Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ethnocentrism and neoconservatism vs. Islamism

  1. Oct 3, 2004 #1
    A just published article by Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist researcher who specializes in group evolutionary strategies including Jewish-gentile conflicts, is the best compilation available of the neoconservatives' influence on the Bush war agenda. Unfortunately, even if Kerry wins the election, the war in Iraq will continue on pretty much the same, leaving Europe as the only force that will prevent us all from sliding into another world war.

    http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html [Broken]

    For a summary of MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies, see:

    http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 3, 2004 #2
    So the Jews are behind both the liberal left, Communism and the neoconservatives?

    As I have asked before in the thread below, is there any evidence that different races vary in "ethnocentrism"? And that is genetic?

    History seems to indicate that societies that have persecuted Jews have declined in economic and political power. Is there any contrary evidence?

  4. Oct 3, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Germany is the great counterexample to this. No nation was worse in persecuting its Jews, and before it began that it was weak and poor (Weimar republic) and now it is the most powerful country in Europe. Of course that's cherry picking the stages, but they are the natural ones too.
  5. Oct 3, 2004 #4
    Yes they started on the left and went then to the right. Both reasoned in there religious world view. Their religion is also the base of there community. So it is easy to mix things up… They believe they are with god, and that’s one of the most dangerous things in history. (But Mr. Bush isn’t a Jew….)… Thinking is doubting.

    That the Jews is connected with a positive Impact on a society as a hole has to do with the fact that a state witch hasn’t trouble hasn’t to find after a patsy. (How many Jews are in the USA?). Ore / and with the openness in thinking of the stats leaders. You can compare this with the openness of Islamic ore Japanese leaders adverse Christian communities.
  6. Oct 3, 2004 #5
    The Weimar republic existed only for a short time after the WWI. A better comparison should instead be to the German Reich before WWI. It was the greatest economic and military power in Europe, something Germany today has yet to achieve.

    But more importantly, Hitler killed most of the Jews in Europe and many of the rest moved to the United States. So one cannot compare Germany to the rest of Europe. The best comparison should instead be between Germany or Europe and the United States. And the center of power has certainly moved from Europe after WWII, both economically and politically.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2004
  7. Oct 3, 2004 #6
    It is true that the Jews have traditionally been left liberals. For some good explanations of this:


    And it is true that many of leading left intellectuals have been Jews. But this is also true of many of the leading right intellectuals. In fact, there are many, many Jews in all the different fields of science.

    Last edited: Oct 3, 2004
  8. Oct 3, 2004 #7
    If you read the article it clearly points out that most Jews are liberal. The neocons are a very small group of intellectuals who happen to be primarily Jewish - and as MacDonald points out - are a quite diverse group except in a couple of areas, one of them being 100% supporters of the Likud party in Israel. That is, they are Jewish hardliners. He goes into the history of these shakers and movers, including Cheney and Rumsfeldt, and discusses how they came to take these positions, how they meandered from the Democratic Party to influencing Bush, etc. No conspiracies, just a history of a movement.

    Whether ethnocentrism is environmental or genetic isn't the issue. Humans are very groupish, and they will turn on their own or become very ethnocentric under varying conditions. Most behavioral traits are about 50% genetic, I would be surprised if ethnocentrism was much different. But unfortunately, because of political correctness, behavioral geneticists have not studied ethnocentrism as deeply as they have intelligence and behavioral traits.

    I have also heard just the reverse. I am not aware of any sincere and unbiased research proving either side, so it seems we should be concerned with human behavior and what is coming at us in the future based on expectations. To me that indicates that the hatred between the Islamists and the Jews is real, formidable, and will persist now for a very long time. And as a nation, where do our interests lie? How will Europe react to the unfolding events, or China and Japan? It is important therefore to understand who the players are that are pushing for war. That includes the neocons, Hamas, etc.

    We seem to take great delight in psychoanalyzing the mind of the Islamist, and then we shriek with horror when we similarly look at the motives of Jews. Why is one encouraged and the other off-limits?
  9. Oct 3, 2004 #8
    I have yet to any evidence that "ethnocentrism" is a "behavioral trait" that varies between races, genetic or otherwise.

    Can you give any historical examples? And an explanation for the historical examples that points in the opposite direction.

    Any Jewish "ethnocentrism" seems to be utterly failing today, probably due to the fact that they are no longer forced to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone":
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2004
  10. Oct 3, 2004 #9
    Whether ethnocentrism is genetic or environmental is not the issue and was not proposed by me in this post. You are straying off topic. If you want to debate its genetic versus environmental components take it to another thread.

    I think there is very little evidence one way or the other, and I fail to see what it has to do with neocons involvement in promoting a war in the Middle East.

    Are the Gypsies, another group that lives a diaspora lifestyle, also forced to dwell alone? Are you claiming that the Jews were "forced" not to assimilate? I'm not sure why or where you are going with this, and what it has to do with the issue of whether the neocons are allied with the Likud Party, and that Bush is surrounded by neocons? That is the issue, and it is not a Jewish issue since very few Jews are neocons. The only link between Jews and neocons just happens to be that neocons just happen to be Likud sympathizers, and any neocon that deviates from 100% support for Israel (and open borders in the United States and Europe), is purged from the movement. That is, it is rigidly ideological on those two issues alone. That is what is interesting: most of the people around Bush are neocons, yet there are only a handful of neocons active in politics. It is not a "Jewish" issue as you are trying to make it. I would guess that most Jews do not like the war in Iraq anymore than I do.
  11. Oct 3, 2004 #10
    The question is whether there even is a trait called "ethnocentrism" that vary between races, not primarily if it is genetic or not. Your title refer to "ethnocentrism" but you seem unable to provide any evidence that this exists.

    So you cannot explain the historical examples I give.

    It way you who introduced "MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies", not I.

    So why do you have the word "ethnocentrism" in the title? And refer to "group evolutionary strategies" for Jews? Why didn't you post in the political forum that Jews may have undue influence on foreign policy (like many other special interest groups, racial or not)?

    If you want to link the Jews with various behavioral/genetic traits, you have to accept criticism. Even if you don't like it and can't answer.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2004
  12. Oct 3, 2004 #11
    The Jews were forced to "live alone" if they didn't want to give up their religion. Now they no longer have to make that choice. If the trait "ethnocentrism" were the causal factor, they would still be separated from the rest of society.

    The Gypsies may have an IQ of about 85. Their separation and lifestyle may very well be an adaption to this and not primarily a voluntary choice due to the trait "ethnocentrism". Why assume that they differ on two variables when one is enough?
    http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/elite.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  13. Oct 4, 2004 #12
    Hey all, I'm new to the forum but I'm a student of anthropology and I'd like to offer another perspective.

    1- If Cultural Ideology A is ethnocentric, and Cultural Ideology B is also ethnocentric, and this behavior is genetically motivated, how are they genetically different?

    Does Neocon ethnocentrism= Islamic ethnocentrism= Jewish ethnocentrism?

    The colors might be different, but the underlining patterns are nearly identical.

    2- If ethnocentrism is a cultural trait, then egocentrism would be the individual trait. Naturally, this behavior is a double edged sword. On the one hand, this behavior trait favors environmental and sexual "fittness", thus, this behavior trait could originate genetically. On the other hand, humans need other humans for survival. Any human individual with too many egocentric behavior alleles would represent a potential danger to itself and the human community/ culture around it. This becomes true macroscopically as the human individual projects personal identity upon a community. Cultures become ethnocentric, and when these spheres of influence overlap, if conflict isn't resolved symbolically, war ensues. Hence, our "war on terrorism." In this way, cultures evolve, and it might be said that egocentric behavior alleles, and therefore ethnocentrism, vary according to natural selection.

    I hope this wasn't a meaningless ramble. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2004
  14. Oct 4, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Good to see this perspective. On your item one, genes might not be quite so deterministic as you suppose since they are observed to act on rates and propensities and not just as on-off switches.
  15. Oct 4, 2004 #14
    Ethnocentrism does not have to "vary between races" for the Jewish neocons in the U.S. to try and manipulate politics for the benefit of Israel. I would also try to manipulate the political system to benefit Europeans over any other race. The article has to do with who the neocons are, along with their motives. It is not an indictment of their actions - every ethnic group should work for bettering their own kind.

    As to ethnocentrism, I do not want to get into a debate about as it is off topic. But within the biological sciences it is a fundamental component of all studies dealing with cooperation, altruism, etc. Two books I recently obtained deal with it at length: "Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation" and "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings in Evolutionary Theory." Both books are research summations that came out of conferences by leading academics in the subject. Not only is ethnocentrism real, it is a fundamental principle of evolutionary psychology.

    What historical examples are you talking about?

