven into its vampire heart and once more stalk the planet in search of new victims. In the meantime, precisely as feared by Jewish eugenicists for over a century, the Jews are decimating their own ranks by low fertility and high intermarriage rates. [Note that Glad seems to condemn intermarriage as non-eugenic despite his theory that genetic infiltration was the cause of high Jewish IQ.] Soon there will be no need for Shabbat goy to turn out the lights on Shabbat; there won’t be any Jews left. (p. 81)

Many of these books (Glad emphasizes Daniel Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity ) were intensively promoted in the prestigious mainstream media where there is a large Jewish ownership and influence. For example, Glad notes that Kevles’ influential book was serialized in The New Yorker, at the time owned by Samuel Irving Newhouse.

Eugenics is alive and well in Israel, although the word ‘eugenic’ is typically avoided. Glad cites an expert suggesting that the first human clones will probably be in Israel; this will occur with the support of Orthodox Jews. Yael Hashioni-Dolevshows that Israeli geneticists and the Israeli public strongly favor eugenic practices. Israeli women are “heavily pressured to engage in selection of their embryos, or, in the ultra-Orthodox community, to marry according to ‘genetic compatibility.’” This can be seen as an aspect of racial Zionism that dominates contemporary Israeli political culture.

Nevertheless, these eugenic practices, while important, miss a critical aspect of classical eugenics thinking mentioned above: that steps should be taken to prevent the deterioration of IQ in modern populations resulting from the relaxation of natural selection. See, for example, Helmuth Nyborg’s discussionof decline in the genetic potential for IQ in the Danish population where he notes that by 2072

the damage implies that even if fertile low-IQ non-Western immigrants are the ultimate winners in the third demographic transition [i.e., when low-IQ immigration is added to internal forces lowering Danish IQ], they will conquer a lesser country. Danish average IQ will, for example, then have approached 90, or perhaps even be close to the projected mean immigrant of IQ 86.

These internal dysgenic forces must be assumed to be acting on Jewish IQ as well, since natural selection has been relaxed in Jewish groups. Indeed, the only Jewish groups that are reproducing themselves are the Orthodox and the fundamentalists, and they are likely to be less intelligent than the secular Jews who have been so upwardly mobile and so prone to intermarriage in Western societies. According the Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ in Israel is an unexceptional 94.

As well, Glad does not mention attempting to use eugenic practices to build a more competitive race or ethnic group. As discussed above, Glad conceives Judaism as a non-ethnically defined but eugenically vigorous group.

These two aspects of traditional eugenics de-emphasized by Glad are critical in the long run. That is, racial groups would be well advised to engineer their own future in all of the ways recommended by the classical eugenicists like Stoddard. Failure to do so means that groups that fail to plan for their genetic future will lose out to those that do. The fact that Jewish activists have dominated the anti-eugenics movement in the West and that they tend to hold hostile views toward the traditional people and culture of the West suggest that their opposition to eugenics may also have another motive lurking in the background besides their hatred for anything associated with National Socialism: facilitating the genetic decline of the West as an outgroup. Jewish promotion of massive non-White immigration may also be similarly motivated, although the negative effects of non-White immigration extend far beyond a population decline in IQ (e.g., loss of political power of Whites, less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, increase in social strife and political alienation).

National Socialism had a strong concern about securing and preserving the racial future of Germans. It is not surprising then that Jewish hostility toward National Socialism would also extend to hostility toward the ability of Germans (and by extension, other European peoples) to take charge of their own genetic future as championed by many in the classical eugenics movement. In the  end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.

My impression in reading Glad is that he definitely sees Jews as a superior group. As noted throughout this review, he quite happily states that Jews successfully promoted anti-biological views in the social sciences, mass immigration, the 1960s counterculture, and the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth. This would presumably be enough to get him labeled a “self-hating Jew” by the ADL which is always eager to deny that Jews have any influence at all.

Glad’s acknowledgment that Jews are influential is a natural corollary to his views that Jews are superior. Unfortunately, I do not think that he adequately deals with how Jewish influence has often been to the detriment of the interests of non-Jews, particularly non-Jews of European descent.

However, Glad is to be congratulated for his work in showing that Jewish activists were able to manufacture the “truth” that eugenics caused the Holocaust out of thin air. This should not be surprising. The same has happened with the left in general in establishing the currently regnant culture of critique. The leftist social scientists reviewed by Glad — Boas, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould — managed to create a great many “truths” in the area of IQ and genetics that still remain unquestioned in the prestigious media and throughout much of the academic world. It is therefore no surprise that Jewish activists were able to accomplish truth creation with the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth.

Needless to say, this ability to create “truth” out of thin air is a major component of Jewish power in the West today.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

145 Comments to "Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”"

  1. AlT's Gravatar AlT
    July 27, 2011 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    to “saline” and “fender_strat” and others
    jewish “specialness” they cultivate among themselves and profess to others thru belief in “chosenness” has no basis in science

    _any_ specialness has no basis in science

    mankind is yet to realize that it is one organism-whole and the pecking order of animal kingdom that is underlying “:human condition” is very very primitive

    it is just the history that the top of the pyramid calls itself “jewish” the very fact of the pyramid is explained by the origins of man as warm blooded vertebrate

    aristocratization is “natural”

    but the current state of “human condition” is not sustainable – “peak everything”, “biodiversity”, “overpopulation” – all the result of man diasporating out of ignorance into the whole planet echoniche

    we need to shead the shackles of “beliefs” and apply the science to “human condition” then this whol debate on “jews” and “us vs. them” will come to you in totally different light and you will see that there are more important topics

    google “deliberative capability” and “dirigiste heurism”

    read and learn

  2. kolnidre's Gravatar kolnidre
    June 2, 2011 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    Picking up on Carl’s comment above, just look at the extension of the ethno-nepotistic Ponzi scheme around Madoff and the owners of the New York Mets. While the ownership of the LA Dodgers has been taken over by Major League Baseball, whose commissioner is Bud Selig (a Jew), the Mets, whose owners made an estimated $300 million or more with Madoff yet took a loan of $25 million from MLB, are allowed to continue running their beleagured franchise. Just when it appeared they’d be forced to sell the team, a Wall Street hedge fund manager, another co-religionist named Einhorn, steps in with a cash infusion of $200 million as a minority owner. But the greatest outrage is the new bill proposed by fellow tribesman Gary Ackerman, a NY Congress critter, the Ponzi Scheme Investor Protection Act, which looks customized to save scumbags like the Wilpons from having to cough up the money they stole from innocent Gentiles. According to the NY Daily News:

    “Under the Ponzi Scheme Investor Protection Act of 2011 sponsored by Ackerman (D-NY), the only investors who would face “clawback” litigation would be investors whom the trustee can legally establish were complicit in a Ponzi scheme or negligent investment professionals.”

    Under such a law future kosher looting could just be blamed on one bad apple, while the other crooks walk away with the loot.

    They’re not smarter, they’re just not under the same moral constraints as the rest of humanity, which is why I always extend the invitation to stop being Jewish and start being human and we can get along a lot better.

  3. Boomslang's Gravatar Boomslang
    June 1, 2011 - 4:34 am | Permalink

    Tracing their lineage through the female has to be one of the most ingenious ways to keep a group from being destroyed over the ages, especially if that group is generally despised . I come from Germany from a region that has had a terribly troubled history over many centuries. During the thirty year war in the 17th century the armies of almost all of Europe, Swedes, Croats, Spaniards, Frenchman, Bohemians, Hungarians etc. etc criss crossed the land, raping and pillaging and murdering . Every time a troop entered a village they raped every woman over ten years old and take all the males over 13 to replenish their ranks. This went on for thirty years. Needless to say the bloodlines of the average German is a thorough mix of all these marauders. It can be argued that the resulting ‘hybrid vigour’ has contributed mightily to the remarkable creativity and intelligence of the German people. Within 50 miles of my birthplace Beethoven, Goethe, Heine, Otto and a host of other have their birth place.
    Now it stands to reason that over the centuries the hapless Jews of the Eastern parts of Europe were beset by Jew hating mobs of cossacks and other peasants rioters, who cheerfully murdered the males if they could find them and then rape all the women. This explains to me two things. First the great incidence of Nordic looking Jews, and secondly the great hatred Jews have for the Goyim, who tortured them so much over times . Of course the fact that they would cheat and exploit the peasants mercilessly, contributed to the outrage expressed by the natives. It’s a two way street.
    What I’m trying to say here is, that rather than too closely bred Jews had exogamy forced on them. This ensured their survival in a very hostile world. Many other races have come and gone, but the Jews are still with us , and will be for a long time. It also is the cause for their quick wits and street smarts.

  4. WG's Gravatar WG
    May 30, 2011 - 9:34 pm | Permalink

    1910 – The American Jewish Committee successfully lobbies against efforts to label Jews as a separate race in the U.S. census. Later it will pay anthropologist Franz Boas to promote this view. (page 146)

  5. WG's Gravatar WG
    May 30, 2011 - 3:10 pm | Permalink

    The Polish nobility, he comments, has interbred to such a degree that it is “drenched in Jewish blood,” and the Jewish population is equally interbred with Poles. (page 123)

  6. Carl's Gravatar Carl
    May 29, 2011 - 11:05 am | Permalink

    Jews are not more intelligent than non-Jews. They are simply more aggressive in polemics because of their anti-goy paranoia. What’s more, Jews succeed in life not because they are in any sense superior, but because they do favours for their co-religionists at every opportunity – relentlessly discriminating against non-Jews. This is a mafia mentality, not intelligence!

  7. The White Man's Burden's Gravatar The White Man's Burden
    May 28, 2011 - 7:48 pm | Permalink

    From JEWISH EUGENICS:

    “The timeline of Jewish eugenics provided here demonstrates beyond doubt that Jews were welcome, active participants in the eugenics movement and that Jews even today are still in the vanguard of a eugenic worldview, a fact entirely unknown to most people.” (pgs. 71-72)

  8. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    May 27, 2011 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

    That few here seem to shrug at state-sponsore eugenics is troubling. I propose by contrast paying European single women on Welfare to have MORE young ones, but teaching these offspring what it means to be European. Many an illegitimate baby in history has grown up to become right & proper citizens, men of military rank, men an women who sought to repel aggressors. We want MORE genuine Europeans not less. These are not orinary times, so a slight moral lapse for the greater common interest is best.

  9. The White Man's Burden's Gravatar The White Man's Burden
    May 27, 2011 - 1:52 am | Permalink

    From JEWISH EUGENICS:

    “Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent.” (pg. 29)

  10. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 22, 2011 - 12:11 am | Permalink

    Q [ Christianity was a Jewish “Master plan” to subjugate the Gentiles , they did an awful job! Christianity started as a small dissident Jewish sect that quickly attracted more Gentiles than Jews until it became an all-Gentile enterprise. ]

    It is important to clarify the beginnings of Christianity and the role of the tribe of what we know as jews .
    Many jews converted to Christianity when Christ came to Earth . These jews are what God called the chosen one’s . These jews are no longer jews at all , they are Christians .
    What we know as Israel is a stolen term . Israel is Christianity . Many Christian prayers and hymns contain reference to Israel as the continuation of Christ’s people as to bring Christianity to the whole world . The Jews who rejected Christ became not God’s chosen but God’s damned . The book of revelations of the bible prophesizes to the future of the false jews as being liars and the anti-Christ .
    Jews rejected Christ because they were wanting a messiah that would make them lords over the earth and masters of the goyim . This philosophy is completely at odds with the Christian God .

    So it is really important for Christians to reject jewish manipulation of basic Christian truth as to realize that Gods Chosen converted to Christianity and that Gods Chosen ( Israel ) is Christianity not that blood soaked country in the middle east .
    It is testimony to the centuries long work through intrigue and the sinister power of Jews as to have Christians believing such a outlandish contradiction of simple logic in terms of the popular thinking of Jews as being anything less than Gods damned , let alone God’s chosen .

    But , I think many people on this forum are well aware of what the world champion liars and manipulators are capable of , and unfortunately they know how gullible the gentile can be also .

    You can take Christianity or leave it , but let’s get the story straight .

  11. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    May 20, 2011 - 2:21 am | Permalink

    Jason Speaks
    May 19, 2011 – 6:45 pm | Permalink

    The whole “loving your enemy” and “turning the other cheek” things cannot be taken literally. They would undermine any healthy society.

    I think you’re finally starting to realize why Jews created Christianity and infected the Roman empire with it. It was the Jews’ insidious method of revenge for their defeat at the hands of the Roman armies during the two Jewish revolts.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      May 20, 2011 - 6:28 am | Permalink

      @ Z.O.G. (BTW would the name “anti-Z.O.G.” not be a better idea?)
      {” Jews created Christianity as a revenge against the Romans”}
      If that is true then why was Christianity RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING so anti-Jewish?You know very well-just like Abe Foxman does-that the N.T. contains numerous anti-Jewish passages.Furthermore all Fathers of the early Church from Chysostomos to Augustine were fiercely anti-Jewish.When Christianity became state religion in the Roman Empire one measure after the other was promulgated against the Jews.In Medieval Europe the Jews were confined to their ghettos.And what about the numerous pogroms?If Christianity was a Jewish “Master plan” to subjugate the Gentiles ,they did an awful job!Christianity started as a small dissident Jewish sect that quickly attracted more Gentiles than Jews untill it became an all-Gentile enterprise. Jews not only denounced this sect but actively persecuted it.The idea of Christianity-as-a-Jewish-plot is historically untenable.Jews can indeed be consumate plotters but not ALL historical phenomena are Jewish plots!

  12. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 19, 2011 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Edward, self interest and greater good is a line drawing exercise that will vary person to person, culture to culture, so I suggest we do away with the whole cheek turning business AND I would throw out loving your enemy as well. Or is there some Christian slight of hand that makes hating your enemy OK? There is a lot of the Jewish double think in Christianity.

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 19, 2011 - 5:25 pm | Permalink

      LOL. Not doublethink, just trying to follow a divine perspective. If done properly, this overturns the satanic perspective of the Jews.

      Loving your enemy requires doing what is good for him. If you hold that evil will be punished in the next life, it is good to take whatever measures are necessary to stop your enemy from doing evil.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 19, 2011 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

      The whole “loving your enemy” and “turning the other cheek” things cannot be taken literally. They would undermine any healthy society. They can only be accepted in some philosophical sense that has to be qualified in a thousand different ways.

      But note how enemies of White Gentiles have used those injunctions against us for generations.

