Featured Articles

On Jewish Vulgarity

I read with interest a recent column in The Tablet by David Mikics (Professor of English, University of Houston) on Jewish vulgarity or, as the piece otherwise explains it, “the once-vibrant Jewish trait of not caring what the goyim think.” Although touted as a three-part series, only the first part has been published thus far, and this first essay is a kind of focused review of elements within John Murray Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility and Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. In the following essay I want to expand upon, and challenge, some of the ideas raised in the piece by Mikics.

I have to agree with the basic premise of the opening remarks of Mikics’s column. He writes that “the charge that Jews are vulgar now seems almost quaint. … Jewish lack of manners was once taken seriously both by Jews and by their gentile neighbors and competitors. The vulgar, unmannerly Jew was a countercultural force, and not just a reason for shame and repression.” The overall state of contemporary culture has indeed degraded to such an extent that Jews no longer stand out as singular producers of cultural obscenities. And yet there is a deep history of Jews as the agents of vulgarity in the West, stretching back to Roman accounts. Mikics doesn’t seem concerned with this deep history, focusing only on the twentieth century as covered by the works of Cuddihy and Slezkine.

Historical Jewish Obscenity

Jews have often been regarded by host cultures as both inherently obscene and as promoters of the obscene — a corrosive force acting against group morality, and therefore group cohesion. In Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (2014), Josh Lambert points out that in the ancient Mediterranean Jews were referred to as “an obscene people.”[1] Such comments may have been as much observations as aspersions, since we know that in later centuries obscenity became an integral part of Jewish linguistic culture. For example, Bernard Dov Weinryb writes that in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Poland, “many erotic or obscene expressions and metaphors appear in Hassidic writings. …They reflect the way the average Jew in those times used obscene language, mainly of an erotic character, in his conversation.”[2] On more recent contexts, Jonas E. Alexis has written that,

Jewish actors tend to gravitate towards shows with sexual themes. …  Israeli-American Natalie Portman tells us in the movie No Strings Attached that “monogamy goes against our basic biology.” And [Jewish singer] Adam Lambert says, “When I’m on stage there’s definitely a sexual energy that goes into it.” In 2009 Lambert performed ‘For Your Entertainment’ at the American Music Awards. During the performance Lambert dragged a female dancer by her ankles and pushed “a male dancer’s head into his crotch and simulated oral sex.”[3]

As well as being represented and self-representing as having an intrinsic relationship to the obscene, the historical record is also replete with examples of Jews involving themselves heavily in the trade in obscenity. In his pseudonymously-published Letters from England (1808), the English Poet Laureate Robert Southey remarked on Jewish peddlers who wandered nineteenth-century England hawking “miserable and obscene prints.”[4]

In 1886 Édouard Drumont warned of a “pornographic war” being waged on France by Jews.[5] In 1913, a “filthy press” in Warsaw “belonging to a certain Zimmerman,” was confiscated by Polish police after it was discovered disseminating pornography throughout the Russian Empire — activities described by the newspaper Przegląd Katolicki as a “Jewish atrocity.”[6] Estonian police raided a building in 1909 belonging to the Jewish Benjamin Mikhailovsky, one of the richest merchants in Narva. One of Mikhailovsky’s side projects, apart from the trade in precious metals, was printing, and during their search police seized “11,119 cards they considered pornographic.”[7] And in Poland in 1910, the Polish Archbishop Pelczar would write, “I consider it my duty to warn Christian society against those Jews who intoxicate our people in the tavern and destroy them with usury; against those who maintain houses of debauchery in the towns; who trade in live goods [i.e. selling women into prostitution], who poison our young people with pornographic prints and periodicals.”[8] In the U.S, it is well-established that Jews have had a prominent role in the porn industry since the late nineteenth century.

Weaponized Rudeness

As well as prominent involvement in pushing pornographic vulgarity into Western culture, Jews have been noted for their general disdain for the social norms and manners of the host population. Naomi Cohen writes that the nineteenth-century Jew was faulted for “his vulgarity, boorishness, and ostentatious behavior.”[9] In his article in The Tablet, David Mikics is primarily concerned with this strain of Jewish vulgarity. Although it was a kind of open in-joke among Jews, discussions of Jewish social vulgarity among non-Jews were a source of alarm. Cuddihy’s book in particular, notes Mikics, “was notorious: Here was a non-Jew talking about vulgar Jews, as if this were a real thing. Clapping the lid over such a shonda was the primary task of some reviewers, who hinted that Cuddihy must be an antisemite.” He continues,

It is bad manners to talk about Jewish bad manners the way Cuddihy did— and even more so today than 50 years ago. But his book made a powerful case that Cuddihy did not see vulgarity as a flaw but instead as a weapon Jews used to disrupt gentile society—for which he admired them. Jews deployed their rudeness to make a principled argument against the goyim (a word Cuddihy didn’t shy away from), who were cultural prisoners of a hypocritical code that swept unruly emotions under the rug and leaned on polite euphemism to conceal the vampiric nature of capitalist exploitation. The grand Marxist and Freudian theories about the human condition have a crude Jewish impulse at their core, Cuddihy argued, which makes them more, not less, compelling.

Cuddihy, like Josh Lambert and Unclean Lips, imputes an idealistic motive to what is quite obviously a phenomenon fuelled more by the baser instinct towards aggression. Lambert, for example, argues that Jews “engaged with obscenity — produced it, defended it, wrote about it — for precisely the same reasons that many of their Protestant, Catholic, and nonreligious peers did so: to make money, to seek sexual gratification, to express antisocial rage.”[10] In terms of factuality, this probably ranks somewhere alongside defining a dog as a four-legged mammal — it is technically truthful but is so insufficient and incomplete as to be almost worthless. Most interesting of these proffered reasons is ‘antisocial rage,’ which is left hanging in tantalizing fashion without further elaboration. Indeed, lest readers begin to ponder the fact that, numerically speaking, Jews appear to have a disproportionate amount of ‘antisocial rage,’ Lambert hastens to clarify that he means his subjects are merely “expressing anger about their individual lives” [emphasis added].

Speaking through one of his characters in The Anatomy Lesson (1983), the Jewish filth-peddler Philip Roth seethes: “With me money is not the paramount issue. The defiance is. The hatred is. The outrage is.” Lambert takes this comment and avoids asking who Roth is defying, or who his hatred and outrage is directed towards. Roth’s hatred, like other subjects discussed in Unclean Lips, is simply abstracted into what Lambert describes in anodyne fashion as a purely “personal, apolitical rage.”

I’ve reached different conclusions from Lambert, who argues with some tremendous leaps of logic that Jewish vulgarity was a method employed by Jews to facilitate assimilation and force their way into genteel society (!). Evidence in the field of obscenity suggests that Jews have long possessed a disproportionate surplus of “antisocial rage,” and that the expression of this rage is rather more political than apolitical, and rather more communal than purely personal or individual. In the careful, consistent, and persistent action of Jews in challenging and overturning obscenity laws, for example, one detects a hatred that is more focused than abstract, more contrived than spontaneous.

My own perspective is echoed by Joshua Furst in a 2014 article published in The Forward, titled “A Short History of Jews and Obscenity.” The article reviews Unclean Lips and finds the book an anodyne and bland text that avoids the fundamental impulses behind Jewish transgression of the host culture’s norms. For Furst,

What’s lost in “Unclean Lips” is the thrill obscenity can create. It’s the sharp dangerous edge of anarchy and when used effectively, it can BLEEP up the most carefully planned cocktail party, smashing all propriety to BLEEP. Lambert’s systematic and earnest exegeses take all the fun out of obscenity. It’s like going to a strip club to find yourself being lectured about heteronormativity and the male gaze by a fully clothed BLEEPer. Presenting obscenity as a means of gaining access to the domain of polite, civil society seems, to me at least, to miss the BLEEPING point.

Furst continues:

Maybe more problematic, if one cares about the relationship between Judaism and American culture, are the limited and predetermined objectives Lambert presents his Jewish protagonists as having. In these pages, obscenity is first and foremost presented as a tool by which Jews were able to assimilate and gain acceptance by the American cultural elite as well as monetary and societal success, and to enter the “prestige culture” as Lambert calls it. But what of the other ways in which obscenity can and has been used? What of transgression and dissidence? Obscenity is such a powerful weapon against those who would wish to control our behavior (to say nothing of our imaginations) and villainize us for our culture. And the angry refusal of Jewish figures like Lenny Bruce, Abbie Hoffman and even Al Goldstein to accept the terms the over-culture demanded was as Jewish in character as Henry Roth’s yiddishisms and Liveright’s entrepreneurship through scandal.

Genteel society, or Gentile society?: Moral Destruction as Ethnic Warfare

When Jews discuss Jewish vulgarity and its motives, there is an obvious conceit at play in the framing of the issue. Almost exclusively one encounters the notion that Jews wanted to upset a stuffy “genteel society.” Such phrasing places Jewish action in the sphere of a clash of behaviors rather than a clash of ethnicities. Take, for example, Mikics, who writes, “The one time I saw him, in the 1980s, Abbie Hoffman seemed to me a genuine charismatic, as well as a matchless stand-up comic. Like Lenny Bruce, Mel Brooks or the gang at Mad, he sensed how Jewish vulgarity could explode the sacred cows of genteel society” [emphasis added]. This is little more than a clever shell game. If Jews are the aggressors seeking change, isn’t the genteel society really just gentile society?

The lowering of the moral values of a nation or ethnic group and the systematic encouragement of vice in it are inherently aggressive and political acts, designed to weaken the spiritual resistance of the national group. In Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, the Australian academic A. Dirk Moses discusses the use of “moral techniques” as an instrument of genocide. He writes that “The technique of moral debasement entails diverting the ‘mental energy of the group’ from ‘moral and national thinking’ to ‘base instincts.’ The aim is that the desire for cheap individual pleasure be substituted for the desire for collective feelings and ideals based upon a higher morality.” It is demoralizing to a people. It is debasing to a nation. It is a weapon wielded in ethnic warfare.

Moses, who I am assuming is Jewish based purely on his name, was writing specifically about policies enacted in post-invasion Poland by the National Socialist regime. On these policies, Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish self-styled expert on genocide, remarks: “Therefore the [National Socialist] occupant made an effort in Poland to impose upon the Poles pornographic publications and movies. The consumption of alcohol was encouraged, for while food prices have soared, the Germans have kept down the price of alcohol, and the peasants are compelled by the authorities to take spirits in payment for agricultural produce. The curfew law, enforced very strictly against Poles, is relaxed if they can show the authorities a ticket to one of the gambling houses which the Germans have allowed to come into existence.”[11]

As discussed in Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents, the National Socialist movement in Germany adopted what in many respects was a mirror image strategy of that employed by the Jews. This is clear not only in the adoption of race laws, but also in the fact the National Socialists were here merely copying and expanding upon what they understood to be the pre-existing tactics of Jewish cultural domination in Poland (and others in Europe). Indeed, Jews were widely understood by both Poles and Germans as having been intimately involved in the alcohol industry of Poland prior to the invasion of 1939, with the Tablet even affirming in a 2014 article that Jews “ruled Poland’s liquor trade for centuries” in a system in which Polish peasants were compelled to purchase Jewish alcohol. Jews have also long been associated with dominating the gambling industry (Israel is currently the global center for online gambling). In those areas of nineteenth century Poland where local nobles granted tax exemptions to Jewish communal institutions, Jews continued to sell liquor and run inns and taverns, in which they established gambling facilities to further squeeze the Poles. And the activities of Jews in promoting pornography in Poland have already been discussed above.

My question then, on considering the remarks of Moses and Lemkin, is both simple and stark: If, by promoting vice, the National Socialists were employing a genocidal technique against the Poles, what had the Jews been doing? And if the Jews are engaging in the same activities in the West today, what are they doing and why? Can we really describe a set of behaviors as on the one hand indicating a desire to “assimilate” and promote “freedom,” while maintaining on the other hand that these same techniques are designed to destroy?

Jewish Vulgarity

Mikics, while playfully teasing for much of his article as if these Jews were simply a bunch of loveable rogues, slips towards the end when he laments such ‘tame’ shows as Curb Your Enthusiasm:

Shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm hawk Jewish rudeness for easy laughs, proving that the vulgar Jew has declined from a real threat into an amusing, half-legendary caricature. … The exuberance of Jewish vulgarity, and the in-group solidarity of the shtetlakh it expressed, are both missing. [emphasis added]

What is Jewish vulgarity, then?  Mikics seems to suggest here that it’s a way in which Jews can both bond with one another and threaten the host society. Or, to use another of his phrases, it melded “Jewish aggression with communal solidarity.” Perhaps it’s best to end with the self-explanatory, and consider the following remarks from Joshua Furst:

Among the Jewish traits I am most proud to be historically and culturally associated with is the way my people obstreperously defend our principles even when doing so goes against our best interests. … I see it as my birthright to get under people’s skin and annoy them until they want to scream. And one of the greatest rhetorical tools people bent towards this sort of behavior can wield is the well-timed, carefully aimed obscenity.

[1] J. Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014), p.3.

[2] B. D. Weinryb, The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland, from 1100 to 1800 (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1972), p. 387.

[3] J. E. Alexis, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: Surprising Differences, Conflicting Visions, and Worldview Implications—From the Early Church to our Modern Time (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2012), p.217.

[4] R. Southey, Letters from England: Volume Two – Third American Edition (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p.179.

[5] R. Blobaum, ‘Criminalizing the ‘Other’: Crime, Ethnicity and Antisemitism in Early Twentieth-Century Poland’ in R. Blobaum, (ed.), Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), p.89.

[6] Ibid.

[7] A. Weiss-Wendt, On the Margins: About the History of Jews in Estonia (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2017), p.43.

[8] B. A . Porter, Faith and Fatherland: Catholicism, Modernity, and Poland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p.303.

[9] N. Cohen, What the Rabbis Said: The Public Discourse of Nineteenth-Century American Rabbis (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 159.

[10] Lambert, Unclean Lips, p.14.

[11] J. G. Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (London: Praeger, 2001), p.45.

Nukes for Ukraine, Nix for You Goyim: How Jewish Control Explains the Anti-White Treachery of Western Politics

Little things say a lot. And what they say, in our fallen world, is often very bad. Take the little lapel-badge sported in recent months by the British politician Grant Shapps (born 1968). He’s an elite member of Britain’s woefully misnamed Conservative party. He’s also a crooked Jew. Using the pseudonym Michael Green, he worked as an “internet marketing salesman” for at least a year after he became a Member of Parliament, despite his public denials that he had done so. His activities as Green may have involved running a pyramid scheme and certainly involved concealing his real identity and selling useless self-help guides with titles like “Stinking Rich 3.”

Crooked Jew Grant Shapps and his little lapel-badge

And what lapel-badge has the crooked Jew Grant Shapps been sporting in recent months? It’s a British flag resting beside a Ukrainian flag. After all, Ukraine is run by crooked Jews and Shapps naturally feels a deep sense of solidarity with them. He’s horrified by the Russian invasion that has violated Ukraine’s borders and threatens to remove Ukraine from the control of crooked Jews. And like his neo-conservative Jewish buddies in America, he’s happy to risk nuclear war in defense of Ukraine. At the same time, Shapps isn’t worried at all about the unending violation of Britain’s borders by non-White migrants from countries even more corrupt than Ukraine. This non-White invasion doesn’t threaten the control of Britain by crooked Jews. On the contrary, the non-White invasion enhances Jewish control, because the terrorism, crime and conflict it causes justify the surveillance-state and ever-harsher laws against free speech.

Lying to voters

That’s why both the Conservative and the Labour parties have pretended for decades to care about White voters’ clearly expressed desire for less migration, while secretly being in favor of ever-increasing migration from the worst possible places. And the two parties have been happy to lie to their supporters. Peter Hitchens recently described their lies in the Mail on Sunday:

Here’s all you need to know about our big political parties and mass migration, now at astonishing levels. They favour it, but they want you to think they don’t. I will never forget a wet Sunday many years ago when I went canvassing for a friend, who was trying to win a by-election in the Midlands. As it happens, he was standing for Labour, but I think the other lot would have done the same. Before we went out knocking on doors, we were told “If they raise immigration, just tell them we’re against it.” (Peter Hitchens’ Blog, Mail on Sunday, 27th November 2022)

In fact, no, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are “against immigration.” They’re both very much in favor of it. And the worse the quality of the migrants, the more they like it. As I’ve remarked before at the Occidental Observer, if you searched the world to find the worst possible countries to take migrants from, Pakistan would be very near the top of the list. It has sky-high levels of corruption and rock-bottom levels of civilization. Among the few things that flourish in Pakistan are sex-crime, inbreeding, and extra-judicial execution for alleged blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. When Pakistanis migrate to the West, they bring all of that rich vibrancy with them. Pakistanis in Britain have committed many thousands of sex-crimes against White girls and women, imposed huge costs on Whites through theft, welfare-fraud, and tax-evasion, imposed more huge costs on the National Health Service with the horrible genetic diseases that result from their inbreeding, and attacked free speech by threatening or actually committing murder in Muhammad’s name.

Crooked Jew Ehud Sheleg, money-man for the not-at-all Conservatives

And what has happened to hugely harmful migration from Pakistan under Britain’s so-called Conservative government? It has massively increased. So has hugely harmful migration from the rest of the Third World. To understand why the so-called Conservatives don’t want to conserve anything, you just have to look at who finances them and whose interests they serve. The current money-man of the Tories is an Israeli plutocrat called Ehud Sheleg, who is one of at least six very rich Jews who have served as Treasurer of the Conservative Party since the year 2000. As I described in my article “Booty without Scrutiny,” Sheleg is an Uber-Jew who has been seriously under-reported. The vast majority of British voters wouldn’t even recognize his name, let alone be able to describe the huge power he wields at the heart of Britain’s governing party. They don’t know that Sheleg was born in Tel Aviv and has openly stated that his first loyalty is to Israel, not Britain. In 2019 he told the Jewish Chronicle that “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.”

“Jews and Muslims are natural allies”

And second to his pursuit of Jewish interests, of course. That’s why the Conservative party funded and controlled by crooked Jews like Ehud Sheleg is so much in favor of non-White migration. Jews believe that non-White migration into the White and historically Christian West is very much in their interests. They particularly like Muslim migration from countries like Pakistan. Many Jewish activists have stated that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies.” Here are a few headlines about those Jews and their Islamophilia:

But against whom are Jews and Muslims “natural allies”? That bit is left unstated, but the answer is obvious. Jews and Muslims are natural allies against White Christians. And when the natural alliance breaks down and Muslims attack Jews, that too can be turned to Jewish advantage. You can see how it works in a recent article by a dishonest, obese and ugly philo-Semite called Stephen Daisley, who writes for the cuckservative Spectator in Britain. As I described in my article “Jeremy’s Jackboots,” Daisley looks very much like the giant slug-like Star-Wars villain Jabba the Hutt and behaves very much like a Jewish stereotype, with an unfailing self-righteousness and insistence that Jewish interests must be at the center of British politics. I suspect he is himself Jewish but prefers to keep quiet about it, like the highly crooked and possibly half-Jewish Denis MacShane, the disgraced ex-Labour MP for Rotherham who failed for decades to defend White working-class girls from rape and sexual exploitation in his own constituency. Meanwhile, MacShane worked diligently for rich and powerful Jews in far-off London right up until he was jailed for fraud in 2013.

Crooked crypto-Jew Stephen Daisley and his porcine punim

Stephen Daisley has the same priorities and the same dishonesty as Denis MacShane. Writing in the Spectator in January 2023, he announced that “Challenging anti-Semitism is a moral imperative for non-Jews.” Have you got that, goyim? Jews are powerless victims and desperately need your help. Daisley lamented that “Anti-Semitism in Britain reflects a mightier tide of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping the globe. In 2021, anti-Semitic incidents rose 29 per cent in Germany, 54 per cent in Canada, 74 per cent in France and 119 per cent in Austria.” In fact, “anti-Jewish hatred” isn’t “sweeping the globe.” It has increased in all the countries named by Daisley for one simple reason that isn’t named by Daisley: Muslim immigration, which is engineered by and warmly supported by Jews, and which causes far greater harm to Whites. In other words, Daisley is calling for goyim to sympathize with Jews for “anti-Jewish hatred” created by Jews themselves.

A grovelling goy with a Jewish wife

But tell me, Mr Daisley: where are under-aged Jewish girls being raped or exploited as child-prostitutes by Muslims on an industrial scale? Nowhere at all. That’s happening instead to vulnerable White girls, whom philo-Semites like Daisley and MacShane aren’t concerned about in the slightest. Nor are politicians in the Jew-financed and Jew-controlled Conservative and Labour parties. And Labour wasn’t concerned about White interests when it briefly escaped Jewish control under the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn. Now Labour are firmly back under Jewish control thanks to the replacement of Corbyn as party leader by the slippery lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, who has a Jewish wife and a clear understanding of whose interests he must serve if he wants friendly media coverage and a good chance to win the next general election.

MP Portraits Project in The Reasons Room..

Grovelling goy Keir Starmer, slippery lawyer, sycophant to Jews and likely next prime minister of Britain

At the end of last year, Starmer’s goy-grovel was even more energetic than usual, as he saluted the dishonestly inflated Jewish festival of Chanukah in a video-message to Britain’s most self-important and self-serving minority. The Jewish Chronicle reported his sycophancy with relish: “I continue to be inspired by the Jewish community, its many acts of compassion and kindness, its service to Britain, and I am delighted to have strengthened my friendships with the community over the last year. Long may that continue. I wish you a joyous Chanukah. May the candles of this festival of light shine brightly and bring hope to us all.” Starmer’s chances of winning the next election are looking very bright too, thanks to his goy-grovel and to the thickening miasma of incompetence and exhaustion that now surrounds the Conservative party. For example, the Tories have utterly failed to end the flood of illegal migrants across the English channel.

Jews come first, Whites come nowhere

But anyone who thinks Labour will try to end the flood or reduce migration is either stupid or delusional or both. As Peter Hitchens said: both Labour and Conservatives favor mass migration, but they want you to think they don’t. As Peter Hitchens didn’t say, this is because both Labour and Conservatives exist to serve Jewish interests, not the interests of the White majority. That’s why they’re so concerned about Ukraine’s borders and so unconcerned about Britain’s borders.

The same is true of political parties in America. Like the ruling Tories in Britain, the ruling Democrats in America are happy to risk nuclear war in defense of Ukraine, but won’t lift a finger to defend their own country against invasion by illegal migrants. To understand why the left-wing Democrats and supposedly right-wing Conservatives both follow the same policies, you just have to ask who controls both those parties and whose interests they serve. The answer starts with “crooked” and ends with “Jews.”

My Journey to the Homosexual Question

Five years ago, Andrew Joyce wrote a compelling three-part series of articles on “The Alt-Right and the Homosexual Question” (published at AltRight.com). His articles comport well with what I have already concluded about homosexuals and their place among White racialists, especially if a White ethnostate or an American redoubt were to ever emerge in the Pacific Northwest.

In his articles, Joyce addresses and refutes several arguments raised against confronting the homosexual question. This is a sensitive and difficult subject for many, no doubt. Some would prefer not mentioning it at all, while others say we should gladly welcome White homosexuals regardless of their sexual proclivities because, after all, they’re White.

My intention is not so much to rehash Joyce’s thoughts, but to explain in my own way why I believe homosexuality is a deviant way of life and behavior. At its core, it violates the natural or created order of things, that it’s destructive of the family unit which is the foundation of any nation and of Western civilization itself, and that homosexuals in America have been weaponized by the Bolshevik Left to disrupt and ultimately tear apart the fabric of America (quite successfully I might add).

I wish to clarify that my criticism of homosexuals and today’s “gay rights” movement are general in nature. They are not intended to apply to every individual gay man without exception. There are, obviously, nuances, various shades, and differences among homosexuals. They are not a completely monolithic group as some might think. Yet there are enough similarities and consistencies among them so it’s legitimate to do some sober evaluation and criticism. I have described in this article only what I have witnessed, experienced, and deduced after many years of observation.

Growing Up in Hollywood

For almost fifty years my father had a business in Hollywood. He was part of Hollywood’s movie industry, mostly indirectly by providing equipment that might be used on a movie or television set. Amateurs and upstart production companies would purchase various items they might need for their films. His two large warehouses were near Santa Monica Boulevard and Highland Avenue which at the time were at the epicenter for gay prostitution.

As a result, I grew up around some Hollywood celebrities and people who were in the industry. A disproportionate number of them were homosexuals. My exposure to them led me at an early age to form opinions about gays, none which were positive. Although I didn’t quite have a framework in which to make sense of it all, I gradually discovered how strange, deviant and deeply disturbed so many of them seemed to be.

I recall driving to work with my father on the weekends and traveling down Highland Avenue in Hollywood only to see Transvestites swishing about and gesticulating wildly on the sidewalks pretending to be women. I was not only appalled by it, but I wondered how anyone could be so self-deceived. My father never spoke harshly of them, but he did mention on a couple of occasions how screwed up in the head they were.

The homosexuals I encountered were a mixed bag. Some of them were quite normal and I was not even aware of their sexual preferences until much later. They were very much “closeted” and didn’t go about announcing their gayness as many are prone to do.

Others were obviously gay by virtue of their effeminate mannerisms and some of the common stereotypes usually associated with them. They made sure everyone knew it too. Such effeminate mannerisms are ways that homosexuals signal to their own kind and distinguish themselves from the heterosexual majority.

Several of them were repeat customers of my father’s business, and he developed friendships with a good many. The thing that over time stood out the most about the gays I encountered was how seemingly catty and volatile they were. Even though they appeared “normal” and quite together on the outside, they seemed deeply disturbed inside. There was just something ‘off’ about them.

The unusually high sex drive reported about gay men was something I witnessed at times. Other employees and I would often find them in an alley engaged in sex next to a dumpster that we used daily. We had to order them to leave or threaten to call the police on many occasions. Years later I was told by a nurse who worked at a hospital AIDS ward that one of the most difficult tasks in her job was keeping the male AIDS patients out of each other’s beds!

Part of my duties at work was to pick up the lunch orders on certain days when the boss paid for everyone’s lunch. I was sixteen at the time and I didn’t drive. It was very common, however, to get propositioned by men as I was walking to the restaurant to pick up food we ordered.

One place in particular, Arthur J’s, was only a block away and we sometimes ordered food from them. Although I was not aware of it at the time, Arthur J’s, according to a blurb in Gay L.A., was “a phenomenally popular all-night hangout where gay people flocked after the bars closed. Arthur J’s was thought by gay men to be a great place to score. Aristide Laurent, who was a regular in the 1960’s, recalls that the sexual carryings-on had been so rampant in the men’s room at Arthur J’s that the waitresses were ordered to toss a cup of ammonia on the floor hourly so the fumes would preclude anyone from spending more time than was required to use the toilet” (“Queer Maps”).

On one occasion I walked over to Arthur J’s to pick up the lunches we had ordered. When I entered the restaurant, the place was filled with gay men as they gawked at me and made lewd comments. This was in the mid-1970s where many of them wore leather vests and huge mustaches — something right out of The Village People. It was so creepy and uncomfortable that when I returned to the office, I told my father that I would never go there again.

Homosexual Males: A Volatile Lot

My opinions about homosexuals were only confirmed as I got older. I worked security at the ‘Seven Seas’ nightclub on Hollywood Boulevard in the early 1980s. This was the nightclub owned by the late Eddie Nash who was a convicted money launderer and drug dealer. Many believe that Nash was the mastermind behind the Wonderland Murders, although he was never convicted for these crimes.

‘Seven Seas’ was a wild place. It was frequented by teenagers, young adults, and there were plenty of seedy characters always hanging around. A couple of the people who ran the place were gay, and they made sure to bring around their gay friends. One man who appeared to be in his mid-40s always arrived there on the weekends in his Porsche. He was often accompanied by a very young male who I thought to be around 15 or 16 years old. I later discovered that this same male teen brutally murdered his ‘sugar daddy’ while he was sleeping when he learned that he was seeing another boy.

Years later, when I attended the police academy, we had a sheriff’s homicide detective address the class. He worked in the city of West Hollywood which the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department patrolled. This city has a huge gay population, and many consider it the ‘Castro District’ of Los Angeles.

Of the many important things he shared, he told us that murders committed by gay men against their lovers were almost always easily discoverable because of the level of intensity and brutality committed by the perpetrator. It was all very personal. Inordinate levels of jealousy and rage always played a significant role. This is because homosexuals are known to be extremely promiscuous, much more so than the average male heterosexual might be. Sexual fidelity to their ‘partners’ is a rarity among gay men, and when their already unstable unions are violated by unfaithfulness, it frequently results in horrific mutilations and death.

Dangerous and Perverted Sexual Practices

All of us in various ways have our sexual preferences, our unique tastes (so to speak). We succumb in our weaker moments to temptations and lusts, many that we would be ashamed to admit. It’s part of the human condition. The flesh is indeed weak, and it’s a struggle we all must endure (some more than others).

Yet among gay men, the sort of sexual activities they routinely engage in is far beyond the pale of anything that might be deemed “normal.” Aside from anal sex, they engage in fisting, rimming (anus-to-mouth), urolagnia (getting urinated on and drinking urine), coprophilia (sexual stimulation from feces), bug chasing (intentionally infecting oneself with HIV through sex with an infected male), gift giving (intentionally infecting another male with HIV through unprotected sex), and an array of strange sexual practices. Group orgies are also very common among them. Gay men are known to have sex anywhere and anonymous sexual encounters with other men is what many of them prefer.

Is it any wonder, then, why so many gay men in America and Britain have skyrocketing levels of STD’s and are ridden with unusually strong strains of gonorrhea? The infections also tend to spread faster among them because they change partners more quickly. They are also more likely to experience gonorrhea in their throats (see the BBC News article by James Gallagher, “Super-Gonorrhea’s Spread Causing Huge Concern,” April 17, 2016; the article also notes that homosexuals “tend to spread infections a lot faster simply as they change partners more quickly.”).

These people, in general, are neither physically nor mentally healthy when one considers their lifestyle. Some surveys have revealed that rates of depression, suicidal thoughts, various phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, as well as drug and alcohol abuse were significantly higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. How can it not be when one is addicted to the most extreme and dangerous sexual practices imaginable?

The Unnaturalness  of Homosexuality

Most of this, of course, is blamed on an “intolerant” society that refuses to accept homosexuals as they are. I don’t believe this for a minute. I’m very much inclined to see it as stemming from the unnaturalness of homosexuality itself. The unnaturalness of homosexuality is plainly evident in that homosexuals are not able to procreate through anal sex. The drive to continue our species is both natural and strong among humans. Since homosexual sex is unable to perform this most basic biological act, it is automatically disqualified from being seen as either healthy, normal or natural.

Moreover, the anus is not meant for sex. It is meant to extract waste and is riddled with bacteria and germs. A good many of the STD’s that infect gay men are the direct result of playing around where they shouldn’t. Constant penetration of the anal wall inevitably creates tears where bacteria and diseases gain entrance into the bloodstream. Anyone who thinks is healthy needs to have their head examined.

All of this is so obviously misguided, yet society is constantly bombarded with messages of how perfectly normal and acceptable homosexuality is. Like the transgender lies the media propagandizes us daily with, so also the propaganda promoting homosexuality and gay marriage is nothing more than beautifully packaged lies.

