Edward Dutton on The Culture of Critique: The importance of Jewish ethnocentrism

Edward Dutton, who is affiliated with Richard Lynn’s Ulster Institute for Social Research, has written an article supporting the main contention of my book, The Culture of Critique in an academic journal, Evolutionary Psychological Science: “MacDonald’s model is the more plausible hypothesis due to evidence that people tend to act in their ethnic group interest and that group selectedness among Jews is particularly strong, meaning that they are particularly likely to do so.” This is a most welcome development, and I agree with Dutton’s comments. Here I note some elaborations and a possible anomaly.

Dutton defends the multi-level selection model. The argument that group selection applies to Judaism is contained in the first book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (APTSDA). The argument there really has two parts—a cultural group selection model described in Chapter 1, and the idea that Jews are high on ethnocentrism, discussed in Chapter 8. Both aspects are important in thinking about how group selection applies to traditional Jewish groups. Cultural controls on individual Jews in traditional societies closely regulated things like within-group charity and business relations among Jews and between Jews and non-Jews (Chapter 6), preventing marriage to non-Jews (Chapters 3 and 4), and creating environments that selected for high intelligence (e.g., facilitating marriage between scholars and wealthy Jews), high-investment parenting, ethnocentrism [selection via defection of non-conformists], and conscientiousness (Chapter 7). In Chapter 5 I showed that in traditional societies there was resource competition between clearly demarcated groups that had results on group fitness—e.g., the Ashkenazi Jewish population explosion in the nineteenth-century Eastern Europe.

These cultural controls imply that behavior was confined within certain parameters that were clearly intended to advance the interests of the group as a whole. The fact that a Jewish businessman could not interfere with a monopoly held by another Jew meant that even if a Jew was so inclined, he would be effectively prevented from doing so by the group. Similarly, if a Jew was not inclined to contribute generously to Jewish charity, pressure would be brought to bear, independent of individual (perhaps genetically based) proclivities toward altruistic tendencies.

As a result, there was no need to subscribe to group selection models, such as the ones Pinker criticizes, that work solely at the genetic level. Even people who are genetically inclined to be individualists (paradigmatically Northern Europeans), may create and participate in effective, highly cohesive, and even altruistic groups because of group level controls—hence the idea of mirror-image anti-Jewish strategies that in effect mimic the social controls and intense group commitment characteristic of Jewish groups and discussed in Separation and Its Discontents.

However, Jewish ethnocentrism is also important and particularly so since the Enlightenment. After the Enlightenment, Jewish groups lost the internal cohesion typical of Jewish groups in traditional societies. The controls on Jewish behavior exercised by the rabbis (who had life and death power over group members in traditional societies) disappeared except in groups that remained Orthodox (including Hasidic Jews). Because there were now no formal penalties for going against group interests, the only remaining force of cohesion for non-Orthodox Jews was ethnocentrism. Remaining in the Jewish community and marrying within the ethnic group became voluntary, and of course, many Jews became secular. Less ethnocentric Jews defected.

As a result, the framework for The Culture of Critique is not a group selection model that relies on establishing the sorts of differences in group fitness discussed in APTSDA. In Chapter 8 of the latter I discuss what I term Jewish “hyper-ethnocentrism” as indicated by a pronounced tendency to retain group cohesion over long stretches of historical and in many different places, often despite hostility from the wider society (“ethnic separatism among Jews is an extremely robust tendency, which was retained independently by several Jewish groups and which was not dependent on a large amount of the Jewish canon or on the activities of a hereditary priestly aristocracy). The Jewish history of martyrdom is also discussed:

For example, Josephus, the first‑century Jewish historian and apologist, stated that

[We face] death on behalf of our laws with a courage which no other nation can equal. (Against Apion, 2:234)
And from these laws of ours nothing has had power to deflect us, neither fear of our masters, nor envy of the institutions esteemed by other nations. (Against Apion, 2:271)

     Although not all Jews were willing to die rather than betray the law, “story after story reveals that this generalization is true” (Sanders 1992, 42). “No other nation can be shown to have fought so often in defence of its own way of life, and the readiness of Jews to die for their cause is proved by example after example” (Sanders 1992, 239). Crossan (1991, 103ff) shows that Jewish political activity against the Romans often included threats of martyrdom if external signs of Roman domination were not removed from Jerusalem and the Temple. Only the Jews, of all of Rome’s subject peoples, were exempted from having to sacrifice to the Empire’s gods, and they were the only group that was allowed to have their own courts and an ex officio government under the Patriarchate/Sanhedrin. (APTSDA, 231–232)

I elaborated on Jewish ethnocentrism in  two subsequent papers. “An Integrative Perspective on Ethnicity” which reviews data supporting J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory and  argues (using the example of historical Jewish groups) that at the extreme of ethnocentrism, people have a sense of common fate that trumps individual interests, thus predisposing to martyrdom or other altruistic acts. “Background Traits for Jewish Activism” provides an array of examples from recent and contemporary Jewish writers/activists illustrating that extreme ethnocentrism remains mainstream in the Jewish community.

In Dutton’s article it is most gratifying to see the positive discussion of ethnocentrism based on Rushton’s theory as well as Frank Salter’s writing on ethnic genetic interests and to see it published in a major journal dedicated to evolutionary psychology. These ideas have not gotten the attention they deserve. Yes, the default hypothesis should be that ethnocentrism influences people’s choices, and particularly so in the case of Jews with their long history in which ethnocentrism has been so central to Jewish group continuity over the centuries.

Dutton also argues that Judaism is characterized by a slow life history strategy involving high parental investment, conscientiousness and being high on the general factor of personality (based on a positive correlation among all of the Big 5 personality systems). APTSDA was written before Rushton put life history theory as applied to humans on the map with his Race, Evolution, and Behavior. However, as noted, I discuss high-investment parenting and conscientiousness in Chapter 7 of APTSDA. It’s interesting that in  that chapter I noted that “There is some indication that Jews tend to be extreme on all personality systems” (p. 211). This might be thought to be consistent with Dutton’s point about the general factor of personality. However, the GFP includes emotional stability (low neuroticism). In APTSDA I reviewed research indicating high neuroticism as characteristic of Jews. This creates an interesting anomaly.

Consistent with the hypothesis that Jews are high on affect intensity, Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 414ff) show that emotional extremes were typical of the inhabitants of traditional Eastern European shtetl communities. The Jewish holidays were intensely emotional affairs, and the emotions that were expressed were quite opposite ones, a sort of rhythmic alternation of extremes. Rapid emotional oscillation was also characteristic of Yiddish drama However, there is also a strong emphasis on control—being able to exhibit intense, contradictory emotions at the appropriate time.

The common perception of Jewish and gentile psychiatric workers from the late 19th century until at least the end of the 1920s was that compared to gentiles, Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic‑depression, and neurasthenia (Gershon & Liebowitz 1977; Gilman 1993 92ff).Consistent with these early findings, Gershon and Liebowitz (1977) find that Jews had a higher rate of hospitalization for affective disorder than did non‑Jews in New York.[iii] Strongly suggestive of a genetic basis for the greater prevalence of affective disorder among Jews is their finding that among Jews bipolar affective disorder constituted a higher percentage of all affective disorder than was the case in gentile populations in the United States or Sweden. Individuals with bipolar affective disorder have periods of intense euphoria or paranoid‑anger as well as periods of despondency, worry, and hopelessness‑‑exactly the traits expected to characterize individuals who are extreme on affect intensity.

[iii]. In an epidemiological study based on interviews of a stratified sample of the 1949‑1958 birth cohort in Israel, Levav and his colleagues (1993) found that bipolar affective disorder I (a form of manic‑depression) was more common among those deriving from Europe. The most common diagnosis was generalized anxiety disorder and labile personality disorder, the latter characterized by periods of depression and hypomania. Again, the suggestion is that Ashkenazi Jews have highly reactive nervous systems and are prone to alternating between intensely positive and intensely negative emotions. Anxiety disorder was found less frequently in Israel than in several other areas, but the authors caution that the studies estimating prevalence used different diagnostic criteria, different interview schedules, et cetera.