    I didn't say Jews have "undue" influence on foreign policy, though Jews do say something similar. In the recent book "Jews in American Politics," written by a number of Jewish scholars, they discuss at length how Jews have far more economic, political and media power than any other group in the United States in terms of the small number of Jews in the U.S.

    I can answer, but you were off topic. I takes time to do searches for a single person who won't even read the original linked article. You have not responded to one part of the original article, instead you have tried to take the debate in numerous directions that have nothing to do with the article.
  16. Oct 4, 2004 #15
    The Jews were not "forced" to live alone. They could have intermarried with those around them as much as they liked. Everyone else was marrying others as they chose. How were the Jews "forced" to form enclaves separate from everyone else?

    Because their diaspora patterns of living indicate that it is ethnocentrism and not IQ, though it is low, that makes them a people who dwell alone. They, like Jews, have chosen separation because of ethnocentrism. I am not aware of any study that shows that there is a correlation between intelligence and ethnocentrism.
  17. Oct 4, 2004 #16
    Ethnocentrism underlies all human behavior as a genetic trait. It varies markedly between individuals and between races. It also varies through indoctrination. Patriotism is a form of maladaptive ethnocentrism when governments can convince young men to become suicide bombers or die in battle. These old tribal instincts will continue to confound modern human social structures unless we can understand them better.
  18. Oct 4, 2004 #17
    You referenced the following article in your introductory statement, so obviously it is important to this thread:
    http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm [Broken]
    1. Society does not gain from persecution of Jews. Europe has declined in economic, politic and scientific power after the holocaust. Se also the examples in this thread.

    2 Jews do not aim "to impose a medieval anti-scientific orthodoxy on much of the contemporary intellectual world".

    The contributions of Jews to science:

    3. "And how many millions of people died because of the Jewish promotion of Marxism just to keep their blood pure". Jews have supported the left for entirely different reasons:

    4. The Jews have not chosen voluntarily to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone"

    Roman empire, Constantine the Great, Roman emperor
    Catholic Church, Pope Innocent
    http://www.aihgs.com/GSTDdoc1.htm [Broken]

    When they now have been given the chance, they are rapidly losing their identity and marrying outside their group. This contradicts the predictions of the "ethnocentrism" theory.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  19. Oct 4, 2004 #18
    If so, why do they who have the ability leave the group? And why do they accept outsiders?
    http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...y/IQ/elite.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  20. Oct 4, 2004 #19
    What are the studies in peer-reviewed journals that support your claim that it is genetic?

    Obviously different groups can feel an internal identity and have a bias against outside groups. For example, Republicans, sport teams, sport fans, military units, nerds, nations or unions. Or groups formed by language or religion. But what is the evidence that groups formed by race have a stronger internal and external bias than the other kinds of groups?
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2004
  21. Oct 5, 2004 #20
    Call me old fashioned, but I don't think the term "race" is a valid qualifier for distinguishing human ethnic groups. If this is true, then your question has no real world answer. Perhaps (nuenke) means genetic lineage, but then again, being that enthocentrism varies across ALL cultures and ALL lineages, I think the level of ethnocentrism within any group varies according to relative cultural ideology, as opposed to any specific behavior allel.

    Here, it is interesting to note that cultural ideologies are subjective and cognitively synthetic realtive to the natural world.

    I'm all for that. The human predisposition towards displacement in thought has allowed human culture to evolve beyond the environmental boundaries of our world, as in, we primates now have the ability to build entirely synthetic environments and store environmental information outside of the biological parameters of our limited brains.

    Our Reality is subjective... this statement tends to piss people off but it's true. The universe provides the fabric, and our minds create the meaning. Although I think enthnocentrism might have a minor genetic origin (as in reproductive "fittness") ultimately, the level of bias within ethnocentric perspectives is determined by cultural imprinting which, although the neural infrastructure for cultural programming is genetic in origin, the actual mechanisms which influence cultural perspective are subjective, i.e. created by the human mind.

    Does this make sense? I'm sure I'm a small fish in a big pond here at physicsforums but this is something I given a lot of thought and research to and I would certainly like to know more about what other people think.
  22. Oct 6, 2004 #21
    Group conflict is not premised on whether or not societies gain from it or not. There is a great deal of evolutionary evidence that indicates that what motivates humans is ethnocentrism and that evolution of humans was in large part driven by tribal conflict. That is, humans are not economically rational in how they behave, and there is more to life than "societies gain" when it comes to human behavior. You could just as well tell Blacks that they should stop complaining, they are much better off having been born to ex-slaves who were brought here by force. Somehow, that argument just does not satisfy them. And nor will the argument that this or that race or minority helps a country. Conflict will follow in the footsteps of heterogeneous nations. You as much stated as much yourself when you listed the conflicts as reported by Chua from her book "World on Fire."