  13. Matthias's Gravatar Matthias
    May 19, 2011 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Re; jews and the fall of Rome: same old, same old

    The jewish assault on the Roman Empire that led to its fall has many parallels with our contemporary situation. Economic niche domination, wealth and ideology were and still are their formidable weapons. The jewish domination of the slave trade led to a de facto race-replacement and race-mixing immigration policy while the universalist anti-racist creed of Christianity prevented any serious opposition to it. Once these strategies have done the heavy lifting of disintegrating a once unified society, trade and commerce remains in the stranglehold of the jew. The jewish domination of wealth kept Europe in the Dark Ages, but to the jews it was their Golden Age. Once Europe broke the this jewish hold and reclaimed its wealth for itself, thus began the Renaissance – and alternatively the jewish Dark Age. Compare Germany during and after Weimar. Today, jews dominate our race-replacement immigration policy, prevent any serious opposition to it with “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, and yes, Christianity, and are left to dominate our wealth in the ensuing atomization. Only when we wrest control back of our societies, so too, we will enter a contemporary Renaissance.

    “They enjoyed full religious liberty, in return for which they assumed all a citizen’s duty toward the state; minor offices were also open to them. Only the synagogues were exempt from the duty of quartering soldiers. The trade in slaves constituted the main source of livelihood for the Roman Jews, and decrees against this traffic were issued in 335, 336, 339, 384, etc.”

    [Funk & Wagnall's Jewish Encyclopedia, page 460, vol. 10]

    “. . . there was an inevitable tendency for him to specialize in commerce, for which his acumen and ubiquity gave him special qualifications. In the dark ages the commerce of western Europe was largely in his hands, in particular the slave trade, and in Carolingian cartularies Jew and merchant are used as almost interchangeable terms.”

    [Encyclopedia Britannica, page 57, vol. 13—1947.]

    “Coins unearthed in 1812 in the Great Polish village of Glenbok show conclusively that in the reigns of Mieczyslauw III (1173-1209), Casimir, and Leshek (1194-1205), the Jews were, as stated above, in charge of the coinage of Great and Little Poland.”

    [Funk & Wagnall's Jewish Encyclopedia, page 56, vol. 10]

    “… The 14th century was the golden age of their history in Spain. In 1391 the preaching of a priest of Seville, Fernando Martenez, led to the first general massacre of the Jews who were envied for their prosperity and hated because they were the king’s tax collectors.”

    Encyclopedia Britannica: [page 57, vol. 13 - 1947]

    “…(The eviction of jews from Spain) deprived Portugal of its middle class and its most scientific traders and financiers.”

    [Encyclopedia Britannica, page 279, vol. 18 - 1947.]

    “The great mass of the Jewish people were thus to be found once more in the East, in the Polish and Turkish empires . . The few communities suffered to remain in western Europe were meanwhile subjected at last to all the restrictions which earlier ages had usually allowed to remain as an ideal; so that in a sense, the Jewish dark ages may be said to begin with the Renaissance.”

    Encyclopedia Britannica: [page 57-58, vol. 13 - 1947.]

    As a previous poster noted, same old, same old.

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 19, 2011 - 2:30 pm | Permalink

      Once Europe broke the this jewish hold and reclaimed its wealth for itself, thus began the Renaissance – and alternatively the jewish Dark Age.

      When Europe broke the the Jewish, hold that began the High Middle Ages in the Eleventh Century.

    • Matthias's Gravatar Matthias
      May 19, 2011 - 3:43 pm | Permalink

      The period marked by the evictions—1300 to 1650—also marks the period of the Renaissance which broke over Europe as the Jews departed. Starting at first in the trading cities of northern Italy in about 1300, there began a great rebirth of culture and learning which at first was based almost entirely on the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Very quickly this renascent culture spread over Europe and when the age had ended, in about 1650, Europe was by comparison with her former status, enlightened and civilized. Quite obviously all this could not have taken place had it not been for a great upsurge of commercial activity which occurred simultaneously with, and as an adjunct of, the Renaissance. Not until the nations of Europe had wrested commercial control from the ghetto did this rebirth of western civilization occur.

  14. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 19, 2011 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    To criticize the homosexual acts does not make one homophobic.
    To criticize Jewish behavior does not make one anti-Semitic.
    To criticize the Christian philosophy does not make one Christophobic.
    To use emotional language like “Christophobic drivial” is beneath you Pierre de Craon.

    Henri Pirenni believed democracy was a European invention. To the extent it reflects the tribal counsels of pagan Europe, he is correct.

  15. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    May 19, 2011 - 11:40 am | Permalink

    @ Edward.
    If turning the other cheek doesn’t apply here: “Turn the other cheek” does not apply in the case of defending one’s family or community or in the case of defending the truth. ” When does it apply? Only for small transgressions?

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 19, 2011 - 2:25 pm | Permalink

      It applies to defense of one’s own selfish interest and motivates one’s devotion to a greater cause.

  16. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 19, 2011 - 11:37 am | Permalink

    Yup.

  17. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 19, 2011 - 3:34 am | Permalink

    “Do you have any sources where he or anyone talks about early Jews or Christians encouraging immigration into Rome?”

    Pre-Christian. In Julius Caesar’s time the elite were divided into two parties the Optimates and Populares. The main source of division was the expansion of the empire had flooded Italy with slaves leading to mass unemployment among Romans and Italians. The Optimates were okay with that while the Populares wanted laws to limit the number of slaves to protect their own people.

    Same old, same old.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 19, 2011 - 3:53 am | Permalink

      Wandrin,

      So this problem pre-dates the Christians? When I look around at history, it seems the importation of slave and/or cheap labor is almost always the culprit.

  18. The White Man's Burden's Gravatar The White Man's Burden
    May 19, 2011 - 1:33 am | Permalink

    Jewish inbreeding and eugenics has had many negative side effects which are rarely discussed, the main one likely being the higher propensity of Jews which have mental disorders; even the venerable Jewish encyclopedia states this – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=149&letter=I

    “Mental disease. Among the Jews the proportion of insane has been observed to be very large. From statistics collected by Buschan he concludes that they are four to six times more liable to mental disease than are non-Jews. … A similar phenomenon has been observed in other countries. In the various provinces of Germany and also in Denmark the percentage of Jewish insane is very large, as is seen from the figures in the appended table: … In this table the proportion of Jewish, insane is in nearly all places very large, in some cases more than double that of the non-Jewish population.

    As is the case with all the physical, mental, and intellectual traits of the Jews, consanguineous marriages have been considered a cause of a great part of the insanity among them. The Jews, it is well known, are very neurotic, as is manifested by the frequency of various nervous affections among them (see Nervous Diseases); and the marriage of relatives who are affected by a neurotic taint has been positively proved to be detrimental to the succeeding generation.”

    Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=149&letter=I#ixzz1Mm0vdsJe

    “The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia appear to be most frequent. Some physicians of large experience among Jews have even gone so far as to state that most of them are neurasthenic and hysterical.” – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=193&letter=N

  19. The White Man's Burden's Gravatar The White Man's Burden
    May 19, 2011 - 12:58 am | Permalink

    Kevin M: “In other words, we are about to enter one of those academic minefields where “truth” is rigorously cleansed to make sure it is compatible with ethnic interests. Indeed, “writing books about Jews used to be a far easier undertaking than it is today, with Jewish anxieties over ‘anti-Semitism’ having been so elevated as to render dispassionate scholarly discourse nearly impossible” (p. 8).”

    Glad notes this early in the book; he writes:

    “An ideological coup d‟état had taken place both in popular culture and in academia since my undergraduate days, and the new rulers were ferreting out even potential dissenters. In effect, ideology was dictating the resolution of scientific questions.” (pg. 7)

  20. Mari's Gravatar Mari
    May 18, 2011 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Jews invented affirmative action as a way of destroying their rivals for dominance. With the other Whites forbidden by law from university admission and employment, the Jews now rule over their black, hispanic and even asian puppets.

    • HeGeMony HiGh's Gravatar HeGeMony HiGh
      May 19, 2011 - 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Preach on Mari, Billy Graham style! You don’t know how sickening it is to file admission papers for various doctoral programs and subesequantly be destroyed as your first transaction is to find that your school of choice practices racism against white students via forced-diversity. It’s just great to be at the back of the line at schools my forefathers created, including the whole damn ivy league tradition. White libs who worship at the alter of diversity are race traitors and will one day in the near future meet their just reward for allowing their kind to be trampled by illegitimate illegals. White conservatives are brainwashed as well but at least recognize that whites are not inherently evil as the tribe would have our naive college children believe.

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      May 19, 2011 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

      Even if the jews created affirmative action , it was sanctioned by scared rich whites, mostly liberals but also rich conservatives. They didn’t want to fight the battle against blacks. Think about a lifestyle of no housekeeping, no yardwork, only rich white folks in your neighborhood and church and country club. What is it to you if poor whites suffer, as long as you maintain your lifestyle. You can still send your own kids to Harvard, which guarantees Med School or Law School or a PhD and a Professorship. Change I can believe in would be rich folks willing to fight affirmative action. Until privileged whites suffer, we are stuck in a quagmire. Until their children can’t get into the Ivy League, they will laugh at us as mere boorish racists, even if they secretly believe themselves superior to all their minority household help. (and as they have done through the ages, impregnate some of them, just like the guv did)

  21. Mari's Gravatar Mari
    May 18, 2011 - 10:56 pm | Permalink

    I always thought that the Jewish affirmative action lawsuits
    which have resulted in banning White goyim from entire sectors of the economy especially the largest employer, government were a Jewish onslaught against the Catholics and their superior Catholic school system.

    I have seen the lists of lawyers attached to the affirmative action lawsuits, both plaintiff and defendant’s sides. 90 percent of the pro affirmative action attorneys have Jewish names.

    The Catholic system produced highly intelligent people who did well in college admissions and the old merit and qualification hiring standards.

    The affirmative action Judgements require that the most unqualified, disfunctional black woman be hired and promoted over the most qualified and functional White male.

    Jews created affirmative action. No one who looks at the lawyers who filed the lawsuits, the first EEOC employees, the impassioned media propaganda that the most blatant discrimination against the White goyim is justified can doubt that.

  22. Mari's Gravatar Mari
    May 18, 2011 - 10:50 pm | Permalink

    The average Ashkenazi IQ is supposed to be 105. The average German and Polish IQs are supposed to be 107 106.

    So it seems that the Jews of Germany and Poland have the same IQs as the German and Polish goyim. Arab Jews have the same IQs, mid 90’s as the other Arabs.

  23. standing's Gravatar standing
    May 18, 2011 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    In the words of Heraclitus, “A man’s character is his fate”. Substitute the word “character” with “genes” and the saying still holds true. Without eugenics there is no civilization.

    Contrast the Greek eugenic outlook to the sentiment expressed in the poem “The New Colossus” written by the Jewish poet Emma Lazarus, which was permanently attached to the Statue of Liberty in 1903:

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
    Emma Lazarus, 1883

    Author John T. Cunningham wrote that “The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the statue. However, it was Lazarus’s poem that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants.”

    The Jewish strategy seems to be to weaken the host population by opening the immigration floodgates, and to generously invite (on behalf of the gentile host) the “tired, poor, huddled masses” and the “wretched refuse of teeming shores”. The early Judeo-Christians applied this same corrosive method to weaken the Roman Empire, as noted in the 2nd century by the philosopher Celsus (whose writings were almost removed from history by Christian zealots):

    “The Jews say, Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: the rogue, the thief, the burglar, the poisoner, the despoiler of temples and tombs, these are their proselytes. Jesus, they say, was sent to save sinners; was he not sent to help those who have kept themselves free from sin? They pretend that God will save the unjust man if he repents and humbles himself. The just man who has held steady from the cradle in the ways of virtue He will not look upon.”

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 18, 2011 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

      Good post. I’ve always wondered what role dysgenics played in the fall of Rome. I now suspect it was the leading cause of Rome’s fall. I looked up Celsus on Wikipedia (superficial I know). Do you have any sources where he or anyone talks about early Jews or Christians encouraging immigration into Rome?

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 18, 2011 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

      I would also say, this shows a certain flaw in the Jewish strategy from their own perspective. The fall of Rome plunged the world into a Dark Ages that may have set mankind back 700 or 800 years. Imagine if we hadn’t lost those years? Everyone, including Jews, would have a far higher standard of living. We would have much longer and healthier lifespans. We would probably be a true spacefaring species by now. Everyone lost.

    • standing's Gravatar standing
      May 18, 2011 - 9:43 pm | Permalink

      re Jason Speaks

      Robert Wilken’s “The Christians as the Romans Saw Them” gives a good overview of the arguments made by the early critics of Christianity, including those made by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Charles Freeman’s “The Closing of the Western Mind” describes in less than flattering terms the transition between the classical world and the Christian world – contrasting the rational, meritocratic, (somewhat) tolerant, free-thinking Graeco-Roman civilization to the irrational, faith-based, heresy-obsessed Christian theocracy.

      The Church eagerly accepted all manner of criminals and dimwits into its inclusive club while excluding by design all skeptics, scientists, and rationalists; unsurprisingly the period known as the Dark Ages followed. Between the 5th and 16th centuries (between Proclus and Copernicus), not a single astronomical observation was recorded in the West. Hypatia, an unusually gifted female astronomer, was literally ripped to shreds by a mob of not-so-meek Christian fanatics in the 5th century. And let’s not forget the Christian zeal of Theodosius, who was the Stalin of his time, or Justinian, who banned the teaching of Greek philosophy for being “not Christian”.

      I would agree with you that the Jewish strategy of influence tends to backfire, like Frankenstein’s monster turning on its creator. We saw this with Christianity, with Communism, and now with immigration policies post-1965.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 18, 2011 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

      Can you go argue about religion on beliefnet?

      This is all straight from the Jew playbook. What’s next? The glories of the Moslems?

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 18, 2011 - 11:23 pm | Permalink

      I think there can be a useful examination of the policies that early Christian groups advocated. It is, of course, hard to argue matters of theology, because God never seems to show up give anyone the right answer.

      But as a social phenomenon, I think we can look at mistakes Christian groups have made with regard to race and politics. That would in no way reflect on God or Christ or any other supernatural beings that exist, sense we are talking about their imperfect representatives on earth.

      I do think there has been something dsygenic about the way Christianity has often been practiced. Most forms always emphasize the “poor and downtrodden” and sadly, these are not usually the best genetic stock. Of course, this is true of other religions as well, and given the lower IQ of Muslims in general, apparently they are even worse.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 19, 2011 - 6:08 am | Permalink

      JS: I strongly urge you to read Henri Pirenne’s books—which are as fundamental to an understanding of the immediate postimperial period as egg yolks are to mayonnaise—before you begin hypothesizing about the “darkness” that fell upon Europe post-450 A.D. Then come back and tell us if you still think that standing’s Christophobic drivel and the surmises you made (evidently in good faith) from it bear any resemblance to the truth.