Patai (1977, 391) provides a long list of personality traits which appear to be more pronounced among American Jews.  Although this type of data must be evaluated with caution, the traits involved appear to include items from all of the Five‑Factor Personality Dimensions (see Digman 1990), including items suggesting a strong tendency toward neuroticism (e.g., “is more neurotic”; “anxious”) and extraversion (e.g., “greater extraversion”). Indeed, this pattern would be expected given the supposition that Jews are higher on affect intensity. Affect intensity is related to all personality systems with a strong emotional component (Larsen & Diener 1987) and may be viewed as a behavioral energizing system that can be directed toward behavioral approach (related to extraversion) as well as behavioral avoidance and attention to danger (related to neuroticism and conscientiousness) (MacDonald n.d.). Individuals high on affect intensity are thus highly motivated to intensive interaction with the environment and often have conflicting goals because both behavioral approach and behavioral avoidance systems are prone to activation. Thus, the proposal is that a critical component in Jewish adaptation has been the elaboration of affect intensity as a personality system. (APTSDA, 211-212)

One might argue that there is no anomaly because, as noted, “there is also a strong emphasis on control” as well. In other words, being high on affect intensity has very large benefits as a behavioral energizing system (e.g., energizing the Behavioral Approach System designed to motivate obtaining resources and mates) as long as it is under control. Given that Jews are also high on Conscientiousness (Effortful Control)—which is linked to control over emotions—it may also be inferred that Jews are typically able to control their emotional intensity. Nevertheless, the above data on affective disorder indicate that this is certainly not always the case. In any case, I would agree that Ashkenazi Jews have a slow life history profile in general. However, personality systems have different adaptive functions and the GFP explains less than half the variance, so we should not be surprised when results depart from what one might expect on the basis of the GFP.

Finally, regarding whether the ideologies advanced by the Jewish intellectual and political movements were in fact “good for the Jews,” realize that my point is that they were seen to be in the interests of the Jews participating in them, not that they necessarily were in the interests of Jews. Communism is a good example. Dutton notes Cofnas’s point about Jewish communists in Poland being persecuted by the security forces. As I note in my second reply,

Jews were increasingly victimized by the government and security forces from 1949–1968 because of their prominent positions in the government—an account in agreement with the material I cite from Schatz. If there is one thing Jews have learned, it’s that no system of government is guaranteed to be resistant to anti-Jewish attitudes. The main story line is the gradual triumph of Polish nationalism at the expense of Jewish power. Similarly, after being a dominant elite in the Soviet Union beginning with the Bolshevik Revolution and extending at least well into the 1930s (and really until after World War II), Jewish power declined, Jews were purged from positions of power, and Jews ultimately became leaders of the refusenik movement aimed at being able to emigrate from the USSR.

Even very intelligent people may not be able to see what their real interests are in the distant future. Strong support for the USSR was entirely mainstream in the American Jewish community for decades based on the elite status of Jews in the Soviet Union, but it eventually became clear, certainly by the 1970s and especially to neoconservative Jews, that the USSR was not good for the Jews any longer. As I emphasize in APTSDA, Jews are flexible strategizers (Richard Alexander’s felicitous term). When one strategy fails, another will be adopted. And of course, there will be disagreement among Jews as to which strategy to adopt, and not all Jews are highly ethnocentric and therefore may not be concerned about Jewish interests at all. The task of the social scientist is to see if there are Jewish movements defined by a sense of perceived Jewish interests and determine how influential they are. I believe I have done that.

Dutton’s article is most welcome. It’s long overdue that these ideas were seriously considered within the community of scholars interested in the intersection of evolutionary biology and human behavior.

55 replies
  1. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…Strong support for the USSR was entirely mainstream in the American Jewish community for decades based on the elite status of Jews in the Soviet Union…”

    Hence the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (executed in 1953). Leaking nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union was simply a form of ethnic solidarity for these people. These people have no “dual loyalty” as is often averted, they have only one loyalty : to their own tribe.

    • Ole C G Olesen
      Ole C G Olesen says:

      ” Some call it Marxism ..I call it Judaism ” (The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Franklin Ryckaert,

      What you stated does not make sense. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spied for Stalins regime at a time when Stalin had reduced Jewish representation in the Bolshevik Party government in the USSR radically and there spying was done against the interests of Britain and America, two countries with very powerful Jewish Lobbies. The interests of Jewry at the time would be much better served by a world dominated by Britain and America than one dominated by a USSR led by the AntiJewish Stalin. The Jewish Lobby in the USA and Britain today agitates for a new Cold War against Putin because of Putins regime being seen by them as an heir to the AntiJewish Stalins regime and to the AntiJewish Tsarist/Romanov regime. The Trotskyists were the faction in the Bolshevik Party that were Jews and they had long been overthrown by the time the Rosenbergs spied for the USSR. So the Rosenbergs espionage was done more out of ideological conviction than racial loyalty, similar to Alger Hisss espionage for the USSR. If the Rosenbergs agenda were a Jewish one they would have been Trotskyists, not Stalinists.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        But their “ideological conviction” was rooted in their ethnic loyalty in the first place, like with all Jews. Sometimes Jews make mistakes in judging “what is good for Jews” and they quarrel among themselves about it. This may have been such a case.

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          ‘But their “ideological conviction” was rooted in their ethnic loyalty in the first place, like with all Jews.’ It might be true that MOST Jews place racial loyalty first. But ALL Jews, really? What about Brother Nathanael/Nathan Kapner, what about Gilad Atzmon? Those two are racially Jewish but clearly hate Jewry, the former of the two sounds more unpleasant and hateful when ranting against Jewry than David Duke does. That would seem to disprove your statement that all Jews place racial loyalty above all else, unless you only meant ‘all’ metaphorically.

          • PaleoAtlantid
            PaleoAtlantid says:

            Their loyalty to their race and culture is often best served by fooling non-Jews as to their real intentions. The biological world is full of such deceptions. Lying to achieve a goal indirectly is the subject of much literature.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            For a good impression of what “racial loyalty” means for Jews, watch this revealing video by David Sheen : Inside Israel’s Race wars [FULL], here :
            https://youtu.be/rTRsnoAmgjc

            There are exceptions in racial loyalty of Jews, but they are rare. During the atrocious attacks on Gaza 95% of Israeli Jews agreed with Israel’s policy. In the diaspora 95% of Jews too agreed.

          • ariadnatheo
            ariadnatheo says:

            @Paul Bustion: Two questions:
            Please explain what the notion of “generalization” means to you. If in a cart filled with Granny Smith apples I find two of a pink hue does that invalidate the generalization that Granny Smith apples are green? Do you not accept that all generalizations admit exceptions? Outliers?
            The ideological conviction is rooted in the Jews’ ethnic loyalty, as FR said. I would amplify that by specifying that the core of that ideology is jewish supremacy. Brother Nathanael does speak forcefully (ranting to you) against Jews, like one who has shed all belief in Jewish supremacy. Atzmon speaks forcefully against Israel’s crimes and against diaspora Jews’ ostentatious celebration of their Jewish “symptoms” as he calls them. The former seems to want to save the world from the Jews’ depredations, the latter to save the Jews from the world’s ire.

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            Michael Adkins,

            ‘A Saul D. Alinsky you’re not.’ I dont understand the comparison of me to Saul Alinsky. I dont really know who Alinsky is beyond vaguely knowing he was a Jewish left-wing extremist pseudo-intellectual. Can you explain to me why youre comparing me to Alinksy? I honestly have no idea why youre making the comparison.

      • ariadnatheo
        ariadnatheo says:

        Stalin purged all individuals and groups he considered enemies plotting to topple him: see the Mingrelian purge in Georgia. While USSR was one of the first countries to endorse the creation of Israel in 1948, the increased “coming out” of Russian Jews as Israel Firsters inevitably came to Stalin’s attention. He was reportedly much annoyed by the rapturous welcome (in a state where spontaneous public manifestations were non-existent) huge crowd of Jews gave to Golda Meir when she visited the USSR.
        Nevertheless, actual persecution of Jews “as Jews” (as opposed to their being the majority of some other group seen as “deviationists” or traitors) did not come until the early 50s, most famously in the “Doctors’ Plot.” Stalin purged the Party leadership often and since Jews were a disproportionate percentage in it the appearance of Jews being targeted is easy to claim.
        The Rosenbergs were recruited in 1942 per wikipedia and perhaps earlier and had been steadily spying and selling top secret info to the USSR since then.

