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

The Origins of Modern Sociology: Marxism, Freud, Boas, and General Liberalism

  1. Mar 24, 2004 #1
    Preface to the First Paperback Edition of
    The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

    Originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT

    © 2001
    Kevin MacDonald
    Department of Psychology
    California State University-Long Beach
    Long Beach, CA 90840-0901
    kmacd@csulb.edu

    November 2001

    The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC) was originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed, not only because it is difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence.

    CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews.

    You can read the full article at Professor Kevin MacDonald's university campus website, the direct URL is http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 24, 2004 #2
    Racist

    This is racist. Someone ban this member and delete this post immediately.
     
  4. Mar 24, 2004 #3
    Re: Racist

    Hello 6626068,

    Thank you for sharing your perspective with me. I greatly valued your input in this thread and look forward to even more analysis of today's times by you.

    Best wishes.
     
  5. Mar 24, 2004 #4
    Re: Racist

    Hahahaha! Yes, credentialed scientists who do solid research are often decried as "racist" by insecure defenders of the status quo. But the McCarthian anti-racists, PC zealots, and other Priests of the Apocalypse are increasingly finding that no one is intimidated by these petty threats anymore. Kevin MacDonald is a brave man - would you have the courage to stand before the Medieval Catholic Church and tell them that the Earth is round?

    --Mark


    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    --George Orwell
     
  6. Mar 24, 2004 #5

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ~1.3b people live in China, ~1b live in India, ~0.2b live in Indonesia; ~0.7b live in Africa.

    Have Jews, or Judaism, played any significant role in the history of these places? Except, of course, indirectly through the spread of ideas that were subsequently taken up, cynically used, (whatever) by such historical figures as Sukarno, Ghandi, Mao Zedong, Mandela, ...?

    AFAIK, 'anti-Semitism' has about as much meaning in these places as 'anti-Zhuangism' does in the US.
     
  7. Mar 24, 2004 #6
    This is racist. We are all the same. The very suggestion that different groups of people behave differently is racist. Weren't you guys paying attention in Liberalism 101?
     
  8. Mar 30, 2004 #7
    Some of my research on the decline of 'race' within American Physical Anthropology:

    More evidence will be provided here that the decline of the 'concept of race' within American Anthropology stems from ideological and political motives.

    "The story I tell in these pages is how Americans like me, that is, students of human nature - social scientists - made the momentous shift from believing that biology explained some human actions to seeing culture or human experience - history, if you will -as the primary if not the sole source of differential behaviour of human beings. What kinds of evidence and argument were used to bring that shift in outlook, who made them, and why, are among the questions I seek to answer in the first part of the book. More is involved, of course, than identifying and explicating the crucial ideas or even the advocates of those ideas. As in any study of the acceptance of a new paradigm or way of thinking, the crucial historical question is why did others accept and then being to work within the new dispensation that some innovative leaders were propounding? Why did so many repudiate the traditional in favour of the novel?

    That part of the story was not easy to find answers for. As all historians know, "why" questions on the grand scale are the most fundamental, but also the most difficult to document fully. I have made some suggestions and offer some supporting evidence, but much of the story, I fear, remains recalcitrantly undocumented; too much of it remains in the heads of the dead and the living alike. What the available evidence does seem to show is that ideology or philosophical belief that the world could be a freer and more just place played a large part in the shift from biology to culture. Science, or at least certain scientific principles or innovative scholarship also played a role in the transformation, but only a limited one. The main impetus came from the wish to establish a social order in which innate and immutable forces of biology played no role in accounting for the behaviour of social groups. Individuals certainly differed in ability and achievement, but those differences derived from their individual inheritances, not from the biology of the social group to which they may have belonged. To the proponents of culture the goal was the elimination of nativity, race, and sex, and any other biologically based characteristic that might serve as an obstacle to an individual's self-realization.

    That an ideological purpose should thus shape the answers to what might otherwise seem to be a scientific question is not a novel idea. Scientists, social and natural, are human beings and for that reason alone, if no other, their investigations have been known to be initiated, even directed by unspoken values and hopes. Those scholars who have exposed and criticized the past misuse of biological ideas in social science have quite properly called attention to the large part ideology played in fostering those uses of biology. But much less widely acknowledged is the view that ideology also underpinned the repudiation of biology in social science and encourages the present widespread acceptance of culture as the alternative explanation fro the behaviour of human beings."


