Review: Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Zionist Eugenics

Notions of race and racial competition pervaded Zionist thinking in the early to mid-twentieth century, a time when “volkisch conceptions were firmly established among Zionist intellectuals.”[i] Raphael Falk notes how “Zionist writers appealed to biological conceptions of race and nation and displayed an awareness of their responsibility not only to serve this biologically circumscribed ethnic group but also to propagate and improve it.”[ii] Many Zionists viewed evolutionary theory “as a conceptual framework for understanding the detrimental effects of Diaspora life and argued for the positive benefits that would accrue to Jews in Palestine.” Weikart observes that many “Jewish physicians, feminists and sexual reformers embraced eugenics,” and that leading Jewish anthropologists “embraced scientific racism” in the early twentieth century.”[iii] 

Several leading Jewish physicians and educators became flag bearers of a campaign to promote the eugenic aspects of Zionism. In 1922, the Zionist physician Mordechai Bruchov emphasized that: “In the struggle of nations, in the clandestine ‘cultural’ struggle of one nation with another, the one wins who provides for the improvement of the race, to the benefit of the biological value of the progeny.”[iv] Parental guidance articles and books published in Palestine from the 1920s emphasized “the purity of the race and the quality of children required to improve the nation,” which “subsequently shifted to the need to increase the birthrate in order to catch up with the high birthrate of the neighboring nations.”[v] Jewish biologist Fritz S. Bodenheimer (1897–1959), the son of one of Theodor Herzl’s closest allies, likewise stressed “the external threat posed by the faster reproductive rate of the Arab population.”[vi] Child care in Israel has long been conceived “as part of a national project” where “every mother who raised her child in Israel, in the past and at present, is conscious that this is not only her personal task, but rather a national task the climax of which – at the age of eighteen – is the recruitment of the Zionist baby to the nation’s army.”[vii]

Jewish Attitudes to Darwinism after the Advent of National Socialism in Germany

The ascent of the National Socialists to power in Germany in 1933 “had a profound impact” on Jewish thought and speech regarding evolution and race. Concluding that hierarchic social-Darwinian race theory was antithetical to their ethnic interests, many diasporic Jews publicly abandoned previously espoused racialist beliefs grounded in evolutionary theory, and worked to discredit that the concept of race among biologists and social scientists. Cantor and Swetlitz note how “social and cultural explanations became prominent in the social sciences, where Jews continued to work in large numbers.”[viii] The overthrow of hierarchic Darwinian racial theory was, as Kevin MacDonald explains in Culture of Critique, a campaign by Jewish activists that had nothing to do with real science, with the “shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences” resulting from “an ideological shift rather than the emergence of any new empirical data.”[ix] For strongly committed Jews, truth takes a back seat to ethnic interests.

A chapter is devoted to Jewish anthropologist Ignaz Zollschan (1877–1948), who exemplifies this shift. A leading early Jewish advocate for Darwinian race science, he changed his public views “in response the threat posed by Nazi race theory,” and emerged “as a political activist who helped to orchestrate international opposition to Nazi ideology.”[x] Zollschan worried that by embracing racialist beliefs informed by Darwinian evolution, “Zionists were playing into the hands of anti-Semites, who had long demanded special laws for Jews. In effect this was throwing the Jew back into the ghetto.”[xi] In the 1920 and 1930s:

Zollschan was alert to the dangers of eugenics and increased his opposition to eugenics and to anti-Semitic racism. In 1925 he visited the Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in New York to collaborate on X-ray investigations into the various races, having supported the use of X-rays to eradicate favus (a chronic skin infection) among East European Jewish children. Boas, who stressed culture over biology, convened a committee at Columbia University that addressed human anatomical and psychological characteristics with the aim of refuting racist prejudice. Zollschan subsequently used a memorandum drawn up by Boas in 1926 as a basis for intensified lobbying of leading intellectuals in Europe to refute anti-Semitic racism.[xii] 

Zollschan advocated a twofold Jewish strategy: firstly, to “take a stand against anti-Semitic racial defamation” where he aggressively “refuted many stereotypes of Jews and the accusation that Jews damaged their host countries.”[xiii] He flatly denied, for instance, any link between Jews and financial corruption. His second goal was to “strengthen Jewish culture in order to ensure that Jewish identity would be sustained.”[xiv] From the 1920s onwards, he publically “adopted an anti-racialist stance, and played a major role in founding an international network of anthropologists to combat the threat of Nazi racism.”[xv] His campaign led him to espouse the view that Jews were a culture rather than a race. He did not, however, renounce his earlier views about the Jewish race; instead updating his views in response to Boas’ radical environmentalist theories.

