A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique"

Slavoj Žižek is perhaps the highest-grossing Marxist continental philosopher.

Slavoj with the lucky 4th(?) Mrs. Žižek *

But there’s always been the suspicion that the purported Communist is a bit of a prankster and put-on artist.

Here’s the Slovenian critical theorist pointing and sputtering at Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique. Still, a reader inclined toward deconstructionism might note that Žižek summarizes MacDonald’s controversial argument quite lucidly. In fact, the superstar professor achieves a higher degree of clarity while expounding MacDonald’s message than in any other passage I’ve read by Žižek:

The main academic proponent of this new barbarism is Kevin MacDonald who, in The Culture of Critique, argues that certain 20th century intellectual movements led by Jews have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man; these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. [2] 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. MacDonald devotes many pages to The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a collective project coordinated by Adorno, the purpose of which was, for MacDonald, to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder: everything, from patriotism to religion to family—and race—loyalty, is disqualified as a sign of a dangerous and defective “authoritarian personality.” Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties—even close family ties—are “prejudice.” MacDonald quotes here approvingly Christopher Lasch’s remark that The Authoritarian Personality leads to the conclusion that prejudice “could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” However, it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane. For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psychoanalysis, according to which “Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite’s irrevocable inheritance.” In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty: “Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.” Although he came later, the “French-Jewish deconstructionist Jacques Derrida” followed the same tradition when he wrote: “The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…” As MacDonald puts it, “Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.” This project has been successful: anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged “hate-monger,” and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate – with, of course, the silent exception of the Jews themselves: “the ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.” We should have no illusions here: measured by the standards of the great Enlightenment tradition, we are effectively dealing with something for which the best designation is the old orthodox Marxist term for “bourgeois irrationalists”: the self-destruction of Reason. The only thing to bear in mind is that this new barbarism is a strictly post-modern phenomenon, the obverse of the highly reflexive self-ironical attitude—no wonder that, reading authors like MacDonald, one often cannot decide if one is reading a satire or a “serious” line of argumentation.

I’m guessing that the last two sentences are Žižek’s denunciation of the preceding argument he quite ably recounted. But it’s striking how much more opaque Žižek’s prose suddenly becomes when he switches to elucidating what are, presumably, his own ideas, such as they are.

———

* Update, 7/11/14: Other sources suggest this wedding picture is of the second of the now three Mrs. Žižeks.

Hide 274 Comments

274 Comments to "Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique""

  1. IHTG says:

    That’s really weird. It looks like he copy-pasted somebody else’s summary.

  2. Was there any serious critique of MacDonald’s thesis by any serious author? I haven’t read any, but would like to. I read somewhere that for example Steve Pinker criticized it without having read it. Is there a serious criticism from someone who read it?

  3. Rob says:

    I’ve always had a soft spot for Žižek since I read his answers to the Guardian Magazine’s questionnaire a few years ago. E.g:

    Q: What makes you depressed?

    A: Seeing stupid people happy.

    Reiner Tor: I think the closest to an MSM article on MacDonald’s work you’ll find is this John Derbyshire piece.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Yes, I get the impression that Zizek is hamming it up, playing the role of the bombastic Continental philosopher.

  5. Lot says:

    Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.

    Derbyshire had a multipart negative review, I can’t think of any other.

    As for Zizy, his incomprehensible blather is common in commie academic nonfiction. A lot of academic fights these days are between these blatherers and normal liberal professors who write clearly over the dwindling tenure track appointments.

    The normal ones had the upper hand when I was in college since they were backed by rich alumni, but the culture war seems to have been won by the party of “microagression” and “white privilege.”

  6. Lot says:

    Here is the other part of Derbyshire’s review in a web dialog:

    http://www.jewcy.com/post/kevin_macdonald_right

  7. Just you be careful with that subliminal anti-Semitism Steve.

  8. “I found there, on the central square (Václavské náměstí), a café that miraculously worked through this emergency. I remember they had wonderful strawberry cakes, and I was sitting there eating strawberry cakes and watching Russian tanks against demonstrators. It was perfect.” — Slavoj Žižek on the Soviet suppression of the Prague Spring.

  9. Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.

    Are you such a serious person?

    By the way MacDonald is not a community college professor, and his book was not self-published. His first book received positive reviews from people like Hans Eysenck, David Sloan Wilson even based a chapter of his book Darwin’s Cathedral on it. I would think that no matter how wrong his views were, MacDonald was serious enough (and “controversy” – meaning denunciation – strong enough) that he deserved a serious professional refutation.

    I have read the Derb’s review, and it left me unconvinced. E.g. he writes:

    From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from A.D. 79 to A.D. 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?

    Since the Ashkenazy Jewish population grew faster than probably any other identifiable European population, the answer is clearly no. But the whole article seems like the Derb doesn’t get that the expression “group evolutionary strategy” is not a conscious strategy by anybody. It’s a strategy of the group, which is the same personification of an impersonal force like when one says something like “other genes employ different strategies”: obviously the genes have no strategies, it’s just that they look like they had conscious minds employing strategies. Same thing for Judaism: it looks as if it were designed for survival of Judaism as a group.

    But I’d like to read a review by a professional, not an intelligent amateur like the Derb.

  10. Flip says:

    Jews seem to be inter-marrying an awful lot these days…

  11. “Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors. ”

    rant, n. any statement, no matter how well-reasoned or calmly expressed, with which a leftist or crypto-leftist does not agree.

    Examples:

    “Steve Sailer posted a spittle-flecked rant about golf-course design to his bigot-blog.”

    “Melanie Phillips wrote an antisemitic rant about neo-conservatism as a quintessentially Jewish project.”

  12. @Flip

    This has already happened 2000 years ago. Most of the descendants of Jews then alive became Christians (and later probably Muslims). We don’t call those descendants “Jews”. Present-day Jews will mostly be absorbed by the surrounding population. But both Judaism and anti-Semitism are here to stay (many of the anti-Semites will probably be descended from present-day Jews), because there will still be Jewish groups who retain their endogamy and the conflict of interest will stay either.

  13. 1/ ‘a fundamental agenda is to thus influence the European-derived peoples of the United States…’ (not of course the European-derived peoples of, well, Europe where both spent most of their lives)

    Adorno wrote almost entirely in German, and Derrida entirely in French, and in not easy to read prose.

    Of course! Because if they wrote easily and in English who in the US would have read them?

    I’ll also assume that MacDonald is unilingual since the only book mentioned here is the only book co-authored by one of the two in English, so his actual knowledge of their main writings is from what others wrote.

    2/ As for your last 2 sentences Steve, would that be transference? (Don’t worry, Jung wasn’t Jewish)

  14. Rapparee says:

    “But it’s striking how much more opaque Žižek’s prose suddenly becomes when he switches to elucidating what are, presumably, his own ideas, such as they are.”

    College policy debaters these days love quoting Žižek because it’s always easy to find a quote either in favor of or against whatever idea one wishes to defend. The man’s prose is a storm of self-contradictions and incomprehensible digressions. I’ve even seen debates where both sides were reading Žižek cards against each other on the exact same issue, with two completely opposite positions expressed therein. That probably explains much of his popularity.

  15. Zizek increasingly finds himself defending the populist right against mainstream liberalism and the establishment academic left.

    Watch him scandalize Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:

  16. Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” | Reaction Times says:Website

    […] Source: Steve Sailer […]

  17. Victor says:

    He looks like a fat Ringo Starr.

  18. @reiner Tor

    Reformed Jews are a couple of generations from extinction, based on fertility and intermarriage. Ultra-Orthodox is a different story. They are breeding like rabbits and they don’t marry outside the tribe. As a result, fifty years from now Americans will have an image of Jews similar to the modern image of the Amish. That’s a weird, isolated sect that is nothing more than a curiosity.

  19. Sean says:

    Kevin MacDonald quit studying philosophy because he considered it a prison of words.

    Here is Žižek explicating per an interpretation of the Higgs field:_

    “The materialist solution is very precise, and it concerns the key paradox of the Higgs field: as with every field, Higgs is characterized by its energy density and by its strength— however, ‘it is energetically favorable for the Higgs field to be switched on and for the symmetries between particles and forces to be broken.’ In short….”

    Žižek adopted an uncharacteristically lucid style this time because it was serious, a heavyweight intellectual historian was saying he was anti American:-

    ““Traditionally, dystopian views of America have been the stock-in-trade of counterrevolutionary writers such as Maistre, Arthur de Gobineau, and Oswald Spengler. More recently, they have made inroads among champions of the postmodern left, such as Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek. In their theories, America represents the epitome of a postmodern, technological Moloch: a land devoid of history and tradition in which the seductions and illusions of a media-dominated mass culture have attained unchallenged hegemony. The postmodernists allege that the traditional orientations of family, community, and politics have ceded to the febrile delusions of ‘hyperreality.’ ”
    And the fellow who wrote that was Richard Wolin .

    So, what does world famous philosopher (he gets the women) Zizek do to prove he has nothing against modern America; he rips into a self-published rant by an obscure community college professor. Well, this is not just a coincidence! I don’t know if Jewish intellectuals are in the driver’s seat, but it is pretty obvious that Zizek thinks they are not entirely without influence.

    Zizek:“So it’s very easy to have a radical position which costs you nothing and for the price of nothing it gives you some kind of moral superiority.”

  20. Zizek strikes me as an obscurantist. I have never understood the leftist obsession with him. In contrast, say, Chomsky’s arguments are generally very straightforward.

    But this passage is amazing. It shows he knows a lot more than he lets on and is willfully obscurantist and ignoring key issues so he can stay on the leftist gravy train. Very intelligent then, but not very honest. I suspect a lot of guys at the top – Coulter, Oldman, etc – know exactly what’s going on given the clear pressures/red lines in media and pop culture. Indeed, how could they not, without losing their jobs? They’re just playing dumb.

  21. fnn says:

    @The Z Blog

    That’s assuming Israel is no longer around fifty years from now.

  22. Žižek seems to have been copying. Here is Stanley Hornbeck, in his review of The Culture of Critique (in American Renaissance, June 1999, issue 54), republished at heretical.com:

    “Although he came later, the French-Jewish ‘deconstructionist’ Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote:

    “‘The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue . . . The idea is to disarm the bombs . . . of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants . . .’

    “As Prof. MacDonald puts it, ‘Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.’ Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged ‘hate-monger,’ and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: ‘The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.’”

    And here is Slavoj Žižek (“A Plea for a Return to Différance”, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter 2006), p.228):

    “Although he came later, Derrida followed the same tradition when he wrote: “‘The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation‐states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue.… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation‐states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants’”. As MacDonald puts it, “Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European‐derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology”. This project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged hatemonger, and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate—with, of course, the silent exception of the Jews themselves: “the ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world”.

    (The republished version at Lacan.com has the altered first line: “Although he came later, the ‘French-Jewish deconstructionist Jacques Derrida’ followed the same tradition when he wrote”.)

    The words that Hornbeck, and hence Žižek, attributes to Derrida were in fact written by John D. Caputo.

  23. @Guillaume Durocher

    The standard deconstructionist move is to point to a place where a good writer loses his clarity and claim that reveals that the whole thing is a fake and falls to pieces. But here we have the funnier situation where suddenly Zizek turns into a lucid thinker while channeling Kevin MacDonald. That seems revealing.

    Or perhaps Zizek just cut and pasted that passage from somewhere.

  24. I haven’t paid much attention to Zizek, he seems to be a noxious clown and I’m not going to waste my time with such obscure leftist nonsense.
    Concerning MacDonald, are you sure you really want to be associated with him? Not saying he’s wrong about everything, but he recently had an article at VDARE that seemed rather extreme to me (and I’m very far to the right myself by mainstream European standards, I absolutely hate the prospect of Europe being overrun by Africans). It was pretty much full-blown Nordicism with lots of approving quotes of Nazi racial ideologues. I don’t think such toxic stuff is actually helpful to the cause of immigration restrictionists, in Europe or in the US.

  25. One thing you can say for Zizek, he knows a stereotype when he sees one. The 4th Mrs. Z. is straight out of central casting. She could be auditioning for the Elizabeth Hartman role in “You’re A Big Boy Now!”

  26. @Deogolwulf

    So Zizek quasi-plagiarized “American Renaissance?”

  27. Maciano says:

    I always thought Gregory Cochran did a good job arguing against the idea of group selection in humans, thereby (for me) putting K-Mac’s first book, on which his other books are based, on shaky grounds. The supposed hyper-etnocentrism of Jews (& low etnocentrism of white Europeans) have also never been quantified, both big supporting arguments for K-Mac’s work.

    Anyway, Zizek is a buffoon. I’m glad for these kinds of intellectuals, they help me identify who’s smart, yet not smart enough to bother with.

  28. @Maciano

    MacDonald’s term “group evolutionary strategy” seems overly ambitious. The simple word “tendencies” would suffice.

  29. Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.

    You seem to be referring to MacDonald’s work, and your comment is almost too ignorant to dignify with a response. But for the record, MacDonald’s trilogy was published by a respected academic publisher: Praeger. His editor for the trilogy was Seymour Itzkoff.

  30. peterike says:

    It was pretty much full-blown Nordicism with lots of approving quotes of Nazi racial ideologues. I don’t think such toxic stuff is actually helpful to the cause of immigration restrictionists, in Europe or in the US.

    It may not be “helpful to the cause,” but since the cause is utterly and completely lost and hasn’t the slightest chance of changing because the entire global power structure is 100% behind it, then hell you might as well just say what you’re thinking.

  31. syon says:

    Maciano:”I always thought Gregory Cochran did a good job arguing against the idea of group selection in humans, thereby (for me) putting K-Mac’s first book, on which his other books are based, on shaky grounds. The supposed hyper-etnocentrism of Jews (& low etnocentrism of white Europeans) have also never been quantified, both big supporting arguments for K-Mac’s work.”

    Yeah, MacDonald’s “theories” about how Gentile Europeans (or maybe just the Northern European ones; he tends to be a bit slippery here) are genetically programmed to be tolerant universalists seems just odd. Minor things like racialized forms of slavery, the conquest of Australia, the Holocaust, Leopold’s regime in the Congo, etc, seem to just not register with him.

  32. syon says:

    RE: Zizek,

    Based on that wedding photo, I’m guessing that he was a big MIAMI VICE fan back in the day.

  33. Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.

    And:

    Was there any serious critique of MacDonald’s thesis by any serious author?

    No, there has never been any serious critique. There have been positive reviews, however, including a memorable review of the first volume of MacDonald’s trilogy, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.

    Writing in the Jewish Folklore and Ethology Review, Professor Laurence Loeb of the University of Utah called the work a “tour-de-force” and a “watershed contribution to the understanding of Judaism and Jewish life” based on a “cautious, careful assembling of evidence”. Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, 19(1-2), 36-38, 1997.

  34. syon says:

    RE: MacDonald,

    He’s at his strongest when he concentrates on the nationalistic/ethnocentrinc aspects of Jewish culture. Of course, this is not exactly the most stunningly original observation (it has a pedigree going back to the Classical Greeks), but MacDonald does deserve credit for bringing the PC-Multiculturalist toolkit to bear on the issue. When he discusses Jews, MacDonald essentially functions as an Adorno/W.E.B. DuBois in reverse. This method has its weaknesses. But it also has its strengths.

    His weakest point, of course, involves his predilection for evolutionary causes (group selection, etc).

  35. @Steve Sailer

    “So Zizek quasi-plagiarized ‘American Renaissance?’”

    Looks like plagiarism to me – perhaps via its republication on heretical.com. Rather interesting.

  36. Anonymous says:

    I think we’ve exposed this guy as a plagiarist. Someone should send an anonymous note to The New Republic, which once did a hit piece on the guy.

  37. RABBIT says:

    You have to hand it to MacDonald. If there was any path designed to destroy any chance of professional advancement in the university system, he has taken it.

    Just the mere mention of MacDonald brings out all the trolls as seen by the comments of people like Tor and Sion.

    Despite having the advantages of tenure, MacD is not allowed to mention his beliefs in any of the courses he teaches at Cal State Long Beach (CSULB). He is forced to teach a very circumscribed line of study that closely follows the writings of other more accepted sources. He does this because he apparently would like to continue receiving his paycheck and not have endure the threat of a long, deliberately drawn out, and very costly campaign to protect his job.

    A tenured professor at CSULB once told me that if a assistant professor there were to exhibit a little too much common friendliness towards MacDonald that person would simply not be granted tenure. I thought he was exaggerating when he said this. He assured me he was not. When his fellow professors encounter MacDonald on campus, they either glare at him, avert their eyes or run away alike terrified children.

  38. Ambacti says:

    MacDonald’s thesis would be well served by a deeper analysis of Israel. As things stand, Israel is a project to integrate various largely unrelated Jewish peoples, most of whom are profoundly cognitively inferior to the dominant European Ashkenazi Jews, who now represent well under half of the Jewish population of Israel, and under 40% of the Israeli population overall. As an ethno-nationalistic Ashkenazi Jew, I find the classification of what amounts to the racial debasement of Ashkenazim in Israel as “ethno-nationalism” to be irksome. If one accepts the genetic and psychometric evidence that indicates the Jews of Israel are not a single people, and that the average IQ of non-Ashkenazim in Israel is 90, then from an Ashkenazi ethnic standpoint, Israel is a massively hostile enterprise. If Zionism is ethno-nationalism, then it is the most dysfunctional, counter-productive and schizophrenic nationalism in the world. How does the suppression of Ashkenazi supremacist literature in Israel fit into MacDonald’s thesis? What about the epidemic of homosexuality in Tel-Aviv, the main Ashkenazi population center in Israel, how does that fit into our survival strategy?

    People like MacDonald are strongly inclined to ignore evidence like that presented above; they assume that if malevolent ethno-nationalists like the Ashkenazim see no problem in breeding with 90 IQ Iraqi Jews and 85 IQ Yemeni Jews, or importing 65 IQ Ethiopian Jews, then there is no reason to adjust the theory of their obviously malevolent ethno-nationalism, since malevolent ethno-nationalists like Ashkenazim are by definition incapable of harming their own racial interests. This is clearly moronic circular logic. Additionally, people like MacDonald are not self-aware enough to see that from a racially aware Ashkenazi perspective, intermarriage with gentiles is a form of self-destructive racial debasement, as with such pairing, one catapults one’s offspring onto a course of regression to the gentile mean; the gentile mean being in their eyes the ideal and therefore obviously desirable: e.g., white ethno-nationalists are inclined to view Richard Feynman marrying his goyish cleaning lady, not as a short sighted decision by a racially unaware romantic, but a perfectly reasonable decision (given the self evident awesomeness of white gentiles) by an intelligent man.

    Also, MacDonald’s belief that the only fault of Europeans is their excessive and unceasing altruism is surreal, given the history of European internecine war which culminated in an apocalyptic racial crusade.

    I do not deny that American Ashkenazim have been largely hostile to Western civilization and its European people, but this does not, as MacDonald believes, imply a coherent group survival and dominance strategy. If Ashkenazim were inclined to dominate the West, we would simply need to breed, a thing secular Ashkenazim don’t even do in Israel.

  39. @The Z Blog

    “As a result, fifty years from now Americans will have an image of Jews similar to the modern image of the Amish. That’s a weird, isolated sect that is nothing more than a curiosity.”

    Assuming they behave like the Amish.

  40. RABBIT says:

    Another thought: John Derbyshire wrote his criticism of MacDonald while still ensconced in his plush job at National Review Magazine, the very same place which had purged Joe Sobran years before for having some very impolite thoughts.

    I wonder if Derby’s beliefs are now changed now that he has been subject to the whims of the same people who forced WF Buckley to can Sobran. (WFB who did this mainly in order to cover his own ass).

    You can do some pretty outrageous things and still retain your job at National Review just as long as you maintain the accepted lines of thought. Dinesh D’Souza, principal purger of both Sam Francis and the Derb, has managed to retain his job there despite having recently plead guilty to some particularly outrageous examples of felony election fraud.

    I wonder if we can expect future Dinesh columns at NR to be written while he is being carefully taken care of at some country club prison.

  41. Sebastian says:

    MacDonald’s “theories” about how Gentile Europeans (or maybe just the Northern European ones; he tends to be a bit slippery here) are genetically programmed to be tolerant universalists seems just odd. Minor things like y, the conquest of Australia, the Holocaust, Leopold’s regime in the Congo, etc, seem to just not register with him.

    Gentile Europeans hardly introduced the concept of racialized slavery to the world. They did abolish racialized slavery though.

    the conquest of Australia

    Grow up. Australia was not “conquered”.

  42. @Anonymous

    “I think we’ve exposed this guy as a plagiarist. Someone should send an anonymous note to The New Republic, which once did a hit piece on the guy.”

    The real, career-ending scandal will be that he reads American Renaissance.

  43. “A tenured professor at CSULB once told me that if a assistant professor there were to exhibit a little too much common friendliness towards MacDonald that person would simply not be granted tenure. I thought he was exaggerating when he said this. He assured me he was not. When his fellow professors encounter MacDonald on campus, they either glare at him, avert their eyes or run away alike terrified children.”

    If he’s forced to work under these conditions, I can forgive the apparent lapses into paranoia that some have suggested. Social ostracism is an extreme form of cruelty, but there’s no shame, there’s no mercy with our guardians of the conventional wisdom.

  44. After one of Steve’s commenters linked to this essay a week or so ago, I read the thing and at first I was shocked that a pop philosopher of Vivek’s stature would paraphrase KMac’s theory so favorably, then getting to the last line of that paragraph, I thought–ahh, so he covers himself at last. Chomsky thinks Vivek’s a fraud and I can’t disagree.

  45. Ambacti: That’s an extremely interesting post, and I say that without any snark. Your discussion is over-wrought though. Sorry, no time to write more.

  46. From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from A.D. 79 to A.D. 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?

    There are those people over in Pennsylvania and nearby states who have this weird culture. Can’t quite remember who they are ATM but Cochran dealt with them a while ago … I think he mentioned boiling off.

  47. His weakest point, of course, involves his predilection for evolutionary causes (group selection, etc).

    Perhaps you should talk to Cochran about that. The Amish seem to be taking a similar approach to the Ashkenazim, including boiling off.

  48. syon says:

    Sebastian:”Gentile Europeans hardly introduced the concept of racialized slavery to the world. ”

    True, but they did practice it on a monumental scale. which doesn’t quite seem to work with MacDonald’s thesis that Gentile Europeans are innately Kantian universalists.

    Sebastian:””They did abolish racialized slavery though.”

    While the shift to industrial capitalism was underway. Chicken or egg?

    Sebastian:”Grow up. Australia was not “conquered”.”

    Stolen? Seized? Taken? Subjugated? It certainly wasn’t given to the British in Adam’s will.

  49. syon says:

    Ambacti:”MacDonald’s thesis would be well served by a deeper analysis of Israel. As things stand, Israel is a project to integrate various largely unrelated Jewish peoples,”

    Yeah, the Israeli Law of Return Follows the Nuremberg statutes. Anyone with one Jewish grandparent can immigrate to Israel. What this means, of course, is that large numbers of people who are 50 to 75% Slavic have been pouring into Israel. this kind of dilution of Jewish genes seems to work against MacDonald’s group selection theory.

  50. Dave says:

    Maybe Steve’s caught a little of the Jew thing, poor guy. I haven’t even worked my way up to the Jew thing yet. I’ve still got the Catholic thing. Did you know there are 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court but no Protestants? Protestants far out number Catholics. What’s up with that?

  51. RABBIT says:

    Let me get this straight, Israeli Ashkenazim intermarriage with other Jews shows that there is not a group strategy as MacDonald claims . Well, tickle me with a feather. I never thought there was much social interaction between the Israeli Ashkenazim and these other groups.

    If there had been in the past , the Israeli leadership (like Bibi) wouldn’t now be so racially indistinguishable from the the average northern European. This trend continues. Even present day Ashkenazi children are still mysteriously white despite all the claims of Israeli brotherhood.

    In reality non Ashkenazim are routinely discriminated against in Israel and always have been. If anything, this tendency has even gotten worse in the last few decades as more and more newly arrived and very white Russian and east European Ashkenazi Jews have taken up residence there and apparently given much more favorable treatment in university placement and job opportunities.

    Another factor in this increasing racism and continuing lack of intermarriage: The fastest growing group in Israel are the Ashkenazi ultra orthodox, a group that is profoundly and overtly racist and which shuns and avoids any sort of social interaction with non Ashkenazim who they often consider as “unclean” as the average gentile. Chabad, the messianic wing of the ultra orthodox, seems to limits their conversions to only Ashkenazi for some very non PC reason.

    It’s already well known just how badly treated the Ethiopian Falasha Jews living in Israel are. The Israeli government has gone as far as secret program of birth control to stop this the growth in population of these “lesser” Jews. Intermarriage of Falasha with Ashkenazi is virtually unknown.

  52. Question: Is Žižek himself Jewish?

  53. Dave says:

    We should start up a conservative magazine called The Old Republic.

  54. Anonymous says:

    I do not deny that American Ashkenazim have been largely hostile to Western civilization and its European people, but this does not, as MacDonald believes, imply a coherent group survival and dominance strategy.

    Ok. What prescriptions would you recommend for a group which has been largely hostile towards your civilization and the population which it rests upon?

    Would they be similar, for instance, to Israel’s stance towards Iran or Hezbollah? Would it be wise politics for 1/3 of Israeli supreme court seats to be occupied by hostile Iranians brought up in the Iranian culture?

    If you found that 1/3 of Israeli supreme court seats were occupied by said hostile Shiites would it be reasonable to say that Israelis had a universalist/altruistic streak which was harming them?

    I’m interested in your responses, because of course NAJALT. Any of you who post comments on the Unz review are almost certainly reasonable and grounded, but the general attitude has been largely been one of hostility.

  55. I’m currently half way through the first of MacDonald’s trilogy, A People That Shall Dwell Alone.

    syon says that “Gregory Cochran did a good job arguing against the idea of group selection in humans, thereby (for me) putting K-Mac’s first book, on which his other books are based, on shaky grounds”.

    Whether evolution acts at the group or individual level seems to be the main issue under contention.

    I cannot imagine any sound argument that could be used to justify the belief that natural selection acts upon the individual and not the group. Sex is with someone else so natural selection is by definition group selection. All humans live in genetically related communities so again, it seems impossible to argue that selection is individual. A genetic variation that confers a survival advantage must be shared among a viable community in order to become a “thing” (for lack of a better word) that can exist through space and time.

    Ambacti, doesn’t take up the point of whether evolution even acts on the group level but instead focuses on current Ashkanazi behavior. This leads him down a blind alley.

    MacDonald draws from Hebrew literature dating from 1000BC to 1950AD to justify his case that historically, Jews have behaved like any genetic population interested in self preservation. That’s it. That’s his whole argument. It’s not nefarious or evil or Nazism. Just saying that Jews have behaved like every other relatively stable animal population ever observed in Nature and backing that up with quotes from Jewish sources.

  56. True, but they did practice it on a monumental scale.

    You seem to have a healthy dose of ignorance there.

  57. I always thought Gregory Cochran did a good job arguing against the idea of group selection in humans, thereby (for me) putting K-Mac’s first book, on which his other books are based, on shaky grounds.

    No one is a bigger fan of David Sloan Wilson than I, but there is a weakness in the presentation of his ideas that causes undue confusion. He speaks of multi-level selection (and, of course, he’s right for the reasons suggested at pp. 87-98 of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior), but as far as I know he never speaks of multilevel organization, which is the concept relevant to MacDonald’s thesis. In fact, MacDonald’s trilogy is explicitly non-committal on the subject of group selection among humans.

  58. Jeff W. says:

    When I was a kid I used to subscribe to the National Review and I liked to read books written by conservative authors.

    I will never forget going to the main branch of the Detroit Public Library and looking in the card catalog under Conservatism and finding there a card that said:

    Conservatism
    see The Authoritarian Personality

    At my young age I could not figure out why the library was directing me to that book.

    Now I know that it was because of you know who getting into the card catalog and rewriting it.

  59. syon says:

    Fourth Doorman of the apocalypse:”You seem to have a healthy dose of ignorance there.”

    How so?Millions of West Africans were brought to the New World to serve as slave labor. That certainly seems monumental to me.

  60. syon says:

    3cranes:”MacDonald draws from Hebrew literature dating from 1000BC to 1950AD to justify his case that historically, Jews have behaved like any genetic population interested in self preservation.”

    Actually, no. MacDonald argues that Jews are focused on their genetic preservation to a unique degree. Furthermore, he argues that this is focus is genetically determined.Furthermore, he argues that Gentile Europeans (or maybe just Northern Europeans; as I have mentioned before, he’s a bit slippery there) are genetically predisposed to individualism, which makes them less inclined to focus on ancestry, etc.

    3cranes:”I cannot imagine any sound argument that could be used to justify the belief that natural selection acts upon the individual and not the group. Sex is with someone else so natural selection is by definition group selection”

    I’m afraid that you don’t seem to understand evolutionary theory.

  61. “….Persecution cannot prevent even public expression of the heterodox truth, for a man of independent thought can utter his views in public and remain unharmed, provided he moves with circumspection. He can even utter them in print without incurring any danger, provided he is capable of writing between the lines….”

    “…To return to our present subject, let us look at a simple example which, I have reason to believe, is not so remote from reality as it might first seem. We can easily imagine that a historian living in a totalitarian country, a generally respected and unsuspected member of the only party in existence, might be led by his investigations to doubt the soundness of the government-sponsored interpretation of the history of religion. Nobody would prevent him from publishing a passionate attack on what he would call the liberal view. He would of course have to state the liberal view before attacking it; he could make that statement in the quiet, unspectacular, and somewhat boring manner which would seem to be but natural; he would use many technical terms, give many quotations and attach undue importance to insignificant details: he would seem to forget the holy war of mankind in the petty squabbles of pedants. Only when he reached the core of the argument would he write three or four sentences in that terse and lively style which is apt to arrest the attention of young men who love to think. That central passage would state the case of the adversaries more clearly, compellingly and mercilessly than it had ever been stated in the very heyday of liberalism, for he would silently drop all the foolish excrescences of the liberal creed which were allowed to grow up during the time when liberalism had succeeded and therefore was approaching dormancy. His reasonable young reader would for the first time catch a glimpse of the forbidden fruit. The attack, the bulk of the work, would consist of virulent expansions of the most virulent utterances in the holy book or books of the ruling party. The intelligent young man who, being young, had until then been somehow attracted by those immoderate utterances, would now be merely disgusted and, after having tasted the forbidden fruit, even bored by them. Reading the book for the second and third time, he would detect in the very arrangement of the quotations from the authoritative books significant additions to those few terse statements, in the center of the rather short first part….”

    from “Persecution and the Art of Writing,” Leo Strauss.

    http://thenewschoolhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/strauss_persecutionartwriting.pdf

  62. @syon

    No primate lives exclusively alone. Their shared genes are their destiny. It may well be the case that the individual is the origin of an adaptive allele but if that is not shared and if it doesn’t harmonize with the community within which the individual exists, it will be extinguished.

  63. syon says:

    Rabbit:”Let me get this straight, Israeli Ashkenazim intermarriage with other Jews shows that there is not a group strategy as MacDonald claims .”

    No, it’s the Ashkenazim intermarriage with Gentile Europeans that is problematic.And this problem goes far back in time:

    “I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..”(WESTHUNTER)

    That seems to put something of a crimp in MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as group selection, seeing as how the Ashkenazi group suffered a massive infusion of alien genes…

    And, of course, we can add on to that the the large numbers of Israelis who are 50 to 75% Slavic in ancestry, courtesy of the Israeli government deciding to use the Nuremberg Statutes as the basis of the Law of Return…

  64. syon says:

    3cranes:”No primate lives exclusively alone.”

    Seeing as how mammals reproduce sexually, yeah.

    3cranes:”Their shared genes are their destiny.”

    Getting a bit mystical there.

    3cranes:”It may well be the case that the individual is the origin of an adaptive allele but if that is not shared”

    You mean if it is not reproduced.

    ecranes:”and if it doesn’t harmonize with the community within which the individual exists, it will be extinguished.”

    You’re getting really East Asian here. “Harmonize?” try this from Cochran:

    “You can imagine situations in which natural selection would favor an increase in frequency for a trait that aided group survival while hurting individual reproductive success – but it’s not all that easy. Here’s the problem: imagine a situation in which some individuals in the group have an allele that causes them to fight in a way that saves the collective – the catch is that some get killed in the process. Members of the tribe that don’t have this allele are saved as well, but they don’t pay the price. At the end of this fight, the frequency of the self-sacrificing allele has gone down, not up. So how can the altruistic allele hang around? How would it ever have become common in the first place?

    If the altruistic act (defined as one that increases the fitness of another individuals while reducing personal fitness) is aimed at close relatives, an altruistic allele can succeed. As Haldane once said, “I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins”. It’s called kin selection. Close relatives are more likely to carry a copy of that same altruistic allele than the average bear, so altruistic acts focused on close relatives can pay off – can cause the causal alleles to increase in frequency. This is particularly so if circumstances allow very big payoff from altruistic acts, for example, species that nest in cavities. Successful defense of a breach in the nest is tactically easy, rather like Horatius at the bridge, and greatly increases the fitness of many relatives.

    You also see a kind of altruism among some infectious organisms. Some bacteria make a toxin that furthers the infection process. Each individual bacterium would be better off if he stopped making that toxin and relied on all the other bacteria to do it – it would save energy – but if the infection starts with a single organism, the descendants are all closely related and kin selection can favor expensive cooperation. In some cases, like cholera or diphtheria, phages carry genes that code for the production of toxins. You can think of this as a method of forcing high relatedness.

    Some people have suggested that human homosexuality is an adaptation produced by group selection. I can’t see how this could possibly work. They would have to do stuff for close relatives – lots of stuff. This is a quantitative question: if they concentrated on the closest possible relatives, nephews and nieces, they’d have to cause four more to survive than would otherwise. We’re talking a behavior stronger and more effective than mother love. It doesn’t exist. And how would being homosexual help?”

  65. Zizek is no Marxist. Everything is a joke with him.

    His shtick is Ringo Starr crossed with Charles Manson.

  66. Yeah, MacDonald’s “theories” about how Gentile Europeans (or maybe just the Northern European ones; he tends to be a bit slippery here) are genetically programmed to be tolerant universalists seems just odd.

    You haven’t read his writings, so your characterization of his ideas is, not surprisingly, inaccurate. His What Makes Western Culture Unique? is the best introduction to his views of the White evolutionary strategy. Looking at it, I don’t see any reference to genes at all. He does not claim that “Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group competition to trigger their expression.”

    Instead of genetic programming, what MacDonald discusses is culture and the evolution of cooperation among individualists. In this cultural context. “[t]he best strategy to destroy Europeans . . . is to convince Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy”, which is what the intellectual movements discussed by MacDonald in CofC have done.

    What Makes Western Culture Unique? can be found on Unz.org:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/OccidentalQuarterly-2002q2-00009

  67. Unless MacDonald is making up facts about what Jews have said and done, (which we know he isn’t) the essentials of his argument are true a priori.

    To wit, the most important fact about the history of anti-semitism is that the Jews have survived it. How did they do this? By being the way they are. That’s practically a tautology. Does anyone actually think MacDonald has zeroed in on traits irrelevant to what is good for the Jews?

    Long after he’d been banished to the wilderness and left hovering above poverty, Joe Sobran remained at the mercy of Jewish organizations hell-bent on seeing he not be allowed to speak in public for a fee–practically his last line of income. I can’t think of any other pressure group so extreme.

  68. @ A Quiet American
    Great find.

    On that, Greg Johnson has a great long essay on Leo Strauss’ “Persecution and the Art of Writing”. http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/strauss-on-persecution-the-art-of-writing/ He also has two wonderful pieces on Strauss and the German Conservative Revolution.

    Fascinating stuff.

  69. Sebastian says:

    That seems to put something of a crimp in MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as group selection, seeing as how the Ashkenazi group suffered a massive infusion of alien genes…

    Groups can be defined in numerous different ways. The Jewish group has never been defined exclusively in genetic terms. In the present day all that is necessary to be Jewish is (1) to have one of your eight great-grandparents be Jewish, plus (2) hold the “correct” progressive views, plus (3) claim to be Jewish.

    There’s a huge ideological component to Jewishness. Just as many blacks will insist that a black person who is a conservative is not really black, Jews regard left-wing political views as central to their identity.

  70. Sebastian says:

    syon MacDonald argues that Jews are focused on their genetic preservation to a unique degree. Furthermore, he argues that this is focus is genetically determined.Furthermore, he argues that Gentile Europeans (or maybe just Northern Europeans; as I have mentioned before, he’s a bit slippery there) are genetically predisposed to individualism, which makes them less inclined to focus on ancestry, etc.

    You’re taking some liberties there with MacDonald’s writings. That aside, it’s indisputable that Northern Europeans practice a much higher degree of individualism and that Jews are unusually ethnocentric. The extent to which this behavior is determined by genes is unknown and unknowable at this point.

  71. Was there any serious critique of MacDonald’s thesis by any serious author?

    It seems that few commenters have read any of his books, so I imagine even fewer would be interested in following up by reading academic discussions of his work, but just in case — MacDonald posted for years in an H-Net discussion group on anti-Semitism, where Jews and other skeptics took pot shots at MacDonald without really engaging his theories.

    All that ever really happened was that a guy named David Lieberman (1) produced a rambling screed from Daniel Kriegman of the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis that takes issue with Book 1 of the trilogy (the one that was received positively by the academic community, including Jewish reviewers like Laurence Loeb who noted the “cautious, careful assembling of evidence”) and (2) got Jaff Schatz (one of MacDonald’s sources) to say — at least in my cynical interpretation — that the apparent historical facts reported in Schatz’s book were not actual objective facts; instead, they were subjective facts that were true only when used to support a thesis Schatz approved of.

    But there has been no engagement with the simple and straightforward theses themselves:

    Book 1 & Thesis 1: A Jewish group evolutionary strategy developed.

    Book 2 & Thesis 2: In some historical instances, Europeans developed group evolutionary strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

    Book 3 & Thesis 3: A number of Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century were designed to prevent European-derived peoples from developing group strategies to compete with the Jewish group.

  72. syon says:

    Sebastian:”Groups can be defined in numerous different ways.”

    Sure, but KM is not interested in ideological/confessional groupings; he is interested in genetic groups, populations that are bound by blood. Hence, massive infusions of alien genes into Ashkenazi Jewry is something of a stumbling block for his group selection theories.

    Sebastian:” The Jewish group has never been defined exclusively in genetic terms. In the present day all that is necessary to be Jewish is (1) to have one of your eight great-grandparents be Jewish,”

    I’m not sure that the more ultra-Orthodox would go along with that one, especially if the blood quantum is on the paternal line.

    Sebastian:” plus (2) hold the “correct” progressive views,”

    Would the ultra-orthodox cast you out if you condemned homosexuality?

    Sebastian:”There’s a huge ideological component to Jewishness. Just as many blacks will insist that a black person who is a conservative is not really black, Jews regard left-wing political views as central to their identity.”

    All Jews? Again, how is the LGBT agenda doing among the lubavitchers?

  73. Sean says:

    I don’t think Henry Harpending agrees with Gregory Cochran about group selection, Martin Nowak doesn’t really accept the inclusive fitness / kin selection mechanism but he still thinks group selection works . MacDonald emphasises that humans can monitor and enforce compliance.

    Re MacDonald saying Europeans were Kantian, Wolin on the Black Notebooks : “One of Heidegger’s chief philosophical targets was neo-Kantianism, which had become the semi-official philosophy of the Second Empire (1871–1918). Its leading representative was Hermann Cohen, whose final book, Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism, appeared in 1919. Cohen’s treatise, as its title implied, was a justification of Jewish monotheism as the fountainhead of Western rationalism. “

  74. syon says:

    Sebastian:”You’re taking some liberties there with MacDonald’s writings.”

    How so?

    Sebastian:”That aside, it’s indisputable that Northern Europeans practice a much higher degree of individualism”

    At present, sure, but KM argues that this trait is genetic in origin, and that it goes back to the Ice Age….

    Sebastian:”and that Jews are unusually ethnocentric.”

    Relative to Western European Christians of the last 200 hundred years, perhaps.Although things like hypodescent (cf the one drop rule in the USA) and the German plan for a new racial order in Eastern Europe offer evidence in the other direction…

    Sebastian:”The extent to which this behavior is determined by genes is unknown and unknowable at this point.”

    KM seems inclined to think otherwise.

  75. E Pound says:

    [QUOTE]From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from A.D. 79 to A.D. 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?[/QUOTE]

    And give up a monopoly on moneylending? Get outta here.

  76. Ambacti says:

    “Let me get this straight, Israeli Ashkenazim intermarriage with other Jews shows that there is not a group strategy as MacDonald claims . Well, tickle me with a feather. I never thought there was much social interaction between the Israeli Ashkenazim and these other groups.”

    Not only is the intermarriage rate between European and Arab Jews high, it is state policy to encourage it and create a homogeneous Sabra identity. I doesn’t appear that you grasp the difference between race and religion when it comes to Jews. Presumably, you would not consider Episcopalian Bantus from West Africa to be ideal marriage material for your kin. The IQ difference between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel is comparable in scale to that between gentile Americans and Bantus. Conclusion: Israeli social policy is dysgenic and harmful to Ashkenazim.

    “In reality non Ashkenazim are routinely discriminated against in Israel and always have been. If anything, this tendency has even gotten worse in the last few decades as more and more newly arrived and very white Russian and east European Ashkenazi Jews have taken up residence there and apparently given much more favorable treatment in university placement and job opportunities.”

    Non-Ashkenazi Jews are not anymore discriminated against than African-Americans. They are victims of the “disparate impact” of their own cognitive inferiority. Considering where you are posting, it is ironic that you blame Ashkenazi discrimination for the under-performance of Mizrahim.

    “Another factor in this increasing racism and continuing lack of intermarriage: The fastest growing group in Israel are the Ashkenazi ultra orthodox, a group that is profoundly and overtly racist and which shuns and avoids any sort of social interaction with non Ashkenazim who they often consider as “unclean” as the average gentile. Chabad, the messianic wing of the ultra orthodox, seems to limits their conversions to only Ashkenazi for some very non PC reason.”

    The ultra orthodox do racially discriminate and are the great hope for Ashkenazi racial survival, but they are currently only 8% of Israel’s population and far outside of the mainstream.

    “It’s already well known just how badly treated the Ethiopian Falasha Jews living in Israel are. The Israeli government has gone as far as secret program of birth control to stop this the growth in population of these “lesser” Jews.”

    I am familiar with the Falasha birth control controversy, it was the result of overzealous social workers attempting to alleviate the pressure on social services, given that Ethiopians are incapable of using conventional birth control. As soon as the controversy erupted, all such injections were strictly banned, though they were exceedingly rare in the first place.

    “Intermarriage of Falasha with Ashkenazi is virtually unknown.”

    Something tells me that you did not try very hard to find such examples. I found this, this, and this in a couple of minutes.

  77. Gault says:

    All religion is essentially a group survival strategy. Identifying with, defending and breeding with ingroup.

    So, its kind of silly for anyone to argue Judaism isn’t a group strategy. MacDonald’s point may just be that they’re better at it than most.

    (This is lost on Americans because we’ve been miscegnating religions for a couple generations now, throughout most of the past 500 or so years in europe it was pretty taboo for a catholic to marry a protestant, and vice versa)

  78. syon says:

    ben tillman:”You haven’t read his writings,”

    I have read them; I just haven’t read them as a disciple.

    ben tillman:”so your characterization of his ideas is, not surprisingly, inaccurate.”

    More like distilled.

    ben tillman:” His What Makes Western Culture Unique? is the best introduction to his views of the White evolutionary strategy.”

    A rather trite piece of work.

    ben tillman:” Looking at it, I don’t see any reference to genes at all.”

    But references to evolution and natural selection are all over the text.

    ben tillman:”He does not claim that “Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group competition to trigger their expression.””

    Which makes them distinct.

    ben tillman:”Instead of genetic programming, what MacDonald discusses is culture and the evolution of cooperation among individualists.”

    And KM also discusses the biological aspects of this.

  79. syon says:

    ben tillman:”But there has been no engagement with the simple and straightforward theses themselves:

    Book 1 & Thesis 1: A Jewish group evolutionary strategy developed.”

    which failed miserably, seeing as how Ashkenazi Jews are 50% European in ancestry.

    ben tillman:”Book 3 & Thesis 3: A number of Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century were designed to prevent European-derived peoples from developing group strategies to compete with the Jewish group.”

    but since the Ashkenazim are 50% European, this was a complete failure.

  80. @syon

    Why are you harping on altruism?

    If a gene evolved in an individual that conferred some advantageous adaptation to living at high altitude and if it didn’t carry with it some counter effect such as turning him into a homicidal maniac that made his presence inimical to any membership in a community, then that gene could be shared with a group of people who could all share a communal life at high altitude.

    Living alone, the gene confers no advantage. He would find no mate because mating in all human societies is as much a function of creating social alliances as pure reproduction. He would likely starve since humans derive a living based on an economy that entails division of labor and marketing their produce to their peers.

  81. syon says:

    Here’s a recent sample of KM’s work:

    I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in Raciology. Lenz, like several modern theorists (e.g., Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton), gives major weight to the selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples. He proposed that the intellectual abilities of these peoples are due to a great need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection for traits related to mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness in problem solving (what psychologists term “performance IQ”). He argued that Jewish intelligence, in contrast, was the result of intensive social living (what psychologists term “verbal IQ”).

    There is in fact good evidence that in general intelligence is linked to mastering the natural environment (see here), and this is particularly the case among Northern peoples.

    Lenz argued that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. Because of the harsh environment of the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective does not imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

    Under ecologically adverse circumstances like the Ice Ages, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical environment than at competing with other groups. In such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Ethnocentrism would be of no importance at all in combating the physical environment.”

    MMMM, seems that terms like “adaptations,” “selection,” etc., are all over the text.

    (http://www.vdare.com/articles/vladimir-avdeyev-and-the-russian-revival-of-racial-science)

  82. syon says:

    And as for the claim that KM is a “memes, not genes” man, this is quite laughable.KM’s work is founded on the repudiation of the Boasian school and all its works:

    “J. Philippe Rushton once commented that science moves forward, continuing to gather data and refine its theories—with one important exception. A century ago, there was a robust Darwinian science of race differences, from differences in head shape and cranial capacity, to differences in intelligence and behavioral restraint. However, this young science was nipped in the bud.

    But not because it was displaced by a new, powerful, empirically-based theory. Rather, the demise of racial science came about because of intellectual movements dominated by ethnic Jews and tightly linked to the political Left—the topic of my book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in 20th-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Kindle edition now available).

    This was a case of science being replaced by ideology—an ideology designed to oppose the idea that Europeans were in any way unique or superior. Ultimately, it was an ideology that rationalized the decline of Europeans and their culture that we see all around us today.

    The new ideology decreed that humans were infinitely malleable creatures of their culture. It eventually became defined by the view that “race does not exist.” Franz Boas, the high priest of the new cult, was a strongly-identified Jew and committed Leftist. His famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of eradicating racial science.

    Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (pdf), physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz, while not quite accusing Boas of scientific fraud, find that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. (See summaries here and here). They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire
    to end race-realist views in anthropology:

    While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.
    As a result of the massive success of this Leftist onslaught, the science of race differences languished. Whatever truths it had uncovered were forgotten.

    In Raciology, the Russian journalist Vladimir Avdeyev resurrects the vast tradition of research on the physical anthropology and psychology of race differences. His book is an exhaustive summary of research in the field from the 18th century to the present. It includes a great many summaries of the research of individual scientists, many of whom have been virtually forgotten.

    But Raciology is far more than a compendium of research. It also vigorously defends the idea that, as Avdeyev puts it, “the problem of race is the nerve center of world history.” It is intended to influence how people think about race in the context of history and current events.

    Several themes recur throughout Raciology.

    Race is overwhelmingly the result of biological inheritance, not cultural programming.”

    Granted, this is from a review of another man’s work, but the tone is one of approval and valorization.

    (http://www.vdare.com/articles/vladimir-avdeyev-and-the-russian-revival-of-racial-science)

  83. syon says:

    3cranes:”Why are you harping on altruism?”

    Better to ask why evolution harps on altruism.

    3cranes:”If a gene evolved in an individual that conferred some advantageous adaptation to living at high altitude and if it didn’t carry with it some counter effect such as turning him into a homicidal maniac that made his presence inimical to any membership in a community, then that gene could be shared with a group of people who could all share a communal life at high altitude.”

    And yet great killers (cg Genghis Khan ) have enjoyed phenomenal reproductive success…

    3cranes:”Living alone, the gene confers no advantage. He would find no mate because mating in all human societies is as much a function of creating social alliances as pure reproduction. He would likely starve since humans derive a living based on an economy that entails division of labor and marketing their produce to their peers.”

    Seems to me that many fathers would be quite pleased at marrying their daughters off to a great killer.

  84. rod1963 says:

    Gault wrote: “All religion is essentially a group survival strategy. Identifying with, defending and breeding with ingroup.

    So, its kind of silly for anyone to argue Judaism isn’t a group strategy. MacDonald’s point may just be that they’re better at it than most.”

    Have to agree with that. The Jews have such a successful group strategy they have managed to become the per-eminent group on this planet in terms of power and control of wealth.

    Wall Street reads like a Yeshiva roll call. Hollywood is well just Jewish, our foreign policy is dictated by dual passport holders whose loyalty is to Israel. Our presidential contenders travel to Israel to be vetted and get their blessing. If this isn’t success I don’t know what is.