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

    This is damning. More on Boas' circular reasoning.

    "In sum, Boas came to the United States with an outlook that emphasized equality of opportunity, freedom of inquiry, and openness toward people who were different and socially excluded. Racial explanations, as far was he was concerned, only closed off opportunity and acceptance. Many scholars might see people of different appearance as different in mind also. But, as Boas wrote in 1894, he was still waiting for the proof. In short, Boas approached the question of race with a defined ideological position that shaped his answer."

    Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press,1991), p.74

    More on Boas and his pseudoscience:

    "Boas did not arrive at the position from a disinterested, scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question . . .There is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological framework - racism - which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society. . . .there is a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public."

    Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press,1991), pp.82-83


    Degler also notes in his study of the decline of Darwinism in American anthropology was caused not by any new empirical data, but by an ideological shift, a shift in which Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental (p.200). Derek Freeman also notes (Current Anthropology 32:322-330) that Boas was opposed to genetic research which he describes as Boas's "obscurantist antipathy to genetics." More on Boas' politicization of anthropology here:

    Stocking (1992a) argues that Boas's career linked science and politics in support of liberal-democratic ideals rooted in the anthropologist's identity and experiences as a German of Jewish descent. Quoting Boas, Stocking writes:

    "Boas was born in 1858, a decade after the liberal revolution and thirteen years before the emancipation of German Jewry was finally formalized in the constitution of the German Empire in 1871. His family were assimilating Jews who had broken "the shackles of dogma" and embraced the "ideals of the revolution of 1848." In Boas' own version of those ideals, education and equality of opportunity, political and intellectual liberty, the rejection of dogma and the search for scientific truth, the identification with all humanity and devotion to its progress were all a single part of a left-liberal posture similar to that of his anthropological mentor Rudolf Virchow. [1992a:94-95]"


    Gelya Frank, 'Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology', American Anthropologist 99(4): p. 731-745

    Geyla Frank also discusses the Judaification of anthropology in American Anthropolgist, going into some detail:

    There has always been a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology's Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline. Jewish histories foreground the roles and deeds of Jews, actually a very small minority: less than 3 percent of the world and of this nation's population (Schmelz and Della Pergola 1995). From that vantage, the development of American anthropology appears part of Jewish history. This essay brings together strands of various discourses on Jews in anthropology for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially ones concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism.

    The public silence or omission concerning anthropology's Jews is due mainly to the tone of liberal humanism and cosmopolitanism set by founder Franz Boas (1858-1942), himself a Jewish German immigrant, who in 1896 established the nation's first department of anthropology at Columbia University. There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the discipline of anthropology and individual anthropologists, either because Jews were considered dangerous due to their presumed racial difference or because they were associated with radical causes. Any remaining silence should probably be chalked up to indifference.


    Gelya Frank, 'Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology', American Anthropologist 99(4): p. 731-745

    Is Boasian anthropology Jewish? You bet it is.

    Sandra Harding's multiculturalist question (1994) may also be applied here: Is anthropology in some sense a Jewish science? My phrasing is meant to be provocative, aiming both to recall and to subvert the basis for such modern historical phenomena as Freud's fear that psychoanalysis would be rejected if associated exclusively with its Jewish founders (Cuddihy 1974), "scurrilous attacks on Einstein's 'Jewish theory' of relativity in the name of German physics" during the Third Reich (Peukert 1987[1982]:94), the burning of Boas's works by the Nazis (Pathe 1989). The question is meant to underscore the fact that Boas, like other modern European Jewish intellectuals, lived in a Jewish condition. Therefore my answer is yes, but a qualified yes.

    Gelya Frank, 'Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology', American Anthropologist 99(4): p. 731-745
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2004
  9. Mar 30, 2004 #8
    Speaking of China, a country where Jewish influence is practically nonexistent, what is the status of the concept of race there?