      I’m willing to bet that few commenting on this thread (probably Athanasius and one or two others) have even heard of Pirenne, let alone read Mohammed and Charlemagne or Medieval Cities, both of which are still widely available as cheap secondhand paperbacks. Pirenne is certainly not the only medieval historian worth reading, but he might with reason be called the field’s Aeschylus. Like that of the great dramatist, Pirenne’s work may have been equaled but has never been surpassed. A third book,A History of Europe: From the End of the Roman World in the West to the Beginnings of the Western States, is, alas, much harder to find, especially in English translation, but it is strongly recommended to anyone who (1) has an interest in learning facts as opposed to propaganda about that period and (2) can read.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 19, 2011 - 7:01 am | Permalink

      Pierre,

      I will look for those books. I am open to the idea that history did not unfold as we are told. However, a few of issues still incline me to think something like a “fall” took place, if the following statements are true:

      1. The living conditions of people fell. There are ancient Roman cities in Northern Africa, 2,000 years old, that had running water and sewage, something that was apparently lost in most of Europe for centuries (at least for the majority).

      2. The population of cities fell dramatically. Rome had well over 1 million at its height and apparently fell to a fraction of that number. I know this is only one city, but my understanding is that populations fell throughout the former empire.

      3. The size of livestock fell. The size of cows can be seen to have shrunk after “the fall” and it did not recover. This is a sign that there was less feed available for cattle.

      4. The economy appears to have shrunk with the number of consumer goods falling dramatically – things like pots for example are not found in the same abundance from the period of a 1000 years ago versus 2000 years ago.

      The book I got most of this information from – a while back – is this one at Amazon:
      http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Rome-End-Civilization/dp/0192807285/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305801711&sr=1-1

      Whether Rome fell or not is a fascinating topic and a lot hinges on it.

      By the way, where did you learn to turn a phrase and use metaphors as you do? Is it an innate ability or something you developed with formal training?

  24. Jason Bard's Gravatar Jason Bard
    May 18, 2011 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    It is hoped, that in the coming years, men like Alexis Carrel and Sir Arthur Keith will be viewed as Knights in our crusade, once again.

    Prof. McDonald, you are to be commended for your astute and culturally bound perspectives, as all the ‘classes’ of our folk-community are in this struggle together.

  25. May 18, 2011 - 3:25 am | Permalink

    Well I’ll be damned.
    I was just looking over the references in Prof Bartlett’s “Democracy Cannot Survive” paper that I mentioned earlier and lo and behold, this appears at the bottom:

    Dec 8, 1999

    Professor Kevin B, MacDonald
    Department of Pschology
    California State University
    Long Beach, California

    Dear Professor MacDonald,
    I would like to submit the enclosed manuscript “Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation” for consideration for publication in Population & Environment. Three copies are enclosed. (…)
    Sincerely Yours,
    Albert A. Bartlett

    I thought TOO readers would get a kick out that tidbit. Our good Prof. KMac runs with the best. Did you publish his piece, Prof. KMac? What did you think of it?

  26. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 18, 2011 - 3:18 am | Permalink

    Do you think it is beyond white man’s capabilities ?
    possibly along with the Chinese if they can come up with some original break through technology for once in their miserable robotically copying existance .
    lol

  27. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 18, 2011 - 2:49 am | Permalink

    For rapidly diminishing resources that promise to sharply limit human population regardless of technological progress, one needs to look no farther than food and fresh water.

    I live in the American Midwest, the breadbasket of the continent and arguably the world, and I’ve done a little farming. I can tell you from personal experience that agricultural experts haven’t been lying to us when they warn that our topsoil is badly depleted. Much of it retains less than 10% of the nutrients needed to grow healthy food, and thus requires constant replenishment.

    This is not a problem that can be solved by replacing nutrients with synthetic alternatives. We need to constantly add the right mineral nutrients, or goodbye, food supply. Food production can bottleneck at any time due to a shortage in any critical soil additive. As a consequence of this and other factors, the cost of farming is rapidly becoming quite prohibitive. The only reason that the average (employed) American can still afford food is that the government subsidizes the tremendous costs of producing it.

    Of course, we all know about the water shortages plaguing California, the way that dry areas are sucking ever more water from distant aquifers, and the horrible effect on ground water quality of “fracking” (hydraulically fracturing) deep shale formations for natural gas. We’ve got a serious water problem, and it’s rapidly getting worse. That’s why hogs, gougers, and profiteers like the Bush Gang and T. Boone Pickens are buying up land over large aquifers throughout the western hemisphere as fast as they can swindle the locals out of their family farms. Rest assured that they plan to squeeze us like boa constrictors for every shower, flush, and swallow, just as they’ve already begun to do elsewhere on a limited scale.

    As far as energy is concerned, however, there may be a glimmer of light on the horizon. I refer to Andrea Rossi and his nickel-fueled E-Cat cold fusion device. He has already begun to receive patents in Europe. Of course, the United States Patent Office thus far refuses to issue patent on this technology because “cold fusion is an impossibility”, but they don’t seem to understand that the US Navy and other government agencies have continued to fund cold fusion research even though the “science community” allegedly succeeded in “debunking” it decades ago. (That’s a pretty good indication that the media campaign against cold fusion was actually a smokescreen designed to keep us all at the mercy of the oil industry.) Rossi’s machine has apparently been tested in controlled settings by hostile skeptics, some of whom now predict that if and when it’s finally turned loose on the market, it will blow the lid off the energy status quo quicker than you can say “British Petroleum Sucks”.

    But of course, the monopoly factor remains paramount. There are powerful vested interests in the field of energy, and rather than let us out from under their oligarchical thumbs, they’d gladly pull the plug on the entire electrical grid and send us back to the Pleistocene.

    In any case, forget about limitless population growth; it’s not happening. No matter where technology is allowed to take us by those who own it, there’s still too much that we need which comes from the earth and the ocean, and which cannot be synthesized by any means short of the atomic transmutation of matter.

    The brick wall is only a few feet ahead of us, and only an idiot wouldn’t be thinking hard about slamming on the brakes.

    • John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
      May 18, 2011 - 3:12 am | Permalink

      [ The brick wall is only a few feet ahead of us, and only an idiot wouldn’t be thinking hard about slamming on the brakes. ]

      If what you mean by slamming on the brakes is to put an instant stop to third world immigration , then , I am not
      an idiot . ( I like to think I am not any idiot in any case )
      I think the world population increase has leveled off .

      Just on the water thing …
      The world is literally awash in water . It covers well over half the globe. What about desalination ? If we were running out I could see modern nuclear power running huge desalination plants . Or we could improve the cloud seeding process to increase rainfall when and where needed .
      Do you think it is beyond white man’s capabilities ?

    • eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
      May 18, 2011 - 9:02 am | Permalink

      Desalinization is a physical possibility. But depending on it would take a lot of electrical energy and a lot of inland transportation. Whether this will be made available is anyone’s guess. As I say, the limitations aren’t just technological; they’re financial. Don’t underestimate the will of the oligarchic parasites to retain control of the markets – they’d rather see us all dead than relinquish economic control.

      In any case, nuclear power is no longer a viable option. Even if Fukushima hadn’t demonstrated that nuclear power generation is incompatible with such natural phenomena as earthquakes – a large section of Japan has already been rendered unsafe for human habitation, with much more to follow – the problem of nuclear waste has never been adequately solved. Nor can it be solved, except by trusting assumptions which may or not be valid. Before Fukushima, some people still thought that nuclear power plants were safer than coal-fired plants; now they know better. In conjunction with the knowledge that anthropic global warming was and is a scam designed to enrich international bankers with carbon taxes and high-dollar cap-and-trade fraud, modern scrubber technology makes coal the safer choice by far.

      As for cloud seeding, I assume that you live on the same planet as I do. Verily, anyone with more visual memory than a turnip knows that weather modification is already in an advanced stage of implementation. Ever hear of “chemtrails”? They’re the white trails up in the sky above many parts of the country that superficially resemble jet contrails, but linger for many hours regardless of atmospheric conditions and spread into large cloudlike formations (anyone who remembers how contrails actually look, and how they quickly dissipate under most atmospheric conditions, knows that these don’t qualify). Although I live more than a hundred miles from the nearest major airport, the sky above my ranch is littered with them on many days…and over the last several years, we’ve been able to time the rain by them.

      But of course, the government routinely lies about such things, and given that they won’t admit their chemtrailing programs to the public, it is somewhat unlikely that they’ll be using them to public benefit. After all, such technology has “weather weaponry” applications. Anyone who still believes that the US government is about public benefit, as opposed to Zio-imperialism, obviously has a head full of rocks.

      Very, very stupid rocks.

  28. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 18, 2011 - 1:27 am | Permalink

    [ This is true. It’s hard to predict what the technology and economy will be like in 50 or 100 years. We’ve heard of resources running out before, only to see the crisis averted because of some new discovery. We may have fusion power someday, for example. But then again, we could face shortages in the future we can’t even imagine now. ]

    IMO , the only way we will face shortages is if the establishment shuts down any development , which they are trying to do with the constant harassment of the nuclear industry , as just one example .

    That is the thing about all this real politics stuff , it is about development . In the present and for a long time now we have been living in times of arrested development .
    The world could be infinitely better than it is if it were not for having the control freaks having the brakes put on society in terms of science and tech , but most importantly , socially as well .
    The globalist zionist money power establishment is repressing improvement because they know it would ensure their loss of control . It is very difficult to control a rapidly changing world .
    In my opinion , in the end , they will lose that control anyway and it’s happening fast .

  29. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 18, 2011 - 12:09 am | Permalink

    [ So, then, if we are doomed to a totalitarian future government, if it is inescapable, then I agree with what Dr. Pierce said. “We damn well better make sure WE run it, in OUR racial interests.” ]

    Yes , we should run it regardless .
    Self determination .

  30. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 18, 2011 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    @ Matthias
    [ Freedom and democracy are temporary finite luxuries afforded only by fast-diminishing finite resources. Once these resources are exhausted, so too are our ‘freedoms’.
    This is inescapable fact.
    So, then, if we are doomed to a totalitarian future government, if it is inescapable, then I agree with what Dr. Pierce said. “We damn well better make sure WE run it, in OUR racial interests.” ]

    I am not sure of all that . You could be right , but I am not convinced.

    In the late 1800’s there were fewer trees in America than now , there was a kind of energy crisis . But , technology came along with petroleum and the oil stoves and the internal combustion engine . It was liberating in terms of labor for heating household , and in that people became free to travel in autos .
    Up until very recently , information was the domain of our enemy in the elite mainstream media and publishing . Now with the internet people are free to read OO and how white people are capable of rebutting the despotic ideology of the multi-cult forces .

    I am not saying you are wrong . I just say who knows ?
    I prefer to stay more positive .

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 18, 2011 - 1:05 am | Permalink

      In the late 1800′s there were fewer trees in America than now , there was a kind of energy crisis . But , technology came along with petroleum and the oil stoves and the internal combustion engine .

      This is true. It’s hard to predict what the technology and economy will be like in 50 or 100 years. We’ve heard of resources running out before, only to see the crisis averted because of some new discovery. We may have fusion power someday, for example. But then again, we could face shortages in the future we can’t even imagine now.

      It seems to me most White nations, especially those descended from Western Europe, have favored a fair amount of personal liberty, compared to the rest of the world, for centuries. If our people can survive, I would imagine a non-totalitarian government is what most White folks will have. Some may be more authoritarian than others, but most Whites seem to end up rejecting outright dictatorship.

  31. Matthias's Gravatar Matthias
    May 17, 2011 - 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Totalitarianism is our future, it can’t be avoided. Overpopulation (and technology) are the primary forces, completely incompatible with freedom and democracy, that will make totalitarian states inevitable.
    China imposes its one-child policy on its citizens not because state-controlled fertility is simply a function of a communist state, but because it must – due to overpopulation. Overpopulation and resource scarcity has simply forced their hand, as it will ours as well someday, even if the idea is unpalatable to contemporary tastes.
    Overpopulation and diminishing resources are incompatible with freedom. As Professor Bartlett (brilliant man, google him and watch his exponential function video on Youtube) likes to remind us of Aasimov’s famous analogy, everyone believes in Freedom of the Bathroom when a household’s family of five share one, but it is unsustainable when the same household numbers two hundred. Freedom of the Bathroom cannot co-exist with overpopulation, nor can many other freedoms we take for granted.
    Freedom and democracy are temporary finite luxuries afforded only by fast-diminishing finite resources. Once these resources are exhausted, so too are our ‘freedoms’.
    This is inescapable fact.
    So, then, if we are doomed to a totalitarian future government, if it is inescapable, then I agree with what Dr. Pierce said. “We damn well better make sure WE run it, in OUR racial interests.”

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kc7sOPBpQ30J:www.jclahr.com/bartlett/20000900,%2520Democracy,%2520Overpopulation.doc+professor+bartlett+democracy+freedom&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShnGLjtzjKiwBVx0Q7tHuAvubw3tPNJkpDTHLo15Mo42gTZCHVUj_pge9dQQ8HP6P1HkZGIg0uPEBwn71f_9zGL4xjzUNva0a8IU6quZWCRowipYeV_r0QboaIquyoVVpP5icMx&sig=AHIEtbQYWjt-SI8dA6BMthPov3xSbzvrhA

  32. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 11:44 pm | Permalink

    All this talk of eugenics is some what moot in that we are expanding technology at an incredible rate . So that we are applying the ideals of yesterday on to the future . The world will change so rapidly that we do not know what is really called for .
    However , I do think that there must be some big time righting of the wrongs in this anti-white world . I do know that the spirit of Euro people is what needs to be defended .
    That we must bring truth to this world of lies and deception . That much is for sure .

    • eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
      May 18, 2011 - 12:58 am | Permalink

      The expansion of technology demands more of certain mental abilities on the parts of its users, and of those responsible for technological innovation and maintenance. Some of these abilities inevitably relate to IQ.

      But IQ isn’t the whole story. Civilization tautologically entails civility. So if there’s anything to behavioral genetics – and there almost certainly is – then we should not encourage the proliferation of genotypes behaviorally adapted to life in, e.g., primitive tribal settings, jungles, swamps, caves, or any other environment in which fitness involves a well-developed capacity for hostility and aggression at the expense of civility.

      Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what we’ve been encouraging.

  33. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 11:32 pm | Permalink

    @ eurodele
    [ Unfortunately, we then let it be wrested away from us by opportunistic parasites, mainly cynical plutocrats of disproportionately Jewish origin, who frantically proceeded to louse it up beyond all recognition.

    Now it’s time to put things right again. ]

    I agree in that drastic times call for drastic measures .

  34. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 11:17 pm | Permalink

    @ Reginald .

    I was not advocating for government run breeding program . I was just pointing out that we have one now in a round about way .

    I think it would be reasonable to desire that government policy would offer strong incentives for the more fit of the gene pool to reproduce while offering discouragement to the less fit .

    Example :
    In education we offer scholarships to the brightest students.
    Take that same principle and apply it to eugenics .

    Ultimately , it might be most desirous to have a eugenics program that is non-governmental and culture based .
    Which could happen with out a hostile dysgenic promoting mass media .

  35. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 10:53 pm | Permalink

    @ Pierre

    [ Reginald: I suspect that you are mistaken in reading Mr. Hearns’s “practically” as meaning “almost” or “nearly.” If, as I think, he means “in actual practice” or even “in terms of practice,” would you still hold to your stated position above? ]

    Yes , you got it . I meant : for all intents and purposes .