    In addition they are the principal adversaries to any attempt by those of European descent to organize themselves and promote their interests the same way Jews do. Want to offend the Askenzaim, just try to promote white rights or anything to prevent demographic destruction by 3rd worlders.

    And to top it, they’ve managed to make any criticism of their group taboo. So should you make a bit too much noise about this group’s activities, you get squashed and you can kiss your career goodbye.

    Now that’s influence.

  85. @syon

    If we’re talking about northern Europeans and Americans, at least 94% of the black African cargo carried across the Atlantic primarily by Portuguese, Spanish, and Jewish slave ships was dropped off in Brazil, Mexico, the Spanish West Indies and rest of Latin America as you must know.

    The approximately 6% that came to British America encountered such benign conditions compared to Africa, Latin America, and the Spanish West Indies that they did not want to leave and, in fact, their descendants still don’t.

    The jewish and muslim role in developing the African slave trade form antiquity is seldom emphasized today.

    I wonder why.

    I wonder why the dominance of jewish merchants in the slave shipping business in 17th and 18th c. America (Aaron Lopez of Newport R.I. etc.) and jewish slave ownership in the south (far more common than gentile slave ownership) is seldom mentioned and when it is is met with false cries of “anti-semitism”.

  86. @Flip

    mostly the smarter and more secular ones

  87. Lewis says:

    “Yeah, MacDonald’s “theories” about how Gentile Europeans (or maybe just the Northern European ones; he tends to be a bit slippery here) are genetically programmed to be tolerant universalists seems just odd.”

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-General&Msc/RacismInBabies–IsraelisVsAryans-Macdonald.htm

    There seems to be a very large genetic difference.

  88. @reiner Tor

    “But I’d like to read a review by a professional, not an intelligent amateur like the Derb.”

    Group natural selection is a pretty tenuous concept, without which, as far as I can tell from having read his articles, MacDonald’s thesis falls apart. One need not google much to find this out. It’s mathematically unsound.

    Evolutionary psychology itself is based on an awful lot of assumptions, really poorly constructed studies and bad statistics.

  89. “Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.”

    When I see stuff like that, I think that maybe I should read what he wrote.

  90. Sara says:

    “the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty”

    How many modern-day followers of the Frankfurt school live in “Bohemian poverty?” If anything, it promoted everyone, Jewish or not, rich or poor, living in urban shtetls.

    “Conservatism
    see The Authoritarian Personality”

    Just as many liberals have the Authoritarian Personality.

  91. MacDonald’s term “group evolutionary strategy” seems overly ambitious. The simple word “tendencies” would suffice.

    But it’s not a matter of the tendencies of Jews as people; it’s about Jewry as a group of people. The term used by MacDonald properly places the phenomenon in its biological and evolutionary context. That context, in my view, is provided by things like D.S. Wilson’s discussion of multilevel organization at pp. 87-98 of Unto Others and pp. 43-44 of Darwin’s Cathedral and E.O. Wilson’s observation (at p. 6 of The Superorganism):

    Endowed with the advantages of colonial life, the social insects have managed to displace solitary insects, such as cockroaches, grasshoppers, and beetles, from the most favored nest sites and defensible foraging ranges. In the most general terms, social insects control the center of the land environment, while solitary insects predominate in the margins.

    Of course, Jews are not as well-organized and internally conflict-free as the social insects, but the point is that this “group evolutionary strategy” is a step in that direction. And Wilson’s statement regarding the “center of the land environment” tells us why it is no coincidence that the most ethnocentric and groupish peoples are found around the junction of the three continents of the Old World. That is prime territory. Northern Europe is not; it consists of the ecological “margins” for humans, and it is where we would expect to — and do — find individualists.

  92. @syon

    “Lenz, like several modern theorists (e.g., Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton), gives major weight to the selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples.”

    The difference between extreme hotness and extreme coldness is that one could do something about the latter but not the former.

    Some like to say that northern euros and asians got smarter because they had it tougher in the north where it was real cold. And so they had to make stuff to cope with the cold. There is truth to this, but surely it was hell for people living in extreme heat too. So, why didn’t hot temp naturally select those who had the smarts to come up with better ways to manage the heat?

    It was because it’s so much more difficult(indeed impossible) for primitive folks to build something like an air conditioner or ice machine than it is for primitive people to build a home with furnace.

    To come with devices to handle the cold, you need advanced technologies(that came much later), whereas there are many ways for even primitive folks to come up with ways to fend themselves from the cold.

    So, both black Africans and northern Euros had it tough, but the latter could do something about it. The former just had to submit to the heat.

  93. Nick D says:

    @Lot

    Just out of interest, what exactly did MacDonald get wrong in his moderately phrased, un-ranting book, CULTURE OF CRITIQUE, published by academic book-seller Praeger?

  94. Nick Dean says:

    @German_reader

    Toxic to whom?

    Will they let you live in their countries?

    Or will they recognize your poison as toxic to them?

  95. M_Young says:

    “Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.”

    CSU Long Beach is a both a four year and a master’s granting institution. Among the CSU’s, I’d reckon that it is among the best. If I were an eighteen year old today, I’d think seriously about attending it — or its sister SDSU — rather than UC Merced or even UC Riverside.

    Further, serious people have devoted quite a lot of effort to ‘debunking’ some of MacDonalds work, and indeed have made some good points.

  96. No one is a bigger fan of David Sloan Wilson than I, but there is a weakness in the presentation of his ideas that causes undue confusion.

    Well both Wilson and you are innumerate. You’re a lawyer who latches on to Wilson’s work for ideological reasons i.e. because it justifies your views.

    Wilson causes confusion because he himself is confused and can’t do math.

  97. Ford says:

    “but since the Ashkenazim are 50% European, this was a complete failure.”

    No, it was definitely a success. The ashkenazim were very, very inbred for the past mellennium. They picked up the European DNA before the diaspora, most of it is Italian if I recall correctly. There was likely a bottleneck sometime around, say 800 AD, after which they spread through germany and eastern europe, being very financially successful and marrying ingroup.

    (Also, the numbers say that Maternal DNA is around 50% european, whether we extrapolate from that ashkenazim are 50% european, I don’t know.)

    But “european” is a broad stroke in this context.

    Just because Ashkenazi jews are part european doesn’t mean we can forget about granularity. Irish, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, are all european, and they are all distinct “races” in the sailer-esque style of relatedness. Jews can be part european and also there own race. Indeed, that is exactly what they are.

  98. Jake says:

    Living alone, the gene confers no advantage. He would find no mate because mating in all human societies is as much a function of creating social alliances as pure reproduction. He would likely starve since humans derive a living based on an economy that entails division of labor and marketing their produce to their peers.

    Obviously pure reproduction is ultimately what matters. Social alliances are irrelevant if they don’t translate into reproduction.

    For most of human history, humans have derived a living individually by hunting and farming. Significant division of labor and trading economies are relatively novel, and there isn’t much indication that they’re especially adaptive.

  99. Donatello says:

    50% European DNA in Ashkenazis doesn’t indicate that Judaism failed as an evolutionary strategy, unless you know the expected value for a bunch of people who landed in Europe without any such “strategy”. Also, the study that showed 50% European DNA in Askenazis also indicated that it came from a bunch of men having to take European wives early on. IE: A lot of the mixing happened early on.

    What are the odds that a group of Middle Easterners who landed in Europe and took European wives 2000 years ago would make it through to today as a distinct group, rather than just blending into the European population? Probably not that high. It’s remarkable that they made it.

    Additionally, the fact that Ashkenazis in Israel may be engaging in dysgenic reproduction with other Jews doesn’t discredit the idea of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy. Evolutionary strategies aren’t foolproof, sometimes they break down as circumstances change. Marrying other Jews had one effect in Europe and it has a different effect in Israel. Ashkenazis aren’t the only group whose evolutionary strategy is failing in the modern environment, in fact they’re still far better off than their European competitors in this regard.

    It seems to me that most human behavior patterns can be thought of as evolutionary strategies. It just so happens that Judaism was extraordinarily successful for the Ashkenazis.

  100. RABBIT says:

    “Intermarriage of Falasha with Ashkenazi is virtually unknown.”

    Quote: “Something tells me that you did not try very hard to find such examples. I found this, this, and this in a couple of minutes”.

    I said intermarriage was virtually, not totally, unknown. You still haven’t answered my question about why the leadership of Israel has little or no indication as regards skin color of having participated in the sort of gene mixing you claim.

    The the percentage of the ultra orthodox who make up the population of the is 10-12% range. If you combine this group with those who identify themselves as merely orthodox the percentage rises to 25% of the Israeli population and is growing exponentially. The orthodox are almost as racist as their ultra brethren as seen by their enthusiastic participation in attacks on Palestinians in the settlements and their particularly savage behavior towards the Palis while serving in the IDF in which they, unlike the ultras, serve.

  101. I think some of the MacDonald critics here are being needlessly nitpicky. Of course one can contest the “strong version” of any theory or quibble on this or that point. (I myself find MacDonald’s books to be a bit too verbosely social scientific for my educational background).

    But here are three major points he makes that are to my mind inarguable:
    1) Traditional Judaism is an extremely ethnocentric ideology advocating systematic racial purity and discrimination against non-Jews (supremacy, lying, usury, genocide) if these advance the Jewish people. Unsurprisingly, this had led to a lot of conflict with virtually every people Jews have come to live among, be they mythical Egyptians, other ancient residents of Palestine, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Western Christians, Eastern Christians, Muslims or other contemporary residents of Palestine. There is no reason to assume that the values of traditional Judaism, which have been criticized by virtually every great man who cared to examine the topic Jesus Christ to Emmanuel Kant, completely disappeared with the Enlightenment and secularization.

    2) Jews and especially Ashkenazim, for whatever reason (e.g. high verbal IQ, intense ethnic nepotism), are massively over-represented among influential elites such as news media, pop culture, academia, law, finance and economic oligarchs. This occurs in every country where they are treated as free “individuals” as opposed to a distinct nation (e.g. since the Enlightenment in the U.S., UK, France, the early Soviet Union, Imperial/Weimar Germany, Putin’s Russia).

    3) *As predicted by multiculturalist theory so dear to leftists*, over-representation of a particular ethnic group among influential elites tends to bias policies in favor of the interests and values/prejudices of that ethnic group. In the language of the left, it’s systemic/institutional bias and discrimination. Concretely this means: Having policies which promote Jews getting even more over-represented (e.g. Affirmation Action discriminates against “whites”/Asians, not Jews as such), which promote Jewish nationalism (e.g. Israel) and which persecute all ethnic European nationalisms, which are perceived as threatening. It is absolutely inarguable that financial, political and perhaps especially cultural clout have been used in this way. The media, ideological, pop cultural and Narrative control – creating the stereotypes (Holocaust special every year, all nationalists are violent idiots), lobbying for ethnically-motivated causes (down with Tsarist Russia, support for Israel, destruction of Israel’s enemies Iraq, Syria and Iran), and setting the bounds of acceptable discourse and censoring/persecuting intelligent and popular nationalists. *Our* nationalists who are charged with defending our own interests, all while subsidizing and vetoing at the U.N. on behalf of the ultra-nationalist Netanyahu-Lieberman clique.

    What more need be said? Can anyone seriously contest these points? (I am only unsure about 1) as I am not an expert of Judaism as a religion, although MacDonald fields formidable, meticulously-sourced evidence.) Anyone who denies the “weak” version of the theory (e.g. Mencius Moldbug) is either misled or disingenuous. They all know – Oldman, Brando, etc – that it’s true. MacDonald just happens to be one of the only men in the world with the integrity and I dare say cojones to say open what everyone up there knows privately or even subconsciously.

    Of course there are stronger versions of the theory which one can criticize. And of course it’s hard to quantify the impact. (Why is political correctness so strong in largely Jew-less Sweden?) Clearly there is a mix of factors at play in the West today: IMHO mainly it’s a combination of corrupted America’s massive cultural influence over the West and a more general post-Christian universalism/assimilationism common in European civilization. (Compare what the Greeks/Romans did when they conquered someone – intermarry – to what the Israelites did. Compare the anti-tribalist, universalist exogamous monogamy of Christianity to those of Judaism.)

    Also in passing, Jewish ethnocentrism today is maintained by a kind of hysterical remembrance of the Holocaust and the supposed perma-threat of “as second Shoah” with the destruction of Israel. These fears are actively maintained by certain Israeli and Jewish elites who have institutional interests in doing so (more support/money for Israel, censorship, their various NGOs, rationalization of ethnic networking, etc). The classic rally-around-the-flag affect, *all the time*.

    What is to be done? Beats me. First step IMHO is to start applying to the Jewish community *the exact same standards* that we (?) apply to the white community: Jewish over-representation is proof of discrimination against non-Jews and requires Affirmative Action to correct, disproportionately-Jewish media (unless explicitly targeting the community) should be forced to be representative of their audience, the concept of “Jewish privilege” should be denounced (as evidenced by higher average wealth, massively higher access to elite education, massive over-representation in elite circles).

    We need to start getting wise. Some will say we, with our humble goyishe kops, are too dumb to fight this racism. Well, there’s about 100 times more gentile whites than Jews, so I’m quite sure there more than enough of our best and brightest at the higher end of bell curve to be up to the task, *if only we have the courage*.

  102. Sunbeam says:

    Syon wrote:

    “His famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of eradicating racial science.”

    And yet to my eye, I can observe differences in photos and movies from the 30′s and 40′s and today. Unscientific, and maybe casting has changed, and plastic surgery is commonplace now.

    Maybe.

    But my lying eyes see the difference.

    And another horrid anecdote for you. I once had a conversation with my father. He was puzzled by the fact that he saw so many blacks with “saucer lips” as a young man. Then he turned around one day as an older man, and none of them had them.

    I have not theory one on this. But if you look at photos from the past, you will see the difference.

    I dunno, maybe whites have pretty well blended over the course of 80 or 90 years. But look at old photos. You can pick out Italians pretty easily, and it’s not just clothes or hairstyles. Look at the faces. They are different now.

    And here is a pretty easy one to check. Compare the appearance of German lineage whites from Minnesota to Germans from Germany. I’d wager you will observe a difference. I know I see one. And they should have a reasonably similar ancestry.

    Geez look at the freaking honkers (nose to you) on a lot of Euros. You see that over here? Even with people who would have the same ancestry if you traced the family tree?

    Just saying there is something to Boas’ theory, or some theory like it. Although I don’t have the slightest idea what that would be without invoking Lysenko.

    Hmmmm wasn’t there some stuff floating around the past few years that kind of sounded similar?

  103. @M_Young

    Yes, CSU Long Beach is definitely a cut above the typical Cal State in terms of admissions.

  104. chuck says:

    @Flip

    “Jews seem to be inter-marrying an awful lot these days…”

    relative to jews, the endogamy odds ratio is still~ 4x that of whites at 2085: 1

    Phillips, B. A. (2013). New demographic perspectives on studying intermarriage in the United States. Contemporary Jewry, 33(1-2), 103-119.

  105. SFG says:

    “Just saying there is something to Boas’ theory, or some theory like it. Although I don’t have the slightest idea what that would be without invoking Lysenko.”

    Could just be epigenetic effects of the American climate/food/what have you on genes controlling facial structure. Or low-level mixing with neighboring populations. It’s really, really hard to tell.

  106. @SFG

    Or changes in popular facial expressions.

  107. “For most of human history, humans have derived a living individually by hunting and farming. Significant division of labor and trading economies are relatively novel, and there isn’t much indication that they’re especially adaptive.”

    So what?

    In the last 10,000 years, hunting and fishing have been practiced by fewer and fewer of the people who are contributing to the next generations, and indeed, there has been intensive selection for division of labor and trading, among other things. (Well, actually, division of labor between men and women has been selected for for quite a bit longer than that.)

  108. A. Whiter says:

    “It was because it’s so much more difficult(indeed impossible) for primitive folks to build something like an air conditioner or ice machine than it is for primitive people to build a home with furnace. To come with devices to handle the cold, you need advanced technologies(that came much later), whereas there are many ways for even primitive folks to come up with ways to fend themselves from the cold. ”

    Thermodynamics is a bitch.

  109. Jake says:

    So what?

    Significant division of labor and trading economies are relatively novel, and there isn’t much indication that they’re especially adaptive.

  110. A. Whiter says:

    “Could just be epigenetic effects of the American climate/food/what have you on genes controlling facial structure. Or low-level mixing with neighboring populations. It’s really, really hard to tell.”

    Or morphic resonance. Which would also explain why some adopted children acquire the facial structures of their non-genetic parents.

  111. Jon says:

    You haven’t read his writings, so your characterization of his ideas is, not surprisingly, inaccurate. His What Makes Western Culture Unique? is the best introduction to his views of the White evolutionary strategy.

    Clearly you don’t understand MacDonald’s work and what is meant by “group evolutionary strategy” if you think that is about “the White evolutionary strategy”.

  112. just me says:

    Chuck Schumer – who is a staunch abortion advocate – along with several other prominent Jewish abortion advocates – support an organization which encourages Israeli women to not have abortions. The claim the organization only targets married israeli women, but the hypocrisy of such a position was enough to convince me they aren’t just ethnocentric, they are downright evil.

  113. syon says:

    Donotellop:”50% European DNA in Ashkenazis doesn’t indicate that Judaism failed as an evolutionary strategy, unless you know the expected value for a bunch of people who landed in Europe without any such “strategy”. Also, the study that showed 50% European DNA in Askenazis also indicated that it came from a bunch of men having to take European wives early on. IE: A lot of the mixing happened early on.”

    It has rather severe consequences for KM’s theory of group selection.

  114. Sean says:

    It is noteworthy that the leading philosopher in the continental tradition, Slavoj Žižek, chose the relatively obscure Kevin MacDonald to attack.

    Millwright, I think you will find that Martin Nowak can do maths pretty good (something relevant from his Supercooperators about culture in what he calls multilevel selection here).

    Like MacDonald says, humans can monitor and enforce compliance, (so the free rider gets stomped). And like MacDonald also says, group strategies can be maladaptive. like the Shakers.

  115. syon says:

    Durocher:”(Compare what the Greeks/Romans did when they conquered someone – intermarry – to what the Israelites did. Compare the anti-tribalist, universalist exogamous monogamy of Christianity to those of Judaism.)”

    Actually, the Classical Greeks displayed quite a bit of anxiety over the dilution of their Greek blood (cf the classical distinction between Greeks and barbarians, Aristotle’s notion that only non-Greeks should be slaves, etc).

    As for the Jews, well, there was that rather famous incident involving the conversion of the Idumeans (“They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BC), who forcibly converted them, among others, to Judaism[36] and incorporated them into the Jewish nation,”, WIKIPEDIA). That brought alien blood into Israel, not mention, at a later date, a foreign dynasty (Herod).

    One might further point out that Christian universalism stems from Paul (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”), and Paul was a Jew (a Hebrew of the Hebrews, to use his phrase).

  116. syon says:

    Ford:”No, it was definitely a success.”

    Not from KM’s standpoint; he’s all about group selection and genetic purity.

  117. syon says:

    ben tillman:”But it’s not a matter of the tendencies of Jews as people; it’s about Jewry as a group of people. The term used by MacDonald properly places the phenomenon in its biological and evolutionary context. ”

    Which is to say, group selection. Which is a huge knock against his theory.

    ben tillman:”That context, in my view, is provided by things like D.S. Wilson’s discussion of multilevel organization at pp. 87-98 of Unto Others and pp. 43-44 of Darwin’s Cathedral and E.O. Wilson’s observation (at p. 6 of The Superorganism):

    Endowed with the advantages of colonial life, the social insects have managed to displace solitary insects, such as cockroaches, grasshoppers, and beetles, from the most favored nest sites and defensible foraging ranges. In the most general terms, social insects control the center of the land environment, while solitary insects predominate in the margins.”

    MMMM, I seem to recall reading somewhere that insects and mammals differ in terms of reproduction….

    ben tillman:”Of course, Jews are not as well-organized and internally conflict-free as the social insects,”

    You don’t say?Might that have something to do with Jews being mammals?

    ben tillman:”but the point is that this “group evolutionary strategy” is a step in that direction.”

    A step which does not work.

    ben tillman:”And Wilson’s statement regarding the “center of the land environment” tells us why it is no coincidence that the most ethnocentric and groupish peoples are found around the junction of the three continents of the Old World. That is prime territory.
    Northern Europe is not; it consists of the ecological “margins” for humans, and it is where we would expect to — and do — find individualists.”

    And now we come to another reason why Ashkenazi Jews being half-European is important. How does this admixture event square with KM’s group selection theory?

  118. Sean says:

    @syon

    The Spartans’ strategy was not all that successful in the long run. But it did exist.

  119. syon says:

    Ben Tillman, I’m a tad confused. First you write this:

    “You haven’t read his writings, so your characterization of his ideas is, not surprisingly, inaccurate. His What Makes Western Culture Unique? is the best introduction to his views of the White evolutionary strategy. Looking at it, I don’t see any reference to genes at all. He does not claim that “Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group competition to trigger their expression.”

    Instead of genetic programming, what MacDonald discusses is culture and the evolution of cooperation among individualists. In this cultural context. “[t]he best strategy to destroy Europeans . . . is to convince Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy”, which is what the intellectual movements discussed by MacDonald in CofC have done.”

    Which sets up KM as a cultural theorist, “memes, not genes.”

    But then you write this:

    “But it’s not a matter of the tendencies of Jews as people; it’s about Jewry as a group of people. The term used by MacDonald properly places the phenomenon in its biological and evolutionary context. That context, in my view, is provided by things like D.S. Wilson’s discussion of multilevel organization at pp. 87-98 of Unto Others and pp. 43-44 of Darwin’s Cathedral and E.O. Wilson’s observation (at p. 6 of The Superorganism):

    Endowed with the advantages of colonial life, the social insects have managed to displace solitary insects, such as cockroaches, grasshoppers, and beetles, from the most favored nest sites and defensible foraging ranges. In the most general terms, social insects control the center of the land environment, while solitary insects predominate in the margins.

    Of course, Jews are not as well-organized and internally conflict-free as the social insects, but the point is that this “group evolutionary strategy” is a step in that direction. And Wilson’s statement regarding the “center of the land environment” tells us why it is no coincidence that the most ethnocentric and groupish peoples are found around the junction of the three continents of the Old World. That is prime territory. Northern Europe is not; it consists of the ecological “margins” for humans, and it is where we would expect to — and do — find individualists.”

    Which plunges us smack dab into the world of biology.

    Which posting reflects your actual thoughts?The former or the latter?

  120. I cannot imagine any sound argument that could be used to justify the belief that natural selection acts upon the individual and not the group. Sex is with someone else so natural selection is by definition group selection.

    Neither you nor Syon seems to understand evolutionary theory very well.

    1. Selection acts on individuals. There is no question of that.

    2. Humans are extremely social, and thus one of the components that selection can act on is the mental toolkit for social behavior.

    3. Ethnocentrism is very useful in certain environments because it ensures that a gene pool that works well as a whole is not polluted with worthless alleles from outside the pool (although some new genes will be accepted from time to time.)

    4. Those who are not so ethnocentric will tend to boil off. See Cochran for this useful analogy.

    Over time, with the right characteristics in its members such a gene pool will be maintained, and will look like group selection. It’s an outcome-based thing.

  121. @syon

    Why does it have rather severe consequences for KM’s theory of group selection? Jews are still more closely related to each other than they are to non-Jews.

  122. I was dragged to hear Zizek speak once. I walked out when he said rape is “more authentic” than normal sexual intercourse. So maybe you should add another “(?)” to the caption–after “lucky.”

  123. Ambacti says:

    “You still haven’t answered my question about why the leadership of Israel has little or no indication as regards skin color of having participated in the sort of gene mixing you claim.”

    The leadership of Israel does not perfectly mirror the demographics of the country for the same reason that the leadership of the democratic party does not perfectly reflect its constituents, because merit matters. Netanyahu is Ashkenazi, but his constituents, like these fine folks, are primarily Mizrahim.

    “The orthodox are almost as racist as their ultra brethren as seen by their enthusiastic participation in attacks on Palestinians in the settlements and their particularly savage behavior towards the Palis while serving in the IDF in which they, unlike the ultras, serve.”

    I would appreciate some sources for this.

  124. Sean says:

    @syon

    KM’s theory is not genetic, it’s based on social identity theory. He noted the deliberate genetic isolation of the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn means they can’t influence the wider culture by critique.

  125. Why does it have rather severe consequences for KM’s theory of group selection? Jews are still more closely related to each other than they are to non-Jews.

    He also seems not to understand that the evolution/selection of social behavioral traits is a form of group selection. If the trait selected for is not compatible with the group, it will disintegrate or those with an incompatible trait will boil off (and their trait might well confer greater reproductive success within another group.)

