A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
Did Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize Jared Taylor's "American Renaissance?"
shutterstock_100093802

Deogolwulf has solved the mystery of why superstar Marxist academic Slavoj Žižek’s famously opaque prose suddenly became so much more lucid when Žižek summarized psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s controversial theories about Jewish influence.

Žižek simply lifted, with only minimal rewording, sizable parts of Stanley Hornbeck’s review in the June 1999 issue of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance of MacDonald’s 1998 book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

Deogolwulf observes:

The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand.

Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased.

At his With Endemanndom blog, Deogolwulf compares side by side passages from Žižek’s 2006 essay in Critical Inquiry with Hornbeck’s 1999 review in American Renaissance.

To take one example out of eight, Žižek wrote in 2006:

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 nineteenth 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.

Hornbeck wrote in 1999:

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.

In some of the other examples, Žižek changes a few more of Hornbeck’s words, but Žižek never even bothers to recast Hornbeck’s clear prose into his own style.

I don’t see any citations by Žižek of Hornbeck, although I don’t have access to all versions of Žižek’s essay A plea for a return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua). Using Google, I don’t see any citation of Hornbeck by Žižek, or, for that matter, that anybody online before Deogolwulf this week has noted Žižek’s debt to Hornbeck and American Renaissance. (But perhaps Žižek attempted to give full credit to the true author of this text, but the citation was lost due to editorial fumbling?)

Deogolwulf offers seven additional side-by-side comparisons of passages. Read them at his blog and you can judge for yourself whether you agree with Deogolwulf’s claim that this rises to the level of “plagiarism.”

Hide 106 Comments
Commenters to Skip

106 Comments to "Did Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize Jared Taylor's "American Renaissance?""

[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. TR
    says:
         Show Comment

    This is obviously plagiarism. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d e-mail one of Zizek’s many mainstream critics.

    Reply
  2. Earl
    says:
         Show Comment

    Yes, this would qualify as plagiarism in academia. Paraphrasing and rewording qualifies as plagiarism. This is lifting word for word and thus quite blatant plagiarism..

    Reply
  3. AppSocRes
    says:
         Show Comment

    Plagiarism: what an antiquated, white male, pre-post-modern concept!

    Reply
  4. As with Fareed Zakaria’s plagiarism scandal, I’d assume that it’s really some unpaid subaltern who was immediately responsible for Žižek’s plagiarism.

    Reply
  5. Steve Sailer
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    I once pointed to an article claiming that Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz’s books are written in part by his flock of research assistants, one of whom is a high school student. The high school student wrote in to say that Professor Dershowitz was a quite good boss who paid better than other jobs available to high school students and had high standards in terms of the quality of writing he’d accept.

    Reply
  6. H
    says:
         Show Comment

    He couldn’t even try to move some of the words around?

    Reply
  7. How about a side-by-side comparison of CofC vs direct quotes from the book’s sources?

    If David Irving refutes MacDonald, does Dave now qualify as a philo-semite?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0107&week=&msg=C7elCpf5lP033ARNbvHjfg&user=&pw=

    Having thus prepared himself with a depth of research that would have been
    unacceptable in a first draft from a mildly dim undergraduate, MacDonald
    gives himself license to indulge in assertions such as this:

    Not only were Jewish Communist Party functionaries and economic
    managers economically dominant, they also appear to have had
    fairly unrestricted access to gentile females working
    under them — partly as a result of the poverty to which the vast
    majority of the population had descended, and partly because of
    specific government policies designed to undermine traditional
    sexual mores by, for example, paying women to have illegitimate
    children (see Irving 1981, 111). The domination of the Hungarian
    communist Jewish bureaucracy thus appears to have had overtones of
    sexual and reproductive domination of gentiles in which Jewish
    males were able to have disproportionate sexual access to
    gentile females. [MacDonald, *The Culture of Critique,* p. 99.]

    For comparison, I have extracted the full discussion — three paragraphs –
    of sexual morality in post-war Hungary as it appears in *Uprising!*
    Irving’s own citations are reproduced verbatim in the brackets.

    Sexual morality became lax. While during the first years of the
    Communist rule standards had been puritan, these soon
    changed. Procuring an abortion had been punishable by life
    imprisonment, couples were arrested for kissing in public, hotels
    were raided to root out unmarried couples. As a
    twenty-three-year-old female factory worker scornfully
    apostrophized: “They preached water?but they drank wine.” [28.
    Columbia University Oral History Project, 209, Flora Plotz, factory
    worker.]

    Most of the prominent funkies kept mistresses, and official policy
    shifted until immorality actually flourished. [29. CUOHP, car
    worker.] A car industry worker said: “About eighty or ninety per
    cent of the women in the factory were available.” The
    birthrate slumped and had to be promoted by unusual means. [30.
    Radio Budapest, January 25th, 1958; CUOHP, 203, 223, 615, 625.]
    Childless couples were penalized with extra taxes, and girls were
    encouraged to enter into casual sexual relationships. In clinics
    throughout the country posters dropped a broad hint: “To give birth
    is a girl’s glory and a wife’s duty.” [31. Lányak szülni dicsöség,
    asszonynak kötelesség.] Until about 1953 unmarried mothers were
    rewarded with two thousand florins for each bastard child born.
    Early divorces were frequent and facile: marriages could be
    dissolved by either party if for example there were held to be
    “irreconcilable ideological differences.”

    Simultaneously, prostitution increased. A staggering proportion of
    Hungarian males questioned in confidence by American
    sociologists admitted losing their virginity to prostitutes. [32.
    CUOHP, hospital official.] “One night,” said a hospital official of
    fifty-four, “I was sitting in an espresso bar on Saint Stephen’s
    Boulevard. A good-looking girl sat down at my table, and after
    a few moments she told me that for fifty florins I could come up to
    her place.” She turned out to be a country girl, drafted to
    the capital to work on the till in a state-run store for a monthly
    pay of only 720 florins. Prostitution flourished, although illegal;
    the brothels were closed down in 1950, and the girls were re-trained
    as taxi-drivers (and used as informers by the security police).
    “The result was that in Budapest nobody dared to take a taxi driven
    by a woman,” said Dr. Paul Hoványi, a fifty-one-year-old civil
    servant, “because she wouldn’t know how to drive and wouldn’t know
    the streets either.” [Irving, *Uprising!*, p. 111]

    the passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald
    would have it, “Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to
    gentile females.” It offers evidence only that not even David Irving is
    exempted from Kevin MacDonald’s capricious misuse of his sources,

    • Replies:
    Reply
  8. jo
    says:
         Show Comment

    Adam Kirsch accused-without-accusing Zizek of anti-Semitism in The New Republic a few years back.

    “It is not surprising that it is the subject of the Jews that calls forth this impulse in Žižek, because the treatment of Jews and Judaism in his work has long been unsettling—and in a different way from his treatment of, say, the United States, which he simply denounces. Žižek’s books are loosely structured and full of digressions, more like monologues than treatises, but for that very reason, his perpetual return to the subject of the Jews functions in his writing the way a similar fixation might function in an analysand’s recital: as a hint of something hidden that requires critical examination.

    “Typically, the form that Žižek’s remarks on Jews take is that of an exposition of the mentality of the anti-Semite. This is an unimpeachable and rather common forensic device, but somehow it does not quite account for the passionate detail of Žižek’s explorations. [Just like his discussion of MacDonald.] Consider, for instance, the passage in The Metastases of Enjoyment in which Žižek, in order to explicate John McCumber’s theory about “the logic of the signifier” in Hegel, writes: “In order to explain this ‘reflexivity,’ let us resort to the logic of anti-Semitism. First, the series of markers that designate real properties are abbreviated-immediated in the marker ‘Jew’: (avaricious, profiteering, plotting, dirty…)—Jew. We then reverse the order and ‘explicate’ the marker ‘Jew’ with the series (avaricious, profiteering, plotting, dirty…)—that is, this series now provides the answer to the question ‘What does “Jew” mean?’” In the ensuing discussion, Žižek goes on to recite this list of “Jewish” adjectives six more times.”

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/the-deadly-jester

    Zizek replied to the magazine to express his outrage.

    Reply
  9. Hepp
    says:
         Show Comment

    That’s the best you could do? MacDonald cites Irving for the idea that the government payed women to have illegitimate children, that’s exactly what it says. What follows is MacDonald’s conclusion about what that meant in a world where Jews had disproportionate power.

    Reply
  10. RickyVaughn
    says:
         Show Comment

    This is really funny. Is Zizek posing as a Marxist philosopher in order to troll Jews and subtly spread subversive theories about Jews?

    • Replies:
    Reply
  11. Dan
    says:
         Show Comment

    I don’t think so. He rarely writes or talks about Jews or subversive theories.

    Reply
  12. What follows is MacDonald’s conclusion about what that meant in a world where Jews had disproportionate power.

    But Irving didn’t mention Jews in the passage. And, anyway, in 1950 there were hardly any Jews left alive in Hungary. Side by side comparison shows it’s a lie.

    And his lying isn’t limited to this one case. He lies constantly which raises questions about why anything he says should be trusted.

    How about when he lies about Jewish support for non-white immigration prior to WWII? Or when he lied about Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together collectively blaming Jews for the Russian Revolution when, in fact, the book argues the opposite?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together

    Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies that Jews were responsible for the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. At the end of chapter nine, Solzhenitsyn denounces “the superstitious faith in the historical potency of conspiracies” that leads some to blame the Russian revolutions on the Jews and to ignore the “Russian failings that determined our sad historical decline.”[9]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[27] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited for example a quote from a 1969 dissertation by Sheldon Morris Neuringer titled American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953 where MacDonald surmised that when Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration, MacDonald wrote, “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data,” Mehler wrote, citing other examples.[28]

    • Replies: , ,
    Reply
  13. jo
    says:
         Show Comment

    “He rarely writes or talks about Jews”

    not true, see comment 8

    • Replies:
    Reply
  14. Rob
    says:
         Show Comment

    I believe there are companies specialising in plagiarism detection in books and theses, with software to show up any passages similar to material published elsewhere. It would be interesting to subject all of Žižek’s work to such scrutiny. Somehow I doubt if that’s the only piece he plagiarised, although it was probably the least likely to be detected, given the negligible overlap between Amren readers and students of Marxist critical theory.

    Reply
  15. Hepp
    says:
         Show Comment

    Even Mehler doesn’t say he can say for certain that MacDonald was misrepresenting his source. He considers it questionable and calls for someone else to look into it.

    MacDonald has a lot of enemies. If there were major problems with his use of sources, we’d see evidence much stronger than this.