Pederasty Is Common Among Homosexuals

Since homosexuals cannot procreate, they must recruit. ‘Pederasty’ (sexual relations between men and boys) has been historically common among them, a practice that that’s easily traced to ancient Greece and Roman cultures and beyond. While there have always been homosexuals in every society and culture, it has not always been accepted or tolerated. It’s my impression that homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in societies that are in decline. It should surprise no one that ever since the sexual revolution began in the 1960s – coupled with gay rights and today’s transgender movements – the U.S. has been on a downward spiral.

In the early 1960s, a series of short films were produced to educate the public about the predatory nature of homosexuals who sexually targeted lonely and fatherless boys. These films were introduced not because of some personal hatred toward gays, but because homosexual grooming was so prevalent in big cities such as San Francisco (where playgrounds for children often have signs barring single men). People today mock such films, but this is only because they have been so propagandized by the media and gay advocacy groups to believe that gay grooming is a false and unfair accusation.

Gay activist organizations in the U.S. gladly permitted NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) to partake in gay prides throughout America for many years. Yet it was only when pressure came upon gay rights groups to distance themselves from these overt pedophiles that they finally banned their presence from their parades. It was accepted, however, for such a long time as being part-and-parcel of America’s gay rights movement because most homosexuals fully supported sex with prepubescent and teenage boys.

They will not admit this openly, of course, since it would tarnish all their public relations campaigns. They know that most Americans might be able to tolerate two adult males engaging in sex, but this would not be the same sentiment when it comes to man-boy sexual relations. Either way, there is little sense in denying what both history and reality itself reveals – namely, that large numbers of homosexuals prefer to have sexual relations with young boys. Those who tell you otherwise are either lying or grossly ignorant.

Here’s an 11-year-old drag kid known as ‘Amazing Desmond’ who was featured on Good Morning America. Watch as the audience applauds this very confused and manipulated boy. That this would be aired on national television shows what a morally bankrupt nation we’ve become.

Gay Advocacy Groups Engage in Propaganda and Coercion

We must ask ourselves: How sane could any social or political movement be when its entire identity revolves around their sexual preferences and practices? Despite what gay activists might say, their message to the world is really about who they like to have sex with, and why society should fully embrace them. Doesn’t that itself seem bizarre? Can you imagine the level of absurdity that would result if heterosexuals erected organizations and developed nation-wide campaigns to convince everyone that they like having sex with those of the opposite gender? It would be strange indeed, in part, because having relations with the opposite sex is perfectly natural. Such efforts would prove nothing other than what everybody already knows.

Yet homosexual activists and apologists must bend over backwards and engage in great leaps of logic to convince us all that what they do sexually is normal and something we should accept. And what they cannot always accomplish by persuasion, they try to accomplish by coercion, legislation, media manipulation, Hollywood sympathy films, as well as demonizing their opponents and all of society.

For instance, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Prior to that, since its first edition in 1952, “homosexuality” was classified as a mental disorder. This change, however, did not occur as a result of new scientific discoveries, but because gay activist groups intimidated and pressured the APA to toss it out. This has been exhaustively documented by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Book House, 1996), and in a 2007 article he authored titled, “The ‘Trojan Couch’: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science.”

Homosexuals Oppose Traditional American Values

The family itself must be vilified by gay militants. Traditional marriage must also come under attack and perverted from its original meaning. And for what purpose? So that no one will ever point out the patently obvious truth that man-on-man sex is unnatural and unhealthy.

I suppose one might be inclined to support the gay agenda if gays themselves lived in ways that were moral and circumspect. But often they don’t. Yet they are often the first and loudest to condemn traditional values. Their ‘heroes’ are the likes of Harvey Milk (gay politician), RuPaul (gay drag queen), Larry Kramer (radical gay AIDS activist), Andy Warhol (eccentric gay artist), Pete Buttigieg (openly gay U.S. Secretary of Transportation), and Ellen DeGeneres (lesbian talk show host) to name just a few.

They are celebrated in America only because the country has become unmoored from its traditional moral values.

One might also be inclined to support gay rights if gays themselves were big supporters of Heritage Americans (Whites) and their interests as well as traditional American culture with its strong family values and love of country. But they haven’t and never will because homosexuality is itself rebellion against the natural order. They will always seek to undermine anything that supports normalcy and the marks of traditional society and culture(s). The comparably few that might not are outliers, the exception that proves the rule.

Gays in America largely support left-leaning and overtly cultural-Marxist policies. They are the darlings among liberal Democrats. The brunt of their activism aims at weakening and destroying traditional American institutions such as the family. They infiltrate our public-school systems and propagandize our children with their pro-gay messages. They do so because they rightly recognize that societal acceptance of gays will be easier with each successive generation so long as they are permitted to influence and recruit young people with little parental resistance.

It’s important to understand, then, that gays in America are not about conforming to the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of the greater majority. They are not content to merely be accepted and tolerated in society. No, they must be “celebrated” and told how their sexual proclivities are just as good as heterosexuality. In some cases, we are even told how homosexuality is superior!

Depending on what survey one chooses to believe, gay men comprise only about 4.9% of the overall U.S. population, and yet they influence and dictate a disproportionate amount of American federal and state policies that favor them. This includes enormous federal funding for gay causes and healthcare associated with their high levels of STD’s. The MSM unashamedly supports them. The entire medical establishment stands behind them. Our colleges and universities have established policies that penalize anyone who dares to say something negative about homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders. Yet homosexuals in the media continue to portray themselves as “victims” of a “homophobic” society?!

Some argue that homosexuality has a genetic or biological (e.g., hormonal) basis. Others argue that it’s largely environmental. Whatever the case, the rise of homosexuality to mainstream status in America has proven to be disastrous to the health and future of America. Any social movement that centers its existence on their sexual proclivities – especially those that throughout history have been condemned by almost all societies and cultures – will prove to be of no worth if that same nation desires to survive. Homosexuality produces only sickness and death, as is plainly evident in the AIDS epidemic and the insane levels of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men. And while there may be individual homosexuals who can add value and benefit to society (often seen in the arts), as a group committed to sexual deviancy, they are unable to do so.

The Jewish Role in Advancing Gay Rights

The disproportionate Jewish role in advancing gay rights is well-documented. Jews are quite proud of their role in all of this. They have been on the frontlines in the struggle for homosexual acceptance and have both orchestrated as well as funded the contemporary gay rights movement in the U.S. and Europe. Activist Jews such as Franklin Kameny, who is considered by some to have been the gay rights movement’s Rosa Parks, Edie Windsor, and Thea Spyer; Windsor and Spyer were at the center of a landmark case that struck down the federal bar on same-sex marriages; and many others took a leading role in normalizing homosexuality and in advocating for special rights on behalf of gays.

Back in 2013, Vice-President Joe Biden openly praised the important role Jews played in legalizing same-sex marriage when he was speaking before a Jewish American Heritage Month reception hosted by the Democrat National Committee: “Vice President Joe Biden is praising Jewish leaders for helping change American attitudes about gay marriage and other issues. Biden says culture and arts change people’s attitudes. He cites social media and the old NBC TV series “Will and Grace” as examples of what helped change attitudes on gay marriage. Biden said, “Think — behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry.” Biden says the influence is immense and that those changes have been for the good. He says Jewish values are an essential part of who Americans are” (Josh Lederman, “Biden: Jewish Leaders Drove Gay Marriage Changes,” Associated Press, May 21, 2013).

Biden’s words proved embarrassing to some Jews who thought his admission fed into stereotypical Jewish “canards” that Jews promote liberal and detrimental social policies. Jews, of course, want to take credit for creating and implementing their Utopian values on the nation, but if anyone dares to claim that these values are deleterious, they are quick to denounce such ‘noticing.’

Like Blacks in America, gays have been weaponized by Jews against traditional Americans. This is not because Jews have historically supported homosexuality. In fact, Judaism throughout the centuries has been opposed to it and the Jewish scriptures explicitly condemn such practices. Jews largely support gay marriage and gay rights because they erode the moral fabric of traditionally Christian America . These practices also help to destabilize the nation so that White racial solidarity could never threaten them as it once did in Germany under National Socialist control. This explains in part why Jews are always quick to create and bolster radical social movements that prove ruinous to the racial and cultural health of Whites.


If America were to break apart, a confederacy of sorts in which politically conservative Red states were to secede from the Union, Whites would be wise to never allow homosexuals positions of influence and power. This doesn’t mean they should be persecuted solely because they are gay, but only that campaigns to normalize and promote homosexuality should be outlawed. Gays who are “closeted” and who keep their sexual proclivities private should be left alone.

However, the minute gays are given a sympathetic platform and permitted to propagandize among us – especially if they were to target our children – there should be harsh penalties. Failure to do so will cause White Americans to fight the same social and political battles all over again.

How Jewish is Azov?

In the essay “Why ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine?,” I looked at the historical basis for significant remnants of interest in National Socialism as a political ideology in Ukraine. That essay was not the place to evaluate whether the famous—or infamous—Azov Regiment (formerly Battalion) is National Socialist in any sense. We will evaluate that here.

The Azov Regiment displays flags, patches and other regalia featuring a symbol associated with the National Socialist German military from World War II. Something called Reporting Radicalism gives a good description of the main Azov symbol, as well as a good example of how it can be mischaracterized:

Idea of the Nation

A modern symbol created as an emblem for the Social-National Party of Ukraine (now known as the Svoboda Party). It is a combination of Ukrainian letters “I” and “N” allegedly written in an “ancient script,” though there is no evidence that these letters were ever written in such a way.   The symbol is a variation of the Wolfsangel; a mirror image of the emblem of the SS Panzer Division “Das Reich” (a division of the Nazi security services). The leader of Patriot of Ukraine rejects the notion that the symbol has any connection to the Wolfsangel. However, the organizations that use the Idea of ​​the Nation symbol are far-right and use other hate symbols.

Before the beginning of the Russian war with Ukraine in late February 2022, media attention had been invested in presenting Azov as “Neo-Nazis,” Fascists and “far right extremists.” This is especially true of Russian media, such as this RT depiction titled “Not worth your sympathy: The story of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov battalion” released in July of last year, equating Azov with the original racist, mass murdering, evil “Nazis.” Only six days after the Russian “special military operation” began, in early March Aljazeera did a fine job demonizing Azov in its piece “Profile: Who are Ukraine’s far-right Azov regiment?,” assigning it all the same atrocities attributed to “Nazis” such as “pogroms” against Roma and homosexuals (but not Jews), “white supremacist” and “far-right ultra-nationalism” ideology, and raping and torturing civilians in the Donbas region. Aljazeera mentions “Igor Kolomoisky, an energy magnate billionaire and then-governor of the Dnipropetrovska region” as an oligarch who funded Azov, but omits that Kolomoisky is Jewish. This will prove significant.

Not to be left out, Western media such as The Nation was depicting Azov in a similar vein in 2019 even before the Russian incursion, using every label imaginable just in its title and subtitle: “Neo-Nazi,” “far right,” “anti-Semitic,” “fascist” and “ultranationalist.” As far back as June 2015, the US Congress was passing an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which stated: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.” The reasons were provided by a Mr. Conyers, sponsor of the amendment:

Foreign Policy magazine has characterized the 1,000-man Azov Battalion as “openly neo-Nazi” and “fascist.” Numerous other news organizations, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and the Associated Press have corroborated the dominance of White supremacist and anti-Semitic views within the group; yet Ukraine’s Interior Minister recently announced the Azov Battalion will be among the units to receive training and arms from Western allies, including the United States.

Azov’s founder, Andriy Biletsky, organized the neo-Nazi group the Social-National Assembly in 2008. Azov men use neo-Nazi symbolism on their banner.

Facebook took a similar view of Azov, then moderated it. In 2016 Facebook declared Azov a “dangerous organization,” and by 2019 Azov was banned from Facebook entirely. “Users engaging in praise, support or representation” of Azov were also banned. The day after the Russian offensive, February 24, 2022, Facebook abruptly changed the policy, allowing praise and support for Azov. In a vain and desperate attempt to find some non-existent middle ground, Facebook will “allow praise of the Azov Battalion when explicitly and exclusively praising their role in defending Ukraine OR their role as part of the Ukraine’s National Guard,”  but that “Azov still can’t use Facebook platforms for recruiting purposes or for publishing its own statements and that the regiment’s uniforms and banners will remain as banned hate symbol imagery…”

This moderation by Facebook is typical of Western media generally after the Russian intervention in early 2022. Azov had already been the focus of intensive propaganda warfare prior, which escalated when Putin declared “de-nazification” as a main objective of Russia’s direct entry into the conflict. Russian propaganda depicts Azov as “Neo-Nazis” and even “White supremacists” as one justification for crossing the border into Ukraine.

Azov has its own highly polished and professional propaganda, which labeled the Russians “the real fascists.” The UK Telegraph said Azov was “playing a PR game” as a “well-oiled publicity machine.” International news outlet France 24 reported in late March 2022 that Azov maintains a professional presence on Telegram social media, posting drone videos of Azov’s military successes against Russian tanks. The article states, “The Azov now function like other regiments ‘but with better PR,’” according to a human rights expert.

More typical “de-nazification” of Azov that Western media itself engaged in at this point declares: “'(Azov) doesn’t have the connotation of being a sort of fascist symbol anymore,’… Overall, ultra-nationalist political forces have been on the decline in Ukraine since 2014…”

These apologetics and white-washing of Azov should perplex us, given the absolute hysteria with which the Jewish-owned and -operated Western media and governments depict anything even remotely considered “Nazi.” One example was the frenzy that ensued when it appeared the stage at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) was shaped in the form of a Nordic rune (the Odal), also displayed by some National Socialist military units. Obviously the Russian invasion in 2022 changed something fundamental and now it is acceptable to exonerate Azov from “Nazi” affiliations and even praise it.

At the time of the dramatic confrontation in Mariupol between Azov barricaded in a steel plant, and Russian forces besieging them in May 2022, some surprising (to those who remain perplexed) developments occurred. Some media attention was devoted to showing Azov as definitely not “Nazis,” but devoted Ukrainian fighters trying to resist the Russian invasion of their lands. These accounts seek to further sever the association between Azov and “Nazis,” and even re-associate Azov with Jews!

To counteract Russian accusations, Ukrainian news outlet Gordonua quoted an Azov deputy commander: “I want to emphasize that these (Azov people) are not militants. These are military personnel of Ukraine, these are citizens of Ukraine of different nationalities. These are Jews, these are Ukrainians, these are Greeks, these are Belarusians, these are Gagauz.” Jews in the ranks of “Nazi” Azov?

Apparently so. A Jew trapped inside the steel plant with Azov sent a video message out, directed to Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet, the people of Israel, its journalists, Rabbis, and others, as reported by Ukrainian news Focus. Vitaly Barabash published his video on the Ilgam Hasanov Facebook page “on behalf of all Jews who are in the blocked ruins of Azovstal” (name of the steel plant). How many Jews are there with—in—Azov? Enough to make this appeal to Israel.

The next day on May 12, Haaretz quoted the same Azov deputy commander in its article titled “Azov Battalion’s Second-in-command: ‘Like in Israel, There Is Also Terror Against Us. We Are Not Nazis‘” The relevant passage states:

…a video appeared on social media of a coast guard fighter who identified himself as Jewish from another unit inside the Azovstal plant, in which he appealed to Israeli lawmakers. He addressed Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Russian-speaking Knesset members Yuli Edelstein of Likud and Evgeny Sova, Yulia Malinovsky and Alex Kushnir of Yisrael Beiteinu and asked that Israel help evacuate the Ukrainian forces from Mariupol.

“He addressed your politicians and the nation of Israel,” says (Azov deputy commander) Palamar. “He thinks, and so do I, that Israel is a strong country that has been fighting for a long time and that protects its soldiers. We know that Israel takes the members of its military seriously, who defend your country from both territorial attacks and from terrorists who carry out attacks. The same thing is happening here. I think this is terror.”

Yes, an appeal by a Jew closely associated with Azov, for help from Israel, “a strong country that has been fighting for a long time,” to intervene and rescue all the Jews in the steel plant. The article is framed as a question and answer session with the deputy commander.

Haaretz:The Azovstal plant is already being compared to Masada, where Jewish fighters who rebelled against the Roman Empire barricaded themselves in, and in the end all of them were killed. Do you understand that this could be your fate, too?

Azov: “Every minute. Any minute, we are expecting to be killed.”

In fact, the Jews within Masada committed mass suicide rather than be captured or slaughtered by the Romans. This was considered a brave act of faith, and is the essential meaning of the story. For Haaretz to get this wrong cannot be a mistake. Haaretz certainly cannot suggest suicide for Azov and the Jews in Mariupol, and so the story is distorted for propaganda purposes. The meaning of the Mariupol story is for Israel to rescue brave fighters against imperialism (this time Russian instead of Roman), to avoid the tragedy of a modern Masada.

Finally the interview devolves into Azov “Nazi” denial. This is astounding in a Jewish Israeli outlet such as Haaretz, so we will examine it in full.

Haaretz: The Russian propaganda is claiming that you are Nazis. But in addition to the propaganda, there have been testimonies for years in independent media outlets and in international reports that Azov fighters hold extreme rightist positions.

Azov: What is Nazism? When someone thinks that one nation is superior to another nation, when someone thinks he has a right to invade another country and destroy its inhabitants — this is terror, this is violence, these are crematoria and filtration [sic; concentration?] camps.  This is clinging to one religion or one idea. What is happening here? We believe in our country’s territorial integrity. We have never attacked anyone, and we have not wanted to do that.

Our unit came together when our country was attacked [in 2014], and our highest priority is defending our country. We do not think, and we have never thought, that we are better than anyone else. People from different nationalities are serving with us – Greeks, Jews, Muslims, Crimean Tatars — and even if at one time there were soccer hooligans among us who shouted things in stadiums, those are the positions of young people who have changed because we are a military unit. We have no political ambitions or stances. Only citizens of Ukraine are serving with us. There are no foreign citizens with us because that is prohibited by law.

Haaretz: A few days ago, I spoke with a former resident of Mariupol, She claimed that Azov fighters walk around with Nazi symbols, with swastikas. Is that a lie?

Azov: They’re talking about our symbol, ‘the idea of the nation.’ Its meaning is that the main idea of what was once a regiment and is now our battalion is the defense of our national ideals. I think that every civilian and soldier in every nation — that’s his idea, because it’s incumbent on everyone to defend their national interests, especially if the country gives them weapons.

Haaretz: Nevertheless, I want to be precise here. Can you say that the fighters of the battalion do not have actual swastikas tattooed on their bodies?

Azov: There are no swastikas. It could be that there are inscriptions in ancient Slavic letters, or a pagan runic inscription. Every individual among us can believe whatever he wants here in the unit. We all live in peace.

No swastikas in Azov, just Jews and peace. A few young soccer hooligans, a couple pagan rune tattoos. No “Nazis” here! Is Azov “denazifying” itself to remove one of Putin’s reasons to invade? To recruit support from the West? To Jews, “Nazi” denial must be almost as heinous as holocaust denial, yet Jews themselves are supporting and propagating it in regard to Azov.

The antagonism between National Socialist German leadership and Jewish Communists and bankers could not have been more acute. Anything National Socialist, then or today, is by definition “anti-Semitic.” To see Azov, which had been so thoroughly demonized as “Nazi” now harboring Jews in its ranks and associated forces, funded by a Jewish oligarch, white-washed by Jewish media, and sanctioned and approved by the Jewish President of the nation of Ukraine, is so incongruous that it can have only one explanation: Azov is now a propaganda creation serving a dual schizophrenic purpose. It can be depicted as a gang of evil “Nazis” committing atrocities and war crimes to perpetuate the evil “Nazi” mythology and absorb all accusations of Ukrainian atrocities. It can also be depicted as a band of brave multi-cultural freedom fighters resisting Russian imperialism. Whichever suits the purposes of the Western media. The second depiction sounds oddly similar to the Waffen SS, the first ethnically diverse all-European army which fought on the side of National Socialism against Communism. The Azov propagandists do not want us to see that, though.

Then again, plenty of Jews—up to 150,000—fought for Germany in World War II, and 77 of Germany’s officers, some of high rank, were Jews. Could this explain why Jews serve in Azov today? We should not believe it. Azov changes its colors with the circumstances of war and the needs of Western propaganda. Russian propaganda remains constant: Azov is a bunch of “Nazis.” Today however, Azov has Jews. That should be irreconcilable.  

Revision of the first part of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique

I am in the process of revising The Culture of Critique, hopefully to be published in 2023. The following is a revision of the first part of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique, titled “The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences.” This is the section on Franz Boas and the Boasians that forms the bulk of the chapter. It is updated and elaborated in certain places. I offer it here for comments and criticism. ~10,000  words.


If . . . we were to treat Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa as utopia, not as ethnography, then we would understand it better and save a lot of pointless debate. (Robin Fox 1989, 3)

Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 187ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data.

As we have seen in regard to the shift in outlook among anthropologists and sociologists, professional or scientific attitudes were not the full explanation. One needs to look beyond professionalism and standard science; for the change in outlook was too fundamental, too radical to be accounted for on those grounds alone. After all, we are not dealing here with a long-held, well-substantiated theory (that is, race) which new and conclusive evidence had unambiguously disproved and overturned. Rather we see essentially the substitution of one unproved (though strongly held) assumption by another. (187)

Degler also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (e.g., Lenz 1931, 674; see also the comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]).[1]

In sociology, the advent of Jewish intellectuals in the pre-World War II period resulted in “a level of politicization unknown to sociology’s founding fathers. It is not only that the names of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim replaced those of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, but also that the sense of America as a consensual experience gave way to a sense of America as a series of conflicting definitions” (Horowitz 1993, 75). In the post-World War II period, sociology “became populated by Jews to such a degree that jokes abounded: one did not need the synagogue, the minyan [i.e., the minimum number of Jews required for a communal religious service] was to be found in sociology departments; or, one did not need a sociology of Jewish life, since the two had become synonymous” (Horowitz 1993, 77). Indeed, the ethnic conflict within American sociology parallels to a remarkable degree the ethnic conflict in American anthropology that is a theme of this chapter. Here the conflict was played out between leftist Jewish social scientists and an old-line, empirically oriented Protestant establishment that was eventually eclipsed:

American sociology has struggled with the contrary claims of those afflicted with physics envy and researchers . . . more engaged in the dilemmas of society. In that struggle, midwestern Protestant mandarins of positivist science often came into conflict with East Coast Jews who in turn wrestled with their own Marxist commitments; great quantitative researchers from abroad, like Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia, sought to disrupt the complacency of native bean counters. (Sennett 1995, 43)

This chapter will emphasize the ethnopolitical agenda of Franz Boas, but it is worth mentioning the work of Franco-Jewish structuralist anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss because he appears to have been similarly motivated, although the French structuralist movement as a whole cannot be viewed as a Jewish intellectual movement. Lévi-Strauss interacted extensively with Boas and acknowledged his influence (Dosse 1997 I, 15, 16). In turn, Lévi-Strauss was very influential in France, Dosse (1997 I, xxi) describing him as “the common father” of Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Lacan. He had a strong Jewish identity and a deep concern with anti-Semitism (Cuddihy 1974, 151ff). In response to an assertion that he was “the very picture of a Jewish intellectual,” Lévi-Strauss stated,

[C]ertain mental attitudes are perhaps more common among Jews than elsewhere. . . . Attitudes that come from the profound feeling of belonging to a national community, all the while knowing that in the midst of this community there are people—fewer and fewer of them, I admit—who reject you. One keeps one’s sensitivity attuned, accompanied by the irrational feeling that in all circumstances one has to do a bit more than other people to disarm potential critics. (Lévi-Strauss & Eribon 1991, 155–156)

Like many Jewish intellectuals discussed here, Lévi-Strauss’s writings were aimed at enshrining cultural differences and subverting the universalist Western approaches to science, a position that validates the position of Judaism as a non-assimilating group. Like Boas, Lévi-Strauss rejected biological and evolutionary theories. He theorized that cultures, like languages, were arbitrary collections of symbols with no natural relationships to their referents. Lévi-Strauss rejected Western modernization theory in favor of the idea that there were no superior societies. The role of the anthropologist was to be a “natural subversive or convinced opponent of traditional usage” (in Cuddihy 1974, 155) in Western societies, while respecting and even romanticizing the virtues of non-Western societies (see Dosse 1997 II, 30). Western universalism and ideas of human rights were viewed as masks for ethnocentrism, colonialism, and genocide:

Lévi-Strauss’s most significant works were all published during the breakup of the French colonial empire and contributed enormously to the way it was understood by intellectuals. . . . [H]is elegant writings worked an aesthetic transformation on his readers, who were subtly made to feel ashamed to be Europeans. . . . [H]e evoked the beauty, dignity, and irreducible strangeness of Third World cultures that were simply trying to preserve their difference. . . . [H]is writings would soon feed the suspicion among the new left . . . that all the universal ideas to which Europe claimed allegiance—reason, science, progress, liberal democracy—were culturally specific weapons fashioned to rob the non-European Other of his difference. (Lilla 1998, 37)

Part I: Boasian Anthropology as a Jewish Intellectual Movement

Degler (1991, 61) emphasizes the role of Franz Boas in the anti-Darwinian transformation of American social science: “Boas’s influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated.” Boas engaged in a “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture” (61). “Boas, almost single-handedly, developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science” (71).

Boas did not arrive at that position from a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question. . . . ; There is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological outlook—racism—which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society. . . . Much evidence does come to light in [his] correspondence to suggest a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public. (Degler 1991, 82–83)

As Gelya Frank (1997, 731) points out, “The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Jewish identifications and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the “invisible subject” of American anthropology—invisible because the ethnic identifications and ethnic interests of its advocates have been masked by a language of science in which such identifications and interests were publicly illegitimate. Indeed, Gershenhorn (2004, 20) notes that “Boas was influenced by his liberal philosophy, his strict attachment to scientific accuracy, and perhaps most important, his Jewish identity”— despite the fact that it’s obvious that a strong ethnic identity might well interfere with scientific objectivity. And as noted, Boas’s views were not the result of “disinterested, scientific inquiry” (Degler 1991, 82).

Establishing Jewish Identity and Sense of Jewish Interests

Frank’s (1997, 731) statement that cultural pluralism has been the “invisible subject” of American anthropology deserves some comment. The empirical program of The Culture of Critique is to examine putative Jewish intellectual and political movements and determine whether the main figures identified as Jews and saw their intellectual and political work as advancing Jewish interests. A basic problem arises from the fact that Jewish intellectuals and political activists may be well advised not to advertise their Jewish identity and commitment to Jewish interests. This is especially the case during times of heightened anti-Semitism and prior to the time when Jewish social scientists had a critical mass at the most elite academic institutions. For example, anti-Semitism was much more common during the 1920s and 1930s, declining to a marginal phenomenon after World War II. During this period, Jews were well advised to be circumspect about their Jewish identities and Jewish commitments. For example, the Zionist movement began in the late nineteenth century but was a minority viewpoint within the Jewish community until the establishment of Israel because of fears of charges of “dual loyalty”—the idea that Jews would be at least as loyal to Israel as to the United States, and perhaps even more loyal to Israel (see MacDonald 2003). Even in the twenty-first century, neoconservative Jews with strong emotional and family connections to Israel are careful to frame their proposals for war in the Middle East as serving U.S. interests (see Chapter 4).

This is a general point. Jews, as a relatively small minority in the West, must attempt to appeal to non-Jews and avoid framing their theories and policy proposals in terms of their Jewish identity and Jewish interests. Thus one searches in vain for public pronouncements and framing of theories explicitly in terms of advancing Jewish interests.

Boas’s anthropology was strikingly apolitical in terms of explicit theory, but in message and purpose, it was an explicitly antiracist science. Boas’s career, rooted in his position as an ambiguously white European Jewish intellectual transplanted to America, continues to offer a model for infusing the science of anthropology with an activist agenda for inclusion, empowerment, and alliance across boundaries. (Frank 1997, 741)

Thus the lucrative and elaborate infrastructure that Jews have created in support of their causes, such as the network of neoconservative think tanks, positions at universities, and opportunities in the media that undoubtedly attract many non-Jews (Chapter 4). But typically, in the absence of evidence of explicit Jewish activism (e.g., being a member of the ADL or AIPAC, or, as in the case of the Frankfurt School (Chapter 6), having your central academic work, The Authoritarian Personality (1950) (published by the American Jewish Committee which funded their research), one must pore over detailed biographies that include, e.g., accounts of private conversations and letters. Freud, for example, left behind a great deal of evidence of his Jewish identity and his sense of Jewish interests (Chapter 5). Others did not, so one is forced to piece together an account on relatively scant evidence.

Again, this is especially the case in periods when Jews have been regarded with suspicion or dislike because of their ethnic background. Science by its very nature is supposed to be conducted without ethnic or religious biases. Thus, in anthropology, “there has … been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the discipline of anthropology and individual anthropologists, either because Jews were considered dangerous due to their presumed racial differences or because they were associated with radical causes (Frank 1997, 733). Jewish identities and interests were thus forced to be submerged in the language of objectivity and science.

Science is the gold standard of public discourse in the West. Real science is an individualistic endeavor in which individual scientists may defect from a particular movement depending on empirical advances, as opposed to adopting the cohesive, ingroup-outgroup perspective that pervades this volume. Any movement with ambitions to influence the public via academic culture must present itself as scientifically based and empirically grounded. It must appeal to a Western audience of empirically oriented social scientists—e.g., the “Protestant bean counters” noted above who dominated American sociology prior to the rise of Jewish Marxist-oriented sociologists (Sennett 1995, 43). As noted in Chapter 7, scientific progress depends on an individualistic, atomistic universe of discourse in which each individual sees himself or herself not as a member of a larger political or cultural entity advancing a particular point of view, but as an independent agent endeavoring to evaluate evidence and discover the structure of reality. Thus it should not be at all surprising that Boas would not proclaim his ethnic commitments, and thus one must examine the evidence with the understanding that the principle figures may well not be forthright about their Jewish commitments.

Recruiting Non-Jews. The involvement of non-Jews in various Jewish intellectual and political movements is a recurrent theme in this volume. Since movements parading as scientific in a Western cultural context must not be seen as ethnically motivated and must be at least to some extent appealing to non-Jews (given that Jews have always been a small minority in Western societies), it is certainly a good strategy to recruit sympathetic non-Jews as graduate students or as political operatives. Again, the paradigm is the neo-conservative program of establishing and activist organizations which resulted in high-profile positions for non-Jews.

Congruence with the Jewish Activist Community. A consideration helpful in understanding the non-coincidental nature of Jewish involvement in various intellectual and political movements is whether the attitudes of a particular Jew are congruent with mainstream Jewish opinion as explicitly stated by prominent Jewish activist organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the premier Jewish activist organization during the 1920s. This is particularly the case on issues where the attitudes of the Jewish community are out of step with those of the society as a whole. As discussed above, a Jewish intellectual intent on establishing scientific credibility in the wider scientific community is well advised not to explicitly state his Jewish identity and discuss how that informs his attitudes and opinions. Such considerations are anathema to the scientific spirit. On the other hand, Jewish activist organizations are typically not reticent. For example, during the 1920s’ immigration debates during which the American Jewish Committee (fronted by Louis Marshall) played by far the greatest role in opposing restriction (Okrent 2019), Franz Boas published his study of the skull shapes of immigrants (later found to be likely fraudulent [see below]), the conclusions of which were entirely congruent with the activism of the American Jewish Committee and quite divergent from the American majority.

