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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook