Dr. Kevin MacDonald is a <>professor<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4228<> of psychology at California State University, Long Beach. He has written a series of books on the Jewish evolutionary strategy. MacDonald was born in Oshkosh, WI. His father was a policeman, and his mother was a secretary. He was an activist in the <>anti-war<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9161<> movement from 1965 to 1975. During this time, it began to dawn on him that a lot of these anti-war activities were being led by East Coast Jews. This started him on a path of inquiry. Like Socrates, MacDonald left no stone unturned. Some of his findings are quite <>fascinating<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6871<>.
I will be writing a series of articles in which I will explore some of Professor MacDonalds’ findings. MacDonald has published three books on this subject. The first one is A People that Shall Dwell Alone. In this book he describes how the Jews promote <>multiculturalism<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9534<>. This enables them to exist as a segregated group without <>appearing<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6988<> to exist as a segregated group. The second book is Separation and Its Discontents. It explores the strong points of the Jewish race—how they have high intelligence and as well as skills for acquiring resources. He explores the causes of anti-Semitism—both defensive anti-Semitism and aggressive <>anti-Semitism<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10469<>. His third book is <>Culture of Critique<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10302<>. He examines the various ways that the Jews have influenced our culture with their different intellectual movements. He looks at their role in Boasian anthropology, with its dogma that genetic differences of people are negligible. He also looks at the role that Jews played in protesting the Vietnam War. Jews tend to be upwardly mobile. They invented Freudian psychology in order to pathologize Gentile anxiety about downward mobility.
I will also look at some of Kevin MacDonald’s shorter essays. He wrote a particularly fascinating one about two immigration laws—one enacted in 1924 and the other enacted in 1965. He compares and contrasts the tactics used to promote the 1924 law with the tactics used to promote the 1965 law. The <>Immigration Act<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6988<> of 1965 had two main promoters. Its main promoter in the House of Representatives was Emannuel Celler. Its main promoter in the Senate was Jacob Javits.
Finally, I will look at the trial where David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt, when she called him a Holocaust denier. Irving called Kevin MacDonald to testify as a witness at this trial. In his testimony, MacDonald described some of the tactics that Jews use in order to silence their critics.
MacDonald’s first book was titled A People That Shall Dwell Alone. The book developed three main themes. The first one involved the way that Jews discourage intermarriage and encourage marriage within the race. In the movie Fiddler on the Roof, there was a song that went “Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match. Find me a find. Catch me a catch.” One passage in the song went “For Papa, make him a scholar, for Mama, make him rich as a king.” It seems that Mama’s prime concern was cash flow. Papa’s prime concern was maintaining the gene pool. The second theme was the way that Jews deliberately resist assimilating into the cultures they live in. Of hundreds of human groups in the ancient world, Judaism was the only that avoided cultural or genetic assimilation. The third theme is resource competition. In ancient times, Jews often served as middlemen between the common people and the ruling class. They had a practice called “tax-farming” where they would promise a king that they would collect a certain amount of taxes for them if they got a cut for themselves. The first book lays a good groundwork for a scholarly study of the Jewish evolutionary strategy.
Marriage within the in-group, the first theme, was promoted in their sacred writings. The Tanakh idealized endogamy and condemned exogamy. It is easier to understand what motivated the Jewish patriarchs when you realize how important in-group marriage was to them.
Cultural separation, the second theme, involved several social practices. One was within-group altruism. The Talmud would place limitations on how much interest a Jewish moneylender could charge another Jew. They had lots of ways of enforcing this practice. Jews who did not fall in line and place tribal interests over their personal interests could find themselves being punished by different social sanctions. It is interesting how brutally these sanctions could be applied—almost as brutally as the way that they force political correctness upon the goyim.
Resource competition, the third theme, was governed by an intricate set of laws. In some ways, poor Jews were on the receiving end of a lot of in-group altruism. In other ways, poor Jews were on the receiving end of discrimination. Jews who were too cordial in their business relations with Gentiles were sanctioned by the tribe. The Spanish Inquisition was, in part, a result of resource competition. Hatred toward the Jews was so universal, that Spain had become ungovernable. A lot of this hatred was a product of moneylending.
