Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Multiculturalism: The Real Story of the Immigrants Who Opened the Floodgates
0 views
Skip to first unread message
climber
Dec 28, 2009, 5:28:56 AM12/28/09
to
On Dec 27, 7:14 pm, Western Voice <whitemanfi...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The Culture of Critique reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
>
> In The Culture of Critique, Evolutionary Psychologist Professor Kevin
> MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial
> thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements – largely
> established and led by Jews – have changed European societies in
> fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He
> claims that these movements were designed, consciously or
> unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were
> presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes
> that the increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound
> political and social consequences that benefited Jews but caused great
> harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes with
> considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally
> thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
>
> The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
> are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of
> sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a
> racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-
> culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof.
> MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements
> as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to
> give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their
> own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against Jews is
> not ethnocentrism but dishonesty – that while claiming to be working
> for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and
> to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
> brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
> gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
> solidarity they decry as immoral in others.
>
> Celebrating Diversity
>
> Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
> Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
> diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
> have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
> of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
> for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same
> time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of
> Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in
> gentile society.
>
> Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
> loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
> society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The
> Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
> survival as a people for thousands for years – even without a country
> – has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
> nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
> view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
> identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
> flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
>
> Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
> "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
> belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a
> society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
> as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
> example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
> majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
> liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
>
> He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-
> strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a
> society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a
> Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as
> the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support
> deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country
> but because it is good for the Jews.
>
> Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
> economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
> policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
> anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
> faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the
> Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles
> and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies
> were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good
> for the country.
>
> Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
> makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing
> his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
> century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped
> beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in
> this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and
> culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise
> of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
> potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
> national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.
> This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
> as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
> influence.
>
> In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews]
> have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
> about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
> heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
> irreversible..." – just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
> of European culture also irreversible.
>
> Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
> several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
> immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
> the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
> explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
> MacDonald reports that he and his followers – with the notable
> exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict – were all Jews with
> strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
> perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
> cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
> 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
>
> By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
> Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
> anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
> the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
> environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
> so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
> integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
> idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
> non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
> ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment
> accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement
> can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
> justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
> programs.
>
> The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
> consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were
> equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened
> white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of
> Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that
> Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement.
> Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been
> established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew.
> Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus
> Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
> stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.
>
> Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
> "civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
> American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
> laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
> staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
> being by Jewish voters."
>
> While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
> equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words,
> "American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and
> aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality).
> Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-
> World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that
> were attributed to Western culture."
>
> The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
> about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
> MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
> deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
> contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
> undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
> permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
> enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
> because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
>
> Authoritarian Personalities
>
> In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
> would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
> and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
> basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
> School. What is properly known as the
>
> read more »...
> The Culture of Critique reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
>
> In The Culture of Critique, Evolutionary Psychologist Professor Kevin
> MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial
> thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements – largely
> established and led by Jews – have changed European societies in
> fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He
> claims that these movements were designed, consciously or
> unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were
> presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes
> that the increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound
> political and social consequences that benefited Jews but caused great
> harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes with
> considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally
> thought to be more sinned against than sinning.
>
> The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
> are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of
> sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a
> racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-
> culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof.
> MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements
> as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to
> give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their
> own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against Jews is
> not ethnocentrism but dishonesty – that while claiming to be working
> for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and
> to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
> brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
> gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
> solidarity they decry as immoral in others.
>
> Celebrating Diversity
>
> Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
> Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
> diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
> have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
> of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
> for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same
> time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of
> Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in
> gentile society.
>
> Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
> loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
> society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The
> Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
> survival as a people for thousands for years – even without a country
> – has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
> nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
> view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
> identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
> flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.
>
> Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
> "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
> belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a
> society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
> as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
> example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
> majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
> liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."
>
> He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-
> strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a
> society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a
> Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as
> the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support
> deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country
> but because it is good for the Jews.
>
> Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
> economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
> policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
> anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
> faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the
> Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles
> and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies
> were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good
> for the country.
>
> Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
> makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing
> his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
> century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped
> beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in
> this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and
> culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise
> of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
> potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
> national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.
> This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
> as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
> influence.
>
> In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews]
> have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
> about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
> heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
> irreversible..." – just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
> of European culture also irreversible.
>
> Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
> several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
> immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
> the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
> explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
> MacDonald reports that he and his followers – with the notable
> exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict – were all Jews with
> strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
> perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
> cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
> 'invisible subject' of American anthropology."
>
> By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
> Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
> anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
> the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
> environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
> so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
> integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
> idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
> non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
> ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment
> accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement
> can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
> justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
> programs.
>
> The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
> consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were
> equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened
> white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of
> Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that
> Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement.
> Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been
> established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew.
> Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus
> Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
> stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.
>
> Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
> "civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
> American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
> laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
> staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
> being by Jewish voters."
>
> While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
> equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words,
> "American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and
> aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality).
> Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-
> World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that
> were attributed to Western culture."
>
> The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
> about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
> MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
> deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
> contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
> undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
> permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
> enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
> because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.
>
> Authoritarian Personalities
>
> In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
> would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
> and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
> basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
> School. What is properly known as the
>
> read more »...
Does anyone know of a single Jewish member of congress who does not
support
high immigration levels? Which ones oppose amnesty for illegal aliens?
Looking,
looking, looking.
climber
http://www.americanworker.org/ The American Worker
Studemania
Dec 28, 2009, 5:52:07 PM12/28/09
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Asart Indian, I object to you not selecting us for the distinction.
If you wish to deny this, let bme alo point out that I can trace my
heritage back to the Brits who vame next in line.
If you want to dig deeper. you sshopuldnclude the Spanish who became
the Mexicans, whom you probably despise..
John Gilmer
Dec 29, 2009, 11:37:27 PM12/29/09
to
>
> Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
> makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing
> his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
> century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped
> beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in
> this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and
> culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise
> of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
> potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
> national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.
> This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
> as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
> influence.
He well might have a good point!
In my youth (I'm in my 60s) many/most Protestants were somewhat anti-Roman
Catholic.
But with Christianity in seeming decline most of us "fundys" consider RCs to
be one of us!
If Islam gains a signficant foot hold in the US, most Christians will simply
drop their vestige of anti-semetism to respond to the 'common enemy.'
But from the view of the "minorities" this is a dangerous game. Main line
Christians will always be safe in the US. But what would happen were the
Christians to unite with the Muslims at the expense of the Jews?
EMWTK
strik...@mail.com
Jan 2, 2010, 9:16:20 AM1/2/10
to
Ha,ha, 50% of American Jews are marrying outside of the tribe.
"Professional Jews", i.e. ADL, American Jewish Committee, etc,
agree that assimulation is the great "threat". More Jews are
thinking "White" though they still vote in the same bloc with negroes
and hispanics. One can hope.
striker
>
0 new messages