Not just a Religion

/53 Comments/in , /by

Not just a Religion: The American psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald observes Judaism from the perspective of evolutionary psychology 

Thorsten Thomsen, editor of, Hier und Jetzt, reviews the German translation of Separation and Its Discontents

Translated by Tom Sunic

Absonderung und ihr Unbehagen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Evolutionären Theorie des Antisemitismus
Kevin MacDonald
Libergraphix, Gröditz 2011, €22.80

Introduction, by Tom Sunic

Much has been written and said in TOO about the self-constrained, self-contained and self-censored intellectual and cultural life in today’s Germany. In the modern Federal Republic of Germany, a state that officially brags about being “the freest of all states in Germany’s history,” even a minor politically incorrect joke can cause somebody a lot of legal troubles, something (as of now) inconceivable in the USA. In this sense the recent appearance of a classy, scholarly, right-wing nationalist quarterly in Germany, Hier und Jetzt, containing over 150 well-illustrated pages, feels like a breath of fresh air. What follows below is the review by Thorsten Thomsen of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s book Separation and its Discontents in its recent German translation. Thomsen’s review of MacDonald’s book was published in # 18 of the Spring issue of the journal this year. Mr. Thomsen’s language and style, reproduced here in the English translation, may give a brief hint to an American reader about the overall political, intellectual and rhetorical climate in today’s Germany.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The psychologist and professor Kevin B. MacDonald from California State University has the reputation of being a “controversial” scientist in the USA. Controversial because his published research does not please certain influential circles and earns him therefore the sweeping label “unscientific.” Therefore, the high- flying American society cannot add up MacDonald to the circle of its friends, similar to a colleague of his, J. Philippe Rushton—also dubbed “controversial”—or the other authors who write in his journal The Occidental Quarterly, such as Tom Sunic and Alex Kurtagić, or the British psychologist and IQ researcher Richard Lynn. Read more

Johan Galtung on Jews

/494 Comments/in , , , , /by

Johan Galtung

Johan Galtung is a prominent Norwegian academic, the founder of the field of peace studies and author of more than 100 books and more than 1000 scholarly papers. He has also been officially labeled an anti-Semite as a result of recent statements, at least some of which are sensible.

Galtung believes that historical anti-Semitism is based at least partly on Jewish behavior: On the rise of anti-Jewish attitudes in Germany during the 1920s,  he says that it was “not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles.”

He distinguishes between predicting anti-Jewish behavior and justifying it: “In no way, absolutely no way, does this justify the atrocities. But it created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted.” In the same way, he argues that medieval pogroms were motivated by the role of Jews in usury: “The Jews played a role in demanding payment from indebted peasants.”

This of course violates the dogma that all anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are completely irrational—the result of things like Christian religious ideology or individual psychopathology—rather than reality-based conflicts of interest. In the modern world, Galtung claims that “the Jews control U.S. media, and divert for the sake of Israel.”

“Six Jewish companies control 96% of the media,” wrote Galtung. He included the names of journalists, publishers, TV networks, and movie studios, that he claims are controlled by Jews. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch was also included on the list. “He’s not Jewish, but many of the people under him are,” wrote Galtung, in reference to Murdoch. “Many of them are fanatically pro-Israel,” he pointed out. Immediately following these claims, Galtung wrote that “seventy percent of the professors at the 20 most important American universities are Jewish.” Galtung bases his doctrine on an article written by William Luther Pierce, founder of the “National Alliance,” a white supremacist organization.

In a later article defending his position, Galtung provides some great quotes, as from Ruth Wisse of Harvard: “to young Jewish journalists, that they should not ‘see themselves as seekers after wisdom and truth, but as part of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (13/02/12).”

The  issue of the loyalty of American Jews is a canard?? Read more

Research on Pornography and the Sexualization of Culture

/221 Comments/in , , /by

Lasha Darkmoon’s current TOO article provides case studies illustrating the sexual deviance of some of the main promoters of pornography. The question here is whether the availability of pornography is bad for Whites or, indeed, for any group.

Historically, explicit sexuality was a taboo in all Western societies. Growing up Catholic in the 1950s, one was aware that sexually explicit material was far underground and that it was eminently disreputable. Implicitly and perhaps explicitly in some circles, pornography was seen as incompatible with the social utility of creating social supports for marriage based on love and affection between partners; marriage thus conceived encourages fertility and provides an ideal environment for children.

Implicitly at least, there was a recognition that sex is a strong biological urge, an attitude that no evolutionary psychologist would question. The basic findings of research on pornography fit well with the evolutionary theory of sex: males are naturally more attracted to pornography than females because males benefit from relatively indiscriminate mating, multiple mates, and depersonalized and even coercive sexual encounters.

Females, on the other hand, are expected to place a greater value on relationships of intimacy and love as signals of male investment in them and their children. Females generally suffer huge costs from indiscriminate mating and from sexual coercion (no paternal investment; bad genes). Because of the demands of pregnancy and lactation, they do not benefit from multiple mates with the result that polyandry is vanishingly rare in human societies. Read more

Masters of Porn: The Systematic Promotion of Sexual Deviance

/373 Comments/in /by

Alfred Kinsey, Time Magazine cover, 1953: “The only unnatural act is that which you cannot perform.”

It comes as a big shock to learn that two of the fathers of the Sexual Revolution were both sexual perverts with an evangelical mission in life: to infect society with their wacky ideas and turn the world into a vast masturbatorium.