        • T
          T says:

          ariadnathe writes: Stalin purged all individuals and groups he considered enemies plotting to topple him…

          In what can only be described as paranoia on Stalin’s part, being a demonstrably loyal supporter of the Communist Party didn’t protect a person from Stalin’s urge to purge, nor did being a foreign citizen in Russia with some supposed additional protections.

          I read a memoir of a young Yugoslav Communist party member whom was in Moscow in the early to mid 1930’s to obtain training and education to further his revolutionary career in Yugoslavia, and he found himself swept up in one of the mass arrests then periodically taking place. That he was not even a Soviet citizen and was a foreigner did not matter, indeed his being a foreigner in his view was a major reason for the arrest. He wound up being sentenced to the Gulag where he would barely escape death and be incommunicado from the rest of the world for the next almost two decades. It was only Stalin’s death in 1953 and a general amnesty ordered by Kruschev that saw him released and allowed to return to Yugoslavia. Surprisingly, he remained a loyal member of the Communist party; somewhat less surprisingly, he decidedly turned against Russia in his outlook, describing it in his memoirs as being a ‘God forsaken’ country.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Paul, I don’t think the Rosenbergs and their little helpers in their family cared much about the difference between their ideological convictions and their racial loyalty when the name of the game was to defeat and punish Germany for its treatment of the Jews.

        At the time of their espionage Stalin had not yet gone beyond his nascent anti-Semitism/nationalism.

        The Rosenbergs were bit players AFTER the SU had come into possession of the nuclear secrets directly from the big boys at Los Alamos.

        I gag at agreeing with Dershowitz, that ” the Rosenbergs were guilty – but framed “. ‘ Framed ‘ sounded less Old Testament Jewish than offered up as a burnt sacrifice. [ Since Ethel had to be given three shocks, before she succumbed, with her cranium smoldering; according to an eyewitness at Sing Sing ].

        US Air Force Major Jordan and his famous Diary, had disclosed to Congress, how far State’s and Treasury’s own corruption and cooperation with the SU had progressed, way beyond Lend Lease; to monetary relief for a besieged Leningrad and the plane loads of US patents and state-of-the-art plant designs, fearfully unchallenged.

        Jordan ran the transport at US Air Force Base, Great Falls, Montana, inspecting every plane and its largely illicit freight to Fairbanks, thence to Siberia and the SU’s Western Front.
        He testified to Congress, that, against his official objection, overridden by NY and Washington, boxes of uranium, quantities of heavy water and the commensurate laboratory equipment were shipped. Also Treasury-approved and procured printing plates for post-War Occupation currency, redeemable by a pegged rate to dollars, sent to the SU, which printed it far beyond the agreed-upon total sum, and thereby stole billions in US dollars from the habitually victimized, mousy-mute US taxpayer.

        Even the Jordan sound-bites trickling through to an astonished American public, allowed the conclusion that all these little Jewish helpful elves were harming America and its interests.

        To demonstrate to a skeptical US public, that they were indeed not dual-loyalists, a Jewish prosecutor and Jewish Judge at Manhattan South sentenced the Rosenbergs to the chair, strewing pepper into the eyes of the American baseball fans. [ Again: still ].

        I agree, that they were guilty but framed, or rather sacrificially offered, to hopefully disprove their documented, obvious, eternal modus operandi.

        • T
          T says:

          Charles Frey writes: US Air Force Major Jordan and his famous Diary, had disclosed to Congress, how far State’s and Treasury’s own corruption and cooperation with the SU had progressed…

          And then, too, there were many observers who felt the United States practically ‘gave’ China over to the Reds in 1949. Doesn’t seem to make sense, but, if as the writer quoted and linked below contends is correct, that powerful elements of the elites of the US were the ultimate god parents of the 1789 French Revolution and the Red Republicanism which it spawned, later giving rise to the Communism of the Soviet Union, Red China, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba, etc., it begins to. As god parents are quite protective of their god children it might help to explain the ‘unfortunate accident’ ending the life of George Patton, whom smelling a rat had wanted in 1945 to drive right on to Moscow and put an end to Communism then and there. It would also help to explain the sacking of MacArthur whom had actually wanted to win in Korea, not to mention the hand tieing of the US forces in Vietnam, etc. It would seem the US military was never expected to (nor allowed to) win in its struggles with the Reds.

          And that the Marxists and the Communists, ie the ‘Reds’, were the Capitalist’s Red’s from the very beginning.

          As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders…

          However, unknown to Louis XVI, creation of the United States was only a prelude to a chain reaction that resulted in a new French polity. Franklin and the ideological example of the American Revolution simultaneously prepared the substrate for the French Revolution that ultimately overthrew Louis XVI and crystallized into a sister republic. As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson’s guidance and inspiration. Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France’s American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin’s ministry to France–and that American was the seed-planter.

          http://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_center.htm

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Julius and Ethel Roseberg acted BOTH out of ethnic solidarity AND in assistance to the Soviet Union, not because of any particular and personal loyalties to the Soviet State.

      Simply, Marxism was created to be the vehicle, a rocket ship, on which the Jews could vault to power, dominance, and control. It is the ideal system for advance for such a group with its particulars and abilities. That’s all Marxism was created for. Marx smoked and deceived untold numbers of naive intellectuals, young people, underclasses, etc., etc., with this laughable economic determinism nonsense.
      Oriana Fallacci stated that Marxism would not have come into being had not it been synthetically invented by Marx.

      Jews do not see one-man-one-vote as a system that suits them or gives them the advantage. They are inside players and have only one criterion: power at the disposition and cost of the Other. Keeping Marxism alive (remember the Soviet Union was promoting Marxism/Communism all over the globe through subversion and subterfuge), was just as important and overlapping as finite ethnic interests.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Franklin Ryckaert wrote,

      These people have no “dual loyalty” as is often averred, they have only one loyalty: to their own tribe.

      Indeed. And Franklin is in good company: the late Joseph Sobran said much the same thing just sixteen years ago next week.

      It was once considered “anti-Semitic” to impute “dual loyalty” to Jews—that is, to assert that most American Jews divide their loyalty between the United States and Israel. This is now passé. Today most politicians assume, as a matter of course, that Israel commands the primary loyalty of Jewish voters. Are they accused of “anti-Semitism” for doing so? Does this assumption cost them Jewish votes? Not at all! Dual loyalty nothing! Dual loyalty would be an improvement!

  2. Fredrick Toben
    Fredrick Toben says:

    Such confirmation, as quoted above, indicates to me how far ahead Kevin MacDonald has been in his analysis of the “Jewish Problem”. He refused to court approval from his peers because he could see that such a mindset easily slips into stifling conformism, whose hallmark has become the two-plus decades long PC mindset. To MacDonald’s comment I would add Martin Heidegger’s observation, first published in 2014 in his Black Notebooks, 1931-41, wherein he raises the matter of Jewish deception, which MacDonald gently avoids:
    >>The Jews, with their marked gift for calculating, live, already for the longest time, according to the principle of race, which is why they are resisting its consistent application with utmost violence.<<

  3. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    Thank You , Kevin MacDonald ,for all your effort on this ISSUE.. important as it is ..for White Europeans ..in order to understand and be able to deal with the : THE JEWS . who have had such a decisive impact on White European Lives… I have been studying the Issue for 20 years by now ..on the sideline of my profession.. an endeavour which started with the simple Question WHO came up with the Idea of only ONE GOD and where did that Idea come from ? inevitably on that investigative Journey running into the JEWISH TRIBE … until today where I think I have a reasonably good understanding of the slippery Subject of the jewish Tribe and their History . On that road Your publication and Your writings have been of great Help .. Thank You for that !

    —–

    (Mod. Note: This Mod. is in massive agreement, “Ole”: THANK YOU, Dr. MacDonald!)

