Jewish contribution to 20th Century social science

[Matt Nuenke]

The following is the third of three articles: The other two are
available at www.netcom.com/~nuenke/mac.htm

Kevin MacDonald's three books on Judaism are an important
contribution to an understanding of eugenics as a secular
religion for several reasons. First, the Jews have been the most
successful group to practice eugenics as part of their secular
religion and it has increased their average intelligence far
above any other ethnic group or race. Second, the history of
Jewish-gentile competition helps us understand how humans
interact when competing with each other for scarce resources and
for control of social goals as part of human evolutionary
behavior. (Until recently, we constructed society based on
notions of what should be, rather than on how humans actually
respond to changes in their environment.) And Third, Jewish
activists have been at the forefront of attacking Western science
because of the fear they have that understanding human nature may
result in renewed anti-Semitism. Though it is understandable
that Jews would attack ideas they feel are a threat, likewise
those of us who believe that science, rather than scientific
nihilism, has the best chance of solving life's problems, must
point out their political agenda to undermine scientific
progress.

Dr. MacDonald writes in his concluding chapter in The Culture of
Critique, "Within the intellectual world, the greatest potential
danger for a collectiv-ist minority group strategy is that
science itself as an individualist enterprise conducted in an
atomistic universe of discourse [Western scientific method] could
in fact coalesce around a set of universalist propositions about
human behavior, propositions that would call into question the
moral basis of collectivist minority group strate-gies such as
Judaism. One way to prevent this is for science itself to be
prob-lematized and replaced by a pervasive skepticism about the
structure of all reality. The intended effect of such movements
(and to a considerable extent their actual effect) has been to
impose a medieval anti-scientific orthodoxy on much of the
contemporary intellectual world. Unlike the Christian medieval
ortho-doxy which was fundamentally anti-Semitic, it is an
orthodoxy that simultane-ously facilitates the continuation of
Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, deemphasizes Judaism as
an intellectual or social category, and deconstructs the
intellectual basis for the development of majoritarian gentile
group strate-gies. None of this should be surprising to an
evolutionist. Intellectual activity in the service of
evolutionary goals has been a characteristic of Judaism dating
from the ancient world (see SAID, Ch. 7). In this regard I
suggest that it is no accident that science has developed
uniquely in Western individualistic societies. Science is
fundamentally an individualistic phenomenon incompati-ble with
high levels of the ingroup-outgroup thinking that has
characterized the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in
these chapters and indeed has come to characterize much of what
currently passes as intellectual discourse in the
West--especially postmodernism and the currently fashionable
multicul-tural movement."

Movements that try to deny a genetic basis for behavior, deny
that a nation has a right to control its borders or construct its
own culture, movements to deny any meaning to science, movements
to accuse only Caucasians of racism or nationalist agendas,
movements to pathologize Christianity and family values; these
are the topics that this book deals with, how a Jewish
intelligentsia, with plenty of help from Marxist gentiles, have
attempted to undermine Western culture and science based on an
evolutionary understanding of group conflict. Until we fully
understand this human capacity for ethnic warfare, either
militarily, intellectually, or politically, we have little chance
of preventing genocide as tensions build between competing
groups. Following is a chapter by chapter review of The Culture
of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998).