    Reply
  16. anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    But Irving didn’t mention Jews in the passage. And, anyway, in 1950 there were hardly any Jews left alive in Hungary. Side by side comparison shows it’s a lie.

    First, a Wikipedia article on the history of the Jews in Hungary notes:

    “It is estimated that from an original population of 861,000 people considered Jewish inside the borders of 1941–44, about 255,000 survived. This gives a 29.6% survival rate overall…

    …According to another calculation, Hungary’s pre-war Jewish population was 800,000, of which 180,000 survived…”

    A quarter-of-a-million people is not insignificant. Since you are wrong on this point, does that make everything you wrote a lie? Why should anything you write be trusted?

    Also, as another poster pointed out, that citation is actually on a clause that makes a single point, which is “…partly because of specific government policies designed to undermine traditional sexual mores by, for example, paying women to have illegitimate children (see Irving 1981, 111).” That seems to be exactly what the Irving citation you extract is about, things like paying women to have illegitimate children. 2000 florins it was.

    So you’re wrong on the point about hardly any Jews left alive. You’re wrong on the objection to the citation. It’s as if you are parsing it to use as you see fit. You’re trying to argue by parsing for something, anything, even if irrelevant, that can be cast as an error and use to obfuscate and cause smoke, when a little bit of thinking and integration of things makes them clear.

    You quote MacDonald’s first sentence introducing the topic of his paragraph: “Not only were Jewish Communist Party functionaries and economic managers economically dominant…”

    The same Wikipedia article claims that that is true. It has citations also, you might want to check them:

    “People of Jewish origin dominated the post-war Communist regime until 1952-53 when many were removed in a series of purges. During its first years, the regime’s top membership and secret police were almost entirely Jewish, albeit naturally anti-religious.”

    If nothing else, there certainly were Jews in Hungary at the time and they appear to have been dominate in the government. What else are you saying that is wrong?

    Reply
  17. Noise
    says:
         Show Comment

    Call out the RIAA death squads!

    Reply
  18. RickyVaughn said: “This is really funny. Is Zizek posing as a Marxist philosopher in order to troll Jews and subtly spread subversive theories about Jews?”

    I had the same thought reading Steve’s last Zizek post. After the long lucid paragraph going into great detail on the Jewish/Communist strategy of calling anyone who disagrees with you crazy, he breaks back into his obscure phrasing and says:

    no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot
    decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.

    Basically accusing MacDonald of being a loon who writes satire at length where only he gets the joke. Funny indeed

    Reply
  19. If our elites refuse to acknowledge the existence of American Renaissance, then is it really plagiarism?

    Reply
  20. Red China
    says:
         Show Comment

    Seems another of our great conservative leaders succumbs to 3rd World colonization.

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/07/10/the-christian-thing-to-do/

    Reply
  21. IHTG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Haha, wow. Called it.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  22. Anthony
    says:
         Show Comment

    Zizek was merely practicing the theory of redistribution of intellectual property – from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Zizek must have had a great need for clear exposition about the perfidy of the Jews in order to justify his appropriation of MacDonald’s texts.

    Reply
  23. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    If the same cite at the essay linked here is in the book the Parallax View it amounts to plagiarism, because in the essay Žižek cites as ref 2 ‘Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport: Praeger 1998.’ as if he had read that primary source and given his summary of it, while what he he actually did is lift the summary from Hornbeck’s review of Culture of Critique.

    A professional philosopher who admires Žižek admits he relies too much on secondary sources. I don’t think he takes MacDonald seriously, but he certainly took it very seriously indeed when Richard Wolin (in The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism, Princeton: Princeton UP 2004) ranked him with “counterrevolutionary writers such as Maistre, Arthur de Gobineau, and Oswald Spengler [...] The postmodernists allege that the traditional orientations of family, community, and politics have ceded to the febrile delusions of ‘hyperreality.’”

    At the above link it scoffs at the idea Žižek is a postmodernist. Wolin’s contention that Žižek is a postmodernist is one I don’t see Žižek bothering to deny, but he was careful to place himself in opposition to MacDonald .

    Reply
  24. Did Slavoj Žižek plagiarize Jared Taylor’s “American Renaissance?” | Reaction Times
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    […] Source: Steve Sailer […]

    Reply
  25. Deogolwulf
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Credited in the notes.

    Reply
  26. meh
    says:
         Show Comment

    “If our elites refuse to acknowledge the existence of American Renaissance, then is it really plagiarism?”

    It’s amazing how well the Inner Party uses this cordon sanitaire method to make heretical thoughts literally unthinkable for the masses, and unsayable for the rest.

    The type of people who would get upset at the contents of American Renaissance are unlikely to read it, so unlikely to notice the plagiarism, and those who do notice it are unlikely to want to admit in public that they read American Renaissance, so it’s a perfect way to cover one’s tracks.

    The only people who notice are thought criminals such as ourselves, and we don’t count. Because racism/antisemitism/etc.

    Naturally this applies to sites like iSteve too.

    “Everyone” with an ounce of intellectual curiosity is reading the heretical sites, but almost no one will admit to it. Noticing things: bad.

    And then you have the Inner Party’s minions, unpaid (probably) fanatics with an axe to grind, making up false accusations against people like MacDonald, because sometimes giving the heretics the silent treatment just isn’t very satisfying.

    Yay freedom!

    • Replies:
    Reply
  27. Brutusale
    says:
         Show Comment

    Sorry, I’ll take the Boers, Scandinavians, Anglos and Germans over the Japanese every day.

    When living among the racists, it’s best that they look like you.

    Reply
  28. fnn
    says:
         Show Comment

    This may help explain the recent surge of out-marriage in the Inner Party. Such complete ideological control of the population makes endogamy seem redundant except for those who place a high value on religious traditions.

    Reply
  29. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    That’s the best you could do?

    Yes, it’s the best he can do.

    Reply
  30. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Even Mehler doesn’t say he can say for certain that MacDonald was misrepresenting his source. He considers it questionable and calls for someone else to look into it.

    It’s the same old story. No Jew can withstand the scrutiny they apply to MacDonald, no leftoid idea can withstand the scrutiny leftoids apply to race-realism, etc.

    Reply
  31. ogunsiron
    says:
         Show Comment

    #12 the undiscovered jew says :
    “Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies that Jews were responsible for the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. At the end of chapter nine, Solzhenitsyn denounces “the superstitious faith in the historical potency of conspiracies” that leads some to blame the Russian revolutions on the Jews and to ignore the “Russian failings that determined our sad historical decline.”[9]”

    It seems to me that Solzhenitsyn wanted to make sure that Russians understood that they had *also* played an important role in those events and that Jews, Letts, etc didn’t act *alone*.
    He denies that they were the only ones involved but he certainly doesn’t deny that the Jews played an extremely important role overall.
    From what I remember, Solzhenitsyn says that the bolshevik revolution itself was not a jewish mass movement at first. While there were Jews involved, most intellectual Jews were at that point more involved in various socialist and/or zionist movements. Once the bolsheviks took power, though, the mass of Jews quickly rallied to them with enthusiasm. Solzhenitsyn says that without the massive jewish support, the bolshevik revolution could have easily ended up stillborn.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  32. Reg Cæsar
    says:
         Show Comment

    Looks like Žižek got the carets, and Hornbeck and Taylor got the stick.

    Reply
  33. Andrew
    says:
         Show Comment

    Nixon: Gays were born that way! US Mideast policy should not be made by a Jew!

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/nixon-secret-white-house-audio-tapes

    • Replies:
    Reply
  34. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    I would love to read a detailed treatment of MacDonald’s work with similar (or better) points to those you raised.

    The things you mention don’t seem to be very central to his thesis, and in a work of over 1000 pages you can probably find a few problematic points like that. The last point about the fact that Jews were worried about the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” vs. what MacDonald attributed to them (that they were opposed to the explicit or implicit ethnic nature of America) even looks like hair splitting to me. I mean, what does a “taint of discrimination” or a “taint of anti-Semitism” mean, if not the fact that they simply disliked the ethnic nature of a country? I mean, if a country is explicitly Anglo-Saxon, than the Scots-Irish might feel discriminated against, so any wish to make the country explicitly Anglo-Saxon will have a “taint” of “discrimination” and “anti-Scots-Irishism” to them. I don’t think it’s misrepresenting any facts. Am I missing something?

    I also noticed that point about the Jewish access to gentile women, and this was probably the only true problematic point I can remember in the whole trilogy. Not that it’s central to MacDonald’s thesis or any point he is making. The essence of his statement (that Jews constituted the highest echelons of the communist leadership in Hungary, as well as the majority of officers in the secret police, that it was bad for Hungarians, that fueled anti-Semitism, etc. etc.) is valid without any reference to gentile women or maidens being paid for childbearing. (Most of those single mothers were from the lower classes, I’m not sure how many mistresses these bigwigs had, but I bet you those mistresses had access to abortions or probably some other forms of birth control. The whole slogan of “Childbearing is a duty for a married woman, it’s a glory for a maiden!” was part of the pronatalist policies the communist party had in place at the time.)

    Regarding the Two Hundred Years Together, MacDonald started publishing a translation on his website, maybe the project has stalled since. But Solzhenitzyn’s point doesn’t seem to be incompatible with MacDonald’s point, namely that gentile Europeans have some weaknesses that make them susceptible to Jewish manipulation, and that Jews were never a sufficient but often a necessary condition for the disasters in question. I.e. it wasn’t the Jews who made the Russian Revolution, but without Jews there would have been either no revolution or a much less malign one. Similarly, it’s not the Jews who caused alone the surge of immigration, but without them it would not have happened, or would have been ended long ago. Same thing with multiculturalism etc. Jews are never the sole reason.

    Others have already commented on the fact that many Jews were left in Hungary after 1945, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Reply
  35. Dan
    says:
         Show Comment

    No, it is true. He rarely talks or writes about Jews and subversive theories.

    Reply
  36. Even Mehler doesn’t say he can say for certain that MacDonald was misrepresenting his source. He considers it questionable and calls for someone else to look into it.

    1) Why should believe this is an isolated case? How do you know he doesn’t twist sources out of context consistently?

    2) The thesis of his immigration chapter is Jews were the first to want non-white immigrants outside Europe from around the globe; everyone else was only concerned about their own ethnic group, e.g. Irish wanted more Irish immigrants, Italians wanted Italians.

    But the actual quote suggests opposition to 1924 act was motivated by how it would be perceived to affect Jews, not Somali refugees.

    I don’t see any reason given his and his supporter’s record of lying to trust anything in CofC unless a direct quote from the source is available.

    A quarter-of-a-million people is not insignificant.

    Many of those survivors fled Hungary for an Anglo nation or Israel after the war.

    More importantly, Irving doesn’t mention the ethnicity of men making use of prostitutes. In fact, in context it’s clear Irving was talking about the sex habits of ordinary Hungarian such as factory and health workers, as well as surveys of the overall Hungarian population:

    “Sexual morality became lax. While during the first years of the
    Communist rule standards had been puritan, these soon
    changed.”

    “A staggering proportion of Hungarian males questioned in confidence by American
    sociologists admitted losing their virginity to prostitutes. [32.
    CUOHP, hospital official.] ”

    The text is clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials as MacDonald implied.

    The things you mention don’t seem to be very central to his thesis,

    But why trust the thesis if we there’s doubt whether he quoted his documentation truthfully? His thesis now needs to be verified with direct analysis of those sources now.

    and that Jews were never a sufficient but often a necessary condition for the disasters in question. I.e. it wasn’t the Jews who made the Russian Revolution, but without Jews there would have been either no revolution or a much less malign one.

    There’s no debate Jews participated in the Russian Revolution but the evidence that without them things would turn out differently is iffy because liberalism has been advancing everywhere across the West even when Jewish involvement is minimal.

    And relying on MacDonald’s work given his history of lying puts your debate points on very weak factual grounds.

    80% of the early revolutionary leadership was gentile. Without Jews, the roles played by the likes of Trotsky would have been replaced by an “Iron Felix” Dzherinsky.

    A causal relationship between Jewish politics in general is shaky because there were and are more elite liberal gentiles carrying the same ideology as Jews.

    Examples of leftism advancing with minimal Jewish contribution include modern Sweden, the 90% or better gentile white EU elite, post-WWII Britain, the liberal 1969-1994 Supreme Court which had no Jews on it. Anarchism was founded by an ethnic Russian (Mikhail Bakunin) and a Russian aristocrat, Pyotr Kropotkin. Engels would have probably created an ideology similar to Communism without Marx since Communism is just Hegelian Historicism married to revolutionary socialism.

    Even in examples like Hollywood it’s doubtful Hollywood would be different politically were the execs overwhelmingly gentile. There might be marginal differences, less emphasis on the Holocaust and more documentaries about Congo genocide, etc. But nothing substantively would be different politically, unless you think turning the movie industry into the BBC is an ideological victory.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply
  37. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    1) Why should believe this is an isolated case? How do you know he doesn’t twist sources out of context consistently?

    True. Jews don’t like him, so we should assume he’s guilty until proven innocent.

    Reply
  38. And relying on MacDonald’s work given his history of lying puts your debate points on very weak factual grounds.

    And yet you simply assert that he is lying without providing any support for the assertion …

    Reply
  39. anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    First, “Many of those survivors fled Hungary for an Anglo nation or Israel after the war.”

    Yes, if the Wikipedia article on the Jews in Hungary is accurate, out of probably around a quarter million, “Between 1945 and 1949, 40,000-50,000 Jews left Hungary for Israel(30,000-35,000) and Western countries(15,000-20,000).” So a fairly cautious estimate would be that roughly a fifth of the Jews left Hungary.

    Second, about the citation:

    “The text is clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials as MacDonald implied.

    In fact, in context it’s clear Irving was talking about the sex habits of ordinary Hungarian such as factory and health workers, as well as surveys of the overall Hungarian population:”

    The first sentence of the second paragraph of the extract of the Irving article you quoted says:

    Most of the prominent funkies kept mistresses,

    I assume in the original this read “prominent functionaries”. Can someone who has access to a physical copy check? A quick google finds the extract was obtained from what looks like OCR’d text at h-net.msu.edu. (It has the same typo. Of course, maybe funkies is an obscure technical term of art.)

    Prominent functionaries implies ranking party officials, not, as you write, “…clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials…” Not so if Irving wrote “prominent functionaries”, right?

    Put that together with the MacDonald extract that you quote:

    “Not only were Jewish Communist Party functionaries and economic managers economically dominant, they also appear to have had fairly unrestricted access to gentile females working under them—partly as a result of the poverty to which the vast majority of the population had descended, and partly because of specific government policies designed to undermine traditional sexual mores…”

    MacDonald clearly spelled out Jewish Communist Party functionaries. So MacDonald is talking about functionaries and now that I see that OCR-typo, it appears that Irving was in that lead sentence talking about functionaries as well.

    Connect this to:

    “People of Jewish origin dominated the post-war Communist regime until 1952-53 when many were removed in a series of purges.”

    Do you see the pattern that connects what he is saying?

    • Replies:
    Reply
  40. John
    says:
         Show Comment

    What is it about the Jews – some immoral something or other always seems to be near, circling around them? Trouble is always lapping at their door.

    This has been going on for millennia – what gives? They deny that it is them – but we all have to wonder. What is the problem with the Jews?

    Reply
  41. Uh, I’m not too versed in higher-ed sorcery & guild initiation protocols but wouldn’t the John D. Caputo/Derrida mix-up basically be sufficient? To prove Zzyzx’s source, that is. It’s like Hillary getting asked her favorite authors and then naming the Amazon fiction bestseller list in alphabetical order.

    Reply
  42. Steve Sailer
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    “prominent funkies”

    Like George Clinton, Sly Stone, James Brown, and Curtis Mayfield? What were they doing in Hungary?

    Reply
  43. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    80% of the early revolutionary leadership was gentile.

    That depends on how you define “early revolutionary leadership”. For example at the time Lenin died, there were four serious contestants to be his successor: Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev. Of the four, two were Jewish, one half-Jewish, and one Georgian. To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews” needs some proof, because it’s not quite obvious. Similarly your assertion that “Engels would have made similar theories without Marx” might not be true. I mean, it could of course be true, but how do you know it?

    Even in examples like Hollywood it’s doubtful Hollywood would be different politically were the execs overwhelmingly gentile. There might be marginal differences, less emphasis on the Holocaust and more documentaries about Congo genocide, etc. But nothing substantively would be different politically, unless you think turning the movie industry into the BBC is an ideological victory.

    How do you know Hollywood would have turned into the BBC?

    Since the most intelligent people in the world are affected by the most influential universities (which happen to be located in the US), this will almost certainly mean that intelligent people (at least those who are not into genetics research) will be affected by the leftist zeitgeist. You cannot know how the BBC would look like without the Boasian victory. Oh, and of course it’s not like there are no Jews at the BBC.

    Look, it so happens that although there were also many gentiles in leftism, somehow Jews were highly disproportionately represented in both Marxism and cultural Marxism. To assert that it would have been the same without them is just that – an assertion. At best you can say that this is not totally proven, and needs further studies, and then I would probably even agree with you.

    And for your information, there are still eighty to one hundred thousand Jews in Hungary, and yes, the Communist Party 1945-56 was dominated by them (the four most important leaders were all Jews: Rákosi-Gerő-Farkas-Révai), and even 1956-62, when the party was already dominated by Hungarian gentiles, the second-in-command (György Marosán) still happened to be Jewish, and into the 1980s there was still at least one highly influential Jewish politician at the very highest echelons of party leadership (György Aczél), so you cannot say that this 1% minority was underrepresented in the top leadership even after the party was no longer dominated by them.

    But the “access to gentile females” point is minor, of course commie leaders had luxurious lifestyles, they probably all had mistresses, just like in the USSR or elsewhere, the mistresses are more likely than not to have been gentile, and in any event it’s just a small point regarding communist rule in Hungary… so what is your point?

    • Replies:
    Reply
  44. SFG
    says:
         Show Comment

    Look, everybody’s got their opinions on the actual topic of the guy’s discussion. I sometimes think Steve doesn’t even care about Jews but keeps bringing it up to increase his comment count. ;) The point is, you caught a big leftie plagiarizing. He’s a Marxist who plagiarized a white-nationalist website, for crying out loud. You’ve proven that he 1. not only plagiarized, which is bad even in an alternate universe where academia hasn’t been taken over by lefties but 2. did it from a source good academic lefties aren’t even supposed to know exists.

    I mean, really, whatever you think of universalism, the Cathedral, the Comintern, or the gold standard, he’s a plagiarist. That’s wrong.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply
  45. Steve Sailer
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    True, but Zizek is kind of a fun guy. I mean it would be kind of like finding out that Andy Warhol had his intern paint his soup can paintings for him, which would just be funnier.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  46. Steve Sailer
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    But, yeah, please point widely out that Zizek has been nailed by Deogolwulf, with inspiration from IHTG.

    Reply
  47. fnn
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Examples of leftism advancing with minimal Jewish contribution include modern Sweden…”

    Funny how there was little sign of leftism in Sweden until the democratic-Communist victory of 1945:

    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-paradigms-shift-eg-our-view-on.html

    …To illustrate what I talk about. Louis Armstrong visited Sweden in 1933. In all the news papers he was describe as something monkey-like let loose from the jungle. All across the line! And in the reviews by the most serious music critics.

    Who would have imagined in 1933, that twelve years later Western Europe would undergo an America-led cultural revolution which would lead to the common belief that there are no differences between races?

    Translation of two of the quotes:

    Knut Bäck in Göteborgs-Posten, November 1933:
    “This world is strange… No protests are raised against how the jungle is let loose into the society. Armstrong and his band are allowed to freely wreak destruction.”

    Sten Broman in Sydsvenskan, November 1933:
    “Dare I say that he at times had something monkey-like about him and sometimes reminded of, according to our perceptions, a mentally disturbed person, when he pouted with his mouth or gaped it to its widest open and roared like a hoarse animal from a primeval forest.”

    The third quote compares the concert with a natural disaster, and Armstrong’s trumpet with a hell machine. The only good thing coming out of it, he says, is that it solves to old dispute of whether monkeys have a language.

    This is what Europe looked like, up until 1945. And since some people will live under the misconception that this was a phenomenon of the ’30s, I here provide a quote from the Swedish Encyclopedia, Nordisk Familjebok, the 1876-1899 edition (here and here).

    “Psychologically the negro can be said be on the level of a child, with vivid fantasy, lack of endurance, … can be said to lack morality rather than being immoral … etc.”

    Even though the point here has been to illustrate how social paradigms can shift completely in short time (and this is just one out of numerous examples), let me add how up until 1945 all the focus was put on the differences between races, and after that all the focus has been put on what is equal (while ignoring differences)

    Reply
  48. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews”

    According to the Jewish Defense Team, anything Jews are assigned blame for has never depended upon Jews. Likewise, according to JDT, everything Jews are assigned credit for has always depended wholly upon Jews.