    "Kaszycka and Štrkalj‘s(CA 43:229-36) survey of the attitudes of Polish biological anthropologists toward the concept of race showed notable differences from those revealed by similar studies in the United States. Our own survey, conducted with a Chinese sample, revealed more such national differences.

    We examined the status of the concept of race in China through a survey of articles in Acta Anthropologica Sinica, China’s only journal of biological anthropology. From the journal’s inception in 1982, 78 issues were published up to the end of 2001. Four of them were dedicated to topics not concerned with human variation. In the remaining 74 issues , of 779 articles 324 (41%) were directly related to the study of human variation. All of these papers were written in Chinese with an abstract in English , and their authors were paleo-anthropologists, human biologists, forensic anthropologists, anatomists and geneticists. We assume that the attitudes toward race expressed in their publications reflect the general view of this group of scientists.

    To determine whether the concept of race was utilized we used the similar criteria adopted by Cartmill (1998:654) in a similar survey of articles published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:” ‘Racial categories,’ as defined here, include traditional racial taxa [‘Austroloids’], self-contradictory geographical descriptions [‘Australian Europeans’], ethnic identifications inferred by the researcher just by looking at people, and any other groupings in terms of supposed historical origin rather than observable characteristics.” When we applied Cartmill’s approach to the Chinese sample we found that all of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value. Since these active researchers are also members of the teaching staffs at various educational institutions, it is very likely that this attitude will be transmitted to the next generation of Chinese scientists.

    The results of the Chinese survey contrast dramatically with those obtained from similar studies in Poland (Kaszycka and Štrkalj 2002) and the United States
    (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1982 , Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1989, Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1996, Cartmill 1998, Lieberman and Kirk 2002). In these two countries there has been a shift (albeit different in each) towards a nonracial approach to the study of human variation, with the younger generation apparently being more likely to adopt this approach. This shift does not appear in China, where race seems to be accepted as “natural” by all generations of anthropologists. There are probably many reasons for these differences, but some of the main ones are to be found in the different historical, social, and political contexts in which science is practiced (for China, see Dikotter 1992)."

    Qian Wang, Goran Štrkalj, and Li Sun, ‘On the Concept of Race in Chinese Biological Anthropology: Alive and Well’, Current Anthropology, (June 2003), Vol. 44, Issue 3, p.403, 1p
     
  10. Mar 30, 2004 #9

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    MacDonald argues that Jews are secretly manipulating western society to enhance the position of Jews to the detriment of those of European descent. He argues that action should be taken to oppose this. This is manifestly anti-semetic. The argument can not be about whether he is anti-semetic. By any definition of the term, he essentially labels himself so, proudly. The only argument is about whether anti-semitism is proper. The fact that he denies being anti-semetic merely demonstrates his dishonesty.

    Njorl
     
  11. Mar 30, 2004 #10
    Njorl sets up here and old and quite famous strawman argument and knocks it over. MacDonald does not argue that any Jewish conspiracy exists (MacDonald, CoC p.1). In fact, the vast majority of MacDonald's sources are themselves Jewish. Those of us who have taken the time to actually read MacDonald's books are quite aware of this.

    Where?

    Whether or not an argument can be classified as 'anti-Semitic' has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or false.

    Where does MacDonald label himself an anti-Semite?

    What is 'anti-Semitism'?

    More puerile slander.
     
  12. Mar 30, 2004 #11

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Hey Njection, does this look familiar?

    "CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews. "

    It is at the top of the thread you know. It does support everything I said.

    You asked what anti-Semitism was. Evidently, as far as you are concerned, nothing is.

    Njorl
     
  13. Apr 2, 2004 #12
    ...Which somehow, via a series of arcane mathematical transformations, translates to "This is manifestly untrue?" What is going on inside of your head such that you equate politically unpopular with factually incorrect? No, don't answer that, Njorl, I can only imagine that in doing so you would further expose an underlying confusion between what you wish were true and what should be true and what would make you feel good if it were true and what actually is true. I will note however that there are Jews around who agree with MacDonald; you just might find one if you consider this thread here:

    http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=180&start=15


    I thought you said Kevin MacDonald felt that "action should be taken to oppose this." Maybe he does, but how do you get that from the quote? Do you somehow read "At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues" to mean "Wir sollen etwas um die Judisches Problem tun!" Seriously, Njorl, what is it in your thought processes which allows you to you get from - Oh God, never mind.


    --Mark
     
  14. Apr 2, 2004 #13

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Nachtwolf,
    I did not comment directly upon the truth or falsehood of MacDonalds claims. You do realize, I hope, that your comments indicate that you agree that MacDonald's claims are anti-semtic. You just maintain that he is right to be so. Is that what you meant to say? I ask because you so clearly have great difficulty with comprehension. You do not seem to understand most of what I say. Perhaps you could get Hitsquad to explain it to you in small words.

    Njorl
     
  15. Apr 2, 2004 #14
    True! You commented directly on your idea that he believes that "action should be taken to oppose this (Jewish domination of Western culture)." You only commented indirectly on the truth or falsehood of MacDonald's claims. After all, if MacDonald's ideas are factual, then it really makes no difference whether he doesn't like Jews.

    No, my comments don't indicate anything of the sort. In fact they indicate the opposite, as I pointed out a Jew whom you just might find to agree with MacDonad; is he an Antisemite? Jews are a highly intelligent (IQ ~110) minority in the West who use their intelligence to benefit themselves. Accepting this does not magically cause me, or MacDonald, or anyone else, to hate and oppose Jews.

    MacDonald is right to believe the truth, yes. What you see as "Anti-semitism," I see as an appreciation of - follow me, here - reality.

    How quaint! This is absolutely charming! While you're fantasizing about my "difficulty with comprehension," though, please don't forget that we're all still waiting for you to explain how MacDonald's passage shows he feels something should be done about those Jews. Here, I'll requote it for you:

    CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews.

    Hahaha!


    --Mark
     
  16. Apr 2, 2004 #15

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews."

    We are not in a court of law. We are not arguing whether there is any other possible interpretation of this statement. Sure, there is a lot of wiggle room in the meaning. That is precisely why he phrased it that way. Professional bigotry is always presented in an ambiguous format.

    When he says Jews are conspiring to make a Jewish friendly society to the expense of all others, it is implied that the others (including himself) should do something about it. If someone runs into a room and tells you, "The building is on fire!", do you just sit there? No, you do something about it.

    The point of my posts, stated repeatedly, is that MacDonald, and obviously you as well, are anti-semitic. I have not passed judgement upon his claims. I have not presented any judgement as to whether or not anti-semitism is proper. MacDonald has presented rhetoric of a manifestly anti-semitic purpose - to oppose the Jewish agenda of cultural manipulation. I have merely claimed that his character is suspect because he is unwilling to accept the accurate label of anti-semite.

    If the Jewish conspiracy is reality, you should be proud to call yourself an anti-semite. Why do you not?

    Njorl
     
  17. Apr 2, 2004 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oooh, ooh, can I have this one?! [raises hand]
     
  18. Apr 2, 2004 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    MacDonald testified on behalf of Holocaust denier, David Irving. A little insight into Kevin MacDonald.

    Here's an exerpt from an article about MacDonald.

    "Today, I want to talk about IQ," MacDonald says as he puts a transparency on the classroom's overhead projector.

    MacDonald's voice doesn't travel far into the large room, which is the shape of a giant pie wedge, and students strain to hear him. The desks radiate away from him in arcing rows and up a slightly sloping floor. About two-thirds of them are filled with students, who, judging by their questions, seem most eager to find out which parts of MacDonald's lecture might show up on the developmental psych midterm.

    "IQ is very important," MacDonald says. "IQ is probably the most important individual human difference that we deal with."

    He describes the history of IQ testing, starting with its 1905 invention by Alfred Binet who wanted a way to identify French schoolchildren in need of special tutoring. (Binet didn't intend for his Intelligence Quotient to be interpreted as a measurement of a tangible, objective mental attribute, but that's just what it's become.)

    MacDonald tells his students there's no reliable way to raise children's IQ, and then mentions that there was a famous book published a few years ago called The Bell Curve.

    MacDonald makes a brief mention that the book was controversial, but then he puts a chart from the book on his projector with the implication that its data represents good science. The chart shows how lower IQ predicts that an individual will have lower income, more children, and more illegitimate children.