    @ Reginald .

    I was not advocating for government run breeding program . I was just pointing out that we have one now in a round about way .

  36. Big Man's Gravatar Big Man
    May 17, 2011 - 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I believe that in their quest for superior intellect by marrying brains, evenutally their group suffers from a disproportionate amount of mental illnesses and social problems.

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 17, 2011 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

      As an intelligent, curious, originally-impressed and still-fascinated observer of Jewish business and personal behaviour now for 40 years, Big Man, I have to unreservedly agree with you, but still, I’m sure you know there are “things” no one is allowed to talk about In a public forum…(surely you’ve been sent that memo?!?)

      Somebody/Anybody – explain to me why the following statement isn’t unarguably true:

      “I believe that in their quest for superior intellect by marrying brains, evenutally their group suffers from a disproportionate amount of mental illnesses and social problems.” posted by Big Man

    • eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
      May 18, 2011 - 12:40 am | Permalink

      The easy answer, of course, is that Big Man’s statement is one of personal belief…by Big Man. Hence, hearing it from Big Man himself is proof enough that it is in fact what he believes.

      But then again, you may be asking for commentary on whether or not there’s a known correlation between intelligence and mental illness or social problems.

      To my knowledge, there is no significant general correlation of this kind (if there is one, then its scientific confirmation must be quite recent). Hence, Big Man’s belief would be hard to justify with respect to the general population.

      On the other hand, Big Man may be referring only to the Jewish population … and it is at least conceivable that there is some kind of linkage between Jewish intelligence and the neuroses and personality disorders for which Jews are notorious.

      But that’s merely speculative.

    • Little Man's Gravatar Little Man
      May 18, 2011 - 12:47 am | Permalink

      ” The easy answer, of course, is that Big Man’s statement is one of personal belief…by Big Man. Hence, hearing it from Big Man himself is proof enough that it is in fact what he believes. ”

      If Big Man said it then that is enough for me . He is much bigger than I am .

    • The White Man's Burden's Gravatar The White Man's Burden
      May 19, 2011 - 12:48 pm | Permalink

      Eurodele – see the below comment at May 19, 2011 – 1:33 am. Jewish inbreeding and Jewish eugenics is associated with the occurrence of a high percentage of mental disorders.

  37. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 7:01 pm | Permalink

    @ Z.O.G.

    I would agree that Christians have been made to be sheep like . It sickens me with the ” turn the other cheek ” BS .
    But , the problem lies with the fact that Christianity has been co -opted by it’s enemy .

    I think it would be much more effective to reveal Jewish subversion of Christianity , rather than to go on about
    ” Jebu worship ” being a jewish plot and that Christians are just a bunch of dorks .
    Because , if for no other reason , that is not going to fly .

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 17, 2011 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

      “Turn the other cheek” does not apply in the case of defending one’s family or community or in the case of defending the truth.

  38. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 6:51 pm | Permalink

    [ While it may presently appear that Whites have an innate sense of self-destructive ‘fair play,’ historically that was not the case. Prior to the Jewish/Masonic displacement of the Christian elite, Whites were the most successful people on earth at defending their turf. We could be so again simply by restoring a non-hostile elite. ]

    Very true .
    And it is becoming apparent to many people ( sheep ) that the leadership is in on board with the wolves globalist agenda .

  39. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 17, 2011 - 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Reginald: Otherwise you might end up proposing all sorts of alienating, unpopular, and morally questionable solutions, when tackling the root causes of the problem would both be far easier, far more popular (at least relatively speaking), and far more morally defensible.

    This raises a couple of questions. (1) Alienating and unpopular for whom? (2) Morally questionable by, and morally defensible to, whom?

    In fact, there are no sound moral arguments against eugenics. All such arguments come down to “who will choose?” (how about geneticists who understand the code of life and can at least identify defective genes?), the potential for abuse (if people are weak and stupid enough to permit abuse, that is), the right of everyone to choose his/her own spouse (which of course has nothing necessarily to do with the biological aspect of reproduction), “God alone can choose who should breed!” (just have Him send us a list then), and so on ad absurdum.

    Reginald: If we got rid of these dysgenic Government policies and it got rid of the problem of high IQ being outbred by low IQ people, then I see no reason why they’d be the slightest need to take the dangerous step of giving the Government the awesome power to breed people like livestock.

    Two things need to be said here. First, you’re ignoring the distributed (e.g., Jewish) form of eugenics, which involves no government coercion, but only education and persuasion. Secondly, we already have half a century of damage to our genome, over two substandard generations and arguably more, as a result of the policies you list. The damage has already been considerable. Meanwhile, we’ve used medical and other technologies to virtually suspend the law of natural selection.

    So then what, in the absence of natural selection, is supposed to reverse that damage? And what, exactly, is supposed to protect high-quality breeders from being swamped by lower-quality breeders as we near our environmental limits and exhaust our diminishing resources? In the end, low-quality breeders don’t really care about government subsidies; they’ll do what comes naturally anyway, just as they always have. And then, with the help of their numerical advantage, they’ll fight their higher-IQ competitors for whatever diminishing resources are still available. (If you think that the French, Russian, and Cambodian Revolutions resulted in net IQ increases, you’d better think again. We can’t afford that kind of IQ loss.)

    Reginald: Our ancestors in Europe didn’t need any centralized state controlling their population. They lived, they had children, and if there was ever too many people at any one time for the land to support, they fought to live, and failing that died like men. Overpopulation is how natural selection happens, it’s the most natural thing in the World.

    First, our European ancestors were repeatedly subjected to population control by the state. It was called “starving the peasants”. I trust that I need not remind you of who controls the state today (they’re not White Europeans), and who will be doing the starving next time around (they won’t be Jewish). Secondly, overpopulation entails natural selection only in a state of nature, which no longer exists. On the other hand, if we let go of civilization now in order to let natural selection run its course, we won’t be getting it back – resources have been depleted and are becoming very hard to retrieve.

    There’s no bigger fool than one who responds to modern exigencies by chanting “Back to 1776 / the Middle Ages / the Glory of Rome!” Those are all ancient history, and our present situation is immeasurably more tenuous.

    Reginald: Truly natural selection, the type that made both our species and race, has been put on hold because of things like the nanny state and foreign aid. Creating a brave new world of no overpopulation would do the exact same thing, only through different means: It would put natural selection on hold. Thus would have the same effect as the nanny state of getting rid of the very selective pressure that made us White-Euros in the first place.

    There’s no “would” about it: natural selection is already on hold, and it’s going to stay on hold, because that’s part of how we maintain our grip on civilization. A civilization at the whim of natural selection doesn’t last very long; it survives only by rendering itself unnaturally immune to natural disasters that would otherwise wreck it.

    As far as concerns the Brave New World scenario, it’s already here in all but name. The problem is, its requisite intellectual hierarchy has been strangely permuted, so that whether one is considered an “alpha”, “beta”, “gamma”, or “delta” is a reflection not of innate ability, but of chosenness or affirmative action or political bent or the complexion du jour.

    We White Americans have already created our Brave New World, our hereditary meritocracy. We did it some time ago, and it was working for us. It was effective and offered enough economic mobility to compensate for its occasional errors of placement.

    Unfortunately, we then let it be wrested away from us by opportunistic parasites, mainly cynical plutocrats of disproportionately Jewish origin, who frantically proceeded to louse it up beyond all recognition.

    Now it’s time to put things right again.

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 17, 2011 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

      eurodele, you’re firing on all cylinders these days. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 17, 2011 - 9:52 pm | Permalink

      In fact, there are no sound moral arguments against eugenics. All such arguments come down to “who will choose?”

      This is very true. I understand the fears of a totalitarian state making these decisions, but the proper response to that fear is to oppose totalitarian states, not the science of eugenics. The truth is, a form of selection goes on all the time, the only question is, will it be done by informed, intelligent women and men, or by half drunk women having the babies of irresponsibly jerks?

      I’m not advocating we get crazy about it, but we need to encourage those that are above average in health and intelligence to have more children than those that are below average.

    • May 17, 2011 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

      I understand the fears of a totalitarian state making these decisions, but the proper response to that fear is to oppose totalitarian states, not the science of eugenics.

      Jason,

      The problem with this statement is that eugenicists so often support giving the state totalitarian powers.

      You saying this would be like saying: “I understand the fears of a totalitarian state putting people in concentration camps, but the proper response to that fear is to oppose totalitarian states, not the Stalinists.”

      To effectively oppose totalitarianism, you have to oppose groups who advocate giving the government totalitarian powers.

      Since eugenicists seem to overwhelmingly put themselves in the camp of those who advocate the idea of giving a government totalitarian powers, obviously sincere opponents of totalitarianism have no choice but to oppose them.

      The truth is, a form of selection goes on all the time, the only question is, will it be done by informed, intelligent women and men, or by half drunk women having the babies of irresponsibly jerks?

      Informing potential parents about the science of heredity is a noble endeavor.

      As for half drunk women having the babies of irresponsible jerks, what exactly do you propose be done about it?

      I do think it’s good that women are sometimes told that it’s a bad idea to drink and drive. In the same way, I think it would be a good idea to tell women it’s a bad idea to drink and have sex.

      I also think single mothers should be cut off from the dole. All letting them get government hand-outs does is make responsible people subsidize the women who decide to go and get impregnated by some irresponsible jerk.

      Another excellent way to lower the number of women impregnated by irresponsible jerks would be to bring back the taboos against premarital sex and out-of-wedlock childbirth.

      It’s the responsible men, generally higher IQ, who are willing to marry a woman before he knocks her up.

      In fact I’d say the West had a nicely eugenic reproductive system until very recently.

      It’s things like Feminism, non-European immigration, and the breakdown of morality which got rid of that system.

      The only way the bring the sytem back is to reverse the effects of Feminism, reverse the effects of non-European immigration, and reverse the breakdown of morality.

      That makes a lot more sense to me than trying to have the government coerce a result from our modern reproductive system which would be fundamentally unnatural to it.

      It would be like trying to get blood from a stone.

      I’m not advocating we get crazy about it, but we need to encourage those that are above average in health and intelligence to have more children than those that are below average.

      I’m all for encouraging smart people to have more children.

      As it is they simply aren’t doing their part for the future of our race and species.

      Partly this is because they’ve been demoralized by having to live in a depressingly amoral and sick society, a society which doesn’t give the more farsighted people much to look forward to.

      But what smart people all too often don’t appreciate is that as long as they have fairly good moral qualities themselves, by having less children they’re only serving to make the future even worse.

    • Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
      May 18, 2011 - 12:51 am | Permalink

      As for half drunk women having the babies of irresponsible jerks, what exactly do you propose be done about it?

      I agree with the proposals you had. And if we could ever talk openly about dysgenics and the role genes play in general, it would be a huge improvement. A lot of women don’t realize that the traits they see in some “sperm donator” are likely to show up in their child.

      Women often believe they can shape the child into anything they want by controlling his environment and giving him enough love. But the truth is, every child has certain inborn traits that will resist the influence of any parent. If women realized that, perhaps it would help.

  40. Edward's Gravatar Edward
    May 17, 2011 - 5:50 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert

    We had better recognize the Jews for the wolves that they really are and act accordingly.But that requires that we become like Jews themselves and consider “the other” not as human.Given our innate sense of “fair play” that is very difficult.

    While it may presently appear that Whites have an innate sense of self-destructive ‘fair play,’ historically that was not the case. Prior to the Jewish/Masonic displacement of the Christian elite, Whites were the most successful people on earth at defending their turf. We could be so again simply by restoring a non-hostile elite.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 17, 2011 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Your last sentence is true enough as far as it goes, friend Edward, but I think you will agree that in today’s America, Britain, or western Europe, it’s something far easier said than done—especially absent violence, which I for one cannot countenance except in defense and in accord with Traditional Catholic principles of proportionality and reasonable expectation of success. (How long, I wonder, will it take our dear colleague Z.O.G. to launch a thousand links in denunciatory riposte to my closing dependent clause?)

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      May 18, 2011 - 7:47 am | Permalink

      I agree it is an hostile (mainly Jewish) elite that manipulates to our own detriment our innate weaknesses (which are actually VIRTUES in their proper context).Theorethically ,when we have removed that hostile elite,our weaknesses should no more bother us and we could regain our place of prominence in the world.But we live now in a globalized world and thus are susceptible to outside manipulation.See for example how the white Rhodesians and South Africans gave in to outside “moral” pressure, leading to their own destruction (Rhodesia) or misery (South Africa).All this due to the innate weakness of the white man to believe in universal morality,”fair play” and the principal equality and brotherhood of all men.Even if we would succeed in shaking off the Jewish joke and removing all non-Whites from our homelands ,there is no guarantee that the next generation will not make the same mistakes all over again.We should know ourselves and know how different other peoples are,what our weaknesses are and how they can be overcome.And of course we need this knowledge now in the struggle with our present tormentors,the Jews.As the Chinese philosopher SUN TZU said:
      ” If you know the enemy AND KNOW YOURSELF you need not fear the results
      of a hundred battles “.

  41. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 5:27 pm | Permalink

    [ I can’t think of a single Government in history I’d trust with that kind of power, and it’s all too likely that it would lead to the kind of scenario outlined by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people have become nothing more than the genetically engineered and docile slaves of The World State. ]

    That is , practically , the situation that we have now .

    • May 17, 2011 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      Also there’s the issue that the word “practically” in your sentence is absolutely crucial.

      The fact that the Government hasn’t yet taken control of human breeding, instead only it influencing indirectly through various policies, explains why a spark of automony is left in some people today.

      It’s because the government’s lacks direct power over people’s reproductive lives that they it hasn’t yet done what every government deep down wants to do: make it so people aren’t just conditioned to obey the government, but built to obey the government down to the level of each cell.

      They’d be no hope of freedom, no hope of revolt, and certainly no hope of survival if the government ever broke down in such a world as that.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 17, 2011 - 6:07 pm | Permalink

      Reginald: I suspect that you are mistaken in reading Mr. Hearns’s “practically” as meaning “almost” or “nearly.” If, as I think, he means “in actual practice” or even “in terms of practice,” would you still hold to your stated position above? Do you genuinely believe that the government’s daily bombardment of “diversity” and miscegenation propaganda isn’t having widespread and disastrous effect, especially in combination with the transformation of the entire public school system and the vast bulk of the private and neocatholic parochial school systems into organs of brainwashing, indoctrination, and thought control? Do you in terms of practical effect dismiss the notion that a transformational conspiracy involving both ends of the nature-nurture model is in operation and is producing results that the Soviet and Nazi systems would retrospectively regard with drooling envy?

    • May 17, 2011 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that you are mistaken in reading Mr. Hearns’s “practically” as meaning “almost” or “nearly.” If, as I think, he means “in actual practice” or even “in terms of practice,” would you still hold to your stated position above?

      Yes.

      Do you genuinely believe that the government’s daily bombardment of “diversity” and miscegenation propaganda isn’t having widespread and disastrous effect, especially in combination with the transformation of the entire public school system and the vast bulk of the private and neocatholic parochial school systems into organs of brainwashing, indoctrination, and thought control?

      I agree the government’s propaganda is having a widespread and disastrous effect.

      Do you in terms of practical effect dismiss the notion that a transformational conspiracy involving both ends of the nature-nurture model is in operation and is producing results that the Soviet and Nazi systems would retrospectively regard with drooling envy?

      Even if the Soviet and Nazi systems would retrospectively regard the current American system with envy, this doesn’t change my point.

      It’s possible for the current American system to be worse than the Soviet or Nazi systems while still being far preferable to the kind of system depicted in the Huxley novel Brave New World.

      Take the example of boys who don’t like staying still in government schools.

      I oppose what our government does in terms of pumping them with drugs, but this is still far better than what the government would do if it had the kinds of tyrannical power over human reproduction people like eurodele want it to have.

      If the government had that kind of power the boys who didn’t stay still in class would be reproductively genocided through government coercion.

      Thus not only would the phenotypic expression of “ADD” be supressed, as in the current system, but infinitely worse the genes leading to the phenotype would be extreminated from the population, thus pushing humanity far closer to being unalterably slavish creatures like the Ants.

      Sometimes people act like Ants, but they currently still have the genetic potential to be more than that.

      For this reason there’s still hope that their descendants could rebel, that their descendants could feel a yearning for freedom, or at least for a less soul crushing system.

      But if the government is allowed to genetically change people into the primate version of Ants, inherently mindless slaves with no potential for anything else, than there’ll be no reason to think anything better could ever come from their descendants.

      It wouldn’t just be the current generation turned into slaves, but all future generations as well.

      That would be far worse.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 17, 2011 - 10:30 pm | Permalink

      Fair enough, Reginald. Point taken. I agree, certainly, that the eurodelean model could produce conditions even worse—perhaps, as you suggest, unimaginably so—than the present pro-dysgenic program.

  42. amspirnationalist's Gravatar amspirnationalist
    May 17, 2011 - 3:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure what Athanasius means by the children of intermarriage “identifying with it (Jewish identity)” above. Only about one-fourth of the progeny of Gentile-Jewish intermarriage in the US have been raised as Jews. Of the three-fourths which haven’t, rather as at least nominal Christians, or without any religious training, no case has been found yet of their own kids identifying as Jews. This is called two generational assimilation, like it or not.

  43. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    May 17, 2011 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Cochran et al. hypothesized that the eugenic pressure was strong enough that mutations creating higher intelligence when inherited from one parent but creating disease when inherited from both parents would still be selected for, which could explain the unusual pattern of genetic diseases found in the Ashkenazi population, such as Tay-Sachs, Canavan disease, Gaucher’s disease, Niemann-Pick disease, Mucolipidosis type IV, and other lipid storage disorders and sphingolipid diseases. As how they might affect intelligence, the authors argue that sphingolipid disorders might promote the growth and interconnection of brain cells and that mutations in the DNA repair genes, another cluster of Ashkenazic diseases, may stimulate the growth of neurons. Some of these diseases (especially torsion dystonia) have been associated with high intelligence. Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence

    All these diseases must make genetic screening far more functional than in non Jews . When consanguineous marriage was common among the Ashkenazim it must have caused a remarkably high incidence of the offspring to be homozygous for the disease alleles. Moreover, this was in addition to inbreeding depression.

  44. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 17, 2011 - 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Thomas Mallon, you’ve chosen to use a rather tricky concept here: “self-evidence”.

    This attribute applies to something that evidences itself, i.e., which can be interpreted as evidence of its own truth. Interpretation requires not just an argument (that which is interpreted), but a theory (that in terms of which the argument is interpreted). Your statement thus implies that the moral status of voluntary breeding functions as both argument and theory in an interpretative mapping. This in turn implies that the moral status of voluntary breeding constitutes its own ethical framework.

    This idea would be very hard to defend, given that voluntary breeding can lead to population crashes and epidemics of disability and genetic disease, especially after prolonged technological interference with natural selection. No one who is sincerely worried about the future of the White race, or for that matter any other race, can possibly insist that such an idea be accepted as a matter of faith, particularly after a prolonged genetic attack of the kind to which White people are even now being subjected.

    There are two ways to pursue eugenics.

    (1) Through a centralized control grid.

    (2) By implanting eugenic principles in the mind of every potential breeder through moral training and educational conditioning, and augmenting this distributed awareness with various kinds of persuasion (this is how the Jews did it).

    There are no other choices. The finitude of this world – and of North America and every other continent – absolutely necessitates some form of population control, and it is inevitably dysgenic to control for quantity without simultaneously controlling for quality. This is easily proven using mathematics; breed a population with a higher mean IQ with a lower-IQ population, and one gets a hybrid population with a lower mean IQ. This means just one thing: falling mean intelligence in the offspring of White people, which is now happening due to deliberate, nonrandom low-IQ contamination of the White-Euro genome.

    Do you have a non-eugenic solution for this problem, other than concentrating a small fraction of Whites together at a massive loss of territory, and cutting loose all the rest, geniuses and nongeniuses alike? This may sound good, but the massive ceding of territory and resources would vastly enrich and empower the enemies of the White race on its very doorstep, and that alone could lead to our eventual extinction … especially if eugenics were not practiced by Whites within their restricted territory, thus to maintain a solid intelligence and technology advantage.

    If your thoughts run along other lines, please feel free to share them.

    • May 17, 2011 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

      eurodele,

      I understand there’s some evidence that in the West high IQ people are being outbred by low IQ people.

      Obviously this issue can’t be addressed in a rational manner unless the root causes are determined.

      Otherwise you might end up proposing all sorts of alienating, unpopular, and morally questionable solutions, when tackling the root causes of the problem would both be far easier, far more popular (at least relatively speaking), and far more morally defensible.

      To me a central root cause of high IQ people being outbred by low IQ people is simply that low IQ people are being paid by the Government to have children.

      Another cause is that Affirmative Action raises the earning power of women, and especially the earning power of high IQ women.

      This increases the monetary opportunity cost high IQ women suffer from when they have children, putting them at even more of a reproductive disadvantage relative to low IQ women through the mechanism of a perverse incentive.

      Also Affirmative Action increases the earning power of non-Whites, helping to subsidize their birthrate.

      There are some other things the Government is doing to harm the reproductive success of high IQ people, and especially the reproductive success of high IQ White people.

      If we got rid of these dysgenic Government policies and it got rid of the problem of high IQ being outbred by low IQ people, then I see no reason why they’d be the slightest need to take the dangerous step of giving the Government the awesome power to breed people like livestock.

      I can’t think of a single Government in history I’d trust with that kind of power, and it’s all too likely that it would lead to the kind of scenario outlined by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people have become nothing more than the genetically engineered and docile slaves of The World State.

      In other words, not even worthy of being called human anymore.

      The finitude of this world – and of North America and every other continent – absolutely necessitates some form of population control

      Our ancestors in Europe didn’t need any centralized state controlling their population.

      They lived, they had children, and if there was ever too many people at any one time for the land to support, they fought to live, and failing that died like men.

      Overpopulation is how natural selection happens, it’s the most natural thing in the World.

      To the extent there’s problems now it isn’t because too many are being allowed to be born, but rather because not enough are being allowed to die.

      Truly natural selection, the type that made both our species and race, has been put on hold because of things like the nanny state and foreign aid.

      Creating a brave new world of no overpopulation would do the exact same thing, only through different means: It would put natural selection on hold.

      Thus would have the same effect as the nanny state of getting rid of the very selective pressure that made us White-Euros in the first place.

    • A. Ronald Benson's Gravatar A. Ronald Benson
      May 18, 2011 - 9:31 pm | Permalink

      Why not double payments to welfare beneficiaries who agree NOT to conceive a child while on welfare? This could make fiscal sense. In Australia, from 1979 to 2006, those on full welfare support went from 5.6 to 10 per cent of the population. From 1996 to 1999, children of welfare recipients were found to be five times more likely to be receiving welfare benefits and were producing four and a half times more children than independent families. See current The Mankind Quarterly Volume L1, No.2.

  45. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    May 17, 2011 - 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Eurodele, I think the truth of what I said (voluntary vs. mandatory breeding) is self-evident and only common sense. Totalitarian fiat (ala Red China!) is no answer, but even worse than the very bad present.

  46. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    May 17, 2011 - 11:50 am | Permalink

    Voluntary breeding decisions is one thing and can be wise. Mandatory eugenics is totalitarian and its proponents need their heads (or hearts!) examined.

    • eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
      May 17, 2011 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

      I appreciate your sentiment. But can you show:

      1. That the only “wise” breeding decisions are voluntary;

      2. That mandatory eugenics is more “totalitarian” than (e.g.) mandatory taxation, driver’s licensing, or reasonable care while operating potentially dangerous machinery;

      or

      3. That the proliferation of debilitating genetic disease, or for that matter very low IQ, is in any way smart or (individually, socially, or racially) compassionate, given that it victimizes those who get saddled with it?

      Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want anybody telling me when or with whom (not) to breed either. But then again, I’m fairly well-disciplined in such matters.

      What about you?

  47. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    May 17, 2011 - 12:41 am | Permalink

    A welfare mom should not be rewarded but to be penalized for having a child .
    The tax system should be set so the middle class get’s a very large tax credit for having kids , large enough where mom can stay home .
    Then , as soon as possible a WN is founded and the vast majority of the social problems are solved instantly .

  48. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    May 16, 2011 - 8:17 pm | Permalink

    There has been some value created by Jewish intellect, as there has been by every group that ever existed. But there are some strange things about the nature of much Jewish intelligence.

    First, I think the issue of intelligence gets emphasized because … well what else are you going to focus on? Jewish beauty? Jewish athletic prowess? Jewish kindness? When you are a one-trick pony, that one trick is all you can talk about. So, I suspect the issue of IQ gets a bit overhyped.

    Second, a lot of Jewish intelligence expresses itself as a kind of useless parlor game. Take the discipline of psychology. The field appears to have been on a productive path toward the end of the 19th century, supported by both American and German psychologist. It was informed by biology and Darwinism. Then, came Freud and the whole field went off into never-never land for several generations.

    Freud and other Jewish psychologists created a dense, complex, challenging, but false system of thought. This lasted until at least the 1960s … so three for four generations were lost. Then, we have another group of largely Jewish intellectuals (Pinker, etc) that come along to help us refute all the Jewish psychology we had been taught. This process has taken a couple of generations.

    So now, over a hundred years later, here we are back where we started! Thousands of Jews charging tens of billions of dollars in psychiatric fees, inflicting guilt on millions of mothers, wasting years of patients’ lives, only to be told – oh sorry that is not true anymore – by another group of highly paid Jewish thinkers.

    It reminds me of the old joke about a spouse . A spouse is a person who helps you solve the problems that you wouldn’t have, if you didn’t have a spouse in the first place. Jewish intellectuals, at their best, usually help us solve problems we wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for other Jewish intellectuals .

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 16, 2011 - 11:36 pm | Permalink

      My gawd, Jason! I agree with your post unreservedly!

      Is the sky going to fall?!?!?!?

      …Right up to the part about “a spouse”, that is…

      My “spouse” is a remarkable human being who willingly fills in the flaws in my type “A” personality. I would be much less effective or successful in my Real World without her input.

      (…”Real World” as opposed to the “Alternate World” we’ve created on the internet, that is…heh heh )

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 16, 2011 - 11:51 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, that’s one of your best posts.

  49. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    May 16, 2011 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    About possible implications for the gene pool, a Connecticut mud shark gets to take his date to the prom after all:

    http://tinyurl.com/637ppjh

    Here’s an even better picture of our wonderful young couple (notice her features):
    http://tinyurl.com/3mfcyrm

    Possible lesson: if we don’t guide our young people in terms of whom to marry, the Jews will be glad to do it for us.

  50. amspirnationalist's Gravatar amspirnationalist
    May 16, 2011 - 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Jewishiness is matrilineal? I don’t believe if one analyses the flux involving ferment regarding intermarriage and re-defining Jewish identity in dominant majority Reform Judaism of the past decades one can apply this methodically anymore.

    • fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
      May 16, 2011 - 11:40 pm | Permalink

      Jewishness is not matrilineal. Jews who have a Gentile mother and Jewish father also see themselves as Jews. A Jew is anyone who self-identifies as a Jew. It’s as simple as that.

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      May 16, 2011 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

      I think they skim from both ends. It’s matrilineal by default–look at the discussion on Bobby Fischer’s wikipedia page. Despite the fact that he vehemently denied being Jewish, they claim him.

      But you are right, most people with any Jewish blood on either side will identify with it.

  51. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 16, 2011 - 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Reginald: Out of all the things there are to get on the case of the Jews for, them allowing carriers of the gene for hemophilia to breed seems a very strange choice. If this indeed was a foible of the Jews, it’s a foible they shared with Europeans.

    Perhaps. But the book being discussed here classifies Jews, and not Europeans, as “eugenicists”. My point is that the kind of “eugenics” practiced by the Jews has never extended to the propagation of desirable physical traits, and even by intellectual criteria has not produced the “master race” that many Jews evidently think they are.

    Reginald: What they did was suspend a specifically Jewish selective pressure against Jewish hemophiliacs, which would only have had the effect of making the Jewish hemophiliacs as reproductively disadvantaged as European hemophiliacs.

    Any “specifically Jewish” selective pressure remains a selective pressure after all. This selective pressure is called “bleeding”. Scholarly Jews who are exempted from the hazards of injurious physical labor (aside from paper cuts), and also exempted from circumcision, are at least partially exempted from the standard selective pressure of bleeding … but not, unfortunately, from breeding. Hence, the Jews have deviated from sound eugenic principles.

    Reginald: Even if a directive came down from the Sanhedrin telling all Jews to forsake other Jews and concentrate on interbreeding with Europeans, the degree to which the European populations of the world would take on Jewish genetic characteristics would be extremely limited.

    Not necessarily. Jews have almost all the real money these days, and that constitutes a generous breeding advantage. Very generous indeed, especially when we limit discussion to the highly desirable White-Euro females who tend to be targeted by divorced Jewish moneymeisters.

    Reginald: Diluting Jewry with Euro genes and close Euro blood relationships could have the positive effect of lessening the fanaticism of the Jewish community’s hostility toward Europeans.

    Jewishness is matrilineal. Jewish males do not have the power to “dilute Jewry”. Only Jewish females have that power.

    Reginald: do you have any evidence that the products of Jewish male/Euro female pairings are financially worse off than the products of Euro male/Jewish female pairings?

    That’s not what I said or what I meant. What I meant was that Jewish ethnic networking on behalf of the offspring of such pairings relies on paternal nepotism and cannot benefit their future descendants.

    Reginald: Seriously, has Ben Stiller had his career suffer in Hollywood because his mother was not Jewish, but instead of Irish descent?