Indeed, Boas was greatly motivated by the immigration issue as it occurred early in the century. Degler (1991, 74) notes that Boas’s professional correspondence “reveals that an important motive behind his famous head-measuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest in keeping the United States diverse in population.” Degler makes the following comment regarding one of Boas’s environmentalist explanations for mental differences between immigrant and native children: “Why Boas chose to advance such an ad hoc interpretation is hard to understand until one recognizes his desire to explain in a favorable way the apparent mental backwardness of the immigrant children” (p. 75; see also Ch. 8.) Boas’s skull shape study was thus likely an example of ethnic activism posing as science.

As discussed in Chapter 8, keeping America diverse has been a clear goal of the American Jewish activist community from the early twentieth century (when facilitating Jewish immigration was a prime goal and Jewish activism was the prime mover of the anti-restrictionist movement) down to the present (when Jewish activists and organizations have championed liberal immigration policies aimed at importing all racial and ethnic groups, the extreme being the present Biden administration’s “open border” policy administered by Biden’s Jewish Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas). Jewish attitudes conflicted with the American majority at least by 1905 (Neuringer 1971, 83), and restrictionists were clearly in the driver’s seat when the 1924 immigration restriction finally became law despite intense Jewish opposition. As discussed below, Boas’s anti-restrictionist views on immigration motivated his research intended to show the power of the environment in shaping immigrants’ skull dimensions.

Franz Boas as Jewish Academic Activist

Boas was reared in a “Jewish-liberal” family in which the revolutionary ideals of 1848 remained influential—e.g., his mother established a Froebel kindergarten which was a “a highly contested left-liberal innovation” (Frank 1997, 733).  He developed a “left-liberal posture which . . . is at once scientific and political” (Stocking 1968, 149). Boas was intensely concerned with anti-Semitism from an early period in his life (White 1966, 16); for example, he was aware that his chances for a university professorship in geography in Germany were likely to be limited, as he stated in letters, because of his Jewish origins and his outspokenness. “His writings from 1882 to 1884 indicate that he felt alienated from the Germany of his day (Stocking 1968, 150)—a reality that motivated him and his non-Jewish wife Maria Krackowiser, the daughter of a revolutionary socialist from Vienna, to move to America. Alfred Kroeber (1943, 8) recounted a story “which [Boas] is said to have revealed confidentially but which cannot be vouched for, . . . that on hearing an anti-Semitic insult in a public café, he threw the speaker out of doors, and was challenged. Next morning his adversary offered to apologize; but Boas insisted that the duel be gone through with. Apocryphal or not, the tale absolutely fits the character of the man as we know him in America.”

Anti-Jewish attitudes were becoming increasingly common in the Germany of Boas’s youth. This was the era of anti-Jewish writers and organizers like Wilhelm Marr (author of The Victory of Jewry over Germandom), Christian populist organizer Adolf Stoecker, and prominent academic Heinrich von Treitschke voiced concerns about eventual Jewish domination of the economy, the stock exchanges, and the newspapers. Although there were ups and downs in the intensity of anti-Semitism, the general trend over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was that calls for assimilation were increasingly replaced by calls for cohesive, collectivist gentile groups that would enable Germans to compete with Jews and even exclude them entirely from German economic and social life (see MacDonald [1998/2002] Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 5; hereafter, SAID).

Despite Jewish declarations and appearances of assimilation (e.g., the movement of Reform Judaism designed to remove overt signs of Jewish separatism), Jews continued to “move in social and occupational circles that were disproportionately Jewish” (Glick 1982, 548).

In addition to a very visible group of Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe, Reform Jews generally opposed intermarriage, and secular Jews developed a wide range of institutions that effectively cut them off from socializing with gentiles. “What secular Jews remained attached to was not easy to define, but neither, for the Jews involved, was it easy to let go of: there were family ties, economic interests, and perhaps above all sentiments and habits of mind which could not be measured and could not be eradicated” (Katz 1996, 33). Moreover, a substantial minority of German Jews, especially in rural areas and in certain geographical regions (especially Bavaria) remained Orthodox well into the 20th century (Lowenstein 1992, 18). Vestiges of traditional separatist practices, such as Yiddish words, continued throughout this period.

Intermarriage between Jews and Germans was negligible in the 19th century. Even though intermarriage increased later, these individuals and their children “almost always” were lost to the Jewish community (Katz 1985, 86; see also Levenson 1989, 321n). “Opposition to intermarriage did constitute the bottom line of Jewish assimilation” (G. Mosse 1985, 9). These patterns of endogamy and within-group association constituted the most obvious signs of continued Jewish group separatism in German society for the entire period prior to the rise of National Socialism. Levenson (1989, 321) notes that Jewish defenses of endogamy during this period “invariably appeared to hostile non-Jews as being misanthropic and ungrateful,” another indication that Jewish endogamy was an important ingredient of the anti-Semitism of the period.

Moreover, Jewish converts would typically marry other Jewish converts and continue to live among and associate with Jews (Levenson 1989, 321n), in effect behaving as crypto-Jews. The importance of genealogy rather than surface religion can also be seen in that, while baptized Jews of the haute bourgeoisie were viewed as acceptable marriage partners by the Jewish haute bourgeoisie, gentiles of the haute bourgeoisie were not (W.E. Mosse 1989, 335). These patterns may well have fed into the perception among Germans that even overt signs of assimilation were little more than window dressing masking a strong sense of Jewish ethnic identity and a desire for endogamy. Indeed, the general pattern was that complete loss of Jewishness was confined to females from a “handful” of families who had married into the gentile aristocracy (W.E. Mosse 1989, 181). (SAID, Ch. 5)

Boas experienced anti-Semitism at his university: “The correspondence repeatedly shows how central this problem [anti-Semitism] was in Boas’s formative years. A letter from October 6, 1870 records a poignant incident. His letters from Kiel are particularly full of accounts of unpleasant activities and gross personal behavior” (Kluckhohn & Prufer (1959, 10–11), and Glick (1982, 553) notes that during Boas’s university years “Volkish ideology and anti-Semitism were a pervasive feature of life, something that no Jewish student could ignore. … Thus it’s not surprising that many Jews, Franz Boas among them, departed for America.”

Volkish anti-Semitism was based on an ideology of opposing ethnic interests—that the rise of a Jewish economic and media elite compromised the interests of Germans as a people, resulting, as noted above, in increasing calls for Germans to cohere into collectivist groups to compete with Jews. But Boas publicly claimed that Jews were only a religious denomination, thus avoiding issues related to ethnic conflicts of interest: “He did not acknowledge a specifically Jewish cultural or ethnic identity. … To the extent that Jews were possessed of a culture, it was … strictly a matter of religious adherence” (Glick 1982, 554).

After leaving Germany because of anti-Semitism, Boas immigrated to the United States “where he endured outsider status as an immigrant and a Jew. By attacking racist science, which concluded that blacks were inferior to whites, Boas was also able to mount an indirect challenge to the anti-Semitic belief that Jews were an inferior race” (Gershenhorn 2004, 20). Ignoring Gershenhorn’s negative comments on the racial science of the day, this clearly shows that Boas’s research was motivated at least in part by his sense of Jewish interests. Boas was thus an example of David L. Lewis’s observation that Jews supported civil rights for Blacks and attacked racial science in order to “fight anti-Semitism by remote control.”

By assisting in the crusade to prove that Afro-Americans could be decent, conformist, cultured human beings, the civil rights Jews were, in a sense, spared some of the necessity of directly rebutting anti-Semitic stereotypes; for if blacks could make good citizens, clearly, most white Americans believed, all other groups could make better ones. (Lewis 1992, 31)

Lewis (1984, 84) notes that the Jewish press often compared the situation of Jews to the situation of Blacks, e.g., comparing the 1917 race riot in East St. Louis to the 1903 Kishinev pogrom in Russia, and Forward editor Abraham Cahan commenting on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play The Green Pastures (1930) (the first Broadway play with an all-Black cast) that “In this play [presenting Old Testament stories from a Black perspective], the souls of two nations are woven together.” Even prior to the 1920s, “the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee, with the brothers Joel and Arthur Spingarn serving as board chairman and chief legal counsel respectively; Herbert Lehman on the executive committee; Lillian Wald and Walter Sachs on the board … ; and Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg as financial angels” (85). Boas himself was one of the Jews “closely connected with the NAACP and the Urban League” (91), and “upper-crust Jews established the Kehillah and other defense organizations, and mobilized the formidable scholarship of Franz Boas and Alexander Goldenweiser” (88).

Gershenhorn (2004, 21) notes that “it is no coincidence that many of the scholars who joined with Boas to attack racial hierarchy were also Jewish, including Otto Klineberg, Ashley Montegu, Alexander Goldenweiser, and [Melville] Herskovits. Boas acknowledged this fact in a 1934 speech, noting that much of the important research on race was ‘the product of Jewish students and scholars.’” However, neither Boas or Gershenhorn explains exactly why this non-coincidence might occur, although clearly it has something to do with Jewish identity. In this regard, it is interesting to contrast the attitudes of Boas with a prominent non-Jewish student of his, Alfred Kroeber:

Whereas Boas’s attack on race was intimately connected with his personal and ideological commitment to opportunities for blacks in American society, Kroeber’s interest in the concept of culture was almost entirely theoretical and professional. Neither his private nor his public writings reflect the attention to public policy questions regarding blacks or the general question of race in American life that are so conspicuous in Boas’s professional correspondence and publications. Kroeber rejected race as an analytical category as forthrightly and thoroughly as Boas, but he reached that position primarily through theory rather than ideology. (Degler 1991, 90).

Kroeber argued that “our business is to promote anthropology rather than to wage battles on behalf of tolerance in other fields” (in Stocking 1968, 286). Nevertheless, although Kroeber did not have a self-conscious political agenda, his education in a leftist-Jewish environment may have had a lasting influence. Frank (1997, 734) notes that Kroeber was educated in schools linked to the Ethical Culture movement, “an offshoot of Reform Judaism” linked with leftist educational programs and characterized by an ideology of a humanistic faith that embraced all humanity.

As Frank (1997, 739) notes, Boas carried out his research within the German-Jewish milieu of New York, and doubtless—given the support for anti-restriction among wealthy German Jews of the period (Okrent 2019; see Ch. 8)—his views corresponded to the views of the wider Jewish community whose views were quite out of step with broader American opinion.

Context is critical … to understanding Franz Boas’s life and work in relation to being Jewish. Although Boas experienced anti-Semitism in Germany and discrimination as a German immigrant in America, he was able to establish powerful connections and a thriving discipline in the academic mainstream. Many of his contacts and much of his support came, however, from the cosmopolitan New York world in which Jewish Germans were well-established and active. Boas’s championing of race equality and racial justice took place in a peculiarly American context: Jews were threatening to nativists who dominated America’s institutions, but seemingly less so than other “racial” groups such as blacks, Japanese, and Mexicans.

The following quote is a further indication of the Jewish milieu of Boas’s life in America:

Boas was not a practicing Jew; most likely, he was an atheist. In New York, he became a member of the Society for Ethical Culture, a nondenominational offshoot of Reform Judaism. The Ethical Culture movement was inaugurated in 1876 by [Reform rabbi] Felix Adler, an educator, social activist, and, later, professor of political and social ethics at Columbia University. (Frank 1997, 734)

Glick (1982, 556) notes that the Society of Ethical Culture was “heavily and probably predominantly composed of cultivated German Jews for whom it gave organizational legitimation to the very same values that Boas summarized as ‘the ideals of the revolution of 1848.’”

Despite the anti-Semitism he experienced both in Germany and the U.S., it is often said that Boas had a deep fondness for Germany and German culture, as indicated by his involved with a German-American cultural society and a letter he wrote to the New York Times in 1916 opposing the vilification of Germany during World War I. Regarding the latter, it should be pointed out that by far the most prominent attitude of Diaspora Jewish communities was to oppose Czarist Russia because of its perceived anti-Semitism and thus support the German war effort. For example, immigrant Jews in the U.K. overwhelmingly refused to be drafted into military service because Germany was fighting Russia (Alderman 1992, 236). As I noted in Separation and Its Discontents (Ch. 2):

It is revealing that the immigrant German-American-Jewish leaders of the American Jewish Committee also favored Germany in World War I, but only until the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. They adopted this position not because of their ties with Germany but rather because of their ties with Russian Jews who they believed were being oppressed by the czar, and because Germany was at war with Russia.

Thus Boas’s attitudes toward Germany in 1916 coincided with those of the main Jewish activist organization in the U.S.

Boas was much attracted to the views of Rudolf Virchow, a German scientist who opposed Darwinist explanations of behavior and the idea of superior and inferior races. However, this may well be because Virchow was also a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism: “It seems evident that one of the many things that made Virchow as much of an ‘idol’ as Boas ever permitted himself was Virchow’s stalwart opposition to all forms of anti-Semitism (Kluckhohn & Prufer 1959, 10).

When writing specifically about Jews, Boas limited his focus exclusively to fighting invidious stereotypes. Ironically, he did so by ruling out a cultural approach which could have included issues that have often been linked to anti-Semitism—issues such as the traditional Jewish commitment to endogamy, ethnic nepotism, and separation from and economic competition with the surrounding society—instead emphasizing the irrelevant issue that Jews vary in their physical features too much to be considered a single racial type. (This comment was made in an era prior to recent population genetic research confirming substantial genetic commonality among widely dispersed Jewish groups, such as the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews [e.g., Behar et al. 2010]). Glick (1982, 557) suggests that Boas was being less than candid in his analysis:

Paradoxically, by concentrating in this manner on physical anthropology, to the virtual exclusion of the historical, economic, and cultural factors that shaped European Jewish identity over nearly two millennia, Boas was employing the very principle to which he was most fundamentally opposed, that “racial” type is the fundamental consideration in national identity, in order to reach conclusions precisely opposite to those of his racist antagonists [in the U.S.] and in Germany. Had he carried his analyses one essential step further and given serious consideration to European Jewish history and culture (including its distinguished German variant), he might have reached more penetrating conclusions on assimilation and related questions. But to have done so would have required more candid examination of Jewish identity than he was ever prepared to undertake.

As a result, Boas avoided the idea that “being Jewish might in itself operate as a formative element in a social environment” (Glick 1982, 557)—that being reared in a left-liberal Jewish environment and being subjected to anti-Semitism may have affected his attitudes toward non-Jewish society.

Quite clearly, a discussion of Jewish history and culture would also have raised issues about the role of Jews and Jewish culture in provoking anti-Semitism, as discussed throughout SAID.

Given the anti-Semitism of the period and the necessity of posing as a detached, disinterested scientist, it is not surprising that, like most German Jews of his generation, Boas sought to be identified foremost as a German and as little as possible as a Jew: “He was determined not to be classified as a Jew” (Glick 1982, 554). He portrayed himself as “an autonomous individual,” “determined not to be classified as a member of any group” (Glick 1982, 557).

Regarding Boas’s position on Jewish assimilation, the following quote is often cited (e.g., Glick 1982, 546; Lewis 1994, 97), as indicating that he favored complete Jewish cultural and genetic assimilation to the point of disappearance:

Thus it would seem that man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so much diluted that it will no longer be recognized just as anti-Semitism will not disappear until the last vestige of Jew as a Jew has disappeared. (Quoted in Glick 1982, 557)

However, this is simply an allegation of fact—a claim that because human nature is what it is, hostility toward Blacks and Jews will only end when they disappear completely. It is not, at least explicitly, a recommendation that either group should disappear. Boas’s activism was clearly aimed at promoting the idea that all cultures are equal and, as Frank (1997, 731) emphasizes, the effect of his movement has been to promote cultural pluralism and tolerance and acceptance of diverse cultures and peoples as a model for American society—also the view of Horace Kallen a prominent intellectual whose views were vastly influential in the wider American Jewish community (see below and Ch. 8)—not complete genetic and cultural homogenization. Given that Jewish immigration during the decades preceding the immigration restriction act of 1924 included a substantial portion of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews dedicated to creating their own ghetto-like communities and actively resisting intermarriage—a phenomenon that continues today—Boas likely realized that a program of complete Jewish submergence into the surrounding society was not realistic, and indeed Jewish intermarriage remained at very low levels until well after Boas died in 1942. Maurice Samuel’s well known and highly ethnocentric You Gentiles (1924/2022), written partly as a hostile response to the 1924 immigration restriction law (See Ch. 8), includes a detailed discussion showing that the idea of complete Jewish disappearance via intermarriage would be unlikely in the extreme.

As has been common among Jewish intellectuals in several historical eras, Boas was deeply alienated from and hostile toward gentile culture, particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy (Degler 1991, 200; Stocking 1968, 150). When Margaret Mead wanted to persuade Boas to allow her to pursue her research in the South Sea islands, “She hit upon a sure way of getting him to change his mind. ‘I knew there was one thing that mattered more to Boas than the direction taken by anthropological research. … This was that he should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian autocrat.’ The ploy worked for Mead because she had indeed uncovered the heart of his personal values” (Degler 1991, 73).

Boas and the Battle to Dominate American Academic Anthropology. I conclude that Boas had a strong Jewish identification and that he was deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other issues favored by the wider Jewish community, such as immigration and combatting anti-Black attitudes. On the basis of the foregoing, it is reasonable to suppose that his concern with anti-Semitism was a major influence in the development of American anthropology.

Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ethnic conflict played a major role in the development of American anthropology. Boas’s views conflicted with the then-prevalent idea that cultures had evolved in a series of developmental stages labeled savagery, barbarism, and civilization. The stages were associated with racial differences, and modern European culture (and most especially, I suppose, the hated Prussian aristocracy) was at the highest level of this gradation. Wolf (1990, 168) describes the attack of the Boasians as calling into question “the moral and political monopoly of a [gentile] elite which had justified its rule with the claim that their superior virtue was the outcome of the evolutionary process.” Boas’s theories were also meant to counter the racialist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain (see SAID, Ch. 5) and American eugenicists like Madison Grant, whose book, The Passing of the Great Race (1921, 17), was highly critical of Boas’s research on environmental influences on skull size. The result was that “in message and purpose, [Boas’s anthropology] was an explicitly antiracist science” (Frank 1997, 741).

Grant characterized Jewish immigrants as ruthlessly self-interested whereas American Nordics were committing racial suicide and allowing themselves to be “elbowed out” of their own land (1921, 16, 91). Grant also believed Jews were engaged in a campaign to discredit racial research:

It is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name. . . . Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France. (1921, xxxi–xxxii)

An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution, such as those implying developmental sequences with Western culture at the pinnacle, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity, but in fact no general theories emerged from this body of research in the ensuing half century of its dominance of the profession (Stocking 1968, 210). Leslie White, an evolutionary anthropologist and therefore someone whose professional opportunities within anthropology were limited because of his theoretical orientation, noted that because of its rejection of fundamental scientific activities such as generalization and classification, Boasian anthropology should be characterized more as an anti-theory than a theory of human culture (White 1966, 15). For example, in 1930, Boas advocated an anthropology focused on the study of individuals rather than “abstractions”:

It is only since the development of the evolutional theory that it became clear that the object of study is the individual, not abstractions from the individual under observation. … An error of modern anthropology, as I see it, lies in the overemphasis on historical reconstruction, the importance of which should not be minimized, as against a penetrating study of the individual under the stress of the culture in which he lives. (In Kluckhohn & Prufer 1959, 20).

Boas elaborates on this theme in his Foreword to Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa:

Some anthropologists even hope that the comparative study will reveal some tendencies of development that recur so often that significant generalisations regarding the processes of cultural growth will be discovered [presumably a reference to the cultural gradations theory, with Western culture at the pinnacle]. To the lay reader these studies are interesting on account of the strangeness of the scene, the peculiar attitudes characteristic of foreign cultures that set off in strong light our own achievements and behaviour. However, a systematic description of human activities gives us very little insight into the mental attitudes of the individual. His thoughts and actions appear merely as expressions of rigidly defined cultural forms. We learn little about his rational thinking, about his friendships and conflicts with his fellowmen. The personal side of the life of the individual is almost eliminated in the systematic presentation of the cultural life of the people. The picture is standardised, like a collection of laws that tell us how we should behave, and not how we behave; like rules set down defining the style of art, but not the way in which the artist elaborates his ideas of beauty; like a list of inventions, and not the way in which the individual overcomes technical difficulties that present themselves. And yet the way in which the personality reacts to culture is a matter that should concern us deeply and that makes the studies of foreign cultures a fruitful and useful field of research. (Boas, 1928)

 Boas also opposed research in human genetics—what Derek Freeman (1991, 198) terms his “obscurantist antipathy to genetics,” and what Kluckhon & Prufer (1959, 22) describe as “his relative lack of interest in Darwinian evolution and his skepticism about Mendelian heredity.”

It is of critical importance to note that Boas and his students were intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the American anthropological profession (Degler 1991; Freeman 1991; Torrey 1992)—the antithesis of science as an open-ended pursuit of truth by individuals (see Ch. 7). Boas and his associates had a sense of group identity, a commitment to a common viewpoint, and an agenda to dominate the institutional structure of anthropology (Stocking 1968, 279–280). They were a compact group with a clear intellectual and political agenda rather than individualist seekers of disinterested truth. The defeat of the Darwinians “had not happened without considerable exhortation of ‘every mother’s son’ standing for the ‘Right.’ Nor had it been accomplished without some rather strong pressure applied both to staunch friends and to the ‘weaker brethren’—often by the sheer force of Boas’s personality” (Stocking 1968, 286).

Such a phenomenon has no place in real science.

By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its executive board (Stocking 1968, 285). In 1919 Boas could state that “most of the anthropological work done at the present time in the United States” was done by his students at Columbia (in Stocking 1968, 296). By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish. His protégé Melville Herskovits (1953, 23) noted that

the four decades of the tenure of [Boas’s] professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they trained the students who . . . have continued the tradition in which their teachers were trained.

According to Leslie White (1966, 26), Boas’s most influential students were Ruth Benedict, Alexander Goldenweiser, Melville Herskovits, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Margaret Mead, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier. All of this “small, compact group of scholars . . . gathered about their leader” (White 1966, 26) were Jews with the exception of Kroeber, Benedict, and Mead. Frank (1997, 732) also mentions several other prominent first-generation Jewish students of Boas, including the influential Melville Herskovits, Alexander Lesser, Ruth Bunzel, Gene [Regina] Weltfish, Esther Schiff Goldfrank, and Ruth Landes. (Especially later in his career, Boas had a significant number of non-Jewish students, but, as discussed above, any Jew intent on establishing an influential movement in a situation where Jews are a small minority is well advised to recruit non-Jews—a recurrent theme in this volume.)

It’s noteworthy that Sapir’s family fled the pogroms in Russia for New York, where Yiddish was his first language. Although not religious, he took an increasing interest in Jewish topics early in his career and later became engaged in Jewish activism, particularly in establishing a prominent center for Jewish learning in Lithuania (Frank 1997, 735). Ruth Landes’s background also shows the ethnic nexus of the Boasian movement. Her family was prominent in the Jewish leftist subculture of Brooklyn, and she was introduced to Boas by Alexander Goldenweiser, a close friend of her father and another of Boas’s prominent students.

Melville Herskovits as Jewish Academic Activist

I focus on Melville Herskovits because of the availability of Jerry Gershenhorn’s extensive biography, appropriately titled Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge. Herskovits was an early student of Boas and, like Boas, his career illustrates the problems of a Jewish social scientist attempting to present his views as completely objective and scientific—to the point that, despite his own activism on behalf of Black issues (which were pursued outside of his publishing in scholarly journals), he has been accused of “using the rhetoric of ‘objectivity’ to exclude black scholars” whom he regarded as too overtly engaged in political activism (editorial introduction to Gershenhorn [2004, xiii]). Like other Boasians, he “promulgated the principle that all cultures deserve respect. He “sought to undermine the racial and cultural hierarchy throughout his career (Gershenhorn 2004, 4). 

Herskovits challenged the biological definition of race and helped steer scholars toward a more modern conception of race as a sociological category. By doing so, he undercut the notion that race determined behavior. Instead, he substituted environment and culture for race as the explanation of behavioral and intellectual differences between individuals. In this way he attacked racial hierarchy and demonstrated the falsity of intellectual rankings based on race. … At a time when most white Americans assumed black Americans to be inferior as a race and a culture, Herskovits’ establishment of the strength and complexity of American and African-influenced cultures was a great intellectual achievement. … He laid the foundation for a dynamic view of cultural change that emphasized cultural diversity and cultural pluralism. At the same time, by providing evidence of the diverse influences on American culture, Herskovits helped transform notions of American identity from exclusive and unitary (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) to inclusive and pluralist. (Gershenhorn 2004, 4–6)

Despite his aversion to the older race science based on gradations of culture based on difference evolutionary histories, Herskovits accepted that races (Mongoloid, Caucasian, African) and subraces existed. However, like Richard Lewontin (see below) he argued that there was more variability in physical measurements within a race than between races; he claimed that races are “categories based on outer appearance as reflected in scientific measurements or observations that permit us to make convenient classifications of human materials” (in Gershenhorn 2004, 55)—a comment indicating his position that race is only “skin deep” and not a useful category for finding between-population differences in traits not visible in outer appearance, such as IQ. Nevertheless, he accepted the idea that ultimately research on race would be based on genetics and that such research would reveal that races were simply family trees, thus marking him as a “transitional figure” (Gershenhorn 2004, 55) to the “race-is-a-social-construct” view that is common today. I suspect that, given his activism for leftist causes (see below), Herskovits, along with the vast majority of contemporary social scientists, would reject the idea that genetic research would ultimately lead to findings indicating that genetically-based racial differences would be linked to traits like IQ and personality.

For Herskovits, the issue of American identity was personal:

His experience as the son of Jewish immigrants as one who had taken up and then rejected rabbinical studies, as one who had experienced anti-Semitism, as a war veteran, and as an advocate of leftist politics made the question of identity a very personal one … . (Gershenhorn 2004, 61).

As noted in Chapter 8 and above, Horace Kallen, a Jewish philosopher and Zionist, developed a theoretical approach that rejected Jewish assimilation. This view was influential with Herskovits (Gershenhorn, 67), pushing him in the direction of non-assimilation in contrast to his earlier views discounting differences between Black and White American culture, and “moving from a universalist one-sided emphasis on assimilation to a particularist emphasis on diversity” (Gershenhorn 2004, 92). A staunch Zionist, Kallen’s views were shaped by his desire to avoid Jewish assimilation in the U.S. He developed the ideology that different ethnic groups would maintain their separate identities while contributing to a harmonious, conflict-free future, using the analogy of different sections of a symphony orchestra, each contributing something unique while in harmony with the other sections—an early version of the current “diversity is our greatest strength.” As John Higham (1984, 209) noted, “Kallen lifted his eyes above the strife that swirled around him to an ideal realm where diversity and harmony coexist.”

As with Boas, cultivating the appearance of scientific objectivity was critically important for Herskovits as a Jewish scholar in an America still dominated by a White, Protestant elite:

As a Jewish scholar in an academic environment dominated by white Protestants—many of whom were anti-Semitic—Herskovits tried to deflect their tendency to devalue the scholarship on race produced by Jews, who were assumed to have a ‘subjective, minority agenda.’ Thus Herskovits emphasized his professional legitimacy by wrapping himself in the mantle of science. … Herskovits—like other Boasian anthropologists—emphasized objectivity to discredit social scientists who supported the status quo in race relations or advocated reactionary policies designed to control non-whites or minority groups. Thus despite his avowed support for objectivity and detached scholarship, Herskovits’s own strongly held egalitarian values influenced his work in physical and cultural anthropology. He believed that by shedding light on the diverse cultures of the world, anthropologists “documented the essential dignity of all human cultures (Gershenhorn 2004, 127–128; inner quote from Herskovits, Man and His Works [1947], 653).

As with Boas, Herskovits’s attitudes reflected the leftist attitudes that were mainstream within the Jewish community of the time. He also became an activist for Black causes and attacked the applied anthropology of European scholars who used anthropology to support imperialism.  When not writing in scholarly publications where the appearance of objectivity is required, Herskovits “spoke out against racism, imperialism, and injustice” (Gershenhorn 2004, 130), and in 1934 he joined the Conference on Jewish Relations which was formed to ‘dispel the various myths that people invent to justify race prejudice’” (Ibid., 131). Cementing his leftist credentials, he joined the radical Industrial Workers of the World, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a variety of other progressive organizations (Ibid., 131).

In a revealing comment indicating his opposition to the then-dominant White male Protestant elite, a female Black graduate student noted that “Herskovits had two special places in his heart: one for students who were African American, and another for students who were women (in Gershenhorn 2004, 139). He also became active in opposing the colonial regimes of the West: “Herskovits lobbied the U.S. government to support the independence of Africa and to bring an end to white supremacy regimes on the continent” (Ibid., 6). As suggested by David L. Lewis’s (1992, 31) comment that Jews fought anti-Semitism “by remote control” by supporting Black causes, Herskovits’s ethnic identity was a factor in his motivation: “Herskovits’s interpretation of black cultures was grounded in his ethnographic research, his ethnic identity, the influence of Harlem Renaissance writers, and the influence of his mentor, Franz Boas.” “Like his mentor [Boas], Herskovit’s Jewish heritage made him sensitive to his own outsider status and that of African Americans.  … As a Jew who grew up in predominantly Christian small towns, Herskovits felt this outsider status with keen intensity” (Ibid., 21). Herskovits thus “sought to employ the authority of scientific objectivity and detached scholarship to counter pseudoscientific racism and advance black studies by empowering the subjects of his research—black people—as creators of their own culture” (Ibid., 9). Gershenhorn’s thesis is “that Herskovits’s work on Africans and African Americans is inextricably connected by his embrace of cultural relativism, his attack on racial and cultural hierarchy, and his conceptualization of Negro studies” (Ibid.). “Through his research, writing, and teaching, he dignified the lives and struggles of people of African descent on both sides of the Atlantic” (Ibid., 10).

However, Herskovits never acknowledged that his ethnic identity had anything to do with his activism on behalf of Blacks. He wrote that “neither in training, in tradition, in religious beliefs, nor in culture am I what may be termed a person any more Jewish than any American born and raised in a typical Middle Western milieu”—a comment that Gershenhorn notes was made “during a period of historically high anti-Semitism in the United States [1927],” and seeming to imply the obvious: that there was an element of deception in the statement; indeed, Gershenhorn goes on to note that “Herskovits’s attempts to minimize the significance of his Jewishness do not square with his youthful experience”—he was a former rabbinical student and regularly attended synagogue as a child (Gershenhorn 2004, 13), and he married within his ethnic group (Ibid., 16)—clearly not indications of a childhood spent in a “typical Middle Western milieu.” Nevertheless, “Jewish identity, argued Herskovits, was a matter of personal and very subjective choice, neither ethnicity or religious belief is relevant: ‘A person is a Jew if he calls himself a Jew or if he is called a Jew by others.’” (Jackson 1986, 101).

Moreover, after dropping out of rabbinical school, he became a political radical at the University of Chicago, at a time when there was a very mainstream and widespread Jewish subculture of political radicalism (see Ch. 3). While still at the university, he wrote a letter condemning a social club for wanting to hold separate dances for Jewish and non-Jewish students. He continued his radical associations after moving to New York; besides joining the Industrial Workers of the World, he “befriended a group of like-minded individuals [including Margaret Mead] who were interested in art, music, and literature, and who embraced gender and racial equality and radical politics.”

Other Boasians

Ashley Montagu was another influential student of Boas (see Shipman 1994, 159ff). Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, was a highly visible crusader in in favor of idea of race as a social construct and against racial differences in mental capacities. He was also highly conscious of being Jewish, stating on one occasion 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” (in Shipman 1994, 166). Moreover, he proposed that humans are innately cooperative (but not innately aggressive) and that there is a universal brotherhood among humans—a highly problematic idea in the wake of the carnage of World War II.

