Post: #1

"The new globalist extreme right is made up of people who came from the Trotskyist extreme left at the outset [...] In 67, there was a turn, they underwent a quasi-religious conversion. All of a sudden they became pro Vietnam war and turned into neo conservatives [...] but when you read their writings published in journals aimed at the Jewish community, you can see that their arguments can be summarized in one sentence: If you want to protect Israel, you must continue to ensure that the US is militarily powerful and involved everywhere in the world"

Video from 15:15 to 17:02 :

http://thesaker.is/alain-soral-answers-part-1/

Post: #2

Kevin MacDonald covered how this happened at length in The Culture Of Critique, which I will review on ROK soon.

TLDR version: Jews became disenchanted by the left when parts of it started throwing Israel under the bus.

Post: #3

(04-14-2015 05:38 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Kevin MacDonald covered how this happened at length in The Culture Of Critique, which I will review on ROK soon.

TLDR version: Jews became disenchanted by the left when parts of it started throwing Israel under the bus.

So is this topic..er..kosher to discuss here? The extent to which Kevin MacDonald's theory can be used to explain the modern day West is definitely a fascinating topic for debate. With that said, going by precedent, I was wholly expecting to see that the OP had been afflicted with the banhammer when I opened this thread, haha.

Post: #4

Quote:The extent to which Kevin MacDonald's theory can be used to explain the modern day West is definitely a fascinating topic for debate.

His work is well-cited and researched. It's suitable to discuss in relation to multiculturalism and how it came about, but I don't know if the forum can do it in an unemotional way.

Post: #5

Jewish-Christian-Israeli-Zionism controls both sides of the social debate in America, just call the issue... Feminism, Middle East affairs, Russia, economic crisis, drugs wars, societal breakdown -It's headed in whatever direction this group, as a whole, needs it, but there is always one constant: Israel is untouchable. Please raise his hand he who can tell me the common ground between conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer and tasteless 'comedian' Sarah Silvermann? What about rabid pro-Israeli Alan Dershowitz and liberal pro-Palestinian Noam Chomsky? Christian-conservative Ann Coulter and liberal Nobel prize economist Paul Krugman? Feminist Jessica Valenti and anti-feminist Christina Sommers? Christian Republicans and liberal Democrats? Yes, you got it -Israel. I recommend you to read Gilad Atzmon's 'The Wandering Who', I wanted to make a review, but since my warning suspension I haven't done it. Now, it's my opinion that we can have this debate in the forum -we have developed good respectful debate skills.

Post: #6

I haven't read MacDonald. The reviews of his work in Amazon and Wikipedia say that in addition to analysis of the issue, he gives prescriptions, i.e. active discrimination against Jews in order to lessen their influence. If true, that would be very wrong and it would be wrong to promote his work.

Jews aren't much different in kind or social and political adaptation from other diaspora groups like Armenians (why Armenian Yossarian was Jew Joseph Heller's alter ego in Catch-22), Greeks, Lebanese, various Chinese and Indian merchant groups in Asia and Africa, Japanese in South America, even Iranians in the USA.

The distinction of Jews is a matter of degree, not kind: the extraordinary length of their diaspora, lasting for centuries, and the degree of persecution. Maybe this has intensified the social and genetic effects of diaspora living.

People are going to have tribal identities, stronger or weaker depending on their background. Most white Americans don't have a strong tribal identity. How tribal can a white American whose ancestors immigrated from Germany, Ireland, Slovakia and Italy in the 19th century be? These white Americans identify with the universalist USA, their religion, or nothing at all. Scotch-Irish southerners are more distinctive and tribal in this regard.

My own experience at the micro and macro levels has shown me how people both live in those identities and transcend them. On the micro level, I'm favorably disposed to the Jews for two reasons. First, even though I was a very goy Catholic kid, Jews treated me very well, as teachers in high school, as employers in small businesses when I was in high school and college, and as professional mentors in the law. Second, the Jewish American writers spoke to me in a proto-red-pill way. I read through a lot of Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, and Bernard Malamud when I was in high school, the Army, and college. These are more-or-less particularly Jewish writers who address universal, and particularly male, concerns. These were not the only writers I read, so I could compare others to them.

I came from a very tribal environment myself, one in which taking care of "our own" was standard practice in hiring, politics, and the law. I took advantage of this when it was presented to me. On one end of this tribalism, this just means social and buying preference. On the other, it means corruption and "mafia."

Within American politics there are other examples besides Israel where loud, powerful minority ethnic groups shape American policy to the arguable detriment of the nation as a whole:

Greek-American lobbying to stop arms sales to Turkey, a front-line NATO ally and host of American bases, during in the Cold War.

Armenian American lobbying to pass pointless Congressional resolutions declaring the killing of Armenians in World War I a genocide, again pissing off Turkey.

Irish American lobbying and support for the IRA, which was fighting an active insurgency against the United Kingdom, a NATO ally and host of American bases.

Cuban-American opposition to detente with Cuba and support for groups which even bombed an airliner.

Iranian-American lobbying and support for revanchist royalists, opposition to rapprochement with Iran, and support for the insane Mujahadeen i Khalq and military action.

I've seen tribal identities at work outside the USA, too, with a body count. For the Jews, Israel is important because the force of globalist universalist modernist culture is breaking down tribal identity worldwide, with the USA in the lead and the EU a little behind it. The Jews, like any distinct group, are threatened by the USA and the EU, the two universalist powers. Cultural assimilation, the attenuation of ethnic traditions and religious belief, and intermarriage/interbreeding can destroy the Jews or any other group more peacefully but just as surely as gas chambers.

Feelings about the Jews are likely colored by one's own tribalism. For example I've encountered a visceral anti Jewish sentiment among Arabs and Persians, even though Arab DNA is closer to Jewish DNA than any other group. I hear it from older Catholics who were taught it in Catholic school, too.

How many people here can discuss this without sounding like one of the blind men describing an elephant? (One blind man, feeling the trunk, says "the elephant is very much like a snake")

Post: #7

Quote:liberal pro-Palestinian Noam Chomsky

But by being pro-Palestinian, isn't he criticizing Israel?

Post: #8

I have not had the opportunity to read the author's book yet, but I strongly suspect it has alot to do with guys like Leo Strauss. This kind of stuff is not well known outside of certain circles of philosophers and political scientists. I am very familiar with Strauss' work and the origins of the neo-conservative movement, so this may be a good read and debate. I may circle back and respond with more after I read Roosh's article.

Not to toss a wrench in the discussion, but someday we should debate in the Knowledge subforum in a Official RVF Political Theory thread of some kind, if the neo-conservative movement is in fact without party. What I mean by that is if neo-conservatives are all Republicans or Democrats. Also, there is a big non-Jewish aspect to the Neo-Conservative movement (most think it is Christian Fundamentalism, which I personally reject), that uses it as a spring board for other purposes. I would give good rep points for anyone that could fully identify that.

Post: #9

Quote:People are going to have tribal identities, stronger or weaker depending on their background. Most white Americans don't have a strong tribal identity.

Tribal identity is an instinctive defense mechanism; it's a given in any population, but the degree to which it's expressed is dependent upon the recognition of an external threat. It can either be suppressed brutally like in ancient times (killing all the men of a city and impregnating all the women) or softly like today ("we are all equal", anti-racism, etc.) but it's not something that can be completely removed from people.

I'm a white American mutt living in Europe and wonder about my identity all the time. My family left Europe for the U.S. a few generations ago (1900-1910 wave) and being back here most of my adult life has been unsettling. If I don't identify with U.S. culture and history any more than I do the new European culture as an expatriate, who the hell am I? Thankfully though, the equalist rainbow media industry has drilled into me that I'm a racist, bigot, anti-Semite, and xenophobe just for wanting a tribal identity. Best to forget it then, after all, who would want to be called a racist in 2015?

Post: #10

(04-15-2015 07:09 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:liberal pro-Palestinian Noam Chomsky

But by being pro-Palestinian, isn't he criticizing Israel?

Chomsky has always been very ambiguous about this issue in the past, and now he’s just plain boring. He has certainly denounced Israel’s war crimes, but when it comes to the permanent final solutions he’s pretty indistinguishable from the Israeli hard liners. Yes to a two State solution (as long as the Palestinian State is basically a big concentration camp operated by the Israeli Army). No to the right of return to Palestinians to their stolen lands. Yes to show solidarity to the Palestinians (like a charity rally). No to questioning the existence of a Jewish illegal rootless State in Palestinia.

Post: #11

There is no doubt that Jews have been at the forefront of leftism, just as they have been at the forefront of virtually every other intellectual and technical development in the West in the last two odd centuries.