    Reply
  49. No Jews in Hungary after 1945. Ha! Ha! Ha! Just the Communist government and the secret police.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  50. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Actually I’m not even sure if the majority of Jews had anything to do with the communist system. Many doubtless resented the fact that they lost their properties, for example. MacDonald also never states that the majority of them supported the communist government.

    But there were enough Jews to fill the highest echelons of the party and the government (and often even the rank and file of the secret police) and still most of them had very little to do with the government.

    Reply
  51. Jeeaar
    says:
         Show Comment

    Funkies is the term used by Irving in ‘Uprising!’ It’s his version of the Hungarian slang for Communist functionaries.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  52. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    In Hungarian it would be funkci, roughly pronounced as foonk-tsee, but with both syllables short.

    Reply
  53. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    The Hornbeck review of Culture of Critique was on a (now gone) reviews page of Kevin MacDonald’s personal website, as I recall he praised Hornbeck’s review very highly.

    Reply
  54. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    Spectator book review “There is a black story involved, just the same: their role in the Communist takeover between 1945 and 1948. Anne Applebaum does not evade this question, nasty as it is: the four leading figures were Jews, chief among them, Mátyás Rákosi. Their children sometimes became dissidents, and in the later Seventies this led to an extraordinary business. The then (Jewish) cultural boss, Tamás Aczél, sought to discredit them, and allowed David Irving of all people into the archives to study the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the Revolution of 1956. The resulting book, Uprising, said divisive things”

    • Replies:
    Reply
  55. Skyislander
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Slavoj Zizek is to intellectualism what Lars von Trier is to art cinema.

    A phony baloner.

    Reply
  56. anon
    says:
         Show Comment

    The story has made Newsweek:

    http://www.newsweek.com/did-marxist-philosophy-superstar-slavoj-zizek-plagiarize-white-nationalist-journal-258433

    Reply
  57. Hacienda
    says:
         Show Comment

    Congrats again Steve,

    http://www.newsweek.com/did-marxist-philosophy-superstar-slavoj-zizek-plagiarize-white-nationalist-journal-258433

    You’re on roll.

    Reply
  58. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    György Aczél, not Tamás. And yes, Irving’s book has a bad reputation in Hungary (except with the radical nationalists), because he is accused of having done the bidding of the Kádár regime, which sought to prove that the 1956 uprising was an anti-Semitic pogrom.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  59. Anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    Slavoj Zizek during the Arab spring:

    “The Egyptians get democracy. They got it. Much better than the anti-immigrant parties in the West.”

    That’s the problem with being so prolific. You make so many disparate arguments that the ones you end up getting wrong get lost.

    Reply
  60. anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Actually I’m not even sure if the majority of Jews had anything to do with the communist system. Many doubtless resented the fact that they lost their properties, for example. MacDonald also never states that the majority of them supported the communist government.”

    I think I now see where some confusion on this thread may come from.

    The following quote, which is important to understand the context of what MacDonald is talking about in the extract someone posted, is not from MacDonald or Irving. It is from the Wikipedia:

    “People of Jewish origin dominated the post-war Communist regime until 1952-53 when many were removed in a series of purges. During its first years, the regime’s top membership and secret police were almost entirely Jewish, albeit naturally anti-religious.”

    This isn’t a claim by Kevin MacDonald and about which he might be lying. This isn’t something David Irving wrote and about which he might be mistaken.

    This is a sentence from the wikipedia article “History of the Jews in Hungary”, in the section “Communist rule”.

    The full link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#Communist_rule.

    So whether all the Jews in Hungary had been killed, all the Jews had left, whether Jews had nothing!, nothing!, to do with Communism, whether Russian Jews had anything to do with Communism, none of that matters.

    If the wikipedia sentence is true, which should be straight-forward to verify, there was a post-WWII communist government in Hungary, dominated by Jews, from roughly the end of the war through to 1952-1953. As “dominated” is subjective, it would be interesting to know the specifics of who made up this government, etc..

    MacDonald doesn’t appear to be making the claim for this government existing (I’ve only read what is in the extract, but it seems pretty self-contained). He is writing as if he assumes that any knowledgeable person reading about the history of this time will know that this Jewish-dominated government existed. He takes it as a fact.

    The fact that “…the regime’s top membership and secret police were almost entirely Jewish” makes it unlikely that Jews had nothing to do with it and that all Jews involved were just innocent victims of events. The truth sounds a lot more complex.

    For this claim, the wikipedia article cites “Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left (1996) page 89.”

    By the way, the wikipedia article notes that “Jews were on both sides of the 1956 uprising”. This might track with that line in the US that “not all Jews were communists, but most communists were Jews.”

    • Replies:
    Reply
  61. KA
    says:
         Show Comment

    The+Undiscovered+Jew

    Solzhenystin did point to the fact that Jewish were over represented in the movement leading to the revolution and death of Czar .he also pointed out the powerful position the Jews enjoyed in the post revolution political ,administrative,and security apparatuses . The problem was not their presence but their collective mindset,ethnic loyalty,ethnic promotion and the effort for the destruction of non Jewish identities . This was also mentioned with emphasis on the participation of the Jewish elite in merciless destruction of the Christian foundation of Russia and attempts to preserve and make flourish Jewish identities, by the author of the Jewish Century.

    Reply
  62. KA
    says:
         Show Comment

    The most relevant contribution of Kevin Macdonald is opening the mind of the non Jewish irrespective of color or religion or geography to the reality that the experiences of Egyptian,Cannanites,Moorish Spain , Weimer Republic, Germany,Poland!Russia and now US are bound by common thread of the prophetic vision of the gentile world as written down in Old Testament – a world where poor Jewish sojourner came empty hand to a rich land and left it in sorry state while enriching self and his tribal members by the mercy of God who promised them no great afterlife but multiplication and enrichment and dominance on this gentile unclean world from whom they ,the Jewish should stay separate.
    This is what worries the Zionist.

    Reply
  63. Did Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize Jared Taylor’s “American Renaissance”? | Daily Stormer
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    […] Steve Sailer July 12, 2014 […]

    Reply
  64. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    Anne Applebaum is married to Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski, who tells Britain that we must continue to let Poles in Britain claim British benefits for their children in Poland. She tweeted this study by an ‘economist’ with the singularly inappropriate name of Joakim Ruist : “The lifting of transitional access restrictions for Romanian and Bulgarian workers is a hotly debated topic in the EU with big implications for public finances in destination countries. This column presents analysis of immigrants in Sweden, which never imposed access restrictions when these two countries joined the EU. Romanian and Bulgarian migrants to Sweden under this unrestricted regime make a sizeable positive contribution to Swedish public finances. Contributions can be expected to be even larger in the UK and Ireland”

    Reply
  65. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    The most important communist politicians circa 1950 in Hungary:

    1) Mátyás Rákosi (born Mátyás Rosenfeld) (first secretary of the party, prime minister, “Stalin’s best Hungarian pupil”)
    2) Ernő Gerő (born Ernő Singer) (second in command after Rákosi, in 1956 shortly before the revolution he became Rákosi’s successor, only to be swept away by the revolution)
    3) Mihály Farkas (born to a single mother called Janka Lőwy, a Jewish domestic worker, father unknown) (third in command, minister of defense)
    4) József Révai (born József Lederer) (responsible for cultural policies and ideology)

    These four were all Jewish (although Farkas could be genetically only half-Jewish, nobody knows), and they were called the “coach-and-four”, but the first three (called the “troika”) didn’t trust Révai much, so they excluded him from the “Defense Committee”, which – in preparation of a possible Third World War during the later years of Stalin’s life – effective became the highest government organ, even the secret police, the ÁVH was directly subordinated to it, as well as the People’s Army.

    Speaking of the secret police, its leader was Gábor Péter (born Benjámin Eisenberger), also Jewish, just as most of its officers.

    I could name other lower ranking Jewish politicians (like Zoltán Vas), but at the lower levels there were many gentiles as well. It should be noted that most gentiles in the communist party had no or very little education, so even though at the lower level Jews were a minority, they were a very important minority.

    This still doesn’t mean that the majority of Jews supported the communist system, but it does mean that the regime was led predominantly by Jews. Jewish dominance decreased after 1952, when Stalin started to demand from Rákosi and his ilk that they start “uncovering” “Zionist conspiracies” – so they sacrificed Farkas (arrested) and Révai (demoted) and also Péter (arrested), but then Stalin died, and Beria asked Rákosi why there weren’t more Hungarians and not Jews in the leading positions. So Imre Nagy was promoted to be prime minister (Rákosi kept the party until 1956), but because Beria was also executed shortly thereafter, a lengthy power struggle started until the revolution, which changed everything. After 1956, János Kádár (a gentile) became the highest leader. There were still some Jews: after 1956, the second in command, György Marosán was Jewish, but he was demoted after he fell out with Kádár in 1962; György Aczél, another Jew, responsible for cultural policies, remained in Kádár’s closest circle, in fact, he was one of Kádár’s closest personal friends. But in general the number of Jews decreased in the highest positions. By the time the Soviet troops started to withdraw, the system was led by gentiles only.

    Reply
  66. Of the four, two were Jewish, one half-Jewish, and one Georgian. To assert that “it would have been all the same without Jews” needs some proof,

    Of the sixteen members of the first Soviet Council, the Sovnarkaom, only Trotsky’s ethnic background has been established as Jewish.

    Most of the rest have gentile Slavic or other gentile names, established gentile ethnic backgrounds or gentile appearances. This includes 2 ex-Cossacks, Alexandra Kollontai and Pavel Dybenko.

    The following seem to be gentiles:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkom

    Vladimir Lenin
    Nikolai Gorbunov
    Vladimir Milyutin
    Nikolai Krylenko
    Pavel Dybenko

    Viktor Nogin
    Ivan Teodorovich
    Alexei Rykov
    Georgy Oppokov
    Alexander Shliapnikov

    Jospeh Stalin
    Alexandra Kollontai
    Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov

    I’m less certain about the background of Nikolai Glebov-Avilov and Anatoly Lunacharsky. Glebov-Avilov I lean towards his being a Slav because of last name. Lunacharsky might be Jewish, but his father’s last name, Antonov, is usually Slavic.

    Reply
  67. Ionovich
    says:
         Show Comment

    Interesting debate and comments. IMO all this chatter about Jews is much ado about not too much. I do not find Jews and Jewish issues interesting. But, one must admit, they have a talent for “inserting themselves” into controversies and perhaps into pretty gentile mistresses.

    Anyway, speaking of pretty gentiles, my daughter had a study abroad in about 2009 and my wife visited her. They toured about, and even visited a synagogue, where the tour guide told my wife that things have changed for the worse, that under the good old communist regime, “they protected us.” The guide made it clear that the Jews in power looked out for them and financially supported them, and in addition to the synagogue their apartments were paid for. This of course is merely an anecdote and my wife may be lying and spreading vile anti-Semitic canards…

    Some couple hundred thousand Jews in a small country like Hungary is a substantial number.