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Ole C G Olesen,
      You said you had ‘an endeavour which started with the simple Question WHO came up with the Idea of only ONE GOD and where did that Idea come from ? inevitably on that investigative Journey running into the JEWISH TRIBE ‘ and seem to be linking Jewry coming up with the idea of monotheism to the current involvement of Jewry in promoting leftist political agendas, Third World immigration to western societies and so forth. I dont think the connection youre drawing makes a lot of sense. Its true that Jews are very overrepresented in movements pushing for multiculturalism, leftism, political correctness, sexual immorality/sexual perversion and social destruction in general and its also true that the ancient Jews either were the first monotheists or among the earliest monotheists, but beyond that I dont see much connection. Yes, todays Jews are descended from the Jews who were either the first or among the first monotheists, but the latter were an extremely socially conservative religious group who were very averse to sexual immorality/sexual perversion and decadence in general and followed very strict puritanical moral codes, while racially they were the same group as todays Jewry, spiritually and philosophically they resembled todays Muslims more than todays Jews. The Old Testament Hebrews/Jews had a completely different set of spiritual and moral values compared to todays Jews, so I dont think drawing a connection between the agendas of Jewry in ancient times and Jewry today makes much sense.

  4. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    I can relate a personal Experience in relation to the Review of Yuri Slezkines Writings. Way back in the early 70ties where Marxism still was the main stream Intellectual Stance in Denmark , especially among Jews , there was a prominent Journalist on the Left sceene who suddenly became Right wing and was harshly critizised almost frozen out from ” respectable ” company at that time. Being staunchly anti marxist i befriended him ..and discovered he was married to a super zionist jewish woman … I did not understand it.. i couldnt connect the dots. Ofc this Journalist , who was wellconnected ..also globally , was , probably through his jewish wife , in contact with of the NEOCON movement in the USA , barely visible in the public at that time . He is as far as I know dead, but his son , whom I met as a schoolboy , today is Journalist and .. again in contradiction to mainstream Jewdom , a leading figure in the ” Resistance ” against immigration in Denmark .. and misses no oppoprtunity in a theatatrical manner to pronounce himself “DANISH” with a BIG D … in the same Sentence .. demanding support for the the jewish subjugation of Palaestinians and of the imperialistic Policies of Israel in the Middle East … his REAL AGENDA … so I believe. And THAT is how JEWS OPERATE …most often .. a step in front of us .. gullible Europeans…

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      High profile ‘righters’ in Canada are Ezra Levant who while making many good points relentlessly focuses on our immigration/displacement crises as a Muslim problem, ignoring that the majority of immigrants are Asian and African, and Ben Shapiro who never lets slip an opportunity to bring up our noble and besieged friend and ally Israel.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        These Jews try to hi-jack the New Right movement in the West for their own (pro-Israel) purposes. That is clear enough.

        I recently came to the conclusion that FAITH GOLDY is also one of them. She claims to be of Ukrainian and Greek descent, but if you look at this picture of hers before she had a nose job and other plastic surgery, you clearly see a typically Jewish nose on a typically Jewish face :
        https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/41/87/954187d46ad68db71e67a4e59cbd6a11.jpg

        Faith Goldy (the name “Goldy” alone should ring an alarm bell) also combines an anti-immigration stand with support for Israel.

        In Europe too anti-immigration movements have been infiltrated by Jews (Tommy Robertson, Geert Wilders, Sweden Democrats etc.).

  5. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    “…Finally, regarding whether the ideologies advanced by the Jewish intellectual and political movements were in fact “good for the Jews,” realize that my point is that they were seen to be in the interests of the Jews participating in them, not that they necessarily were in the interests of Jews. ”

    And the above, IMO, is a key point.

    I assume Hr. Prof. Dktr. K. MacDonald might,
    in essence if not in verbatim,
    mean that there is a remote chance that;
    due to the new/alt media (i.e. on-line info, etc…) that the deformed, crippled neurotic and disgusting Jew is finally recognized the World Over for what “it” is and the bulk of life on the planet begins a global “slime hunt” for these deformed and cunning (((anti-life forms))) in retaliation for the compunction it has for deforming natural beauty wherever (((it))) dwells.

    If the above is in essence (colourful language aside) correct, then one might argue that the Jews’ millenniums old deformed philosophy based on the Babylonian Talmud would in fact NOT have been so good for Jews after all.

    Furthermore, if the above is the case, then I need to take issue with the esteemed Professor MacDonald’s agreement with the postulate that Jews have a higher than average IQ.

    How can a people (Ashkenazi Filth)
    who genetically stem from a region
    (Arabia and Turkic Caucasia…: in fact mongrels with some very questionable after-breeding)
    where people typically have a mean IQ in the mid to high 80’s be said to have a higher than average IQ than Whites if in the end it results in a “Global Filth Hunt” with a vengeance?

    My personal opinion on this is that at the time of writing CofC and APTSDA,
    in order to seem unbiased and lend credence to the rest of his work,
    Prof. MacDonald had to throw the foaming and frothing at the jowls Jews,
    as well as his peers,
    a bone by agreeing with the latest intellectual flattery regarding Jewish IQ
    (namely: higher than average … etc…).

    My own experience with Jews is that were it not for all the stolen White wealth they had amasses over the millenniums, they would never be able to afford private tuition for their children or the bribery and blackmail they employed to gain admission to once White dominated Ivy league institutions.

    As for Jewish Filth willingness to give their lives for their people…, what choice do they have?
    If Whites ever found out, en mass, what the Jews were doing to Whites, Whites would probably torture them to death for the cumulative damage they have inflicted upon us.

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Roy Albrecht, you said ‘How can a people (Ashkenazi Filth)
      who genetically stem from a region
      (Arabia and Turkic Caucasia…: in fact mongrels with some very questionable after-breeding)
      where people typically have a mean IQ in the mid to high 80’s be said to have a higher than average IQ than Whites if in the end it results in a “Global Filth Hunt” with a vengeance?’ The answer to that question is eugenics. Kevin MacDonald discussed the evidence that Jewry has practiced eugenics historically in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. I agree with MacDonald that Jewry practiced eugenics, that is the only plausible explanation for how Ashkenazi Jews are as intelligent on average as Europeans and NorthEast Asians even though Jewry originated in a part of the world where the average IQ is between 85 and 90. Youre correct that the Old Testament Jews were probably not much more intelligent on average than todays Arabs are, because the Sephardic Jews and Persians have about the same average IQ Arabs have, between 85 and 90, but Ashkenazi Jews of today have about the same average IQ Europeans of today have. I dont agree with MacDonald that Ashkenazi Jews are substantially more intelligent on average than Non-Jewish Europeans though, I would say they are slightly more intelligent on average than Non-Jewish Caucasians, not substantially more intelligent on average. But Ashkenazi Jews are certainly not below average in intelligence on average either, RoyAlbrecht, contrary to what you were suggesting. The reason todays Ashkenazi Jews usually have normal intelligence despite there originating in a part of the world where most people have very limited intelligence is that they practiced eugenics. Any genetic group can improve its average intellectual standing by practicing eugenics, if Black Africans practiced eugenics long enough they could get to a point where they were as intelligent on average as Europeans even though currently they have substantially lower intelligence on average.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        Begrudgingly, you probably have a valid point.
        I am familiar mostly with diaspora Jews living in the Jewminion of Kafkada and more specifically, in the Greater Toronto Area.
        If I do not know them directly, I can usually pick them out by the narrowness of their beady little eyes and foreheads or,
        in the absence of the above,
        by their Sephardic liver lips, bulging eyes, hook noses and corpulent carcasses.

        Since I grew up in a fairly rich neighborhood,
        I can state categorically,
        the only sports that any of them could compete in with any success against White kids were ones that money gave them the edge
        (i.e. having large, covered, in ground swimming pools and tennis courts in the yard).
        The same goes for academics.
        If they could not afford private tutors,
        or did not have parents with access to “broke-back” university staff,
        or the money that allowed them to audit courses well before the rest of us had even decided what we would major in,
        or friends and relatives who showed them the ins and outs of how to milk the system for all it was worth,
        they would never have gone as far as they had.

        The Elite British and German Students on the other hand seemed to have way more raw talent than the rich Jews.
        The Jews just had more money and connections.

        Nevertheless, I have to agree with you that the above Jews had higher IQs than the average White.