    "The dull ones are more fertile -- what does this mean for our future?" MacDonald asks offhandedly, and his students laugh.

    Authors Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray collected hundreds of studies on IQ and different ethnic groups, and claimed that the data suggested that Asians had slightly higher average intelligence than whites, who in turn outscored blacks. The writers claimed that these were the result of genetic differences, and that if blacks were inherently less intelligent, it was a waste of time to promote affirmative action in schools and industry.

    But many scientists accused Herrnstein and Murray of using highly questionable data and fudging their numbers to match their prejudices. The authors had relied heavily on IQ data developed by Richard Lynn, a controversial psychology professor at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland who espoused the view that the poor and the ill are "weak specimens whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group survival."

    Critics pointed out that Lynn had received $325,000 from the Pioneer Fund, created in 1937 by several millionaires to back research in heredity, eugenics, and "race betterment." (Among its founders was Wickliffe Draper, a New York textile tycoon who advocated sending blacks to Africa.) Lynn served as an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science" that also received money from the Pioneer Fund. In the 1970s, the quarterly's editorial advisers included Baron Otmar Von Verscheur, who had been director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a doctor's post at Auschwitz.

    Critics also charged that Lynn had distorted African psychometric tests, ignored data that showed some African blacks had scored higher than African whites, and falsely concluded that African blacks average a miserable 69 on IQ tests. "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity," wrote Northeastern University's Leon Kamin. "It is a matter of shame and disgrace that [Herrnstein and Murray], fully aware of the sensitivity of the issues they address, take Lynn as their scientific tutor and uncritically accept his surveys of research."

    Still, Kevin MacDonald calls The Bell Curve a "great book." And he himself turns to Richard Lynn for the most important underpinnings of his thesis on Judaism.

    It's Lynn's work that MacDonald cites when he says that the IQs of Ashkenazi Jews are a standard deviation higher than white IQs. Indeed, MacDonald includes one of Lynn's Mankind Quarterly articles in the bibliography to his book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone.

    MacDonald also makes numerous references to the work of Canadian researcher Philippe Rushton and even makes a point of thanking Rushton in his books' forewords.

    Rushton is another Pioneer Fund recipient -- he's received more than $500,000 -- who asserts that there's an inverse correlation between brain size and penis size. He claims that blacks' larger penises are an indication not only of lower intelligence but of greater promiscuity -- a conclusion he reached based on interviewing just 50 black students at the university where he teaches. Rushton's theories have made him such an intellectual pariah that in 1989 he was investigated, but not charged, under Canadian hate-propaganda laws. (Rushton is now President of the Pioneer Fund)

    Sander Gilman, a University of Chicago cultural historian, argues that in the final analysis, MacDonald's work amounts to little more than a rehash of discredited theories about Jewish breeding that eugenicists have been making for more than a century.

    In his book Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, Gilman writes that Sir Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, asserted more than a century ago that Jews were breeding for intelligence -- although a negative, cunning sort of intelligence -- by encouraging Talmudic scholars to procreate.

    Gilman also cites conservative writer Ernest van den Haag, who in 1969 revived some of Galton's views in language that sounds remarkably like MacDonald's: "Literally for millennia, the brightest [Jewish males] had the best chance to marry and produce children, and their children had the best chance to survive infancy."

    Gilman draws parallels between MacDonald's ideas and the 1930s writings of German anthropologist Hans F. K. Gunther, whose book on Jews, says Gilman, was a "standard work of Nazi science during the 1930s and 1940s." (Gunther was also a member of the Northern League, a group founded by Mankind Quarterly publisher Roger Pearson to promote "the interests, friendship, and solidarity of all Teutonic nations.")

    According to Gilman, Gunther "attempted to describe the 'sensual,' 'threatening,' and 'crafty' gaze of the Jew as the direct result of the physiology of the Jewish face and as reflecting the essence of the Jewish soul...For [Gunther], 'the considerable average intelligence which distinguishes the Jewish people' was the result of the 'selection among the Jews' to have offspring who 'were able to adapt to the specific conditions of life among foreign people'...Preselection for intelligence through millennia of anti-Semitism becomes one of the staples for the explanation of the 'reality' of Jewish superior intelligence."