Mention should also be made of Otto Klineberg, a professor of psychology at Columbia. Klineberg was “tireless” and “ingenious” in his arguments against the reality of racial differences. He came under the influence of Boas at Columbia and dedicated his 1935 book Race Differences to him. Klineberg “made it his business to do for psychology what his friend and colleague at Columbia [Boas] had done for anthropology: to rid his discipline of racial explanations for human social differences” (Degler 1991, 179). As noted above, Klineberg was a member of the solidary core of influential Jews surrounding Boas.

It is interesting in this regard that the members of the Boasian school who achieved the greatest public renown were two gentiles, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.[2] As in several other prominent historical cases (see Chs. 3–5; SAID, Ch. 6), gentiles became the publicly visible spokespersons for a movement dominated by Jews. Indeed, like Freud, in the later years of his tenure at Columbia, Boas recruited gentiles out of concern “that his Jewishness would make his science appear partisan and thus compromised” (Efron 1994, 180). Again, Jews as a small minority have often recruited sympathetic non-Jews to their intellectual and political causes.

Boas devised Margaret Mead’s classic study on adolescence in Samoa with an eye to its usefulness in the nature-nurture debate raging at the time (Freeman 1983, 60–61, 75). The result of this research was Coming of Age in Samoa—a book that pushed American anthropology in the direction of radical environmentalism. Its success stemmed ultimately from its promotion by Boas’s students in departments of anthropology at prominent American universities (Freeman 1991). This work and Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture were also widely influential among other social scientists, psychiatrists, and the public at large, so that “by the middle of the twentieth century, it was a commonplace for educated Americans to refer to human differences in cultural terms, and to say that ‘modern science has shown that all human races are equal’” (Stocking 1968, 306).

Reflecting the ingroup-outgroup perspective of his movement, Boas rarely cited works of people outside his group except to disparage them, whereas, as with Mead’s and Benedict’s work, he strenuously promoted and cited the work of people within the ingroup. Similarly, Herskovits “blocked from the means of production (publication and research funding) those not indebted to him or not supporting his positions (and position of primacy) during the period when area studies was heavily funded by the U.S. government and foundations (particularly the Ford Foundation)” (Editorial Introduction to Gershenhorn [2004, xii]). The Boasian school of anthropology thus came to resemble in microcosm key features of Judaism as a highly collectivist group evolutionary strategy: a high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests—a stance that is completely foreign to the scientific spirit.


The Guru Phenomenon in Boasian Anthropology. A theme in later chapters is that Jewish intellectual and political movements tend to center around guru-like charismatic figures who are slavishly admired by their followers. This phenomenon has strong roots in Jewish history, and can still be seen today among Hasidic and Orthodox Jewish leaders such as Rebbe Menachem Schneerson, “a towering charismatic figure in the Jewish world” (Keinon, 2020). Twenty-six years after Schneerson’s death in 1994, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz wrote, “For Hasidic movements … the death of any Rebbe is a disaster, almost like the death of a father. Because of the particularly close bond that existed between the Rebbe and his hassidim, that trauma was multiplied many times” (in Keinon, 2020). The following is an account of a service at a synagogue in Galacia in 1903:

There were no benches, and several thousand Jews were standing closely packed together, swaying in prayer like the corn in the wind. When the rabbi appeared the service began. Everybody tried to get as close to him as possible. The rabbi led the prayers in a thin, weeping voice. It seemed to arouse a sort of ecstasy in the listeners. They closed their eyes, violently swaying. The loud praying sounded like a gale. Anyone seeing these Jews in prayer would have concluded that they were the most religious people on earth. (Ruppin 1971, 69)

At the end of the service, those closest to the rabbi were intensely eager to eat any food touched by him, and the fish bones were preserved by his followers as relics. Another account notes that “devotees hoping to catch a spark from this holy fire run to receive him.” (Mahler 1985, 8)

Boasian anthropology, at least during Boas’s lifetime, was highly authoritarian and intolerant of dissent, and it was centered around a charismatic figure who served as an unquestioned leader. As in the case of Freud (see Ch. 4), Boas was a patriarchal father figure, strongly supporting those who agreed with him and excluding those who did not: Alfred Kroeber regarded Boas as “a true patriarch” who “functioned as a powerful father figure, cherishing and supporting those with whom he identified in the degree that he felt they were genuinely identifying with him, but, as regards others, aloof and probably fundamentally indifferent, coldly hostile if the occasion demanded it” (in Stocking 1968, 305–306). “Boas has all the attributes of the head of a cult, a revered charismatic teacher and master, ‘literally worshipped’ by disciples whose ‘permanent loyalty’ has been ‘effectively established’” (White 1966, 25–26).

As in the case of Freud, in the eyes of his disciples, virtually everything Boas did was of monumental importance and justified placing him among the intellectual giants of all time. Like Freud, Boas did not tolerate theoretical or ideological differences with his students. Individuals who disagreed with the leader or had personality clashes with him, such as Clark Wissler and Ralph Linton, were simply excluded from the movement. Paul Radin, mentioned above as an influential member of the core group Boas’s students, claimed that Boas was a “powerful figure who did not tolerate theoretical or ideological differences in his students” (in Darnell 2001, 35).  Essentially, he made a generation of students an extension of himself and his ideas.

White (1966, 26–27) represents the exclusion of Wissler and Linton as having ethnic overtones. Both were gentiles. Wissler was a member of the Galton Society (founded by eugenicist scientist Charles Davenport and Nordicist writer Madison Grant) which promoted eugenics and accepted the theory that there is a gradation of cultures from lower forms to higher forms, with Western civilization at the top (Gershenhorn 2004, 23), so his exclusion is not surprising. But White (1966, 26–27) also suggests that George A. Dorsey’s status as a gentile was relevant to his exclusion from the Boas group despite Dorsey’s intensive efforts to be a member. Kroeber (1956, 26) notes that Dorsey, “an American-born gentile and a Ph.D. from Harvard, tried to gain admittance to the select group but failed.” (It should be noted that the very idea of a “select group” in a supposedly scientific enterprise contradicts the entire idea of a science [see Ch. 7]). As an aspect of this exclusionary authoritarianism, Boas was instrumental in completely suppressing evolutionary theory in anthropology (Freeman 1990, 197). Group solidarity within the Boasians has also drawn this comment from anthropologist Regna Darnell (2001, 35): they “shared a heady sense of solidarity, viewing themselves as rewriting the history of anthropology, creating a professionally respectable and scientifically rigorous discipline whose practitioners were loyal to a common enterprise”—a testament to a sense of group commitment that is antithetical to scientific research (see Ch. 7).

Boas as Pseudoscientist. Boas was the quintessential skeptic and an ardent defender of methodological rigor when it came to theories of cultural evolution and genetic influences on individual differences, yet “the burden of proof rested lightly upon Boas’s own shoulders” (White 1966, 12). Although Boas (like Freud; see Ch. 4) made his conjectures in a very dogmatic manner, his “historical reconstructions are inferences, guesses, and unsupported assertions [ranging] from the possible to the preposterous. Almost none is verifiable” (White 1966, 13). An unrelenting foe of generalization and theory construction (such as the cultural gradation theory that previously dominated anthropology), Boas nevertheless completely accepted the “absolute generalization at which [Margaret] Mead had arrived after probing for a few months into adolescent behavior on Samoa,” even though Mead’s results were contrary to previous research in the area (Freeman 1983, 291). Moreover, Boas uncritically allowed Ruth Benedict to distort his own data on the Kwakiutl (see Torrey 1992, 83).

This suggests that Boas might even go so far as to fudge his data or inflate their significance in order to support his political attitudes. Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of the anti-racialists and against those who wanted to restrict immigration. Indeed, it was likely intended as propaganda and has been highly successful in that regard, having been “cited innumerable times by writers of textbooks and anyone wishing to make the point that the cranium is plastic” (Sparks & Jantz, 2003, 334). Boas was far more concerned with showing that the cranial measurements of Eastern European Jews had altered toward the American (i.e., northwest European) type than showing similar results among Italians, writing in 1909 that “The composition of the Italian types in the schools proved to be so complex that no safe inference could be drawn in regard to the stability of the type” (Ibid.). Quite possibly this emphasis on showing the malleability of Jewish skulls reflected Boas’s ethnic affinity to this group as well as the fact that Eastern European Jews were seen as particularly unassimilable at the time (see Ch. 8).

Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration (Sparks & Jantz 2002). Moreover, Boas made inflated claims about the results—very minor changes in cranial index were described as changes of “type” so that Boas was claiming that within one generation immigrants developed the long-headed type characteristic of northwest Europeans (Sparks & Jantz 2003, 334). As Sparks and Jantz note, several modern studies show that cranial shape is under strong genetic influence, including a study showing that, while both American Blacks and Whites have altered their cranial measurements over the last 150 years, these changes have occurred in parallel and have not resulted in convergence (Jantz, 2001). Their reanalysis of Boas’s data indicated that no more than one percent of the variation between groups could be ascribed to the environmental effects of immigration, with the remainder due to variation between ethnic groups.

Sparks and Jantz also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:

While Boas [like Herskovits] never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point. (Sparks & Jantz 2003, 335).


The entire Boasian enterprise may thus be characterized as a highly authoritarian political movement centered around a charismatic leader. The results were extraordinarily successful: “The profession as a whole was united within a single national organization of academically oriented anthropologists. By and large, they shared a common understanding of the fundamental significance of the historically conditioned variety of human cultures in the determination of human behavior” (Stocking 1968, 296). Research on racial differences ceased, and the profession completely excluded eugenicists and racial theorists like Madison Grant and Charles Davenport.

By the mid-1930s the Boasian view of the cultural determination of human behavior had a strong influence on social scientists generally (Stocking 1968, 300). The followers of Boas also eventually became some of the most influential academic supporters of another Jewish-dominated movement, psychoanalysis (see Ch. 4). Marvin Harris (1968, 431) notes that psychoanalysis was adopted by the Boasian school because of its utility as a critique of Euro-American culture, and, indeed, as we shall see in later chapters, psychoanalysis is an ideal vehicle of cultural critique. In the hands of the Boasian school, psychoanalysis was completely stripped of its evolutionary associations and there was a much greater accommodation to the importance of cultural variables (Harris 1968, 433).[3]

Cultural critique was also an important aspect of the Boasian school. Stocking (1989, 215–216) shows that several prominent Boasians, including Robert Lowie and Edward Sapir, were involved in the cultural criticism of the 1920s which centered around the perception of American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, and emotionally and aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture. Among these Boasians, cultural criticism crystallized as an ideology of “romantic primitivism” in which certain non-Western cultures epitomized the approved characteristics Western societies should emulate.

Cultural criticism was a central feature of the two most well-known Boasian ethnographies, Coming of Age in Samoa and Patterns of Culture. These works are not only offered as critiques of Western civilization, but often systematically misrepresent key issues related to evolutionary perspectives on human behavior. For example, Benedict’s Zuni were described as being free of war, homicide, and concern with accumulation of wealth. Children were not disciplined. Sex was casual, with little concern for virginity, sexual possessiveness, or paternity confidence. Contemporary Western societies are, of course, the opposite of these idyllic paradises, and Benedict suggests that we should study such cultures in order “to pass judgment on the dominant traits of our own civilization” (Benedict 1934, 249). Mead’s similar portrayal of the Samoans ignored her own evidence contrary to her thesis (Orans 1996, 155). Negatively perceived behaviors of Mead’s Samoans, such as rape and concern for virginity, were attributed to Western influence (Stocking 1989, 245).

Both of these ethnographic accounts have been subjected to devastating criticisms. The picture of these societies that has emerged is far more compatible with evolutionary expectations than the societies depicted by Benedict and Mead (see Caton 1990; Freeman 1983; Orans 1996; Stocking 1989). In the controversy surrounding Mead’s work, some defenders of Mead have pointed to possible negative political implications of the demythologization of her work (see, e.g., the summary in Caton 1990, 226–227).

Indeed, one consequence of the triumph of the Boasians was that there was almost no research on warfare and violence among the peoples studied by anthropologists (Keegan 1993, 90–94). Warfare and warriors were ignored, and cultures were conceived as consisting of myth-makers and gift-givers. (Orans [1996, 120] shows that Mead systematically ignored cases of competition, violence, rape, and revolution in her account of Samoa.) Only five articles on the anthropology of warfare appeared during the 1950s. Revealingly, when Harry Turney-High published his volume Primitive War in 1949 documenting the universality of warfare and its oftentimes awesome savagery, the book was completely ignored by the anthropological profession—another example of the exclusionary tactics used against dissenters among the Boasians and characteristic of the other intellectual movements reviewed in this volume as well. Turney-High’s massive data on non-Western peoples conflicted with the image of them favored by a highly politicized profession whose members simply excluded these data entirely from intellectual discourse. The result was a “pacified past” (Keeley 1996, 163ff) and an “attitude of self-reproach” (179) in which the behavior of primitive peoples was bowdlerized while the behavior of European peoples was not only excoriated as uniquely evil but also as responsible for all extant examples of warfare among primitive peoples. From this perspective, it is only the fundamental inadequacy of European culture that prevents an idyllic world free from between-group conflict. Of course, these trends have been exacerbated in recent decades far beyond anything envisioned by Benedict or Mead.

The reality, of course, is far different. Warfare was and remains a recurrent phenomenon among pre-state societies—indeed evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander (1979) and others have argued that warfare was a critical force in human evolution, selecting for greater intelligence and a suite of other human characteristics. Surveys indicate over 90 percent of societies engage in warfare, the great majority engaging in military activities at least once per year (Keeley 1996, 27–32). Moreover, “whenever modern humans appear on the scene, definitive evidence of homicidal violence becomes more common, given a sufficient sample of burials” (Keeley 1996, 37). Because of its frequency and the seriousness of its consequences, primitive warfare was more deadly than civilized warfare. Most adult males in primitive and prehistoric societies engaged in warfare and “saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime” (Keeley 1996, 174).

[1] Lenz (1931, 675) notes the historical association between Jewish intellectuals and Lamarckianism in Germany and its political overtones. Lenz cites an “extremely characteristic” statement of a Jewish intellectual that “The denial of the racial importance of acquired characters favours race hatred.” The obvious interpretation of such sentiments is that Jewish intellectuals opposed the theory of natural selection because of its possible negative political implications. The suggestion is that these intellectuals were well aware of ethnic differences between Jews and Germans but wished to deny their importance for political reasons—an example of deception as an aspect of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy (SAID, Chs. 6–8). Indeed, Lenz notes that the Lamarckian Paul Kammerer, who was a Jew, committed suicide when exposed as a scientific fraud in an article in the prestigious British journal Nature. (The black spots on frogs, which were supposed to prove the theory of Lamarckianism, were in fact the result of injections of ink.) Lenz states that many of his Jewish acquaintances accept Lamarckianism because they wish to believe that they could become “transformed into genuine Teutons.” Such a belief may be an example of deception, since it fosters the idea that Jews can become “genuine Teutons” simply by “writing books about Goethe,” in the words of one commentator, despite retaining their genetic separatism. In a note (Lenz 1931, 674n), Lenz chides both the anti-Semites and the Jews of his day, the former for not accepting a greater influence of Judaism on modern civilization, and the latter for condemning any discussion of Judaism in terms of race. Lenz states that the Jewish opposition to discussion of race “inevitably arouses the impression that they must have some reason for fighting shy of any exposition of racial questions.” Lenz notes that Lamarckian sentiments became less common among Jews when the theory was completely discredited. Nevertheless, two very prominent and influential Jewish intellectuals, Franz Boas (Freeman 1983, 28) and Sigmund Freud (see Ch. 4), continued to accept Lamarckianism long after it became completely discredited.

[2] Torrey (1992, 60ff) argues cogently that the cultural criticism of Benedict and Mead and their commitment to cultural determinism were motivated by their attempts to develop self-esteem as lesbians. As indicated in Chapter 1, any number of reasons explain why gentile intellectuals may be attracted to intellectual movements dominated by Jews, including the identity politics of other ethnic groups or, in this case, sexual nonconformists.

[3] Although Freud is often viewed as a “biologist of the mind” (Sulloway 1979a), and although he was clearly influenced by Darwin and proposed a universal human nature, psychoanalysis is highly compatible with environmental influences and the cultural relativism championed by the Boasian school. Freud viewed mental disorder as the result of environmental influences, particularly the repression of sexuality so apparent in the Western culture of his day. For Freud, the biological was universal, whereas individual differences were the result of environmental influences. Gay (1988, 122–124) notes that until Freud, psychiatry was dominated by a biological model in which mental disorder had direct physical (e.g., genetic) causes.

References (This is the entire reference list for the book at this point, but includes all the references from this section.


Abella, I. (1990). A Coat of Many Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys.

Abella, I., & Troper, H. E. (1981). “The line must be drawn somewhere”: Canada and Jewish refugees, 1933–1939. In M. Weinfeld, W. Shaffir, & I. Cotler, The Canadian Jewish Mosaic. Toronto: Wiley.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Abrams, E. (1996). Faith & the Holocaust. Commentary 101 (March):68–69.

——— (1997). Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America. New York: Free Press.

Ackerman, N. W., & Jahoda, M. (1950). Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder, Publication No. V of The American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Adams, G. R., Gullotta, T. P., & Adams-Markstrom, C. (1994). Adolescent Life Experiences, 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Adelson, A. (1972).  SDS. New York: Scribner.

Adelson, H. L. (1999). Another sewer rat appears. Jewish Press, Oct. 1.

Adorno, T. W. (1967). Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierrey Weber. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

——— (1969a). Scientific experiences of a European scholar in America. In The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960, ed. D. Fleming & B. Bailyn. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

——— (1969b). Wissenschaftliche Erfahrungen in Amerika. In Stichworte, by T. W. Adorno. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

——— (1973). Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton. New York: Seabury Press.

——— (1974). Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life, trans. E.F.N. Jephcott. London: Verson Editions. (Originally published in 1951.)

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality, Publication No. III of The American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Agger, B. (1992). The Discourse of Domination: From the Frankfurt School to Postmodernism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Agus, A. R. E. (1988). The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom and Deliverance in Early Rabbinic Religiosity. Albany: SUNY Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alba, R. D. (1985). The twilight of ethnicity among Americans of European ancestry: The case of Italians. In Ethnicity and Race in the U.S.A.: Toward the Twenty-first Century, ed. R. D. Alba. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Alba, R. D., & Moore, G. (1982). Ethnicity in the American elite. American Sociological Review 47:373–383.

Alcock, J. (1997). Unpunctuated equilibrium: Evolutionary stasis in the essays of Stephen J. Gould. Paper presented at the meetings of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Tuscon, Arizona, June 6, 1997.

Alderman, G. (1983). The Jewish Community in British Politics. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

——— (1989). London Jewry and London Politics 1889–1986. London: Routledge.

——— (1992). Modern British Jewry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Alexander, E. (1992). Multiculturalism’s Jewish problem. Academic Questions 5:63–68.

Alexander, R. (1979). Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnepeg: University of Manitoba Press.

——— (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

——— (1994). Reducing prejudice in right-wing authoritarians. In The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 7, ed. M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

——— (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Alter, R. (1965). Sentimentalizing the Jews. Commentary 40 (September):71–75.

Alterman, E. (1992). Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics. New York: HarperCollins.

Altshuler, M. (1987). Soviet Jewry since the Second World War: Population and Social Structure. New York: Greenwood Press.

Anderson, M. M. (2001). German Intellectuals, Jewish Victims: A Politically Correct
Solidarity. Chronicle of Higher Education (October 19).

Anderson, W. L. (2001). The New York Times Missed the Wrong Missed Story.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson45.html, November 17, 2001.

Andreason, N. C., Flaum, M., Swayze, V., O’Leary, D. S., Alliger, R., Cohen, G., Ehrardt, J., & Yuh, W.T.C. (1993). Intelligence and brain structure in normal individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry 150:130–134.

Anti-Semitism Worldwide. (1994). New York: Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress.

Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior 18:237–259.

Arendt, H. (1968). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Arlow, J. A., & Brenner, C. (1988). The future of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 57:1–14.

Aronson, E. (1992). The Social Animal, 6th edition. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Asante, M. (1987). The Afrocentric Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Aschheim, S. E. (1982). Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in Germany and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800–1923. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

——— (1985). “The Jew within”: The myth of “Judaization” in Germany. In The Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. J. Reinharz & W. Schatzberg. Hanover and London: The University Press of New England for Clark University.

Auster, L. (1990). The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism. Monterey, VA: American Immigration Control Foundation.

Bailey, P. (1960). Rigged radio interview with illustrations of various ‘ego-ideals.’ Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 4:199–265.

——— (1965). Unserene: A Tragedy in Three Acts. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Barfield, T. J. (1993). The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barkan, E. (1992). The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barker, P., & Gholson, B. (1984). The history of the psychology of learning as a rational process: Lakatos versus Kuhn. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 18:227–244.

Baron, S. W. (1975). The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan.

Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (1994). Personal religion: Depressant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 7, ed. M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117:497–529.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs 4 (No. 1, Pt. 2).

Beahrs, J. O. (1996). Ritual deception: A window to the hidden determinants of human politics. Politics and the Life Sciences 15:3–12.

Beaty, J. (1951). The Iron Curtain Over America. Dallas, TX: Wilkinson Publishing Co.

Begley, L. (1991). Wartime Lies. New York: Knopf.

Behar, D. M. (2010). The Genome-Wide Structure of the Jewish People Doron M. Behar et al. Nature 466: 238–242.

Beinart, P. (1997). New bedfellows: The new Latino-Jewish alliance. The New Republic (August 11 & 18):22–26.

Beiser, V. (1997). Slip sliding away. The Jerusalem Report (January 23):33–35.

Bell, D. (Ed.). (1955). The New American Right. New York: Criterion Books.

——— (1961). Reflections of Jewish identity. Commentary 31(June):471–478.

Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991) Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development 62:647–670.

Belth, N. C. (1979). A Promise to Keep. New York: Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith/Times Books.

Bendersky, J. (2000). The “Jewish Threat”. New York: Basic Books.

Benedict, R. (1934/1959). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations, trans. H. Zohn. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

——— (1966). The immigration and nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952, as amended to 1965. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 367:127–136.

Bennett, W. J. (1994). The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bennington, G. (1993). Derridabase. In Jacques Derrida, ed. G. Bennington & J. Derrida, trans. G. Bennington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berg, A. S. (1999). Lindbergh. New York: Berkley Books. Original edition published 1998 by Putnam (New York).

Bergmann, M. S. (1995). Antisemitism and the psychology of prejudice. In Anti­semitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Berlin, I. (1980). Personal Impressions. New York: Viking.

Berman, R. A. (1989). Modern Culture and Critical Theory: Art, Politics, and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena: The Afro-Asian Roots of Classical Civilization. London: Free Association Press.

Bernheimer, K. (1998). The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies: A Critic’s Ranking of the Very Best. Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane Press Book.

Bettelheim, B., & Janowitz, M. (1950). Dynamics of Prejudice: A Psychological and Sociological Study of Veterans. Publication No. IV of the American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Betts, K. (1988). Ideology and Immigration: Australia 1976 to 1987. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.

Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and Differential Reproduction. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

Bhushan, L. I. (1982). Validity of the California F-scale: A review of studies. Indian Psychological Review 23:1–11.

Biale, D. (1998). The melting pot and beyond: Jews and the politics of American identity. In Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multi-Culturalism, ed. D. Biale, M. Galchinsky, & S. Heschel. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Biale, D., Galchinsky, M., & Heschel, S. (1998). Introduction: The dialectic of Jewish Enlightenment. In Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multi-Culturalism, ed. D. Biale, M. Galchinsky, & S. Heschel. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Billig, M. (1976). Social Psychology and Intergroup Relations. (European Monographs in Social Psychology 9). London: Academic Press.

Billings, S. W., Guastello, S. J., & Reike, M. L. (1993). A comparative assessment of the construct validity of three authoritarianism measures. Journal of Research in Personality 27:328–348.

Birnbaum, N. (1956). The Bridge, ed. S. Birnbaum. London: Post Publications.

Black, E. C. (1988). The Social Politics of Anglo-Jewry, 1880–1920. London: Basil Blackwell.

Blalock, Jr., H. M. (1967). Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

——— (1989). Power and Conflict: Toward a General Theory. New York: Free Press.

Boas, F. (1911). Reports of the Immigration Commission, “Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants,” Sixty-first Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document #208. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Boas, F. (1928). Forward to Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead. New York: HarperCollins Perennial Classics.

Bonaparte, M., Freud, A., & Kris, E. (Eds.). (1957). The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters, Drafts, and Notes to Wilhelm Fleiss, 1887–1902, trans. E. Mosbacher & J. Strachey. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bonner, J. T. (1988). The Evolution of Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bork, R. H. (1996). Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and the American Decline. New York: ReganBooks/HarperCollins.

Borowitz, E. B. (1973). The Mask Jews Wear: Self-Deceptions of American Jewry. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). Power, gender, and intergroup discrimination: Some minimal group experiments. In The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 7, ed. M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——— (1987). The evolution of ethnic markers. Journal of Cultural Anthropology 2:65–79.

——— (1992). How microevolutionary processes give rise to history. In History and Evolution, ed. N. H. Nitecki & D. V. Nitecki. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Boyle, S. S. (2001). The Betrayal of Palestine: The Story of George Antonius. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,

Brandeis, L. D. (1915/1976). Your loyalty to America should lead you to support the Zionist cause. In Immigration and the American Tradition, ed. M. Rischin. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Braungart, R. G. (1979). Family Status, Socialization, and Student Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Breitman, R. D., & Kraut, A. M. (1986). Anti-Semitism in the State Department, 1933–44: Four case studies. In Anti-Semitism in American History, ed. D. A. Gerber. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

——— (1987). American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933–1945. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Brewer, M. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition 11:150–164.

Brewer, M., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation, ed. N. Miller & M. B. Brewer. New York: Academic Press.

Brigham, C. C. (1923). A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

——— (1930). Intelligence tests in immigrant groups. Psychological Review 37:158–165.

Brimelow, P. (1995). Alien Nation. New York: Random House.

Bristow, E. J. (1983). Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight against White Slavery, 1870–1939. London: Oxford University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage.

Brovkin, V. N. (1994). Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War: Political Parties and Social Movements in Russia, 1918–1922. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brown, M. (1987). Jew or Juif? Jews, French Canadians, and Anglo-Canadians, 1759–1914. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Brown, N. O. (1985). Life against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History, 2nd ed. (1st ed. in 1959). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Brown, P. (1987). Late antiquity. In A History of Private Life, Vol. 1, ed. P. Veyne. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. London: Collier-Macmillan.

Brundage, J. A. (1987). Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Buckley, W. (1992). In Search of Anti-Semitism. New York: Continuum.

Buhle, P. (1980). Jews and American Communism: The cultural question. Radical History Review, 23, 9–33. Reprinted in Immigrant Radicals: The View from the Left, ed. G. E. Pozzetta. New York: Garland Publishing, 1991.

Bulik, L. A. (1993). Mass Culture Criticism and Dissent. Bern: Peter Lang.

Burgess, R. L., & Molenaar, P. C. M.  (1993). Human behavioral biology: A reply to R. Lerner and A. von Eye. Human Development 36:45–54.

Burton, M. L., Moore, C. C., Whiting, J. W. M., & Romney, A. K. (1996). Regions based on social structure. Current Anthropology, 37: 87–123.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M., Hasleton, M., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist 53:533–548.

Campbell, D. T. (1986). Science’s social system of validity-enhancing collective belief change and the problems of the social sciences. In Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities, ed. D. W. Fiske & R. A Shweder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——— (1987). Evolutionary epistemology. In Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. G. Radnitzky & W. W. Bartley. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

——— (1993). Plausible coselection of belief by referent: All the “objectivity” that is possible. Perspectives on Science 1:88–108.

Caputo, J. D. (1997). The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

Carlebach, J. (1978). Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Carroll, F. M. 1978). American Opinion and the Irish Question 1910–23: A Study in Opinion and Policy.  New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Carroll, J. B. (1995). Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1981): A retrospective review. Intelligence 21:121–134.

Carroll, Joseph. (1995). Evolution and Literary Theory. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Cash, W. (1994). Kings of the deal. The Spectator (29 October):14–16.

Castro, A. (1954). The Structure of Spanish history, trans. E. L. King. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

——— (1971). The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History, trans. W. F. King & S. Margaretten. Berkeley: The University of California Press.

Caton, H. (Ed.). (1990). The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Cesarani, D. (1994). The Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chamberlain, L. (1995). Freud and the eros of the impossible. Times Literary Supplement, August 25, 9–10.

Chase, A. (1977). The Legacy of Malthus. New York: Knopf.

Checinski, M. (1982). Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, trans. (in part) T. Szafar. New York. Karz-Chol Publishing.

Churchill, W. (1920). Zionism versus Bolshvism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, p. 5.

Churchland, P. M. (1995). The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cioffi, F. (1969). Wittgenstein’s Freud. In Studies in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, ed. P. Winch. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

——— (1970). Freud and the idea of a pseudo-science. In Explanation in the Behavioural Sciences, ed. R. Borger & F. Cioffi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1972). Wollheim on Freud. Inquiry 15:171–186.

Cogley, J. (1972). Report on Blacklisting, Vols. I and II. New York: Arno Press and The New York Times; originally published in 1956 by The Fund for the Republic, Inc.

Cohen, E. A. (1992). A letter from Eliot A. Cohen. In In Search of Anti-Semitism, ed. W. Buckley. New York: Continuum.

Cohen, M. (1998). In defense of Shaatnez: A politics for Jews in a multicultural America. In Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multi-Culturalism, ed. D. Biale, M. Galchinsky, & S. Heschel. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906–1966. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

Cohen, P. S. (1980). Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews. London: Academic Press.

Cohen, S. M. (1986). Vitality and resilience in the American Jewish family. In The Jewish family: Myths and Reality, ed. S. M. Cohen & P. E. Hyman. New York Holmes & Meier.

Cohn, W. (1958). The politics of American Jews. In The Jews: Social Patterns of an American Group, ed. M. Sklare. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Collier, G., Minton, H. L., & Reynolds, G. (1991). Currents of Thought in American Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cones, J. W. (1997). What’s really going on in Hollywood. www.mecfilms.com/FIRM/whats.htm

Coon, C. (1958). Caravan: The Story of the Middle East, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Cooney, T. A. (1986). The Rise of the New York Intellectuals: Partisan Review and Its Circle. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Cooper, A. M. (1990). The future of psychoanalysis: Challenges and opportunities. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 59:177–196.

Corbin, A. (1990). Intimate relations. In A History of Private Life: IV. From the Fires of the Revolution to the Great War, ed. M. Perrot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panné, J., Paczkowski, A., Bartoëek K., & Margolin, J. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, trans. J. Murphy & M. Kramer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Coutouvidis, J., & Reynolds, J. (1986). Poland, 1939–1947. New York: Holmes & Meier.

Crews, F. (1993). The unknown Freud. New York Review of Books 60(19):55–66.

——— (1994). The unknown Freud: An exchange. New York Review of Books 61(3):34–43.

Crews, F., et al. (1995). The Memory Wars: Freud’s Legacy in Dispute. New York: New York Review.

Crocker, J., Blaine, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behaviour, and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. In Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives, ed. M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin 87:546–563.

Cruse, H. (1967, 1992). Negroes and Jews—The two nationalisms and the bloc(ked) plurality. In Bridges and Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews, ed. J. Salzman with A. Back & G. Sullivan Sorin. New York: George Braziller in association with the Jewish Museum, 1992. (Originally published as a chapter in Cruse’s The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. New York: William Morrow, 1967.)