JEWS AND THE RADICAL CRITIQUE OF GENTILE CULTURE: INTRODUCTION
AND THEORY. MacDonald writes, "Finally, a major theme here is
that gentiles have often been actively re-cruited to the
movements discussed here and given highly visible roles within
these movements in order to lessen the appearance that the
movements are indeed Jewish-dominated or aimed only at narrow
Jewish sectarian interests. From the standpoint of social
identity theory, such a strategy aims at making gentiles perceive
the intellectual or political movement as permeable to non-Jews
and as satisfying gentile interests. As indicated in SAID (Chs.
5, 6), the rhetoric of universalism and the recruitment of
gentiles as advocates of Jewish interests have been recurrent
themes in combating anti-Semitism in both the ancient and modern
world. It is also important to keep in mind that the
effectiveness and historical im-portance of Jewish involvement in
the movements discussed in this volume were undoubtedly far out
of proportion to the actual number of Jews involved. For example,
even though in particular historical eras Jews may have been only
a numerical minority within radical political or intellectual
movements, they may well have been a necessary condition for the
effectiveness and historical importance of these movements. Jews
who became radicals retained their high IQ, their ambitiousness,
their persistence, their work ethic, and their ability to
organize and participate in cohesive, highly committed groups
(see PTSDA, Ch. 7). As Lindemann (1997, 429) notes about Jewish
Bolsheviks, 'citing the absolute numbers of Jews, or their
percentage of the whole, fails to recognize certain key if
intangible factors: the assertiveness and often dazzling verbal
skills of Jewish Bolsheviks, their energy, and their strength of
convic-tion.' Jews tend to be far above average on these traits,
and these traits have been central to Judaism as a group
evolutionary strategy throughout history."

Note that MacDonald does not believe in conspiracies, plots or
secret agendas. The world is too complicated for these actions
to be viable on a large scale. And they lack what is critical to
a Jewish political agenda, a passion that is self-deceiving;
these movements really believe in their bizarre fabrications for
pathologizing gentile culture without any empirical evidence.
This doesn't mean any one culture is better than any other, but
it is valid to define behavioral traits only with some empirical
evidence, which these movements lack. And that is the objection,
the politicization of these movements or cults, with their
ability to mobilize a small but highly intelligent and wealthy
Jewish elite to serve the group's self-interest, under the guise
of global humanitarian or moral goals. But in short, it has in
the past and is in the present ethnic warfare, for to get beyond
ethnicity means giving up genetic isolationism, which most Jews
view as anathema. And if you think for one minute that social
identity theory is not active and alive, just take note of the
partisanship that is tearing apart Washington over the Clinton
impeachment. Both sides, from the top to the bottom on main
street have joined in the fray, accusing each side of any number
of political violations. But if you step back and examine the
issues, you realize that the passions and condemnations are no
different than at a European soccer match. It is two sides
lining up against each other. And that is what happens naturally
amongst humans, it isn't right or wrong, it just is. And Judaism
emphasizing a biological separation from gentiles as well as a
cultural separation naturally lends itself to conflicts between
the two groups, without any need to find only one group at fault.
As there is irrational anti-Semitism, there has likewise been
irrational Jewish Anglophobes fueling the flames of animosity.
This book is about those fears and misunderstandings about how
human nature works in fact, and not in utopian theory.

THE BOASIAN SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE DECLINE OF DARWINISM
IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. My own personal confrontation with
anti-evolutionists or 'behavioral creationists' came about when I
got involved in the debate over intelligence and heredity. The
pendulum was swinging towards absolute proof, thanks to adoption
studies and twin studies, that intelligence was primarily
genetic, and yet the storm of controversy and the media blitz
against such notions seemed somehow so well coordinated as to be
suspect of a formidable propaganda machine. But why? Wasn't the
scientific community interested in facts no matter where they
led? No, not really. Not when ideology is more important than
facts. But why? I then stumbled upon a discussion of
MacDonald's research into Judaism in the academic journal
Ethology and Sociobiology and my eyes began to be opened. I had
grown up in a non-ethnic community and had always seen things in
light of Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus
conservatives, my own family being died in the wool social
democratic liberals. I always assumed that everyone else was as
disinterested in ethnicity as I a was. So in trying to understand
the position of the radical environmentalists, it now becomes
necessary to understand their motives from and evolutionary
perspective of group conflict.