  126. Whether evolution acts at the group or individual level seems to be the main issue under contention.

    I cannot imagine any sound argument that could be used to justify the belief that natural selection acts upon the individual and not the group.

    Right, and there is no real disagreement. Those who say they reject “group” selection in fact concede their agreement with the concept inasmuch as everything they characterize as “individual” selection is also an instance of “group” selection. All “individuals” are also groups of lower-level units.

    The problem is that the “individual” selectionists aren’t trying to get things right. They haven’t read and considered D.S. Wilson’s work, or they are being obtuse.

  127. “which failed miserably, seeing as how Ashkenazi Jews are 50% European in ancestry.”

    I’ll just point out that this European ancestry is mostly Mediterranean, largely Italian, and so presumably dates from the Roman period or early Middle Ages. Before the Ashkenazis were Ashkenazi, in fact. Once they emerged as a distinctive group in the Rhineland sometime in the late first millennium they didn’t intermarry with Gentile (or any who did left the community).

    So, this admixture challenges to McDonald’s thesis but is very far from demolishing it. One can imagine the Jewish experience in America ending up somewhat like their Roman experience (minus he bloodily suppressed revolts)… they go through a period of assimilation and frequent intermarriage but later regroup into endogamous communities — but carrying a load of Gentile genes with them. That is, some would regroup; others, possibly a majority, assimilate into general society.

  128. iSeveFan says:

    I dunno, maybe whites have pretty well blended over the course of 80 or 90 years. But look at old photos. You can pick out Italians pretty easily, and it’s not just clothes or hairstyles. Look at the faces. They are different now.

    I think there is a lot to clothes and hairstyles. Check out this photo of Don Francisco, the guy from Spanish TV. His mom and dad were German-Jews who immigrated to Chile. Had his parents gone to Ellis Island, he’d probably appear very different. A difference attributable to clothing, hairstyle, and cultural mannerisms.

    PS. I have first cousins in Europe, and if you look hard, you can see the resemblance. But the way they dress and groom, and their mannerisms are very different, and makes me question any relationship at all. For example, in the US there are certain ways you shake your head if you agree or disagree. But our cousins have body language quirks that I completely misinterpreted the first time I met them.

  129. Sebastian says:

    I’ll just point out that this European ancestry is mostly Mediterranean, largely Italian, and so presumably dates from the Roman period or early Middle Ages. Before the Ashkenazis were Ashkenazi, in fact. Once they emerged as a distinctive group in the Rhineland sometime in the late first millennium they didn’t intermarry with Gentile (or any who did left the community).

    That simply isn’t true. All those blue-eyed, green-eyed, hazel-eyed and blond or red headed Jews did not come about by some strange process of parallel evolution. They’ve been having sex with the people around them for the last thousand years.

  130. Svigor says:

    Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.

    And here I figured this thread would serve up a pot of the same weak tea as always. Kudos, sir.

    P.S., will someone please pass along to KMac’s Jewish colleagues the fact that they are unserious?

    P.P.S., the fact that Jews are now the snobby, weak, pinkies-out orthodoxy is very amusing.

    P.P.P.S., the notion that MacDonald is “obscure” in any meaningful sense (i.e., compared to the average academic) is even more amusing. “Obscure” does not mean “not among the 100 most famous” or some such. And “infamous” does not mean obscure, any more than “notoriety” means obscurity.

    Jews seem to be inter-marrying an awful lot these days…

    Jews are perpetually on the way out “real soon now.”

    Most of the descendants of Jews then alive became Christians (and later probably Muslims). We don’t call those descendants “Jews”.

    Yes, and without that core of non-assimilating Jews, the great many Jewish genes smuggled into surrounding populations would not have been so. I give Derb credit for having the nerve to review MacDonald with any semblance of rigor at all, but having the best review of him to date is an extremely low bar.

    Reformed Jews are a couple of generations from extinction, based on fertility and intermarriage. Ultra-Orthodox is a different story. They are breeding like rabbits and they don’t marry outside the tribe. As a result, fifty years from now Americans will have an image of Jews similar to the modern image of the Amish. That’s a weird, isolated sect that is nothing more than a curiosity.

    The Doom of the Jews is always just around the corner, the Doom of a Thousand Faces.

    The supposed hyper-etnocentrism of Jews (& low etnocentrism of white Europeans) have also never been quantified, both big supporting arguments for K-Mac’s work.

    My favorite is when lots of Jews swarm Steve’s threads, falling all over each other to prove how un-ethnocentric Jews are.

    Minor things like racialized forms of slavery, the conquest of Australia, the Holocaust, Leopold’s regime in the Congo, etc, seem to just not register with him.

    If one disentangles the tendency (and ability) to explore or conquer from that list, it shrinks a lot. Leaving the question, “compared to whom?” But I do tend to agree that he over-emphasizes European tendency toward univesalistic altruism. I think social conditioning/conformism are at least as important.

    As an ethno-nationalistic Ashkenazi Jew, I find the classification of what amounts to the racial debasement of Ashkenazim in Israel as “ethno-nationalism” to be irksome.

    You used to post under a different pseudonym, yes? I can’t recall it at the moment.

    if malevolent ethno-nationalists like the Ashkenazim see no problem in breeding with 90 IQ Iraqi Jews and 85 IQ Yemeni Jews, or importing 65 IQ Ethiopian Jews

    Hard to get to the “then” part if the “if” part is absurd.

    but this does not, as MacDonald believes, imply a coherent

    I never got the coherent bit from reading MacDonald. I almost never get it from “ANTI-SEMITES!!!” anywhere outside of Stormfront. I hear it regularly from anti-”ANTI-SEMITES!!!,” of course.

    True, but they did practice it on a monumental scale.

    True, but you have to correct for scale if you want to separate tendencies from abilities.

    How so?Millions of West Africans were brought to the New World to serve as slave labor. That certainly seems monumental to me.

    Might as well argue about European tendencies toward violent crime by pointing at World War II. Again, scale must be corrected for ability. E.g., the Rwandans Genocide easily surpassed the European Holocaust in terms of death rates. The main weapon? The machete. What heights would Rwandans achieve with real ability?

    Actually, no. MacDonald argues that Jews are focused on their genetic preservation to a unique degree.

    Cite?

    Furthermore, he argues that this is focus is genetically determined.

    Cite?

    No, it’s the Ashkenazim intermarriage with Gentile Europeans that is problematic.And this problem goes far back in time

    Lol. The Doom of the Jews is always just around the corner.

    That seems to put something of a crimp in MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as group selection, seeing as how the Ashkenazi group suffered a massive infusion of alien genes…

    Is this the first time you’ve been presented with the idea of the massive exfiltration of Jewish genes into surrounding populations over thousands of years? Surely, it can’t be. It’s simple math as to who’s gotten the better of that battle over the years. There’s no straight-faced argument to be made that “Gentile” barriers to this flow were superior to the Jewish ones.

  131. Jared says:

    Right, and there is no real disagreement. Those who say they reject “group” selection in fact concede their agreement with the concept inasmuch as everything they characterize as “individual” selection is also an instance of “group” selection. All “individuals” are also groups of lower-level units.

    No, you’re confused. There is no such concession because “group” is not used in this trivial sense in this context.

  132. anonymous says:

    …obscure community college professors.

    Not so obscure if you are commenting on them.

  133. nano says:

    “Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors.”

    Densely packed ad hominems are an ethnic signature. As well as being an interesting evolutionary observation it’s pretty much all you need to know on this subject. However…

    .

    1) “From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from A.D. 79 to A.D. 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?”

    2) “Since the Ashkenazy Jewish population grew faster than probably any other identifiable European population, the answer is clearly no.”

    I don’t think either of those are right cos

    1) I think you need to see the Jewish strategy in the context of preserving a people without a homeland. I think it has taken on a separate life of its own as an evolutionary strategy – hence the zionist / diaspora split – but I think its origin was as a temporary survival strategy. If correct then Jews in Israel should develop a “normal” evolutionary strategy if they haven’t already.

    so

    zionist: normal evolutionary strategy -> survivalist evolutionary strategy -> normal evolutionary strategy

    diaspora: normal evolutionary strategy -> survivalist evolutionary strategy -> survivalist strategy turns into ongoing evolutionary strategy

    2) Didn’t the Ashkenazi population explosion happen after expulsion from their economic niche in Western Europe when they temporarily adopted an Amish-style evolutionary strategy instead? (I could be wrong on this.)

    .

    “I always thought Gregory Cochran did a good job arguing against the idea of group selection in humans, thereby (for me) putting K-Mac’s first book, on which his other books are based, on shaky grounds.”

    Humans can use culture to generate selection pressures that would be impossible otherwise. This use of culture to allow group-selection (via distorting individual selection) also means that cultural warfare becomes a viable way to engage in group competition. If you have a competing group with a healthy culture (healthy in group reproductive terms) then you can weaken them by damaging that healthy culture.

    .

    “The supposed hyper-ethnocentrism of Jews (& low ethnocentrism of white Europeans) have also never been quantified, both big supporting arguments for K-Mac’s work.”

    The hyper-ethnocentrism is self-evident just by looking at the MSM. Disparate impact is used as de facto evidence of racism, there is massive disparate impact in the MSM, and yet Jews in the media don’t attack disparate impact to the benefit of Jews in the media but do attack it anywhere white people are benefiting from it. Even if Jewish over-representation in the media was entirely on merit the disparate impact in who gets attacked over disparate impact is clear proof of hyper-ethnocentricity. It couldn’t get more self-evident.

    On the other hand I disagree with KMac over low white ethnocentrism. I think this gets distorted by most of the world revolving around extended family networks so for example an Indian may seem like they are only employing Indians but in reality they are only employing cousins. I actually think white people are more ethnocentric by default than most populations (as a result of the same kind of processes KMac describes) but that default has been reduced through cultural pressure.

    .

    “His weakest point, of course, involves his predilection for evolutionary causes (group selection, etc).”

    Gene-culture co-evolution covers any gaps.

  134. Svigor says:

    Book 1 & Thesis 1: A Jewish group evolutionary strategy developed.”

    which failed miserably, seeing as how Ashkenazi Jews are 50% European in ancestry.

    ben tillman:”Book 3 & Thesis 3: A number of Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century were designed to prevent European-derived peoples from developing group strategies to compete with the Jewish group.”

    but since the Ashkenazim are 50% European, this was a complete failure.

    I haven’t followed the genetic stuff at all for years: how European are, say, Palestinians (Arabs) or Syrians on these same metrics?

    That aside, it’s a bit silly to state that strategies that have kept a relatively similar (and thus assimilable) population from assimilating for more than a thousand years is “a complete failure.” If you’ve read MacDonald, you’re familiar with the fact that identity need not remain unchanged in order to remain viable and distinct.

    How many modern-day followers of the Frankfurt school live in “Bohemian poverty?” If anything, it promoted everyone, Jewish or not, rich or poor, living in urban shtetls.

    Contempt for money-grubbing seems to have enjoyed a lot of success since then. But, just because something failed doesn’t mean it wasn’t attempted.

    50% European DNA in Ashkenazis doesn’t indicate that Judaism failed as an evolutionary strategy, unless you know the expected value for a bunch of people who landed in Europe without any such “strategy”

    The expected value for a group as similar (i.e., fellow light-skinned Caucasoids) as Levantines approaches 100%, given a relatively small population (check) and a lack of strong barriers.

    Additionally, the fact that Ashkenazis in Israel may be engaging in dysgenic reproduction with other Jews doesn’t discredit the idea of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy. Evolutionary strategies aren’t foolproof, sometimes they break down as circumstances change. Marrying other Jews had one effect in Europe and it has a different effect in Israel. Ashkenazis aren’t the only group whose evolutionary strategy is failing in the modern environment, in fact they’re still far better off than their European competitors in this regard.

    Well said.

    We need to start getting wise. Some will say we, with our humble goyishe kops, are too dumb to fight this racism. Well, there’s about 100 times more gentile whites than Jews, so I’m quite sure there more than enough of our best and brightest at the higher end of bell curve to be up to the task, *if only we have the courage*.

    In most ways, awareness is the entire battle. Jewish influence depends wholly upon “Gentile” consent (and submission, and cooperation). Jewish power is soft power, through and through. This is why Jews fight tooth and nail all the time; at some level (it varies) they know that the war of words is the whole kit and kaboodle.

    “Jews seem to be inter-marrying an awful lot these days…”

    relative to jews, the endogamy odds ratio is still~ 4x that of whites at 2085: 1

    The most salient thing about the Jewish wailing about intermarriage is the ethnocentrism; they “suffer” far less of it, and complain far more. Euros don’t complain about intermarriage between Euros and Bantus any more. Jews don’t intermarry with Bantus, perhaps because they complain so much about intermarriage between Jews and white European “Gentiles.”

    One might further point out that Christian universalism stems from Paul (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”), and Paul was a Jew (a Hebrew of the Hebrews, to use his phrase).

    And, going further, that Jews are today largely concerned with universalism for the Europeans and particularism for the Jews.

    Not from KM’s standpoint; he’s all about group selection and genetic purity.

    Nonsense, you’re misrepresenting MacDonald. He’s addressed the issue of purity repeatedly and his position contradicts your assertion (i.e., deception). In a nutshell, he says that purity is not an issue (in a non-relative sense), and that group interests are not hitched to “purity.” E.g., mestizos have racial interests regardless of their mixed origins.

    MMMM, I seem to recall reading somewhere that insects and mammals differ in terms of reproduction….

    Putting “MMMM” at the front doesn’t put a point on it.

    A step which does not work.

    Maybe shouting it will make it more persuasive.

    Which posting reflects your actual thoughts?The former or the latter?

    Where are the discrete races? Etc.

    4. Those who are not so ethnocentric will tend to boil off. See Cochran for this useful analogy.

    One man’s “boiling off” is another man’s one-way (relatively, as in all things social) gene flow. Those genes didn’t boil off, so much as make the surrounding populations more like Jews.

    KM’s theory is not genetic, it’s based on social identity theory. He noted the deliberate genetic isolation of the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn means they can’t influence the wider culture by critique.

    I won’t argue as to basis, but yes, MacDonald returns to SID consistently.

    I’ll just point out that this European ancestry is mostly Mediterranean, largely Italian, and so presumably dates from the Roman period or early Middle Ages. Before the Ashkenazis were Ashkenazi, in fact.

    The bold part is what some here are being obtuse about. Note that the strategy could have preceded the creation of said group without creating any of the “ginormous problems” for that strategy that we keep hearing about, but not seeing.

    That simply isn’t true. All those blue-eyed, green-eyed, hazel-eyed and blond or red headed Jews did not come about by some strange process of parallel evolution. They’ve been having sex with the people around them for the last thousand years.

    1. There aren’t that many light-eyed and -haired Jews. They’re mostly brown-eyed and -haired.

    2. A trait can spread within a group after being introduced by relatively few outsiders, via sexual selection.

  135. Svigor says:

    but having the best review of him to date is an extremely low bar.

  136. Svigor says:

    Doh. Let me try that again, again:
    but having the best hostile review of him to date is an extremely low bar.

  137. anonymous says:

    (Why is political correctness so strong in largely Jew-less Sweden?)

    I believe the big paper has a long-time Jewish owner.

  138. anonymous says:

    The Spartans’ strategy was not all that successful in the long run. But it did exist.

    I thought the Spartan government lasted longer, significantly longer, than any other in history.

  139. Boomstick says:

    “[Derbyshire's] plush job at National Review Magazine”

    I think he’s said he wasn’t actually paid for his commentary there, though he appears to have been paid for articles at a piece rate.

    “Fowler said Derbyshire was not a National Review employee, but contributor and paid as a contract worker. ”

    So I don’t think it was particularly plush, other than as a platform that increased his personal brand visibility and book sales.

  140. Sunbeam says:

    Svigor wrote:

    “Jews seem to be inter-marrying an awful lot these days…

    Jews are perpetually on the way out “real soon now.”

    The Doom of the Jews is always just around the corner, the Doom of a Thousand Faces.

    No, it’s the Ashkenazim intermarriage with Gentile Europeans that is problematic.And this problem goes far back in time

    Lol. The Doom of the Jews is always just around the corner.”

    Well you wrote some of it, in response to quotes from yet another person.

    But you are handwaving. Things are different now. Everything is different now, not just this particular ethnic group, and a way of life.

    My god, look at the behavioral and organizational changes of people these past two decades alone. You can see it in real time.

    I’m guessing you think Jews are immune to such things. Right.

    To my eye they are changing as well. I can’t say I’m tuned in to the heart of Jewish life or whatever, let alone what is going on in Mecca (NYC). But I see a lot of intermarriages. And you see a lot in the media.

    Can you honestly tell me that this level of intermarriage isn’t new?

    You have a problem with your argument, in my opinion at least. Resilient this culture may be, but it now exists in a mass popular culture unprecedented in it’s power (and idiocy).

    This thing is a mindless beast, the child of a thousand hucksters or something. And given not too much time it can break anything: Christianity, Patriotism, Nationalism, Gender, Sexual Identity, Marriage Arrangements, Islam, Jewish Summer Camp… you name it, it rearranges things.

    I think there is a perception that Jewish Central Command coordinates things somewhere. I don’t think so. You have a lot of Jewish people involved in various media and intelligentsia (for all that anyone besides the blogosphere pays attention to that anymore), but I don’t think they have anything more than a kind of crude control or something. To my eye any attempt to control this thing is like a guy wildly swinging a chainsaw around. You just know he is going to cut something off by accident.

    I guess to me it is what do you think you are looking at? Things seem to be plain as day to me. I see the effects on my particular culture all the time. And it sure as heck seems to be working on Jews too, though I am a distant, not particularly interested observer. If it weren’t for the outsized current effect they have on American Politics I wouldn’t pay attention at all.

    Tell me, how are you going to transmit cultural values, normalize people’s thinking, get them to adhere to a code and values, when basically it is everything, all the time? Just by turning on a TV, going on the Internet, going on vacation to somewhere really cool?

    I also want to add that I really would like to a breakdown of various Jewish groups by IQ. Particularly Lubavitcher types in the US, and the Fundamentalist ones in Israel.

    My point is this: You can’t keep a kid on the farm when he has seen Paris.

    There has been various talk here of different groups “boiling off” and leaving behind those best suited for whatever life they pursue: West Virginia whites, Amish, etc.

    The Ultra Orthodox can’t be any different can they? Sure seems to me they are selecting for the ones “Too dumb to get out.”

  141. @anonynmous – So it is, the “liberal” Dagens Nyheter is led by Peter Wolodarksi and is the highest-circulation paper.

    And Poland’s “center-left” Gazeta Wiborcza (second-highest circulation) is run by Adam Michnik.

    So even with 0.1% (or whatever) of the population, they’re very successful in the media bidness!

    @syon – I would be very interested in reading a detailed, good-faith critique of MacDonald’s work and I sure it has stronger and weaker points. So far I have yet to see his critics do so.

  142. I can’t tell if this ‘group evolutionary strategy’ thing is supposed to be a meme for perpetuating a Jewish culture, or for perpetuating Jewish genes. It sounds more like the former, in which case genetics arguments presumably aren’t applicable. Characteristics of the Jewishness meme that help its survival & propagation would be no different from characteristics of other memes such as (other) religions, ideologies, etc. The ones that stick around always have characteristics that help them stick around. The memes may piggyback closely on genes – Amishness piggybacks closely on Amish genes; some people won’t have good gene sets to carry a meme even if they were to be adopted into the meme’s culture, a Haitian baby adopted by the Amish would not likely grow up to be a good Amish.

  143. nano says:

    @Simon in London
    “I can’t tell if this ‘group evolutionary strategy’ thing is supposed to be a meme for perpetuating a Jewish culture, or for perpetuating Jewish genes.”

    I think it was a genetic strategy at one time with the culture used to perpetuate genes and two parts of it still are (zionist and diaspora orthodox) but other parts of it have spun off and morphed into something else. For example the banking mafia has a lot of Jews in it but is it Jewish or is it more of a hybrid caste like the Donmeh? People like David Cameron and Boris Johnson exemplify this group. They’re not really English but they’re not really Jewish either.

  144. Sean says:

    A theory like Kevin MacDonald’s is only looking at, can only look at, one aspect of reality. In the real world there are all kinds of other factors fluctuating at lower and higher levels of selection. There are individual differences in ability to gain wealth and status outside the group; there are nation states that are non nationalistic when not under threat, but act differently when facing perceived dangers; there are international political ideologies.

    I would agree that Jews have intermarried freely in the past, and modern intermarriage is diluting Jewish communities. It is also true that Sweden (and IMO Germany) show that countries without powerful Jewish communities can be very egalitarian and non nationalistic. But no one ought to expect any theory to account for everything in the real world, which is always far more complex that what can be said about it.

  145. syon says:

    Svigor:”That aside, it’s a bit silly to state that strategies that have kept a relatively similar (and thus assimilable) population from assimilating for more than a thousand years is “a complete failure.” If you’ve read MacDonald, you’re familiar with the fact that identity need not remain unchanged in order to remain viable and distinct.”

    I have read KM; and admixture on this level massively works against his thesis, which is predicated on group selection.

    Svigor:”Nonsense, you’re misrepresenting MacDonald. He’s addressed the issue of purity repeatedly and his position contradicts your assertion (i.e., deception). In a nutshell, he says that purity is not an issue (in a non-relative sense), and that group interests are not hitched to “purity.” E.g., mestizos have racial interests regardless of their mixed origins.”

    Again, how does KM square 50% admixture with alien blood with his group selection theory?

    Svigor:”Putting “MMMM” at the front doesn’t put a point on it.”

    Well, I thought that I was dealing with a smart crowd and did not have to spell things out. But, if you insist. Comparing social insects to mammals is the height of lunacy based on the fact that their methods of reproduction differ quite markedly. Group selection makes sense when you are talking about social insects; it is nonsense when you are talking about humans.

    Svigor:”Maybe shouting it will make it more persuasive.”

    I prefer to leave the shouting to KM.

    Svigor:”One man’s “boiling off” is another man’s one-way (relatively, as in all things social) gene flow. Those genes didn’t boil off, so much as make the surrounding populations more like Jews.”

    And, following this logic, shouldn’t the massive infusion of Gentile European genes have made the Ashkenazi more like Gentile Europeans and less like Jews?

  146. syon says:

    Nano:”Gene-culture co-evolution covers any gaps.”

    So, wave the magic wand then?God is in the gaps?

  147. syon says:

    Svigor:”True, but you have to correct for scale if you want to separate tendencies from abilities”

    Which still leaves us with the fact that such acts work against KM’s notions of the Ice Age inheritance having shaped Gentile Europeans/Nordics into Kantian universalists avant la lettre.

    Svigor:”Might as well argue about European tendencies toward violent crime by pointing at World War II.”

    Apples and oranges. Violent crime and well-organized military actions have little to nothing in common.

    Svigor:” Again, scale must be corrected for ability. E.g., the Rwandans Genocide easily surpassed the European Holocaust in terms of death rates. The main weapon? The machete. What heights would Rwandans achieve with real ability?”

    Which means that Gentile Europeans are more dangerous than Rwandans?

  148. Ford says:

    syon,

    You are deliberately ignoring that Ashkenazi genetics have likely had that 50% european mtDNA for the past millenium. It is not admixture with alien blood, it is part of what makes an Ashkenazi jew and Ashkenazi jew.

    Ashkenazi’s have had miniscule amounts of outmarriage until the latter portion of last century. Whatever strategy they had to keep their kids marrying ingroup, it worked.

  149. syon says:

    Sean:”KM’s theory is not genetic, it’s based on social identity theory. He noted the deliberate genetic isolation of the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn means they can’t influence the wider culture by critique.”

    then why does he spend a great deal of time talking about group selection, adaptation, biological inheritance, etc, if it’s all about “social identity theory?”

  150. syon says:

    Here’s a rather decent essay on the problems with applying group selection to humans from Steven Pinker:

    http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

  151. syon says:

    From Steven Pinker:

    What about groups? Natural selection could legitimately apply to groups if they met certain conditions: the groups made copies of themselves by budding or fissioning, the descendant groups faithfully reproduced traits of the parent group (which cannot be reduced to the traits of their individual members), except for mutations that were blind to their costs and benefits to the group; and groups competed with one another for representation in a meta-population of groups. But everyone agrees that this is not what happens in so-called “group selection.” In every case I’ve seen, the three components that make natural selection so indispensable are absent.

    (a) The criterion of success is not the number of copies in a finite population (in this case, the meta-population of groups), but some analogue of success like size, influence, wealth, power, longevity, territory, or preeminence. An example would be the “success” of monotheistic religions. No one claims that monotheistic religions are more fission-prone than polytheistic ones, and that as a consequence there are numerically more monotheistic belief systems among the thousands found on earth. Rather, the “success” consists of monotheistic religions having more people, territory, wealth, might, and influence. These are impressive to a human observer, but they are not what selection, literally interpreted, brings about.