Franz Boas

During the 1930s Zollschan attempted to establish an international coalition of scientific experts to refute the scientific basis of Nazi race ideology, and formulated an antiracist manifesto he hoped would be signed by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Aldous and Julian Huxley, the novelist J.B. Priestly, among others.[xvi] Huxley suggested including T.S. Eliot — “blithely overlooking Eliot’s expressions of disgust at Jewish peculiarities — for a public discussion on race.”[xvii] Jewish historian Charles Singer pointed out to Zollschan that “scientific views are not established by international committees,” and cautioned him that efforts to undermine the concept of race in general would undermine Zionism. Singer also warned that nothing could be worse for the prospects of such a “scientific” statement than “for it to appear to have behind it either a foreign or a Jewish motive power.”[xviii]

Zollschan heeded Singer’s advice, accepting the need to embed the pursuit of particular Jewish interests in a more universalistic message. Thus, in Racialism against Civilization (1942) he argued that racism was “not a problem that affected just the target group — the Jews — but was the common enemy to all religious, moral, and liberal political values.” Zollschan proposed that the National Socialist drive to force Jews back into the ghetto “did not just represent a threat to the existence of Jews, but who attacked the humanitarian basis of Western civilization.”[xix] This represented a complete reversal of his earlier, long-held, belief “that the ghetto sustained Jewish racial identity.”[xx]

A Top-Down Revolution

Zollschan’s efforts against National Socialist racial beliefs formed the basis for the UNESCO declarations on race and UN Conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination after 1945.[xxi] In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened a panel of “scientists,” chaired by Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), to “produce a definitive verdict on race.” The panel, which include several Jews, including the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, consisted of “a team of ten scientists all of whom were recruited from the marginal group of anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers affiliated with the scientifically marginalized groups of cultural anthropologists that were mostly students of Franz Boas at Colombia University in New York, and who perceived the race concept primarily as a social construct.”[xxii] The panel’s first met at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, and Montagu claimed “only if our deliberations had taken place at Auschwitz or Dachau could there have been a more fitting environment to impress upon the committee members the immense significance of their work.”[xxiii] Montagu had a strong Jewish identity, stating that: “if you are brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic. . . .  I think it is a good working hypothesis.”[xxiv] At that time UNESCO House was the former headquarters of the German military during its occupation of France during World War Two. Underpinning the words of the UNESCO declaration “was widespread revulsion at the Jewish Holocaust.”[xxv] Leftist academic Anthony Hazard notes that “a clear rejection of anti-Semitism seemed to underline the entire effort.”[xxvi]

The UNESCO panel’s statement insisted it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.” Montagu and his colleagues ended their “definitive statement on race” with an endorsement of the idea of a common humanity: “Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives towards co-operation. … In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper.”[xxvii] Once again the pursuit of specific Jewish interests was embedded in a pretended universal benevolence. UNESCO’s Montagu-drafted “definitive verdict on race,” was published with a press release with the headline: “No biological justification for race discrimination, say world scientists: Most authoritative statement on the subject.”[xxviii] The New York Times reported on the statement under a headline proclaiming: “No Scientific Basis for Race Bias Found by World Panel of Experts.”[xxix]

The UNESCO Statement on Race basically amounted to the imposition of a Jewish ethno-political agenda onto the global polity — with devastating consequences for the interests of Europeans and European-derived peoples. With this new agenda now in place at the highest level, and with the demonization and marginalization of dissenters, it was almost inevitable in the decades following Germany’s defeat that remaining policies constructed on the basis of racialist thought and identity would be progressively dismantled. The 1950 statement on race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, and several UN conventions on eliminating racial discrimination) was described by one sympathetic commentator as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[xxx] British historian David Cannadine notes that, during the decades that followed, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand “abandoned their policies of racial discrimination, ended their restrictions on immigration … and embraced multiculturalism.”

Attitudes to evolutionary concepts in the post-war era were strongly colored by the Jewish backgrounds and commitments of Jewish biologists and anthropologists. Cantor and Swetlitz note, for example, that “some leading critics of the modern synthesis in evolutionary biology and sociobiology, including Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, were Jewish, and it has been claimed their opposition stemmed in part from concern these fields are likely to encourage anti-Semitism because they emphasize genetic determinism and evolutionary progress, which often embed notions of racial hierarchy.”[xxxi] Kevin MacDonald observes that Gould exemplified the “conflation of personal and ethno-political interests in the construction of science.” Gould falsely claimed that hereditarian views on intelligence had been prominently used as justification for restricting Jewish immigration in the 1924 American immigration laws — laws he directly linked with “the Holocaust.” Gould’s career is perhaps the preeminent illustration of “how skill as a propagandist and ethnic activist can be combined with a highly visible and prestigious academic position to have a major influence on public attitudes in an area of research with great implications for public policy.”[xxxii]

Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin spearheaded opposition to the ideas of E.O. Wilson whose book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis inaugurated the field of sociobiology. Lewontin’s approach has been to selectively reject the findings of the traditional reductionist scientific method, insisting on a “hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology…. By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[xxxiii] While Lewontin portrays his efforts as motivated by a concern for scientific rigor, his tactical nihilism enables him to pursue an ethno-political agenda unencumbered by science.

The Boasian revolution in anthropology, taken up by Gould, Lewontin and numerous other Jewish academics, represents such a dramatic departure from preceding Jewish thinking about race, that an examination of earlier Jewish racial writing forces us “to reorient the way we think about the normative narrative of the Jewish past” according to which historians have “told the story of the relationship between Jews and race largely within the framework of victimhood,” whereby “racial science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was one of the chief weapons used against Jews.”[xxxiv] The abandonment of Darwinian race theory by Jewish anthropologists from the 1920s and 1930s necessitated obscuring the inherently racial nature of Judaism, in order to forestall charges of hypocrisy. Yet race remains “one of the building blocks of contemporary Jewish identity construction” and that “biological and genetic arguments possess a power for many Jews as they seek to explain to themselves and others just what it is that constitutes Jewishness.”[xxxv] Even though such thinking may have been submerged or made invisible for many decades, Jews still “think with blood” about Jewish belonging. University of Washington Professor Susan Glenn makes the point that: “Throughout all the de-racializing stages of twentieth century social thought, Jews have continued to invoke blood logic as a way of defining and maintaining group identity.”[xxxvi]

[i] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 143.

[ii] Ibid., 138-9.

[iii] Weikart, “The Impact of Social Darwinism,” 107.

[iv] Falk, “Zionism, Race & Eugenics,” 151.

[v] Ibid., 152.

[vi] Ibid., 154.

[vii] Ibid., 152-53.

[viii] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 15.

[ix] Kevin MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: 1st Books, 2001), 20.

[x] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 91.

[xi] Weindling, “Evolution of Jewish Identity,” 124.

[xii] Ibid., 124-5.

[xiii] Ibid., 121.

[xiv] Ibid., 119.

[xv] Ibid., 117.

[xvi] Ibid., 128; 129.

[xvii] Ibid., 130.

[xviii] Ibid., 130-31.

[xix] Ibid., 133.

[xx] Ibid., 135.

[xxi] Ibid., 136.

[xxii] Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009.

[xxiii] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.

[xxiv] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 26.

[xxv] David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 212.

[xxvi] Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Duedahl, “From racial strangers.”

[xxix] Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.

[xxx] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.

[xxxi] Cantor & Swetlitz, Jewish Tradition, 21.

[xxxii] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 33.

[xxxiii] MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47

[xxxiv] Mitchell Hart, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 14.

[xxxv] Ibid., 31-2.

[xxxvi] Ibid., 31.

15 replies
  1. stealth
    stealth says:

    i heard nazi was a nickname for people called ignatius(seen as a typical name for a country bumpkin,maybe like the cleetus character in the simpsons) so zollschan may have been called nazi as a child.haha.
    i concur with e michael jones that even though whites and anglosaxon culture are under attack, we shouldnt use race as our basis to defend ourselves.our enemies are communism and usury and scientism

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      People create culture, not the other way around. White people (non-Jewish white males) created at least 90% of Western Civilization. Replace white people with brown people, and that civilization will be gone.

      Non-whites are not our enemy, but they should not be allowed to replace us. E. Michael Jones is fine with them replacing us as long as they are Catholic. In other words, for him, Mexico is better than the United States. Too bad so many Mexicans don’t think so and are trying to jump our border.

      Forget E. Michael Jones. His criticisms of the Jews are great, but his solution to the problem is hardly any better than what the Jews are trying to do to us — replace us. .

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      All those enemies probably grew out of Jewish ethnicity.
      I like Jones. He throws light on a Catholic history that the Anglo white – including our kind = would just as soon ignore. Also he notes a sympatico between higher class Anglo culture and Jews which explains a lot of our problem. But he is a hundred and fifty hears behind on race science

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        There is no “Anglo culture” anymore. It’s true that Protestants worked with Jews against Catholics during and after World War II, but the WASP elite disintegrated during the 1960’s and is now supplanted by a completely Jewish power structure. Jones is re-fighting old battles instead of confronting the Jewish-promoted white genocide that is going on today. Non-Jewish whites need to unite, whether they are WASP or Catholic, boomers or young people, Left or Right. I guarantee you the Jews are doing everything they can to divide us and prevent that from happening. We shouldn’t play into their hands. E. Michael Jones doesn’t give a rip about non-Jewish whites. He only cares about the Roman Catholic Church. His message to non-Catholics is nothing other than “become a Roman Catholic”. That’s it. White genocide can continue on its course and it won’t matter to him one bit.

    • P. George Stewart
      P. George Stewart says:

      I tried to hold to that position for about a year as I was discovering all this kind of stuff. Ultimately, it’s not a stable position because culture is downstream of race. Differently-constructed humans weave different sorts of cultures around themselves. Also, if other ethnic groups are ethnocentric while we remain as atomized individuals, we’re easy pickings. Strength in numbers is, unfortunately, a fixed fact of nature, and the natural, and most powerful Schelling point for society to form, is ethnicity.

      That said, if White cultures do manage to retain some modicum of ethnocentrism, and fend off their demographic decline, then sure, it’s possible for our cultural tools to be passed around and shared, and accepted by other ethnic groups to whatever degree they fancy. But for that to be possible, the “beacon on the hill” has to stay lit.

  2. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    I always call the East Europeans and their descendents who converted to Judaism “converts”. Perhaps Jeuropeans would be better. Christians think the converts are descended from the biblical jews which is not true.
    The Jewish Council used to/still does meet every 7 years in Jerusalem. In the Middle Ages it was taken over by the converts (demographics). The rabbis from all the different countries meet and plan trouble for the World.

  3. Anthony Clifton
    Anthony Clifton says:

    there are no “JEWS” in the Bible…

    The {{{PROSELYTES}}} to Talmudic Judaism can be “JEWS” until HELL freezes over
    but the {{{PROSELYTES}}} to Talmudic Judaism will never be the Children of Israel
    @ Genesis 49.

    No One on Earth HAS to believe…LIES. John 8:44 !

    The {{{PROSELYTES}}} to the Bad Faith “Mass Murder for Filthy Lucre” {{{JEW}}} rreligion
    TALMUDIC JUDAISM will never be Israel.



    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      “” TALMUDIC JUDAISM will never be Israel.””

      Your assertion is confusing . Also , saying that apples will never be oranges is a bit superfluous . Furthermore , you failed to distinguish between [ spiritual Israel ] and [ biblical Israel ] and [ geo-political Israel ] . Your assertion is loaded with ambiguity . If you mean that [ Talmudic Jews will never be geo-political Israelites ] then your assertion is clearly false . Moreover , your assertion is moot at best .

      Whites ( the brevity name for Indo-European/Aryan/Caucasian peoples )
      need to know that our masters — the enemy — are called ” jews ” ; and that they are mostly descendents of legitimate nonislamic converts to judaism ; and that ((( they ))) have a vaguely defined yet sovereign geo-political state called ” Israel ” ; and that ((( their ))) monopoly of global money systems is ultimately fatal for Whites ; and that ((( their ))) monopoly of global information systems is ultimately fatal for Whites ; and that the vast majority political retardation ( not IQ ) is ultimately fatal for Whites ; and that ((( they ))) have successfully buried alive a recently formulated , by a brilliant chinese with both math and genetics expertise ( as seen on the internet ) , valid scientific definition of [ race ] in order to prevent detection of the sophistry in ((( their ))) antiWhite racism arguments//attacks .