        However, I have also met a lot of Israeli Jews
        (both Ashkenazi and Sephardic strains)
        in all parts of the planet who were not nearly as rich as the ones I grew up with.
        Just by interacting with them, one could tell that they did not have either the breeding or the education that the ones in Canada had.
        Moreover, many of them seemed to come from the USSR and often had slovenly habits…
        These are also more indicative of the Jews that I had in mind when thinking of the IQ of “the average Jew”.

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          I.Q. is not inherited at birth like eye color but is a potential within a limited range. High I.Q. parents generally have bright children and children of 90 I.Q. parents will likely never reach 110 but there are possibilities within that range. Too many Whites have given up, leaving their children to television and junk food and popular culture and these children will never reach their full potential. I used to date a Jewish criminal defense lawyer who confided that he never wanted to be a lawyer but his parents, uneducated immigrants from Poland, pushed him in his studies since he was a small boy instilling into him that he would indeed be a lawyer. Growing up he had no social life outside of school and study, and that diet of kapusta and borscht probably fed more brain cells than cheetos and big mac’s.

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            Karen T,
            What you just posted is ridiculous, to put it politely. ‘ Too many Whites have given up, leaving their children to television and junk food and popular culture and these children will never reach their full potential. ‘ That may be a terrible thing, but you seem to be saying White children watching garbage television programs is lowering there IQs, that doesnt make sense. Im not saying IQ is entirely genetic, there are environmental factors impacting IQ, but the quality of television programs one watches and how much time a person spends studying are not among the most important environmental factors in determining IQ. The most important environmental factors for IQ are sleep, nutrition, a healthy body in general and a brain and body that are not injured and relaxation. A person who only sleeps 4 hours a night with the same genetic limits as another person who sleeps 8 hours a night will, other things being equal, be less intelligent/have a lower IQ than the person who gets sufficient sleep at night. A person who refrains from using marijuana and has nothing else injuring his brain will, other things being equal, be more intelligent than a person with the same genetics limits for intelligence who smokes marijuana every day, because marijuana use causes brain injury and therefore lowers a persons intelligence/IQ. Watching garbage television shows and eating junk food does not have any meaningful impact on a persons intelligence/IQ. Studying probably slightly improves a persons IQ over what it would be if he never studied, but only slightly. Im certain the Jewish lawyer you dated was successful not because he studied hard, but because he had the right genetics for sufficient intelligence and he had the right environmental factors such as proper sleep, nutrition, relaxation, refraining from using brain injuring drugs like marijuana and so forth for him to be able to succeed in school, college and careers. Your post did not make very much sense.

      • Lou
        Lou says:

        How can dumb people [kazars of 500 years ago, and only 300 of them] be smart enough to practice selective in breeding?

        • Franklin Ryckaert
          Franklin Ryckaert says:

          They practiced it not out of intelligence but out of religious superstition. For Jews living traditional lives in the ghettos, studying the Talmud was the highest value. But if you study all the time you cannot afford to work for a living. Thus promising Talmud students (read : intelligent youngsters) were married off to daughters of rich merchants, so they didn’t need to work. Thus intellect was paired with money which led to a higher birth rate of such people, until the majority of the community consisted of intelligent people.
          It was selective breeding without knowing it.

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          Lou,
          Your reference to Kazars, ‘kazars of 500 years ago’, is based on a false belief. Kevin MacDonald has shown the Khazar theory is false. In articles on this website hes shown that genetic studies show the ethnic group that most resemble Ashkenazi Jews genetically are Sephardic Jews. Sephardic Jews are Middle Eastern. Studies also that Ashkenazi Jews genetically resemble Persian Jews. MacDonald also showed genetic studies show that the NonJewish ethnic group Ashkenazi Jews most resemble genetically are the Palestinians. He quoted Ted Sallis as stating: ‘This result … assigns the Jewish populations and the Palestinians to the same cluster , and by the relatively close placement of the Palestinians and the Jewish populations in MDS plots of individual distances’ in his article ‘Ted Sallis: More Jewish Genetics: The Weak Khazar Hypothesis ‘ published on The Occidental Observer on December 11, 2009 https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/12/11/more-jewish-genetics-the-weak-khazar-hypothesis/ MacDonald argued, and I agree, that the fact Ashkenazi Jewry has strong genetic similarities to Middle Eastern ethnic groups proves that theyre descended from Hebrews, not from Khazar converts to Judaism. Jews probably do have some ancestry from Khazar converts to Judaism who intermarried with Jews, but I doubt its a significant amount.

  6. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    Jews are “flexible strategisers” yet may mistakenly promote causes that turn out “bad for the Jews”? Nevertheless they are rotting the fabric of their gentile hosts’ societies, etc?

    There is a certain lunacy to this argument: it is compatible with any and every action of “the Jews”.

    As things stand one cannot by any means say that Nathan Cofnas has been rebutted.

    • ariadnatheo
      ariadnatheo says:

      As things stand Nathan Cofnas has been resoundingly rebuffed.
      What’s “good for the Jews” is not determined by the Jewish masses in some sort of plebiscite; in fact, sometimes they had to be dragged kicking and screaming (and sometimes a few had to killed) to what the Jewish elite declared “good” for them. Read the statements of Iraqi Jews who fled to Israel after bloody terrorist false flags carried out there by Israeli terrorist gangs working hard on populating the newly created Israel with Jewish squatters on stolen land.
      Were the labor camps in WWII, where close to approximately 300,000 jews died, “good for the Jews”? Yet the zionist slogan at the time was “a dead cow in Palestine is worth more than a live Jew in Europe,” so no rescue offers were accepted unless the destination was Palestine.
      What’s “good for the Jews” turns out to be fanatical ethno-centrism at all costs (including the sacrifice of some disposable Itzhacs) as long as the Jewish supremacism goals are being successfully pursued, one of which is the destruction of Christian/Western civilization from within.

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Vehmgericht, You wrote ‘Jews are “flexible strategisers” yet may mistakenly promote causes that turn out “bad for the Jews”? Nevertheless they are rotting the fabric of their gentile hosts’ societies, etc?

      There is a certain lunacy to this argument: it is compatible with any and every action of “the Jews”.’
      There is no lunacy to that argument. Its perfectly possible for an individual or a group to do something under a mistaken impression that its in its best interest when it actually is against its best interests. One example historically would be King Louis XVI of Frances decision to support the American Revolution. The King thought that was in his and Frances best interest because it would weaken Great Britain, but ultimately it was against his and Frances interest because it weakened France and made it go bankrupt, Great Britain was not terribly weakened by the loss of the North American colonies and was still stronger and had a larger empire than France, his government had to increase taxation to improve the economy that had been wrecked by the war with Great Britain and these problems led to popular outrage against the King and his government and the ideals of the American Revolution inspired French republicans to envision a government without the king and all of this resulted in the French Revolution. If France had stayed neutral during the American Revolutionary War the French Revolution, the murder of King and his family by the Republicans, the French Revolutionary wars with Great Britain and the rest of Europe and the tyranny of Robespierre and Napoleon would never have happened. So King Louiss belief that helping the Americans during there revolution was good for France was mistaken but he did it for that reason. Similarly Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany helped the Bolsheviks to overthrow the Russian government by helping Lenin go back to Russia in a sealed train because he thought it was in Germanys interest to have Russia defeated at all costs but ultimately that backfired because it resulted in a Communist regime being created that was the headquarters of a movement to Communize the world. So its possible to do something and mistakenly believe its in ones best interests when it is against ones best interests. An example from organized Jewrys behavior in the USA is there push for accepting unlimited Muslim immigration, the average person in organized Jewry, and perhaps even the average Jew in Non-Jewish western societies, believes that Muslim immigration is beneficial to Jews because it weakens cohesive European societies that they believe could be a threat to them if they developed renewed cohesion with homogeneity, they believe Muslim immigration by making there societies more heterogenous reduces the chances of the kind of social cohesion required for a renewed nationalism would arise. But they are mistaken this is in Jewrys best interests because Muslims on average really passionately hate Jews, in Israel and Palestine Palestinian Muslims often engage in violence against Jews, and in Europe Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants frequently engage in violence against Jews. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in France were Muslim terrorists murdering reporters for a Jewish Communists newspaper. So thats an example from Jewrys own behavior of there pursuing ends that are actually against there own best interests. MacDonalds argument is not lunatical and there are some elements of his argument no reasonable person could doubt. For example that our current immigration policy of open borders is at least partly a result of the influence of the American Jewish Lobby is not a proposition any reasonable person could doubt the truth. The 1965 Immigration Act was passed mostly under the influence of Jewish Lobbies. Nathan Kapner has written: ‘Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress, The Jewish Federation, the ACLU, and the B’nai B’rith, (there is no end to their organizations), filed briefs in support of open immigration before the Senate Subcommittee in the early sixties leading up to the passing of the 1965 law.’ http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=50 He also mentioned that Senator Jacob Javits was one of the main authors of the law, Javits was Jewish, Congressman Emamanuel Celler, also Jewish, helped sponsor it. Even during the early 1900s, the Jewish Lobbies in the USA wanted more open borders immigration policy, although probably not as much as they do today. When the USA Congress banned immigration from Eastern Europe in 1924 the Jewish Lobbies in the USA opposed this law.