Kevin Macdonald like most neo-Nazis, reads like a jealous hypocrite with a victim comppex. (I'm not saying whether he's a Nazi or not, I don't know enough to say). The truth is Macdonald envies the Jews; he wishes gentile whites had the ethnocentrism that he attributes to Jews. Just as Nazis valorize Hitler and then strenuously deny the holocaust, Macdonald paints the alleged ethnocentrism of Jews as underhanded and detestable... But he secretly wishes white gentiles were the same way, while excoriating Jews for being so.

In the West, Jews have never numbered more than a few percent of the population. No matter how radical Jews may be, leftism could not survive and thrive as a mass movement without the popular assent of gentiles. This is the crux of the hypocritical victim complex of neo-Nazis - they can't bear to think that leftism was a path that gentiles themselves chose, the blame must lie elsewhere. So they concoct these theories to explain how a tiny minority effected a massive popular shift towards leftism. The modern self-hatred of the white race cannot thereby be explained by an inherent defect of theirs, they must be a powerless vast majority easily swindled by the trepidations of a few Jews... Which isn't really a vote of confidence in gentiles.

Post: #12

(04-15-2015 08:15 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  There is no doubt that Jews have been at the forefront of leftism, just as they have been at the forefront of virtually every other intellectual and technical development in the West in the last two odd centuries.

Kevin Macdonald like most neo-Nazis, reads like a jealous hypocrite with a victim comppex. (I'm not saying whether he's a Nazi or not, I don't know enough to say). The truth is Macdonald envies the Jews; he wishes gentile whites had the ethnocentrism that he attributes to Jews. Just as Nazis valorize Hitler and then strenuously deny the holocaust, Macdonald paints the alleged ethnocentrism of Jews as underhanded and detestable... But he secretly wishes white gentiles were the same way, while excoriating Jews for being so.

In the West, Jews have never numbered more than a few percent of the population. No matter how radical Jews may be, leftism could not survive and thrive as a mass movement without the popular assent of gentiles. This is the crux of the hypocritical victim complex of neo-Nazis - they can't bear to think that leftism was a path that gentiles themselves chose, the blame must lie elsewhere. So they concoct these theories to explain how a tiny minority effected a massive popular shift towards leftism. The modern self-hatred of the white race cannot thereby be explained by an inherent defect of theirs, they must be a powerless vast majority easily swindled by the trepidations of a few Jews... Which isn't really a vote of confidence in gentiles.

You understand but you miss the point.

He doesn't like their "nationalism for me but not for thee" stance. They'll do anything to maintain their own nationalism while preventing europeans / whites in general from having their own nationalism. That is the real hypocrisy.

Edit: Like most people who can't tolerate criticism of the Jews, you play the "he just jealous" card. It's a tired and over used cliche, and it ignores the actual reasons why people criticize Jews. I have no doubt however, that some people are jealous of some of them, but thats really not the essence of the book or his argument. Looking forward to Roosh's review. No doubt it will have 1000+ comments when posted on ROK

Post: #13

(04-15-2015 08:55 AM)Jneg Wrote:  You understand but you miss the point.

He doesn't like their "nationalism for me but not for thee" stance. They'll do anything to maintain their own nationalism while preventing europeans / whites in general from having their own nationalism. That is the real hypocrisy.

Bingo.

They want leftism for everyone else, but never for themselves. Gay marriage is not legal in Israel for instance, and I doubt it will be (though someone more familiar with internal Israeli politics can correct me on this if I'm wrong).

Though like Basil points out, I think some people put too much emphasis on this and ignore that it is only with the implicit consent of the majority population that this is happening. This is why white nationalists will never get anywhere and never be taken seriously. It seems they want to hate Jews, associate themselves with the Third Reich, deny the Holocaust, and apologize for Hitler more than promote nationalist policies.

This Year Zero stuff, as I just mentioned in the appropriate thread, has deep origins that stretch back many centuries and had little to do with Jewish people.

Post: #14

Quote:Though like Basil points out, I think some people put too much emphasis on this and ignore that it is only with the implicit consent of the majority population that this is happening.

This is where the Jewish owned media comes into play. Advertising plays a very suggestive role in the way people think. Despite the people who will undoubtedly shout "media has no impact on me, I can think for myself", empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Many, if not all movies nowadays have an agenda to normalize leftist thoughts and shame masculinity. Many critics of the Jews point to the fact that these movies, shows, books, are published and produced overwhelmingly by Jews. Do they all do this by accident, some coincidence? Or is it a small piece in a larger machine meant to demoralize / destabilize an otherwise moral and well functioning society.

And this is where the accusations of racism, conspiracy, tin foil, and pejorative terms usually come out of the wood work... But this is what it is

Post: #15

(04-15-2015 07:44 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:People are going to have tribal identities, stronger or weaker depending on their background. Most white Americans don't have a strong tribal identity.