    Concludes Gilman: "MacDonald recasts all the hoary myths about Jewish psychological difference and its presumed link to Jewish superior intelligence in contemporary sociobiological garb."

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups168.html
     
  19. Apr 2, 2004 #18
    Group evolutionary strategies vs. conspiracies

    I read the first book in the MacDonald trilogy, and MacDonald seemed to me to be saying that the ingrained group evolutionary strategy of the Jews obviated any need for a conspiracy theory to explain their actions.

    BTW, the first two books in the MacDonald trilogy are available on the web in full-text here and here.
     
  20. Apr 9, 2004 #19
    That's certainly fortunate for you, because you are making things up, and judges don't take kindly to such fabrications!

    And?

    But if he did accept this big important label of yours? Would that then make him A-OK in your book? As near as I can figure, he is indifferent:

    Frank Salter’s (2000) review in Human Ethology Bulletin discussed some of the controversy surrounding my work, particularly an acrimonious session at the 2000 conference of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society where I was accused of anti-Semitism by several participants. For me the only issue is whether I have been honest in my treatment of sources and whether my conclusions meet the usual standards of scholarly research in the social sciences.

    In other words, Kevan MacDonald isn't worried about these feeble accusations, and for that matter, I am not either. I'm far more concerned with finding and understanding the truth than with walking in step with the Politically Correct.


    --Mark
     
  21. Jun 27, 2004 #20
    I found the following research by Professor Kevin MacDonald:

    Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism

    Kevin MacDonald

    Abstract

    Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.

    Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.

    The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2

    The complete article is at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding Jewish Influence II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism

    Kevin MacDonald

    The history of Zionism illustrates a dynamic within the Jewish community in which the most radical elements end up pulling the entire community in their direction. Zionism began among the most ethnocentric Eastern European Jews and had explicitly racialist and nationalist overtones. However, Zionism was viewed as dangerous among the wider Jewish community, especially the partially assimilated Jews in Western countries, because it opened Jews up to charges of disloyalty and because the Zionists’ open racialism and ethnocentric nationalism conflicted with the assimilationist strategy then dominant among Western Jews. Zionist activists eventually succeeded in making Zionism a mainstream Jewish movement, due in large part to the sheer force of numbers of the Eastern European vanguard. Over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.

    In the first part of this series I discussed Jewish ethnocentrism as a central trait influencing the success of Jewish activism.1 In the contemporary world, the most important example of Jewish ethnocentrism and extremism is Zionism. In fact, Zionism is incredibly important. As of this writing, the United States has recently accomplished the destruction of the Iraqi regime, and it is common among influential Jews to advocate war between the United States and the entire Muslim world. In a recent issue of Commentary (an influential journal published by the American Jewish Committee), editor Norman Podhoretz states, “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [i.e., Iraq, Iran, and North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ’friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”2 More than anything else, this is a list of countries that Israel doesn’t like, and, as I discuss in the third part of this series, intensely committed Zionists with close links to Israel occupy prominent positions in the Bush administration, especially in the Department of Defense and on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. The long-term consequence of Zionism is that the U.S. is on the verge of attempting to completely transform the Arab/Muslim world to produce governments that accept Israel and whatever fate it decides for the Palestinians, and, quite possibly, to set the stage for further Israeli expansionism.

    The complete article is at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no3/km-understandII.html

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    American Renaissance copyright policy stated at http://www.amren.com/Intro/information.htm:

    "Copyright

    Articles and essays original to American Renaissance and to this site may be used on the Internet free of charge, with proper attribution (author, title, date, American Renaissance, web address)."

    Originally appeared in American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/), June 1999, issue 54 entitled 'Cherchez le Juif.' Stanley Hornbeck is the pen name of a Washington, DC area businessman.

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

    Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck

    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.

    The complete article is at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/AR.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Origins of Modern Sociology: Marxism, Freud, Boas, and General Liberalism
  1. Womens Liberation? (Replies: 26)

  2. Sociology dictionary (Replies: 1)

Loading...