    Ben Stiller looks about as “Irish” as Woody Allen. He’s slightly better looking than Woody, but still obviously Jewish. If he benefits from ethnic networking, it is clearly through the offices of daddy and/or because he’s plainly Jewish in appearance.

    Reginald: You have to understand that just because the word “intelligent” has positive connotations doesn’t mean that a group of intelligent people isn’t going to be a nightmare for everyone they come in contact with.

    Right. But what I’m saying is that “intelligence” is not one of the primary traits responsible for Jewish socio-economic ascendancy. Those traits would be ethnocentrism, tribal loyalty, psychological aggression, and sheer cunning (which is not strictly equivalent to intelligence or IQ). Mildly above-average Ashkenazi intelligence plays a merely supportive role.

    Reginald: Really, it’s thanks to intelligent people (disproportionately Jewish but not entirely by any means) that all those poor civilians were incinerated by a nuclear bomb in Japan.

    That’s for sure. However, as I explained on this board long ago, the groundwork for an understanding of nuclear fission had already been laid by White scientists. The Jews piled into the field strictly because they wanted a weapon to use against their many enemies, real or imagined. Then they used their tribal influence to pressure the United States government into building and using that weapon.

    Reginald: It’s thanks to intelligent people (disproportionately Jewish but not entirely by any means) that the continued existence of the European genetic cluster is threatened by sophisticated media/propaganda campaigns encouraging race mixing and liberal attitudes toward immigration.

    On the contrary, it was Jewish pressure that made the difference in changing US immigration law to our everlasting disadvantage and laying bare the White genome to rampant low-IQ contamination. Sure, the Jewish lobby had help from treasonous garbage like Teddy Kennedy, but “immigration reform” was a kosher imperative from day one.

    Reginald: For one thing, I doubt that everything the Jews have done can be explained by a combination of ethnocentrism, street smarts and ethnic networking.

    Doubt it all you want to. But in the social, political, and economic spheres, Jewish intelligence has played a merely supportive role. The driving force has been provided by ethnic cohesion, entitlement, aggression, and undying race hatred of non-Jews.

    Reginald: What about [the] impressive per capita achievements [of Jews] in the hard sciences?

    This is almost entirely due to the systematic Jewish displacement of Whites from academia. Even Einstein was open to accusations that he stole his ideas from scientists of White Euro descent. In any case, White men would surely have found the theory of relativity in short order had Einstein failed to take credit for it. After all, Whites built Western science from the ground up with only negligible Jewish participation.

    Reginald: The fact that we are little the richer for all of this alleged Jewish brainpower is no argument against its existence.

    Sure it is, when much of the evidence cited for it is the supposed value of alleged Jewish intellectual contributions to modern society.

    Look, nobody here is denying that Ashkenazi Jews have a (slightly) above-average IQ. But they’re not significant contributors to our intellectual or technological wealth, and should not be regarded as “more intelligent” than Whites. Our most valuable geniuses in virtually every field of intellectual endeavor have been genetically European, and rabid inbreeding and Talmudic eugenics were unnecessary to make that happen.

    (Unfortunately, being the victims of protracted genetic attack, we may now require some amount of careful eugenic manipulation to repair the damage.)

  52. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    May 16, 2011 - 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Sorry,that should be: hypocrISy , not hypocrACy.Perhaps the unconscious influence of the word democrACy.I made the same mistake in the first comment.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      May 17, 2011 - 5:44 pm | Permalink

      Were there an actual word hypocracy, it would mean “rule by underlings,” just as democracy means “rule by the mob.”

      Since no true democracy has ever existed—as classical political philosophers were once at pains to point out even as they justly denounced any and all “democratic” tendencies—least of all in the United States, in practical, commonsensical American terms there ain’t an inflated dime’s worth of difference between the two terms, since the only apt term for our present form of governance is Judaeocracy. In theoretical terms, however, hypocracy is a lot closer to the mark than democracy, unless one believes the Tribal propaganda that they are the goyim’s moral and intellectual superiors.

  53. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    May 16, 2011 - 3:50 pm | Permalink

    A bit of a tanget based on what Michael Santomauro said – I often wonder about jewish influence in academics, specifically the area of science, and how it influences us psychologically, often in ways we aren‘t aware of. Science and technology have such a profound impact on everyone’s life in modern times, and it seems to me that some elements of
    the language and mindset of science have filtered down to most of us who are laymen. Those of us who aren’t scientists often try to talk and act or even think like scientists, to one degree or another, even if we‘re salesmen or accountants or factory workers. We seem to be giving tribute to the most highly valued thinkers of our time through some sort of weird mimicry. Talking scientifically is seen as intelligent, and
    “elevates” us above our current station, so we give it a try. (It’s a bit like when poor people used to wear gaudy clothes because they couldn’t afford fancy clothes…like rich people. )

    What’s my point? Scientists like Stephen Gould or Jared Diamond go on TV (or write books for pop culture) and indoctrinate the masses on how to think “scientifically” (through example.) This usually involves disposing of everything anecdotal in your experience. A good scientist NEVER trusts outward appearances…a good scientist never trusts personal experience…in science, things are NEVER as they seem to be…you can’t trust your eyes or ears or your sense of smell, you can ONLY trust “data“, especially in social/racial/ethnic matters.

    Think about it…even today, it’s not all that uncommon to talk anecdotally with family, friends or neighbors about how rotten black neighborhoods are or how rude and pushy and greedy some east coast jews are. But outside those circles, forget it…you have no “proof” such things exist. You haven’t “surveyed” a large enough population to come up with an “informed” opinion. Anecdotes are a no no, a sin in the religion of science.

    At the risk of trying to sound scientific (I’m not) anthropologist Clifford Geertz contrasted the scientific from the “commonsensical” . With the commonsensical, things are accepted as being what they seem to be. I think it’s safe to say that a good many scientists view common sense with contempt, as well as PEOPLE with common sense. But people’s common sense can be overcome…by appealing to their “scientific” side.
    And agendas can be fulfilled…and intelligent people can be made to do things that aren’t in their best self-interest.

    • Blue Devil's Gravatar Blue Devil
      May 16, 2011 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

      Geertz has had an impact in History circles as well. Talk about empty vessels, whatever, Geertz, Foucault, or Said espoused, as went the History department. Although I do like the advent of the “thick description.”LOL

  54. Blue Devil's Gravatar Blue Devil
    May 16, 2011 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Just saw an espn special on ice hockey great, Bobby Hull. Anyways he got into big trouble over saying Eugenics is a great idea and Hitler was on to something, although Hitler went overboard in the end. So the tribe media destroys him over it when they are the ORIGINAL proponents of Eugenics. Geez the stinch of their hypocrisy must be choking the angels in heaven by this point.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      May 16, 2011 - 3:48 pm | Permalink

      I repeat: Hypocracy thy name is Jew!

  55. May 16, 2011 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish. Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is “nothing more than a screen to present chosen views.” The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually “think outside of the (Jewish) box.”

    What happened to Oliver Stone is a good case study. The Wall Street Journal reported last summer that Stone said that “public opinion was focused on the Holocaust because of ‘Jewish domination of the media.’” Stone also said that the Jews “stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—– up United States foreign policy for years.”

    Like so many others before him, Stone groveled: “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”

    Joe Sobran who died last year had this to say about Jewish media power:

    “Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.”

    In 1996, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote:

    “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.”

    Peace.
    Michael Santomauro
    ReporterNotebook@gmail.com

    PS: An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 17, 2011 - 9:55 pm | Permalink

      You have absolutely NO REASON to define what an antisemite is so that your enemies can use your discomfiture to push you off balance with gratuitous slanders and slurs.

      Let them lift their own bales of cotton.

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 17, 2011 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

      Forgive my bad manners in my previous post. I was trying to talk to Michael Santomauro, but in my impatient haste I forgot to add his name and the following paragraph to my original rant.

      Michael, you have no need to explain yourself. You’re not thinking thoughts that need to be apologized for or muttered away…

      (Back to NOW)

      Nothing frustrates me more than the ridiculous tip-toeing-around-on-eggshells Jews have forced on the rest of us when we’re finally forced by circumstances to publicly acknowledge their malign influence on the lives of the majority of Everyday, Oblivious, Self-satisfied, Selfish, Media-Polluted American citizens who are the “Ignorant Allies in the Zionist Jews’ War Against Protestantism”.

      Cloaked Jews co-opted the Catholic Church heirarchy centuries ago and with their leaders went the largest proportion of their flock, so it appears the only white people still willing to stand up against the obvious malign influence of Jews appear to be Protestant…or Russian Orthodox…or…or…somebody else must know more than me about who opposes them, surely! Who else?

      Can anyone point to another demographic resisting the Powers of Satan?

  56. DeadinDenver's Gravatar DeadinDenver
    May 16, 2011 - 12:05 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to see more research on secular Jewish intermarriage in the west. My own speculation is there not doing in the Jewish race per say, but creating a new secular form of Crypto-Jew. Recent research shows a genetic predisposition for political views. Studies are indicating that social sensitivity Alleles that contribute to cultural norms. The indications may signal that east Asians may genetically lean towards collectivism and Caucasians more towards individualism. Of course there is always outliers but I believe the Ashkenazi also have a predisposition towards collectivism. My anecdotal observations show secular Jewish intermarriage tends to be with Whites and lately Asians that seemly share similar higher IQ’s but also similar political views. The Whites they tend to marry are likely the 30 to 40% of Caucasians that don’t have the individual leaning Alleles. Even though they may not be producing Children beyond replacement rate, I’d say it’s unlikely there children they do have, will differ in there political views and attitudes towards individualistic Whites. In other words the anti White beliefs will continue.

  57. May 16, 2011 - 11:19 am | Permalink

    For example, ancient rabbis, observing that the sons of certain mothers all bled to death on circumcision, did not prevent the mothers from breeding.

    eurodele,

    A lot of European women with genes for hemophilia were allowed to breed as well.

    For example Princess Alice of the United Kingdom produced the hemophiliac child Prince Friedrich in 1873, but was still allowed to have two children after him.

    These children included a girl who would become Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia, whose son Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich famously suffered from hemophilia himself.

    Out of all the things there are to get on the case of the Jews for, them allowing carriers of the gene for hemophilia to breed seems a very strange choice.

    If this indeed was a foible of the Jews, it’s a foible they shared with Europeans.

    They did the opposite, encouraging the mothers to breed by awarding their offspring special exemption from circumcision.

    So you’re saying that if Rabbis thought circumcising a baby boy would cause it to bleed to death, they refrained from circumcising that baby boy?

    Perhaps in the long term this stopped the Jews from getting yet another leg up on Europeans, by making it so the Jew would have less hemophilia than the soft-hearted Europeans who never would’ve forced circumcision on a baby at the expense of its life, but so what?

    If anything this story makes Jews look better, more humane and less obsessed with gaining an advantage over gentiles at any cost, than they’re sometimes depicted as being.

    Having deduced the rules of hemophilia, they quickly proceeded to suspend selective pressure on Jewish hemophiliacs!

    I don’t see how they did that.

    What they did was suspend a specifically Jewish selective pressure against Jewish hemophiliacs, which would only have had the effect of making the Jewish hemophiliacs as reproductively disadvantaged as European hemophiliacs.

    Secondly, when male Jews tire of the straight and narrow, divorce their yentas, and use their ethnic-networking money to purchase and impregnate attractive shiksas to wear on their lapels, the White Euro ethnotype is forever thereafter saddled with bad genes

    Even Ashkenazi Jews with four Jewish grandparents clearly have significant European genetic admixture. This indicates that some of the mixing, at least at some points in history, between Jews and Euros did not led to Jewish genes entering the Euro gene pool.

    Also it should be noted that the introgression of Jewish genes into non-Jewish populations is bounded by Jews being a small minority of every country on Earth other than Israel.

    Even if a directive came down from the Sanhedrin telling all Jews to forsake other Jews and concentrate on interbreeding with Europeans, the degree to which the European populations of the world would take on Jewish genetic characteristics would be extremely limited.

    At the same time it is possible that Jewish-Euro breeding tends to produce children who identify more with the perceived interests of Jewry and less with the interests of Euros.

    Since the perceived interests of Jewry so often seem to conflict with the actual interests of Euros, this could be a serious negative.

    Still, as a man named Andrew who used to comment here pointed out, diluting Jewry with Euro genes and close Euro blood relationships could have the positive effect of lessening the fanaticism of the Jewish community’s hostility toward Europeans.

    This is no small consideration.

    Given the strict matrilineality of Jewish tribal entitlement, these genetic liabilities come without compensation in the form of lasting economic advantage.

    Do you have evidence for that?

    By which I mean, do you have any evidence that the products of Jewish male/Euro female pairings are financially worse off than the products of Euro male/Jewish female pairings?

    It seems to me that a lot of Jewish people are ethnocentric (to some extent) toward people even if they just have a Jewish father.

    Obviously the Talmud says differently, but when it comes to the world of non-Orthodox Jews I just don’t see Jewish tribal entitlement exhibiting any great matrilineality to it.

    Seriously, has Ben Stiller had his career suffer in Hollywood because his mother was not Jewish, but instead of Irish descent?

    Last but not least, take a good long look at the supposed cultural riches of Jewish brainpower.

    Overall it’s done much more harm than good.

    You have to understand that just because the word “intelligent” has positive connotations doesn’t mean that a group of intelligent people isn’t going to be a nightmare for everyone they come in contact with.

    Really, it’s thanks to intelligent people (disproportionately Jewish but not entirely by any means) that all those poor civilians were incinerated by a nuclear bomb in Japan.

    It’s thanks to intelligent people (disproportionately Jewish but not entirely by any means) that the continued existence of the European genetic cluster is threatened by the possibility of gene manipulation techniques.

    It’s thanks to intelligent people (disproportionately Jewish but not entirely by any means) that the continued existence of the European genetic cluster is threatened by sophisticated media/propaganda campaigns encouraging race mixing and liberal attitudes toward immigration.

    Etc.

    Obviously, we are little the richer for all of this alleged “Jewish brainpower”. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which, of course, raises the following question: given that everything the Jews have done can be explained by a combination of ethnocentrism, street smarts and ethnic networking, why should we pretend that it exists at all?

    For one thing, I doubt that everything the Jews have done can be explained by a combination of ethnocentrism, street smarts and ethnic networking.

    What about their impressive per capita achievements in the hard sciences?

    Or do you think that Jews conspired to make time slow down relative to speed just the way Einstein predicted as part of a remarkable case of ethnic networking?

    I think Ashkenazi Jewish brainpower has been overstated by many people, for example the absolutely execrable Michael Levin, but I still think there’s some reality to it.

    The fact that we are little the richer for all of this alleged Jewish brainpower is no argument against it’s existence.

    People can be both smart and evil at the same time.

    So if that combination applies to the typical Ashkenazi Jews, it’s easy as pie to see why we’re little the richer for their brainpower.