Tribal identity is an instinctive defense mechanism; it's a given in any population, but the degree to which it's expressed is dependent upon the recognition of an external threat. It can either be suppressed brutally like in ancient times (killing all the men of a city and impregnating all the women) or softly like today ("we are all equal", anti-racism, etc.) but it's not something that can be completely removed from people.

I'm a white American mutt living in Europe and wonder about my identity all the time. My family left Europe for the U.S. a few generations ago (1900-1910 wave) and being back here most of my adult life has been unsettling. If I don't identify with U.S. culture and history any more than I do the new European culture as an expatriate, who the hell am I? Thankfully though, the equalist rainbow media industry has drilled into me that I'm a racist, bigot, anti-Semite, and xenophobe just for wanting a tribal identity. Best to forget it then, after all, who would want to be called a racist in 2015?

Universalism, globalism, call it what you will - it posits that humanity has essentially shared characteristics and values and each individual should be given freedom to develop their own potential without tribal cultural and political constraints.

The universalist project - "The End of History" - is getting rid of tribal identities in a lot of places. Whether by accident or design, the American form of government with its "all men are created equal / inalienable rights to free speech and freedom of religion" is the main ideological framework for universalism. The French revolution and Marxism are other outgrowths of the Enlightenment which are variations on the universalist theme. The EU is heir to all three of these universalist styles - the US federal, the French and the Marxist.

America is the main force for universalism, and thus the white American people who founded it are the most assimilated into it. This has led to alienation among a lot of people, because tribal identities can give life more flavor and a sense of belonging, even as they can constrain your life.

I always thought it was funny that Star Trek posited a future where multiple star systems lived under the U.S. federal system and ideals, while at the same time human ethnicities (Scotty, Uhura) had still kept their own identities. I don't think it would play out that way. Humans would just be tan-skinned "humans."

I am ambivalent about the universalist project, which is OK, because I have no control over gradual mass movements which will take centuries to play out or not. On the one hand, alle menschen werden brüder (Schiller, Beethoven and the EU anthem). On the other, could be a pretty boring monoculture without tribal flavor.

Post: #16

(04-15-2015 09:09 AM)Jneg Wrote:  Or is it a small piece in a larger machine meant to demoralize / destabilize an otherwise moral and well functioning society.

To what end though? This is something that proponents of a Jewish conspiracy don't answer well.

It's simply manifestations of the prevailing orthodoxy of the time. Jews are seen as a victim group while Europeans/men/heterosexuals, etc. are not, and the prevailing orthodoxy since the 60's has been to give victim groups everything they want because no one wants to be seen as an oppressor. To quote James Howard Kuntsler, the meme of the time is that "everything goes and nothing matters."

The difference is, Jews just often have the means and connections to promote this much more than other groups.

Gays promote it in the same way as well. Like Jews, they tend to be far more affluent and well-connected than average.

Post: #17

(04-15-2015 09:25 AM)Libertas Wrote:  To what end though?

Thats a great question. It's speculated that by destabilizing and subjugating a stronger nation, it allows their tribe time to build up their country, their tribe, to rule the multi-cultural masses which is alluded to in their Talmud. Creating weak gender relations, artificially creating race wars in other countries, mocking other religions in other countries while simultaneously having strong marriage laws, gender relations and keeping their country a Jewish ethnic stronghold, they are effectively doing it.

Forecast their growth and Western decline for 100 years into the future and you get a closer look at "to what end" this inevitably approaches. Of course, right now they're "the poor oppressed group" offically.

Post: #18

Neoconservatism was founded in the 1970s as a reaction to the Soviet Union in the Cold War more than anything else.

I remember those days, was in the U.S. military in the late 70s, and it's hard to imagine the demoralization and sense of besiegement in the USA and Western Europe. Those were scary times.

The USA had just lost the Vietnam War. Egypt, Libya, Syria were Soviet clients, along with Vietnam obviously, and several countries in sub Saharan Africa. There were Soviet-supported Communist insurgencies in several Latin American and Asian countries. There were tens of thousands of tanks and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, with fears that the USSR had the edge in forces and might actually make a move.

Within the USA and Western Europe, large numbers of people had adopted Soviet critiques of their political systems and society. In Europe, there were serious terrorist movements in Germany (RAF) and Italy (Red Brigades) which were indirectly supported by the USSR through their Arab clients. The film Carlos, about the Venezuelan terrorist, describes this pretty well.