Franz Boas is the leading figure in bringing radical
environmentalism to American academics. Coming from a highly
politicized socialist Jewish family, he set about to perform
surgery and extricate any doctrine that he perceived as being
dangerous to Judaism, and his fight was directed at Darwinists.
He would show the world, by surrounding himself with sycophant
young scholars, that humans were capable of forming any cultural
system and that our genes had nothing to do with it. By holding
and controlling the first academic chairs in cultural
anthropology and social science his disciples, after being
dutifully screened and indoctrinated, set out to do ethnographic
studies that would prove what Boas was telling them, turning
science on its head. The most famous of these of course was
Margaret Mead and her now documented distortions of Somoan
culture. It turns out she was duped by her native subjects,
because her directives were to prove the official doctrine of
Boaz rather than to pursue objective science. And so elite
fields of study became tools of propaganda and authoritarian
conformity to doctrine. By 1940 "Jews constituted 20% of the
faculty of elite American colleges and universities and
constituted 30% of the 'most liberal' faculty. At this time, Jews
representing less than 3% of the population, constituted 25% of
the social science faculty at elite universities and 40% of
liberal faculty who published most. Jewish academics were also
far more likely to support 'progressive' or communist parties
from the 1930s to the 1950s."

Today, the Boasian doctrine of political clitoridectomy against
the freedom of science is carried on by Stephen Jay Gould et al.
(Hirsch, Kamin, Rose, Lewontin, Lerner, etc.) in the interest of
stopping the pursuit of knowledge that may be used against Jewish
particularism. Gould's primary target, now that radical
environmentalism has little basis in fact, is to attack
evolutionary science at points where it may threaten or make
genetic differences between groups once again salient, such as
adaptationism and the heritability of intelligence. MacDonald
points out that "A very prominent theme of Gould's [book ] The
Mismeasure of Man was how hereditarian views on intelligence had
been used by 'Teutonic supremacists' to discriminate against Jews
early in the century. Gould's views on the IQ debates of the
1920s and their link to the immigration issue and eventually the
Holocaust bear scrutiny. They illustrate how skill as a
propagandist and ethnic activist can be combined with a highly
visible and prestigious academic position to have a major
influence on public attitudes in an area of research with great
implications for public policy." One has to wander, was the
Nazi's Dr. Joseph Goebbels any less a propagandist than the
Jewish Bolshevik intellectuals? It doesn't seem so. They have
been persistent, relentless, and using the language of hate and
charges of anti-Semitism have routinely blocked even-handed
scientific progress with false-hoods and deception.

Gould's most egregious attack in his above book was against H. H.
Goddard's role in the role of IQ and immigration policy during
the 1920's. After publication, numerous scholars challenged
Gould on his portrayal of Goddard's position on the subject,
showing clearly that he was wrong and his attack was grossly
distorted and unfair, and served only to try and discredit the IQ
debate and to push it out of public view. And yet, after he had
been thoroughly rebuked for his deception, he made no attempt to
correct his distortions when he reissued The Mismeasure of Man in
1996. Only a pseudoscientist, singularly obsessed with pushing
science back from discovering the genetic nature of man, in the
pursuit of protecting Jewish ethnocentrism from objective
formulations on how groups react, could someone stoop to such a
low level of dishonesty. Gould has and continues to engage in
scholarly fraud in this endeavor and in numerous other areas of
academic work where he continues to distort and challenge
mainstream scientific hypotheses that he finds threatening to his
Jewishness. What makes him so effective and unchallenged as a
propagandist is the fact that as part of the Jewish intellectual
establishment, he is supported by the popular press and in such
publications as the New York Review of Books. Here he can
criticize books he doesn't like and support other radical
environmentalists while building a reputation as a viable member
of the scientific community, while in more academic publications
he is routinely chastised for distortion of the facts (see my web
site compellation of quotes on Gould at
www.netcom.com/~nuenke/gou.htm).

It is important to remember that the Jewish attack on biological
determinism, which is a red herring anyway as science accepts the
interaction of nature and nurture, is not due to any moral high
ground by trying to promote a kinder and gentler world. It is
based on the fact that Jews perceive genetic determinism as much
more of a threat than environmental determinism which is even
more dangerous for humanities peaceful future. MacDonald writes
"A theory that there is no human nature would imply that humans
could easily be programmed to accept all manner of exploitation,
including slavery. From a radical environ-mentalist perspective,
it should not matter how societies are constructed, since people
should be able to learn to accept any type of social structure.
Women could easily be programmed to accept rape, and ethnic
groups could be pro-grammed to accept their own domination by
other ethnic groups. The view that radical environmentalism is
not socially pernicious also ignores the fact that the communist
government of the Soviet Union murdered millions of its citizens
and later engaged in officially sponsored anti-Semitism while
commit-ted to an ideology of radical environmentalism." And
later, "[Marxist] ideologies are advocated because of their
universalist promise to lead humanity to a higher level of
morality--a level of morality in which there is continuity of
Jewish group identity but an eradication of anti-Semitism. As
such, dynamic contextualism can be seen as one of the many
post-Enlightenment attempts to reconcile Judaism with the modern
world." Note again the contradiction and deception in a people
who practice genetic separatism themselves, while denying the
importance of race and genes, attacking Western culture for being
intolerant of other ethnic groups. The Jews rely on a Marxist
universalism not for the sake of humanity but to be able to hide
as a separate genetic race amongst a utopian classless society
that ignores one's apparent breeding habits and xenophobia. How
they intend to prevent others from noticing that they are able to
dominate political, academic, and economic resources because of
their inherited high intelligence is beyond me. Just this morning
I was listening to a reporter on the Howard Stern show asking
musicians at the "American Music Awards" why there were so many
Jews in music. Those who answered either claimed they were good
at making money or they were intelligent. Does the Gouldian
agenda seriously think that either answer is better than the
other, and that people are blind to the power the highly
intelligent Jewish community has in any society they aggressively
enter? The problem is not that they are intelligent, the problem
is that they continue to deny that they are intelligent and have
such a disproportionate impact on the nation's culture and
politics. The very same thing that caused the Holocaust. Never
did the Nazis think that Jews were less than brilliant. It was
their racialist separatism that got them into trouble.
Prototypical Western societies have traditionally been altruistic
and egalitarian due to their evolution in a cold and sparsely
populated ecological area. Judaism evolved in a highly favorable
ecological environment but where the dangers were from other
humans. "The outstanding feature of Judaism has been that it has
steadfastly raised barriers between Jews as an ingroup and the
surrounding society as an outgroup. . . . Moreover, a salient
point here is that there is no appreciation in either Lerner or
Lewontin of the great extent to which Jews have themselves
created impermeable groups in which genetic blood lines were of
the highest importance, in which there were hierarchies of racial
purity, and in which genetic and cultural assimilation were
viewed as anathema."

JEWS AND THE LEFT. This chapter looks into the origins and
causes of Jewish involvement in leftist movements. Most of these
radicals came from Eastern European families who were radicalized
by Marxism and who were also atheists. So what was it to be a
Jew? Looking at MacDonald's explanations of the history of
Eastern Jews, it appears that they are more an ethnic cabal with
a strong sense of ethnic separatism, hatred for the outgroup they
lived among, obsession with racial purity, and adopting varying
strategies that would further their group interests over others
they lived amongst, at any cost to the social fabric or culture
they were part of. When we look at the Jewish culture in depth,
and note the contradictions with other religions, it becomes
apparent that as a facultative group they are more like the
Freemasons, Gypsies, the Mafia, or even the modern day militias
that form around blood or racialism without any real identifiable
ideology outside of whatever strategizing is required for
domination and control over the cultures they live amongst.
Similar to political nepotism, it is the advancement of the
kinship that is paramount in adopting differing political and
ethical positions that upon examination are illogical and
contradictory. Eastern European Jews had been radicalized before
they immigrated into the United States, and they continued to be
involved in radical politics. For those immigrating after 1900,
69% of those involved in radical politics in the United States
had been involved in radical politics in Europe. In Europe the
radicalization of Jews was primarily a matter of committing to a
cohesive authoritarian group that found in communism the ideal
utopian formulation of a reduction of ethnic hegemony while
continuing to be a part of a Jewish subculture. That is they
could have their cake and eat it to. Deny ethnocentric
importance while continuing as crypto-Jews, similar to the
strategy they used to deal with the Iberian Inquisition. In the
United States, this strategy took the form of the Jewish
intelligentsia attempting to destroy the structural integrity of
traditional gentile religious fundamentalism or nationalism,
while the Jews continued to promote group ties and separatism to
maintain Jewish blood purity. Judaism could only flourish
unchallenged if they effectively neutralized any other group's
potential hostility to their domination in many of the higher
cultural institutions, as well as wealth accumulation far above
any other group.