In a nutshell, then, Kevin MacDonald’s first book touched on three themes—marriage within the tribe, cultural separatism, and resource competition. Marriage within the tribe creates a situation where a Jew in Russia is more genetically similar to a Jew living in Israel than he is to his neighbors in Russia. Cultural separatism is what enables them to consider themselves the “chosen people.” They sometimes claim openly that they are more intelligent and more moral than the people in whose society they live. Resource competition can make anti-Semitism a rational response to a conflict of economic interests.
Professor MacDonald’s second book is titled Separation and its Discontents. It is primarily a study of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism. The thinking in this book can be roughly divided into three threads. The first thread involves historical examples of anti-Semitism. MacDonald focuses on three examples in particular—anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire in the 4th Century A.D., the Spanish Inquisition, and the National Socialist movement from 1933 to 1945. The second thread discusses different strategies that Jews use to contain anti-Semitism. Some of the strategies involved lobbying for favorable policies, and some involved ingratiating themselves with people in positions of power (sometimes even lending them money). The third thread covers Chapter 8.
The first thread, historical examples, covers events in Rome, Spain, and Germany. Many historical examples of anti-Semitism have elements in common. They are usually reactions to Jewish economic success. Anti-Semitic movements form which sometimes are like a mirror-image of Judaism. For instance, both Judaism and National Socialism were paternalistic in nature. They made sharp distinctions between the in-group and the out-group. They both promoted policies that favored eugenics.
The second thread concerns Jewish strategies to contain anti-Semitism. One strategy in use now is promotion of massive immigration. Jews believe that unstable societies are more favorable to Jewish interests. It is only ethnically homogeneous societies that can develop the solidarity necessary to take the Jews out of power.
One interesting character in the history of Jewish intellectual movements is <>Franz Boas<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10626<>. Boas was born in Minden, Westphalia, Germany in 1858. Boas went to the universities, first at Heidelberg and then at Bonn. His doctoral dissertation was on the colors of water. He then went to Baffin Island to study the Eskimos. Later Boas moved to the United States and became a lecturer in physical anthropology at Columbia University. Boas did to anthropology what Sigmund Freud did to <>psychology<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7255<> and what Karl Marx did to economics. He took a branch of objective science and “Judaized” it. He used it as a vehicle for promoting a partisan dogma.
Kevin MacDonald mentioned that a scientist named Leslie White called the Boasian school of anthropology a politically-inspired cult. MacDonald quoted White as saying, “One who follows procedures such as these incurs the risk of being accused of indulging in non-scholarly, personal attacks upon whom he discusses. Such a charge is, in fact, expectable and completely in keeping with the thesis of this essay. We wish to state that no personal attacks are intended.”
MacDonald mentioned this point when he was testifying at David Irving’s trial where he was suing Deborah Lipstadt. MacDonald mentioned that he expected to be on the receiving end of ad-hominem attacks for testifying, and that this was perfectly consistent with the Jewish evolutionary strategy.
The third thread concerns Chapter 8. The author’s writings up to this point may be regarded as an appetizer. Chapter 8 is the red meat, where the author goes into the Jewish art of self-deception.
There is one particular passage in this chapter that I would like to quote verbatim.
“Zionist historian Gershom Scholem describes the massive self-deception among the “broad Jewish liberal middle class” living in Germany from 1900 to 1933. Scholem describes the contrast between the general principles that were consciously upheld in domestic discussion and the mental attitudes that remained subconscious in many cases were even explicitly disavowed.” They accepted the ideology that Judaism was nothing more than a religion despite the fact that most of them had no religious beliefs and many had developed “Jewish feeling which no longer had anything to do with religion.” Many accepted the ideology that “the mission of Judaism was its self-sacrifice of the common good of mankind,” despite the fact that Jews were vastly overrepresented in all of the markers of economic and cultural success in the society. Jews would lead humanity into a universalistic, ethically superior golden age, while they themselves retained “semiconscious” feelings of solidarity with international Jewry. Their avowals of anti-Zionism and German patriotism were often “more evident than real”—a comment that brings to mind the much earlier observation of Moses Hess, who wrote in 1840 about the despised assimilated Jew “who denies his nationality while the hand of fate presses heavily on his own people. The beautiful phrases about humanity and enlightenment which he employs as a cloak for his treason . . . will ultimately not protect him from public opinion..” The self-image of being completely socially assimilated also coexisted with exclusive socialization among other Jews and criticism of upper-class Jews who socialized with Gentiles. Self-images of assimilation also coexisted with very negative or ambivalent attitudes toward conversion and intermarriage.
“Gershom Scholem was later convicted of treason. He had demonstrated against Germany’s war effort in World War I. One author, named Rubin, had this to say about Arthur, Gershom Scholem’s father: “[Gershom] should have been used to incongruities: his mother owned a kosher restaurant, but his father had renamed himself Siegfried in honor of Wagner’s opera. In the Scholem house, customs were similarly mixed up. Arthur forbade Jewish expressions, but his wife used them anyway. Friday night was a family night when prayers were said but only partly understood, and Arthur scorned Jewish law by using the Sabbath candles to light a cigar after the meal.”
On Passover, the family ate both bread and matzo. Arthur went to work on Yom Kippur and did not fast. He praised the Jewish mission to spread monotheism and ethics, and he disparaged conversion. But the family celebrated Christmas as a German national festival and sang “Silent Night.” Arthur insisted on his German identity, but almost all of his friends were Jews, and no Christian ever set foot in his home. And when Gershom became a Zionist, his parents bought a portrait of Herzl and put it under their Christmas tree.
To summarize, Separation and its Discontents covers three threads of thought—historical examples of anti-Semitism, the Jewish strategy for containing anti-Semitism, and Jewish self deception. Anti-Semitism did not come out of thin air. It is good to have an author who can look at the causes of anti-Semitism and maintain his intellectual honesty. The Jewish strategy for containing anti-Semitism has always been quite aggressive. It is like they constantly sweep the political landscape with a Gieger counter. Chapter 8, the chapter on self-deception, is my favorite. I am old enough to have experienced the Age of Aquarius. The Age of Aquarius was based on “sympathy and understanding.” Anyone with insufficient sympathy or the wrong kind of understanding could expect to have his career trashed. I have seen many academics and politicians trying to salvage their careers by claiming, “I am NOT an anti-Semite!” Often they would be accused of subconscious anti-Semitism or subconscious racism. I often wonder how you would defend yourself against a charge like that. Maybe subconscious racism is an example of goyish self-deception.
MacDonald’s third book is titled Culture of Critique. Jewish society has always been geared toward producing intellectuals. For centuries, their society formed a closed loop. Men with a flair for the intellect were made rabbis and encouraged to reproduce. This changed around 1800. After this time, the Jews began to release intellectuals to the rest of the world so that they could remake society.
Kevin MacDonald looks at the impact the Jewish intellectuals have had on our society, examining five areas of our society that have felt the impact the hardest. The first area is Boasian anthropology. Franz Boas turned anthropology from an objective science into a belief system that was as dogmatic as any Medieval theory of the solar system. The second area is political radicalism. Karl Marx was descended from a long line of Talmudic scholars. The third area is psychoanalysis. One good way to stigmatize someone tougher than you is to call him “testosterone-crazed.” The fourth area is the <>Frankfurt School<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7370<> of Social Research. As war clouds were gathering for World War I, the Marxists predicted that the German proletariat would form solidarity with the French proletariat and the British proletariat. When this did not happen, the Marxists were hard-pressed for an explanation. They formed the Frankfurt School to create an explanation, replacing economic Marxism with cultural Marxism. The fifth area is the phenomenon of the so-called New York Intellectuals.
The first area, Boasian anthropology, has a way of popping up in places where you least expect to see it. Boasian anthropology is based on the premise that differences between races are negligible. Margaret Mead was one of Franz Boas’ disciples. She wrote a book entitled Coming of Age in Samoa. This book ended up becoming the second most famous hoax in academic history. (The most famous hoax happened when a scientist attached the jawbone of a human to the skull of a baboon. He then claimed that he had found the skull at a rock quarry near the town of Piltdown, in England. The third most famous hoax was authored by Alan Sokal. He wrote an article entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transfoamative Hermeneutics of Quantim Gravity.” In his article he claimed that gravity was a social construct. He then got a liberal academic journal called Social Text to publish his article.) Mead claimed that Samoans were introduced to sex at a very young age. They practiced free love as was promoted in the sixties, and even ventured into child sex. She got away with this for years, until two Samoan students enrolled in her class and the truth came out.
The second area covered, political radicalism, examines part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy. Even when Jews obtain positions of privilege in a society, they then proceed to denigrate the society that gave them those privileges in the first place. It is in their best interests to do so. Jews as a group can more easily camouflage their agenda when there is social chaos, while blending in as a group. They can also more easily make money when there is social chaos.