    As for Europe's decline, I was not aware that they were in decline. And what is the reference you are using? I think Europe is troubled like every country/coalition, but I have never seen any evidence that it is because of the Holocaust.

    You are using a lot of snippets from history and Jewish apologia to try and deflect their extreme ethnocentrism. Yes, for 3,000 years they have been in conflict with those around them because they are so genetically tribal or as some would state it moral particularists. They are genetically the same as Arabs, and we can see just how well they get along with each other: they are all extremely tribal. There seems to be a continuum of extreme tribalism (ethnocentrism) from the Middle East, through the Balkans and then decreasing in Western Europe.

    The explanation for this has been that Europeans evolved in a sparsely populated part of the world during glaciations, and cooperation, universal moralism, was more critical to survival than warfare between tribes. Having just read Mithen's "After the Ice: A Global Human History - 20,000 to 5,000 BC" I can see these differences. The way the dead were buried, symbolism, the structure of sites for hunting, they all varied a great deal between different parts of the world. In the Middle East for example, the dead were buried inside homes, the bodies dug up later and the skulls worshipped, like ancestor worship. Ancestry worship is closely related to ethnocentrism, and we would expect it to predominate where tribalism is salient to survival. In Europe, cooperation during hunts, trading, etc. was more important than killing your competitors - so ethnocentrism was attenuated.

    I was wondering why I could not state more definitively that ethnocentrism was genetic, it seemed so obvious. About a year ago I searched Questia and I could not find as much research material as I would have expected. But since your questions, it has occurred to me that it goes by many different names, and it is found meandering through all of universal Darwinism. Hamilton and Trivers opened up the discussion with altruism. Then it moved to denial of group selection, to again embracing it over the last decade or so. Now I realize that ethnocentrism is a fundamental part of the foundation of the science of "human" evolution, and without it none of the rest of it makes any sense. The reason that humans differ is because we are capable of punishing defectors - no other organism can do that. So group selection is now accepted orthodoxy - without it human behavior cannot even be begun to be explained. I referenced two books toward the beginning of this thread that shows how fundamental ethnocentrism, or ethnic nepotism as it is sometimes called, is to researching all kinds of human behaviors.

    Now back to your assertions. If Jews were less ethnocentric than Europeans, then like Europeans they would not be concerned with intermarriage. Now, is that in fact the case? Well, let's get back to Chua's "World on Fire." She states that Lebanese Christians (Semites) who have come to dominate many African and Latin American countries do not intermarry. I believe she stated that this was especially so for the women, but not always the men. That would lead me to believe that they are an extremely ethnocentric race. How about Jews, who are also Semites, are they similar? It would seem so, because Jews are obsessed with "the Silent Holocaust." That is, where Jews marry non-Jews. There is no equivalency among European Whites for shunning interracial marriage as long as the other race is not considered low quality like Blacks or Amerindians. Most Whites consider marrying East Asians as very acceptable. In fact, a study in Hawaii where showed that Whites and East Asians easily intermarried, but not Blacks and Whites - Blacks having a low average IQ.

    Israel is another example. I am not aware of any nation that is promoting "only Whites need enter." Yet Israel is based on the premise that it is to be the homeland of the Jewish race. The Kurds likewise want their own nation - they do not want to share it with other Muslims that are not their kin. The same is true in the Balkans. In my opinion then, the default hypotheses are this: ethnocentrism/cooperation is fundamental to human evolution and it varied in different parts of the world under varying ecologies. If we look at different races, because of their evolutionary past, it seems that they differ on a number of behavioral traits including intelligence and ethnocentrism, among others. There is no evidence that humans have evolved to fixation when it comes to these behavioral traits, so I must assume that they are deep structures in our mental armamentarium and differ according to the needs required by different races to survive.

    Now, if Semites are equally ethnocentric to other races, we need to determine this by using the methodology of behavior genetics. I think the evidence so far from MacDonald, Rushton, and a number of other researchers suggest Whites tend towards universalistic versus particularistic moralism, while Semites are more particularist. What do you think?
  23. Oct 6, 2004 #22
    "Jewish apologia"? Should they apologize for creating wealth and science useful for the whole of society and in return being murdered, robbed and tortured?