    • Sutter
      Sutter says:

      “Jews are ‘flexible strategisers’ yet may mistakenly promote causes that turn out ‘bad for the Jews’? ”

      This is not a contradiction. It is also somewhat irrelevant, the _main_ point of saying that Jewish people are flexible is not that Jews are invincible (though it is a strength), but that disagreement among Jews, or the changing of political allegiances of Jews, is not evidence that Jewish people’s political activity is determined by trends or personal tastes. It is possible that, while Jewish opinions might change, Jews might still be acting in the hopes of making as many nations as possible suitable to the existence and wealth accumulation of Jews. The key is _intent_ of the Jewish actors.

      “There is a certain lunacy to this argument: it is compatible with any and every action of ‘the Jews’.”

      Once again, not true. If Jews did not love to call themselves “The tribe,” did not analyze policy in their own publications in the sense of what is good for the Jews, did not constantly spotlight powerful Jewish figures in their publications to reassure each other of how powerful Jews are in the world, if Jews did not constantly invoke the Holocaust, if Jews just simply gave up on the tribalistic, fundamentally racist culture of theirs like 95+% of white people, we would be able to say that they are not acting out of ethnocentrism, that they are acting just like the other white people. We would say that they are just voting their personal preferences; it just happens to turn out that Jewish people LOVE homosexuality and brown and black people!

      Unfortunately, that is not the case.

      Jews do not see politics like any old white person. And yet, most of us would never notice Jewish influence since they blend in so well. Hence, the outrage.

      There are decent critiques of KM’s approach, but Nathan Cofnas is always barking up the wrong trees.

  7. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    I would guess that most have noticed that Mr. MacDonald’s title, The Culture of Critique is consistently avoided by writers critical of his work. Two recent examples: Blood & Faith by Damon T. Berry and (((SEMITISM))) by Jonathan Weisman.

  8. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Finally, regarding whether the ideologies advanced by the Jewish intellectual and political movements were in fact “good for the Jews,” realize that my point is that they were seen to be in the interests of the Jews participating in them, not that they necessarily were in the interests of Jews.”

    You do not even require the motive of ‘seen to be in their interests’

    This motive assumes that humans think and then act according to what is perceived self-interest.
    They might do this in some areas of their life, eg when deciding how to invest some money or make a purchase.

    But in other areas the human is completely controlled by animal behaviour that is wired into the individual, and has no logic component. When the men on the Allies side rushed to join up patriotically in the last War, how many soldiers had weighed up the pros and cons and self-interest? NONE! Animal behaviour instinct of ‘support your tribe’ kicked in, and there was no analysis of benefits for self. If there had have been, would the people have concluded it was best to bankrupt the country and kill off their best men for …. well, for what?

    Pearl harbour pressed a few buttons and got the USA to join in, whereas a speech to the people telling them to go to war would not have had the same effect.

    There is NO place for logical thought when people act as a group.

    Some tribes (the West) simply have instincts to support their own in war (eg the Allied countries). Other tribes have this PLUS a hostility to other tribes – even the ones that help them. Perhaps this is a feature of most other tribes, but the primitive ones and the advanced one show their hostility in different ways. Eg one tribe riots, another campaigns for mass immigration. Both are expressions of hostility to the host.

    This hostile behaviour of the tribe (hostility for no reason, one that bites the hand that feeds it) might initially have an explanation that satisfied nat selection in the past, with waring desert tribes, but today the same behaviour has been inherted whether or not (a) it still confers advantage (b) it confers no advantage and will lead to the downfall of the host that gives them everything they have, so the parasite will be worse off
    I suggest (b)

    A domestic cat inherits behaviour from the past that is now bad for it – fighting with its neighbour causes the cat stress and injury, but it cannot abandon this behaviour, even when food is plentiful and there is no longer a need for this behavious, and it is detrimental to the cat – it still cannot stop itself, it is programmed to do this

    PS some browsers do not work for this site – eg Chrome does not for me. But k-Meleon does work

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      I just wanted to add that if you look at the example of Africans in S.Africa you get a very good example of the phenomenon of Africans clearly following their animal behaviour urges of ‘support the tribe’ even when this is so clearly to their own disadvantage.

      The Africans in S.Africa KNOW that the policy of ejecting the whites is CERTAIN to be to their own detriment, and yet clearly this is the path they choose, with their eyes wide open about what wil happen thanks to the examples of ZImbabwe & Zambia.

      If the Africans follow behaviour that they KNOW is detrimental for them and their children, this proves that anmal behaviour instincts are stronger than logic for most. If the Africans are therefore compelled by their wiring to follow behaviour even knowing it is detrimental, why not the Jews also?

      If you argue with Js on Breitbart you get a lot of them trying to justify their hostility, and you get very little of them acknowledging that a strong West is good for them as it makes them safe & wealthy. This shows how they think. So such ones are motivated by hostility and not self-interest.

      A West in turmoil and civil war from diversity is more likely to produce another ‘backlash’ against the Js than a prosperous West, where Js are currenly rich and safe. People generally do not think much about Js, but the Js know that in a civil war situation they will. So the Js who want diversity for the West are actively bringing about the situation in which a backlash against them could occur. So this idea that a weak and destroyed West is not going to be able to ‘produce another H’ is a false argument. This is precisley what a collapsing West will produce. And it seems to me this is not a profound thing to say, ie it is obvious. So if it is obvious and they still do it, they are controlled by their wiring and not by self-interest. Once their wiring makes them like this, they then try to find logical reasons for what they do.

  9. Sutter
    Sutter says:

    I think you all will love to see the new evidence that has come out that Einstein had a history of writing some pretty racist things in his travel logs.. He said very bad things about Asians.

    However, by 1946, he was a staunch anti-racist, advocating for blacks.

    How might we square these two facts? Perhaps, just perhaps, he realized that anti-racism is good for the Jews.

    • Paul Bustion
      Paul Bustion says:

      Sutter, Einstein was a physicist. Political ideology and ‘racial’ identity are not relevant to physics, its about as objective a field as one can be. Im not saying Einstein was a good scientist, but theres no way his science was motivated by a Jewish ideology, because physics is a field it would be virtually impossible to impose an ideological agenda on, and he almost certainly was not as bad a scientist as Freud was, because physics is such an objective field that its much harder to make mistakes in that field than in a field like biology or psychology. You seem to be taking a position of dislike against Einstein just because he was Jewish, thats a mistake. Einsteins race and political views are irrelevant to his contributions to physics.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Political ideology and ‘racial’ identity are not relevant to physics, its [sic] about as objective a field as one can be.

        Well, Paul, you just demonstrated a pretty spectacular lack of awareness of what’s been happening in the hard sciences* since the nineties.

        Im [sic] not saying Einstein was a good scientist, but theres [sic] no way his science was motivated by a Jewish ideology …

        Wow! that sure takes a load off my mind.
        ____________________
        *Now perhaps better described as “the ever more crumbly sciences.”