The third area covered is psychoanalysis, which can become an effective debating tactic. If you are losing an argument because your logic is flawed or because the facts are against you, you can always pathologize your opponent. If he disapproves of loose sexual morals, he can be diagnosed as a repressed Puritan. If he attempts to nail your facts or your logic down in a rigorous manner, he can be ridiculed as anal retentive.
The fourth area is the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School started out in 1930 as the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany. It was a gathering of dissident Marxists who wanted to escape the politically-charged label of “Marxist.” Whereas the old-time Marxists called upon the workers of the world to unite, the people of the Frankfurt School advocated solidarity with other socially marginalized groups, such as women, homosexuals and racial minorities. One of the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse coined the slogan “Make love, not war,” which became popular in the American protest movement of the Vietnam War. When Hitler rose to power, the Frankfurt School relocated to New York. (Odd that they chose New York instead of Moscow, until one considers Stalin, who would have liquidated them in the Great Purges). Another Frankfurt School intellectual was Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was imprisoned by Mussolini for seditious activities. He wrote a book called Prison Notebooks. Prison Notebooks is still used today as a guidebook for people who want to overthrow the society they are living in.
The fifth area was New York Intellectuals. The Gentile John Dewey was one famous New York intellectual. He spent a lot of time in Jewish circles. Included in his circle of friends was Leon Trotsky. The 1950s was supposedly a conservative time. Eisenhower was the president, there were lots of white neighborhoods, and there was no problem so serious that “the Fonz” could not solve it in thirty minutes. That was not the case, however in the New York intellectual scene. Joe McCarthy may have been popular in Wisconsin , but he was not popular in New York, whose literary establishment was even more leftist then than now. Saul Bellow once characterized the New York literary establishment as “a suburb of Moscow .”
In a nutshell—Culture of Critique examines five ways that Jewish intellectuals have changed our society—Boasian anthropology, political radicalism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School , and New York intellectuals. Boasian anthropology preaches nurture versus nature. Political radicalism has been around for a long time. Psychoanalysis has a particularly Jewish flavor to it. The idea of certain basic body functions having more mental significance than abstract ideas is not an idea that Immanual Kant would have liked. The Frankfurt School is an interesting example of intellectualism run rampant. Finally, MacDonald covers the New York intellectuals. The New York intellectual establishment is a good example of personalities before principles.
Kevin MacDonald has written a lot of short articles as well. Many of them are published in The Occidental Quarterly. The article I like best is Jewish Involvement in American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. MacDonald describes how Jewish organizations have been tampering with United States immigration policy for over a century. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also known as the National Origins Act or the Johnson-Reed Act. It placed a restriction on the number of people of any particular ethnic group that could immigrate to the United States in any particular year. The limit was 2% of the number of people of that group that were counted in the 1890 census, serving to maintain the ethnic balance of the country. To its opponents, it served to maintain the United States as a <>white country<> http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5917<>. MacDonald discussed the efforts of people who opposed the act. He is so meticulous in his scholarship that there are lots of quotes within quotes. I will print the next passage as an example of that.
“The House Majority report (signed by 15 of its 17 members with only Reps. Dickstein and Sabath not signing) also emphasized the Jewish role in defining the intellectual battle in terms of Nordic superiority and “American ideals” rather than in the terms of an ethnic status quo actually favored by the committee: “The cry of discrimination is, the committee believes, manufactured and built up by special representatives of racial groups, aided by aliens actually living abroad. Members of the committee have taken notice of a report in the Jewish Tribune (New York) February 8, 1924, of a farewell dinner to which Mr. Israel Zangwill which says: ‘Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense,” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.'” The committee does not feel that the restriction aimed to be accomplished in this bill is directed at the Jews, for they can come within the quotas from any country in which they were born. The Committee has not dwelt on the desirability of a “Nordic” or any other particular type of immigrant, but has held steadfastly to the purpose of securing a heavy restriction, with the quota so divided that the countries from which the most came in the two decades ahead of the World War might be slowed down in order that the United States might restore its population balance. The continued charge that the Committee has built up a “Nordic” race and devoted its hearing to that end is part of a deliberately manufactured assault as a matter of fact the committee has done nothing of the kind. (House Rep. 350, 1924, p. 16)”
Kevin MacDonald goes on to add the following comment: “Indeed, one is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate by the rarity with which the issue of Nordic racial superiority is raised by those in favor of the legislation, while virtually all of the anti-restrictionists raised the issue. After a particularly colorful comment in opposition to the theory of Nordic racial superiority, restrictionist leader Albert Johnson remarked that “I would like very much to say on behalf of the committee that through the strenuous times of the hearings this committee undertook not to discuss the Nordic proposition or racial matters.” (Congressional Record, April 8, 1924; p. 5911) Earlier, during the hearings on the bill, Johnson remarked in response to the comments of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise representing the AJCongress that ‘I dislike to be placed continually in the attitude of assuming that there is a race prejudice, when one thing I have tried to do for 11 years is to free myself from the race prejudice, if I had it at all.'”