    Reply
  68. Most of the prominent funkies kept mistresses,
    I assume in the original this read “prominent functionaries”.

    After rereading, by ‘funkies’ Irving meant functionaries, not flunkies.

    Prominent functionaries implies ranking party officials, not, as you write, “…clearly talking about Hungarian society in general, not Jews or even ranking party officials…” Not so if Irving wrote “prominent functionaries”, right?

    But that’s the only sentence to Hungarian leadership.

    And even from that one reference one can’t, honestly anyway, derive from the citation:

    1) Whether the mistresses were ethnically gentile Hungarian or Jewish
    2) If the number of mistresses was unusual or out of the ordinary

    Everything else refers to Hungarian society generally:

    Sexual morality became lax. While during the first years of the
    Communist rule standards had been puritan, these soon
    changed.

    A car industry worker said: “About eighty or ninety per
    cent of the women in the factory were available.” The
    birthrate slumped and had to be promoted by unusual means.

    Simultaneously, prostitution increased. A staggering proportion of
    Hungarian males questioned in confidence by American
    sociologists admitted losing their virginity to prostitutes. [32.
    CUOHP, hospital official.] “

    Still looks like a blatant lie about what Irving wrote even with ‘funkies’ referencing politicians.

    Reply
  69. hbd chick
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    some of the leftist lefties are worried about zizek:

    Is Slavoj Zizek a US propaganda psyop?

    (~_^)

    Reply
  70. Similarly your assertion that “Engels would have made similar theories without Marx” might not be true. I mean, it could of course be true, but how do you know it?

    There are many examples of Marxist-like ideas existing in other socialist movements. Dialectical materialism was developed by the ethnic German revolutionary, Joseph Dietzgen independently of Marx and Engels.

    More importantly, there were multiple other violent revolutionary ideologies floating around which would have had much the same results, if implemented, as Communism. Anarchism was founded by Kropotkin and Bakunin.

    How do you know Hollywood would have turned into the BBC?

    Because the BBC and the rest of the continent’s media and political elite is liberal despite there being proportionally fewer Jews (more than 90% of Europe’s elite is gentile). If liberalism continues to advance across the West where Jewish influence is minimal, then it’s proof Jews aren’t a causal factor.

    Since the most intelligent people in the world are affected by the most influential universities (which happen to be located in the US), this will almost certainly mean that intelligent people (at least those who are not into genetics research) will be affected by the leftist zeitgeist.

    The ideological foundations of the European Union were established after WWI, not WWII, when Europe still had universities as good or better than America. The EU’s founders like Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann were usually gentile.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union#Pre-1945:_Idea_of_Europe

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

    You cannot know how the BBC would look like without the Boasian victory.

    Boas had little influence over Europe. Nor was he an extreme blank slatist like contemporary Behaviorist psychologists under John B Watson. What brought down the British Eugenics Society (and hereditarianism in the US as well) were the Nazis.

    According to In the Name of Eugenics by Daniel J. Kevles, legislation promoted by the British Eugenics Society was linked by their opponents to Nazi Germany even before WWII started (they unsuccessfully attempted to distance themselves from Hitler by pointing out the BES had a number of Jewish members):

    Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

    http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

    Hereditarianism became politically toxic because of Hitler, not because science ever gave much support to the nurturist case. If Boasian anthro (which didn’t become extreme nurturist until after Boas’ death), Gould, and Lewontin’s fallacy had never existed at all, eugenics and race science would still be politically DOA.

    This is another example of Jewish participation not being causal (because British Eugenics had Jewish backing).

    Oh, and of course it’s not like there are no Jews at the BBC.

    There are proportionally fewer Jews in British and Western Euro media than America. And in Britain’s case British Jews lean conservative. What causal influence Jews have over Britain is, at worst, a political wash.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  71. I would love to read a detailed treatment of MacDonald’s work with similar (or better) points to those you raised.

    Thedebate over whether Kevin MacDonald is a liar or a victim of hasty editing can be settled by comparing his sources directly with his own words. Perhaps these examples are isolated cases of bending the truth, but it’s also possible he lies extensively.

    Where are direct quotes from his sources for supposed Jewish ethnocentrism?

    You want us to believe Jews wanted non-white immigration even before WWII? Fine, then how does Neuringer’s thesis, American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953, compare to MacDonald’s use of the work to, supposedly, show Jews wanted non-white immigration as far back as the 19th century? Provide direct quotes from Neuringer.

    Anti-semites want an open, factual debate about Jews instead of being shut down by the ADL, well here’s your chance. Provide us with direct quotes from his own documentation about immigration so we can see how minor, or not, his creative license has been.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  72. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Anti-semites want an open, factual debate about Jews instead of being shut down by the ADL, well here’s your chance. Provide us with direct quotes from his own documentation about immigration so we can see how minor, or not, his creative license has been.

    And then, we can have another open, factual debate. And another, and another, and another, and another. We can keep posting the same thing over and over until it’s been proven without a doubt that Jews are more tirelessly ethnocentric than any other race.

    Yay!

    Reply
  73. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    You made a statement (MacDonald is a liar), and made a point regarding MacDonald’s two sentences about “sexual and reproductive domination” by “Jewish males”. You say it cannot be supported by Irving, and that thus MacDonald is a proven liar.

    However, it turns out that the following can be established:

    1) Irving did state that communist functionaries had unrestricted access to mistresses.
    2) Irving did state that morals were broken in Hungary, and that it was at least partly deliberate.
    3) Communist functionaries were predominantly Jewish at the highest levels. (I would be highly surprised if Irving didn’t state that clearly in his book, but that is a well-known fact, so I’m not sure MacDonald ever needed a source for that. He used Irving to prove the mistress thingy and the breakdown of morals.)

    Yes, of course the mistresses could have been Jewish as well, but obviously the population of Hungary and thus probably the population of pretty girls in Hungary was also predominantly gentile. Although there are no doubt many pretty Jewish girls, from what I have seen thus far, it appears to me that gentile white girls are on average prettier than Jewish girls, so the ratio may be even more skewed than simple population statistics (98% gentile) would suggest. So I would propose there is a negligible chance that those mistresses were Jewish. But you have every right to believe in implausible explanations. However, why call MacDonald a liar simply because he – possibly going out on a limb – believed the more plausible thing, namely that those mistresses were gentile, even if Irving never stated that, and even if that could no longer be established.

    I agree with you that MacDonald’s two sentences were a bit tendentious, but not that they constitute a deliberate lie. At best they constitute a somewhat tendentious distortion, which could be found in the works of many other academics. Also it’s just a minor point regarding his greater point about Hungary. I cannot see how his two sentences could discredit his whole trilogy. I also cannot see how this sentence even affects his point about Hungary, namely that the country was dominated by Jews living luxurious lifestyles.

    Now you want me to read a book by one of MacDonald’s sources only to disprove your statement that MacDonald distorts him? You have already made false statements about there not being Jews in Hungary after 1945. Why bother proving another of your statements false?

    I’m not an academic whose job it would be to read MacDonald’s sources (if I didn’t agree with him) and criticize him academically.

    Reply
  74. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    OK. So just to clarify, your point of view is that there has been no huge American cultural influence in Europe since WWII (and especially no American influence before 1945), and that the fact that the possible venues of that – according to you, nonexistant – influence (both in popular culture, i.e. Hollywood movies and popular music, and academia, i.e. nurturist views spread by people like Ashley Montagu) had a disproportionate Jewish presence, because of course it would have all been the same with gentiles.

    Look, I know about Kropotkin and anarchism and the entirely gentile project of the French Revolution, but MacDonald never stated Jews were the only bad influence. He states that without Jews the situation would not nearly be as bad, and that they were a necessary but not sufficient influence for a lot of things.

    in Britain’s case British Jews lean conservative

    Which British Jews? Currently the Labor Party has a Jewish leader. Oh, I guess you mean Lord Feldman, the co-chairman of the Conservative Party. Or Grant Shapps, the other co-chairman. But of course Jewish influence is negligible in Britain, so it doesn’t matter much.

    Reply
  75. anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    “After rereading, by ‘funkies’ Irving meant functionaries, not flunkies.”

    I’m confused by this statement. I searched the entire thread and can’t find any reference to flunkies. No one suggested the word meant flunkies. As someone pointed out, funkies was apparently the term for communist party functionaries. As has also been pointed out, the Hungarian government during the period being discussed was communist and numerically dominated at the very top, at least, by Jews.

    “Still looks like a blatant lie about what Irving wrote even with ‘funkies’ referencing politicians.”

    I can’t see it that way, in particular if you read all the context material. It seems more like a blatant claim on your part. Irving said girls were paid to have abortions? Check. Irving said almost all the “functionaries” had mistresses? Check. Etc..

    If MacDonald had left out the Irving citation, would it have changed his point or its potential validity? I’m glad he left it in, it seems to add to the historical color and provides a sense for the feel of things. It probably also gets one to a book that has another good set of references on the period. (And from what I see here, it is a valid reference in a survey work. Much better to put the reference here, adjacent to the related materiel, than to bury it in some never-read bibliography.)

    This objection seems like a desperate attempt to find anything to keep throwing up, without trying to honestly understand what is being said. More like trying actively to misunderstand. Forget MacDonald and Irving. Is the point MacDonald made look to be more right or wrong based on all we know, excluding anything either MacDonald or Irving has ever written?

    Is concentrating on this one particular citation a way to avoid trying to see the bigger picture or a way to distract us from that?

    Reply
  76. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    reiner Tor says: July 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Jewish Defense League lawyers now move to strike reiner Tor’s comments from the record…

    Reply
  77. You have already made false statements about there not being Jews in Hungary after 1945.

    I said hardly any. A drop from 800,000 to perhaps less than 100,000 Jews who both survived and stayed in Hungary is a rather drastic fall.

    Now you want me to read a book by one of MacDonald’s sources only to disprove your statement that MacDonald distorts him?

    If his honesty is now in question then there could be many more situations where he twists the truth. Again, if this passage were the only instance of him, dubiously, misusing a citatation it wouldn’t necessarily discredit everything he’s written.

    But there continue to be cases popup where his sources don’t support his arguments. There’s Solzhenitsyn, pre-WWII Jewish immigration policy, Jewish ethnocentrism when seculars outmarry at 71%, causing the Holodomor.

    Why should I trust you and his partisans this isn’t the tip of the iceberg?

    I’m not an academic whose job it would be to read MacDonald’s sources

    I provided you with evidence he might be lying in order to rebut your arguments, arguments which depend on his work’s academic integrity. Antisemites started this debate by presenting MacDonald’s word as Gospel. Now that there’s reason to question his trustworthiness, it’s their obligation to provide evidence from source documents that MacDonald hasn’t been writing up falsehoods.

    What do his sources for Jewish ethnocentrism actually say? Do Neuringer’s passages support the his contention pre-WWII Jews wanted non-white immigration even then (not just immigration from Europe other than the Northwest – Poles, Greeks, Italians and other Euro migrants lobbied for the same thing).

    • Replies:
    Reply
  78. Is the point MacDonald made look to be more right or wrong based on all we know, excluding anything either MacDonald or Irving has ever written?

    It’s the possibility he does this often, not one passage, that requires you to directly quote his source documents. If he’s not lying then his sources will exonerate him, yes?

    And what about this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    MacDonald has particularly been accused by other academics of academic fraud, saying that he has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.[27] He has also been accused of misrepresenting the sources he uses in that regard. Fenris State University professor Dr. Barry Mehler cited for example a quote from a 1969 dissertation by Sheldon Morris Neuringer titled American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953 where MacDonald surmised that when Neuringer noted Jewish opposition in 1921 and 1924 to the anti-immigration legislation at the time was due more to it having the “taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism” as opposed to how it would limit Jewish immigration, MacDonald wrote, “…Jewish opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals with northern and western European ancestry.” “It seems to me Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgment on MacDonald’s use of the historical data,” Mehler wrote, citing other examples.[28]

    • Replies:
    Reply
  79. So just to clarify, your point of view is that there has been no huge American cultural influence in Europe since WWII (and especially no American influence before 1945), and that the fact that the possible venues of that – according to you, nonexistant – influence (both in popular culture, i.e. Hollywood

    I’m saying America can’t be the *cause* behind Europe’s liberalism because Europe’s elite has consistently been more liberal than America’s. Europe got to gay marriage before us, opened their borders to non-whites in the 1950s before we did, setup the anti-nationalist Euro currency and EU project before we could do the same with the proposed “Amero” currency, etc. And Europe’s elite environment is better than 90% gentile.

    If America were the causal source of Europe’s leftism, one would expect Western Europe’s elite to be relatively more conservative than ours.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply
  80. KA
    says:
         Show Comment

    Yes he said and told Graham not to air it. He was afraid . He knew the power . He also obeyed the orders when it came . He supplied Israel with gadgets and latest toys that saved Israel in 1973 war .
    This raises some hope that those bought and paid congressmen and senators also may feel the same.

    Reply
  81. Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#18)
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    […] (Plagiarism exposed, tormented by Steve Sailer, publicly humiliated in Newsweek and The American Spectator, ‘apologizes‘ by […]

    Reply
  82. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Do you think Hillary suddenly got more liberal today than she was a decade ago (when she publicly opposed gay marriage) but that she is still religious and reads the Bible on a daily basis (as opposed to more liberal European elites who are often openly atheistic), or do you think that it would be reasonable to think that the American public is more religious (and has been so prior to the rise of liberalism as observed by Tocqueville more than a century and a half ago) than the European public and thus the elites were more circumspect in bringing the full force of some parts of their agenda to bear? As we will see, that’s not necessarily true regarding massive nonwhite immigration.

    For example Turkish immigration to Germany would probably never have happened without US involvement:

    Theodor Blank, Secretary of State for Employment, was opposed to such agreements. He held the opinion that the cultural gap between Germany and Turkey would be too big and also held the opinion that Germany needed no more labourers, because there were enough unemployed people living in the poorer regions of Germany, who could fill these vacancies. The United States, however, put some political pressure on Germany, wanting to stabilize and create goodwill from a potential ally. The German Department of Foreign Affairs carried on the negotiations after this and in 1961 an agreement was reached.[5][5]

    Also you have to recognize that circumstances were often different, for example when France lost Algeria, it would have required strong political action to avert the influx of Algerians, which of course didn’t happen. However, in the US, it needed strong political action to even start the immigration, and it did happen. Explaining why somebody didn’t do something (out of stupidity, laziness, malice, something else, or some combination of these) is easier than explaining why somebody actively sought to do something: why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?

    Further, which countries you mean when you say “EU elites”? Spain was under the rule of Franco until relatively recently. Germany – we just saw it wasn’t quite liberal until the generations grew up under the education plan of the American occupiers, whose ethnicity was often… oops. Italy’s elites weren’t quite liberal for a long time. Sweden (!) had no nonwhite immigration until the 1980s. Etc.

    Reply
  83. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    I’m saying America can’t be the *cause* behind Europe’s liberalism because Europe’s elite has consistently been more liberal than America’s. Europe got to gay marriage before us, opened their borders to non-whites in the 1950s before we did, setup the anti-nationalist Euro currency and EU project before we could do the same with the proposed “Amero” currency, etc. And Europe’s elite environment is better than 90% gentile.

    If America were the causal source of Europe’s leftism, one would expect Western Europe’s elite to be relatively more conservative than ours.

    Britain: fewer Jews than America, fewer non-white immigrants. Germany: same. Norway: same. Sweden: same. Finland: same. Denmark: same. Spain: same. Belgium: same. Work your way westward, same, same same. So, there really is something to the fewer Jews = less demographic disaster.

    Reply
  84. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Why should I trust you and his partisans this isn’t the tip of the iceberg?

    You’re a loyal Jew. We know there’s no set of circumstances that would bring you to “trust” MacDonald. Duh.

    Reply
  85. KA
    says:
         Show Comment

    Part of the reason is to meet halfway some of the demands of the socialism and blunt the attractions of the communist countries. Europe never demonized communism ( like US) and always maintained a robust trade union which kept the Labor Part in UK and the various different versions of the labor party in Europe.
    US managed to conflate all new ideas – gay marriage,abortion, birth control ,health care,universal education,and war against drugs – as expression of communism ,godlessness of communism and stealth attacks on US values. No one challenged . For challenging was ridiculed. New Deal or breaking of monopoly by Tedy Roosevelt would have earned same negative attention if communism were deemed a new enemy back in those days.

    Reply
  86. And what about this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Academic_reception

    Someone who thinks Wikipedia is Pravda. How touching.

    Reply
  87. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    I will read that Mehler paper, and also probably Neuringer’s book. Don’t expect me to do that while this thread is still alive.

    Another point. Mearsheimer and Walt were accused of distorting their sources, too. I read the books by Benny Morris that they referenced. Contrary to what Benny Morris stated (namely, that his books didn’t support M&W’s thesis, and that they distorted the content of his books), actually the books of Benny Morris did support M&W’s thesis, and they didn’t distort anything. But we’ll see this time.

    Reply
  88. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    A drop from 800,000 to perhaps less than 100,000 Jews who both survived and stayed in Hungary is a rather drastic fall.

    It all depends on the borders. For example Hungary’s borders before 1938 and after 1945 were almost identical (three villages were given to Czechoslovakia), and within those borders roughly 450 thousand Jews lived before and during the Second World War. Roughly half of them (or maybe a bit more) were killed (mostly in 1944), but most of the survivors lived in Budapest, which meant that the majority of the Jews in Budapest survived. Probably half of them left the country 1945-48, but still maybe 100,000 were left.

    Of course, Hungary grew larger after 1938, especially 1941-44, and the additional maybe 350,000 Jews were mostly killed – deportations started in the newly acquired (reacquired) territories, and they would have ended in Budapest, but Budapest (with its large, 200,000+ population) was mostly spared at the end for complicated reasons that need not be discussed here.

    And this was the context of your original context:

    What follows is MacDonald’s conclusion about what that meant in a world where Jews had disproportionate power.
    But Irving didn’t mention Jews in the passage. And, anyway, in 1950 there were hardly any Jews left alive in Hungary. Side by side comparison shows it’s a lie.

    So you stated that there were “hardly any Jews left alive” in Hungary, and so they couldn’t have had disproportionate power. (Or at least you stated that MacDonald’s statement that “Jews had disproportionate power” is “a lie”.) In fact, MacDonald didn’t use Irving to prove that Jews (at least, some Jews) had disproportionate power (he hardly needed Irving for that, that’s a well-known fact for all students of Hungarian history), he needed him to prove they had mistresses and that morals among the – predominantly gentile – Hungarian population broke down. Possibly he assumed that those mistresses were gentile. Evolutionary psychologists often mention things like that passim, like how medieval aristocrats had access to domestic workers, maidens who came from the peasantry. We don’t know how many of those were impregnated, and we know even less how many of those children survived (with all the medieval discrimination against bastards and single mothers), but evolutionary psychologists can’t help but notice (or infer) such things. That he mentioned it in the case of communist Hungary was hardly a lie on MacDonald’s part. Could be a tendentious statement, but nothing more.

    Reply
  89. anonymous
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Now that there’s reason to question his trustworthiness, it’s their obligation to provide evidence from source documents that MacDonald hasn’t been writing up falsehoods. “

    “If he’s not lying then his sources will exonerate him, yes?”

    The problem is that that citation provides no reason to question his trustworthiness. It backs up his point about the state of Hungary at the time. The citation stands. It does exonerate him. You have to read it to deliberately misunderstand to get to your position. Read this thread. Your need for this citation to “be false” says more about your position than MacDonald’s scholarship.

    If MacDonald’s work is so full of falsehoods, please provide a list of these falsehoods. Since you seem to be an expert on MacDonald and there are so many, it should be easy. MacDonald has made his case. No you make yours, instead of saying “other academics” have made a case.

    Of course, anyone needing to make up their mind themselves should probably just read MacDonald directly. Go to the source and not the commentators and all that.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  90. ” From what I remember, Solzhenitsyn says that the bolshevik revolution itself was not a jewish mass movement at first. While there were Jews involved, most intellectual Jews were at that point more involved in various socialist and/or zionist movements. Once the bolsheviks took power, though, the mass of Jews quickly rallied to them with enthusiasm. Solzhenitsyn says that without the massive jewish support, the bolshevik revolution could have easily ended up stillborn.”

    Richard Pipes points out that the mass enrolment of Jews in the party after the Revolution reflected their desire to be good citizens.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  91. why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?

    Ooo, I wonder what you’re implying.

    As we will see, that’s not necessarily true regarding massive nonwhite immigration.

    So your contention is America is responsible for every Western European nation’s immigration system? Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, all of them? As far as the cultural aspect goes, how did we do that when American pop culture really was pretty family oriented from the 1945-1960s when Europe started their worker programs?

    For example Turkish immigration to Germany would probably never have happened without US involvement:

    Well, it says we put “some pressure” on Germany to let Turks apply as guest workers but it’s not clear from what you presented it was decisive.