    Also there’s the issue that sometimes evil and harm comes from the actions of smart people even when they have good motives.

    An excellent example of this is the inventor Philo T. Farnsworth.

    He wasn’t trying to harm anyone when he used his giant brain to invent television, but can anyone deny the incredible harm Philo did both to his countrymen and co-racialists?

    Television has greatly undermined the ability of the general public to think logically, among other baneful effects.

  58. Tom Brown's Gravatar Tom Brown
    May 16, 2011 - 10:46 am | Permalink

    Dominique Strauss-Kahn was simply trying to enhance the non-Jewish gene pool. The maid should have been complimented by his amorous endeavour.

    • Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
      May 17, 2011 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

      Why would she want to dilute her race with the mongrel DSK? She works for a living and has self-control, which is more than can be said for Strauss-Kahn.

  59. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 16, 2011 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    saline

    “You have to look at the world the way it is, then accept that it’s the way it is for a reason.”

    Yes.

    White people are less naturally ethno-centric than other ethnic groups. Ths automatically makes them more ideal-centric. Everyone else is the opposite with Jews the worst – partly as a result of becoming adapted to White people over 2000 years.

    That’s all it is.

    White people need to adapt to this biological reality.

    .

    • Blue Devil's Gravatar Blue Devil
      May 16, 2011 - 12:19 pm | Permalink

      Great article Kevin. I’ve read Glad and understand that he is piously spreading the word to our elected officials. I think the time of total marxist-tribe protection in the public sphere is nearing an end. Breitbart’s book is ostensibly quintessential in understanding this new trend as he deconstructs the entire history of American marxism while quickly stating that these marxists were all Jews. Unbelievable to have a jew call out all other jews in some throwback to Michael Savage. Evidence posits that the sons and daughters of critical theory have grown up Americanized and although they still support Israel before the United States, see their ilks wanton attacks on white Americans as “overkill.” Thereby, they hijack the tea party movement in a Gramscian attempt to mimic the organic revolutionary swells of white non-jews. The end goal is to frame the majority sentiment in a pro-Israel, pro-conservative movement. I say we let them bring the movement to prominence and then dispose of their leadership accordingly. LOL

  60. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 16, 2011 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    No doubt about it, the Jews have long practiced intellectual eugenics. But it is too seldom noticed that there is a “ceiling effect” associated with intellectual eugenics based on Talmudic scholarship: as there is a level of intelligence above which the Talmud appears for the religion-cloaked scam that it is, the most intelligent Jews have been reproductively disadvantaged right along with those who can’t read.

    At the same time, the Jews have long embraced various physically dysgenic practices. For example, ancient rabbis, observing that the sons of certain mothers all bled to death on circumcision, did not prevent the mothers from breeding. They did the opposite, encouraging the mothers to breed by awarding their offspring special exemption from circumcision. Having deduced the rules of hemophilia, they quickly proceeded to suspend selective pressure on Jewish hemophiliacs! In matters of reproduction, it was strictly quantity over quality.

    This is why the Jews are a genetic disaster for the Northern Europeans whose societies they have infested.

    First, they encourage dysgenic breeding among northern Europeans. Under the cynical tutelage of the Jewish-dominated film, television, and music industries, hundreds of thousands of impressionable young White girls have caught jungle fever watching MTV or listening to hip-hop or watching their actress heroines pass over the pick of White manhood in order to publicly cavort with “strong black males”, and then gotten themselves fashionably impregnated by blacks.

    Secondly, when male Jews tire of the straight and narrow, divorce their yentas, and use their ethnic-networking money to purchase and impregnate attractive shiksas to wear on their lapels, the White Euro ethnotype is forever thereafter saddled with bad genes coding for nasal protrusion, congenital sickliness, susceptibility to neurosis, physical weakness and delicacy, ungainliness, and a conspicuous lack of muscularity and athleticism. Given the strict matrilineality of Jewish tribal entitlement, these genetic liabilities come without compensation in the form of lasting economic advantage.

    Last but not least, take a good long look at the supposed cultural riches of Jewish brainpower. Does the Culture of Critique really qualify as intellectual enrichment? How about Talmudic wrangling, Jewish lobbying, and ADL-SPLC-style witch hunting for “anti-Semites”? Well then, how about the never-ending string of Jewish financial scams to which we have been mercilessly subjected, from medieval usury to the fraudulent Rothschild conquest over the English stock market, to the spectacular Federal Reserve/IRS con job of 1913, to the endless depredations of hundreds of Abe Madoffs, to the illicit trillions in no-tell bailouts for international Jewish banksters, to the recent crashing of the silver market by the JP Morgan/Rothschild-owned Comex through a transparent series of self-dealing margin hikes?

    What of the Holocaust industry – does anyone find that especially edifying? Does the quality of predominantly Jewish scholarship in modern universities really compare to that which preceded it up to the mid-20th century? Have Jewish scholars really brought the world anything that was simply beyond the reach of scholars of White European heritage?

    Obviously, we are little the richer for all of this alleged “Jewish brainpower”. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which, of course, raises the following question: given that everything the Jews have done can be explained by a combination of ethnocentrism, street smarts and ethnic networking, why should we pretend that it exists at all?

    • arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
      May 16, 2011 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

      “Obviously, we are little the richer for all of this alleged “Jewish brainpower”. Quite the opposite, in fact. Which, of course, raises the following question: given that everything the Jews have done can be explained by a combination of ethnocentrism, street smarts and ethnic networking, why should we pretend that it exists at all?”

      eurodele, I’m strongly in your corner on this subject. In my extensive experiences dealing with Jews both professionally and personally I have yet to discover a single truly original thinker. NOT ONE!

      All the Jews I have known have been better-than-average STUDENTS of their professions but NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has ever excelled in the ways that only the truly gifted often can and do. It has always been their well-coordinated, if undeserved, INFLUENCE over events and organizations because of their Jewishness that has led to their material success and not their supposed superior intellects. It has been my experience that when a Jew needs something really creative done, he hires someone from outside the tribe, and then unashamedly steals the credit for their hireling’s ingenuity and creativity at the first opportunity.

      I believe their undeserved reputation for superior intelligence comes more from their never-ending tribal self-promotion and their penchant for deliberately ignoring the accomplishments of their betters, (at least until they can abscond with the credit for those accomplishments as I mentioned above), than it does from any real evidence of innate intellectual superiority.

      We would do better rid of their supposed “contributions” to our society. Imagine the music that has been written but remains unheard because the person choosing what gets performed or recorded is a Jew. Think of the brilliant books that would have remained unpublished if it had been up to a Jew to publish them! Think of the laws of the land that would never have been written if a Jew was the one assigned to approve them. And then think of the laws, books and music they endlessly flog now that they do do all the choosing!

      …Think of the movies we could make if Jews didn’t control the ways and means of distribution…

      I’m not suggesting for a minute that we ignore the contributions Jews have made in their chosen professions. What I am suggesting is that there must surely be a torrent of even more brilliant work that remains ignored or unrecognized because the creators of that even more brilliant work are not Jews writing with a Jewish sensibility, attuned to Jewish prejudices.

      Think about how much more developed our societies would be if we were allowed to sample the Best of the Best instead only the best the Jews have to offer, much of which is third rate crap held up as brilliant ONLY by the fraudulent oohs and ahhhs emanating from the well-organized Jewish Mutual Admiration Society.

      Think about it…

    • eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
      May 17, 2011 - 10:51 am | Permalink

      Precisely, art. The grand illusion of Jewish intellectual superiority has been achieved almost entirely by the nepotistic displacement of Whites from positions they were able to fill quite admirably before Jewish ethnic networking came to town. By 1687, White Europeans had classical mechanics; by the mid 1920’s, we had quantum mechanics; by 1969, we had put a man on the moon. Had we been left to our own devices, we might by now be vacationing on Mars, mining the asteroid belt, and living to an average age of 150. But instead, here in 2011, we miraculously find our culture in catastrophic decline, our economy crashing like a slow-motion train wreck, and are drowning in a toxic sea of diversity, multiculturalism, and “social justice”. Virtually everything we have accomplished is being undone overnight.

      Yet, as our inexplicable undoing has progressed, the fortunes of certain likely suspects have risen like skyrockets. They have done nothing to improve things for us … nothing at all. Yet strangely, they are running our countries, our media, our banks, and our universities, and they are running us right into the cold dry dirt like rusty shovels. They yammer; they threaten; they hondel; they pull strings like manic spiders; they shuffle stacks of funny money like Vegas card sharps; they turn our colleges and universities into international transfer stations for everything of value we’ve discovered or invented … and then, having sucked us all but dry, they publicly congratulate each other and make movies of themselves being “victimized” by us!

      I suppose one might say there’s a kind of genius in all of that. But it’s not constructive, and it’s not sustainable. And if it’s neither of those things, then it’s not really genius at all, is it? We were far better off with our own geniuses, and would be still. But God help them and us, for they can no longer get a word in edgewise or a job more influential than night-managing a Burger King. To be chosen for anything more, one has to be either chosen, or chosen by the chosen. And that’s a situation we’d never have chosen for ourselves.

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      May 17, 2011 - 2:21 pm | Permalink

      Well said ArthurDecco. I think the same line of reasoning can be used when opposing affirmative action. Advocates for the practice say, “Think of all that talent that is unused. Allowing (insert your favorite group here) to also lead will enrich us all.” The problem is that the white men displaced, who earned their place through merit, may have produced more and better, but were shunted aside.

  61. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    May 16, 2011 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    Jewish hatred towards non-Jewish population comes from Jewish scriptures, especially Talmud. However, Zionist Jews and their Evangelist-poodles have expanded this hatred toward everyone who criticizes Zionist-regime’s Zionazi policies – even the Jews. So, it has now broken the old ‘Jewish race’ boundary.

    The justification of Anti-Semitism is a cardinal theme in Theodor Herzl’s book The Jewish State. Herzl poses the question asked by all anti-Zionists: “Will not Zionism provide weapons for the anti-Semites?” He answers: “How so? Because I admit the truth? Because I do not maintain that there are none but excellent men among us.” Then Patai quotes Herzl’s Diaries: “They (Goyim) could not have let themselves be subjected by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce”. However, Zionists have proven Herzl to be wrong. The Jews now do control all those three sectors of the Western world plus the world media…….

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/anti-semitic-roots-of-zionism/

  62. saline's Gravatar saline
    May 16, 2011 - 6:48 am | Permalink

    @wandrin,

    You have to look at the world the way it is, then accept that it’s the way it is for a reason. Your “ifs” are meaningless. “If the population is homogenous White.” Give me a break. You’ve had Jews creeping into your societies for more than two thousand years now, showing that something in your societies has been flawed from the get-go. Even when the gang wasn’t there, you were enslaving each other, selling Celts or Slavs to muzzies, using terrible dysgenics, and wiping each other out over which way to worship Jebu properly. We all must look ourselves in the face. Stop the rah rah and come down to earth. If something has a weakness to internal assault, then it most likely will be assaulted. That’s the way of the world, it’s the way of every organism in an ecosystem. Your “that’s all it is” is a pretty big “that’s all”.

    @wandrin,

    “Dual-strategy as a political phrase gets the idea across better imo.” Agreed. But let’s not be confused among ourselves. Like I’ve said to KMac before, wolves not touching other wolves but bringing down elk to survive isn’t a “dual-strategy”. It just is. So many people here wish the wolf weren’t a wolf and complain that he acts like a wolf to them but not a wolf to other wolves. “Look what the wolf did to the elk today! He never does that to other wolves!” It gets so tiresome, and it’s bizarre how many centuries it’s gone on among Europeans.

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 16, 2011 - 7:10 am | Permalink

      Jews have been considered wolves throughout European history. Only since the “Enlightenment” has this position become taboo. You are right it is absurd to expect moral equivalency from the Jews.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      May 17, 2011 - 1:13 am | Permalink

      What we are talking about here is the difference between INTER-species morality and INTRA-species morality.We accept a dual-strategy morality if it is inter-species (wolves eat elks),but condemn a dual-strategy morality if it is intra-species (wolves eat wolves).That is why We condemn the Jewish dual-strategy morality towards us (Jews “eat”-i.e. ruthlessly exploit-Gentiles). For Jews however it is all consistent because they consider us to be of a different species.In several passages of the Talmud it is stated that we Gentiles are not human but animals.We may look human but that is only for the convenience of the Jews to better serve them.On this idea is their whole morality based: be be good,honest and helpful to your fellow Jews,but cheat, rob and kill Gentiles.Appeals to “fair play” fall as much on deaf ears of them as such appeals of elks to wolves.We had better recognize the Jews for the wolves that they really are and act accordingly.But that requires that we become like Jews themselves and consider “the other” not as human.Given our innate sense of “fair play” that is very difficult.

  63. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    May 15, 2011 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

    The reason that Jews have been prime beneficiaries of eugenic practices – is due to their control over western mainstream media and the gullible Christian majority who follows the biblical interpretation of Jews being ‘God’s Chosen People’. The Jewish money has never found any problem in finding the Christian ‘sell-outs’.

    I call ‘victimization’ as the most dangerous Jewish arsenal.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/victimization-the-israeli-wmd/

    • Edward's Gravatar Edward
      May 16, 2011 - 6:40 am | Permalink

      Traditional Christianity does not hold Jews in the New Testament era to be ‘God’s Chosen People,’ but rather deicides. “Christian” Zionist worship of Jews is only 150 years old, promoted through the dispensationalist Scofield Reference Bible and the infiltration of Free Masons into church leadership. The heads of American Protestant seminaries served as consultants and received a percentage for every Scofield Bible sold. The primary author of the Catholic New Mass (post 1960’s) was subsequently exposed as a Free Mason.

  64. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    May 15, 2011 - 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Typo alert: “racial haterd of the Jew”.

  65. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 15, 2011 - 9:47 pm | Permalink

    saline,

    “Interestingly, Germany, with no apparent eugenics program, produced a people who, over the centuries, trumped the Jews in every single field”

    “That’s what you guys still demand from the Jews. Even here, on this type of site, it’s your “white” universalism at workM/b>, thinking the never-ending struggle should be all “fair play” and “even”, blabetty blab blab”

    The White way is vastly more efficient if the population are homogenous White. It has a weakness to INTERNAL assault from a clannish population. That’s all it is.

    .
    “Please, conqueror, can’t you just let us smelt metal in peace?”

    What conquerors? White people have been winning EXTERNAL conflicts with the clannish latitudes for thousands of years. It’s when we conquer their terriotory or allow them into ours that our weakness to INTERNAL conflict with clannish populations shows up.

    .
    “Really, KMac, this site should stop going on about the healthy aspects of Jewry and start physically bringing together like thinkers and form a new ethnic group. ”

    There is nothing healthy about Jewry as will be shown beyond doubt over the next 20 years – although in a way it’s partly our fault because the way we are makes them worse.

    .