    (b) The mutations are not random. Conquerors, leaders, elites, visionaries, social entrepreneurs, and other innovators use their highly nonrandom brains to figure out tactics and institutions and norms and beliefs that are intelligently designed in response to a felt need (for example, to get their group to predominate over their rivals).

    (c) The “success” applies to the entity itself, not to an entity at the end of a chain of descendants. It was the Roman Empire that took over most of the ancient world, not a group that splintered off from a group that splintered off from a group that splintered off from the Roman Empire, each baby Roman Empire very much like the parent Roman Empire except for a few random alterations, and the branch of progeny empires eventually outnumbering the others.

    On top of these differences, most of the groupwide traits that group selectionists try to explain are cultural rather than genetic. The trait does not arise from some gene whose effects propagate upward to affect the group as a whole, such as a genetic tendency of individuals to disperse which leads the group to have a widespread geographic distribution, or an ability of individuals to withstand stressful environments which leads the species to survive mass extinction events. Instead, they are traits that are propagated culturally, such as religious beliefs, social norms, and forms of political organization. Modern group selectionists are often explicit that it is cultural traits they are talking about, or even that they are agnostic about whether the traits they are referring to are genetic or cultural.

    What all this means is that so-called group selection, as it is invoked by many of its advocates, is not a precise implementation of the theory of natural selection, as it is, say, in genetic algorithms or artificial life simulations. Instead it is a loose metaphor, more like the struggle among kinds of tires or telephones. For this reason the term “group selection” adds little to what we have always called “history.” Sure, some cultures have what it takes to become more populous or powerful or widespread, including expansionist ideologies, proselytizing offensives, effective military strategies, lethal weaponry, stable government, social capital, the rule of law, and norms of tribal loyalty. But what does “natural selection” add to the historian’s commonplace that some groups have traits that cause them to grow more populous, or wealthier, or more powerful, or to conquer more territory, than others?

    http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

  152. syon says:

    More from Pinker:

    Let’s now turn to the traits of individuals. Is group selection necessary to explain the evolution of psychological traits adapted to group living such as tribalism, bravery, self-sacrifice, xenophobia, religion, empathy, and moralistic emotions?

    The reproductive success of humans undoubtedly depends in part on the fate of their groups. If a group is annihilated, all the people in it, together with their genes, are annihilated. If a group acquires territory or food or mates, the windfall will benefit some or all of its members. But recall the fleet herd of deer and the herd of fleet deer. If a person has innate traits that encourage him to contribute to the group’s welfare and as a result contribute to his own welfare, group selection is unnecessary; individual selection in the context of group living is adequate. Individual human traits evolved in an environment that includes other humans, just as they evolved in environments that include day-night cycles, predators, pathogens, and fruiting trees.

    Some mathematical models of “group selection” are really just individual selection in the context of groups.[3] The modeler arbitrarily stipulates that the dividend in fitness that accrues to the individual from the fate of the group does not count as “individual fitness.” But the tradeoff between “benefiting the self thanks to benefiting the group” and “benefiting the self at the expense of the rest of the group” is just one of many tradeoffs that go into gene-level selection. Others include reproductive versus somatic effort, mating versus parenting, and present versus future offspring. There’s no need to complicate the theory of natural selection with a new “level of selection” in every case.

    It’s only when humans display traits that are disadvantageous to themselves while benefiting their group that group selection might have something to add. And this brings us to the familiar problem which led most evolutionary biologists to reject the idea of group selection in the 1960s.[4] Except in the theoretically possible but empirically unlikely circumstance in which groups bud off new groups faster than their members have babies, any genetic tendency to risk life and limb that results in a net decrease in individual inclusive fitness will be relentlessly selected against. A new mutation with this effect would not come to predominate in the population, and even if it did, it would be driven out by any immigrant or mutant that favored itself at the expense of the group.

    Let’s take the concrete example of collective aggression. Often the benefits to the self and to the group may coincide. A warrior may scare off a party of attackers and save the lives of his fellow villagers together with the lives of himself and his family. In other cases the benefits may diverge: the warrior may stay at the rear, or sneak off to the side, and let everyone else fight. In still others the outcome may be uncertain, but because selection works on probabilities, he may play the odds, say, taking a one-in-ten chance of getting killed in a raid that promises a one-in-two chance of abducting a few extra wives. We should expect selection to favor traits that maximize the individual’s expected reproductive output, given these tradeoffs.

    http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

  153. syon says:

    Durocher:”@syon – I would be very interested in reading a detailed, good-faith critique of MacDonald’s work and I sure it has stronger and weaker points. So far I have yet to see his critics do so.”

    Capsule review:

    The Group Selection stuff is crap. Or, if the judges are in a generous mood, very, very weak. The strongest stuff involves his use of Adorno School methods to highlight the ethnocentrinc aspects of Judaism, particularly as it has played out in the last two centuries.

  154. John says:Website

    Wow, people read all this stuff? Me, I just had to look up ol’ Žiž on Slovene Wikipedia. The entry is lean. Doesn’t even mention wife #4. That’s not surprising – Slovenes have mostly seemed a practical sort, little given to eggheadedness, and if anyone there regards a professional philosopher at all, it’s probably with something faint like Nice work if you can get it. But they do enjoy recourse to a vocabulary (such as modern philosophy’s) that is stylishly Greco-Latinate. That looks so weird in a Slavic context. Ever since I saw fleksibilna diferenciacija (the official Slovene educational policy which has Gypsy kids leave the classroom for a while, then come back), I have doubted the honesty of the people who coin such terms. It’s not like with Turks, in whose language almost every abstraction is expressed with a word of obviously Arabic origin. Those words are old, now fully naturalized, and no longer showy or freighted.

  155. Mr. Anon says:

    “anony-mouse says:

    Adorno wrote almost entirely in German, and Derrida entirely in French, and in not easy to read prose.

    Of course! Because if they wrote easily and in English who in the US would have read them?

    I’ll also assume that MacDonald is unilingual since the only book mentioned here is the only book co-authored by one of the two in English, so his actual knowledge of their main writings is from what others wrote.”

    And Adorno and Derrida were never translated, nor ever discussed at length in the anglophone world? Is that what we are to imagine? This post of yours is of a piece with all your others – disingenuous and/or mendacious.

  156. Mr. Anon says:

    “Lot says:
    July 8, 2014 at 5:05 am

    Serious people don’t generally read self-published antisemitic rants by obscure community college professors. ”

    Do they read dishonest mischaracterizations in internet posts – such as yours?

  157. He’s a bright guy and all and I read his book carefully, but Pinker’s comments are so wrong that they’re barely worth taking the time to refute.

    But in brief, he has fudged on the meaning of the word “group”. His straw man notion of a group is that of a population with a hard outline, as though the group were an Entity with a capital E and behaved as One. (As Hegel observed, “All problems boil down to disputes about the One and the many”.)

    A troop of baboons moving across the Savannah is a better metaphor and example. A baboon alone is a leopard’s dinner. It is the CONFIGURATION, the GESTALT, THE PLATONIC IDEA of the troop’s organization and hierarchy that is the safety of the baboon species.

    The problem is that Gestalt, Configuration and Ideal Form do not lend themselves to simple mathematical modeling and so like any doctrinaire Logical Positivist, the current batch of evolutionary theorists throw out the concept rather than admit that their model is incapable of encompassing the nuances of this complex world we live in.

    Although I welcome the contributions of genetics, it is possible for the pendulum to swing too far the other way. They have forsaken Anthropology and Ethology for the attractions of a simple reductionistic template.

    And whoever above said something about farming being an independent, individual endeavor is badly misinformed. Farmers have always depended upon others to supply them with iron tools etc. And historically, the rise of agriculture coincided with the great mega-organized Palace Civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt and Crete, storehouses, granaries, Heirogryphics, Linear Script B that recorded the amount of olive oil deposited with the State Treasury etc. etc. in other words, unprecedented social organization and interdependence.

  158. Svigor says:

    Well you wrote some of it, in response to quotes from yet another person.

    But you are handwaving. Things are different now. Everything is different now, not just this particular ethnic group, and a way of life.

    My god, look at the behavioral and organizational changes of people these past two decades alone. You can see it in real time.

    I’m guessing you think Jews are immune to such things. Right.

    To my eye they are changing as well. I can’t say I’m tuned in to the heart of Jewish life or whatever, let alone what is going on in Mecca (NYC). But I see a lot of intermarriages. And you see a lot in the media.

    Can you honestly tell me that this level of intermarriage isn’t new?

    I think I’ve been pretty accurate in my assessment:

    1) Jews are intermarrying at much lower rates than Europeans.
    2) Jewish “intermarriage” is much less dysgenic than European intermarriage.
    3) Jews are building genetic arks at a much higher rate than Europeans.
    4) Jews have an explicitly ethnic Fatherland, Europeans don’t.

    I don’t use terms like “immune.” “Much more resistant” is the kind of phrase I use.

    I think there is a perception that Jewish Central Command coordinates things somewhere.

    You’ll have to talk to the people with that perception about that (but it sounds like projection; you can’t see how else to describe the characterization, ergo, nobody else can).

  159. Svigor says:

    I have read KM; and admixture on this level massively works against his thesis, which is predicated on group selection.

    What is this, a hypnosis session? Repeating the assertion will not make it any more true or persuasive.

    Again, how does KM square 50% admixture with alien blood with his group selection theory?

    You’re the one who’s asserting there’s a problem. Explain it.

    Well, I thought that I was dealing with a smart crowd and did not have to spell things out. But, if you insist. Comparing social insects to mammals is the height of lunacy based on the fact that their methods of reproduction differ quite markedly. Group selection makes sense when you are talking about social insects; it is nonsense when you are talking about humans.

    You padded your assertion into paragraph length. It contains no new information.

    And, following this logic, shouldn’t the massive infusion of Gentile European genes have made the Ashkenazi more like Gentile Europeans and less like Jews?

    Yes, the relatively miniscule infusion of “Gentile” European genes have made the Ashkenazi more like “Gentile” Europeans. Weighed against the reverse it doesn’t amount to much, but, sure.

    Which still leaves us with the fact that such acts work against KM’s notions of the Ice Age inheritance having shaped Gentile Europeans/Nordics into Kantian universalists avant la lettre.

    Which still leaves us with the fact that, given all the evidence, it’s easy to see that “Gentile” Europeans are by far the most Kantian universalist group at the continental racial level, with Jews at the opposite end of the spectrum. Your comments are tedious and point-free, so I’ll be TL;DR-ing them soon.

    Apples and oranges. Violent crime and well-organized military actions have little to nothing in common.

    It’s analogy, not a comparison, you dreary fellow.

  160. Svigor says:

    Why does it have rather severe consequences for KM’s theory of group selection?

    He hasn’t the foggiest.

  161. syon says:

    Svigor:”What is this, a hypnosis session? Repeating the assertion will not make it any more true or persuasive.”

    Sadly, one cannot reveal truth to those who keep their eyes shut.

    Svigor:”You’re the one who’s asserting there’s a problem. Explain it.”

    I’m working on dumbing it down enough; it takes time.

    Svigor:”You padded your assertion into paragraph length. It contains no new information.”

    Perhaps because I’m waiting to hear someone explain how social insects and primates can employ identical reproductive strategies (i.e., group selection) when their methods of reproduction differ so markedly? Or is it being asserted now that human populations reproduce via a single queen?

    Svigor:”Yes, the relatively miniscule infusion of “Gentile” European genes ”

    50% is “miniscule?” I would hate to see your definition of “large.’

    Svigor:”have made the Ashkenazi more like “Gentile” Europeans.”

    MMM, according to KM, that should make them significantly less ethnocentric than Middle Eastern Jews. Bearing in mind KM’s contention that Gentile Europeans (or is it only Nordics?) are less strongly motivated towards ethnocentrism.

    Svigor:”Weighed against the reverse it doesn’t amount to much, but, sure.”

    But it should amount to a great deal, if KM’s thesis is true.

    Svigor:”Which still leaves us with the fact that, given all the evidence, it’s easy to see that “Gentile” Europeans are by far the most Kantian universalist group at the continental racial level,”

    Evidence? Because I can offer evidence by the cartload of Gentile Europeans behaving ethnocentrincly:

    English Conquest of Ireland:

    Charles Carlton, Going to the Wars (1992)
    Petty’s 1672 estimate of dead in Ireland, covering 10/1641-10/1653:
    Protestants d. by war, dis., malnu.: 112,000, incl. 37,000 massacred at outbreak. Carlton says that 37,000 is exaggeration by factor of 9 or 10.
    Catholic d.: 504,000
    Total: 618,000 [sic.]
    Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, v.2 (1955): 500,000
    R.F. Foster, Modern Ireland 1600-1972 (1988)
    Irish population decline from 2.0M (ca. 1640) to 1.7M (1672) [i.e.: 300,000]
    1641: 4,000 k. in Ulster
    Pitirim Sorokin:
    The Sociology of Revolution (1967): 100,000 to 200,000 Irish massacred, 1651
    Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol.3: 5,500 battle losses, 1649-52
    Hirst, Authority & Conflict: England, 1603-1658 (1986): Ulster rebellion, 1641: 4,000 Protestants k. immediately + 8,000 refugees died in winter.
    Morgan, Oxford History of Britain: Ulster rebellion, 1641: 3,000 Protestants k.

    30 Years War:

    The Thirty Years War (1618-48) 7,500,000 [make link]
    Population Loss
    R.J. Rummel: 11.5M total deaths in the war (half democides)
    Norman Davies, Europe, p.568: 8 million
    Richard Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars 1559-1715: After the war, the empire was 7-8 million fewer than before
    C.V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War (1938): “The old legend that the population dropped from sixteen to four million people, rests on imagination: both figures are incorrect. The German Empire, including Alsace but excluding the Netherlands and Bohemia, probably numbered about twenty-one millions in 1618, and rather less than thirteen and a half millions in 1648. [A loss of 7½ million.] Certain authorities believe that the loss was less, but these are for the most part writers of a militaristic epoch, anxious to destroy the ugly scarecrow which throws so long a shadow over the glorious past.”
    Alan McFarlane, The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap (2003): Population of Germany went from 21M to13.5M. [a loss of 7.5M]
    John Landers, The Field and the Forge, p.352: 5-6m
    Geoffrey Parker, The Thirty Years War (New York: Routledge, 1984, 1997) p.188: “Earlier estimates that the war destroyed half or two-thirds of the German population are no longer accepted. More recent estimates are much more conservative, suggesting that the population of the Holy Roman Empire may have declined by about 15 to 20 per cent, from some 20 million before the war to about 16 or 17 million after it.” [a loss of 3 or 4 million]
    Colin McEvedy, Atlas of World Population History (1978)
    “Germany” [modern boundaries] p.68: 2M fewer.
    “Czechoslovakia” [1978 boundaries] p.84-85: decline from 4.5m to 3.75m [.75m fewer]
    MEDIAN: Of the six estimates of the overall loss of population, the median is 7½M.

    Conquest of Australia:

    Australia (1788-1921) 240,000 [make link]
    Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold (1998)
    Australian mainland
    Ongoing frontier war: 2,000-2,500 whites and 20,000 Aborignies KIA (“best guess”, probably higher)
    General population decline: from 1M (1788) to 50,000 (ca. 1890) to 30,000 (1920s)
    Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee (1993)
    Decline of the Aborgines
    From 300,000 (in 1788) to 60,000 (in 1921)
    Extermination of the Tasmanians
    From 5,000 (in 1800) to 200 (in 1830) to 3 (in 1869) to none (1877)
    Clodfelter: 2,500 Eur. and 20,000 Aborignies k. in wars, 1840-1901
    Bill Bryson, In a Sunburned Country (2001): 20,000 Aboriginies intentionally killed by whites.
    Joseph Glascott, “600,000 Aborigines Died After 1788, Study Shows”, Sydney Morning Herald, February 25, 1987

    Law of Black hypodescent in the USA

    Congo Free State:

    Roger Casement’s original 1904 report estimated that as many as 3 million Congolese had died of disease, torture or shooting since 1888 (cited in Gilbert’s History of the Twentieth Century; also in Colin Legum, Congo Disaster (1972)).
    E.D. Morel estimated that the Congo’s population began with an original 20 or 30 million, and bottomed out at a mere 8 million. Morel, The Black Man’s Burden, 1920, Chapter 9 (“[W]hen the country had been explored in every direction by travellers of divers nationalities, estimates varied between twenty and thirty millions. No estimate fell below twenty millions. In 1911 an official census was taken. It was not published in Belgium, but was reported in one of the British Consular dispatches. It revealed that only eight and a half million people were left.”). This estimate also appears in
    Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, “Congo Free State,” v.3, p.535
    Bertrand Russell, Freedom and organization 1814-1914 (first published, George Allen & 1934) p.453 in the 2001 Routledge ed., citing Sir H. H. Johnston, The Colonization of Africa (Cambridge Historical Series) p. 352
    Fredric Wertham A Sign For Cain : A Exploration of Human Violence (1966): the population of the Congo dropped dropped from 30M to 8.5M, a loss of 21.5 million
    Peter Forbath, The River Congo (1977) p.375: “at least 5 million people were killed in the Congo.”
    John Gunther (Inside Africa (1953)): 5-8 million deaths.
    Adam Hochschild (Leopold’s Ghost, (1998)): 10 million, or half the original population.
    Rummel:
    2,150,000 democides, 19th Century (based on 10% of Wertham)
    25,000 democides, 1900-1910.
    AVERAGE:
    Median: ca. 8M
    Mean: ca. 8.5M

    I can go on all day….

    Svigor:”It’s analogy, not a comparison, ”

    a very silly one

    Svigor:”you dreary fellow.”

    Actually, I’m remarkably cheerful….

  162. “arguably… the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.”

    A population that out-marries at 71% is the definition of low ethnocentrism. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

    That’s why academics and intellectuals don’t reply to his work.

  163. syon says:

    “Why does it have rather severe consequences for KM’s theory of group selection?”

    Svigor:”He hasn’t the foggiest.”

    Try this. Group gets an infusion of alien genes. Alien genes now form 50% of their makeup. Are they the same group that they were before? Or are they a new group?

  164. syon says:

    Svigor:”2) Jewish “intermarriage” is much less dysgenic than European intermarriage.”

    On what level? Are university educated European Gentiles marrying convicts with 85 IQs?

    Svigor:”3) Jews are building genetic arks at a much higher rate than Europeans.

    But Gentile Europeans have a much larger population base. Plus, since Ashkenazi Jews are 50% Gentile European, they are also preserving Gentile European genes.Not to mention all the immigrants to Israel who are 50 to 75% Slavic….

    Svigor:”4) Jews have an explicitly ethnic Fatherland, Europeans don’t.”

    Wouldn’t each Gentile European population need their own separate “Fatherland?”

  165. @Steve Sailer

    The mystery of Žižek’s apparent lucidity is solved. You may be interested in a fuller exposition here.

  166. syon says:

    3cranes:”But in brief, he has fudged on the meaning of the word “group”. His straw man notion of a group is that of a population with a hard outline, as though the group were an Entity with a capital E and behaved as One. (As Hegel observed, “All problems boil down to disputes about the One and the many”.)”

    Okay. Now let’s see your replacement for Pinker’s “hard outline” :

    “It is the CONFIGURATION, the GESTALT, THE PLATONIC IDEA of the troop’s organization and hierarchy that is the safety of the baboon species.”

    which is mystical claptrap.

    3Cranes:”A troop of baboons moving across the Savannah is a better metaphor and example.”

    Except for the fact that baboons are not social insects…..

    3cranes:”The problem is that Gestalt, Configuration and Ideal Form do not lend themselves to simple mathematical modeling and so like any doctrinaire Logical Positivist, the current batch of evolutionary theorists throw out the concept rather than admit that their model is incapable of encompassing the nuances of this complex world we live in.”

    Check. Mathematics is bad.

    3cranes:”Although I welcome the contributions of genetics, it is possible for the pendulum to swing too far the other way. They have forsaken Anthropology and Ethology for the attractions of a simple reductionistic template.”

    Perhaps because Anthropology is gibberish these days. How long ago was it that the American Anthropological Association talked about removing science from their self-definition (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201011/no-science-please-were-anthropologists)?

  167. syon says:

    Svigor:”ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…”

    How does it go? The sleep of reason produces monsters….

  168. Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald&rsquo... says:Website

    […] Slavoj Žižek is perhaps the highest-grossing Marxist continental philosopher. But there’s always been the suspicion that the purported Communist is a bit of a prankster and put-on artist.  […]

  169. Ambacti says:

    >1) Jews are intermarrying at much lower rates than Europeans.

    Only if you count intra-European marriage as intermarriage. I don’t think intra North-Western European marriage counts as intermarriage.

    >2) Jewish “intermarriage” is much less dysgenic than European intermarriage.

    How so? Ashkenazim intermarry at high rates in both the U.S. and Israel, to populations that are behind by 10 and 20 IQ points respectively. Where are Europeans breeding this dysgenically? For American gentiles to breed this dysgenically, fully half of them would need to marry Mestizos.

    >3) Jews are building genetic arks at a much higher rate than Europeans.

    Could you please explain what this means?

    4) Jews have an explicitly ethnic Fatherland, Europeans don’t.

    They do not have an explicitly ethnic fatherland, they have a dysgenic explicitly religious fatherland, where they make up less then 40% of the population and shrinking.

    Svigor, please resist the urge to post snarky word salad, I sometimes have difficulty making out what you are saying.

  170. Re ‘kinship selection’ – Pinker doesn’t dispute that a gene which causes behaviour that helps copies of that gene in your relatives to propagate can be selected for, even if that behaviour harms the individual. He seems to think of kinship groups as very narrow, because he thinks it’s about groups of humans in competition and doesn’t like the idea that such competition is virtuous. But all humans are related, and all living things are related. If I altruistically put an upturned turtle back on its feet there is a small cost in effort to me, but if that turtle then reproduces then a bunch of my genes have been replicated. The same for a plant. So I don’t think altruism is all about possible future benefit to me personally, as Pinker indicates.

    McDonald’s thesis doesn’t require altruism anyway, so that’s not a problem. There could presumably be genes which encourage the ‘culture of critique’ because they benefitted both the carrier and fellow carriers of the genes. I don’t think this is particularly likely to have evolved in competition with and to the detriment of non-Jews though; more likely the best arguers/critiquers among male Jews got the best mating opportunities, at the expense of less verbally facile male Jews.

  171. Personally, I favor a Culture of Critique. I just want a war of words of all against all.

  172. Svigor, Ben Tillman, and Mr. Anon,

    What about examples of MacDonald lying and twisting his own sources out of wildly out of context?

    For example, he claims pre-WWII Jews were the only American ethnic group pushing for non-white immigration, but his own texts say Jews were only concerned with how immigration affected Jews. He also claimed a majority of Jews favor more immigration and affirmative action when in fact polls show they want less immigration and oppose AA.

    More recently he’s written Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together supports his theory the Russian Revolution was a Jewish scheme. But according to many English language reviews, Solzhenitsyn denies collective responsibility for the Revolution. Where he is accused of anti-semitic statements (Jewish war time cowardice, controlling the alcohol trade) none of them are anything MacDonald has focused on.

    If he is lying then that raises the question of where else he might be lying?

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

    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]

  173. Jews are intermarrying at much lower rates than Europeans.

    71% of Secular American Jews outmarry. I doubt even Northern European intra-white marriage is as high.

  174. How do MacDonald’s defenders reconcile the fact liberal Jews score lowest on measures of ethnocentrism (such as tolerance for intermarriage) while the most ethnocentric Ashkenazim (Orthodox, FSU and Israeli immigrants) are more conservative than average white gentiles?

    His thesis is Jewish liberalism is motivated by a racial agenda, and yet the most racially and/or culturally motivated Jews are among the most right wing of all whites.

    Doesn’t this completely disprove his thesis for ethnocentrism being the prime driver of secular Jewish politics?

  175. nano says:

    @Syon

    >Nano:”Gene-culture co-evolution covers any gaps.”

    >Syon: So, wave the magic wand then?God is in the gaps?

    Humans use culture as artificial evolution precisely because there is no direct mechanism for group selection.

    (There may be some examples of direct group selection but culture makes it unnecessary imo.)

    Religion being the prime example of using culture for artificial selection. God has very often been used to fill the gaps.

    For example if a group develops a culture where aggressive disputation gains high status – say as part of their religion – then people who are aggressively disputatious will be selected for among that group.

    Boldness and aggression can be directly selected for, for example in a herding culture where wives require cattle then a man with no cattle who goes and raids for some can get a wife while a timid man can’t. But bravery can also be selected for by degrading the reproductive success of cowards culturally e.g. inventing Lacrosse and giving brave players high status and cowardly ones low status which also makes it hard for them to get a wife.

    Culture is man-made evolution. It creates artificial selection pressures that have genetic consequences.

    So

    “any genetic tendency to risk life and limb that results in a net decrease in individual inclusive fitness will be relentlessly selected against. A new mutation with this effect would not come to predominate in the population”

    yes this is true *unless* you artificially rig the selection pressure culturally.

