World White Population Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050

World White Population Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050

While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off

and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are

accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the

percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was

written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in

several European countries because of the failure by their governments

to do anything about unbridled immigration.

If You Think Mass Non-White Immigration Was/Is the Work of 'Liberal'

Ethnic White Politicians It's Time To Climb Down from The Naive Tree:

The Culture of Critique 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.

Celebrating Diversity

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which

Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and

diversity - but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they

have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations

of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis

for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same

time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of

Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in

gentile society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group

loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a

society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The

Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their

survival as a people for thousands for years - even without a country

- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in

nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's

view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the

identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can

flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:

"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their

belief - one firmly rooted in history - that Jews are safe only in a

society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well

as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for

example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming

majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a

liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-

strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a

society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a

Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as

the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support

deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country

but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish

economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic

policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate

anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the

faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the

Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles

and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies

were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good

for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University

makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing

his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next

century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped

beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in

this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and

culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise

of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as

potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and

national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.

This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews

as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and

influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews]

have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for

about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the

heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it

irreversible..." - just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement

of European culture also irreversible.

Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to

several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish

immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established

the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological

explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.

MacDonald reports that he and his followers - with the notable

exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict - were all Jews with

strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of

perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of

cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the

'invisible subject' of American anthropology."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological

Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university

anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted

the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that

environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology

so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,

integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the

idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of

non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The

ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment

accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement

can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the

justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention

programs.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural

consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were

equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened

white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of

Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that

Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement.

Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been

established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew.

Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus

Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he

stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the

"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the

American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]

laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish

staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into

being by Jewish voters."

While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial

equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words,

"American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and

aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality).

Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-

World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that

were attributed to Western culture."

The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything

about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.

MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples

deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to

contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to

undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them

permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is

enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration

because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.

Authoritarian Personalities

In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that

would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity

and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the

basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt

School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was

founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish

millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took

power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the

institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was

headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.

Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong

Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of

the institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform

itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original.)

Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian

Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was

part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the

Frankfurt school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and

Emotional Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality was particularly

influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish

Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics

took up its message so enthusiastically.

The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it

were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion

to family - and race - loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective

"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between

different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties - even close

family ties! - are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the

book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only

by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective

psychotherapy - by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."

But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group

loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences

central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as

mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually

became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose

political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.

MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even

described Jewish group identity - only that of gentiles: "behavior

that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary

strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."

For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of

mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and

especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt

school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which

"Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in

early childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the

Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof.

MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of

the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural

revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including

idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual

relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status,

family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism."

Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding

ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he

came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was

in the same tradition when he wrote:

"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of

strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to

deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the

metaphysics of native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm

the bombs... of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves

against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants..."

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a

fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples

of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and

cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of

psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;

anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a

mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their

group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The

irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that

ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group

that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric

group among all the cultures of the world."

Immigration

Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote

open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting

and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the

world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass

immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic

efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews

have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,

whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of

every political persuasion have favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in

considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.

Israel Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot,

was of the view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that

is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom

houses..." He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of

Jewish intermarriage.

Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening

the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to

American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus

helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of

the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes

to America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse

of your teeming shore."

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about

diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by

Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish

Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the

spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to

people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,

there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish

Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national

experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in

the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.

immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white

majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in

1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law

would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald

disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish

groups from the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of

immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups

were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian

Jews led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one

reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish

Democrat: "The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is

also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The

day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel

more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like

Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is

prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of

Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising

if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect

from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

Jews and the Left

It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the

left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.

Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements

that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,

Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose

ground to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries.

However, in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist

causes has often been motivated by the hope that communism,

especially, would be a tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by

expectation that universalist social solutions would be yet another

way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews. The appeal

of univeralist ideologies is tied to the implicit understanding that

Jewish particularism will be exempt: "At the extreme, acceptance of a

universalist ideology by gentiles would result in gentiles not

perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while

nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity

as Jews."

Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for

supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for

its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet

Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-

Semitism, tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to

individual Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which

Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover,

since Marxism taught that all conflict was economic rather than

ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.

Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached

both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they

took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports

that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the

continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in

1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also

supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although

Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were

confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He

writes that despite the official view that all men were to be

brothers, "very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire

soviet era."

Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.

MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The

Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and

human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people

would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man

into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position

incompatible with "unity and human community."

Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from

Communism only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And

just as Jews had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-

Revolutionary Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-

Semitic Soviet Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed

Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated

by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party,

for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained

a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped

being Polish and emigrated to Israel.

Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist

government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that

at the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated

with Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He

argues that in the United States as well, the hard core among

Communists and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was

mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist

world-view was fully compatible with strong identification as Jews.

Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American leftists:

"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have

married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they

could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the

question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many

concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for

granted." Their commitment as Jews was even more fundamental and

unexamined than their commitment to the left.

Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned

Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,

the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the

1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for

many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and

a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If

barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.

MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface

shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment

to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an

ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American

conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of

which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high

levels of immigration and were active in excluding white racial

identification from the "respectable" right.

Objections

There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The

first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are

dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of

others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought

of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the

nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self

image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time

what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the

traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately

undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be

wrongs?

Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support

for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that

"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,

many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first

convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to

become less white may also have convinced himself that America

benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can

more effectively convince others.

Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the

extent to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or

their political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his

surprise at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the

1967 war: "I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting

statement from a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish

spiritual leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their

politics, Jews certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of

peoplehood. Prof. MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as

saying,"most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-

foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another

Jew, despite heavy camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends

or foe" is no insignificant matter.

Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface

declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."

He notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence

of American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as "anti-

Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who has

said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as

Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests

while pretending that they have no such interests..."

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual

movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was

hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian

Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the

Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in

fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and

the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile

intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to

view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an

aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald

also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character

of an intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible

positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in

the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and

resigned.

But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a

difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased

to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that

they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In

the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it

remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews

are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish

interests."

This standard may seem unduly harsh - until it is applied to white

gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action, anti-

discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in the

interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating

how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.

Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some

Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate

gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental

motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has

simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived

as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet

Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to

undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."

In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes

Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile

relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to

mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how

occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which

they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."

Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of

numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that

minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect

Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the

intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation

lies in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of

Jews. He attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews - at 115, a

full standard deviation above the white gentile average - and to

"their hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the

world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal

promotion, and achieve public acclaim..." He also believes Jews have

worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary

for survival: "Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor:

Cohesive groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there

has never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored

non-white immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that

beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority.

Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some

Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support anti-

majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still decisive.

As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were a

critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the

intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,

of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that

American Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American

intellect. Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the

effect that "what has happened since World War II is that the American

sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is

anything else... The literate American mind has come in some measure

to think Jewishly."

Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the

further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If

correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which

whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident

race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to

dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,

ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands

they have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental

concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation

or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests

there has been something more than natural change.

Originally appeared in American Renaissance, June 1999, issue 54

entitled 'Cherchez le Juif.' Stanley Hornbeck is the pen name of a

Washington, DC area businessman. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of

Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-

Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger (1998) $15.00,

379 pp.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

Why do spinelss cowards use names like "127.0.0.1"? White degeneracy?

If they stood erect and proud to use the name their father gave them

they

wouldn't be spouting racism. The fact that they are aware of their

shame may be their

hope of redemption.

"127.0.0.1" <bbbbbdfgdfgdgddfg@googlemail.com>

"127.0.0.1" <bbbbbdfgdfgdgddfg@googlemail.com>

Great job "127.0.0.1" Germans wiped out about 50 million White people

in WWII!