What the neoconservatives did was stand up and call bullshit on the aggressiveness and oppression of the Soviet Empire and the hypocrisy of westerners who relentlessly polemicized against the USA while ignoring the abuses in the USSR. They were not only Jews - Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were prominent leaders.

It was an obviously needed corrective movement. I identified with it at the time. How the neocons got from there to being relentless Middle East warmongers is a good question which is probably tribal related, but at the beginning the neocons were on target.

Post: #19

Macdonald's work is excellent, and I'm a Russian Jew. The Culture of Critique should be required reading in every American political science course. Can't wait for Roosh's review of the book.

One thing I find hilarious is gentiles white knighting for Jews. But I understand why they do it. Jews are the gatekeepers to the upper echelons of academia, high-level law firms, and government. Praise Jews and you're good to go.

Post: #20

(04-15-2015 10:07 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Macdonald's work is excellent, and I'm a Russian Jew. The Culture of Critique should be required reading in every American political science course. Can't wait for Roosh's review of the book.

One thing I find hilarious is gentiles white knighting for Jews. But I understand why they do it. Jews are the gatekeepers to the upper echelons of academia, high-level law firms, and government. Praise Jews and you're good to go.

David Duchovny is my favourite Russian Jew. You are my second favourite.

Post: #21

"He doesn't like their "nationalism for me but not for thee" stance. They'll do anything to maintain their own nationalism while preventing europeans / whites in general from having their own nationalism. That is the real hypocrisy.

Edit: Like most people who can't tolerate criticism of the Jews, you play the "he just jealous" card. It's a tired and over used cliche, and it ignores the actual reasons why people criticize Jews. I have no doubt however, that some people are jealous of some of them, but thats really not the essence of the book or his argument. Looking forward to Roosh's review. No doubt it will have 1000+ comments when posted on ROK"

I agree that zionism is hypocritical - if you're a zionist, either you're an ethnonationalist and thus your Zionism is just a specific expression of that, and the label is more or less superfluous. If you're a Zionist and you don't believe in ethnonationalism for all ethnos, then you're just a self serving hypocrite. In my experience, actual Israelis are not hypocritical Zionists, it's liberal American Jews who are. Macdonald's work goes well beyond this hypocrisy.

Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack though.

Post: #22

(04-15-2015 09:09 AM)Jneg Wrote:  

Quote:Though like Basil points out, I think some people put too much emphasis on this and ignore that it is only with the implicit consent of the majority population that this is happening.

This is where the Jewish owned media comes into play. Advertising plays a very suggestive role in the way people think. Despite the people who will undoubtedly shout "media has no impact on me, I can think for myself", empirical evidence would suggest otherwise. Many, if not all movies nowadays have an agenda to normalize leftist thoughts and shame masculinity. Many critics of the Jews point to the fact that these movies, shows, books, are published and produced overwhelmingly by Jews. Do they all do this by accident, some coincidence? Or is it a small piece in a larger machine meant to demoralize / destabilize an otherwise moral and well functioning society.

And this is where the accusations of racism, conspiracy, tin foil, and pejorative terms usually come out of the wood work... But this is what it is

Post: #23

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)Grange Wrote:  

People that post silly pictures like this are what many refer to as "useful idiots".

I say this because everyone in upper echelons knows about this phenomenon but its rarely spoken aloud. Then some oblivious fellow like Joe Biden, who is like the uncle that drinks too much and starts telling inappropriate stories, comes along and says the Jews are behind pushing the homosexual agenda in America to the world:

Biden says, quote, "Think … behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry."

Biden says the influence is immense and that those changes have been for the good.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/biden-...m-1.525296

Jewish groups push homosexuality on white countries so hard its unbelievable unless you actually look into it. They don't push it in Israel though. Why do you think they do this? Honestly, why do you think they do this? Perhaps you have a funny picture that explains it?

Post: #24

Quote:Armenian American lobbying to pass pointless Congressional resolutions declaring the killing of Armenians in World War I a genocide, again pissing off Turkey.

Why was this pointless?