        • Paul Bustion
          Paul Bustion says:

          Kevin MacDonald has stated Einsteins ideas cannot be considered Jewish and his movement cannot be considered a Jewish movement. He stated this in the preface to The Culture of Critique. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/prefaceppb.pdf He wrote: ‘Similarly, 20th-century theoretical physics does not qualify as a Jewish intellectual movement precisely because it was good science and there are no signs of ethnic involvement in its creation: Jewish identification and pursuit of Jewish interests were not important to the content of the theories or to the conduct of the intellectual movement. Yet Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists. Preface to the First Paperback Edition iii This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist, opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of “mimicry”, preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his “tribal companions”, embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s, and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the building of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: “My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations”. According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: “As a young man with bourgeois liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity]”. In other words, the issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so. The same cannot be said for Freud, the New York Intellectuals, the Boasians, and the Frankfurt School, in which “scientific” theories were fashioned and deployed to advance ethnic group interests. ‘ MacDonald says there that theres no evidence Einsteins science was motivated by his Jewish ideology.
          Its logically impossible to make physics about race, ethnicity or any kind of identity politics. A person could utter words that make it sound like he is doing such, but hes actually just making noise if he does so. There is a case of a person uttering such words Im aware of. Ludwig Bieberbach was a German mathematician during the time of Hitler who tried to pander to the Nazi Party by speaking of ‘German mathematics’ as superior to ‘Jewish mathematics’. ‘Ludwig Bieberbach delivered
          a well-publicized lecture, entitled “Personality Structure and Mathematical
          Creativity,” in which he invoked the example of Felix Klein as a model for
          Aryan as opposed to Jewish mathematics.’ ‘”Jewish Mathematics” at
          Gottingen in the Era of
          Felix Klein’By David E. Rowe https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~reznick/davidrowe.pdf However, Bieberbachs words were actually just noise, they do not have propositional content because they do not have intellectual meaning. Physics is defined as ‘The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.’ by the Oxford English Dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/physics Wikipedia defines it as ‘
          ‘ the natural science that studies matter and its motion and behavior through space and time and that studies the related entities of energy and force’ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&type=revision&diff=846141024&oldid=846130729
          I believe all reasonable people would agree that those definitions are correct. Studying matter and how it moves through space and time is a completely objective field of study. Its like studying how many objects there are in front of you and what the shape of an object you are looking at is except much more intellectually difficult, its still just as objective though, its not open to interpretation. Physicists study things like the law of gravity. This means that its logically impossible for the laws of physics to be different for a Jew than for a German. No Jew, no matter how racist he was against Germans, could possibly believe that the laws of gravity and the other laws of physics would be different for Jews than for Germans. No German, no matter how racist he was against Jews, could believe that either. Bieberbach could utter the words ‘German mathematics’ and ‘Jewish mathematics’ and utter words saying the German kind was superior, but he could not actually believe what he was saying, that would be logically impossible to even believe. It would be like if I uttered the words ‘I drew a square circle’ that would just be my making noise, I could utter such words, but I could not really believe what I was saying, similarly Bieberbach could utter the words ‘German mathematics’ and ‘Jewish mathematics’ but could not really believe what he was saying. And Bieberbach in spite of uttering these garbage words, did make useful contributions to math and science. The MacTutor History of Math website states Alexander Ostrowski, a Jewish mathematician, opposed the stigmatization of him after World War II and viewed his pro-Nazi views and having uttered nonsense about German vs Jewish math as ‘irrelevant to his remarkable contributions to mathematics.’ http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Bieberbach.html You should be able to see Einsteins Jewish racist views and proCommunist views are also irrelevant to his contributions to science.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          @Paul Bustion: Your rambling comment fails to actually address my objection, as you probably well know. As such, the implicit suggestion that you are taking KM’s side in an argument with me adds discourtesy to him to the more generalized charges of irrelevance and carelessness with factuality that characterize this comment of yours and many, many others.

          I take you for a member of that sect of Internet commenters who seem to think that lengthy irrelevancies are somehow more persuasive than brief irrelevancies. In this instance, besides (1) changing the nature of the query or charge from the original one to one you find yourself able to blather about—sort of a combination of the red-herring and table-pounding distractions—and (2) larding the response with off-point matters and personalities the aim of whose presence seems to be to display your cut-and-paste skills, you then, as is also your wont, give readers the back of your hand by failing to observe the usual conventions of grammar, punctuation, and paragraphing.

          Of course, these characteristics might be seen as serving the ends of someone who has adopted incoherence as his prime intellectual and argumentative strategy. In that it is a strategy that prompts potential antagonists to move on, whether from desperation or fatigue, it might be said to be good for you. Related strategies have been deemed good for the Jews by Jews themselves, but those strategies tend to appear only in contexts where far more of a concrete nature is at stake than is the case here.

          Overall, in this instance your scattershot argumentation and discontinuous exposition came as no surprise. What did surprise me was that you evidently felt no compunction about telling Karen T, in reply to her very apt observation, that “what you just posted is ridiculous, to put it politely.”

          To quote Faulkner,* “!?!?!”
          ______________________
          *Someone else you can look up at Wikipedia.

          • Paul Bustion
            Paul Bustion says:

            Pierre de Craon,
            You stated that I ‘give readers the back of your hand by failing to observe the usual conventions of grammar, punctuation, and paragraphing.’ The reason I dont put apostrophes and commas in usually is because I have dyspraxia, that means motor disability, and my dyspraxia frequently causes me to accidentally erase everything Ive typed and I have to start all over again, this happens far more often when I put apostrophes, commas and stuff like that in because I accidentally hit the erase key very frequently when I do that.
            Your statement ‘the implicit suggestion that you are taking KM’s side in an argument with me adds discourtesy to him’. It may be rude to him, but I was quoting his own words. Based on those words, at least when he wrote them, he agreed with me. MacDonald said in that quote from the Preface to The Culture of Critique ‘In other words, the issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so.’ He also stated physics as Einstein developed it was ‘good science’. I actually dont agree with MacDonald from then that he was qualified to make a judgement about whether physics is good science since hes not a physicist or an expert on physics or math or any other non-biological science, but he did say that. So his position was actually more different from yours than mine is. Im not saying Einstein was a good scientist, he may well have been a poor one. What Im saying is he wasnt motivated by a Jewish agenda. You havent provided any evidence that he was motivated by one.
            ‘What did surprise me was that you evidently felt no compunction about telling Karen T, in reply to her very apt observation, that “what you just posted is ridiculous, to put it politely.”’ Im not particularly intelligent, my IQ is 98, so a lot of times I post things that I later realize dont made a lot of sense, but I was correct and Karen T was wrong in this case. There was only one thing I said in my response to her that was incorrect, ‘eating junk food does not have any meaningful impact on a persons intelligence/IQ’. Actually, now that I thought about it, I suppose its reasonably possible that eating unhealthy food could lower a persons IQ. It could do it in two ways, it could be wasted consumption that could have been spent consuming healthy food. Good nutrition is very important for intelligence. And if its an extremely unhealthy food item it might actually hurt the body in a way that is bad for the brain, which is an organ of the body, and injures the brain, thus lowering the persons intelligence. So I admit Karen T said one thing in her post that made sense, eating junk food could realistically lower a persons IQ. However, watching garbage television programs could not possibly lower a persons IQ, it could do a lot of other bad things to the person, but not that. Karen T stated: ‘I.Q. is not inherited at birth like eye color but is a potential within a limited range.’ Eye color and IQ are both a potential within a limited range with the limited range determined entirely by genetics at birth. The only role environment plays for either IQ or eye color is to determine what will be achieved within what the genetic limits allow. So a persons eyes can only be blue naturally if there genetics makes them that way, and a persons IQ can only be 120 if a persons genetic limits allow it to be that high. Environment cannot make people smarter than there genetic limits allow, thats not possible. Karen T seemed to be saying it could. Karen T said ‘I used to date a Jewish criminal defense lawyer who confided that he never wanted to be a lawyer but his parents, uneducated immigrants from Poland, pushed him in his studies since he was a small boy instilling into him that he would indeed be a lawyer. Growing up he had no social life outside of school and study, and that diet of kapusta and borscht probably fed more brain cells than cheetos and big mac’s.’ Again, the last part makes sense. Healthy nutrition will raise a persons IQ closer to what its genetic limits allow than poor nutrition. But nothing else she said made sense. I submit that effort and diligence are not the most important factors in educational success beyond a minimum acceptable standard, in other words, if a person put no effort or very little effort forth and/or had severe behavioral problems then that would make a difference to his educational success and could cause a highly intelligent person to fail in school. But if a person is putting forth the minimum acceptable effort and diligence, then what is most important for his educational success is not more effort and diligence, but his intelligence and other abilities. The environment can make a difference for a persons intelligence and other abilities, as I said in my reply to her, sleep and nutrition are very important for intelligence. But effort and diligence arent particularly important for intelligence. If one has two students in high school, and one of them has a 130 IQ and puts forth only the minimum acceptable effort/diligence, while the other has a 100 IQ and puts forth as much effort and diligence as is possible, you can bet on the lazy 130 IQ student being more successful in high school academically. This would still be true even if the 130 IQ student watches garbage television programs and the 100 IQ student does not. Watching the garbage television programs does not lower the 130 IQ students IQ.