  66. Insanity's Gravatar Insanity
    May 15, 2011 - 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Jew Talk (see Julian Lee song by same name):

    “We want diversity everywhere. Except in Israel and Jewish neighborhoods and communities.”

    “Race doesn’t exist. But Jews can only marry other Jews.”

    “You can’t judge a race by a few bad apples. But all Whites are guilty of slavery, racism, and are practically/potentially Nazis.”

    “Africa for Africans, Israel for Jews, White countries for everybody.”

    “Jewish lobby, Jewish scholarship, Jewish club, Jewish camp: beautiful pride in a precious people. Anything associated with being White or European: NAZIS!!!!”

    “Researching the Third Reich: scholarship. Researching the Holocaust: holocaust denial, evidence to be used to send you to prison or get you fired.”

    “Deaths of Jews during WWII: Holocaust. Deaths of 50 million other people in WWII: who? what? Deaths of 30 million White Russians at the hands of Jewish commissars: that’s anti-Semitic.”

  67. Insanity's Gravatar Insanity
    May 15, 2011 - 9:29 pm | Permalink

    There is a group who sits in a building every Saturday and learns about how they are completely innocent, have never done anything wrong to anyone else, how they are the only humans on Earth, and how every other group except for them is evil and to blame for any criticism of their own group.

    That’s the definition of insanity. That’s a group you want to monitor and put in a soft-walled room. That’s the Jews!

    If you can find me a Jew who admits to the Jewish Russian genocide (30 million+) or the Jewish Ukrainian Holodomor (3 million or so) or various genocides that Jews brag about in their “holy books” I’ll be amazed. There are some, but they can fit in a small room.

    Jewish eugenics exists mostly for the same reasons Jews change their name from “Schwartz” to “Soros” or “Rothstein” to “Redstone.” The same reason a thief wears a mask! Jews look like us, sometimes, but we Whites do not look like Jews! Some Jews look White from selective outbreeding. It’s hard to spot Jews unless they have characteristic sloping forehead, hook nose, greasy hair, beady eyes, and Asiatic eyes.

    Jews practice eugenics. EVERY group practices eugenics to some degree. But Jews want to demonize eugenics and say race doesn’t exist. Look up Franz Boas and “Ashley Montagu” (real name something very Jewish)– they ruined anthropology by claiming race is a social construct. That way, there’s no way for Whites to want their children to marry Whites.

    Whites are waking up. It is OK, it is healthy, it is natural, it is virtuous to want your White children and White friends to marry and procreate with other Whites to have White children.

    It is pure evil to force dysgenics and try to get Whites to procreate themselves out of existence with Negroes, Asians, mestizos, or anybody else who is not White.

    Stay right, be White!

    • Black_Rose's Gravatar Black_Rose
      May 16, 2011 - 3:13 am | Permalink

      Don’t forget Weinstein to Kasparov. Never would’ve guessed that Garry is a Jew.

  68. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 15, 2011 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    “The Holocaust remains and must remain for me … the central event of modern German culture, the event toward which every text, every moment in German history and, yes, culture, moved inexorably”

    I expect, believing as he no doubt does in fairness and balance and moral reciprocity, that Mr Glad and Mr Gilman accepts the right of the descendents of the 30 million murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks to feel the same way about Jews and also accepts the obvious fact that Fascist parties came to power in Europe in the 1930s as a direct reaction to the Bolshevik holocaust and the fear it induced of Bolsheviks coming to power.

    .

  69. john hearns's Gravatar john hearns
    May 15, 2011 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    [ Maurice Fishberg writing in 1917 claimed that in traditional Jewish society “wealthy persons and scholars were little concerned with the physical appearance of their future sons-in-law. Intellectual abilities were the main thing. If a bridegroom was a significant, promising scholar, even a physical defect was ignored” ]

    ” But daddy nooooo ! he has the face of a wart hog ! I shall surely barf !! “

  70. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 15, 2011 - 9:09 pm | Permalink

    “In the end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect ofthe ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.”

    I’d say that is the most likely explanation. It’s similar to education – get to the top then pull the ladder up.

    .
    “BTW, first poster, there’s no “dual-strategy”. There’s just strategy.”

    Dual-strategy as a political phrase gets the idea across better imo.

    .

  71. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    May 15, 2011 - 8:55 pm | Permalink

    What Jews who act as if they detest European, White culture need to ask themselves is why they have insisted on living among such hosts. That is a matter I have not seen Jews address.

    • Richard Earley's Gravatar Richard Earley
      May 15, 2011 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

      According to a 1995 interview by Leonard Lieberman, Andrew Lyons and Hariet Lyons in Current Anthropology, Montagu was born in London’s East End to Jewish parents as Israel Ehrenberg. He later changed his name to “Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu” and went by “Ashley Montagu” after moving to the United States.

      Ehrenburg did seem somewhat fastidious in choosing a new name. He seemed to have shown no shame or remorse in his desire to invoke the English upper class.

    • Blue Devil's Gravatar Blue Devil
      May 16, 2011 - 1:18 pm | Permalink

      Awesome concept Philip- I wonder what they would do if met with 10,000 white protestors carrying signs with that question written on it. We are the majority and when we wake up, oh my.

  72. fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
    May 15, 2011 - 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Glad’s opinion that the Jewish race is a social construct could be an immensely powerful tool. The most damaging thing Jewish intellectuals did to westerners was delegitimize their racial identity. We should do the same to them. For strategic purposes, portraying Judaism as racial supremacism with no basis in genetics would be far more potent and damaging than portraying them as a unified race and religion.

    Think about it: if we attack them for being a tightly-knit race then we ourselves appear racist. If, however, we attack them on ideological grounds by saying that there is no such thing as “Jewishness” and that they should shed their racist identity, we could actually probably get a lot of allies in the world on our side, since “anti-racism” is the reigning orthodoxy. If Jews refuse to reject Judaism then there’s a good chance the the public will wake up to their hypocrisy. This is all about strategy and appealing to the public.

    Another thing: many Jews do in fact marry outside the tribe. They make sure the kids are raised Jewish but biologically speaking they are only half Jewish. So there is a HUGE social component to “Jewishness” that outweighs the biological reality. How many people in Israel are three-fourths European, and only go under the moniker “Jew?” The term “tribe” really is more descriptive and accurate than “race.”

    • saline's Gravatar saline
      May 16, 2011 - 6:31 am | Permalink

      @ fender_strat

      You and I agree on so many things (under my various names here) it’s criminal. How old are you?

    • Blue Devil's Gravatar Blue Devil
      May 16, 2011 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

      Fender nice analysis. I like that you’re thinking in terms of activism as I believe this to be the key in subverting the dominant “tribe” paradigm. It only seems natural that action should follow enlightenment. Once the facts change, opinions should change also.

      “Think about it: if we attack them for being a tightly-knit race then we ourselves appear racist. If, however, we attack them on ideological grounds by saying that there is no such thing as “Jewishness” and that they should shed their racist identity, we could actually probably get a lot of allies in the world on our side, since “anti-racism” is the reigning orthodoxy.”
      I have two items I want to highlight.
      Firstly, your use of “we” assumes that we have “white organizations” packed with civil rights lawyers for our cause or even marginal control over white media hubs such as fox news. We need to first organize white people and protect their cause via the creation of equivalents to Aipac, SPLC, ACLU etc etc.. in order to create a cohesive “WE” that can actually pump fear into those who shamelessly debase white people in the media as well as academia. We have the right to protect our ethnic interests. I believe Professor MacDonald’s only recourse against the SPLC was to match fire with fire and threaten legal action to any potential saboteurs.
      Secondly, the “reigning orthodoxy” is not the orthodoxy of people of color. This orthodoxy only works against white people as every person of color is allowed to vigorously celebrate their ethnic identity. So a white person arguing that position to an audience of color would find himself instantly marginalized, as every minority has been taught to display and celebrate racial pride. Since demographics is destiny, whites need to start thinking in terms of racial partnerships with other races, just as the tribe has invested time and capital to woo certain cross-sections of society into their camp. I think what is especially in order is to perpare at the grass-roots level. Start talking to your white neighbors(if you have any) and any other white persons you come in contact with throughout the day. Just as I was jogging at the local track I ran into a nice white lady listening to Rush Limbaugh on her hand-held radio. After I stopped her and revealed the baby-food that is Rush, she asked where she could get more information and I promptly gave her this site’s url. This site provides awareness, which, in turn, provides an awakening mechanism for white America in the hopes that they will come to the realization that people with certain last names, even though they appear white, are actually hostile out-groups that need to be ignored and treated as pariah. Once this occurs in the majority, the minority will think twice before offending “US.” Not wanting to offend the majority used to be commonplace. But as everyone can see, they’ve lost respect for us because they don’t fear us as they did during the 50’s and before. Once they hid their names from us and now they wear it as a hegemonic badge of ethnic pride. Status-quo, Revolution, Counter-Revolution.

    • I's Gravatar I
      May 16, 2011 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

      The most damaging thing Jewish intellectuals did to westerners was delegitimize their racial identity. We should do the same to them.

      They were able to do that to us because they controlled the mass media. We have no such way of imposing such beliefs on Jews.

      If Jews refuse to reject Judaism then there’s a good chance the the public will wake up to their hypocrisy. This is all about strategy and appealing to the public.

      This is basically the strategy that was used historically – e.g. forced conversions to Christianity and other attempts to get Jews to change their ways. It never really worked out that well.

  73. Gray Prince's Gravatar Gray Prince
    May 15, 2011 - 7:49 pm | Permalink

    I feel on intuitive grounds that there had been a good deal of genetic cross talk between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in Europe. Why do so many Ashkenazi Jews have blue eyes and blond hair compared with Sephardic or Oriental Jews? Why does the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews happen to be so much higher than the others? (IQs are higher the more north in latitude, according to Lynn and Rushton.) It must be related intermarriage with elite non-Jews in their countries of origin at some point in the past, maybe as founders, maybe later. I would doubt that such differentials in IQ and appearance could accumulate during the short time since the middle ages due to natural selection alone.

    • Gray Prince's Gravatar Gray Prince
      May 15, 2011 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

      For example, the book “Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe ” by Bernard Bachrach describes a high rate of Jewish proselytation during the Carolingian period in Europe. They would often force their Christian slaves to convert to Judaism! Perhaps the concept of Jews as a closed racially separate group rather than a religion developed during the high middle ages or later. As to why the population genetics studies suggest otherwise, I can only guess that these techniques are in their infancy and political motives may be at work.

    • saline's Gravatar saline
      May 15, 2011 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

      “They would often force their Christian slaves to convert to Judaism!”

      Not to make them “Jews”, but for religious reasons (i.e. laws regarding how they should be served).Read Heszer’s “Jewish Slavery in Antiquity”. Typical dissembling, but pretty clear on the fact that when the foreskin was being chopped off the schlong of one of your ancestors bought on the block in Asia Minor or the Levant or the Med, it wasn’t to bring him into the tribe.

      That said, sure there’s admixture. And absolutely political motives are there. You’re on the money, but – not trying to be snarky – so what? What now? That’s the bigger question.

    • Gray Prince's Gravatar Gray Prince
      May 15, 2011 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

      I don’t suggest we “do” anything about it. It’s just interesting from the phenomenological viewpoint.

    • Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
      May 17, 2011 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

      You haven’t been reading your Professor Macdonald, Gray Prince my man. The high Ashkenazi IQ is a result of selective breeding within the Jewish gene pool and Judaism never was a proselytsing religion, at least in the days of Constantine, according to PTSDA.

      Or do we need to change our line in the light of Bachrach’s Early Medieval Jewish Policy? Over to you Professor!

    • Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
      May 17, 2011 - 8:41 pm | Permalink

      “It must be related intermarriage with elite non-Jews” – true elites do not marry Jews, pseudo elites such as Clinton, Trump and Gore do.

  74. saline's Gravatar saline
    May 15, 2011 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

    “In the end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.”

    Of course. What’s so odd about it all? This isn’t hard to get, man. If I know how to smelt metal and then make swords with the metal and use those swords to conquer other lands and increase fitness of my own group, why in the world would I allow you, the conquered, to smelt metal? IT MAKES NO SENSE. That’s what you guys still demand from the Jews. Even here, on this type of site, it’s your “white” universalism at work, thinking the never-ending struggle should be all “fair play” and “even”, blabetty blab blab, “Please, conqueror, can’t you just let us smelt metal in peace?” Really, KMac, this site should stop going on about the healthy aspects of Jewry and start physically bringing together like thinkers and form a new ethnic group. There’s no rapture that going to end it all on Thursday. Evolution goes on and on and on and on…

    Interestingly, Germany, with no apparent eugenics program, produced a people who, over the centuries, trumped the Jews in every single field and produced cultural accomplishments that the mind still boggles at. Jeez, half the disciplines the Jews dominate today were invented by Germans. That’s why Gilman and the millions like him are great to watch – it’s like seeing a kid standing on top of the body of the valedictorian whose throat he slit saying how he, the living one, has always been the smartest and how dare that corpse, how dare it have ever tried to defend itself from that knife attack.

    BTW, first poster, there’s no “dual-strategy”. There’s just strategy.

    • Mimir's Well's Gravatar Mimir's Well
      May 15, 2011 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Good points. Although I think “dual-strategy” is a useful term. One strategy for the in-group, one for the out-group. Not all group members are, or ever will be, “awake.” Just as all jews are not aware of “their” strategy, not all whites have a will have a clue that the environment they live in is crafted to promote or detract (as is the current environment) from their fitness.

    • Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
      May 16, 2011 - 2:35 pm | Permalink

      I agree with this to the extent that it would be good to have more from Professor Macdonald as a theorist about the Europeans, their characteristics and how they can reconcile their tendency to universalism with their genetic interests.

  75. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    May 15, 2011 - 4:24 pm | Permalink

    To me eugenics means conscious selection, Glad does not seem to think Jews had any such motivation until very recently.

    The emphasis on the desirability of marrying a Talmudic scholar’s daughter (as documented in APTSDA) suggests there was a certain degree of consciousness that intelligence was genetic .

    Glad’s argument that “In any case, ‘marrying brains’ would be a zero sum game if practiced only within one’s own community” (p. 29).” only holds true where there is no overall fitness advantage to being the child of unusually intelligent parents. While that is indeed the situation in the modern West it’s unlikely to have been true in medieval times.

  76. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    May 15, 2011 - 3:06 pm | Permalink

    So this whole thing about the Jewish attitude towards eugenics is once again an example of what I call the Jewish “dual-strategy”:strengthen the Jews but weaken the Goyim,in this case: eugenics for Jews,but dysgenics for Goyim. Hypocracy thy name is Jew!

    • thm's Gravatar thm
      May 16, 2011 - 3:07 pm | Permalink

      “…eugenics for Jews, but dysgenics for Goyim. Hypocracy thy name is Jew!”

      The “secret” that is hiding in plain sight.

2 Trackbacks to "Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”"

  1. on July 10, 2011 at 12:30 pm
  2. on May 23, 2011 at 10:39 am

Comments are closed.