    Persecution and forced isolation:

    You avoid answering most of my critique. Concerning the points you make:

    Serious group conflicts in heterogenous nations is certainly not inevitable. One example is Jews in the U.S. Anyhow, genetic engineering will make race irrelevant.

    Europe has declined relatively to the U.S after Holocaust, although certainly still making economic and scientific progress.

    Whites have certainly also been extremely "tribal" in their history. Look at enormous numbers of wars and states in European history. At times hundreds of small warring states in Germany alone. The recent peace in Europe is an extreme historical anomaly.

    Whites have certainly also shunned intermarriage through history, also especially for women. This has weakened recently, as it have for Jews.
    http://slate.msn.com/id/30352/ [Broken]

    Israel's immigration policy is no evidence that "Semites" have more "ethnocentrism". Japan and Finland are also examples of nations that today are extremely selective about who are allowed to immigrate. Earlier, the U.S. policy on immigration was "whites only".
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  24. Oct 7, 2004 #23
    Jewish apologia is usually aimed at deflecting charges of Jewish superiority - "The Chosen People." It has little to do with their contributions to science or wealth accumulation. Over and over again, the Jews were emancipated and expected to assimilate. Instead, they maintained their separateness - that is what kept getting them into trouble. Of course, the fact that they have such a high IQ added salt to the wound of those who envied them.

    There are only tendencies. Under Communism, the state forced Balkan races to get along. It was later they started fighting again. And how will genetic engineering make race irrelevant? It may create new races, or even new species, as humans begin a genetic arms race. If anything, humans are set to begin a new speciation process.

    You said this before, but you have provided no proof. The EU seems to be doing very well, while the US is bogged down in a nasty war. But to compare nations, you first need to lay down some criteria. Is it GDP, quality of life, longevity, education, happiness, what?

    Just like in Iraq, modern wars are started by the elite, and that includes a great deal of Jewish influence. As a starting point to this thread, the reason we went into Iraq was at the behest of the Jewish neocons. That is what MacDonald clearly shows in his article, and it is being discussed by many academics and activists, and can be found in mainstream publications buried within lengthy articles.

    Of course, culture is very influential in setting up value systems, and intermarriage between races is tolerated more now than before. But Jews still are obsessed with the "Silent Holocaust" whereas Whites have no equivalent lamentations on a collective basis.

    However, if you look at what nations are the most tolerant, take in the largest number of displaced persons, asylum seekers, etc. it is only those nations that are predominantly European. If I look at all of the indicators that indicates differences in ethnocentrism between races, Whites seem to stand out as being far less ethnocentric than any other. World relief, disarmament, environmentalism, open borders, laws against hate speech, etc. This level of moral universalism is only found in European nations. That leads me to believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Whites are very maladaptive in their lack of ethnocentrism, which will lead to their eventual decline. But, Whites deserve what they get if they are too blind to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
  25. Oct 8, 2004 #24
    Europe has not gained since killing it's Jews.


    Politically, Europa in 1945 controlled most of the world's population and natural resources. Those colonies are gone now. Today, the U.S. is the world's only superpower.

    http://www.oenb.at/de/img/paper_levy_tcm14-16017.pdf [Broken]

    And higher GDP/capita means more income for all, even the poorest:
    http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html [Broken]

    For a comparison between Europe and the U.S relevant to this forum, look at the income of engineers:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  26. Oct 8, 2004 #25
    Whites have not been less "ethnocentric" than others races historically. People all over the world have participated in genocides, and whites seems to have done their fair share:

    Concerning displaced persons and refugees,

    Concerning intermarriage, some white supremacist and religious groups are lamenting this, as are some Jewish groups. That there still today may be stronger sense of identity among Askenazy Jews than among the much larger population of whites, should not be surprising considering sociological factors like the Holocaust, common religion and their history of genocides and forced isolation. Anyhow, this identity is vanishing quite rapidly.

    Jews through most of history found refugee in Arabic countries, until the state of Israel was created. This speaks against the theory that "Semites" have high ethnocentrism. In fact, that Sephardic Jews have much lower intelligence than Askenazy Jews is another indication that the theory of voluntary isolation and selective breeding for intelligence is wrong. The Askenazy Jews developed high intelligence primarily from natural selection due to the forced isolation and repeated slaughters of Jews that only took place in Europe. It there was a master breeding plan, it should have been successful also among the Sephardic Jews.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook