Re: Could anyone explain this please?

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:31:09 GMT

"DesertCactus" <desertcactus@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.0407091444.e47260a@posting.google.com...
> >
> > LMAO - I can imagine blacks WOULD condemn it - it's not the message they
> > tried to get going for anyone. Compare that kind of movie to ML King's
> > message. Duke sees in the Jewish conspiracy rubbish, the Jews wanting
to
> > incite blacks to do that ***. I see something a littlee different - I
see
> > them ALSO getting a very loud and clear message to whites to GET THE
***
> > OUT of black areas, LMAO. You know, there IS money in real estate :-D
> > Whyever they made those movies, one Jewish guy that used to be in ADL
told
> > me that Jews kinda related to blacks and some held a DEEP grudge
against
> > Christians - who th ey saw as WHITE. Professor Macdonald explains all
of
> > this. Check him out. He's a university professor.
>
>
> I don't know how they can see christians as white really,

That is what their view was, as Professor MacDonald points out - I'll paste
some information in here - please read it and understant it.

a lot of
> African-Americans are christian and members of all races, christians
> don't persecute the Jews anymore,

According to the ADL, anti semitism is on the rise - in the USA and
especially in the EU. EU countries regard Israel as the greatest threat to
the world right now. It came out in a poll.

the church doesn't have the power
> anymore. Shouldn't they be making films about muslims or something,
> LOL. They have Islamic countries that have officially said they want
> to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, kill Jews etc.
> Having said that, Arabs/Muslims are often portrayed badly in the
> american movies and media.

Here is about Professor MacDonald - please read it.

Jewish Strategies in society

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Prager, 1998,
$65.00, 379 pp. -Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California
State University-Long Beach, CA, USA

In "The Culture of Critique," Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century
intellectual movements - largely established and led by Jews - have changed
European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of
Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or
unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented
to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes that the
increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound political and social
consequences that benefited Jews but caused great harm to gentile societies.
This analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual
indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than
sinning.

"The Culture of Critique" is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's massive,
three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two previous
volumes are "A People That Shall Dwell Alone" and "Separation and its
Discontents," published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is written
from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a unique survival
strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic groups. Prof. MacDonald,
who is a psychologist at the University of California at Long Beach,
explains this perspective in the first volume, which describes Jews as
having a very powerful sense of uniqueness that has kept them socially and
genetically separate from other peoples. The second volume traces the
history of Jewish-gentile relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism
primarily in the almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of
gentile societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. "The Culture
of Critique" brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.

The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology, and
Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial perspective, he
also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-culturalism and Third World
immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view
that Jews have promoted these movements as Jews and in the interests of
Jews, though they have often tried to give the impression that they had no
distinctive interests of their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most
profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty - that
while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked
for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to
promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
solidarity they decry as immoral in others.

Celebrating Diversity

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews
have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity -
but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements
that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society:
patriotism, racial loyalty, and the Christian basis for morality, social
homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own
communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often
supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty
characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does
not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not
to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for
thousands of years - even without a country - has invariably attracted
unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well-defined national
identities. In Prof. MacDonald's view it is therefore in the interest of
Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live.
Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silverman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -
one firmly rooted in history - that Jews are safe only in a society
acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity
of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval
of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to
endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called
'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength
argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society's
homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda
in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of
the Silverman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not
because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the
Jews.

Prof. Silverman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist
who thought that Republicans had more sensible economic policies but who
voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd
rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic
convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man
apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party
even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to
come before what is good for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandies University makes the
diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction
with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will
become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a
Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently
prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order
to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears
to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their
culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to
Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w] e [Jews] have
been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half
a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous
nature of our population tends to make it irreversible..." - just as it
tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also
irreversible.

Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several
sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas
(1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of
anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in
human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his
followers - with the notable exceptions of Margaret Meade and Ruth
Benedict - were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: "Jewish
identification 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."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the
idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts
for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide
intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation.
They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the
same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on
white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that
since environment accounts for all human differences, changing the
environment could eliminate every inequality in achievement. This has been
the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
programs.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural consequence of
the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation
was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways
that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was,
according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the
desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might
never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was
a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist
Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims "many of these [civil rights] laws were
actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people,
introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters."
While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it
was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture as
overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and esthetically repressive
(especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating
ethnographies for idyllic [Third-World] cultures that were free of the
negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture."

The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about
Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes
that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored
barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the
West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of
Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and
people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain
open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives
somehow lack.

Authoritarian Personalities

In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would
transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity and
commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic
purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School. What is
properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt,
Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed
down by the Nazis shortly after they took power. Most of its staff emigrated
to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley.
Max Horkheimer headed the organization, and its most influential members
were T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform itself
directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)

Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of "The Authoritarian
Personality," which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was part
of a series called "Studies in Prejudice," produced by the Frankfurt school,
which included titles like "Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder." "The
Authoritarian Personality," which was particularly influential because,
according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee heavily funded
its promotion and because Jewish academics took up its message so
enthusiastically.

The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a
sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to family -
and race - loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective "authoritarian
personality." Because drawing distinctions between different groups is
illegitimate, all group loyalties - even close family ties! - are
"prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the
conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only by subjecting the
American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy - by treating
them as inmates of an insane asylum."

But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty,
respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish
identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles.
These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic
against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs
was insane. As Prof. MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never
criticized or even described Jewish group identity - only that of gentiles:
"behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."

For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual
repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic
about psychoanalysis, according to which "Oedipal ambivalence toward the
father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite's
irrevocable inheritance."

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the
school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central attitudes of
the largely successful 1960s counter cultural revolution find expression in
"The Authoritarian Personality," including idealizing rebellion against
parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social
mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and
patriotism."

Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding ancient
loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later,
the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was in the same
tradition when he wrote: "The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct
the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the
metaphysics of native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the
bombs... of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against
the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the
United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural
eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology." Needless to
say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of
whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and
whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as
psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The
ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by
a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric
group among all the cultures of the world."

Immigration

MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open
immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting and it
keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He
says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a
few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it
easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently
promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements they
may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have
favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable
detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Agnail, author of
the eponymous 1908 play "The Melting Pot," was of the view that "there is
only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of
passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... " He was nevertheless an
ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage.

Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening the
World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American
political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it
into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of the statue several
decades after its contraction, the poem welcomes to America "huddled masses
yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that Jews have made implausible arguments
about diversity being a quintessentially American strength for a long time.
He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to
believe that "Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has
traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all
nationalities." Of course, there had never been such a tradition. In 1952,
the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our
national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies
in the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965,
scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change
the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing
that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the
most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the
effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason for which was
cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: "The strengthening
of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance
policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian
Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a
Jewish Australian." Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this
Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and
identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be
surprising if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite
effect from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

Jews and the Left

It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the left,
and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements that
advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation, Jews met
resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose ground to
competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However, in Prof.
MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has often been
motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be a tool for
combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalistic social
solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might
exclude Jews. The appeal of universalistic ideologies is tied to the
implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be exempt: "At the
extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles would result in
gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while
nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as
Jews."

Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for its
anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet Union seemed
to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism, tried to
eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual Jews, and
preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would presumably attract
no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism taught that all conflict was
economic rather than ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of
anti-Semitism.

Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both
atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they took pains to
preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports that Lenin himself
(who had one Jewish grandparent)** approved the continuation of an
explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in 1946 the Communist Party
of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in
Communist countries. Thus, although Communism was supposed to be without
borders or religion, Jews were confident that it would make a place for
their own group identity. He writes that despite the official view that all
men were to be brothers, "very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during
the entire soviet era."

NOTE: this is factually incorrect. Lenin had a Kalmuck grandparents. Where
his father worked under the Czar, had Lenin been any part Jewish, his father
would not have been able to have that job. Lenin did not approve the
formation of a Jewish state and that caused many Jews to walk out and caused
a split in the party. Having a "Jewish identity" meant nothing; they
couldn't have synagogues or organized religious services. Lenin's name was
Ulyanov. Ulyan in the Tatar language means Red. Lenin also had red hair
and the name given to such nomadic type peoples was usually given in a
shamanistic way, like something in their appearance. The fact of the matter
is that under Stalin, the majority if not all of those discovered to have
"other agendas" and found guilty (with proof) during the Show Trials, were
Jews. Stalin was not anti-Semetic. It just so happened that these Jews had
another agenda and they got caught (just as MacDonald has "caught" them).
The NKVD may not have known exactly what it was, but they knew the agenda
was there and it was contrary to the Soviet State and its peoples. Stalin
declared Socialism in one country: Nationalism. He broke with the
Comintern.

Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The Jewish
people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community
in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people would signify the death
of humankind, the final transformation of man into a wild beast." This seems
to attribute to Jews an elite position incompatible with "unity and human
community."

Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from Communism only
after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews had been
the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews
became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar
pattern can be found in the imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe,
which were largely dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the
Polish Communist Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and
they too maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism
many stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel.

Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that at the
time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with Jews that
the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues that in the United
States as well, the hard core among Communists and members of Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary,
atheist, and Universalist world-view was fully compatible with strong
identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American
leftists:

"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a
spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it
difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always
taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment as Jews was
even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment to the left.

Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned Communism as
it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number, the Soviet Union's
severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1967 war was the last
straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for many when he explained, "If
I must choose between the Jewish cause and a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS,
I shall choose the Jewish cause. If barricades are erected, I will fight as
a Jew." According to Prof. MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be
described as a surface shift in external politics that leaves the more
fundamental commitment to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists
abandoned an ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned
American conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high levels of
immigration and were active in excluding white racial identification from
the "respectable" right.

Objections

There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The first is
that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are dishonest. It is
always risky to assume one understands the motives of others better than
they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought of themselves as a
benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the nations" or a "chosen
people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self-image as champions of the
excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time what passes for "social
justice" has the effect of undermining the traditions and loyalties of
gentile society, but are Jews deliberately undermining these things rather
than righting what they perceive to be wrongs?

Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support for
liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing, "The best
deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words, many Jews who
are actually working for Jewish interests have first convinced themselves
otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to become less white may also have
convinced himself that America benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having
convinced himself he can more effectively convince others.

Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the extent to
which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their political
views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his surprise at how
passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war: "I had not
known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement from a man who was
thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual leader of his time. And
whether or not it affects their politics, Jews certainly appear to have a
very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene
Borowitz as saying, "most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal
friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of
another Jew, despite heavy camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends
or foe" is no insignificant matter.

Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading." He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as "anti-Semitic"
if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who has said "they want
to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by Gentiles. They
want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have
no such interests... "

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual movements
has been possible only because their Jewish character was hidden. If
Orthodox Jews had promoted multiculturalism or mass immigration or "The
Authoritarian Personality" (the book) in black coats the Jewish element
would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in fact, "the Jewish
political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and the theories themselves
had no overt Jewish content. Gentile intellectuals approaching these
theories were therefore unlikely to view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile
cultural competition or as an aspect of a specifically Jewish political
agenda." Prof. MacDonald also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal
the Jewish character of an intellectual movement by recruiting token
gentiles for visible positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was
so common in the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it
and resigned.

But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to
have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they
perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence
of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible
that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in
tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interest." This standard may seem
unduly harsh - until it is applied to white gentiles. Third-World
immigration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and forced
integration are clearly not in the interests of whites, yet many whites
embrace them, thus demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their
racial identity.

Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some Jews,
because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate gentile
society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental motivation of
Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of
the gentile-dominated power structure perceived as anti-Semitic." He
describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine as "using his
skill, reputation and popularity to undermine the intellectual confidence of
the established order."

In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes Benjamin
Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile relations on Jews:
"They may have become so odious and so hostile to mankind as to merit for
their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and
ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell and with which they are
scarcely permitted to mingle."

Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of numbers.
Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that minority there
is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect Jews. How can Jews
possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the intellectual landscape?
In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation lies in the intelligence, energy,
dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He attributes a great deal to the
average IQ of Jews - at 115, a full standard deviation above the white
gentile average - and to "their hard work and dedication, their desire to
make a mark on the world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in
personal promotion, and achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews
have worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for
survival: "Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups out compete individual strategies." He notes that there has never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.

Prof. MacDonald believe that because of the effectiveness of some Jews, it
was not even necessary that most Jews actively support anti-majoritarian
movements, but that Jewish activity was still decisive. As he puts it,
"Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were a critical factor (necessary
condition) for the triumph of the intellectual left in late
twentieth-century Western societies." This, of course, can never be tested,
but there can be no doubt that American Jews have had a disproportionate
effect on the American intellect. Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr,
writing in 1968, to the effect that "what has happened since World War II is
that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish
as it is anything else... The literate American mind has come in some
measure to think Jewishly."

Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the further
question of what difference it makes if he is right. If correct, his thesis
certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which whites lost their will.
Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their
achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe. Today they
are a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not sure
even of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries. It is very
rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of
just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such
speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.

END.