    Other reasons mentioned were manpower shortages because of the war, a drop in East German immigration after the Berlin wall went up in 1961 and requests by Turkey to be included:

    There were several reasons for signing those contracts. First of all during the 1950s Germany experienced a so-called Wirtschaftswunder or “economic miracle” and needed laborers.[3] The labour shortage was made more acute by the creation of the Berlin Wall in August 1961, which reduced the large-scale flow of East German immigration virtually to zero overnight. Besides this, the Federal Republic saw it as a form of developmental aid. It was hoped that the Gastarbeiter would learn useful skills in Germany, which could help them build their home countries after returning home.[4] However, Turkey pressured the Federal Republic to allow its citizens to become guest workers.

    “Also you have to recognize that circumstances were often different, for example when France lost Algeria, it would have required strong political action to avert the influx of Algerians, which of course didn’t happen. However, in the US, it needed strong political action to even start the immigration, and it did happen. Explaining why somebody didn’t do something (out of stupidity, laziness, malice, something else, or some combination of these) is easier than explaining why somebody actively sought to do something: why did the US actively seek massive nonwhite immigration?”

    France could have simply refused to accept the Algerians after the war. Additionally, Algerian, African, and Vietnamese immigrants were already in France before 1954:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France#1945-1974

    Right after the Second World War, immigration to France significantly increased. During the period of reconstruction, France lacked labor, and as a result, the French government was eager to recruit immigrants coming from all over Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

    Although there was a presence of Vietnamese in France since the late 19th century (mostly students and workers), a wave of Vietnamese migrated to the country after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and the Geneva Accords, which granted Vietnam its independence from France in 1954.

    *

    This period also saw a significant wave of immigrants from Algeria. As the Algerian War started in 1954, there were already 200,000 Algerian immigrants in France.[8]

    “Further, which countries you mean when you say “EU elites”?”

    EU political elites come from all member states. The European Union governing bodies are a labyrinth of civil service agencies. But the Commission is probably the most powerful one. Its members come from all backgrounds. The EU parliament is more or less a powerless rubber stamp.

    Reply
  92. We can keep posting the same thing over and over until it’s been proven without a doubt that Jews are more tirelessly ethnocentric than any other race.

    I’m delighted you prove Jews are ethnocentric.

    Now, explain why:

    1) If Jews are more ethnocentric than any other race, why do secular Jews outmarry at a rate of 71%?

    2) And if Jews are politically liberal because of ethnocentrism, why are the most ethnocentric Jews, Orthodox and FSU immigrants, among the most politically conservative of all whites.

    It seems the opposite – secular Jews are liberal because they aren’t ethnocentric enough.

    But I’m sure you can easily explain this, yes?

    Britain: fewer Jews than America, fewer non-white immigrants.

    As was explained to you before Western Europe’s white percentage would be somewhere in the 70′s by now if they had been ~10% black at the end of WWII like we were. They also have proportionally fewer illegal immigrants because the Mediterranean is harder to cross than the Rio Grande.

    Possibly he assumed that those mistresses were gentile.

    Where did Irving say there was something disproportionate or unusual about the leadership keeping mistresses?

    And that’s the only reference to leadership. Everything else is about Hungary generally.

    But again, the larger question is whether he gets his sources wrong consistently.

    Of course, anyone needing to make up their mind themselves should probably just read MacDonald directly.

    Why not direct quotes from his original sources – after all MACDONALD selected them as evidence? If you’re have faith he’s honest then you should have nothing to fear. A review will completely exonerate him, won’t it?

    So let’s see that documentation about ethnocentrism and immigration.

    Reply
  93. Richard Pipes points out that the mass enrolment of Jews in the party after the Revolution reflected their desire to be good citizens.

    As pointed out before, only one member of the first Soviet Governing Council, Trotsky, has been verified as Jewish.

    13 of the others following seem to be gentiles:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkom

    Vladimir Lenin
    Nikolai Gorbunov
    Vladimir Milyutin
    Nikolai Krylenko
    Pavel Dybenko

    Viktor Nogin
    Ivan Teodorovich
    Alexei Rykov
    Georgy Oppokov
    Alexander Shliapnikov

    Jospeh Stalin
    Alexandra Kollontai
    Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov

    Two of them, Nikolai Glebov-Avilov and Anatoly Lunacharsky, might be Jewish.

    Even if those two were Jews, over 80% of the Soviet leadership was gentile with Slavs and even two members who originate from Cossack families representing the Soviet high command. Clear proof Soviet Russia was Slav dominated from the beginning.

    • Replies:
    Reply
  94. Anonymous @2:48 pm,

    MacDonald’s credibility isn’t looking good right now. What’s your excuse for this (reposted from the other thread on Zizek):

    About that article referencing Silverman I’ve got good news…

    I did some Googling for that paper. I wasn’t able to find more details on it until I found a dead link to another paper written by David Lieberman titled “Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century”. I’m pleased to let you know I was able to access the paper using WayBackMachine.

    The topic of this one was MacDonald’s use of an important source to prove ethnocentrism. It seems a different paper (Altemeyer) was used by MacDonald to demonstrate Jews are more ethnocentric than gentile whites on the related variable of “Authoritarianism”.

    The actual quote shows MacDonald lied: Except for Unitarian and Anglican WASPs, whom Jews tied, Jews scored LOWER on this proxy for ethnocentrism than white gentiles in a paper MacDonald quoted in support of his own argument.

    Please explain how this isn’t a deliberate lie, and also explain why we should believe anything he’s written on immigration, ethnocentrism. Or any topic:

    Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    But the real distortion MacDonald commits against Altemeyer is his failure to acknowledge Altemeyer‟s findings for different religious groups as measured against the Right – Wing Authoritarianism Scale. If reflecting on the authoritarianism of White North Americans like himself in Separation and Its Discontents stirs MacDonald to warming reveries of hearth and home, turning his attention to Jewish authoritarianism in Culture of Critique sharpens his focus on all of the unappetizing features of right -wing authoritarianism that Altemeyer emphasizes.

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

    This extended passage on religious orientation and authoritarianism accurately reports on Altemeyer‟s findings that orthodoxy correlates with high rates of authoritarianism among all religions. But MacDonald‟s argument, with its smooth seguesfrom his discussion of the conventional and submissive yet aggressive “ideal Jew” to Altemeyer‟s research on religion and authoritarianism, and from there to Rubinstein‟s 1996 assessment of authoritarianism among Jews compared only to other Jew, neatly fudges one massively in convenient detail: according to Altemeyer, Jews as a group consistently score lower on the RWA scale than do members of any other religious group.

    Over the years, there have been consistent differences in the RWA Scale scores of students affiliated with different religions. Those with no affiliation (who are mostly agnostics and atheists, about 75% of whom in 1979 stated that they were raised in no religion whatsoever) scored significantly lower than all the others, while Jews also tended to score low. … Catholics and Protestants in turn scored higher than these groups. …The results described above seem to indicate that authoritarianism and religious variables mutually determine one another. In the first place, it seems clear that different religions produce different levels of authoritarianism in their membership. People raised in no religious system tend to be less authoritarian than those raised in Judaism or Christianity, Jews tend to be less authoritarian than Christians, and there are at least some reliable differences within Protestantism among Manitoba students.
    60

    58
    Altemeyer, “Reducing Prejudice in Right
    -
    Wing Authoritarians,” 137.
    59
    MacDonald,
    The Culture of
    Critique
    , 190.

    Even worse, from MacDonald‟s perspective, was the richer data on religious affiliation , orthodoxy and authoritarianism presented by Altemeyer in Enemies of Freedom, a volume MacDonald also cites. Even within the set of High RWA “true believers” characteristic of all religions (but underrepresented among Jews by comparison with other religions), clear differences among the groups emerge.

    [A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

    So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious. Yet in an awe-inspiring display of sheer gall (dare I say,„chutzpah‟?), MacDonald takes information Altemeyer has collected from studies of subjects explicitly identified as “White North Americans” and applies it willy-nilly to the Jews whom Altemeyer, working from actual data rather than his own „suppositions,‟ largely exempts from the discussion. The point is worth emphasizing: these highly ethnocentric, highly authoritarian, highly self-deceptive “people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups,” as MacDonald so guardedly puts it, whom MacDonaldadduces as evidence for the self-deceptive tendencies of Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” were in fact members of MacDonald‟s own ethnic group.

    I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud. None of this actual data on authoritarianism among Jews is good news for the theory of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy, with its emphasis on the inherently authoritarian “ideal Jew,” and, as should by now be quite unsurprising, none of it makes its way back to Kevin MacDonald‟s readers.

    Reply
  95. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Then why didn’t those Jews enroll in Orthodox Christianity in Czarist Russia, when that was what aspiring “good citizens” were expected to do?

    Reply
  96. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Instead of looking at Jewish numbers in the first Sovnarkom (a relatively large and often ineffectual governing body, when real decisions were made by a handful of people throughout the Soviet system), why not look at the leaders of the Revolution? The first Politburo (only in 1917 and lasted until the Revolution, assigned the task of organizing the revolution itself) consisted of top Bolsheviks, and had as its members the following (remember, these were the organizers of the revolution, or rather coup, no Politburo, no revolution in October): Bubnov (Russian), Zinoviev (Jewish), Kamenev (half-Jewish, half-Russian, with a Jewish wife), Lenin (quarter-Jewish, quarter-German, half-Kalmyk), Sokolnikov (Jewish), Stalin (Georgian), Trotsky (Jewish). Out of seven people, three were Jewish, one half-Jewish, one quarter-Jewish, and only one full Russian.

    Clear proof Soviet Russia was Slav dominated from the beginning.

    When you like a conclusion, one small thing immediately becomes “clear proof”. Government in Soviet systems meant little (Sovnarkom was the government), what meant everything was the party.

    And how do you explain that after the death of Lenin, there were four contenders for the leadership, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin and Trotsky, two Jews, one half-Jew, and one Georgian? Even gentiles in the leadership were often unusual in that they socialized with Jews extensively and often had Jewish wives. For example Dzerzhinsky was Polish, but he had many Jewish friends and could even speak (and read and write) Yiddish – how many people had that in Czarist Russia? Molotov is sometimes described as an anti-Semite, while he had an ethnocentric Jewish wife (who broke in tears when meeting Golda Meyerson and saying to her “Ich bin e yiddishe tochter.”), Voroshilov’s wife was also Jewish (and although never showing a sign of Jewish ethnocentrism, after the founding of Israel amazed her family by telling them “Now we have a Motherland, too.”), as was Kalinin’s (and Kalinin once broke in tears when reading a description of a pogrom – never broke in tears when reading about the fate of the Russian peasantry during the revolution or collectivization), so even the not-so-Jewish generation after the Stalinist purges had some Jewish element to it. How many people had Jewish wives in Russia at any time? Even including Jewish men, the ratio cannot be more than maybe 3-4%… (Not to mention Kaganovich, probably the third or fourth more powerful person in the country during High Stalinism in the late 1930s.) But there were other non-Russians, like Stalin himself, or Beria (and before him Ordzhonikidze) and Mikoyan (an Armenian, but in the context of the Soviet internal power struggles they were considered to be part of the “Caucasian mafia”).