Cuddihy, J. M. (1974). The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1978). No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste (New York: Seabury Press.

Darnell, R. (2001). Creative Genealogies: A History of American Anthropology. (University of Nebraska Press).

Davies, N. (1981). God’s Playground: A History of Poland (2 vols.). Oxford University Press.

Davis, B. D. (1986). Storm over Biology: Essays on Science, Sentiment and Public Policy. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Dawidowicz, L. S. (1952). “Anti-Semitism” and the Rosenberg case. Commentary 14(July):41–45.

——— (1975). The War against the Jews, 1933–1945. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

——— (1976). A Holocaust Reader. New York: Behrman.

de Toledano, R. (1996). Among the Ashkenazim. Commentary 101(6) (June):48–51.

Deak, I. (1968). Weimar Germany’s Left-Wing Intellectuals. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Decter, M. (1994). The ADL vs. the ‘Religious Right.’ Commentary 98 (September):45–49.

Degler, C. (1991). In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dennett, D. C. (1993). Letter. New York Review of Books 60(1,2):43–44.

——— (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Derrida, J. (1984). Two words for Joyce. In Post-structuralist Joyce: Essays from the French, ed. D. Attridge & D. Ferrer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1986). Glas, trans. J. P. Leavey, Jr. & R. Rand. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

——— (1993a). Aporias, trans. T. Dutoit. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

——— (1993b). Circumfession. In Jacques Derrida, ed. G. Bennington & J. Derrida, trans. G. Bennington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——— (1994). Shibboleth: For Paul Celan. In Word Traces: Readings of Paul Celan, ed. A. Fioretos, trans. J. Wilner. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

——— (1995a). Points . . . Interviews, 1974–1994, trans. P. Kamuf and others. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

——— (1995b). Archive fever: A Freudian impression. Diacritics 25(2):9–63.

Dershowitz, A. (1997). The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of a Jewish Identity for the Next Century. Boston: Little, Brown.

——— (1999). Forward, Oct. 1.

Deutsch, H. (1940). Freud and his pupils: A footnote to the history of the psychoanalytic movement. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 9:184–194.

Dickemann, M. (1979). Female infanticide, reproductive strategies, and social stratification: A preliminary model. In Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior, ed. N. A. Chagnon & W. Irons. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.

Dickstein, M. (1977). Gates of Eden: American Culture in the Sixties. New York: Basic Books.

Diner, H. R. (1977). In the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Disraeli, B. (1852). Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography. 2nd ed. London: Colburn.

Divine, R. A. (1957). American Immigration Policy, 1924–1952. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dixon, S. (1985). The marriage alliance in the Roman elite. Journal of Family History 10:353–378.

Doise, W., & Sinclair, A. (1973). The categorization process in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology 3:145–157.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Gray, K. D. (1988). Single parent families. In Feminism, Children, and the New Families, ed. S. M. Dornbusch & M. Strober. New York: Guilford Press.

Dosse, F. 1997). History of Structuralism (2 vols.), trans. D. Glassman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Duby, G. (1983). The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest, trans. Barbara Bray. London: Penguin Books.

Dumont, P. (1982). Jewish communities in Turkey during the last decades of the nineteenth century in light of the archives of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, B. Braude & B. Lewis (Eds.). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers.

Dunne, M. P., Martin, N. G., Statham, D. J., Slutske, W. S., Dinwiddie, S. H., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P.A.F., & Heath, A. C. (1997). Genetic and environmental contributions to variance in age at first sexual intercourse. Psychological Science 8:211–216.

Editors of Fortune (1936). Jews in America. New York: Random House

Efron, J. M. (1994). Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Egan, V., Chiswick, A., Santosh, C., Naidu, K., Rimmington, J. E., & Best, J.J.K. (1994). Size isn’t everything: A study of brain volume, intelligence and auditory evoked potentials. Personality and Individual Differences 17:357–367.

Eickleman, D. F. (1981). The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Elazar, D. J. (1980). Community and Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, first published in 1976. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

Elder, G. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellenberger, H. (1970). The Discovery of the Unconscious. New York: Basic Books.

Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social Studies 49:1–26.

Elon, A. (2001). A German requiem. New York Review of Books (November 15, 2001).

Epstein, E. J. (1996). Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer. New York: Random House.

Epstein, J. (1997). Dress British, think Yiddish. Times Literary Supplement (March 7):6–7.

Epstein, M. M. (1997). Dreams of Subversion in Medieval Jewish Art and Literature. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Esterson, A. (1992). Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud. Chicago: Open Court.

Evans, M. S. (2007).  Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies (New York: Crown Forum).

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire. Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers.

Fahnestock, J.  (1993). Tactics of evaluation in Gould and Lewontin’s “The spandrels of San Marco.” In Understanding Scientific Prose, ed. J. Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fairchild, H. P. (1939). Should the Jews come in? The New Republic 97(January 25):344–345.

——— (1947). Race and Nationality as Factors in American Life. New York: Ronald Press.

Fancher, R. E. (1985). The Intelligence Men: Makers of the IQ Controversy. New York: W. W. Norton.

Farrall, L. A. (1985). The Origins of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865–1925. New York: Garland Publishing.

Faur, J. (1992). In the Shadow of History: Jews and Conversos at the Dawn of Modernity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Feldman, L. H. (1993). Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ferguson, N. (1999). The Pity of War. New York: Basic Books.

Fetzer, J. S. (1996). Anti-immigration sentiment and nativist political movements in the United States, France and Germany: Marginality or economic self-interest? Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, Aug. 29–Sept. 1.

Fiedler, L. A. (1948). The state of American writing. Partisan Review 15:870–875.

Field, G. G. (1981). Evangelist of Race: The Germanic Vision of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. New York: Columbia University Press.

Finkelstein, N. G. (2000). The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London and New York: Verso.

——— (2001). Preface to the revised paperback edition of The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London and New York: Verso.

Fisher, H. E. (1992). Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce. New York: W. W. Norton.

Flacks, R. (1967). The liberated generation: An exploration of the roots of student protest. Journal of Social Issues 23(3):52–75.

Flinn, M. (1997). Culture and the evolution of social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:23–67.

Fölsing, A. (1997/1993). Albert Einstein. New York: Penguin. Eksteins, M. (1975). The Limits of Reason: The German Democratic Press and the Collapse of Weimar Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fox, R. (1989). The Search for Society: Quest for a Biosocial Science and Morality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Foxman, A. (1995). Antisemitism in America: A view from the “defense” agencies. In Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Frank, G. (1997). Jews, multiculturalism, and Boasian anthropology. American Anthropologist 99:731–745.

Frankel, J. (1981). Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862–1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

——— (1990). Historical glosses. In The Samoan Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock, ed. H. Caton. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

——— (1991). On Franz Boas and the Samoan researches of Margaret Mead. Current Anthropology 32:322–330.

Freeman, W. J. (1995). Societies of Brains. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Freud, S. (1932/1969). The Interpretation of Dreams, trans. J. Strachey. New York: Avon Books.

——— (1939). Moses and Monotheism, trans. by K. Jones. New York: Vintage. (Reprinted in 1955.)

Friedman, M. (1995). What Went Wrong? The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance. New York: Free Press.

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. New York: Rinehart.

Frommer, M. (1978). The American Jewish Congress: A History, 1914–1950 (2 vols.). Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Fuchs, L. (1956). The Political Behavior of American Jews. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Furstenberg, F. F. (1991). As the pendulum swings: Teenage childbearing and social concern. Family Relations 40:127–138.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1989). Teenaged pregnancy and childbearing. American Psychologist 44:313–320.

Gabler, N. (1988). An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. New York: Crown Publishers.

Gabler, N. (1995) Winchell: Gossip, Power, and the Culture of Celebrity. New York: Vintage; originally published 1994 by Random House.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination, ed. J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Gal, A. (1989). Brandeis, Judaism, and Zionism. In Brandeis in America, ed. N. L. Dawson. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Gasman, D. (1971). The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. London: MacDonald.

Gay, P. (1987). A Godless Jew: Freud, Atheism, and the Making of Psychoanalysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

——— (1988). Freud: A Life for Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gelb, S. A. (1986). Henry H. Goddard and the immigrants, 1910–1917: The studies and their social context. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 22:324–332.

Gerlernter, D. (1997). How the intellectuals took over (and what to do about it). Commentary (March).

Gershenhorn, J. (2004). Melville Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Gilman, S. L. (1993). Freud, Race, and Gender. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gilson, E. (1962). The Philosopher and Theology. New York: Random House.

Ginsberg, B. (1993). The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gitelman, Z. (1991). The evolution of Jewish culture and identity in the Soviet Union. In Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union, ed. Y. Ro’i & A. Beker. New York: New York University Press.

Glazer, N. (1954). New light on The Authoritarian Personality: A survey of recent research and criticism. Commentary 17 (March):289–297.

——— (1961). The Social Basis of American Communism. New York: Harcourt Brace.

——— (1969). The New Left and the Jews. Jewish Journal of Sociology 11:120–132.

——— (1987). New perspectives in American Jewish sociology. American Jewish Yearbook, 1987 (88):3–19.

Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. P. (1963). Beyond the Melting Pot, 2nd ed. 1970. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Glenn, S. S., & Ellis, J.  (1988). Do the Kallikaks look “menacing” or “retarded”? American Psychologist 43:742–743.

Gless, D. J., & Herrnstein Smith, B. (Eds.). (1992). The Politics of Liberal Education. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Glick, L. B. (1982). Types distinct from our own: Franz Boas on Jewish identity and assimilation. American Anthropologist 84: 545–565.

Goddard, H. H. (1913). The Binet tests in relation to immigration. Journal of Psycho-Aesthenics 18:105–110.

——— (1917). Mental tests and the immigrant. Journal of Delinquency 11:243–277.

Goldberg, J. J. (1996). Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goldfarb, S. H. (1984). American Judaism and the Scopes trial. In Studies in the American Jewish Experience II, ed. J. R. Marcus & A. J. Peck. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Goldschmidt, W., & Kunkel, E. J. (1971). The structure of the peasant family. American Anthropologist 73:1058–1076.

Goldstein, I. (1952a). The racist immigration law. Congress Weekly 19(11), March 17:6–7.

——— (1952b). An American immigration policy. Congress Weekly, November 3:4.

Goldstein, J. (1975). Ethnic politics: The American Jewish Committee as lobbyist, 1915–1917. American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65:36–58.

——— (1990). The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight against Immigration Restriction, 1906–1917. New York: Garland Publishing.

González, G. (1989). The intellectual influence of the Conversos Luis and Antonia Coronel in sixteenth-century Spain. In Marginated Groups in Spanish and Portuguese History, ed. W. D. Phillips & C. R. Phillips. Minneapolis: Society for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies.

Goodman, P. (1960). Growing up Absurd: Problems of Youth in the Organized Society. New York: Random House.

——— (1961). Pornography, art, & censorship. Commentary 31(3):203–212.

Goodnick, B. (1993). Jacob Freud’s birthday greeting to his son Alexander. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis 53:255–265.

Gordon, S. (1984). Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Society 31:53–59.

Gottfried, P. (1993). The Conservative Movement, rev. ed. New York: Twayne Publishers.

——— (1996). On “Being Jewish.” Rothbard-Rockwell Report (April):9–10.

——— (1998). After Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

——— (2000). Review of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-century Intellectual and Political Movements. Chronicles, June, 27–29.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton.

——— (1987). An Urchin in the Storm: Essays about Books and Ideas. New York: W. W. Norton.

——— (1991). The Birth of the Two Sex World. New York Review of Books 38(11):11–13.

——— (1992). The confusion over evolution. New York Review of Books 39(19):39–54.

——— (1993). Fulfilling the spandrels of world and mind. In Understanding Scientific Prose, ed. J. Selzer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

——— (1994a). How can evolutionary theory best offer insights into human development? Invited address presented at the meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; June 30.

——— (1994b). Curveball. New Yorker (November 28).

——— (1996a). The Mismeasure of Man; rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton.

——— (1996b). The Diet of Worms and the Defenestration of Prague. Natural History (September).

——— (1996c). The Dodo in the caucus race. Natural History (November).

——— (1997). Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism. New York Review of Books 44(11) (June 26):47–52.

——— (1998). The internal brand of the scarlet W. Natural History (March).

Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 205:581–598.

Grant, M. (1921). The Passing of the Great Race or the Racial Basis of European History, 4th ed. New York: Scribner.

Green, J. C. (2000). Religion and politics in the 1990s: Confrontations and coalitions. In M. Silk (Ed.), Religion and American Politics: The 2000 Election in Context. Hartford, CT: The Pew Program on Religion and the News Media, Trinity College.

Greenberg, C. (1946). Koestler’s new novel. Partisan Review 13:580–582.

——— (1949). The Pound award. Partisan Review 16:515–516.

Greenwald, A. G., & Schuh, E. S. (1994). An ethnic bias in scientific citations. European Journal of Social Psychology 24:623–639.

Grollman, E. A. (1965). Judaism in Sigmund Freud’s World. New York: Bloch.

Gross, B. (1990). The case of Philippe Rushton. Academic Questions 3:35–46.

Grosskurth, P. (1991). The Secret Ring: Freud’s Inner Circle and the Politics of Psychoanalysis. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Grossman, K., Grossman, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess, G., & Unser, L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and newborns’ orientation responses as rlated to quality of attachment in northern Germany. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 233–275

Grünbaum, A. (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press. (German ed. copyright 1968.)

Hagen, W. W. (1996). Before the “final solution”: Toward a comparative analysis of political anti-Semitism in interwar Germany and Poland. Journal of Modern History 68:351–381.

Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage patterns in perspective. In Population in History, ed. D. V. Glass & D.E.C. Eversley. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

——— (1983). Two kinds of pre-industrial household formation system. In Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. R. Wall, J. Robin, & P. Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hale, N. G. (1995). The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States: Freud and the Americans, 1917–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haliczer, S. (1989). The outsiders: Spanish history as a history of missed opportunities. In Marginated Groups in Spanish and Portuguese History, ed. W. D. Phillips & C. R. Phillips. Minneapolis: Society for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies.

Halverson, C. F., & Waldrop, M. F. (1970). Maternal behavior toward own and other preschool children. Developmental Psychology 12:107–112.

Hammer, M. F., Redd, A. J., Wood, E. T., Bonner, M. R., Jarjanazi, H., Karafet, T., Santachiara-Benerecetti, S., Oppenheim, A., Jobling, M. A., Jenkins, T., Ostrer, H., & Bonné-Tamir, B. (2000). Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 9.

Hanawalt, B. (1986). The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. New York: Oxford University Press.

Handlin, O. (1945). The return of the Puritans. Partisan Review 12(2):268–269.

——— (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July):1–7.

——— (1957). Race and Nationality in American Life. Boston: Little, Brown.

Hannan, K. (2000). Review of The Culture of Critique. Nationalities Papers, 28(4) (November), 741–742.

Hapgood, J. (1916). Jews and the immigration bill. Harper’s Weekly 62 (April 15).

Harris, J. F. (1994). The People Speak! Anti-Semitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell; Harper & Row.

Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Socialization, Personality & Social Development, Vol. 4, ed. E. M. Hetherington. New York: Wiley.

Hartung, J. (1995). Love thy neighbor: The Evolution of in-group morality. Skeptic 3(November):86–99.

Harup, L. (1978). Class, ethnicity, and the American Jewish Committee. Jewish Currents (December 1972). (Reprinted in The Sociology of American Jews: A Critical Anthology, ed. J. N. Porter. Boston: University Press of America.)

Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R. M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared with schizophrenics and healthy controls. Psychological Medicine 24:689–699.

Hawkins, F. (1989). Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Heilbrun, J. (1995). Pat Robertson: His anti-Semitic sources. New York Review of Books 42(7):68–71.

Heilman, S. (1992). Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. New York: Schocken Books.

Heller, M. (1988). Cogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man, trans. D. Floyd. London: Collins Harvill.

Heller, M., & Nekrich, A. (1986). Utopia in Power. New York: Summit.

Henry, W. E., Sims, J. H., & Spray, S. L. (1971). The Fifth Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Herder, J. G. (1774,1969). Yet Another Philosophy of History for the Enlightenment of Mankind. In J. G. Herder on Social and Political Culture, trans. F. M. Barnard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herlihy, D. (1985). Medieval Households. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.

Herskovits, M. J. (1947). Man and His Works (Alfred A. Knopf).

——— (1953). Franz Boas. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America. New York: Schocken Books.

——— (1985). The triumph of the Jews. New York Review of Books, 32 (November 21):19–22.

——— (1989). The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter. New York: Simon & Schuster.

——— (1993a). Is anti-Semitism dying out? New York Review of Books 40(12):51–57.

——— (1993b). Letter. New York Review of Books 40(15):68–69.

——— (1995). How Jews use antisemitism. In Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Herz, F. M., & Rosen, E. J. (1982). Jewish families. In Ethnicity and Family Therapy, ed. M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano. New York: The Guilford Press.

Higham, J. (1984). Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Himmelfarb, G. (1991). A letter to Robert Conquest. Academic Questions 4:44–48.

——— (1995). The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. New York: Knopf.

Himmelstrand, U.  (1967). Tribalism, national rank equilibrium and social structure. Journal of Peace Research 2:81–103.

Hodges, W. F., Wechsler, R. C., & Ballantine, C. (1979). Divorce and the preschool child: Cumulative stress. Journal of Divorce 3:55–67.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR. New York: Vintage.

——— (1965). The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Knopf.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications. New York: Routledge.

——— (1993). Toward a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives, ed. M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hollinger D. A. (1996). Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth- Century American Intellectual History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Holt, R. R. (1990). A perestroika for psychoanalysis: Crisis and renewal. Paper presented at a meeting of Section 3, Division 39, Jan. 12, New York University. (Cited in Richards 1990.)

Hook, S. (1948). Why democracy is better. Commentary 5(March):195–204.

——— (1949). Reflections on the Jewish question. Partisan Review 16:463–482.

——— (1987). Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the 20th Century. New York: Harper & Row.

——— (1989). On being a Jew. Commentary 88(October):28–36.

Hopkins, B. (1983). Death and Renewal. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Horkheimer, M. (1941). Art and mass culture. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9:290–304.

——— (1947). The Eclipse of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.

——— (1974). Critique of Instrumental Reason, trans. M. J. O’Connell and others. New York: Seabury Press.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1990). Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. J. Cumming. New York: Continuum. (Originally published as Dialectik der Aufklärung in 1944.)

Horkheimer, M., & Flowerman, S. H. (1950). Foreword to Studies in Prejudice. In The Authoritarian Personality, by T. W. Adorno et al. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Horowitz, D. (1997). Radical Son: A Journey Through Our Time. New York: Free Press.

Horowitz, I. L. (1987). Between the Charybdis of capitalism and the Scylla of communism: The emigration of German social scientists, 1933–1945. Social Science History 11:113–138.

——— (1993). The Decomposition of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Howe, I. (1976). The World of Our Fathers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

——— (1978). The East European Jews and American culture. In Jewish Life in America, ed. G. Rosen. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press of the American Jewish Committee.

——— (1982). A Margin of Hope: An Intellectual Biography. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hunt, E. (1995). The role of intelligence in modern society. American Scientist 83:356–368.

Hutchinson, E. P. (1981). Legislative History of American Immigration Policy 1798–1965. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1954). The Authoritarian Personality: A methodological critique. In Studies in the Scope and Method of The Authoritarian Personality, ed. R. Christie & M. Jahoda. New York: Free Press.

Hyman, P. E. (1989). The modern Jewish family: Image and reality. In The Jewish Family, ed. D. Kraemer. New York: Oxford University Press.

Irving, D. (1981). Uprising! London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Itzkoff, S. (1991). Human Intelligence and National Power: A Political Essay in Sociobiology. New York: Peter Lang.

Ivers, G. (1995). To Build a Wall: American Jews and the Separation of Church and State. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Jackson, W. A. (1986). Melville Herskovits and the Search for Afro-American Culture. In: Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on Culture and Personality, ed. G. W. Stocking Jr., 195–226. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).

Jacoby, R. (1995). Marginal returns: The trouble with post-colonial theory. Lingua Franca 5(6) (October):30–37.

Jameson, F. (1990). Late Marxism: Adorno, or, the Persistence of the Dialectic. London: Verso.

Javits, J. (1951). Let’s open our gates. New York Times Magazine (July 8): 8, 31–33.

——— (1965). Congressional Record 111:24469.

Jay, M. (1973). The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Boston: Little, Brown.

——— (1980). The Jews and the Frankfurt School: Critical theory’s analysis of anti-Semitism. New German Critique (#19):137–149.

——— (1984). Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jensen, A. R. (1982). The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Education Review 1:121–135.

Jensen, A. R., & Weng, L. J. (1994). What is a good g? Intelligence 18:231–258.

Johnson, G. (1986). Kin selection, socialization, and patriotism: An integrating theory. Politics and the Life Sciences 4:127–154.

——— (1995). The evolutionary origins of government and politics. In Human Nature and Politics, ed. J. Losco & A. Somit. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Johnson, H. (1956). Psychoanalysis: Some critical comments. American Journal of Psychiatry 113:36–40.

Johnson, P. (1988). A History of the Jews. New York: Perennial Library. (Originally published by Harper & Row, 1987.)

Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1990). Intergroup contact: Social identity and social cognition. In Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed. D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Jones, D. B. (1972). Communism and the movies: A study of film content. In Report on Blacklisting, Vols. I and II, ed. J. Cogley. New York: Arno Press and The New York Times; originally published in 1956 by The Fund for the Republic, Inc.

Jones, E. (1953, 1955, 1957). The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 3 Vols. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1959). Free Associations: Memories of a Psycho-Analyst. New York: Basic Books.

Jordan, W. C. (1989). The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Judis, J. (1990). The conservative crack-up. The American Prospect (Fall):30–42.

Jumonville, N. Critical Crossings: The New York Intellectuals in Postwar America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jung, C. G. (1961). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Collins.

Kadushin, C. (1969). Why People Go to Psychiatrists. New York: Atherton.

——— (1974). The American Intellectual Elite. Boston: Little, Brown.

Kahan, S. (1987). The Wolf of the Kremlin. New York: William Morrow & Co.

Kahn, L. (1985). Heine’s Jewish writer friends: Dilemmas of a generation, 1817–33. In The Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. J. Reinharz & W. Schatzberg. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Clark University.

Kallen, H. M. (1915). Democracy versus the melting pot. Nation 100 (February 18 & 25):190–194, 217–220.

——— (1924). Culture and Democracy in the United States. New York: Arno Press.

Kamin, L. J. (1974a). The Science and Politics of I.Q. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

——— (1974b). The science and politics of I.Q. Social Research 41:387–425.

——— (1982). Mental testing and immigration. American Psychologist 37:97–98.

Kammer, J. (2010). The SPLC and Immigration. Center for Immigration Studies (March 11, 2010).


Kann, K. (1981). Joe Rapoport: The Life of a Jewish Radical. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kantor, K. A. (1982). Jews on Tin Pan Alley: The Jewish Contribution to American Popular Music, 1830–1940. New York: KTAV Publishing.

Kapel, M., (1997). Bad Company. Australia/Israel Review 22.12(August 29–September 11).

Kaplan, D. M. (1967). Freud and his own patients. Harper’s 235 (December):105–106.

Katz, J. (1983). Misreadings of Anti-Semitism. Commentary 76(1):39–44.

——— (1985). German culture and the Jews. In The Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. J. Reinharz & W. Schatzberg. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Clark University.

——— (1986). Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

———. (1996). Leaving the ghetto. Commentary 101(2):29–34.

Kaufman, J. (1997). Blacks and Jews: The struggle in the cities. In Struggles in the Promised Land: Toward a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United States, ed. J. Salzman & C. West. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaus, M. (1995). The End of Equality, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.

Keegan, J. (1993). A History of Warfare. New York: Knopf.

Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keinon, H. (2020). Twenty-six years after his death…the Rebbe’s beat goes on. The Jerusalem Post (June 18) https://www.jpost.com/judaism/twenty-six-years-after-his-deaththe-rebbes-beat-goes-on-631886

Kellogg, M. (2005). The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kerr, J. (1992). A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. New York: Knopf.

Kerr, W. (1968). Skin deep is not good enough. New York Times (April 14):D1, D3.

Kevles, D. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf.

Kiell, N. (Ed.). (1988). Freud without Hindsight: Reviews of His Work (1893–1939). New York: International Press.

Kiernan, T. (1986). Citizen Murdoch. New York: Dodd Mead.

Klehr, H. (1978). Communist Cadre: The Social Background of the American Communist Party Elite. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Klehr, H., Haynes, J. E., & Firsov, F. I. (1995). The Secret World of American Communism, Russian documents translated by T. D. Sergay. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Klein, D. B. (1981). Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Klein Halevi, Y. (1996). Zionism, Phase II. The Jerusalem Report (December 26):12–18.

Kleiner, R. (1988). Archives to throw new light on Ehrenburg. Canadian Jewish News (Toronto) (March 17):9.

Kline, P., & Cooper, C. (1984). A factor analysis of the authoritarian personality. British Journal of Psychology 75:171–176.

Kluckhohn, C., and Prufer, O. (1959). Influences during the Formative Years. In M. Goldschmidt (Ed.), The Anthropology of Franz Boas, 4–28. American Anthropology Association Memoir #89.

Knode, J. (1974). The Decline in Fertility in Germany, 1871–1979. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Koestler, A. (1971). The Case of the Midwife Toad. New York: Random House.

——— (1976). The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage. New York: Random House.

Kohler, K. (1918). Jewish Theology. New York: KTAV Publishing House (reprinted in 1968).

Konvitz, M. (1953). Civil Rights in Immigration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

——— (1978). The quest for equality and the Jewish experience. In Jewish Life in America, ed. G. Rosen. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press of the American Jewish Committee.

Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kostyrchenko, G. (1995). Out of the Red Shadows: Anti-Semitism in Stalin’s Russia. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Kotkin, J. (1993). Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy. New York: Random House.

Kramer, H. (1996). Reflections on the history of Partisan Review. New Criterion 15(1), September.

Kramer, H., & Kimball, R. (1995). Farewell to the MLA. The New Criterion 13(6):5–16.

Kristol, I. (1983). Reflections of a Neoconservative. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1984). The political dilemma of American Jews. Commentary 78(July):24–25.

Kroeber, A. L. (1943). Franz Boas: The man. In Franz Boas, 1858–1942. ed. A. L. Kroeber, R. Benedict, M. B. Emeneau, M. J. Herskovits, G. A. Reichard, & J. A. Mason. American Anthropologist 45(3, pt. 2), mem. 61:5–26.

——— (1956). The place of Franz Boas in anthropology. American Anthropologist 58:151–159.

Kurzweil, E. (1989). The Freudians: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lacouture, J. (1995). Jesuits: A Multibiography, trans. Jeremy Legatt. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

Ladurie, E. L. (1987). The French Peasantry 1450–1660, trans. A. Sheridan. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1977.)

Lakoff, R. T., & Coyne, J. C. (1993). Father Knows Best: The Use and Abuse of Power in Freud’s Case of “Dora.” New York: Teachers College Press.

Landau, D. (1993). Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism. New York: Hill and Wang.

Landmann, M. (1984). Critique of reason: Max Weber to Jürgen Habermas. In Foundations of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, ed. J. Marcus & Z. Tar. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Laqueur, W. (1974). Weimar: A Cultural History 1918–1933. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Lasch, C. (1991). The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics. New York: W. W. Norton.

Laslett, P. (1983). Family and household as work group and kin group: Areas of traditional Europe compared. In Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. R. Wall, J. Robin, & P. Laslett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Layton-Henry, Z. (1992). The Politics of Immigration: Immigration, “Race” and “Race” Relations in Post-War Britain. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lefkowitz, M. R. (1993). Ethnocentric history from Aristobulus to Bernal. Academic Questions 6:12–20.

Leftwich, J. (1957). Israel Zangwill. New York: Thomas Yoseloff.

Lehrman, D. S. (1970). Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In The Development and Evolution of Behavior, ed. L. R. Aronson, E. Tobach, D. S. Lehrman, & J. S. Rosenblatt. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Lenz, F. (1931). The inheritance of intellectual gifts. In Human Heredity, trans. E. & C. Paul, ed. E. Baur, E. Fischer, & F. Lenz. New York: Macmillan.

Lerner, M. (1957). America as a Civilization: Life and Thought in the United States Today. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lerner, R., Nagai, A. K., & Rothman, S. (1996). American Elites. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lerner, Richard M. (1992). Final Solutions: Biology, Prejudice, and Genocide. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

Lerner, Richard M., & von Eye, A. (1992). Sociobiology and human development: Arguments and evidence. Human Development 35:12–33.

Levenson, A. (1989). Reform attitudes, in the past, toward intermarriage. Judaism 38:320–332.

Levey, G. B. (1996). The liberalism of American Jews: Has it been explained? British Journal of Political Science 26:369–401.

Levin, N. (1977). While Messiah Tarried: Jewish Socialist Movements, 1871–1917. New York: Schocken Books.

——— (1988). The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917: Paradox of Survival, Vols. I & II. New York: New York University Press.

Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. C. (1985). The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C., & Eribon, D.  (1991). Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss, trans. P. Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levy, R. S. (1975). The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity. New York: MacMillan.

Lewis, B. (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lewis, D. L. (1984). Shortcuts to the mainstream: Afro-American and Jewish notables in the 1920s and 1930s. In Jews in Black Perspective: A Dialogue, ed. J. R. Washington, 83–97. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University; London and Carnbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

——— (1992). Parallels and Divergences. In Bridges and Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews: Strategies of Afro-American and Jewish Elites from 1910 to the Early 1930s, ed. J. Salzman, 17–35. New York: George Brazilier, 1992.

Lewontin, R. C. (1992). Doubts about the human genome project. New York Review of Books 39(10):31–40.

——— (1994a). Women versus the biologists. New York Review of Books 41(7):31–35.

——— (1994b). Women versus the biologists: An exchange. New York Review of Books 41(13):54–55.

——— (1997). The confusion over cloning. New York Review of Books 44(16) (October 23):18–23.

Lewontin, R. C., & Levins, R. (1985). The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S. J., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in Our Genes. New York: Pantheon.

Lichter, S. R., Lichter, L. S., & Rothman, S. (1982/1983). Hollywood and America: The odd couple. Public Opinion, Dec. 1982/Jan. 1983.

Lichter, S. R., Lichter, L. S., & Rothman, S. (1994). Prime Time: How TV Portrays American Culture. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Lichter, S. R., Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. S. (1986). The Media Elite. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.

Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the Left. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Liebman, C. (1973). The Ambivalent American Jew: Politics, Religion, and Family in American Jewish Life. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

Lilienthal, A. M. (1978). The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? New York: Dodd, Mead.

Lilla, M. (1995). The riddle of Walter Benjamin. New York Review of Books 42(9):37–42.

——— (1998). The politics of Jacques Derrida.. New York Review of Books 45(11):36–41.

Lind, M. (1995a). Rev. Robertson’s grand international conspiracy theory. New York Review of Books 42(2):21–25.

——— (1995b). On Pat Robertson: His defenders. New York Review of Books 42(7):67–68.

Lindbergh, A. M. (1980). War Within and Without: Diaries and Letters of Anne Morrow Lindbergh. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Lindbergh, C. A. (1939). Aviation, geography, and race. Reader’s Digest (November), 64–67.