Post: #25

A 2003 review of MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique in The American Conservative by John Derbyshire:

Derbyshire TAC: The Marx of the Anti-Semites

Quote:One evening early on in my career as an opinion journalist in the USA, I found myself in a roomful of mainstream conservative types standing around in groups and gossiping. Because I was new to the scene, many of the names they were tossing about were unknown to me, so I could not take much part in the conversation. Then I caught one name that I recognized. I had just recently read and admired a piece published in Chronicles under that name. I gathered from the conversation that the owner of the name had once been a regular contributor to much more widely read conservative publications, the kind that have salaried congressional correspondents and full-service LexisNexis accounts, but that he was welcome at those august portals no longer. In all innocence, I asked why this was so. “Oh,” explained one of my companions, “he got the Jew thing.” The others in our group all nodded their understanding. Apparently no further explanation was required. The Jew thing. It was said in the kind of tone you might use of an automobile with a cracked engine block, or a house with subsiding foundations. Nothing to be done with him, poor fellow. No use to anybody now. Got the Jew thing. They shoot horses, don’t they?
. . . . . . .

The main thrust of this book’s argument is that Jewish or Jewish-dominated organizations and movements engaged in a deliberate campaign to delegitimize the Gentile culture of their host nations —most particularly the USA—through the twentieth century and that this campaign is one aspect of a long-term survival strategy for the Jews as an ethnicity. In MacDonald’s own words, “[T]he rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the U.S. are the real topics of CofC.” He illustrates his thesis by a close analysis of six distinct intellectual and political phenomena: the anti-Darwinian movement in the social sciences (most particularly the no-such-thing-as-race school of anthropology associated with Franz Boas), the prominence of Jews in left-wing politics, the psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School of social science (which sought to explain social problems in terms of individual psychopathology), the “New York intellectuals” centered on Partisan Review during the 1940s and 1950s, and Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy.

MacDonald writes from the point of view of evolutionary psychology—a term that many writers would put in quotes, as the epistemological status of this field is still a subject of debate. I have a few doubts of my own on this score and sometimes wonder whether evolutionary psychology may eventually turn out to be one of those odd fads that the human sciences, especially in the USA, are susceptible to. The twentieth century saw quite a menagerie of these fads: Behaviorism, Sheldonian personality-typing by body shape (ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph), the parapsychological reseaches of Dr. J.B. Rhine, the sexology of Alfred Kinsey, and so on. I think that the evolutionary psychologists are probably on to something, but some of their more extreme claims seem to me to be improbable and unpleasantly nihilistic. Here, for example, is Kevin MacDonald in a previous book: “The human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.” This trembles on the edge of deconstructionist words-have-no-meaning relativism, of the kind that philosopher David Stove called “puppetry theory,” and that MacDonald himself debunks very forcefully in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique. After all, if it is so, should we not suppose that evolutionary psychologists are pursuing their own “group evolutionary strategy”? And that, in criticizing them, I am pursuing mine? And that there is, therefore, no point at all in my writing, or your reading, any further?
. . . . .

The more I think about the term “group evolutionary strategy,” in fact, the more I wonder if it is not complete nonsense. From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from AD 79 to AD 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity? Rather than learning to argue fine points of theology, would not a better strategy have been to learn, say, fencing or Latin? Sure, the Jews held together as a group across 2,000 years. The gypsies held together pretty well, too, across many centuries, yet their “group evolutionary strategy” was the opposite of the Jews’ at almost every point. And the Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.
. . . . .

The aspect of Macdonald’s thesis that I find least digestible is his underlying assumption that group conflict is a zero-sum game rooted in an evolutionary tussle over finite resources. This is not even true on an international scale, as the growing wealth of the whole world during this past few decades has shown. On the scale of a single nation, it is absurd. These Jewish-inspired pseudoscientific phenomena that The Culture of Critique is concerned with—Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on—were they a net negative for America? Yes, I agree with MacDonald, they were. Now conduct the following thought experiment. Suppose the great post-1881 immigration of Ashkenazi Jews had never occurred. Suppose the Jewish population of the U.S. in 2003 were not the two to four percent (depending on your definitions) that it is, but the 0.3 percent it was at the start of the Civil War. Would anything have been lost? Would America be richer or poorer? Would our cultural and intellectual life be busier or duller?
. . . .

This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book. Its entire argument is that the Jews, collectively, are up to no good. This may of course be true, and MacDonald is entitled to say that the issue of whether his results are anti-Semitic is nugatory, from a social-science point of view, by comparison with the issue of their truth content. I agree with that, too: but given the well-known history of this topic, it seems singularly obtuse of MacDonald not to try to calm the troubled waters his work is bound to stir up. From my own indirect, and rather scanty, knowledge of the man, I would put this down to a personality combination of prickliness and unworldliness, but I am not sure I could persuade less charitable souls that my interpretation is the correct one, and that there is not malice lurking behind MacDonald’s elaborate sociological jargon.