    The USSR was not Slav dominated until the later Stalin years (like maybe after 1945 or even 1948), and until Stalin’s death the dictator was still a Georgian. Only under Khrushchev can we truly speak of a Slav domination. Yes, a lot of Slavs (most especially Russians) participated in it (at lower levels), but the leadership (which required education, and most educated Russians were non-Bolsheviks or even Whites, and in any event were considered “class enemy”) was usually non-Russian, especially (but not exclusively) Jewish.

    Reply
  97. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    Slate Magazine (blog) – 6 hours ago “Why Did This Famous Marxist Philosopher Plagiarize a White Supremacist Magazine?”

    Reply
  98. Instead of looking at Jewish numbers in the first Sovnarkom (a relatively large and often ineffectual governing body, when real decisions were made by a handful of people throughout the Soviet system), why not look at the leaders of the Revolution?

    Those Sovnarkom members pretty much held high ranks in the Revolutionary leadership. Rykov was a member of the Petrograd and Moscow Soviet.

    And none other than Solzhenitsyn himself was of the opinion Alexander Shliapnikov – who was born into some sort of Eastern Christian sect known as “Old Believers” – served as the Revolution’s true leader, even more vital than Lenin.

    Russian nationalists from Solzhenitsyn to Vlad Putin, he who enjoys the company of Jewish oligarchs, just aren’t meeting American anti-semites hopes.

    But keep clinging to Kevin MacDonald and whispering to yourself there weren’t enough gentiles to cause Red October on their own despite the mountain of evidence to contrary:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shlyapnikov

    Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (2002-08-14) [June 30, 1975, Washington, DC: AFL‐CIO], Words of Warning to the Western World, RU: Lib, retrieved 2014-02-04,

    “Among the leadership, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, at the beginning of the Revolution, all were émigré intellectuals who had returned, after the uprisings had already broken out in Russia, in order to carry through the Communist Revolution. One of them was a genuine worker, a highly skilled lathe operator until the last day of his life. This was Alexander Shliapnikov. Who knows that name today? Precisely because he expressed the true interests of the workers within the Communist leadership. In the years before the Revolution it was Shliapnikov who ran the whole Communist Party in Russia – not Lenin, who was an émigré. In 1921, he headed the Workers’ Opposition which was charging the Communist leadership with betraying the workers’ interests, with crushing and oppressing the proletariat and transforming itself into a bureaucracy. Shliapnikov disappeared from sight. He was arrested somewhat later and since he firmly stood his ground he was shot in prison and his name is perhaps unknown to most people here today. But I remind you: before the Revolution the head of the Communist Party of Russia was Shliapnikov – not Lenin.”

    Reply
  99. And, Reiner, about Kevin “Translator of Solzhenitsyn” MacDonald;

    Why would he use a study where Jews tied Anglicans, and Unitarian WASPs on a measure of ethnocentrism for least ethnocentric religious group as proof Jews are hyperethnocentric?

    Unless of course he’s a pathological liar. But I’m sure you, Svigor, Ben Tillman, or that anonymous poster, can come up with a great explanation.

    Reply
  100. Svigor
    says:
         Show Comment

    Unless of course he’s a pathological liar. But I’m sure you, Svigor, Ben Tillman, or that anonymous poster, can come up with a great explanation.

    No, just a recommendation; I suggest everyone read all the books and the related material, and make up his own mind.

    Reply
  101. What MacDonald gets wrong is this. He sees Jews involved in every revolution and subversive ideology, elaborating the finer points of anti-establishment theory and placed in high positions in every ideological vanguard.

    He thinks it’s because they think up this stuff. He’s wrong. They haven’t thought up anything, ever. Not the Bible, not proletarian revolution, not philosophy, not science, none of it.

    They are reared from birth to embed themselves in the small things of the society around them, to work their way into the system and help their fellows. Ideas? They hate ideas. Ideas give them nightmares. Rules? They hate rules.

    These things gnaw at their feeling of personal and social security, perpetually. And what they hate and fear, they watch and manipulate. Result is to be a few steps ahead of the brain dead masses who have less to lose from social change.

    It’s a survival reflex. They are utterly morally and intellectually passive, in a way impossible for a European goy to understand. They live in constant fear of what the next “crazy (goy) evil society will do to poor helpless and blameless Homo economicus” next.

    And they really are blameless, in a sense. They lack self-defined collective moral agency in a deep perpetual sense. They adapt. To anything. That’s their secret.

    If you want to change the Jews, change the world. They will ignore you until you set a new standard with proven results that they can profitably copy and adapt for themselves.

    Reply
  102. No, just a recommendation; I suggest everyone read all the books and the related material, and make up his own mind.

    Svigor, stop dodging the question: If one of the studies MacDonald used to prove Jews are hyperethnocentric actually found Jews tie WASP Anglicans and Unitarians for least ethnocentric, how is that not a lie?

    Reply
  103. Divine Right
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Svigor, stop dodging the question: If one of the studies MacDonald used to prove Jews are hyperethnocentric actually found Jews tie WASP Anglicans and Unitarians for least ethnocentric, how is that not a lie?”

    He’s not dodging anything. The wealth of information provided by MacDonald cannot be discounted by noting a single contentious point.

    “Please explain how this isn’t a deliberate lie, and also explain why we should believe anything he’s written on immigration, ethnocentrism.”

    1. A mistake is not necessarily the same thing as a lie, which you know but ignore because you hope to libel the man, his reputation, and his broader beliefs by pointing to it. You cannot prove he deliberately falsified anything, you only assume he did because it fits your narrative.

    2. Easy. Basic logic. Washington lost more battles than he won. How can anyone dispute the fact that he was a terrible leader? ….oh, wait. The wealth of points made by MacDonald cannot be refuted by the source you provided, not even close. If MacDonald is wrong on 50% of what he says, what’s left is still significant and troubling if true.

    In any case, the paper you cite does not prove what you think it does. The author quotes a few passages, makes sweeping generalizations about what MacDonald did and didn’t do, and openly attacks the man’s character: “ I can think of no other way to describe this conduct than as an act of deliberate fraud.” The Jewish author of this paper clearly had a bone in this fight. So, I think caution is in order when sourcing him.

    The “measure of ethnocentrism” in the link you provided is as follows from the paper:

    “[A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3)among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between.

    So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious. ”

    This is a highly dubious method of accessing “authoritarianism.” In any case, it seems to primarily consist of self-reported polling data concerning whether Jews “ ‘nearly completely’ or ‘completely’ accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood).” Considering that many American Jews are, on average, better educated, this could simply be an acknowledgement by intelligent Jews of the implausibility of some sections of their religious texts (Jonah swallowed by a whale, the Garden of Eden, etc.).

    Furthermore, the datum concerns acceptance of religious beliefs. It does not consider Jewish opinions, attitudes, and customs as a whole in either the US or overseas (a large portion of MacDonald’s work). Taken by itself, it can’t be used as evidence for or against “authoritarianism.” The author seems to think it proves MacDonald is wrong on his larger point of authoritarianism. It does not. It only shows MacDonald shouldn’t have either used this point or taken it out of context.

    MacDonald may not have a solid case with this one point, but neither does the author in his refutation of it.

    Reply
  104. MacDonald’s main argument in “Culture of Critique” is that Jewish intellectuals constantly undermine established gentile structures of authority (behavioral norms, ideological reference points, etc). So Undiscovered, thanks for proving him right on that point.

    I actually think it’s only partly right. I think the Jewish people have an excellent sense of the zeitgeist that they uncannily “feel out” through mimetic participation in society. When the authority structures work for them (because they work for everybody), most Jews just go with the flow. Because it’s personally profitable.

    When the structures get creaky, Jews will start to notice the cracks in the walls. Not because of any grand conspiracy, but just from a practical “grass roots” point of view, partly motivated in some cases by an animus against authority that is overbearing. But partly because Jews have that ingrained growing fear of revolution that attacks people with money and power, so they are sensitive to early signs.

    When they are “undermining” the authority structures (from the more dogmatic goy point of view), they are actually softening the structures so the society can continue to function without collapsing to soon. So their “subversion” sort of softens the fall and makes it a soft/slow decline instead of a fast and hard collapse.

    They do this for practical “ground up” reasons mostly, with it central coordination. But they all share the same gut level fear of collapse, so they are motivated as a group. It looks coordinated from the outside, but it’s mostly instinct plus small level pragmatic thinking to maintain personal security.

    Reply
  105. He’s not dodging anything. The wealth of information provided by MacDonald cannot be discounted by noting a single contentious point.

    Does the wealth of information include studies where Jews tie Episcopalian and Unitarian WASPs for least ethnocentric group?

    A mistake is not necessarily the same thing as a lie,

    There three ways to interpret MacDonald’s use of Altmeyer:

    1) He interpreted Altemeyer correctly. Not even MacDonald’s most ardent defenders can claim this now (if anyone wants to, however, please do so. It will be good for laughs.)

    The wealth of points made by MacDonald cannot be refuted by the source you provided, not even close.

    The problem is this – the more cross referencing is done the more MacDonald’s evidence contradicts him*. I’m not sure even Holocaust deniers were stupid enough to, constantly, not misquote historical sources but misquote sources that contradict their position. Usually Holocaust deniers make up evidence or make theories that they can’t really prove but think makes sense.

    Good work putting this idiot in charge of modern American anti-semitism – the Jews thank you.

    The “measure of ethnocentrism” in the link you provided is as follows from the paper:

    But MacDonald says authoritarianism is a good a measure, a measure from a study where Jews tie Episcopalians and Unitarians for lowest on this trait.

    MacDonald in his own words describes why it’s a satisfactory metric:

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

    * http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-franz-boas-you-never-knew/

    In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences … and not just between individuals. This is apparent in a speech he gave in 1894 under the title “Human Faculty as Determined by Race.”

    Reply
  106. Colmainen
    says:
         Show Comment

    And that famous Georgian’s surname meant “a Jew’s Son”.

    Reply
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


 Remember My Information
 Email Replies to my Comment


Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
Past
Classics
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?