Lindemann, A. S. (1991). The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank) 1894–1915. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1997). Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion and the American Jew. The American Hebrew (April 14):575.

Lipset, S. M. (1971). Rebellion in the University. Boston: Little, Brown.

——— (1988). Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures, rev. ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Originally published in 1968 and 1970.)

Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1970). The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970. New York: Harper & Row.

——— (1995). Jews and the New American Scene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Liskofsky, S. (1966). United States immigration policy. American Jewish Yearbook, 1966 (67):164–175.

Loewenberg, P. (1979). Walther Rathenau and the tensions of Wilhelmine society. In Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. D. Bronsen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Lowenstein, S. M. (1983). Jewish residential concentration in post-emancipation Germany. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 28:471–495.

———. (1992). The Mechanics of Change: Essays in the Social History of German Jewry

Lowenthal, L., & Guterman, N. (1970). Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of an American Agitator, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books. (First edition published in 1949 as Publication No. I of the American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series by Harper & Brothers.)

Lynn, R. (1987). The intelligence of the Mongoloids: A psychometric, evolutionary and neurological theory. Personality and Individual Differences 8:813–844.

——— (1996). Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lyons, P. (1982). Philadelphia Communists, 1936–1956. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. G. Bennington & B. Mussumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. In Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4: Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, ed. E. M. Hetherington. New York: Wiley.

MacDonald, K. B. (1983). Production, social controls and ideology: Toward a sociobiology of the phenotype. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 6:297–317.

——— (1986). Civilization and Its Discontents Revisited: Freud as an evolutionary biologist. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 9:213–220.

——— (1988a). Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis. New York: Plenum.

———, (Ed.). (1988b). Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development. New York: Springer-Verlag.

——— (1989). The plasticity of human social organization and behavior: Contextual variables and proximal mechanisms. Ethology and Sociobiology 10:171–194.

——— (1990). Mechanisms of sexual egalitarianism in Western Europe. Ethology and Sociobiology 11:195–238.

——— (1991). A perspective on Darwinian psychology: Domain-general mechanisms, plasticity, and individual differences. Ethology and Sociobiology 12:449–480.

——— (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child Development 63:753–773.

——— (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; originally published: Westport, CT: Praeger.

——— (1995a). Evolution, the Five Factor Model, and levels of personality. Journal of Personality 63:525–567.

——— (1995b). The establishment and maintenance of socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe. Politics and Life Sciences 14:3–23.

——— (1995c). Focusing on the group: Further issues related to Western monogamy. Politics and Life Sciences 14:38–46.

——— (1997). The coherence of individual development: An evolutionary perspective on children’s internalization of parental values. In Parenting and Children’s Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory, ed. J. Grusec & L. Kuczynski. New York: Wiley.

——— (1998a). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2003; originally published: Westport, CT: Praeger., 1998.

——— (1998b). Life History Theory and Human Reproductive Behavior: Environmental/Contextual Influences and Heritable Variation. Human Nature 8:327–359.

——— (1998c). Evolution, Culture, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29:119–149.

——— (2003). Background Traits for Jewish Activism. The Occidental Quarterly 3, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 5–38


——— (2005). Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR. Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish CenturyThe Occidental Quarterly 5, no. 3, 65–100. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf

——— (2009). The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It? VDARE.com (May 11).


——— (2019a). Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future. Seattle: CreateSpace.

——— . (2019b), “Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile,” The Occidental Quarterly 19, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 97–123.

———, Patch, E. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). Love, Trust, and Evolution: Nurturance/Love and Trust as Two Independent Attachment Systems Underlying Intimate Relationships. Psychology 7, no. 2, 238-253.

MacFarlane, A. (1986). Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Reproduction 1300–1840. London: Basil Blackwell.

Macmillan, M. (1991). Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc. The Hague: Elsevier North Holland.

Magnet, M. (1993). The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass. New York: William Morrow.

Mahler, J. (1996). A scientist puts “paleo” back into liberalism. Forward (New York City)(February 23).

Mahler, R. (1985). Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment: Their Confrontation in Galicia and Poland in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America

Maier, J. B. (1984). Contribution to a critique of Critical Theory. In Foundations of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, ed. J. Marcus & Z. Tar. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Mannoni, O. (1971). Freud, trans. R. Belice. New York: Pantheon Books.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20:551–558.

——— (1967). Ego-identity status: Relationship to change in self-esteem, “general maladjustment,” and authoritarianism. Journal of Personality 35:119–133.

——— (1980). Identity in adolescence. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, ed. J. Adelson. New York: Wiley.

Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1970). Ego identity in college women. Journal of Personality 38:249–263.

Marcus. J. (1983). Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919–1939. Berlin: Moulton Publishers.

Marcus, J., & Tar, Z. (1986). The Judaic elements in the teachings of the Frankfurt School. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 21:339–353.

Marcus, J. R. (1993). United States Jewry 1776–1985, Vol. IV. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

——— (1974). Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press. (First published in 1955.)

Margalit, A. (1993). Prophets with honor. New York Review of Books 40(18):66–71.

Marx, K. (1975). On the Jewish question. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Collected Works, Vol. III. New York: International Publishers. (Originally published 1843.)

Maslow, W. (1950). Is American Jewry secure? Congress Weekly 17(13)(March 27):6–9.

Massing, P. W. (1949). Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany. Publication No. II of The American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Masson, J. M. (1984). The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

——— (1990). Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Matteson, D. R. (1974). Alienation versus exploration and commitment: Personality and family corollaries of adolescent identity statuses. Report from the Project for Youth Research, Royal Danish School of Educational Studies, Copenhagen.

Mayer, A. (1988). Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “Final Solution” in History. New York: Pantheon Books.

Mayer, E. (1979). From Suburb to Shtetl: The Jews of Boro Park. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Maynard Smith, J. (1995). Genes, memes, & minds. New York Review of Books 42(19):46–48.

McConnell, S. (1988a). Leaving the party: The politics of Sterling Hayden. The New Criterion (January):1–12.

——— (1988b). The new battle over immigration. Fortune (May 9).

McCormack, D. (1992). Immigration and multiculturalism. Paper presented at the Second Bureau of Immigration Research Outlook Conference, Sydney, Australia, November.

——— (1994). Immigration and multiculturalism. In Censorship Immigration and Multiculturalism, ed. J. Bennett. Australian Civil Liberties Union.

McGrath, W. J. (1974). Freud as Hannibal: The politics of the brother band. Central European History 7:31–57.

——— (1991). How Jewish was Freud? New York Review of Books 38(20):27–31.

McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects, and politics. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:557–580.

Mead, M. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization. New York: W. Morrow.

Medding, P. Y. (1977). Towards a general theory of Jewish political interests and behavior. Jewish Journal of Sociology 19:115–144.

Medved, M. (1992/1993). Hollywood Vs. America. New York: Harperperennial Library.

——— (1996). Is Hollywood too Jewish? Moment 21(4), 36–42.

Mehler, B. (1984a). Eugenics: Racist ideology makes. Guardian Weekly News (August 24).

——— (1984b). The new eugenics: Academic racism in the U.S.A. today. Israel Horizons (January, February).

Meyer, M. A. (1989). Anti-Semitism and Jewish identity. Commentary (Novem-ber):35–40.

Michael, J. S. (1988). A new look at Morton’s craniological research. Current Anthropology 29:349–354.

Michaels, R. (1988). The future of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 57:167–185.

Michels, R. (1915). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, trans. E Paul & C. Paul. New York: Hearst’s International Library; originally published: 1911.

Miele, F. (1998). The Ionian instauration. An interview with E. O. Wilson on his latest controversial book: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Skeptic 6(1):76–85.

Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analogue. Journal of Social Issues 41:63–79.

Mintz, J. R. (1992). Hasidic People: A Place in the New World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Miroff, N. (2021). The agency founded because of 9/11 is shifting to face the threat of domestic terrorism. The Washington Post.


Mishkinsky, M. (1968). The Jewish labor movement and European socialism. Cahiers d’Histoire Mondiale 11:284–296.

Money, J. (1980). Love, and Love Sickness: The Science of Sex, Gender Differences, and Pair Bonding. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morrell, J., & Thackray, A. (1981). Gentleman of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.

Mosse, G. L. (1970). Germans and Jews: The Right, the Left, and the Search for a “Third Force” in Pre-Nazi Germany. New York: Howard Fertig.

——— (1985). Jewish emancipation: Between Bildung and respectability. In The Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. J. Reinharz & W. Schatzberg. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Clark University.

——— (1987). Masses and Man: Nationalist and Fascist Origins of Reality. Detroit, MI: Free Press.

Mosse, W. E. (1987). Jews in the German Economy: The German-Jewish Economic Élite 1820–1935. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

——— (1989). The German-Jewish Economic Élite 1820–1935: A Socio-cultural Profile. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Psychology 27:297–323.

Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of in-group and out-group variability: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 10:233–252.

Mundill, R. R. (1998). England’s Jewish Solution: Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–1290. New York: Cambridge University Press

Muuss, R. E. H. (1988). Theories of Adolescence, 5th ed. New York: Random House.

Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Nadell, P. S. (1984). From shtetl to border: Eastern European Jewish emigrants and the “agents” system, 1869–1914. In Studies in the American Jewish Experience II, ed. J. R. Marcus & A. J. Peck. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Nagai, A. K., Lerner, R., & Rothman, S. (1994). Giving for Social Change: Foundations, Public Policy, and the American Political Agenda. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Navasky, V. (1980). Naming Names. New York: Viking.

Netanyahu, B. (1966). The Marranos of Spain. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research.

——— (1995). The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain. New York: Random House.

Neuringer, S. M. (1971). American Jewry and United States Immigration Policy, 1881–1953. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1969. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1980.)

Neusner, J. (1993). Conservative, American, and Jewish: I Wouldn’t Have It Any Other Way. LaFayette, LA: Huntingdon House Publishers.

Nolte, E. (1965). Three Faces of Fascism, trans. L. Vennowitz. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Noonan, J. T. (1973). Power to choose. Viator 4:419–434.

Norris, C. (1993). The Truth about Postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Norton, A. J., & Miller, L. F. (1992). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the 1990’s. U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports Special Studies P23–180.

Novick, P. (1988). That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1999). The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Nugent, W. T. K. (1963). The Tolerant Populists: Kansas Populism and Nativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Okrent, D. (2019). The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America (New York: Scribner).

Orans, M. (1996). Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and the Samoans. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp Publishers.

Orgel, S. (1990). The future of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 59:1–20.

Ostow, M. (1995). Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Anti-Semitism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Ostrovsky, V., & Hoy, C. (1990). By Way of Deception. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ozick, C. (2001). From Kafka to Babel. Los Angeles Times Book Review, Oct. 28, 3–4.

Palestine (2009). ADL Fails in Its Defamation Campaign Against UCSB Professor.


Panitz, E. (1969). In defense of the Jewish immigrant (1891–1924). In The Jewish Experience in America, Vol. 5: At Home in America, ed. A. J. Karp. New York: KTAV Publishing House.

Pearl, Jonathon, & Pearl, Judith (1999). The Chosen Image: Television’s Portrayal of Jewish Themes and Characters. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.

Peretz, M. (1997). The god that did not fail. The New Republic, September 8 & 15:1–12.

Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G.  (1990). Minority influence, Manifest discrimination and latent influence. In Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed. D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Petersen, W. (1955). The “scientific” basis of our immigration policy. Commentary 20 (July):77–86.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1958). Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes: a cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2:29–42.

Phillips, R. (1988). Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, W. (1983). A Partisan View: Five Decades of the Literary Life. New York: Stein and Day.

Piccone, P. (1993). Introduction. In The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed. A. Arato & E. Gebhardt. New York: Continuum.

Pinker, S. (1997). Letter. New York Review of Books 44(15) (October 9):55–56.

Pinkus, B. (1988). The Jews of the Soviet Union: A History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pipes, R. (1990). The Russian Revolution. New York: Knopf.

——— (1993). Russia under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: Knopf.

Plagens, P. (1998). Nothing if not critical. Los Angeles Times Book Review, April 12: 12.

Platt, D. (1978). The Hollywood witchhunt of 1947. In The Sociology of American Jews: A Critical Anthology, ed. J. N. Porter. Boston: University Press of America. Originally published in Jewish Currents (December 1977).

Podhoretz, N. (1961). Jewishness and the younger intellectuals. Commentary 31(4):306–310.

——— (1967). Making It. New York: Random House.

——— (1978). The rise and fall of the American Jewish novelist. In Jewish Life in America, ed. G. Rosen. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press of the American Jewish Committee.

——— (1979). Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir. New York: Harper & Row.

——— (1985). The terrible question of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Commentary 79 (February):17–24.

——— (1986). The hate that dare not speak its name. Commentary 82 (Novem-ber):21–32.

——— (1995). In the matter of Pat Robertson. Commentary 100 (August):27–32.

Pogrebin, L. C. (1991). Deborah, Golda, and Me. New York: Crown Books.

Pollack, L. (1983). Forgotten Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1984). Reason or revolution? In Foundations of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, ed. J. Marcus & Z. Tar. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Porter, R. (1982). Mixed feelings: The Enlightenment and sexuality in eighteenth-century Britain. In Sexuality in Eighteenth-Century Britain, ed. P. Bouce. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Powell, R. A., & Boer, D. P. (1994). Did Freud mislead patients to confabulate memories of abuse? Psychological Reports 74:1283–1298.

Powers, S., Rothman, D. J., & Rothman, S. (1996). Hollywood’s America: Social and Political Themes in Motion Pictures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology 36:49–68.

Prawer, S. S. (1983). Heine’s Jewish Comedy: A Study of His Portraits of Jews and Judaism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN). (1953). Whom We Shall Welcome, reprinted 1971. New York: De Capo Press.

Pulzer, P. (1979). Jewish participation in Wilhelmine politics. In Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. D. Bronsen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Quaife, G. R. (1979). Wanton Wenches and Wayward Wives: Peasants and Illicit Sex in Early–Seventeenth-Century England. London: Croom Helm.

Raab, E. (1993a). Jewish Bulletin (July 23).

——— (1993b). Jewish Bulletin (February 19).

——— (1995). Can antisemitism disappear? In Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

——— (1996). Are American Jews still liberals? Commentary 101(2) (February):43–45.

Raab, E., & Lipset, S. M. (1959). Prejudice and Society. New York: Anti-Defamation League.

Radosh, R. (2000). From Walter Duranty to Victor Navasky: The New York Times’ Love Affair with Communism. FrontPageMagazine.com, October 26

———(2001a). Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

——— (2001b). Should We ex-Leftists be Forgiven? FrontPageMagazine.com June 5. www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/radosh/2001/rr06-05-01p.htm

Ragins, S. (1980). Jewish Responses to Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1870–1914. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press.

Rahv, P. (1978). Twilight of the thirties: Passage from an editorial. In Essays on Literature and Politics 1932–1972, ed. A. Porter & A. Dvosin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Raisin, J. S. (1953). Gentile Reactions to Jewish ideals. New York: Philosophical Library.

Rapoport, L. (1990). Stalin’s War against the Jews: The Doctors’ Plot and the Soviet Solution. New York: Free Press.

Rather, L. J. (1986). Disraeli, Freud, and Jewish conspiracy theories. Journal of the History of Ideas 47:111–131.

——— (1990). Reading Wagner: A Study in the History of Ideas. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Ratner, S. (1987). Horace M. Kallen and cultural pluralism. In The Legacy of Horace M. Kallen, ed. M. R. Konvitz. Rutherford, NJ: Herzl Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ray, J. J. (1972). A new balanced F Scale and its relation to social class. Australian Psychologist 7:155–166.

Raz, N., Torres, I. J., Spencer, W. D., Millman, D., Baertschi, J. C., & Sarpel, G. (1993). Neuroanatomical correlates of age-sensitive and age-invariant cognitive abilities. Intelligence 17:407–422.

Reich, R. (1997). Locked in the Cabinet. New York: Scribner.

Reich, W. (1961). The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy, trans. T. P. White. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. (Originally published in 1942.)

——— (1975). The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Reichmann, E. (1951). Hostages of Civilization: The Social Sources of National Socialist Anti-Semitism. Boston: Beacon Press.

Reiser, M. F. (1989). The future of psychoanalysis in academic psychiatry: Plain talk. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 58:185–209.

Reynolds, V. (1991). Socioecology of religion. In The Sociobiological Imagination, ed. M. Maxwell. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rice, E. (1990). Freud and Moses: The Long Journey Home. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rice, J. L. (1992). Freud’s Russia: National Identity in the Evolution of Psychoanalysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Richard, J. (1992). Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, ed. and abridged by S. Lloyd, trans. by J. Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, A. D. (1990). The future of psychoanalysis: The past, present, and future of psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 59:347–369.

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (1995). The evolution of human ultra-sociality. Paper presented at the Ringberg Symposium on Ideology, Warfare, and Indoctrinability. Ringberg Castle, Germany.

Ringer, B. B., & Lawless, E. R. (1989). Race, Ethnicity and Society. New York: Routledge.

Ringer, F. K. (1983). Inflation, antisemitism and the German academic community of the Weimar period. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, XXVIII, 3–9.

Rischin, M. (1978). The Jews and pluralism: Toward an American freedom symphony. In Jewish Life in America, ed. G. Rosen. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press of the American Jewish Committee.

Roberts, J. M.  (1972). The Mythology of Secret Societies. New York: Scribner.

Roberts, P. C., & Stratton, L. M. (1995). The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

Roberts, P. M. (1984). A conflict of loyalties: Kuhn, Loeb and Company and the First World War, 1914–1917. In Studies in the American Jewish Experience II, ed. J. R. Marcus & A. J. Peck. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Robertson, P. (1991). The New World Order. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.

——— (1994). The Collected Works of Pat Robertson. Dallas, TX: Inspirational Press.

Roddy, J., (1966). How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking. Look Magazine, January 25.

Rodríguez-Puértolas, J. (1976). A comprehensive view of Medieval Spain. In Américo Castro and the Meaning of Spanish Civilization, ed. J. Rubia Barcia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rogoff, H. (1930). An East Side Epic: The Life and Work of Meyer London. New York: Vanguard Press.

Rosenblatt, G. (2001). Will the Jews be blamed for increasing violence? Jewish World Review, Oct. 25.

Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People. New York: The Century Co.

Roth, P. (1963). Writing about Jews. Commentary 36(December):446–452.

Rothman, S., & Isenberg, P. (1974a). Sigmund Freud and the politics of marginality. Central European History 7:58–78.

——— (1974b). Freud and Jewish marginality. Encounter (December):46–54.

Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (1982). Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left. New York: Oxford University Press.

——— (1996). Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Reprinted from the 1982 version with a new introduction.)

Rouche, M. (1987). The Early Middle Ages in the West. In A History of Private Life, Vol. I, ed. P. Veyne. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rowe, D. C. (1993). The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. New York: Guilford Press.

Rozenbaum, W. (1972–73). The background of the anti-Zionist campaign of 1967–1968 in Poland. Essays in History 17:70–96.

——— (1978). The anti-Zionist campaign in Poland, June–December 1967. Canadian Slavonic Papers 20(2):218–236.

Rubenfeld, F. (1997). Clement Greenberg: A Life. New York: Scribner.

Rubenstein, G. (1996). Two peoples in one land: A validation study of Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish Societies in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27:216–230.

Rubenstein, J. (1996). Tangled Loyalties: The Life and Times of Ilya Ehrenburg. New York: Basic Books.

Rubenstein, W. D. (1982). The Left, the Right, and the Jews. New York: Universe Books.

Rubin, B. (1995a). Assimilation and Its Discontents. New York: Times Books/Random House.

——— (1995b). American Jews, Israel, and the psychological role of antisemitism. In Antisemitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths, ed. J. A. Chanes. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Rudd, M. (2005). Why were there so many Jews in the SDS? (Or, the Ordeal of Civility). Talk at the New Mexico Jewish Historical Society.


Rühle, O. (1929). Karl Marx: His Life and Work, trans. E. and C. Paul. New York: The Viking Press. (Reprinted in 1935.)

Ruppin, A. (1913). The Jews of To-day, trans. M. Bentwich. London: G. Bell and Sons. (German edition published in 1913.)

——— (1934). The Jews in the Modern World. London: Macmillan. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1973.)

——— (1940). The Jewish Fate and Future, trans. E. W. Dickes. London: Macmillan. (Reprinted by Greenwood Press, 1972.)

——— (1971). Arthur Ruppin: Memoirs, Diaries, Letters, ed. A. Bein, trans. K. Gershon. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Ruse, M. (1989). Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new paradigm? Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12:195–212.

Rushton, J. P. (1988). Race differences in behavior: A review and evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 9:1009–1024.

———(1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:503–559.

——— (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life-History Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

——— (1997). Race, intelligence and the brain: The errors and omissions of the “revised” edition of S. J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. Personality and Individual Differences 23:169–180.

Russell, D. A. (1983). Exponential evolution: Implications for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Advances in Space Research 3:95–103.

——— (1989). The Dinosaurs of North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ryan, A. (1994). Apocalypse now? (Review of The Bell Curve, by R. J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.) New York Review of Books 41(19):7–11.

Sachar, H. M. (1992). A History of Jews in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sagi, A., Lamb, M. E., Lewkowicz, K. S., Shoham, R., Dvir, R., & Estes, D. (1985).  Security of infant-mother, -father, -metapelet attachments among kibbutz-reared Israeli children. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 233–275.

Sale, K. (1973). SDS. New York: Random House.

Salter, F. (1998a). A comparative analysis of brainwashing techniques. In Ideology, Warfare, and Indoctrinability, ed. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt & F. Salter. Oxford and Providence: Berghahn Books.

——— (1998b). Ethnic Infrastructures U. S. A.: An Evolutionary Analysis of Ethnic Hierarchy in a Liberal Democracy. MS in prep., Forschungsstelle Für Humanethologie in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Andechs, Germany.

——— (2000). Is MacDonald a scholar? Human Ethology Bulletin, 15(3), 16–22.

Samelson, F. (1975). On the science and politics of the IQ. Social Research 42:467–488.

——— (1979). Putting psychology on the map: Ideology and intelligence testing. In Psychology in Social Context, ed. A. R. Buss. New York: Irvington Publishers.

——— (1982). H. H. Goddard and the immigrants. American Psychologist 37:1291–1292.

Sammons, J. L. (1979). Heinrich Heine: A Modern Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Samuel, M. (1924/2022). You Gentiles. New York: Harcourt, Brace; repub.: Antelope Hill.

Sandel, M. J. (1996). Dewey rides again. New York Review of Books May 9:35–38.

Sarich, V. (1995). Paper presented at the Skeptics Society Meetings, February 26, 1995, at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Schapiro, L. (1961). The role of Jews in the Russian Revolutionary movement. Slavonic and East European Review, 40, 148–167.

Schatz, J. (1991). The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schechter, S. (1909 [1961]). Aspects of Rabbinic Theology. New York: Schocken Books.

Schiller, M. (1996). We are not alone in the world. Tikhun (March, April):59–60.

Schlesinger, A. M. (1992). The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: W. W. Norton.

Schmidt, H. D. (1959). Anti-Western and anti-Jewish tradition in German historical thought. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book: 1959. London: East and West Library.

Scholem, G. (1971). The Messianic Idea in Judaism. New York: Schocken Books.

——— (1976). Walter Benjamin. In On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays, ed. W. J. Dannhauser. New York: Schocken Books. (First published in 1965.)

——— (1979). On the social psychology of the Jews in Germany: 1900–1933. In Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. D. Bronsen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Schorsch, I. (1972). Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870–1914. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schultz, P. W., Stone, W. F., & Christie, R. (1997). Authoritarianism and mental rigidity: The Einstellung problem revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23:3–9.

Schwarzchild, S. S. (1979). “Germanism and Judaism”—Hermann Cohen’s normative paradigm of the German-Jewish symbiosis. In Jews and Germans from 1860 to 1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, ed. D. Bronsen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Segersträle, U. (1986). Colleagues in conflict: An “in vivo” analysis of the sociobiology controversy. Biology and Philosophy 1:53–87.

Segersträle, U. (2000). Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Selzer, J. (Ed.). (1993). Understanding Scientific Prose. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Sennett, R. (1995). Untitled letter. New York Review of Books 42(9):43.

Shafarevich, I. (1989). Russophobia. Nash Sovremennik (Moscow) (June and November):167–192. Trans. JPRS-UPA-90-115 (March 22, 1990):2–37.

Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. Boulder, CO: Pluto Press.

Shahak, I., & Mezvinsky, N. (1999). Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press.

Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Jewishness and the New York intellectuals. Judaism 38:282–292.

——— (1992). A Time for Healing: American Jewry since World War II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Shapiro, L. (1961). The role of the Jews in the Russian revolutionary movement. Slavonic and East European Studies 40:148–167.

Sheehan, M. M. (1978). Choice of marriage partner in the Middle Ages: Development and mode of application of a theory of marriage. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 1:1–33.

Shepherd, N. (1993). A Price before Rubies: Jewish Women as Rebels and Radicals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Shils, E. A. (1956). The Torment of Secrecy.  Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Shipman, P. (1994). The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books.

Simon, J. (1990). Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Simpson, G. E., & Yinger, J. M. (1965). Racial and Cultural Minorities, 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Singer, D. (1979). Living with intermarriage. Commentary 68:48–53.

Singerman, R. (1986). The Jew as racial alien. In Anti-Semitism in American History, ed. D. A. Gerber. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sirkin, M. I., & Grellong, B. A. (1988). Cult and non-cult Jewish families: Factors influencing conversion. Cultic Studies Journal 5:2–22.

Sklare, M. (1972). Conservative Judaism, 2nd ed. New York: Schocken Books.

Skorecki, K., Selig, S., Blazer, S., Bradman, R., Bradman, N., Waburton, P. J., Ismaj­lowicz, M., & Hammer, M. F. (1997). Y chromosomes of Jewish Priests. Nature 385:32.

Slezkine, Y. (2004). The Jewish Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Smith, G. (1894). Essays on Questions of the Day, 2nd ed. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press. (Reprinted in 1972.)

Smith, R. M. (1988). The “American creed” and American identity: The limits of liberal citizenship in the United States. Western Political Science Quarterly 41:225–252.

Smith, T. W. (1994). Anti-Semitism in Contemporary America. New York: American Jewish Committee.

Smooha, S. (1990). Minority status in an ethnic democracy: The status of the Arab minority in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies 13(3):389–413.

Snyderman, M., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1983). Intelligence tests and the immigration Act of 1924. American Psychologist 38:986–995.

Sobran, J. (1995). The Jewish establishment. Sobran’s (September):4–5.

——— (1996a). The Buchanan frenzy. Sobran’s (March):3–4.

——— (1996b). “In our hands.” The Wanderer (June 17):18.

——— (1999). Smearing Buchanan. The Wanderer, Oct. 26.

Sorin, G. (1985). The Prophetic Minority: American Jewish Immigrant Radicals, 1820–1920. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

——— (1997). Tradition Transformed: The Jewish Experience in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sorkin, D. (1985). The invisible community: Emancipation, secular culture, and Jewish identity in the writings of Berthold Auerbach. In The Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. J. Reinharz & W. Schatzberg. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for Clark University.

Southwood, T. R. E. (1977). Habitat, the temple for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology 46:337–66.

——— (1981). Bionomic strategies and population parameters. In Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, ed. R. M. May. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Sparks, C. S., & Jantz, R. L. (2002). “A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99(23): 14636–14639.

Sparks, C. S., and Jantz, R. L. (2003).  Changing Times, Changing Faces: Franz Boas’s Immigrant Study in Modern Perspective. American Anthropologist 105, no. 2: 333–337, 334.

Spruiell, V. (1989). The future of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 58:1–28.

Stein, B. (1976). Whatever happened to small-town America?” The Public Interest, Summer.

——— (1979). The View from Sunset Boulevard. New York: Basic Books.

Stein, G. J. (1987). The biological bases of ethnocentrism, racism, and nationalism in National Socialism. In The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism, ed. V. Reynolds, V. Falger, & I. Vine. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Steinlight, S. (2001). The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy. Washington DC: Center for Immigration Studies.

Stern, F. (1961). The Politics of Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, Evolution, and Culture: Essays in the History of Anthropology. New York: Free Press.

——— (1989). The ethnographic sensibility of the 1920s and the dualism of the anthropological tradition. History of Anthropology 6:208–276. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Stone, L. (1979). The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England: 1500–1800. New York: Harper & Row.

——— (1990). The Road to Divorce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stove, D. C. (1982). Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Sulloway, F. (1979a). Freud: Biologist of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1979b). Freud as conquistador. The New Republic (August):25–31.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews Against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sykes, B. (2001). The Seven Daughters of Eve. New York: Norton.

Symott, M. G. (1986). Anti-Semitism and American Universities: Did quotas follow the Jews? In Anti-Semitism in American history, ed. D. A. Gerber. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Szajkowski, Z.  (1967). Paul Nathan, Lucien Wolf, Jacob H. Schiff and the Jewish revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe. Jewish Social Studies 29(1):1–19.

Szajowski, Z. (1977). Kolchak, Jews and the American Intervention in Northern Russia and Siberia, 1918–1920. Privately published,  copyright by S. Frydman.

Tar, Z. (1977). The Frankfurt School: The Critical Theories of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Tarcov, N., & Pangle, T. L. (1987). Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the history of political philosophy. In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., ed. L. Strauss & J. Cropsey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, S. J. (1990). Stalin’s Apologist, Walter Duranty: The New York Times’s Man in Moscow. New York: Oxford University Press

Thernstrom, S., & Thernstrom, A. (1997). America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tifft, S. E., & Jones, A. S. (1999). The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family behind the New York Times. Boston: Little Brown & Co.

Tobin, G. A. (1988). Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism. New York: Plenum Press.

Toranska, T. (1987). “Them”: Stalin’s Polish Puppets, trans. A. Kolakowska. New York: Harper & Row.

Torrey, E. F. (1992). Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory on American Thought and Culture. New York: HarperCollins.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

——— (1991). Cross-cultural differences in assertiveness/competition vs. group loyalty/cohesiveness. In Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, ed. R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trivers, R. (1985). Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.

——— (1991). Deceit and self-deception: The relationship between communication and consciousness. In Man and Beast Revisited, ed. M. Robinson & L. Tiger. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.

Unz, R. K. (1998). Some minorities are more minor than others. Wall Street Journal (November 16).

Urofsky, M. I. (1989). The Brandeis agenda. In Brandeis in America, ed. N. L. Dawson. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Vaksberg, A. (1994). Stalin Against the Jews, trans. A. W. Bouis. New York: Knopf.

Van Valen, L. (1974). Brain size and intelligence in man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40:417–424.

Veblen, T. (1934). Essays in Our Changing Order. New York: Viking Press.

Veyne, P. (1987). The Roman Empire. In A History of Private Life, Vol. I., ed. P. Veyne. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vidal, G. (1986). The empire lovers strike back. The Nation (March 22):352–353.

Volkogonov, D, (1995). Lenin: A New Biography, trans. and ed. H. Shukman. New York: Free Press.

von Hoffman, N. (1996). Was McCarthy right about the left? Washington Post (April 14):C1–C2.

Wald, A. L. (1987). The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left from the 1930s to the 1980s. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Wall, R. (1983). The household: Demographic and economic changes in England, 1650–1970. In Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. R. Wall, J. Robin & P. Laslett. London: Cambridge University Press.

Wallerstein, J., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the Breakup. New York: Basic Books.

Walzer, M. (1983). Exodus and Revolution. New York: Basic Books.

——— (1994). Toward a new realization of Jewishness. Congress Monthly 61(4):3–6.