Apparently the civil rights agitation that started in the 1960’s did not just come out of thin air. It was in the making many years before. Jewish opposition to immigration restrictions finally resulted in the Immigration Act of 1965. The Immigration and Naturalization Services Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act or the INS Act of 1965) did away with national-origin quotas that had been in place since 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler and heavily supported by Ted Kennedy. An annual limitation of 170,000 was placed on immigrants from countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, with no more than 20,000 from any one single country. The annual limitation of 120,000 was placed on immigrants from Western Hemisphere countries. The House voted in favor of it 326 to 69. The Senate voted in favor of it 76 to 18. President Johnson signed it into law. As an interesting aside, one supporter of the act was Bobby Kennedy. A few years after the act got passed, Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian immigrant, who as a refugee was angered at Kennedy for supporting the sale of fighter jets to Israel.
To summarize, we have mentioned that Kevin MacDonald has written articles that are published in The Occidental Quarterly. We looked at one in particular that examines the lobbying efforts behind the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Immigration Act of 1965.
Finally, we get to Kevin MacDonald’s testimony at David Irving’s trial. Deborah Lipstadt wrote a book entitled Denying the Holocaust. In her book she described David Irving as a Holocaust denier. She claimed that he had manipulated and distorted real documents. Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in High Court in London. David Irving called upon Kevin MacDonald to testify at his trial as a witness. The text of Kevin MacDonald’s statement is available <>here<> http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/MacDonald/report1.html<>.
One paragraph reads as follows:
“The main point of my testimony is that the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-gentile interactions. As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist as well as the evidence compiled by historians leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with segments of the gentile community. Anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior have been a pervasive feature of the Jewish experience since the beginnings of the Diaspora well over 2000 years ago. While anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior have undoubtedly often been colored by myths and fantasies about Jews, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish writing that reflects the reality of between-group competition exactly as expected by an evolutionist. Particularly important have been the themes of separatism-the fact that Jewish groups have typically existed as recognizably distinct groups and have been unwilling to assimilate either culturally or via marriage to the wider society, the theme of economic, political, and cultural domination, and the theme of disloyalty.”
Kevin MacDonald, as would be expected, has his share of critics. His harshest critic appears to be Ilana <>Mercer<> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34794<>, who wrote an article about him on the WorldNetDaily site, which appeared on September 26, 2003. The title of her article is “Blame the Jews.”
Says Mercer: “Kevin MacDonald, at least, comes straight out with it. Instead of the cowardly, infantile, and frankly nauseating nudge-nudge, wink-wink insinuations about Jews, he offers grand conspiracy. Jewish neocons recruited all the non-Jews and now manipulate them like marionettes. No mortal (read gentile) could possibly resist a Jewish intellectual – that a cabal of Jews allegedly hijacked the administration is because gullible Gentiles are powerless in the face of Jewish persuasion, or so it goes according to MacDonald’s unique Science of Jews.”
To wrap this whole thing up, we have touched on some of the high points of Kevin MacDonald’s academic career. We have covered his three books, one of his articles in The Occidental Quarterly, and his testimony at David Irving’s Trial. PTSDA, his first book, covers the ways that the Jewish community resists assimilation into society at large. SAID, his second book, discusses some of the origins of anti-Semitism. COC, his third book, looks at the impact of the Jewish agenda on Western society. We looked at one published article of his, which discusses the Jewish impact on immigration laws. Finally we mentioned his testimony at David Irving’s trial. Kevin MacDonald is interesting in that he sets his personal prejudices aside so that he can do objective research. I think a lot of people can benefit from MacDonald’s example. You can go a long way when you have the truth on your side.