    .

    @syon
    “I have read KM; and admixture on this level massively works against his thesis, which is predicated on group selection.

    Again, how does KM square 50% admixture with alien blood with his group selection theory?

    And, following this logic, shouldn’t the massive infusion of Gentile European genes have made the Ashkenazi more like Gentile Europeans and less like Jews?”

    The “group” in question formed after this event and was endogamous afterwards.

    .

    “A population that out-marries at 71% is the definition of low ethnocentrism. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) That’s why academics and intellectuals don’t reply to his work.”

    Orthodox Jews out-marry at 71%?

    KMac’s work covers thousands of years among Jews as a whole not just the last 30 among reformed Jews in the West. It may well be changing among reformed Jews in the West over the last 30 years but that in itself says nothing about the whole thesis.

    I would say he ought to add to it in that the strategy seems to be in two parts: one is the endogamous orthodox dwelling alone part and the second seems to be deliberate inter-marrying with the local elite creating a local hybrid elite caste like the Donmeh followed by endogamy within that caste.

  176. Steve Sailer said: “Personally, I favor a Culture of Critique. I just want a war of words of all against all.”

    Yes, but if a society doesn’t fight for and defend its asabiyyah, the society soon devolves into Iraq or Ukraine, and science and commerce halt. The Ukrainians probably would have been happier if they had maintained positive relations with the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

    That’s why China and Singapore convergently evolved on the same attitudes the West has:

    The People’s Republic of China… upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China’s nationalities… Any act which
    undermines the unity of the nationalities or instigates division is prohibited.

    China’s now going to become the global hyper-power simply because they have the most high IQ people who can be convinced to live in one nation as one people.

  177. Sara says:

    “Personally, I favor a Culture of Critique. I just want a war of words of all against all.”

    So do I. I just have a problem with those who promote the Culture of Critique only when it’s convenient for them. I.e. Liberals and leftists.

  178. What about examples of MacDonald lying and twisting his own sources out of wildly out of context?

    Dozens of his sources sit on my bookshelves; I’ve never seen him misrepresent their substance. But, more to the point, which of the three theses, from the three books, do you dispute? Until you do that, there’s not even any point in accusing him of lying.

    For example, he claims pre-WWII Jews were the only American ethnic group pushing for non-white immigration, but his own texts say Jews were only concerned with how immigration affected Jews

    And there’s nothing inconsistent about that. You’re just throwing out a whole lot of red herrings in an attempt to distract from the argument.

    It’s ludicrous to think that it would even matter if he had lied about everything in his books. The theses stand or fall on their own merits, and the evidence to support them does not need to come from his books and the sources he cites. The evidence can come from elsewhere, and we can see his theses borne out by what we observe happening around us.

  179. But, more to the point, which of the three theses, from the three books, do you dispute?

    For starters, that Jewish liberalism is motivated by ethnocentrism.

    If Jews are liberal because of racial motivation why are the most racially motivated Jews among the most rightwing of whites?

  180. ATBOTL says:

    It needs to be remembered that Jews entered Europe in the late Roman empire, a time when there was much migration of individuals around the empire, like how in the modern USA one can move from one state another without a tribal invasion. Many people from the near east came to Europe in that period, including well known Christian missionaries and Roman officials. All those ethnic Assyrians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and others assimilated into the local cultures and never formed endogamous communities in Europe like Jews did. Jews were never excluded from European societies on genetic grounds until the 3rd Reich. Their isolation is and was self chosen.

  181. @nano

    nano said “Orthodox Jews out-marry at 71%? KMac’s work covers thousands of years among Jews as a whole not just the last 30 among reformed Jews in the West. It . . . says nothing about the whole thesis.”

    The total Jewish American population including the orthodox out-marries at 58%, so the point would still apply. But MacDonald’s whole point is concerned with Jews who influence Gentile society, not with Amish-types who shun modern society. So 71% (ibid) is the number to use for the influential Jews he references.

    So MacDonald’s thesis that “Jews are ethnocentric” appears to be inconsistent with the data. But we could accurately say “Jews used to be ethnocentric,” or “A minority of Jews today are ethnocentric.”

  182. The Undiscovered Jew says:
    July 9, 2014 at 11:44 pm
    “But, more to the point, which of the three theses, from the three books, do you dispute?

    For starters, that Jewish liberalism is motivated by ethnocentrism.”

    It seems to me that there are plenty of other ethnies where the intellectuals are typically both left-wing and chauvinistic. The Marxist Indians are possibly the best example. Preaching Universalism for everyone else while also promoting the interests of your own kin group seems pretty common. I guess the question is whether the leftist ethnonationalist actually believes both positions at the same time, or is using the universalism purely instrumentally. My impression is that Jewish and Indian left-wing intellectuals do typically hold both ideas in their head at the same time. Those who use universalism purely instrumentally to advance their own group interests tend to be less intellectual and easier to spot, though some Muslim Brotherhood Arab intellectuals are quite clever and seem to fit this category.

  183. Lurker says:

    These high figures for Jewish outmarriage – I’m not really buying it. We are being asked to believe that Jews have what must be the highest outmarriage rate of any group on the planet? It sounds like a demographic collapse that never quite goes through the formality of taking place.

  184. nano says:

    “So MacDonald’s thesis that “Jews are ethnocentric” appears to be inconsistent with the data. But we could accurately say “Jews used to be ethnocentric,” or “A minority of Jews today are ethnocentric.”

    Jews in the MSM attacking Eurowhite people (and only Eurowhite people) over disparate impact which happens what c. 1000 times a day somewhere in the US MSM when Jews in the MSM are themselves the clear beneficiaries of an extreme degree of disparate impact in the MSM is clear proof of Jewish hyper-ethnocentricity and as most of the individuals concerned are nominally among the most liberal the profession of liberal beliefs doesn’t prove anything.

  185. Svigor says:

    Actually, I’m remarkably cheerful.

    I was referring to the effect you create.

    ZZzzzzz….

  186. Svigor says:

    A population that out-marries at 71% is the definition of low ethnocentrism. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

    You’re wrong.

    1) Only the sacred Jews may count the sacred Jews, or number their outmarriage. I don’t trust Jews on such topics, they have too much motivation to lie, and too shabby a record.

    2) Jews define “intermarriage” as a Jew marrying a “Gentile” German, a Scot, etc. There aren’t even records for how high the rate is for such “intermarriage” between Germans and Scots, English and Czechs, etc. It is absolutely certain to be much higher than the rate of “intermarriage” for Jews, of course. The very fact that Jews track (and whine over) this is evidence that their rate is lower. It’s a non-issue for the groups with which Jews are “intermarrying.”

    3) Jews won’t even broach the subject of real intermarriage, e.g., the rate at which they marry blacks. Because the rate is so low, they want to sweep it under the rug because it makes them look like racists (because they are).

    That’s why academics and intellectuals don’t reply to his work.

    Well, I put paid to that one, so you’ll have to invent another excuse.

    Racist Jews are racist, don’t realize they say the darndest things.

  187. Svigor says:

    Svigor:”2) Jewish “intermarriage” is much less dysgenic than European intermarriage.”

    On what level? Are university educated European Gentiles marrying convicts with 85 IQs?

    ZZZZzzzz-snort! *smack* *smack* *smack*

    Wat? Oh, at the level of rates of Europeans marrying blacks are known, while the holy archivists with the writ of tracking Jewish stats (i.e., Jews) sweep the Jewish rate of marrying blacks under the rug and hide it like a state secret. That level.

    But Gentile Europeans have a much larger population base. Plus, since Ashkenazi Jews are 50% Gentile European, they are also preserving Gentile European genes.Not to mention all the immigrants to Israel who are 50 to 75% Slavic….

    Not our fault Jews chose to exist as an ethnic head without a body…

    Wouldn’t each Gentile European population need their own separate “Fatherland?”

    Sure, but they’re denied (by Jews) as a group (and separately of course) so why split hairs at this point?

    ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Only if you count intra-European marriage as intermarriage.

    Right: only if you count “Gentile” Europeans in a way similar to the way you count Jews, thus implying equivalency between Jews and white people.

    Svigor, please resist the urge to post snarky word salad, I sometimes have difficulty making out what you are saying.

    So, you are the fellow I remember, whose handle I’ve forgotten. Why the change? Something wrong with your old handle? I seem to recall it being explicitly Jewish, but nothing more specific than that. Apropos of nothing – just curious.

    McDonald’s thesis doesn’t require altruism anyway, so that’s not a problem.

    As far as I’m concerned (i.e., for my working purposes), it doesn’t require group selection, either, merely a group which behaves as if group selection works.

    What about examples of MacDonald -

    ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    71% of Secular American Jews outmarry. I doubt even Northern European intra-white marriage is as high.

    Lol. You’re kidding, right? Let’s accept that absurd figure at face value; you really think 30% of English-Americans marry English-Americans, 30% of Czech-Americans marry Czech-Americans, etc? “Gentile” Euro-Americans don’t even notice this stuff. At all. A vocal minority of Jews call the equivalent the “silent holocaust” and the like (and aren’t accused of anything by their community, I might add). Resisting this “intermarriage” is a respected Jewish pastime, in fact.

    How do MacDonald’s defenders reconcile the fact liberal Jews score lowest on measures of ethnocentrism

    I don’t bother reconciling crap data. “Liberal” Jews (faux-liberal is more accurate) lead the vanguard against the slightest indication of ethnocentrism on the part of “Gentile” Euro-Americans while at the same time forming the backbone of the Israel (Jewish ethno-state) lobby in America. Why would I give a damn about how they poll? Self-reported data like that is useless at face value (we can probably glean a lot by reading between the lines, though). “Do you do drugs and beat your wife?” Gimme a break.

    For starters, that Jewish liberalism is motivated by ethnocentrism.

    If Jews are liberal because of racial motivation why are the most racially motivated Jews among the most rightwing of whites?

    So, racist whites couldn’t, say, take over both the Republican and Democrat parties? Or even want to? They’d have to pick because consistency?

    These high figures for Jewish outmarriage – I’m not really buying it. We are being asked to believe that Jews have what must be the highest outmarriage rate of any group on the planet? It sounds like a demographic collapse that never quite goes through the formality of taking place.

    Didn’t you know? Jews are gone already. Jews do not exist. Wait, that’s ANTI-SEMITISM!!! I’m so confuuuused.

  188. HA says:

    So MacDonald’s thesis that “Jews are ethnocentric” appears to be inconsistent with the data.

    I haven’t read any MacDonald, but it seems that both his advocates and detractors are, yet again, treating Jews as a monolith. From a sociobiological perspective, would it not be more appropriate to view the leftist/universalist/secular kind of Jew who wars against ethnocentrism and nationalism (perhaps with exceptions for Israel) as analogous to the soldier ant who makes the world safer for her colony?

    In other words, the fact that there is a sizable caste of Jews that have inordinately high intermarriage and low affiliation with Judaism means little if what they are doing benefits some inner core of Jewry. Yes, that caste may be intermarrying themselves out of Judaism, just as the soldier ant willingly marches to certain death, but so what?

    And yes, I do realize that the lefty/ACLU/whatever kind of Jews are themselves hardly a monolith. Also, it’s worth noting that there would be nothing particularly remarkable or inherently sinister or hypocritical about such an arrangement even if it could be substantiated (which is debatable). To take another example, leftists have long had a similarly sociobiological view of the European elites’ sons who entered the Catholic priesthood. Even though they chose a life of celibacy for themselves, their role in pacifying the rabble and propping up the social order ultimately served to secure and entrench the elites. I’m not saying that either of those very cynical viewpoints are correct, but they should at least be laid out clearly if one is to learn anything from them.

  189. @Lurker

    “highest outmarriage rate of any group on the planet”

    Irish Americans’ outmarriage rate is surely higher. 71% is probably similar to that of Italian Americans. There are still some communities of Italian Americans who mostly interact with other Italians (e.g. Jersey Shore, although that’s not representative of normal Italian Americans).

    “high figures for Jewish outmarriage”

    The data for Jewish outmarriage is consistent with the world around us.

    Some of the most famous Jews today:

    Mark Zuckerberg: Married an Asian.
    Larry Page: Half-Jewish, married a gentile.
    Larry Ellison: Married a gentile.
    Steve Ballmer: Half-Jewish, married a gentile.
    Ben Horowitz: Married an African-American.
    Harrison Ford: Half-Jewish, married Calista Flockhart.
    Steven Spielberg: Married a gentile.
    Jennifer Connelly: Half-Jewish, married Paul Bettany.
    Gwenyth Paltrow: Half-Jewish, married Chris Martin (divorced).
    Natalie Portman: Married a gentile.
    Rachel Weisz: Married Daniel Craig.
    Scarlett Johansson: Half-Jewish, married Ryan Reynolds (divorced).
    Mila Kunis: Married Ashton Kutcher.
    Armie Hammer: Half-Jewish, married Elizabeth Chambers.
    Sacha Baron Cohen: Married Isla Fisher.
    Paul Newman: Half-Jewish, married a gentile.
    Daniel Day-Lewis: Half-Jewish, married a half-Jew raised Christian, and neither are religious.
    Liev Schreiber: Married Naomi Watts.
    Michael Douglas: Half-Jewish, and married Catherine Zeta-Jones.
    Allison Brie: Half-Jewish.

    Basically, many people around us are part Jewish, and we never know unless the surname that got passed down was stereotypically Jewish. For example, one of my colleagues recently found out from DNA testing that he’s 18% Jewish.

  190. Andrew says:

    @Ambacti

    Ambacti, seems like you don’t have a full understanding of Dr. MacDonald’s theses. You mistake individuals’ actions and anecdotes as counter-evidence of a survival strategy. All creatures are programmed by nature to survive. Those that survive best carry their genes to the next generations. There are many survival strategies. Some are individual, and for social creatures, many strategies are for group survival. One of these is ethnocentrism, loving your own kind, being willing to sacrifice yourself for them, another is xenophobia, fear and hatred of the other. It makes perfect sense that a subspecies type competing savagely with other subspecies in the same geographic area would have an advantage if endowed with the aforementioned traits. Conversely, a subspecies in a low-population region, facing a harsh climate would have an advantage from cooperating. All human subspecies have been engaged in constant warfare for the most part up to the Pax Americana, Europeans included. This is not counter-evidence of altruism. Homosexuality, an aberration in the normal development of humans, is also meaningless. The success of Israel as a state or current fertility rates is likewise irrelevant in determining the strength of Dr. MacDonald’s theses.

    It is relevant to observe Jews in action from the time of the ancient Greeks, throughout time and geography, to identify behavior patterns, which are extraordinarily distinct in their case, and from these hypothesize about genotypical traits, which collectively form a group evolutionary strategy.

  191. @nano

    “Jews in the MSM attacking Eurowhite people (and only Eurowhite people) over disparate impact…”

    Jewish liberals organize academic boycotts of Israel. The MSM portrays Israel negatively for not wanting to lose their country to 3rd world masses. Mark Cuban recently got in trouble for being honest about racial crime rates, just as Larry Summers got fired for being honest about gender differences.

    Jewish socialists like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein attack Jewish capitalists like Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke. Jewish Blank Slate believers like Richard Lewontin and Robert Sternberg attacked Jewish hereditarians like Arthur Jensen and Richard Hernnstein.

    When liberals attack Whites, they include Jews as Whites. The MSM saying tech companies should be less than 50% White negatively affects all Whites, including Jews. That’s particularly true when outmarriage means most Jews’ children are going to be mostly Gentile.

    It’s greatly in Jews’ interest to follow the advice of authors like Steve Sailer.

  192. nano says:

    “When liberals attack Whites, they include Jews as Whites. ”

    Like they attacked the candidates for the Federal reserve job?

    Jewish hyper-ethnocentricity is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the way Jews in the media use disparate impact to attack white people but not themselves.

  193. Ambacti says:

    “Only if you count intra-European marriage as intermarriage.

    Right: only if you count “Gentile” Europeans in a way similar to the way you count Jews, thus implying equivalency between Jews and white people.”

    There is no equivalency, Ashkenazim are a superior caste. Deal with it.

    “Wat? Oh, at the level of rates of Europeans marrying blacks are known, while the holy archivists with the writ of tracking Jewish stats (i.e., Jews) sweep the Jewish rate of marrying blacks under the rug and hide it like a state secret. That level.”

    Since there is no equivalency between Ashkenazim and Europeans, there is no equivalency between the rate at which each group breeds with blacks. As far as I am concerned, in terms of relative dysgenic effect on the superior group, Ashkenazim breeding with Europeans is roughly equivalent to Europeans breeding with blacks.

    “Not our fault Jews chose to exist as an ethnic head without a body…”

    Could you please explain what an “ethnic head without a body” is?

    “In other words, the fact that there is a sizable caste of Jews that have inordinately high intermarriage and low affiliation with Judaism means little if what they are doing benefits some inner core of Jewry. Yes, that caste may be intermarrying themselves out of Judaism, just as the soldier ant willingly marches to certain death, but so what?”

    This is an interesting thought, could you elaborate on the mechanism by which you theorize this “inner core” benefits from the efforts of this “sacrificial caste”? For this to be an actual adaptive strategy, the benefits accrued by the “inner core” must outweigh the benefits to the whole group of this “sacrificial caste” simply breeding.

  194. Jewish liberals organize academic boycotts of Israel. The MSM portrays Israel negatively for not wanting to lose their country to 3rd world masses.

    Western Europe’s very gentile press regularly demonizes Israel. Arabism is one of the few differences between American and European media. Given Europe’s politics there’s little reason to believe replacing Jewish media figures with gentiles will move us to the right.

    I don’t bother reconciling crap data.

    Do you have any surveys showing conservative Orthodox and Russian Jews are LESS ethnocentric on questions such as ‘support for Israel’ or ‘approval of outmarrying’?

    If politically conservative Jews are more ethnocentric (do you deny Avigdor Lieberaman is more ethnocentric than Tom Friedman?) then how is Jewish liberalism motivated by ethnocentrism?

    In other words, the fact that there is a sizable caste of Jews that have inordinately high intermarriage and low affiliation with Judaism means little if what they are doing benefits some inner core of Jewry.

    If by inner core you mean Orthodox and Russian Jews, the core is conservative.

    How can Jewish liberalism be motivated by ethnocentrism if the most racially motivated Jews are more conservative than the average gentile?

    From a sociobiological perspective, would it not be more appropriate to view the leftist/universalist/secular kind of Jew who wars against ethnocentrism and nationalism (perhaps with exceptions for Israel) as analogous to the soldier ant who makes the world safer for her colony?

    The problem is other Western ‘ant colonies’ where Jews have minimal influence follow the exact same suicidal policies. The 90% gentile white EU leadership, Fabian Socialist Anglos, Swedes, French, etc, are politically indistinguishable from Jews, except the Western Euro elite is historically Arabist.

    Jewish participation in leftism is not in doubt, but causality is very weak unless you can explain away why the Left keeps winning when Jewish participation is minor.

  195. This is an interesting thought, could you elaborate on the mechanism by which you theorize this “inner core” benefits from the efforts of this “sacrificial caste”?

    They build bridges to the host society. They create more people with family ties to the Jewish community.

    When liberals attack Whites, they include Jews as Whites.

    And the Jewish community benefits greatly from this fact. Whites in general get blamed for the actions and disparate wealth and power of the Jewish community.

    When liberals attack Whites, they include Jews as Whites. The MSM saying tech companies should be less than 50% White negatively affects all Whites, including Jews.

    No, it helps the Jewish community because the alternative would be for the MSM to say that tech companies should be less than 2% Jewish.

  196. Could you please explain what an “ethnic head without a body” is?

    Jews often provide the brain-like executive function in organizations in which they have little or no representation among the lower orders. Think of trade unions, the NHL, the NBA, etc.

  197. nano says:

    “The problem is other Western ‘ant colonies’ where Jews have minimal influence follow the exact same suicidal policies.”

    Although that’s completely untrue it doesn’t actually matter to the argument. The US federal government has massive influence on all its client states and has been pushing the same anti-national agenda everywhere – including Japan, Korea etc.

    .

    “Jews often provide the brain-like executive function in organizations in which they have little or no representation among the lower orders. Think of trade unions, the NHL, the NBA, etc.”

    Which is what leads to the lack of stewardship. It creates what are effectively colonial institutions.

  198. Svigor says:

    If politically conservative Jews are more ethnocentric (do you deny Avigdor Lieberaman is more ethnocentric than Tom Friedman?) then how is Jewish liberalism motivated by ethnocentrism?

    I’m not sure what point you’re making. Less racist isn’t anti-racist. Faux Jewish liberalism isn’t made genuinely anti-racist by dint of being less racist than Jewish conservatism.

    How can Jewish liberalism be motivated by ethnocentrism if the most racially motivated Jews are more conservative than the average gentile?

    I don’t even know what all of that means. It’s like some lawyerly convolution. I don’t know whether Jewish liberalism is motivated by racism. What I do know is, Jewish faux-liberalism is far more racist than “Gentile” liberalism. Jewish faux-liberals and “Gentile” liberals team up to dismantle the idea (or rare fact, in the case of South Africa) of ethno-states for whites. But the faux-liberal Jews are simultaneously the Jewish ethno-state’s greatest patrons. If you think it’s hard to suss out ethnocentrism from that, I don’t know what to tell you.

    The problem is other Western ‘ant colonies’ where Jews have minimal influence follow the exact same suicidal policies.

    Really? Has anyone done a correlation between %Jewish/Jewish-influenced and %screwed by non-European immigration for European countries? Just glancing at a map, I don’t think your argument would be helped much by such a study. E.g., Britian: fewer Jews, fewer non-whites; Germany: ditto; France: ditto; Sweden: ditto; Spain: ditto; Denmark: ditto; etc., etc., etc.

    Likewise, almost all of those countries have stronger immune systems working against immivasion. America’s is almost non-existent.

    I’m not implying a correlation & causation argument here, by the way. I’m just pointing out that Jews keep walking into the same door frame over and over (the idiotic “X has fewer Jews and the same problems” argument) and suggesting that argument is actually working directly against your goals. I’m mystified as to why you keep making it. But hey, keep it up, because “more Jews = more problems” is ANTI-SEMITISM!!!, and the more people who can take up that burden, the lighter my load.

    Jewish participation in leftism is not in doubt, but causality is very weak unless you can explain away why the Left keeps winning when Jewish participation is minor.

    Like I said, this position mystifies me. It’s like something a White Nationalist shill would say to break the ice and broach the subject. No, of course the open borders, mass immigration movement isn’t as successful in Europe, where there are fewer Jews in power. No, of course the right-wing resistance isn’t as moribund and routed there as it is here, where Jews have much more power and influence. But hey, more power to you; God bless ya for the blind spot.

  199. Svigor says:

    “Could you please explain what an “ethnic head without a body” is?

    Jews often provide the brain-like executive function in organizations in which they have little or no representation among the lower orders. Think of trade unions, the NHL, the NBA, etc.

    True, but I meant in a holistic sense. Most ethnic groups have a head (elite) and a body (proletariat), whereas, the Jewish strategy over time seems to have been more to shed their proletariat “cells” into surrounding populations (by making it relatively difficult to be a Jew), leaving them with only a head, while the remaining Jewish head attempts to replace the local, native head.

  200. Ambacti says:

    “They build bridges to the host society. They create more people with family ties to the Jewish community.”

    Among my problems with the “sacrificial caste” idea is that the caste is recklessly large and appears to consist disproportionately of high value members of the tribe. Also, the idea relies on the influence being unidirectional, that is to say; hybrids will always work for the greater good of the “inner core”, rather than identifying with their gentile heritage and using their advantageous inherited traits against the “inner core”. Additionally, the theory requires that gentile relatives become philo-Semitic at a far greater rate than the Jewish relatives become “gentilophilic”. The topic is further complicated in Israel, where the equivalent of what we here call the “sacrificial caste” needlessly persists and is politically antagonistic with the largely Orthodox “inner core”.

    I think this topic deserves further study and would fall under the general category of “conjectural long-term survival strategies of market dominant minorities”, unfortunately this topic is probably outside of the IQ pay-grade of Kevin MacDonald.

    ““Not our fault Jews chose to exist as an ethnic head without a body…”

    Could you please explain what an “ethnic head without a body” is?

    Jews often provide the brain-like executive function in organizations in which they have little or no representation among the lower orders. Think of trade unions, the NHL, the NBA, etc.”

    Is “an ethnic head without a body” a plausible form of nationhood? If it is, perhaps Europeans and Americans are following the same strategy.

  201. European says:

    @Ambacti

    Having lost the argument, Ambacti opts for this reply: “As far as I am concerned, in terms of relative dysgenic effect on the superior group, Ashkenazim breeding with Europeans is roughly equivalent to Europeans breeding with blacks.”

    Many sense is Jews are very pleased having acquired certain Aryan facial and bodily characteristics by breeding with Europeans. Besides almost everything that is great in human history has been European in ethnicity — the Greek Miracle, the Mighty Roman Empire, the Catholic Scholastic epoch, invention of universities, Romanesque and Gothic architecture, Renaissance, Discovery of the World, the Spanish Golden Age after expulsion, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, Romantic Revolt, immense Germanic creativity in philosophy, music, literature starting in the 18th through the 20th century.

  202. No, it helps the Jewish community because the alternative would be for the MSM to say that tech companies should be less than 2% Jewish.

    If the MSM was being run for Jewish benefit, it’d encourage more hiring of Whites because that means more hiring of Jews.

    It’s the same as the MSM’s condemnation of Israel.

  203. @Southfarthing

    The owner of this website, Ron Unz has a theory regarding how gentile whites (and to a much lesser extent Asians) are discriminated against and Jews are favored even compared to their superior achievement levels in the Ivy League universities. I.e. gentile whites bear the whole burden of the anti-white discrimination, and Jews don’t feel any of this. As to the MSM, what do you think the MSM’s treatment of a gentile white country would be if they were something like half as nationalistic and racialist as Israel?

  204. @reiner Tor

    “gentile whites bear the whole burden of the anti-white discrimination”

    The IQ of Ivy league students gets estimated to be around 130. The average Jewish IQ in the U.S. gets estimated to be around 107-115. That means the bulk of the Jewish IQ bell curve is too low to get into the Ivy league. So reducing the number of slots available for Whites does indeed negatively affect the bulk of Jews.

    “what do you think the MSM’s treatment of a gentile white country would be if they were something like half as nationalistic and racialist as Israel?”

    These are some other countries that are highly nationalistic and racialist, and which completely reject Western liberals’ immigration policies: Russia, Japan, and Middle Eastern dictatorships where non-Native workers are often treated like slaves. None of those countries are subject to the aggressive condemnation and boycotts that Western liberals in academia and the MSM heap on Israel, the country that produces the highest per capita number of scientific papers and startup companies in the world.

    P.S. As a metacognitive point: that good points can be made on both sides of these discussions is a good indicator that the people who say it’s black and white one way or the other (all Jews are angels, or all Jews are demons) are probably not doing the debate justice.

  205. Svigor says:

    Hmm, that’s odd. The word “decapitate” seems to have been edited out of my comment. Steve, I’ve never known you to edit a comment (of mine); rather, you always seemed to take a pass/fail approach to approving comments. Is this something new on your part, or is someone at unz.com helping you moderate? I can understand the edit, btw; maybe someone thought “decapitate” too inflammatory?

  206. nano says:

    @Ambacti

    “Among my problems with the “sacrificial caste” idea is that the caste is recklessly large and appears to consist disproportionately of high value members of the tribe.”

    I think there’s a distinction between the “strategy” and the consequences of the strategy with some of the consequences possibly being unintended.

    For example say the strategy is rooted in paranoia / sense of security which fits with being a minority. The strategy then could be a large collection of behaviors which ultimately all revolve around security e.g.

    1) Orthodox wagon-circling
    2) Buying up media so it can’t be used against Jews
    3) Inter-marrying with the host elite to provide a shield

    Now (3) would be a logical part of such a strategy as far as the shielding is concerned while the consequence of it – the creation of a hybrid elite caste – might only be a side-effect of the strategy. If there are negative consequences of creating a ruling caste like that e.g. reduction in level of stewardship leading to eventual collapse, then those consequences are not necessarily intended especially if shielding is an immediate benefit and eventual collapse takes generations.

    It might be a bit like light skin providing the benefit of increased vitamin B6 but at the same time increasing the chance of skin cancer. The vitamin boost is immediate while the skin cancer is years away.

  207. Did Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize Jared Taylor’s “American Renaissance?” | VDARE.COM says:Website

    […] has solved the mystery of why superstar Marxist academic Slavoj Žižek’s famously opaque prose suddenly became so much […]

  208. @nano

    Inter-marrying with the host elite to provide a shield

    Most influential Jews are losing their children into the Gentile population.

    71% outmarriage means that most Jews’ children are 75% Gentile. (They have one parent who’s 50% Jewish and 50% old European (over the last 2000 years), and the other parent is 100% gentile).

    @Ambacti
    When Ashkenazi marry smart Gentiles, it’s the best of both worlds: looking like a normal Gentile, and still being likely to have 2 parents who were smart.

    BTW, if liberals are going to be prejudiced against Israel no matter what, why not do awesome things like eugenics? Israelis should encourage Russian Gentiles to immigrate if they assimilate by marrying a Jew, and are high IQ and attractive. The reason the world loves Scandinavia is many of their women are blonde and highly attractive, and that’s easier for people to relate to then nerdy but more important stuff like producing the most scientific papers per capita.

  209. Ambacti says:

    @Southfarthing

    “When Ashkenazi marry smart Gentiles, it’s the best of both worlds: looking like a normal Gentile, and still being likely to have 2 parents who were smart.

    BTW, if liberals are going to be prejudiced against Israel no matter what, why not do awesome things like eugenics? Israelis should encourage Russian Gentiles to immigrate if they assimilate by marrying a Jew, and are high IQ and attractive. The reason the world loves Scandinavia is many of their women are blonde and highly attractive, and that’s easier for people to relate to then nerdy but more important stuff like producing the most scientific papers per capita.”

    Some of us are comfortable in our own skin and want our children and grandchildren to resemble ourselves. Please don’t promote your race mixing agenda here, I find it triggering.

  210. Please don’t promote your race mixing agenda here, I find it triggering.

    Trigger warning. Race mixing!

    Poor thing needs trigger warnings.

  211. Newsweek: “Did Marxist Philosophy Superstar Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize a White Nationalist Journal?” | VDARE.COM says:Website

    […] makes Žižek a big scalp if you are a conservative commentator. On July 9 conservative blogger Steve Sailer called attention to a book review written by Žižek in 2006. “A Plea for a Return to Différance […]

  212. Žižek… The Plagiarist? says:Website

    […] picked a story today (7/11/2014) from The Unz Review in which blogger Steve Sailer ponders on whether Žižek […]

  213. @Ambacti

    “Please don’t promote your race mixing agenda…”

    A half Ashkenazi half Gentile baby looks like both parents.

    Here in the U.S., I’ve been to some Jewish religious services out of curiosity. 1/3 of the people looked like southern Europeans, and the rest looked to be from north of the Alps.

    Ashkenazi reproducing with Mizrahim would be race-mixing.

    Everything I said was strategically rational.

    Israel needs to be thinking strategically, because it’s going to be under increased pressure over the next 100 years as Europe becomes majority Muslim and aligns politically with the Muslim world. How’s England’s stance toward Israel going to change once their Prime Minister is Muslim? Meanwhile, the U.S. is going to be majority non-White, and non-Whites don’t care about the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with Mexicans. Are Israeli geniuses aware of these trends? Jews in the media and academia need to get on the anti-immigration bandwagon fast.

  214. Ambacti says:

    @Southfarthing

    “Everything I said was strategically rational.”

    BEEP BOOP Israel needs to strategically import blonde Aryan superwomen and efficient Japanese waifus in order to rationally overcome shifting global paradigms BEEP BOOP

    @The fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    “Poor thing needs trigger warnings.”

    Why let a good idea go to waste? If there was a trigger warning in front of every aspie iSteve comment that promotes miscegenation, sexually non-conventional lifestyles, and libertarianism, my quality of life would improve. Btw, how do you box quote like that?

  215. @syon

    Australia was settled by Europeans and in the process conflicts arose with the previous settlers who were ultimately driven into the less attractive parts of the continent. Such events are entirely normal in human history and prehistory.

  216. @Southfarthing

    Russia is subject to general hostility and official sanctions at present. It is also way less ethno-nationalistic than Israel, for example it has massive non-Russian immigration. Your other examples are nonwhite.

    Regarding the Ivy League, you are apparently unfamiliar with the article of Ron Unz, neither are you familiar with the corrupt admissions process at the Ivy League universities.

    Also nobody stated that Jews were “all demons”, I don’t know where you got the idea.

  217. <blockquote>Some text you desire … </blockquote>

  218. Svigor says:

    Ambacti:

    [blockquote]quote[/blockquote]

    Replace ] and [ with > and <

  219. @Ambacti

    My statement was: encourage Russian Gentiles (not just women) to immigrate if they assimilate by marrying a Jew, and are high IQ and attractive. Bar Refaeli is good press for Israel, and was homegrown in Israel, not imported.

    Societies have multi-cultural problems only when immigrants can’t assimilate because they have lower IQs and look different. Neither of those are a problem with Israelis like Bar Refaeli, and Israel being swamped by the ultra orthodox and Mizrahim are much higher concerns. /beep_boop

    Box quotes are created using the html blockquote tag

  220. That liar MacDonald certainly has the supporters he deserves.

    I’m still waiting for an anti-semite to explain how the politics of liberal Jews, who sport an outmarriage rate of 71%, is the result of an ethnic agenda (instead of copying elite gentile norms) when the much more ethnocentric Orthodox and FSU Jews are among the most conservative of all whites.

    Svigor’s incoherent chest thumping doesn’t count as a rebutal.

  221. HA says:

    @Ambacti

    For this to be an actual adaptive strategy, the benefits accrued by the “inner core” must outweigh the benefits to the whole group of this “sacrificial caste” simply breeding.

    Not necessarily. That’s not how evolution, or sociobiology, works. Not all adaptive traits are beneficial to the same degree at all times. Quirks and other ‘mutations’ appear, and evolution either filters them out, or enhances the adaptiveness of some corrective tendency, which then is more likely to spread throughout the gene pool. It may be that whatever adaptive benefits there were in having a sizable chunk of Jewry out-marry back when that ‘tendency’ was established (again, this is all on the supposition that any of this can be substantiated, which is debatable) are no longer as adaptive (and may in fact be harmful), especially in a society like America’s where Jews are relatively unencumbered by the prejudices of the past. For example, there are indeed secular Jews who would dearly love to see Israel turn into some benign two-state, not realizing or not caring that such an arrangement would likely be be a prelude to Israel’s extinction. In small numbers, these Tikkunists serve to enhance Israel’s efforts to portray itself, so to speak, as an enlightened liberal society tolerant of diversity. In large numbers, they would be more of a threat.

    Likewise, the soldier ants that ordinarily protect the colony will not be as beneficial in the presence of a virus that relies on those same soldier ants to transmit itself from one warring soldier grappling with a competitor, and thereby from colony to colony. Adaptive is a very relative term.

  222. HA says:

    Among my problems with the “sacrificial caste” idea is that the caste is recklessly large and appears to consist disproportionately of high value members of the tribe.

    In an ant colony, pretty much everyone but the queen is expendable or sacrifice-able (more or less). That certainly seems at first glance to be a recklessly large percentage, but it apparently works. The circle of life doesn’t have to be elegantly arced, it just has to keep circling.

    Besides, as anyone who has read the Bible knows, what you and I might consider to be “high value members” matters little. Put not your trust in princes, etc.

  223. I’m still waiting for an anti-semite to explain how the politics of liberal Jews, who sport an outmarriage rate of 71%, is the result of an ethnic agenda….

    No one knows how the 71% figure is calculated; no one knows how “liberal” is defined; no one believes that figure is real and meaningful. Be that as it may, it is trivially easy to explain how the “liberal” (actually Leftist) politics of these Jews supports an ethnic agenda.

  224. @The Undiscovered Jew

    Liberal Jews in general support Israel. So they can have ethnic agendas, no matter what the outmarriage rate is.

  225. Ambacti says:

    @Southfarthing

    “My statement was: encourage Russian Gentiles (not just women) to immigrate if they assimilate by marrying a Jew, and are high IQ and attractive. Bar Refaeli is good press for Israel, and was homegrown in Israel, not imported.

    Societies have multi-cultural problems only when immigrants can’t assimilate because they have lower IQs and look different. Neither of those are a problem with Israelis like Bar Refaeli, and Israel being swamped by the ultra orthodox and Mizrahim are much higher concerns.”

    Your ideas are on the level of a clueless libertarian teenager.

    1. Open IQ selection of immigrants would probably be considered an international hate crime. If IQ selection were politically feasible, it should start at home, with the sterilization of the stupid.

    2. Why the obsession with Russia? Slavs are among the least intelligent of Europeans, their smart fraction is tiny.

    3. Israel is the last place in the world that smart Russians would choose to settle in. Why the hell would they immigrate to a 60% brown country with a lower average IQ than Russia’s, with an unusual language and surrounded on all sides by tens of millions of fanatical wogs bent on its destruction? The only Russians that would willingly move to Israel are these folks.

    4. I don’t particularly like anything about Slavs and have an ancestral history of racial animosity with them.

    5. Allowing Mizrahim into Israel was a catastrophe for Ashkenazim, importing more Slavs into that lost cause of a nation will not improve the situation. Even if there were millions of 200IQ Nordic supermen at the border of Israel, eager to convert to Judaism, I would not consider allowing them in, because I am an atheist and they are not of my race.

    6. Ashkenazim are a unique race, they possess distinct physical and cognitive characteristics that are worthy of being preserved. Ashkenazim deserve to exist. I consider any appeal toward more miscegenation among Ashkenazim to be a hostile act.

    7. The Ultra Orthodox are racially indistinguishable from secular Ashkenazim. They will ensure that people like me will continue to exist, they are not a threat to me.

    8. I have nothing against Muslims and find the frothing hatred of Muslims by some Zionist Ashkenazim to be absurd. Ashkenazim should abandon Israel and leave the various denominations of wogs to fight it out amongst themselves.

    9. What does Bar Rafaeli have to do with anything?

  226. 2. Why the obsession with Russia? Slavs are among the least intelligent of Europeans, their smart fraction is tiny.

    And yet they are among, what, three countries, to have put people in space? Didn’t they put the first man in space, even if they burnt him to a cinder on reentry because they were a bit sloppy.

  227. @reiner Tor

    “what do you think the MSM’s treatment of a gentile white country would be if they were something like half as nationalistic and racialist as Israel? … Russia is subject to general hostility and official sanctions at present.”

    Russia is being sanctioned by Western governments in order to get their way in geopolitical maneuvering against a territorially expanding rival nation, but there’s no hostility toward everyday Russians. In contrast, liberals are uniquely aggressive against private Israelis who have nothing to do with government policies. They apply that hostility toward Israeli academics, and even to e.g. Israeli theater troupes who have nothing to do with government policies, but whose only “crime” is that they’re Israeli. Of course, clueless Jewish leftists are leading the charge.

    “Regarding the Ivy League, you are apparently unfamiliar with the article of Ron Unz…”

    There’s been some dispute about Unz’s numbers. One factor I wonder about: are many Jewish Ivy league students from Israel, and they get counted in the stats for Israeli high schools, not the stats for American high schools? That would disrupt his comparisons. Also, Unz used all stats for Jewish performance that are decreasing, but there are other stats for Jewish performance that are increasing as high innovative ability becomes more valuable in the global economy, and universities might be sensitive to that in a way that wouldn’t be reflected in Unz’s stats for e.g. high school competitions that are won via repetitive drilling.

    At any rate, even if Unz were completely right, that wouldn’t change that the bulk of Jews have modest performance levels and thus are negatively affected when Whites (including Jews) are given fewer slots.

  228. Also nobody stated that Jews were “all demons”, I don’t know where you got the idea.

    MacDonald has an unusual ability to ignore counter data, like that most of these Jews that are supposedly hyper-concerned with passing on Jewish genetics only have 25% Jewish genetics. That’s a pretty important data point to completely leave out of his discussions.

    I’d rather ally with these folks to do what can be done to save the West from liberals (of all ancestries). But instead of doing that and recruiting readers for Steve, we’re debating “the Jewish Question.”

  229. @Ambacti

    “an ancestral history of racial animosity”

    Nah. Great peoples win through love.

    There aren’t that many anti-Jews. Of them, most of them are honorable people who just dislike their concept of Jews as a group (which I believe fails to include a lot of counter data).

    The data in Russia is that Jews are able to be prosperous as long as they act respectfully and love the Russian people. Most of the oligarchs were Jews, and the only ones who got in trouble were the ones who crossed Putin.

    We have bigger fish to fry, like curing cancer.

  230. Svigor says:

    Svigor:”Yes, the relatively miniscule infusion of “Gentile” European genes ”

    50% is “miniscule?” I would hate to see your definition of “large.’

    I missed that the first time around. I must have been napping. You have that effect on me. Yes, 50% is miniscule in context.

    E.g.:

    A group of 1m X remains surrounded by 50m Y for 2000 years, but picks up 50% Y genes early on. Meanwhile, let’s suppose the X group lost 20% of their kids to Y over that time (and breed just enough to compensate & maintain their population). Assuming 20yr generations, that’s 200k Xes smuggled into Y’s genetic makeup every 20 years. 100 generations of this is 200,000,000 Xes smuggled into that 50m Y population. Obviously these numbers are posterior-derived, but it isn’t hard to see how one-way gene flow can make for a lot of production from that 1m over time. It’s not hard to see how a population with barriers can completely transform a population without them, over time. It’s not hard to see 200,000,000 (or a perhaps-more-realistic figure) as making the 50% figure look miniscule. I haven’t delved into the real numbers, but the impression I’ve always gotten is that the number of Jews who walk away from Judaism (or are pushed) has always been substantial. So, I think my characterization was a reasonable one.

  231. Svigor says:

    Svigor’s incoherent chest thumping doesn’t count as a rebutal.

    … Consequently, I don’t concern myself with rebutting you comprehensively. I’ve done it (i.e., similar claims, not you personally) so many times that I confess to not being interested in doing it again with you ad infinitum. So, you win the ethnocentric conscientiousness award. If others take up and repeat your claims, they do gain more interest for me, so maybe you should try sockpuppetry.

  232. Svigor says:

    We have bigger fish to fry, like curing cancer.

    Horses for courses. We’ve got plenty of people working on curing cancer, and the attempt doesn’t get them into trouble.

  233. @Southfarthing

    There’s nothing unusual about MacDonald ignoring counter data, all people are like that. MacDonald even mentions it in the foreword of The Culture of Critique that he dislikes Jews, and that it might color his judgement. This is the reason why The Culture of Critique is much less dispassionate (and much less to my liking – I prefer when an author manages to keep his emotions from his writings) than the earlier two books, he started to dislike the Jews.

    Jews that are supposedly hyper-concerned with passing on Jewish genetics

    Where do you get the idea that these people are “hyper-concerned with passing on Jewish genetics”? I’m not sure who said that. MacDonald certainly never stated anything like that. They are ethnocentric, but that doesn’t mean they are explicitly thinking about passing on Jewish genetics. Look, these Jews, outmarrying or not, are certainly showing signs of an unusual concern for the survival of Israel, which means that the outmarriage rate (if true) cannot serve as a refutation of their ethnocentrism.

    You are also conspicuously ignoring the fact that MacDonald did indeed mention Jewish outmarriage rates. Here’s an article by author Ted Sallis. (I guess Ted Sallis is a pseudonym.) To summarize, outmarriage is overestimated (by counting second and third marriages, where the number of children is likely to be lower or zero, the undercounting of the Orthodox need not concern us here, because I guess you are only talking about liberal Jews), and it’s still low compared to gentile white ethnic groups (which is 80%).

    Also cf. Irwin Silverman and Danielle Case: Ethnocentrism vs. Pragmatism in the Conduct of Human Affairs. In: Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Frank K. Salter (ed.): Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination. Altruism and Identity in Evolutionary Perspective. p400 Table 18.2. Mean Ethnocentrism Scores by Subjects’ Ethnic Group:

    According to the table Jews were measured to be even more ethnocentric than Blacks (the second most ethnocentric group), and way more ethnocentric than other whites (especially more so than WASPs). It is also well-known that black men are prone to marrying white girls (when possible, for example for famous black people). This of course doesn’t imply that they aren’t ethnocentric. (But of course it means they don’t think much about perpetuating the African American gene pool.)

  234. Liberal Jews in general support Israel. So they can have ethnic agendas, no matter what the outmarriage rate is.

    1) Only 2% of Orthodox outmarry.

    2) How their liberalism be an ethnic agenda when surveys show liberal Jews are LESS enthusiastic about Israel than conservative ethnocentric ones.

    Measures of Jewish ethnocentrism, include not only support for Israel but tolerance of outmarriage. They come out with conservative Orthodox Jews expressing the most support for Israel and the least support for outmarriage and secular Jews the least.

    No one knows how the 71% figure is calculated;

    It was calculated by PEW, which broke out intermarriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Only 2% of Orthodox Outmarry and 71% of non-Orthodox outmarry.

    Do you have any data showing the total outmarriage rate for seculars or Jews in general is LESS than 50%??

    Be that as it may, it is trivially easy to explain how the “liberal” (actually Leftist) politics of these Jews supports an ethnic agenda.

    But if there’s a positive correlation between ethnocentrism and liberalism, why aren’t Orthodox and Russian Jews even at least as liberal as secular Jews? Instead the former are more right wing than the white average.

    It seems the relationship is negative – more ethnocentrism equals more conservative politics.

  235. To summarize, outmarriage is overestimated

    Do you have any data showing Jewish intermarriage is less than 50% overall, and/or when excluding Orthodox?

    It is also well-known that black men are prone to marrying white girls (when possible, for example for famous black people).

    But Jews tolerate very high levels of Jewish women marrying gentile women. How is letting one’s women marry racial outsiders at very high levels ethnocentric?

    To summarize, outmarriage is overestimated (by counting second and third marriages, where the number of children is likely to be lower or zero, the undercounting of the Orthodox need not concern us here, because I guess you are only talking about liberal Jews), and it’s still low compared to gentile white ethnic groups (which is 80%).

    Why is Sallas comparing Jewish intermarriage to intra-white marriage when he and MacDonald argue Jews aren’t genetically white?

    Shouldn’t he be comparing Jewish intermarriage rates to interracial marriage rates, in which case 71% is far higher than the rate of gentile white interracial marriage.

  236. It seems the relationship is negative – more ethnocentrism equals more conservative politics.

    Sure, in Israel but not the USA.

    BTW, we get it. You have to have the last word and wear the Gentiles down….

  237. Svigor says:

    UJ, I gotta say, your extensive tap dance around the simple fact that (faux) liberal Jews are more ethnocentric than liberal or conservative Europeans, but less ethnocentric than conservative Jews, is impressive. I can’t embarrass myself like that. So, here’s a brazen chutzpah ribbon, to go with your tirelessly ethnocentric ribbon.

    Why is Sallas comparing Jewish intermarriage to intra-white marriage when he and MacDonald argue Jews aren’t genetically white?

    You’ll have to ask them. Quoting them might be a start for people who want to answer your question, though. I mean, why should anyone trust you, given your consistently dishonest track record?

    For my part, I argue that Jews and Europeans are all Caucasoid, i.e., of the same continental-level race.

    Why any of this should matter when you obviously don’t consider Jews to be non-white is anybody’s guess. Oh, wait, because you’re a pettifogger, that’s why.

    But Jews tolerate very high levels of Jewish women marrying gentile women. How is letting one’s women marry racial outsiders at very high levels ethnocentric?

    But Europeans of all nationalities tolerate much higher levels of their own marrying other European nationalities. And dramatically higher rates of marrying non-Europeans. How is this inconsistent with the idea that Europeans are less ethnocentric than Jews? It seems perfectly consistent to me, especially given how much more “liberal” Jews are supposed to be compared to Europeans; we should see the opposite, but we don’t.

    Shouldn’t he be comparing Jewish intermarriage rates to interracial marriage rates, in which case 71% is far higher than the rate of gentile white interracial marriage

    Well, I suppose that would be one application of the old “Chosen of G-d” theme. So, if Jews marrying other Caucasoids is equivalent to Europeans (or, presumably other Caucasoids) marrying Negroids or Mongoloids, then what do you call Jews marrying Negroids (something that happens so rarely that Jews treat the stats for it like a dirty national secret)? What’s the Jewish equivalent of European intermarriage – Ashkenazis marrying Sephardics? Doesn’t this mean that ultimately, the Jewish equivalent of marrying your high school sweetheart is marrying your sister instead?

    No, Jews are roughly equivalent to a European nationality. French, German, English, Jewish, these things belong more to the same category than not. Just as a Frenchman marrying a German crosses national-racial lines, but not continental-racial lines, same goes for Jews marrying people from Caucasoid nationalities.

  238. Svigor says:

    I’d rather ally with these folks to do what can be done to save the West from liberals (of all ancestries). But instead of doing that and recruiting readers for Steve, we’re debating “the Jewish Question.”

    I’d rather ally with them, too, but alliances are a two-way street. Kissing their keisters up and down for generations hasn’t done anything to motivate them to ally with us.

  239. Ambacti says:

    @The Undiscovered Jew

    On what grounds do you separate Secular Ashkenazim from Orthodox Ashkenazim? There is no solid defining line between the two groups. Modern Orthodoxy is a revolving door and even the Ultra Orthodox Hasid clans hemorrhage young people into the secular world.