Wattenberg, B. (1991). The First Universal Nation: Leading Indicators and Ideas about the Surge of America in the 1990s. New York: Free Press.

Waxman, C. (1989). The emancipation, the Enlightenment, and the demography of American Jewry. Judaism 38:488–501.

Webb, J. (1995). In defense of Joe Six-Pack. Wall Street Journal (June 5).

Webster, R. (1995). Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science, and Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.

Weinfeld, M. (1993). The ethnic sub-economy: Explication and analysis of a case study of the Jews of Montreal. In The Jews in Canada, ed. R. J. Brym, W. Shaffir, & M. Weinfeld. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Weingarten, A. (2008). Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and to Senator McCarthy. Elstree, UK: Vallentine Mitchell.

Weinstein, A., & Vassiliev, A. (1999). The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era. New York: Random House.

Werth, N. (1999). A State against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union. In Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panné, J., Paczkowski, A., Bartoëek K., & Margolin, J. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, trans. J. Murphy & M. Kramer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Westermarck, G. (1922). The History of Human Marriage. 5th ed. New York: Allerton.

Weyl, N., & Marina, W. (1971). American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

White, L. (1966). The social organization of ethnological theory. Rice University Studies: Monographs in Cultural Anthropology 52(4):1–66.

Whitfield, S. J. (1988). American Space, Jewish Time. New York: Archon.

Wiesel, E. (1985). Against Silence: The Voice and Vision of Elie Wiesel. Selected and

edited by Irving Abrahamson, vol. 1. New York: Holocaust Library.

Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, trans. M. Robertson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Willerman, L., Schultz, R., Rutledge, J. N., & Bigler, E. D. (1991). In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence 15:223–228.

Willets, H. (1987). Introduction to T. Trunks (1987), “Them”: Stalin’s Polish Puppets, trans. A. Kolakowska. New York: Harper & Row.

Williams, G. C. (1985). A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology. In Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, ed. R. Dawkins & M. Ridley, 1:1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

——— (1994). Naturalist. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wilson, J. Q. (1993a). The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press.

——— (1993b). The family-values debate. Commentary 95(4):24–31.

Winston, D. (1978). Viet Nam and the Jews. In The Sociology of American Jews: A Critical Anthology, ed. J. N. Porter. Boston: University Press of America.

Wirth, L. (1956). The Ghetto. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wisse, R. (1987). The New York (Jewish) intellectuals. Commentary 84 (Novem-ber):28–39.

Wittels, F. (1924). Sigmund Freud: His Personality, His Teaching, & His School, trans. E. and C. Paul. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Wolf, E. R. (1990). The anthropology of liberal reform. In The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock, ed. H. Caton. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Wolffsohn, M. (1993). Eternal Guilt? Forty Years of German-Jewish-Israeli Relations, trans. D. Bokovoy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wolin, S., & Slusser, R. M. (1957). The Soviet Secret Police. New York: Praeger.

Wood, J. L. (1974). The Sources of American Student Activism. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Wrezin, M. (1994). A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald. New York: Basic Books.

Wright, R. (1990). The intelligence test. New Republic (January 29).

——— (1996). Homo deceptus: Never trust Stephen Jay Gould. Slate (www.slate.com; November 27, 1996).

Wrigley, E. A., & Schofield, R. (1981). The Population History of England, 1541–1871. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1991). Freud’s Moses: Judaism Terminable and Interminable. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Young-Bruehl, E. (1996). The Anatomy of Prejudices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zangwill, I. (1914). The Melting Pot. In The Works of Israel Zangwill, Vol. 12. New York: AMS Press.

Zaretsky, E. (1994). The attack on Freud. Tikhun 9 (May, June):65–70.

Zaroulis, N., & Sullivan, G. (1984). Who Spoke Up? American Protest against the War in Vietnam, 1963–1975. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Zborowski, M., & Herzog, E. (1952). Life Is with People: The Jewish Little-Town of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.

Zhitlowski, H. (1972). The Jewish factor in my socialism. In Voices from the Yiddish: Essays, Memoirs, Diaries, ed. I. Howe & E. Greenberg, trans. L. Dawidowicz. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.


Irish Famine Redux in America?

As the odious American new foreign policy elite sails closer and closer to nuclear war over the Ukraine (after having forced its de-nuclearization in 1995), will a second problem develop?  Given the sanctions imposed by this marvelous elite on the largest world grain and oil exporter — Russia — coupled with an ever-growing world demand for food, will the United States soon face a situation like the famous Irish famine of 1848?

This might seem ridiculous to suggest.  After all, as we all learned in 5th grade, the U.S. is the breadbasket of the world.

However, given our increasingly hostile government, it could be more likely than one might think.

Some background is helpful.  Take the famous Irish Famine of 1846—8, which gave America such blessings as Joseph P. Kennedy and James Michael Curley.

The Irish famine was not a famine in the traditional sense.

Many countries — especially China and (except as noted below) India — have long had famines in the traditional sense.  Namely, due to uncontrolled population growth, the population had come close to outrunning the food supply that could be produced by the nation’s farmland.  The slightest disruption to an annual harvest — bad weather or civil wars — could, and did, immediately induce significant, sometimes horrific, famines in which millions starved to death.  For example, see the Chinese famines of 1850–73 (drought and rebellion), 1876–79 (drought), and 1928–30 (drought, effects of war) (“List of Famines in China”).  The 1876–79 famine in China was due to the fact the region was vastly overpopulated relative to its ability to produce food.  A drought made it worse.  The slow decline during that period of central government authority caused (a) increasingly poor maintenance of the sophisticated canal system, thus impeding the delivery of relief supplies and (b) a previous draw-down in the amount of grain stored in emergency government storage facilities.

However, in 1848, for the first time in world history, a new kind of famine was seen.  A “capitalist” famine.  This was the famous “Irish famine.”  (This was to be repeated in India in 1878–9 [the Great Famin]), and again in 1943 due to the good offices of Winston Churchill, the Bengal Famine.)

Ireland in 1846–48 suffered a potato blight which effectively wiped out the potato crop.  This however, should not have resulted in mass hunger.  Although the main food source for the Irish peasantry in those days was the potato, Dr. Christine Kinealy has concluded that Ireland in each year of the famine produced a lot more food than was ever eaten by Irishmen — possibly, and probably, enough food to feed all 8 million Irish.  Ireland’s farmland produced enough wheat, which if turned into bread, could have fed 3 — 4 million people, plus calves, butter, and eggs according to Kinealy (“The Irish Famine: Complicity in Murder,” The Washington Post).  Although no one, it appears, has compiled enough data to prove the point definitively, it does appear that with a ban on exports, even with no imports, and a proper rationing of food, the Irish famine might have been much smaller or possibly non-existent.  So what was the problem?   Why did things get so bad?

The problem was unregulated capitalism, coupled with a government hostile to the people it governed.

In Ireland in 1870, 302 proprietors (1.5% of the total) owned 33.7% of the land, and 50% of the country was in the hands of 750 families. At the other end of the scale, 15,527 proprietors (80.5%) owned between them only 19.3% of the land (Land-holding in Ireland 1760–1880, historyhome.co.uk).  And Finlay Dunn wrote in Landlords and Tenants in Ireland (Longmans Green, London, 1881), that “half the area of the island (Ireland) (not half of the agricultural land, half of the land in the whole country) is owned by 750 landlords” with average holdings of 5,000 acres each” (ibid., p. 1).  One can only presume that that half represented the bulk of the good agricultural land in Ireland.  At the time of the famine, the figures were presumably at least similar, or worse, considering that between the famine and 1881, the “Land Act of 1871” had been passed, forcing the sale of some small plots of land to tenants.

Thus, it is reasonable to assert that a preponderance of Ireland’s premier farmland appears to have been owned by a few families, many or most of them absentee landlords living in England. In addition, many of the landlords had borrowed significant sums to upgrade their country houses — either in Ireland or in England (Terrence A.M. Dooley, “Estate Ownership and Management in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-century Ireland,” aughty.org), or otherwise to finance their profligate lifestyles.  For these landlords, burdened by gigantic, barely serviceable, debt, it was imperative that the rentals, paid by grain exports, continue to be made.  The alternative?  Bankruptcy, or at least the seizure of their estates by lenders.

Second, Ireland, like England and the United States, was governed under laws permitting the purest form of capitalism ever seen before or since.  Thus, virtually no thought was given to holding back sufficient grain to feed the Irish residents and permitting only the surplus to sail its way to world markets.  The result was that starving Irish peasants watched mountains of grain, herds of sheep, barrels of butter, crates of eggs, loaded on wagons paraded by them and their starving children, on the way to ports at Cork and Dublin plus many ports in the hard-hit west of Ireland, for transshipment to Liverpool England.  From there the grain was sold on international markets for the spot price and the rest re-sold to the English.  In addition, grain was transported internally, out of starving areas, to gin mills so the profitable conversion of grain into nutritionally useless alcohol could continue.  Even grain donated by the good old US of A was turned into gin!  Now there’s a capitalist class that’s got its priorities straight.  Everyone knows you get more from selling gin in bars than giving away a bunch of grain for free!

Eventually, to protect the exiting grain and food shipments, English troops had to be brought in to protect the grain wagons from depredation by the native Irish and to protect the landlords’ properties from devastation by enraged Irishmen.  Ironically, English troops were not fed by the Army; they were given pay designed to be enough to purchase daily food; however, the huge spike of food prices during the famine, not matched by pay increases, resulted in even the English troops going hungry! (Kineally. Ibid.).  So the very troops protecting food shipments from starving Irishmen were themselves starving.  Talk about “stiff upper lip.”  But here’s a thought piece:  did they at least get their “gin ration”?

From a population of 8 million, through death and emigration, Ireland’s population decreased to 3 million.

Many in England saw this as an unfortunate byproduct of the “inevitable” laws of capitalism and free trade.

Others saw it as a desired attribute — a fortunate byproduct of the famine: the massive reduction in a perpetually despised population.  Killing two birds with one Killarney stone, as it were — pay off your debts, kill the locals!  Charles Trevalyan, Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, made this clear:  the famine, he said was beneficial.  Trevelyan wrote to Lord Monteagle of Brandon, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the famine was an “effective mechanism for reducing surplus population and was “the judgement of God”  (Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet), “a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence,” one which laid bare “the deep and inveterate root of social evil.”   Wow, sounds almost like Buzzfeed talking about Fentynal deaths in Appalachia!

As if that were not enough, a second “capitalist” famine was induced in India via similar means, the Great Famine of 1876–78.  In chilling contrast to the ShanXi 1879 famine, which was worsened by lack of transportation by which relief supplies could have been delivered, a later analysis showed that the worst-off areas in India’s famine were the ones best equipped with railroads!  The reason?  The railroads that theoretically could have brought in food relief instead were fantastically efficient in removing grain produced in the famine areas to remote warehouses for re-sale in other, richer areas (Mike Davis, The Origins of the Third World Markets States and Climate, Corner House Briefing 27, p. 5/62).  No nasty starving emaciates to steal that grain please!  The areas not so “blessed” with modern transport, however, did much better, since it was harder for landlords to remove grain from starving locals.  Not surprisingly, though the rest of India was in surplus, the surplus was exported for cash to the U.K.  So any railroads going into the famine area would have been empty anyway!

In the 1942 “Bengal” famine, Churchill purposely diverted food from starving areas of India to “ol Blighty” and her troops — again, made possible by the best in modern transportation:  trains and big cargo ships.  The final tally:  better fed troops (after all, Englishmen “walk towards gunfire,” surely they deserve good eats) and 3 million Bengalis dead of starvation.  Had the Germans done it, it would have been a war crime, but luckily the Brits did it.

Could this happen in the United States?  Famine amid plenty?  We do have a hell of a rail and road network, after all!

The breakdown of US farmland ownership is as follows:  60% is owner-operated, 40% rented.

For cropland, the figures are 46% owner-operated, 56% rented; for pastureland, 28% is rented, 72% owner operated (USDA Economic Research Service, USDA ERS – Farmland Ownership and Tenure).

However, in the crucial Iowa/Mississippi valley farm belt, the heart of the “breadbasket of America,” about 60% of farmland is rented.

The ownership figures currently in the US do not seem — on their face — to be as bad as Ireland just before the famine.

However, just like the old Anglo-Irish landlords, even — and especially — the owner-operators are under harsh financial constraints to produce maximum profitability.  They are caught between ever-increasing fertilizer prices and ever more concentrated buyers, such as Cargill (which is totally committed to ESG), and many, if not most, are deep in debt incurred either to purchase their farmland or equipment or simply to finance losses incurred in bad years.  In the case of the “landlords” — the equity farmland funds, their success is dependent on maximizing the production and profitability of the land they own.  In addition, a great number of individual “farmer owners” are no more than serfs of such esteemed companies as Tyson Foods (“chicken lickin’”), Cargill, Kellogg (breakfast of champions) and others.  If they want to keep afloat on miniscule margins they have to keep working and selling the products their master-buyers want, who, in turn, are in it for profit, not charity.

As we sanction and prohibit our allies from importing grain from the largest wheat exporter in the world (Russia) and as we cooperate in the complete devastation of the second largest world grain exporter (Ukraine), what happens if the world grain markets offer prices to those financially constrained farmland owners that U.S. consumers cannot match?  Do the iron laws of capitalism and free trade apply, permitting loads of grain to be transshipped to China at the Port of Long beach while emaciated White children look on?  Or does the government do what the British government did not do — put some constraint on the ability of big (and increasingly anti-White and “woke”) business to “starve out” one’s own population to achieve maximum profit?  Or do national guard troops mobilize to force Iowa corn shipments on trains to the Port of Long Beach, shooting White protesters trying to obstruct the trains?

What we do know is that we have a government that increasingly reviles and fears its own population.  For such a government, starving down such a despised group of people may not be seen as an unfortunate consequence of free trade.  Having doused the despised 100 million strong White working class with opioids, wage cuts, and unemployment for 20 years, an early death for all of them that have not yet committed suicide might be seen as an additional benefit.

Shades of Cork, 2023.

Know the History: Classic Essays on the Jewish Question: 1850–1945

Classic Essays on the Jewish Question: 1850–1945
Thomas Dalton (Ed.)
Clemens & Blair, 2022

Thomas Dalton has gathered together a series of noteworthy writing on Jews in the century preceding the end of World War II. It was a century that began with the rise of Jews to elite status in European society predicated on Jewish “emancipation”—e.g., freeing Jews from various civil disabilities, such as holding public office or engaging in certain occupations—and ended with the defeat of National Socialism in World War II.

Anti-Jewish attitudes have been a common feature wherever Jews have lived for over 2000 years—in pre-Christian antiquity, in Christian Europe, and in the Muslim Middle East. The writers represented here are from a variety of European countries, in both Eastern and Western Europe. As explored Chapter 2 of my book Separation and Its Discontents, several themes underlying anti-Jewish attitudes can be discerned:

  • The Theme of Separatism and Clannishness
  • Resource Competition and the Theme of Economic Domination
  • Jews as Having Negative Personality Traits, Misanthropy, Willingness to Exploit Non-Jews, Greed, and Financial Corruption
  • The Theme of Jewish Cultural Domination
  • The Theme of Political Domination
  • The Theme of Disloyalty

The essays in this collection illustrate all these themes—and much else. In the following I will give examples of how these themes run through the volume as well as provide general comments on the essays. As Dalton notes in his Introduction, Jewish issues must be discussed explicitly and openly—”no side-stepping, no pussy-footing, no polite maneuvers. … But perhaps even before all this, there is a preliminary step: Know your history (2; emphasis in original).

*   *   *

Richard Wagner’s classic “Jewry in Music,” published under a pseudonym in 1850, illustrates a number of these themes.  He describes what might be termed an instinctive German dislike for Jews: “We have to explain to ourselves our involuntary repellence toward the nature and personality of the Jews, so as to vindicate that instinctive dislike that we plainly recognize as stronger and more overpowering than our conscious zeal to rid ourselves of it” (9; emphasis in original). Reminiscent of the attitudes of many contemporary White liberals who promote the woke ideology of race and gender, the German liberalism that led to Jewish emancipation was a sort of virtue-signaling, self-deceptive idealism, divorced from real attitudes of Germans toward real Jews—”more stimulated by a general idea than by any real sympathy” (9).

Such lofty sentiments are completely missing among the Jews who have rewarded the Germans by not “relaxing one iota of their usurpation of that material soil”—to the point that “it is rather we who are shifted into the necessity of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. … [T]he Jew is already more than emancipated, he rules and will rule as long as money remains the power before which all our doings and dealings lose their force” (10; emphasis in original). He also compares contemporary Germans to the slaves and bondsmen of the ancient and medieval world.

Wagner notes Jewish chosenness (they “have a God all to themselves”) (11), as well as the related theme of separateness and clannishness: Even their physical appearance “contains something disagreeably foreign,” a difference that Jews “deem as a pure and beneficial distinction” (11). Jews have taken no part in creating German language and culture which are “the work of a historical community”—a community in which the Jew “has been a cold, hostile on-looker” (12) and presaging the contemporary theme that Jews constitute a hostile elite. As a result, the musical works of Jews cannot resonate with the German spirit and cannot “rise, even by accident, to the ardor of a higher, heartfelt expression” (13). Despite this, Jews dominate German popular music culture; they have attained “the dictatorship of public taste” (14). On the other hand, “the true poet, no matter in what branch of art, still gains his stimulus from nothing but a faithful, loving contemplation of instinctive life, of that life that only greets his sight among the Folk” (16).

Wagner thus advocates a biological, evolutionary aesthetics rooted in the instinctive likes and dislikes of a people. Jews can’t tap into the German spirit which is necessary in order to produce a real work of art that would appeal to Germans, as opposed to a reproduction; their works “strike us as strange, odd, indifferent, unnatural, and distorted” (18). As a result, the only way such works can enter into the Western canon is if Western culture has lost its natural defenses, just as an unhealthy body is not strong enough to repel an infection that will ultimately kill it. Thus, up to the time of Mozart and Beethoven, “it was impossible that an element so foreign to that life should form part of its living organism. It is only when the inner death of a body becomes apparent that external elements have the power to seize upon it—though only to destroy it” (24). It’s thus worth noting that the rise of our new Jewish elite has resulted in a war on that which is natural, whether it’s in art (e.g., the work of Lucien Freud, Mark Rothko and Damien Hirst; art promoters like Charles Saatchi), in music (e.g., rap music with its Jewish promoters), in advertising (ubiquitously promoting miscegenation, especially for White women), or in gender (e.g., transsexualism and its consequent infertility).

Lucien Freud

Despite using a pseudonym, it became known that Wagner had authored “Jewry in Music,” and in 1869 he wrote a second part and published both in his own name. It recounts the hostility of Jews toward him and his work—which continues even now with attempts to prevent performances of Wagner’s works and cast him as a moral pariah. He notes that Leipzig, once the seat of German music and publishing, had “become exclusively a Jewish musical metropolis” (26), and asks “Whose hands direct our theaters?,” followed by a comment on the decadence on display in them.

Contemporary readers will be familiar with what happened next: Jews first ignored his essay in the hopes that it would go away, followed by “systematic libel and persecution in this domain, coupled with a total suppression of the obnoxious Jewish Question” (27). Theaters that formerly put on his operas now “exhibit a cold and unfriendly demeanor to my recent works” (34). Wagner was treated viciously not only in the German press, but also in Paris and London—but not Russia where he received “as warm a welcome from the press as from the public” (33)—a statement reflecting the fact that Jews had not become dominant in Russia and which accounts for the hostility of Western Jewish organizations toward Russia during this period. In a footnote, Dalton notes that “present-day Jews  … use all varieties of libel, defamation and accusations of anti-Semitism in order to discredit their opponents. And the threat to boycott Wagner’s future operas prefigures the ‘cancel culture’ of today. Little has changed in 150 years” (27). Indeed, the vilification of Wagner continues today (see Brenton Sanderson’s 4-part series “Constructing Wagner as a Moral Pariah”).

*   *   *

Frederick Millingen’s “The Conquest of the World by the Jews” (1873), was written under a pseudonym, Osman Bey, presumably to avoid Jewish hostility—the same reason so many writers today use pseudonyms. After quoting Kant (1798), Lord Byron (1823), Bruno Bauer (1843) and Ralph Waldo Emerson (1860) on Jewish wealth and their financial power over rulers, Dalton notes that Millingen’s essay was “the first extended, detailed essay on the topic of Jewish global dominance” (46). Millingen proposes that the Jewish method of conquest is to dominate the material interests of their subjects and enslave them by financial oppression rather than by the physical force of a conquering army (46). This is enabled by their absorption in profit: “A Jew may stop and admire a flower … but at the same moment he is asking himself: “How much can I make from it” (emphasis in original; 48). They are a “chosen people” and with the faith that “the treasures of this world are their inheritance” (57). This “unlimited rapacity” that results in “everlasting antagonism to the rest of mankind” (49) is combined with a steely determination, “an obstinacy so inflexible that it may well be said that the Jew never gives way” (48). I’ve never read any studies on Jewish tenacity, but it’s certainly plausible: if they don’t achieve a goal in one battle (e.g., losing the immigration battle of 1924), they will continue to press the issue (winning the immigration battle in 1965, over 40 years later).

Millingen traces the history of Judaism in Europe, contending that while the Jews have always made progress toward their goal of domination, there were limits placed upon them, and it was only the French Revolution and Enlightenment ideologies that unleashed them to the full flowering of their power. In addition, Jews took advantage of technological progress—e.g., greater ease of communication between countries—so that “they are the wealthiest and most influential class of men; and have attained a position of vast power, the likes of which we do not see in all history …  so that “there is not a man amongst us who is not in some way tributary to Jewish power” (64, 65). Millingen notes the wealth and the power of the Rothschilds who are able to command the subservience of European rulers, and he provides a long list of Jews admitted to the British nobility (70) and even some lower-ranking Jews in the U.S. intended to show Jewish power even there. The only exception, as also noted by Wagner, is Russia, but Russia is in the crosshairs of Jewish finance which prevents loans to the Czar while generously supporting England in its many war efforts. The prescience of Millingen’s view can be seen in that “from 1881 until the fall of the Czar, in addition to dominating the revolutionary movement in Russia, there was a Jewish consensus to use their influence in Europe and America to oppose Russia. This had an effect on a wide range of issues, including the financing of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the abrogation of the American-Russian trade agreement in 1908, and the financing of revolutionaries within Russia by wealthy Jews such as Jacob Schiff.” Of course, Jewish power in the U.S. vastly increased after the immigration of around 3,000,000 Eastern European Jews, and we all know what happened after the Bolsheviks attained power in the USSR.

In his section on the press, Millingen alleges that there was a meeting in 1840 in which a Jew spoke of the necessity of dominating the press, and notes that by the time of his writing, Jews owned important newspapers in France, England, Germany, and the United States, Jews were prominently involved in journalism as writers and editors, and “the book trade has passed into the hands of the Jews” (78).

Millingen concludes by describing the work of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, centered in Paris and dedicated to forming a central locus of power aimed at promoting Jewish interests around the world. As I noted in Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, the Alliance had a prominent place in the thinking of anti-Jewish authors:

“Scarcely another Jewish activity or phenomenon played such a conspicuous role in the thinking and imagination of anti-Semites all over Europe. . . . The Alliance served to conjure up the phantom of the Jewish world conspiracy conducted from a secret center—later to become the focal theme of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (Katz 1979, 50). Russian Jews were strongly suspected of maintaining ties with the Alliance, and anti-Semitic publications in the 1880s shifted from accusations of economic exploitation to charges of an international conspiracy centered around the Alliance (Frankel 1981).

From the late nineteenth century until the Russian Revolution, the Jewish desire to improve the poor treatment of Russian Jews conflicted with the national interests of several countries, particularly France, which was eager to develop an anti-German alliance in the wake of its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.

Millingen concludes by noting that in the end, Jewish power depends on the power of compound interest and admonishes individuals and nations to “Keep out of debt!” (80; emphasis in original)—sage advice to say the least.

*   *   *

The famous Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky is represented by a section from his The Diary of a Writer (1877) that, not surprisingly, has been condemned as anti-Semitic. Again we see the themes of economic domination combined with misanthropy and willingness to exploit non-Jews. Dostoyevsky notes that Jews have exploited the recently freed serfs in Russia. This is combined with Jewish greed: “Who tied [the freed serfs] to that eternal pursuit of gold of theirs?” (84) And he notes that a similar phenomenon occurred, as relatively well-off Jews exploited freed slaves in the American South, and in Lithuania where Jews exploited the natives’ taste for vodka, with the result that rural banks were established explicitly for “saving the people from the Jews” (85).

However, Dostoyevsky adds a new idea that we see repeated endlessly in the contemporary world: that Jews attempt to lay claim to the moral high ground. Jews complain incessantly about their “their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom” while nevertheless controlling the stock exchanges of Europe “and therefore politics, domestic affairs, and morality of the states” (83).  Dostoyevsky notes that Jews in general are much better off than Russians who were just recently relieved of the burden of serfdom and are being exploited by Jews, and he doubts that Jews have ever had any pity for Russians. Russians don’t have any “preconceived hatred” for Jews (86), while Jews have a long history of shunning the Russians—the theme of separation and clannishness, combined with hostility: “They refused to take meals with them, looked upon them with haughtiness (and where?—in a prison!) and generally expressed squeamishness and aversion towards the Russian, towards the ‘native’ people” (87). Indeed, Dostoevsky imagines how the Jews would treat the Russians if they had the power (as they did after the Bolshevik Revolution and now over the Palestinians in Israel): “Wouldn’t they convert them into slaves? Worse than that: Wouldn’t they skin them altogether? Wouldn’t they slaughter them to the last man, to the point of complete extermination, as they used to do with alien peoples in ancient times, during their ancient history?” (87), a reference to the events described in the Old Testament books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua.

*   *   *

Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) has gone down in history as the first racial anti-Semite. His signature work, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View (1879), expresses Marr’s views on the conflict between Germans and Jews in a strikingly modern manner—that Jews are an elite that is hostile to the German people.

Marr was a journalist, and his pamphlet is expressed in a journalistic style with all the pluses and minuses that that entails. Marr’s pamphlet contains a number of ideas that agree with modern theories and social science research on Jews, as well as some ideas that are less supported but interesting nonetheless. His ideas on future events are fascinating with the 20/20 hindsight of 140 years of history.

Marr describes his writing as “a ‘scream of pain’ coming from the oppressed” (6).[1] Marr sees Germans as having already lost the battle with Jewry: “Judaism has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis. I shall bring the news of a lost battle and of the victory of the enemy and all of that I shall do without offering excuses for the defeated army.”

In other words, Marr is not blaming the Jews for their predominance in German society, but rather blaming the Germans for allowing this to happen. He sees historical hatred against Jews as due to their occupational profile (“the loathing Jews demonstrate for real work” — a gratuitously negative and overly generalized reference to the Jewish occupational profile) and to “their codified hatred against all non-Jews” (8) — the common charge of misanthropy. Historical anti-Semitism often had a religious veneer, but it was actually motivated by “the struggle of nations and their response to the very real Judaization of society, that is, to a battle for survival [also the perspective of Separation and Its Discontents]. … I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious persecution” (10).

Marr claims that Jews have a justified hatred toward Europeans:

Nothing is more natural than the hatred the Jews must have felt for those who enslaved them and abducted them from their homeland [i.e., the Romans; Marr seems unaware that the Jewish Diaspora predated the failed Jewish rebellions of the first and second centuries]. Nothing is more natural than that this hatred had to grow during the course of oppression and persecution in the Occident over the span of almost two thousand years. … Nothing is more natural than that they responded using their inborn gifts of craftiness and cleverness by forming as “captives” a state within a state, a society within a society. (11)

Jews used their abilities to obtain power in Germany and other Western societies: “By the nineteenth century the amazing toughness and endurance of the Semites had made them the leading power within occidental society. As a result, and that particularly in Germany, Jewry has not been assimilated into Germanism, but Germanism has been absorbed into Judaism” (11).

Marr claims that Judaism retreated in the face of “Christian fanaticism,” and achieved its greatest successes first among the Slavs and then among the Germans — both groups that were late in developing national cultures. He attributes the success of Jews in Germany to the fact that Germans did not have a sense of German nationality or German national pride (12).

This is a point that I have also stressed: Collectivist cultures such as medieval Christianity tend to be problematic for Jews because Jews are seen as an outgroup by a strongly defined ingroup; (see, e.g., here.) Moreover, a general trend in European society after the Enlightenment was to develop cultures with a strong sense of national identity where Christianity and/or ethnic origins formed a part. These cultures tended to exclude Jews, at least implicitly. An important aspect of Jewish intellectual and political activity in post-Enlightenment societies has therefore been opposition to national cultures throughout Europe and other Western societies (see, e.g., here).

Marr credits Jews with bringing economic benefits to Germany: There is no way to deny that the abstract, money-oriented, haggling mind of the Jews has contributed much to the flourishing of commerce and industry in Germany.” Although “racial anti-Semites” are often portrayed as viewing Jews as genetically inferior or even subhuman, a very strong tendency among racial anti-Semites is to see Jews as a very talented group. Marr clearly sees Jews as an elite.

Indeed, Marr sees the Germans as inferior to the Jews and as having a mélange of traits that caused them to lose the battle to Jews:

Into this confused, clumsy Germanic element penetrated a smooth crafty, pliable Jewry; with all of its gifts of realism [as opposed to German idealism], intellectually well qualified as far as the gift of astuteness is concerned, to look down upon the Germans and subduing the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices. (13)

What we [Germans] don’t have is the drive of the Semitic people. On account of our tribal organization we shall never be able to acquire such a drive and because cultural development knows no pause, our outlook is none other than a time when we Germans will live as slaves under the legal and political feudalism of Judaism. (14)

Germanic indolence, Germanic stinginess, convenient Teutonic disdainfulness of expression are responsible [for the fact] that the agile and clever Israel now decides what one shall say and what not…. You have turned the press over to them because you find brilliant frivolity more to your liking than moral fortitude …. The Jewish people thrive because of their talents and you have been vanquished, as you should have been and as you have deserved a thousandfold.  (30)

Are we willing to sacrifice? Did we succeed in creating even a single anti-Jewish leaning paper, which manages to be politically neutral? … To de-Judaize ourselves, for that we clearly lack physical and spiritual strength.

I marvel in admiration at this Semitic people which put its heel onto the nape of our necks. … We harbor a resilient, tough, intelligent foreign tribe among us—a tribe that knows how to take advantage of every form of abstract reality. (24)

We are no longer a match for this foreign tribe. (27)

As a result of his high estimation of Jews and low estimation of Germans, Marr claims that he does not hate Jews. It’s simply a war where one side loses. The conflict between Jews and Germans is “like a war. How can I hate the soldier whose bullet happens to hit me? — Does one not offer one’s hand as victor as well as a prisoner of war? … In my eyes, it is a war which has been going on for 1800 years” (28).

Despite their long history of living together, Jews, unlike other peoples who have come to Germany, remain foreigners among the Germans —the separatism that is fundamental to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy (and hence my titles, A People that Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents):

[The Jew] was a typical foreigner to them and remained one until today; and yes, his exclusive Judaism, as we shall demonstrate in what follows, shows itself even more today after his emancipation, than it did in earlier times. (13)

All other immigration into Germany … disappeared without a trace within Germanism; Wends and Slavs disappeared in the German element. The Semitic race, stronger and tougher, has survived them all. Truly! Were I a Jew, I would look upon this fact with my greatest pride. (17)

One of Marr’s most interesting observations is his proposal that Germans formed idealistic images of Jews during the Enlightenment when others had more realistic and negative views. Jews are realists, accepting the world as it is and advancing their interests based on their understanding of this reality. Judaism is characterized by particularist morality (Is it good for the Jews?). Germans, on the other hand, tend to have idealized images of themselves and others—to believe that the human mind can construct reality based on ideals that can then shape behavior. They are predisposed to moral universalism—moral rules apply to everyone and are not dependent on whether it benefits the ingroup.