I refer to the 2oth century’s premier sex researcher Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) and his notorious contemporary, cult psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957).

Steeped in the dangerous claptrap of the fraudulent Freud—see here and here—both Kinsey and Reich enthusiastically embraced the laissez-faire Freudian philosophy: “I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life”. Like their Viennese mentor, they would have been only too pleased to add, “If only Americans knew—we are bringing them the plague!”

According to Freud and his followers, anti-Semitism was a universal pathology which had its roots in sexual repression. Its cure lay in “sexual liberation”. The theory, in its crudest and simplest form, amounted to this: instead of picking on the Jews, why not just chill out and have sex? Read more

Snow White and the Huntsman

/139 Comments/in , /by

Snow White and the Huntsman
Directed by Rupert Sanders
Produced by Sam Mercer, Palak Patel, Joe Roth
Screenplay by Evan Daugherty

I realize that if a studio is going to spend $170 million on a movie, they are going to do their best to appeal to a wide audience. Movies with mass appeal necessarily have emotional hooks that draw the audience in. In Snow White, there are two such hooks. Read more

Review of Beyond Human Nature, by Jesse J. Prinz

/70 Comments/in , , , /by

Jesse J. Prinz is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina. His academic specialism is the philosophy of psychology, and he has produced books and articles on emotion, moral psychology, aesthetics and consciousness. His latest book, Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, was published earlier this year. Like much of his previous work, this new book is an attack on “psychological nativism.” Prinz (who is Jewish) claims that his latest book “concerns the cultural impact on human variation” and is part “of a critique of approaches that oversell the role of biology.”[i] The Jewish ethno-political agenda behind this critique soon becomes clear when the author acknowledges his “intellectual heroes who hover silently in the background. I mention here Franz Boas, whose pioneering work in anthropology has been an inspiration to many who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity.”[ii]

In arguing for the primacy of nurture over nature, Prinz devotes a significant part of his book to attempting to explain why measured racial differences in IQ can be ascribed to environmental rather than genetic factors. He believes that “The IQ controversy is an extreme example of a more general tendency to explain human abilities by appeal to biology,” and regards it as “a particularly egregious case because it legitimates biases against many subjugated groups and mistakes social injustice for biological necessity.”[iii] For Prinz “one of the great tragedies of IQ testing is that researchers have used their results to argue fallaciously that certain groups of people differ in intelligence.”[iv] Introducing his case for an environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ, he notes that

everyone agrees that intelligence can be affected by the genes. The fact that humans are smarter than dogs is clearly a consequence of our biology. Everyone also agrees that differences in human intelligence can be genetic. Some people can be congenitally retarded, and extreme forms of genius are likely to be genetically based as well. But what about the vast majority of us who lie somewhere between Einstein and Tweedledumb [note the standard invocation of the Jewish Einstein as the quintessence of human genius]. Genius and retardation are rare conditions, which may result from genetic mutations. Are the differences between people who fall in the normal range distinguished by the genes? Is the run-of-the-mill dullard biologically different from a garden variety whiz-kid? And if so, are those biological differences fixed, or might they be altered by experience? These questions become even more heated when we turn from individual differences to differences between groups.

Do biological differences in brain power come pre-packaged with biological differences in pigmentation? These are touchy topics, and naturists have felt considerable heat for defending positions that are politically incorrect. I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong. While some differences in intelligence may be linked to biology, most people have pretty comparable biological endowments. If we want to find an explanation for group-wide social inequity, then we would be better off studying the negative effects of poverty, and the positive effects of cultural practices that encourage learning.[v] Read more

Another Hate Industry Start-Up: The Omar Thornton Memorial Fund

/84 Comments/in /by

You remember Omar Thornton. He was that Black guy in Manchester, CT who two years ago was caught stealing beer from his employer. Why he was stealing it is a mystery. There had been no hurricane to spark a looting spree, and beer distributorships typically give excellent employee discounts. Perhaps he was just engaging in a little self-serve reparations. Who knows? Anyhow, his employer gave him a generous option – either resign, or be fired. Omar chose to resign. He signed the paperwork, and started to leave. On his way out, he opened his lunchbox, where he had stashed a brace of handguns. Why he felt the need to go to work with a lunchbox full of 9mm Rugers is, again, a mystery. He pulled out the pistols and opened fire on a group of about 40 people. A few seconds later, eight European-Americas lay dead, and two others were wounded. Omar then made two phone calls, one to his mother, and one to the police. To the police, he proudly declared, “I just shot me some racists.” By the time the police arrived, Omar had killed himself.

During the investigation and the news coverage, Omar’s family claimed that he frequently complained of workplace racial discrimination against him, and his White girlfriend said that he had taken cell phone pictures of a restroom wall upon which someone had drawn a noose and written a racial epithet. Well, as far as the MSM is concerned, if you can’t believe the word of a Black guy who had stolen a bunch of beer and murdered eight White people, then you can’t believe anyone. So, despite the absence of even the minutest particle of evidence to support the racism claims of Omar and his family, and despite the inexistence of the noose and n-word pictures, the MSM waved its collective hand like a Jedi and said, “Omar killed Racist White people. They deserved it.” To which millions of Blacks and a sickening number of White people responded by repeating, “Omar killed Racist White people. They deserved it.” Read more