    The intermarriage rate among Ashkenazim still amounts to over 50%. For reasons of physical and psychometric differences, Ashkenazi intermarriage with Europeans should not be counted the same way as Scottish intermarriage with English. Ashkenazi intermarriage is much higher than European intermarriage if one counts Ashkenazim as a race distinct from Europeans. If Ashkenazim are not a race distinct from Europeans, then why does this thread even exist?

  240. Svigor says:

    So, Steve, you going to confirm that you’ve got someone else moderating for you, or what?

  241. @The Undiscovered Jew

    I’m losing my appetite to search for this blogpost to come back to this comment thread. You are not doing any work here, but ask others to do work for you. For example:

    To summarize, outmarriage is overestimated
    Do you have any data showing Jewish intermarriage is less than 50% overall, and/or when excluding Orthodox?

    1) I summarized an article for your convenience. The article has a source. You can go to the source, which is a book. You can read it, and refute it, if you can counter the source.

    2) I summarized the arguments for overestimation of the outmarriage. I told you that we needn’t concern us with one of the arguments (which is undercounting of the Orthodox – again, go to the source if you have an issue with), because we’re only dealing with secular Jews. I never stated that intermarriage for non-Orthodox Jews was less than 50%. Did you read what I write? Then why are you asking me if I had any data showing “Jewish intermarriage is less than 50% overall, and/or when excluding Orthodox?” I tentatively accepted the 71% estimate for them.

    3) I also told you the other reason why it’s an overestimate: namely, that outmarriage among first marriages (i.e. marriages which are most likely to result in children) is way lower. You can go to the source and check where it got it from, and refute it if you can. Yes, 71% outmarriage is

    Again, I was reporting something from MacDonald’s website, so as to refute the statement by Southfarthing that MacDonald ignores Jewish outmarriage. He doesn’t. Maybe his arguments are flawed, but nobody can say that he’s ignoring Jewish outmarriage.

    But Jews tolerate very high levels of Jewish women marrying gentile women. How is letting one’s women marry racial outsiders at very high levels ethnocentric?

    That’s a logical consequence of Jewish men outmarrying, that Jewish women will also outmarry. Not that secular Jews had many tools at their disposal to prevent that from happening. Still they’re doing it at a much higher rate than other Caucasian ethnic groups.

    Shouldn’t he be comparing Jewish intermarriage rates to interracial marriage rates

    Well, what do you think? Are Jews a different race or not? If you think they are the same race, than the comparison does make sense, doesn’t it?

  242. @Ambacti

    Race is a fuzzy concept. Jews are an ethnic group which is very close to white Europeans, but due to their inbreeding and peculiar selection pressures they show somewhat distinguished genotypes and unusual (among white gentiles, that is) behavioral patterns, such as extreme ethnocentrism. They also usually (but not uniformly) exhibit hostility towards white Europeans – this last point is decisive to me and to MacDonald as well in treating Jews as a different race. But genetically speaking a Swede marrying a Sicilian could be a larger genetic jump than a Jew marrying a Tuscan.

  243. @Ambacti

    On what grounds do you separate Secular Ashkenazim from Orthodox Ashkenazim? There is no solid defining line between the two groups. Modern Orthodoxy is a revolving door and even the Ultra Orthodox Hasid clans hemorrhage young people into the secular world.

    If they currently practice Orthodox Judaism. What their retention rate over time is wasn’t a question I was answering. According to Pew Research, 17% of Orthodox Jews ages 18-29 have already left Orthodoxy. Below are links to the study in case you want to dig more into the numbers.

    Politically, the differences between Orthodox, ex-Soviet Jews, and Israeli Ashkenazi immigrants vs ordinary American Jews is an excellent case study on the impact of culture. All of them belong to the exact same ethnicity yet the latter group’s politics is the mirror image of the rest; regular American Jews vote 3:1 Democrat, the other three vote 3:1 Republican. Among conservative leaning Jews, there are difference in religious practice. Orthodox are obviously devout whereas Soviet Jews are, comparatively, secular. Israeli Ashkenazi observance lies somewhere between Orthodox and FSU immigrants. The common factor is they identify more strongly on measures of Jewish ethnocentrism than other American Jews. This is the defining variable which explains their politics, is also the exact opposite outcome of what MacDonald’s theory predicted.

    The intermarriage rate among Ashkenazim still amounts to over 50%. For reasons of physical and psychometric differences, Ashkenazi intermarriage with Europeans should not be counted the same way as Scottish intermarriage with English.

    I’m not sure if races should be defined based on one trait. The main trait difference between Jews and European gentiles is IQ. Otherwise Ashkenazi traits are otherwise very similar to Southern Europeans. If you classify races based on a single trait then one could argue a marriage between an Italian and a Belgian is interracial because Italians are on average more extraverted than Belgians.

    Btw, I’m half-Jewish.

    Ashkenazi intermarriage is much higher than European intermarriage if one counts Ashkenazim as a race distinct from Europeans.

    I consider Ashkenazi to be a specialized caste of white Europeans for the following reasons:

    * If Armenians, Georgians, Christian Lebanese and other groups near Europe’s borders are considered white and can usually physically blend in with other Europeans, so should Jews who are 55-60% European and who have a near Eastern component that’s likely to be Anatolian Turk, an Armenoid/Caucus ethnicity when Turks aren’t descended from Ionian Greeks.

    * Any new Ashkenazi adaptive traits which evolved since they first appeared in Europe after Alexander Hellenized the Near East are the result of living in a European cultural environment.

    The relationship between Jews and Europeans is somewhat comparable to that between upper caste Indians and regular Dravidians: Genetically both groups are very similar except one group due to reproductive isolation underwent selection pressure for intelligence.

    However, my point was that if anti-semites don’t consider Jews genetically white then they should compare Jewish intermarriage rates to gentile white interracial marriage rates. In which case Jewish intermarriage is much higher than gentile interracial levels. Only if Jews are genetically white, then, can the proper point of comparison be intra-Euro vs Jewish intermarriage.

    They need to pick one. But they can’t come up with a consistent argument because they can’t reconcile their it with the glaring problem of how Jewish liberalism can the result of ethnocentrism if the most ethnocentric Jews (Orthodox, FSU, and Israeli immigrants) are among the most right wing of whites.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/17/eight-facts-about-orthodox-jews-from-the-pew-research-survey/

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

  244. Ambacti says:

    @reiner Tor

    I understand that Ashkenazim are a unique hybrid population, what I find irksome is Svigor’s inconsistent classification of Ashkenazim. It is disingenuous to classify Ashkenazim as just another European population when counting intermarriage and as a malevolent alien race when taking an account of their influence.

    With regard to comparative ethnocentrism, I would like to relay an interesting observation. The general consensus on this side of the internet is that African-Americans are more ethnocentric than Europeans, but when I speak to African-Americans about this issue, they are insistent that it is whites that are more ethnocentric, they point to all the myriad ways in which whites continue to dominate the world and discriminate against non-whites. Perhaps much of the “extreme ethnocentrism” which you perceive in Ashkenazim is less a matter of magnitude than competence; that is to say, what ethnocentrism Ashkenazim have may be magnified by lack of competent opposition.

  245. Again, I was reporting something from MacDonald’s website, so as to refute the statement by Southfarthing that MacDonald ignores Jewish outmarriage.

    Ahh. 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.

  246. @reiner Tor

    “Where do you get the idea that these people are “hyper-concerned with passing on Jewish genetics”? … MacDonald certainly never stated anything like that.”

    Is Wikipedia mischaracterizing him?

    “MacDonald is best known for his trilogy that analyzes Judaism and Jewish culture from the perspective of *evolutionary psychology*… He proposes that Judaism is a *group evolutionary strategy*… he argues that Judaism fosters in Jews a series of marked *genetic traits*, including above-average verbal intelligence and a strong tendency toward collectivist behavior…”

    And MacDonald counts people who are ethnically Jewish but not culturally Jewish, like Trotsky, as normal Jews. That makes it pretty clear Jewish culture is a secondary concern for MacDonald.

     Jewish Bolsheviks were simply apostates who turned their back on their faith and people. … Like Trotsky who refused to bury his father in a Jewish cemetery, refused to meet with Jewish delegations, and violently persecuted Russian Zionists. “I am not a Jew and have nothing in common with the Jewish people,” he said around 1919. Jewish Communists viewed Judaism as a shameful relic of the pre-Soviet past that had to be eradicated.  Thousands of synagogues were desecrated and closed down only to be re-opened as athletic societies, social clubs, and warehouses.  Rabbis were arrested and imprisoned with Christian clergymen in the horrid Solovki prison camp.  There, they were housed in the same barracks as common criminals.


  247. @reiner Tor: “Look, these Jews, outmarrying or not, are certainly showing signs of an unusual concern for the survival of Israel, which means that the outmarriage rate (if true) cannot serve as a refutation of their ethnocentrism.”

    The poll had results such as these: “81% of American Jews say they would be more likely to vote for a representative who signed a letter deploring Palestinian incitement.” That seems pretty reasonable. If Italy was surrounded by Muslim neighbors who were launching rockets at Rome, most Italians, and most White Americans in general would view less of that incitement as being positive.

    But even if that weren’t reasonable, the choice of who to marry and have children with is a far bigger part of people’s lives than whether their abstract views of another country are favorable or not. And note that Americans’ general support of Israel is 22% against vs 66% in favor.


    @reiner Tor:“Outmarriage is overestimated (by counting second and third marriages, where the number of children is likely to be lower or zero…”

    Jews’ subsequent marriages will more often be to Gentiles because attitudes continue to relax as Jews assimilate more and the times change.

    The Amren commenters have a saying that White’s position with African-Americans is often “damned if you do, damned if you don’t… Heads they win, tails you lose.” If a Jew got divorced from a Gentile and then married a Jew, anti-Jews’ narrative would be:

    “This shows that Jews are ultimately uncomfortable around Gentiles, and are only truly comfortable with other Jews. And it’s typical of Jewish greed: force their Gentile ex to invest in their children while they return to ‘the tribe’ and indoctrinate their half-Gentile children with their new Jewish spouse.”

    This is consistent with Jared Taylor’s summation:

    “People who are constantly talking about and complaining about Jewish influence remind me of blacks who think that everything that’s ever gone wrong for blacks is because of white racism. I think that blacks need to be responsible for the their successes and failures and whites do as well.”

    Svigor: “I’d rather ally with them, too, but alliances are a two-way street.”
    Yes, I agree. I’m half and half, and I love the greatnesses of both Christian and Jewish history.

  248. @Guillaume Durocher

    leo
    Durocher:..

    “nice guys finish last”

  249. @Guillaume Durocher

    Significant presence of this ‘group’ apropos ownership of Swedish MSM (eg. Bonnier), not to mention this group’s overrepresentation (per demographics) in managerial positions in state-owned media and tax-payer subsidized cultural venues. Neat that.

    Bonnier at Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_Group

  250. @The Undiscovered Jew

    Lieberman is not conservative at all. He’s in favor of mass immigration (often using emotional language about how his grandparents came as immigrants, and how immigration was “not just another issue” for him), he was one of the senators to introduce the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act (I guess Orthodox Judaism is in favor of homosexuality, at least for gentiles), so what is it that is so exceptionally conservative about him? Oh, I see, foreign policy. But, but, actually interventionist foreign policy is not conservative at all. Interventionism as it has existed in the US for the last couple of decades is a progressive leftist idea that smacks of Trotskyism. Conservatives might want to go to wars (wars of defense of wars of conquest) but never to “spread democracy”. Spreading democracy is a leftist idea.

  251. @Southfarthing

    Compare that to gentile Anglo-Saxon’s opinion about Rhodesia or South Africa, or Dutch ethnocentrism vis-à-vis the Boer. Jews perceive a nuclear power with a very strong armed force surrounded by weak and ineffectual corrupt third world dictatorships (and countries descending to civil war) to be in larger danger than gentiles perceive a persecuted minority. If South African persecution of Boer whites doesn’t create ethnocentrism in the Dutch, than this means the Dutch don’t really think much of their Boer cousins. Quite unlike how Ashkenazim feel about the Mizrahim, don’t you think? Which one is more ethnocentric, the one doesn’t care about the oppressed minority status, rampant murder and rapidly diminishing numbers (i.e. a slow genocide) of its distant cousins, or the one which reacts forcefully to it? If that doesn’t convince you that Jews are more ethnocentric than other whites, then what will?

  252. @The Undiscovered Jew

    About that article referencing Silverman

    That’s a comment, not an article. I referenced Silverman to show a study measuring high levels of Jewish ethnocentrism.

    I will read the Altemeyer piece.

    Now I’ve spent too much time commenting over the last week, so my activity will probably drop.

  253. @Southfarthing

    Where is in the Wikipedia quote a suggestion that those Jews who are farthest from Judaism (i.e. secular Jews) should not allow 71% outmarriage (compared to 80% outmarriage for gentile white ethnic groups), and where do you get the idea that a person who produces mixed children (or no children at all!) cannot be ethnocentric, or that ethnocentric people will always reproduce and always within the ethnic group. We know of Nazis who fell in love with Jewish women, one such guy managed to pass off his wife as an Aryan. If he wasn’t ethnocentric, then does that mean Nazism is not ethnocentrism?

    Most Jews in the Soviet movement were not religious (hence their contempt for rabbis), but they often concealed their true feelings, which only came to light occasionally, like in the case of Golda Meyerson or Golda Gorbman. They both felt at least some ethnocentrism, but concealed it until 1948. Incidentally, both died as unrepentant Stalinists.

  254. @reiner Tor

    Sorry, instead of Golda Meyerson I should have written Polina Molotova.

  255. Star Philosopher Explains Plagiarism Of White Supremacist says:Website

    […] It started when conservative blogger Steve Sailer gave new scrutiny to a book review Žižek wrote in 2006 — your guess as to why Sailer was reading this 8-year-old piece is as good as ours. Sailer said one passage from Žižek stood out as surprisingly "lurid" for the Slovenian philosopher. (Via Lacan.com, The Unz Review) […]

  256. Svigor says:

    First, as to Jewish attitudes toward Palestine (and similar assertions against interest): polls are measures of hot air. Where the rubber meets the road, American Jews side with Israel, lending their considerable political and economic weight to Israel’s cause. They also largely hold liberal Euro-American support for the Arabs in check. One would think, what with all their power in American media, and their supposed liberalism, that America would be foursquare behind the Palestinians, moreso than Europe, but instead we see the opposite.

    I understand that Ashkenazim are a unique hybrid population, what I find irksome is Svigor’s inconsistent classification of Ashkenazim. It is disingenuous to classify Ashkenazim as just another European population when counting intermarriage and as a malevolent alien race when taking an account of their influence

    Where’s the inconsistency? I’ve long held my current assessment of Jewish whiteness, of the various senses:

    Caucasoid: Yes
    European: half
    Culturally: no

    You can run a web search for “Jews are not white” to find my piece on the subject (at svigor.wordpress). It is not disingenuous to find a thing qualifying under one definition of a word, but not another. Multiple definitions of words are something we all have to reconcile at a young age.

    Part of my assessment that Jews are highly ethnocentric (probably their most salient divergence from Europeans) is their attitude toward intermarriage. But ultimately, my finding of Jewish non-whiteness (in a strictly cultural sense) is about their opt-in, opt-out status: one does not truly belong to a category when one may opt in or out of that category at will. Jewishness is a trump card and if a Jew insists on the opt-in opt-out, no one’s going to contradict him (except perhaps in narrow cases, e.g., sued for discrimination).

    Perhaps much of the “extreme ethnocentrism” which you perceive in Ashkenazim is less a matter of magnitude than competence; that is to say, what ethnocentrism Ashkenazim have may be magnified by lack of competent opposition.

    Too true, though I would point out that I don’t find blacks particularly ethnocentric, at least not in an inherent sense. Sure, they’ve learned a degree of ethnocentrism in America from experience – because whites encourage them – and they get more by grabbing goodies from YT than they do by self-sufficiency. Similarly, whites have their anti-ethnocentric values beaten into them from birth, but I do not find them inherently so.

    Insofar as ethnocentrism is the ethnic form of collectivism, I’d predict that, like most traits, it runs either yellow>white>black, or black>white>yellow, a la Rushton. I think it’s safe to say that yellows are more collectivist than whites or blacks, so it’s (perhaps less) safe to suppose that (inherent) ethnocentrism runs yellow>white>black, too.

    And MacDonald counts people who are ethnically Jewish but not culturally Jewish, like Trotsky, as normal Jews. That makes it pretty clear Jewish culture is a secondary concern for MacDonald.

    So, half-Jews, non-observant Jews, and the like count when tallying Jewish intermarriage. And non-observant Jews count when elucidating Special Relativity, but not when founding genocidal regimes; the “No True Scotsman” defense.

    As usual, this argument has boiled down to he said, she said. Much like a divorce case. The exception being, the Jews’ position is that they have the right to divorce us when it suits them (Israel), but we don’t have the right to divorce them, anywhere, ever (diaspora).

    People who are constantly talking about and complaining about Jewish influence remind me of blacks who think that everything that’s ever gone wrong for blacks is because of white racism. I think that blacks need to be responsible for the their successes and failures and whites do as well.

    I find far more similarities between blacks and Jews than between blacks and Europeans. Jews vote more like blacks than like Europeans, their politics are more similar to blacks’ than whites’, they’re both fringe in their thinking and orientation, see things through a racial/ethnic prism, are victimhood-oriented, see themselves as outsiders, assume the right to both insert themselves into anything European while reserving the right to have things that are exclusively theirs, freak out at the idea of reciprocity, blame all conflict on Europeans, etc. Perhaps most tellingly, both groups seem to instinctively know they’re better off around Europeans than not, and look to game Euros with guilt-tripping and abuse.

    The poll had results such as these: “81% of American Jews say they would be more likely to vote for a representative who signed a letter deploring Palestinian incitement.”

    I wonder how many American Jews say they would approve of a historical approach to the settlement of the United States that deplored Indian incitement. Or to the history of the Jews in Europe that deplored Jewish incitement.

  257. Svigor, the problem here is that TUJ and those who do not control the media know that there are people around who believe, without thought, the written word (and those who shout loudest and longest.) That is who TUJ is preening for.

    Of course, the Jewish Strategy has been in use for long enough that it is causing selection among its host population …

  258. Žižek, Group Selection, and the Western Culture of Guilt | The Occidental Observer - White Identity, Interests, and Culture says:Website

    […] Slavoj Žižek would want to review The Culture of Critique but he did (Steve Sailer: “Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique“). Perhaps it’s part of his persona where he writes things that are jarring and […]

  259. Svigor says:

    Svigor, the problem here is that TUJ and those who do not control the media know that there are people around who believe, without thought, the written word (and those who shout loudest and longest.) That is who TUJ is preening for.

    A futile quest. We want white men who can think for themselves. That audience will go and read the books for themselves, not take TUJ’s word for it.

  260. Slavoj Žižek and the Politics of Plagiarism | Theden | Thedening the West says:Website

    […] Sailer drew attention to a 2006 article by Žižek, “A Plea for a Return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo […]

  261. Sean says:

    Pinker says group selection is ‘a loose metaphor, more like the struggle among kinds of tires or telephones’.

    When the US constitution was written it was not anticipated that there would be political parties, so no provision was made for them. But political parties appeared nonetheless.

  262. Svigor, the problem here is that TUJ and those who do not control the media know that there are people around who believe, without thought, the written word (and those who shout loudest and longest.) That is who TUJ is preening for.

    I’m just quoting MacDonald’s own sources vs how MacDonald portrayed them in CofC.

    If his own evidence contradicts his thesis, it’s not the fault of “a Jewish strategy” or “preening” to point out he’s lying.

    Fourth Horseman, how do you explain MacDonald’s use of a source to prove Jews are hyperethnocentric when that exact same article showed Jews tied WASP Anglicans and Unitarians for LEAST ethnocentric?

    How is this anything other than a lie?

    Reiner? Reiner?

    And Svigor, now that you’ve admitted Orthodox Jews are more ethnocentric than secular Jews, explain why Orthodox Jews are one of the most right wing white groups?

  263. Significant presence of this ‘group’ apropos ownership of Swedish MSM (eg. Bonnier),

    As these photos show, Jonas Bonnier and his family is no longer Jewish. And yet anti-semites wonder why Jews mistrust their honesty and good faith.

    http://www.bonnier.com/English-tags/Jonas-Bonnier/

  264. @reiner Tor

    1. “Where is in the Wikipedia quote a suggestion that. … ethnocentric people will always reproduce within the ethnic group.”

    You’re not tracking the discussion. This is my statement that my quotes proved:

    MacDonald has an unusual ability to ignore counter data, like that most of these Jews that are supposedly hyper-concerned with passing on Jewish genetics only have 25% Jewish genetics.

    Trotsky’s actions against Jews don’t mean all Soviets Jews weren’t ethnocentric; it means that MacDonald regarding Trotsky as a normal Jew shows MacDonald is primarily concerned with genetics.

    2. “We know of Nazis who fell in love with Jewish women … does that mean Nazism is not ethnocentrism?”>

    That’s not understanding the magnitude of a 71% out-marriage rate. If 71% of Nazis married Jews, we would need to greatly re-evaluate their opinions on Jews.

    3. “Compare that to gentile Anglo-Saxon’s opinion about Rhodesia or South Africa. … If that doesn’t convince you that Jews are more ethnocentric than other whites, then what will?”

    MacDonald’s concern is the minority of Jews who are highly ethnocentric. Jews in general, who consider themselves White, have positive feelings toward Israel that are in line with Americans’ support of Israel, and are married to Gentiles, raising children who are 75% Gentile, are not an issue.

  265. @Millwright

    Feminists are innumerate so I suppose you have a problem with their innumeracy?

  266. Jason says:

    Out-marriage is not inconsistent with ethnocentrism. Male out-marriage i.e. males taking females from other tribes is a feature of ethnocentric racial/ethnic competition, and the Jewish out-marriage mentioned here tends to fit this pattern of Jewish male/gentile female out-marriage.

  267. @Jason

    I’ve seen mention that Jewish women started marrying Christians once marital attitudes relaxed in the 60s and 70s.

    And many of the most famous Jewish women in Hollywood marry Christians:

    Jennifer Connelly: Half-Jewish, married Paul Bettany.
    Gwenyth Paltrow: Half-Jewish, married Chris Martin (divorced).
    Natalie Portman: Married Benjamin Millepied.
    Rachel Weisz: Married Daniel Craig.
    Scarlett Johansson: Half-Jewish, married Ryan Reynolds (divorced).
    Mila Kunis: Married Ashton Kutcher.
    Dianna Agron: Dates gentiles.

    But even if that weren’t true, full European Jews average around 50% Christian according to Gregory Cochran, so an average full Jew who marries a Christian will have kids who are only 25% Jewish, and 75% Christian. That sounds like serious dilution, and the opposite of the evolutionary ethnocentrism that MacDonald describes.

  268. @Jason

    Also, the gender balance can’t be too uneven because the 71% outmarriage rate is so high.

    If Jewish women only outmarried at 50%, which would still be high, then that would mean Jewish men are outmarrying at 90%, which would strain belief.

  269. Jason says:

    @Southfarthing

    I never said no Jewish woman ever married a gentile man.
    The point is that out-marriage is not inconsistent with ethnocentrism.

    “Dilution” is not opposite the “evolutionary ethnocentrism” described by MacDonald or other evolutionary biologists. It can be comppletely consistent with evolutionarily ethnocentric strategies. It’s a matter of which reproductive germ lines and genetic interests dilution ulimtately serves. You yourself are a good example.

    The differential between male vs female out-marriage is what matters because that will determine the long run direction of paternal gene flow.

  270. David says:

    @Threecranes

    Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t it the standard position in biology nowadays that natural selection acts principally not on the group, or even the individual, but on the gene – defined as (roughly) the largest unit of genetic material with a good chance of passing from one generation to the next without being split up by meiosis; i.e., since natural selection is change in allele frequency within a breeding population, it is on the alleles that it acts?

    If a particular allele is successful enough relative to its rivals to outcompete them all and become the sole surviving version of a gene in that particular breeding population (at least until a more successful one comes along), then it is said to have reached fixation – become ‘a thing’ if you will, but it’s still natural selection favouring the individual alleles that have the effects of making the individuals who contain them more reproductively successful.

    Of course, if you favour memetic theory, then it becomes a lot easier to see coherent cultural groups as mutually supportive complexes of memes that thrive in each other’s presence, more-or-less regardless of the genetic success or failure of the people who carry those memes, so long as they don’t make them so reproductively unsuccessful as to die out, taking their memes down with them. But either way, as far as I was aware, the consensus of biology is that group selection is a marginal force at best.

  271. Current Commenter says:

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


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
PastClassics
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?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
ABC's Epic Steel-cage Smackdown
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?