            ——–

            (Mod. Note: “Paul”, please do the comment streams a big favor and stop taking up so much space with long screeds which don’t really succeed in convincing anyone. We don’t need more of this.)

      • Sutter
        Sutter says:

        @Paul Bustion
        When did I say anything here about Eintein’s physics? Are you hallucinating? I was just commenting on the fascinating fact that a highly intelligent and thoughtful Jewish person was able to unashamedly advocate a hypocritical stance on race.

        Regarding his science, my opinions are that Einstein’s theories were fine, but that he took too much individual credit for findings that the entire academic community was discovering.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Einstein also realized that building an atom bomb was “good for the Jews”, though he was initially against it “as a pacifist”. When Hitler came to power however he changed of opinion :

      The physicist Albert Einstein did not directly participate in the invention of the atomic bomb. But as we shall see, he was instrumental in facilitating its development.

      In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. This was expressed by the equation E=mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). The atomic bomb would clearly illustrate this principle.

      But bombs were not what Einstein had in mind when he published this equation. Indeed, he considered himself to be a pacifist. In 1929, he publicly declared that if a war broke out he would “unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect… regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged.” (Ronald Clark, “Einstein: The Life and Times”, pg. 428). His position would change in 1933, as the result of Adolf Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany. While still promoting peace, Einstein no longer fit his previous self-description of being an “absolute pacifist”.

      Einstein’s greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built.

      Source : http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm

  10. kikz
    kikz says:

    @Paul “But they are mistaken this is in Jewrys best interests because Muslims on average really passionately hate Jews, in Israel and Palestine Palestinian Muslims often engage in violence against Jews, and in Europe Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants frequently engage in violence against Jews.”

    mistaken? hardly.

    the tactic serves the strategy in duality; providing cover as ‘victims’ of anti-semitism generating empathy and fed funding for ‘hardening of soft assets, yeshivas/synagogues. the fouling of Gentile nests (US/UK/EU) via federally institutionalized and subsidized industry via ‘open borders immigration law/policy’, welcoming the stranger (hostile 3rd world generational welfare garbage) into other people’s countries proceeds; when the impacts to the tribe become too many/great, generating a negative ROI, they hora on down to the nearest el al terminal and make aliyah, replenishing population count from the increasingly more permanent diaspora. missions accomplished.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      @kikz: You covered most, if not all, of the relevant bases here. Thank you.

      But why did Paul Bustion need to have these awfully rudimentary matters spelled out for him? He writes as if he is unaware that international Jewry has had rather a good deal of practice looking out for its own best interests.

      • kikz
        kikz says:

        you’re welcome… apparently reasoned analysis of these behaviors eludes too many. possibly he’s a deluded or paid apologist.. take your pick…..*shrugs*

      • Paul Bustion
        Paul Bustion says:

        ‘He writes as if he is unaware that international Jewry has had rather a good deal of practice looking out for its own best interests.’ Im aware of that. But sometimes ‘international’ Jewry makes mistakes about whats in its best interests. Its pushes for war against Germany in the first and second world wars are good examples. The leaders of world Jewry pushed for war with Germany relentlessly in both cases. In the case of the First World War, it was pushing for Great Britain, France and America to go to war with Germany in alliance with Tsarist Russia. Russia is an extremely AntiJewish country and the Romanov dynasty that ruled Russia and particularly the Tsar at the time Nicholas II were highly AntiJewish. Germany was not particularly AntiJewish. If Britain, France, and Russia had knocked out Germany in the beginning of the war and defeated it, it would have made Tsarist Russia vastly more powerful. So international Jewry was taking a huge risk in pushing for that war against Germany. There was some benefit to Jewry as a result of the war, such as the Tsar being overthrown and the British making the declaration in support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but there were big risks that were taken also. In the case of the second war its very hard to see how that war benefited Jewry. Hitler never wanted to exterminate or even expel the Jews from Europe before the war, although he did encourage them to leave because he preferred them out. His government did not murder any Jews qua Jews before 1939. Hitler gave a speech in 1939 where he said that if the leaders of international Jewry caused Great Britain and France to go to war with Germany, it would result in his exterminating European Jewry. The Holocaust would never have happened without the Jewish Lobbys pushing for Britain, France and America to go to war with Germany. And at the end of the war the AntiJewish Stalin controlled half of Europe. Before his death in 1953 according to his biographer Edvard Radzinsky, Stalin was planning to expel all of the Jews of the USSR to concentration camps in Siberia. So it is definitely at least arguably true that even though the Jewish Lobby pushed for war against Hitlers Germany that war actually harmed Jews more than it benefited them. If Muslims were to continue immigrating to the USA unrestricted they could form a lobby to compete with the Jewish Lobby for influence in the Democratic Party. They have done that in the British Labor Party to some extent. This has significantly weakened the Jewish influence in the Labor Party and has led to some Labor politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone who are not particularly pro-Jewish being more influential in the party that once had a huge Jewish influence in it. Keith Ellison the head of the Democratic National Committee is not particularly pro-Jewish and that has to do with both his Muslim background and his having a lot of Muslim supporters. The Muslim immigration in some ways reduces Jewish influence in the Democratic Party. Its highly unlikely that Jews will ever vote Republican given how left-wing most of them are so its unlikely Jews will ever be able to have the kind of influence in the Republican Party they have had over the Democratic Party. Kevin MacDonald wrote in the preface to The Culture of Critique that Stephen Steinlight, former director of National Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, thinks the American Jewish Lobby is making a mistake in supporting massive Third World immigration to the USA. He stated: ‘Steinlight believes that present immigration policy no longer serves Jewish
        interests because the new immigrants are less likely to be sympathetic to Israel
        and because they are more likely to view Jews as the wealthiest and most
        powerful group in the U.S.—and thus a potential enemy—rather than as
        victims of the Holocaust. He is particularly worried about the consequences of
        Islamic fundamentalism among Muslim immigrants, especially for Israel, and
        he condemns the “savage hatred for America and American values” among the
        fundamentalists. Steinlight is implicitly agreeing with an important thesis of
        my trilogy on Judaism: Throughout history Jews have tended to prosper in
        individualistic European societies and have suffered in non-Western societies,
        most notably in Muslim cultures where there are strong ingroup-outgroup
        sensibilities
        Steinlight’s fears of the effects of a Balkanized America on Judaism are
        indeed well-grounded.
        Steinlight is exclusively concerned with Jewish interests—an example of
        Jewish moral particularism which is a general feature of Jewish culture. Indeed, his animosity toward the restrictionism of 1924–1965 shines
        through clearly. This “pause” in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe.
        He describes it as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,”
        a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” Jewish interests are his
        only consideration, while the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans are described
        as a “thoughtless mob” because they advocate a complete moratorium
        on immigration. ‘http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/prefaceppb.pdf MacDonald is stating in that quote that a Jewish political activist felt that Jewish promotion of Third World immigration was bad for Jewish interests and stated that some of this activists fears of these policies backfiring on Jewry were reasonable. Pierre de Craon, your argument seems to be that people only ever do things because those things actually benefit them and its not possible for people to mistakenly believe there acts benefit them when they actually harm them. Thats a ridiculous idea, if thats what you think.

Comments are closed.