This is a reference to the powerful idealist strand of German philosophy that has been so influential in the culture of the West. An illustrative example is American transcendentalism, a movement that was based on German philosophical idealism (i.e., philosophers Immanuel Kant and F. W. J. Schelling) and created an indigenous culture of critique in nineteenth-century America. This perspective resulted in overly optimistic views of human nature and tended toward radical egalitarianism; it also provided the theoretical underpinnings of the abolitionist movement among elite intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson.

In particular, Marr notes that, whereas prominent and influential Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were critics of Judaism (seeing it as reactionary tribalism), in Germany the most influential writer was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing  (1729–1781). Lessing presented a very positive image of Judaism in his play Nathan the Wise. The Jewish Nathan (Marr calls him “Rothschild” to give it contemporary relevance) makes an eloquent plea for religious tolerance—while at the same time he finances the Muslim war against the Christian Crusaders. Marr suggests that Lessing engaged in a bit of self-deception: Despite his positive portrayal of Nathan as the essence of tolerance, “Lessing could not in his subconscious self overcome the identity of Jew and servant of Mammon” (15).

The influence of Lessing was profound: “German idealism was captivated by the legend of the ring [i.e., Lessing’s metaphor for religious tolerance], but missed that Lessing’s Nathan could only be—a character from a fable” (16).

Marr suggests that instead of a fictional character like Nathan the Wise, Lessing should have seen seventeenth-century Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza as an illustration of what Judaism is really like. Whereas Nathan the Wise suggests that religious tolerance is a characteristic of Judaism, Marr interprets Spinoza’s expulsion from the Jewish community as illustrating Jewish intolerance and fanaticism in the real world—features of Judaism also noted by several contemporary writers, most notably Israel Shahak, but also including Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire. Spinoza was hounded out of the Jewish community of Amsterdam because of his views on religion: “This truly great Jewish non-Jew had been cursed by his own tribal associates—all the way to attempted murderous assault” (16). But in the nineteenth century, “woe to the German who dares to show the Jewish masses who the great Spinoza was and what he stood for!!” (16).

Another trait of Germans that Marr sees as deleterious is “abstract individualism.” Marr states that Jewish economic success within capitalism is “in agreement with the dogma of ‘abstract individualism’ which you have accepted with enthusiasm from the hands of Judaism” (30). In other words, Marr believed that individualism was something Jews imposed on Germany, not a tendency within the Germans themselves. (Contrary to Marr’s position, I have argued that the fundamental uniqueness of European peoples is a greater tendency toward individualism than other human groups. Individualism then leads to moral universalism (Kant’s Categorical Imperative), a form of idealism, rather than the tribally-based morality of groups like the Jews.) As noted above, Marr (correctly) believed that individualistic societies are relatively defenseless against Jews, whereas societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves.

Because of their grievances against Europeans, it is not surprising that Jews support revolution:

Who can hold it against the Jews that they happily welcomed the revolutions of 1789 and the one of 1848 and actively participated in them? “Jews, Poles and writers” was the battle cry of the conservatives in 1848. Well, of course—three suppressed factions! (16)

Following his first decisive victory of 1848 he had to—whether he wanted to or not—pursue his success further and must now attempt to ruin the Germanic, Occidental world. (28).

By 1848 Judaism had entirely ceased being a religion at all. It was “nothing else but the constitution of a people, forming a state within a state and this secondary or counter-state demanded certain material advantages for its members” (17). Marr states that Jewish emancipation only meant political equality because Jews had already achieved “a leading and dominating role” (17), and dominated all political factions except the Catholics. “The daily press is predominantly in Jewish hands, which have transformed journalism … into a business with public opinion; critique of the theater, of art in general—is to three quarters in the hands of Jews. Writing about politics and even religion is — in Jewish hands” (19). While Jews are deeply involved in creating the culture of Germany, “Judaism has been declared a subject off-limits for us Germans. … To comment on [Jewish] rituals is ‘hatred’, but if the Jew takes it upon himself to pronounce the last word in our religious and state affairs, then it is quite a different matter” (20). Of course the same phenomenon pervades the contemporary West.

Jews are particularly involved in the “culture struggle” against ultramontanism—the view that papal authority should extend over secular affairs. Ultramontanism was attacked by Jews because the Church “opposed Judaism for world domination.” Although opposition to ultramontanism was also an interest for many Germans, Jews did all the talking, and any criticism of Roman Catholicism was banned “if Israel was touched on ever so slightly!!” (20).

Jews are powerful and they will continue to obtain more power. In the end, Germans will be at the mercy of the Jews:

Within less than four generations there will not be a single office in the land, including the highest, which will not have been usurped by the Jews. Yes, through Jewry Germany will become a world power, an Occidental Palestine. … Jewry has fought the Occident for 1800 years. It has conquered and subjected it. We are the vanquished and it is quite in order that the victor chants ‘Vae Victis’ [woe to the vanquished]. (22)

The Jew has no real religion, he has a business contract with Jehovah and pays his god with statutes and formulations and in return is charged with the pleasant task of exterminating all that is not Jewish. (14)

Like several other writers represented here, Marr saw Russia as the only European nation that had resisted the Jewish onslaught. However, he believed that Russia would eventually fall by bloody revolution and this revolution would lead to the downfall of the West:

[Among European nations, only Russia] is left to still resist the foreign invasion. … [T]he final surrender of Russia is only a question of time. … Jewish resilient, fly-by-night attitude will plunge Russia into a revolution like the world might never have seen before. … With Russia, Jewry will have captured the last strategic position from which it has to fear a possible attack on its rear …. After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The ‘last hour’ of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years” (24–25).

Indeed, Jews are already taking the lead in fomenting anti-Russian policy, as in the Russian-Turkish war. For example, ideas that “the insolence of the great sea power England might be curbed” by allying with Russia were banned from the Jewish newspapers (26).

Marr is entirely pessimistic about the future, foreseeing a cataclysm: 

The destructive mission of Judaism (which also existed in antiquity) will only come to a halt once it has reached its culmination, that is after Jewish Caesarism has been installed” (28).

And seemingly predicting the rise of National Socialism, he notes “Jewry will have to face a final, desperate assault particularly by Germanism, before it will achieve authoritarian dominance” (29). Marr thinks that anti-Jewish attitudes will become powerful but ultimately they will fail to fend off disaster for the Germans and the West. Marr lays part of the blame on the fact that the only people who publicly oppose the Jews conceptualize them incorrectly as a religion. As a result, responsible, informed criticism of Jews that would appeal to non-religious people and intellectual elites never appears in the press: “A catastrophe lies ahead, because the indignation against the Judaization of society is intensified by the fact that it can’t be ventilated in the press without showing itself as a most abstruse religious hatred, such as it surfaces in the ultramontane and generally in the reactionary press” (30). Nevertheless, even a “violent anti-Jewish explosion will only delay, but not avert the disintegration of Judaized society” (30).

Regarding his own mission, Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause: “I am aware that my journalist friends and I stand defenseless before Jewry. We have no patronage among the nobility or the middle class. Our German people are too Judaized to have the will for self-preservation (32).

Marr concludes with the following:

The battle had to be fought without hatred against the individual combatant, who was forced into the role of attacker or defender. Tougher and more persistent than we, you became victorious in this battle between people, which you fought without the sword, while we massacred and burned you, but did not muster the moral strength to tell you to live and deal among your own. …

Finis Germaniae

Terrifying, but truer than ever.

*   *   *

The selection from Edouard Drumont includes a section from his two-volume Le France Juive (Jewish France), published in 1886. As many others have noted, Drumont claims that Jewish power derives ultimately from Jewish money (“Jews worship money” [126]), resulting in elite French non-Jews bending the knee to Jewish dominance. Drumont understood the importance of race, claiming that “the Aryan or Indo-European race is the only one to uphold the principles of justice, to experience freedom, and to value beauty” (126), but “ever since the dawn of history the Semite has dreamt constantly, obsessively, of reducing the Aryan into a state of slavery, and tying him to the land” (128). “Today the Semites believe their victory is certain. It is no longer the Carthaginian or Saracen that is in the vanguard, it is the Jew, and he has replaced violence with cunning” (129; emphasis in original).

As with Marr, Drumont claims that Aryans have several critical defects that allow Jewish domination—they are “enthusiastic, heroic, chivalrous, disinterested, frank, and trusting to the point of naivety,” while Jews are “mercantile, covetous, scheming, subtle, and cunning” (129). Of the Aryan traits, disinterestedness and trust are central to the individualism of the West. For example, there is a long history of Jews approaching social science with Jewish interests in mind—the theme of The Culture of Critique—whereas Western social scientists operate in an individualist world where group interests are irrelevant. Trust is also a marker of individualism because individualist cultures rely fundamentally on the individual reputations of others rather than group membership.

a fundamental aspect of individualism is that group cohesion is based not on kinship but on reputation—most importantly in recent centuries, a moral reputation as capable, honest, trustworthy and fair. Reputation as a military leader was central to Indo-European warrior societies where leaders’ reputations were critical to being able to recruit followers (Chapter 2). And the northern hunter-gatherer groups discussed in Chapter 3 developed egalitarian, exogamous customs and a high level of social complexity in which interaction with non-relatives and strangers was the norm; again, reputation was critical. (Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Ch. 8).

Drumont also describes Aryans as adventurers and explorers, while Jews waited until after America had been settled by Europeans to go there in search of riches. Aryan legends are filled with noble figures engaging in heroic acts of bravery where an individual stands out from others, while Semitic tales are filled with dreams of riches (he points to Thousand and One Nights). Aryans are slow to hate but eventually he will wreak “terrible vengeance on the Semite” when they wake up—reminiscent of Rudyard Kipling’s “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon”:

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

Other notable quotes:

  • “The Jew’s right to oppress other people is rooted in his religion. … ‘Ask of me and I shall make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel’” (133).
  • From the Talmud: “One can and one must kill the best of the goyim” (133).
  • Jewish aggressiveness and self-confidence: “He has absolutely no timidity” (133); “[the Jew] either grovels at your feet, or crushes you under his heel. He is either on top or beneath, never beside” (135).
  • Lack of artistic creativity: “In art they have created no original, powerful, or touching statues, no masterpieces. The criterion is whether the work will sell.” (136)
  • “The strength of Jews lies in their solidarity. They all feel a common bond with one another.” (137)
  • “There is one feeling that these corrupt, puffed-up people still possess, and that is hatred: of the Church, of priests, and above all the monks.” (143).
  • Jewish anti-idealism: “To his mind, everything that life has to offer is material.” (144)
  • The coming anti-Jewish movement: “In Germany, in Russia, in Austria-Hungary, in Romania, and in France itself where the movement is still dormant, the nobility, the middle classes, and intelligent workers—in a word, everyone with a Christian background (often without being a practicing Christian)—are in agreement on this point: The Universal Anti-Semitic Alliance has been created, and the Universal Israelite Alliance will not prevail against it.” (145; italics in original)

*   *   *

“The Jewish Question in Europe” (1890) was written by an anonymous author publishing in La Civilta Cattolica, an official mouthpiece of the Catholic Church. Like Drumont, it emphasizes Jewish power, but also emphasizes a newfound awakening among Europeans about Jews—“the collective outcry against the influence of the Israelites over every sector of public and social life … . Laws have been passed in France, Austria, Germany, England, Russia, Romania, and elsewhere; also, Parliaments are discussing stringent immigration quotas” (149).

The Jewish religion is now based not on the Old Testament, but on the Talmud which is thoroughly anti-Christian and which reduces Christians “to a moral nothingness which contradicts the basic principles of natural law” (150; italics in original).

Two points: the moral perspective of the Old Testament reduced all other humans to a moral nothingness, but as a staunch  Catholic, the writer must suppose that until the coming of Christ, Judaism was the “only true religion” (150) and hence he must suppose that its moral philosophy was to be admired. Secondly, the conception of natural law invoked here is typical of Western moral universalism—all humans have moral worth in the sight of God—which is clearly an ideology that can easily result in maladaptive behavior, such as the immigration policies that clearly concern the writer.

Later the writer provides many other examples of ingroup morality from the Talmud, such as the Kol Nidre, said to release Jews from contracts, and the moral righteousness of usury: “It is permissible, whenever possible, to cheat a Christian. Usury imposed on a Christian is not only permissible; rather, it is a good” 159). Jewish wealth comes at the expense of non-Jews and the result has been hatred toward Jews throughout history, “the Muslims, Arabs, Persians, the Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans” (160).

The writer distinguishes between religious tolerance and civil status, quoting a prominent French lawyer who noted that “Jews everywhere form a nation within a nation; and that, although they live in France, in Germany, in England, they nevertheless do not ever become French or German or English. Rather they remain Jews and nothing but Jews” (152).  Because they have no national allegiance, they can be recruited as spies, giving several examples. And because of the rise of Enlightenment values of the “rights of man” that resulted in civil status for Jews, “the dam was opened, and so, a devastating torrent let loose. In a short time, they penetrated everything, took over everything: gold, businesses, the public purse [or stock market], the highest appointments in political administration, the army and the diplomatic corps” (162). The author claims that these Enlightenment values were invented by Jews for their own benefit. (I have argued that these values were a product of the egalitarian-individualist strain of Western individualism [see here], although it’s certainly true that Jewish intellectual movements, such as the Frankfurt School, have promoted radical individualism for non-Jews while continuing their ethnic networking and group consciousness). But in any case, it’s certainly true that the Enlightenment paved the way for Jewish domination of Western societies.

As always, Jewish wealth is an issue. Here the author claims that “Jews own half the total capital in circulation in the world, and in France alone possess 80 billion francs” (169; italics in original), and that the average Jew has between 14–20 times the average wealth of a Frenchman. Astounding if true. And the author states that this wealth has allowed Jews to control the academy and the press (the latter described as an explicit goal at a Jewish conference in 1848; also noted by Millingen; see above): Using the examples of France, Austria, and Italy, he notes that “journalism and higher education are the two wings of the Israelite dragon” (171), and Christian views are actively suppressed in the schools and in the press; in France “all the irreligious and pornographic press is Jewish-owned” (172).

Jewish influence is international, as evidenced by the World Jewish Alliance, with help from Masonic groups (asserted to be anti-Christian and created by Jews; “Judaism and freemasonry are identical”). As noted, Jewish internationalism was often a target of anti-Jewish writing with the implication that Jews often supported Jewish interests in other countries at the expense of national interests of the country in which they reside.

The writer concludes by suggesting several possible solutions, including expulsion and divesting Jews of their wealth. But he claims that there will be no change until there is a return to Christianity. The elites are beyond hope. They are “the so-called ruling class, or bourgeoisie, who have been seduced, inebriated, and ground into bits between the bones of Judaism. Haven’t they refused, out of hatred for Christ, every proposed social reform? … [They] will all wind up ruined by Jews” (191).

*   *   *

Theodor Fritsch’s The Handbook on the Jewish Question, first published in 1887, was very popular and continued to be updated until 1944. Included here is a set of questions and answers on the topic, beginning with the commonly expressed claim among these writers that no one is criticizing Jews because of their religion and that whatever happened in the Middle Ages is irrelevant to current concerns, the main one of which is to restrict Jewish power and influence. Jews do not deserve the same rights as Germans because “they form, even today—politically, socially, and commercially—a separate community that searches for its advantage at the cost of the other citizens” (197); indeed, Judaism “operates toward the exploitation and subjugation of the non-Jewish peoples” (200), goals they pursue with “lies and deception—and money” (201).

Again, there is a complaint about Jewish moral particularism as expressed in the Talmud, a morality “that grants the name ‘man’ only to the Jew and counts the other peoples as animals” (200) who have no moral worth. Aryans are “courageous and brave”; their character manifests “uprightness, honesty, loyalty, and dedication,” while Jews exhibit “guile, slyness, hypocrisy, and lies … to which we may add harassment, insolent assertiveness, unrestricted egoism, ruthless cruelty, and excessive sexual desire (205).

Fritsch lists a variety of negative consequences—e.g., moral depravity promoted by the Jewish press—and Jews “are to blame, through their financial influence and their unscrupulous desires, for the loosening of society in every respect” (202). “They have thrown even governments into the chains through cunning financial operations and made them dependent on the mercy of Jewry” (203).

Fritsch notes that there are indeed many distinguished Jews but that any Jew with some talent will be intensely promoted by other Jews, while a talented German who does not show obeisance to Jews is “ignored with silence and does not succeed” (208). Presaging Andrew Joyce’s work on Spinoza, Fritsch notes that Spinoza’s reputation and the reputations of other famous Jews (Mendelssohn, Heine) “have been similarly exaggerated by Jewish publicity” (209).

Finally, Fritsch claims that the Jewish question can only be solved if they emigrate to their own land; if Jews remain in Germany, they should be severely restricted in their economic pursuits (only manual labor and agriculture); miscegenation must be prohibited.

*   *   *

Hitler is represented by his first written statement on Jews, composed as a 30-year-old in 1919. As do the others reviewed here, he sees the Jewish problem not as religious but as racial and political—a problem that must be confronted by understanding the facts, what he terms “rational anti-Semitism,” rather than simply appealing to emotions. Rational anti-Semitism leads to “a systematic and legal struggle against and eradication of, the privileges the Jews enjoy over the other foreigners living among us” (213). He emphasizes the racial purity of the Jews and that their overriding concern is with accumulating wealth, while Germans believe that moral and idealistic goals are important as well.

It is the centrality of wealth without moral principles that “allow[s] the Jew to become so unscrupulous in his choice of means, so merciless in his use of his own ends” (212). Besides wealth, Jewish power derives from their influence on the media and its ability to mold public opinion. “The result of his works is racial tuberculosis of the nation” (213).

Restructuring the state is insufficient. What must happen is “a rebirth of the nation’s moral and spiritual forces” (213). However, current leaders understand that “they are forced to accept Jewish favors to their private advantage and to repay these favors” (214)—a statement that could equally apply to the current leaders of Western countries.

*   *   *

As noted, Theodor Fritsch’s Handbook on the Jewish Question (1887) continued to be updated until 1944.  “The Core of the Jewish Question” is from a 1923 edition. He characterizes Judaism as “something alien, hostile, and unassimilable among all nations” (217). “They are not only a separate state but a race that is closed within itself” (219), and he cites Tacitus’s claim that Judaism represents “a hatred of the entire human race” (221). He blames them for “the stab in the back” that ended World War I and for the communist revolutions that shook Germany during that period. Fritsch also emphasizes Jewish economic power and their influence in the press. “Above all, … the press in Jewish hands gave a suitable means to radically falsify German thought and feeling and to disseminate among the masses all sorts of erroneous ideas” (224). He claims that when there was natural unrest among the proletariat because of dispossession brought about by the Jews, Jews took control of socialist movements, mentioning Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle, and succeeded in not mentioning the role of Jews in the dispossession of the workers. Fritsch’s proposed solution: their own state.

*   *   *

The collection includes a work by a Jewish author, Marcus Eli Ravage, who claims that Christians don’t understand why they resent Jews, and attributes anti-Semitism to resentment that “Jews imposed it [Christianity] on you” (229), originally via St. Paul who is described as a “patriotic Jew” (232) intent on bringing down the Roman Empire. He claims that Judaism is the basis of the moral code of Christianity and “Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints” (231). The strength of Christianity depended on its appeal to the humble. The result has been the fall of the Roman Empire brought about by Jewish dominance of the Christian world as Christianity with its values of pacifism, resignation and love undermined the militaristic culture of Rome. Moreover, the French, American, and Russian revolutions are the consequence of Jewish moral teachings “of social, political, and economic justice” (232). I very much doubt this scenario as an explanation for the history of the West.

*   *   *

Heinrich Himmler is represented by “The Schutzstaffel [SS] as Anti-Bolshevist Combat Organization.” Himmler identifies Judaism with Bolshevism, interpreted as a recurrent pattern where Jews plot against the people they live among, using the story of Esther in the Old Testament, which records the slaughter of over 75,000 Persians, as paradigmatic. He recounts several historical examples, but emphasizes the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and its aftermath. “For Bolshevism proceeds always in this manner: The heads of the leaders of a people are bloodily cut off, and then it turns into political, economic, scientific, cultural, intellectual, spiritual, and corporate slavery” (245). Thereafter the rest of the people degenerate due to race mixing and eventually they die out. Himmler praises Hitler for stopping this process in Germany, but of course it can certainly be argued that such a process is well underway in present-day Germany.

Himmler discusses the racial criteria for membership in the SS—“the physical ideal, the Nordic type of man” (252)—and he discusses several requirements of SS men, such as marriage that must be undertaken with a concern for one’s ancestors, “the eternal origins of its people” (256).

*   *   *

The American poet Ezra Pound’s essay “The Jews and This War” (1939) gives a good summary of historical Jewish communities which were dominated by an intermarrying elite (often called “court Jews”) with close connections to the aristocracy which they served in a variety of functions, such as in finance and tax farming. He correctly notes that these Jewish communities (“Kahals”) were well-organized, taxed their members, and could ostracize Jews who dissented from community policy. Pound believes that “today’s Kahal is centered on Wall Street, with branch offices in London and Paris” (265), and “the complex of Roosevelt’s governing instincts are those of the Kahal. In our times, England and France are governed as the Kahal would rule them” 266). While praising the “Nazi and fascist programs” as “based on European dispositions and beliefs that move to ever higher levels of development,” the American spirit “is but a dark and profaned memory, one that we Americans have a duty to pull out of the grave, hidden under piles of trash” (266–267). He concludes with a call to liberty: “Freedom is not a right; it is a duty” (267).

*   *   *

Robert Ley, described by Dalton in his introduction as “one of the brightest and best educated leaders of NS Germany” (269), is represented with his 1941 essay “International Melting Pot or United Nation-States of Europe?”—a prescient essay on the globalist future of Europe if Germany loses the war. He regarded Jews as a mongrel race resulting from breeding with many peoples (not supported by recent population genetic research)—a race that had evolved into a parasite. Germans on the other hand are a pure race that the Jews want to destroy: “the Jew had to drag down the ideals of other men to blur the gap between themselves and the pure races” (271) and to destroy nations which he sees as racially homogeneous entities. The League of Nations, “which ought to be called the Melting Pot, gave Jewry its final triumph. Here all nationalist promptings and all ethnic and racially conditioned characteristics of state and law were condemned as abominations” (274). “We National Socialists base our worldview on the natural laws of race, heredity, the biological laws of life, and the laws of space and soil, energy and action” (275). On the other hand, England is “governed mostly by the Jew and his money” (278), and Ley recounts post-World War I atrocities against Germany enacted by “the masters of Versailles” who are “slaves of the Jew, in the service of Freemasonry and international Marxism” aiming to destroy Germany. Much of the essay is directed at working-class Germans warning them not to be seduced by socialist ideas such as the international proletariat (“international romanticism” [282]) that prioritizes class interests over racial/ethnic interests: “The slogan of international solidarity of the working class was the greatest fraud and the basest lie that the Jew ever concocted” (281).

*   *   *

Theodore N. Kaufman, a Jewish businessman, wrote “Germany Must Perish” (1941) calling for the extermination of the German people. It did not have much impact in the U.S. when first published, but, after Goebbels used it as proof of a genocidal plan on the part of the allies, notices began to appear in the American media. Kaufman’s screed is indeed genocidal in intent, based on the claim that Germany is “at war with humanity” (289). Nothing less than a “TOTAL PENALTY” (289; emphasis in original) is called for. “Germany must perish forever! In fact—not in fancy” (289). This solution must apply to all Germans whether or not they agreed with their leaders. Sterilization of both sexes would accomplish the goal and could be carried out within “three years or less” (308).

*   *   *

Wolfgang Diewerge’s 1941 essay “The War Goal of World Plutocracy” is a comment on Kaufman’s booklet. Diewerge, a top aide to Goebbels, falsely claims that Kaufman is well-connected—“no fanatic rejected by world Jewry, no insane creature, but rather a leading and widely known Jewish figure in the United States” (312) and a member of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” And he claims that Kaufman’s view “is the official opinion of the leading figures of world plutocracy.” Diewerge is happy the booklet has been published because it makes clear to Germans what is at stake in the war, and he reminds his readers of the Jewish role in the Soviet mass murders, “and now during the great battle for freedom in the East, Jewish commissars with machine guns stand behind the Bolshevist soldiers and shoot down the stupid masses if they begin to retreat” (325).

His chilling conclusion: “It is not a war of the past, which can find its end in the balancing of interests. It is a matter of who shall live in Europe in the future: the white race with its cultural values and creativity, with its industry and joy in life, or Jewish sub-humanity ruling over the stupid, joyless enslaved masses doomed to death” (328). One thinks of the Great Replacement and Mayorkas’s open border policy allowing millions of uneducated, impoverished non-Whites in the U.S—migrants who will be indoctrinated to hate Whites. The same thing is happening throughout the West.

*   *   *

The final essay is Heinrich Goitsch’s “Never!,” written in 1944 when it was apparent that Germany would be defeated. As Dalton notes in his Introduction, it was “a kind of final plea to the German people, to keep fighting, to keep up morale, and to struggle until the bitter end” (331). It includes dire foreboding of the consequences of defeat, quoting several prominent sources as desiring the end of the German people, including the notorious Morgenthau Plan, proposed by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., calling for the de-industrialization of Germany—a plan that would have meant millions of deaths by starvation—and a fantasy of Soviet-Jewish propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg in which “Germany finally ceased to exist. Of its 55 million inhabitants, at most 100,000 remain.” He also notes a pre-war statement of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, the international Jewish organization established in Paris, that “This German-Aryan people must vanish from history’s stage.”



This is an important collection. The main takeaway is that the criticisms of Jews have been remarkably consistent over this period, and indeed, many can be seen throughout the history of the Jews in the West as noted in the beginning of this essay. However, there was a definite shift with the onset of the Enlightenment. Several of these writers note that the Enlightenment allowed the Jews unparalleled opportunities that had not been available previously, because, in general, Jews were at least somewhat constrained in their ability to dominate societies economically. The general picture prior to the Enlightenment was that Jews made alliances with corrupt non-Jewish elites and were allowed to exploit the lower orders of society via practices such as usury and tax farming in return for giving the aristocracy a cut, although there certainly were exceptions, such as Louis IX of France (St. Louis) who abhorred the effects of Jewish economic exploitation on his subjects.[2] After the Enlightenment, Jews continued to make alliances with non-Jewish elites but there were many more economic niches available, and Jews rapidly advanced throughout Western societies, including in the universities and in political culture which had been closed off to them.

Particularly important is that the nineteenth century saw the rise of mass media and the ability of Jews to dominate or at least have a major influence on the media environment and on the culture at large—a major complaint of several writers who saw Jewish cultural influence as entirely negative, including their role in cultural criticism in the arts and in discussions of religion, denigrating the history and accomplishments of the traditional non-Jewish culture, disseminating of pornography, and penalizing individuals who criticize Jewish influence, Richard Wagner being the exemplar of the latter.

I was particularly struck by Dostoevsky’s comment that Jews attempt to lay claim to the moral high ground, complaining incessantly about their “their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom” while nevertheless controlling the stock exchanges of Europe “and therefore politics, domestic affairs, and morality of the states” (83).  Seizing the moral high ground was impossible for Jews in traditional Western cultures where the main influences were the Church and aristocratic culture. But because of the rise of mass-circulation newspapers and the influx of Jews into academia, Jewish claims to the moral high ground pervade the contemporary West where the holocaust narrative is ubiquitous in all forms of media and throughout the educational system, while, as in Dostoevsky’s time, on average Jews are far better off than other citizens.

Such appeals to the moral high ground are uniquely effective in the West as an individualist culture—an important theme of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition where reputation in a moral community rather than kinship forms the basic social glue. As a dominant cultural elite, Jews are able to establish the dominant moral community via their influence on the media and academic culture. In the contemporary West, that means inculcating White guilt, not only for the holocaust (seen as the inevitable outcome of the long history of anti-Semitism in Western culture), but also for the West’s history of slavery and conquest (seen as uniquely evil rather than a human universal—while ignoring the West’s role in ending slavery and generally advancing the areas they colonized).

The weakness of individualism and its concomitant traits in competition with Jews is a recurrent theme. For example, Jews are realists about their interests and rationally evaluate others in terms of their interests; they have a high degree of solidarity. On the other hand, Germans are idealistic, acting on moral values that apply to everyone, and they are trusting in the good intentions of others, often believing that Judaism was just another religion rather than a state within a state and having very different interests than Germans and indeed, hostile to them.

A repeated theme is the centrality of Jewish wealth for understanding Jewish influence. Particularly standing out is Drumont’s comment on the obeisance of the French nobility to the wealthy Jews who had nothing but contempt for them and eagerly anticipated the downfall of the gentile aristocracy that would ultimately be servants to the Jews. “What brings these representatives of the aristocracy under [Rothschild’s] roof? Respect for money. What will they do there? Kneel before the Golden Calf” (126). Needless to say, from fawning politicians dependent on Jewish campaign contributions, to virtually anyone who wants to get ahead or maintain their position in the culture of today’s West, it’s the same now. Just ask Kanye West.


[1] The page numbers in the section on Wilhelm Marr are from a different translation; see: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Marr-Text-English.pdf; see also: Kevin MacDonald, “Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View, The Occidental Observer October 10, 2010).  https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/10/10/wilhelm-marrs-the-victory-of-judaism-over-germanism-viewed-from-a-nonreligious-point-of-view/

[2] From Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 4: King Louis IX of France (Saint Louis), who lived like a monk though one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in Europe, was a particularly zealous warrior in carrying out the Church’s economic and political programs. Louis attempted to develop a corporate, hegemonic Christian entity in which social divisions within the Christian population were minimized in the interests of group harmony. Consistent with this group-oriented perspective, Louis appears to have been genuinely concerned about the effect of Jewish moneylending on society as a whole, rather than its possible benefit to the crown—a major departure from the many ruling elites throughout history who have utilized Jews as a means of extracting resources from their subjects. An ordinance of 1254 prohibited Jews from engaging in moneylending at interest and encouraged them to live by manual labor or trade. Louis also ordered that interest payments be confiscated, and he took similar action against Christian moneylenders (see Richard 1992, 162). Although there is no question that Louis evaluated the Jews negatively as an outgroup (as indicated, e.g., by his views that the Talmud was blasphemous, and by his “habitual reference to the Jews’ ‘poison’ and ‘filth’ ” [Schweitzer 1994, 150]), Louis was clearly most concerned about Jewish behavior perceived as exploitative rather than simply excluding Jews altogether because of their outgroup status. A contemporary biographer of Louis, William of Chartres, quotes him as determined “that [the Jews] may not oppress Christians through usury and that they not be permitted, under the shelter of my protection, to engage in such pursuits and to infect my land with their poison” (in Chazan 1973, 103). Louis therefore viewed the prevention of Jewish economic relations with Christians not as a political or economic problem but as a moral and religious obligation. Since the Jews were present in France at his discretion, it was his responsibility to prevent the Jews from exploiting his Christian subjects. Edward I of England, who expelled the Jews in 1290, appears to have held similar views on royal responsibility for the well-being of his subjects (Stow 1992, 228–229).