  4. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Fritz (Friedrich Simon) Bodenheimer is the son of Max Isidor Bodenheimer, the first president of the Zionist Federation of Germany and one of the founders of the Jewish National Fund.
    Some few lights about his activities gleaned from Wikipedia (there are of course more substantial information in scholarly books):
    “In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, he submitted an Exposé on the Synchronization of German and Jewish Interests in the World War to German military headquarters in Cologne. He set out his vision to Count Hutten-Czapski of the General Staff, chief of sabotage operations on the eastern front. With support from the General Staff and the Wilhelmstrasse, he established the ‘German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews’, together with 6 German Zionist colleagues, on 17 August 1914. He resigned his chairmanship of the Jewish National Fund. Bodenheimer wanted the German army to assault the power of the Tsarist empire in the Baltic States, Poland, White Russia and the Ukraine, where he hoped for an ‘East European Federation’* in which ‘all ethnic groups were to enjoy national autonomy’, including the Jews, in the Pale of Settlement. It seems like he was the author of the conception of the establishment of the League of East European States – a German client state with autonomous Jewish cooperation, later referred also as Judeopolonia”.

    *The biography by his daughter describes a divide and rule strategy to the benefit of Germany: “In this Federation Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Esthonians and Latvians would together serve as a counterbalance to the Poles, and the Germans, and Jews [6 million!] would hold the balance of power between the two groupings.”

  5. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    After WW2, these Ashkenazic Khazars freaked out heavily over race, and it had nothing at all to do with actual fears over not being able to be culturally jewish anymore. It had to do with the fact that the Third Reich presented a real and tangible threat to a certain way of doing business that Khazars had been engaging in for centuries, had become accustomed to, and had gotten filthy rich off of. The Third Reich was poised to put an end to the excesses of usury, degeneracy, and exploitation, and that’s what threw the Khazars into the kind of hysterical anti-white panic that they’re still engaged in today.

    The fact that all this mass immigration, forced integration, deliberate demographic change, over the top degeneracy, and legislatively enshrined usury in the west today has nothing to do with Khazars worrying about whether they’ll be allowed to light their menorahs each year, and everything to do with the fact that their sleazy, lazy, exploitative way of doing business was under threat just makes this group of people that much more intolerable, and reaffirms everything that the architects of the Third Reich uttered about them as truth.

  6. Achilles Wannabe
    Achilles Wannabe says:

    This is a good essay. We need to be reminded of the genetic trail to Jews. But the author should have included some objective data about the genetic interface between Europeans and Jews. I see so many comments elsewhere disputing the Jewish content of the European – Jewish genome.There must be a way to put this straight because these comments are almost always made by Jews

    • Andrew
      Andrew says:

      Jews are a distinct group genetically speaking. They share DNA that non-Jewish Europeans and other non-Jews do not have. This distinctness is due to their tendency to marry each other and to frown on Jews who marry non-Jews. Ethnically, racially and culturally, I see very little in common between non-Jewish Europeans (white people) and Jews.
      Jean-Francois Gariepy of “The Public Space” on YouTube has delved into this extensively.

  7. Denny Stanley
    Denny Stanley says:

    And white folks have to defend themselves also. Chuck Baldwin’s website just sent me a email and says, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, and Marco Rubio are teaming up with liberal democrats to pass a red flag law where they would be able to confiscate your guns over anything. We can’t let them run roughshod over the second amend amendment. The majority of these false flag shootings are being done by the Mossad to get guns banned in America. Most Americans are law abiding citizens with their guns. Call your congressmen up to put a end to this red flag nonsense. White Americans might have to defend ourselves in the coming future. We can’t let them destroy the second ammendment …

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      You are no doubt correct about Mossad being involved in many , if not most or even all , of those anti-Second Amendment mass shooting events .

      As for ” Call your congressmen ” , why bother unless you have exceptional ( meaning huge amounts of bribe money ) political influence? ((( They ))) own the fedgov . Whites are not going to defeat their masters anti-gun political agenda by playing defense only ; and ((( they ))) are not going to [ let ] Whites get clandestinely organized for the purpose of reclaiming their long lost fair-share-of-political-power . Most Whites are still unwittingly imprinted onto the zionist political will .

Comments are closed.