In the United states the emergence of Jewish Bolsheviks at the
forefront of radical politics resulted in the establishment of a
secular Jewish subculture. The Eastern Jewish Marxists were not
religious, and in fact were instrumental in trying to suppress or
weaken religious faith in both Europe and the United States, and
this secularization effort continues aggressively today through
the ACLU, the social sciences, academia, and most importantly in
Hollywood, areas that are dominated by Jews. The commitment to
Judaism has for a very long time now not been connected to
religion, but to secularism. Even the more Orthodox Jews are
more interested in separation and racialism, or concern for the
'silent holocaust' than to any hope of evading death. Religion's
primary purpose for most people is a way for them to escape the
reality that they will someday be dead, and will no longer exist.
Judaism may have provided this rationalization at one time, but
as the Jews managed to increase their IQs far above the average,
they also came to grips with the reality that God did not exist.
Studies of radicals during the 1960s on major university campuses
showed that from 50% to 90% of them were Jews, and an
overwhelming majority of the radical Jews claimed that their
parents were atheists. (Of the radicals on campus during the
sixties, my own alma mater was reported to be made up of 90%
Jews. I was a part of the anti-war movement after I left the
military, and yet I was not aware of the ethnicity of the
radicals I associated with, though I must admit I was on the
fringe and not very hard-core. I say this only because I never
knew of anyone who paid attention to whether someone was Jewish
or not, and now 30 years later I realized how unaware I was of
the real objectives of the radicals.) These campus radicals were
part of the 'contraculture' attacking everything that was
perceived to be part of the gentile establishment, ripping apart
the fabric of mid-century America that was perceived in need of
radical alteration to better serve Jewish interests.

Another example of the effectiveness of Jewish propaganda is how
there is a magnitude of difference between the perception of
genocide carried out by the Nazis while there is almost no
mention of Jewish involvement in similar actions by Bolshevik
Jews. After Germany lost the war, and Jewish Bolsheviks moved
into Poland and other Eastern block countries to varying degrees,
with a systematic and ruthless reign of terror carried out
against Polish nationalists and the Catholic Church. These
crypto-Jews in Poland went to great lengths to hide their
Jewishness by changing their names, and if they could pass as
Polish they were promoted to more visible positions in the
government. So similar purges and massacres have been carried
out under communism, with a strong presence of Jews in the inner
workings of the secret police. MacDonald points out that
especially in Poland, the Jewish masters did the bidding for the
Soviets, and demanded sacrifice and hardship from the Polish
people to serve their masters in Moscow. One wonders, how is the
slave labor used by the Nazis for a few years balanced against
the brutalization of Polish and other ethnic people for decades
by Marxists? Is there any outcry for their genocide against the
west? No, and there won't be as long as they have monopolistic
control of the media, academia, politics and Hollywood. And
likewise, "The American radical movement glorified the
development of Jewish life in the Soviet Union. . . . The Soviet
Union was living proof that under socialism the Jewish question
could be solved." And how many millions of people died because
of the Jewish promotion of Marxism just to keep their blood pure,
genetic assimilation was too much to ask. Human bondage for the
West was preferable to genetic mingling with the lesser goyim.
Gentile nationalism must be destroyed at any cost, while Jewish
nationalism or Zionism was to be embraced and rationalized for
the continuation and expansion of Judaism, under the watchful eye
of an American Jewry with enormous financial support. MacDonald
writes, "Within Russian Jewish communities, the acceptance of
radical political ideology often coexisted with messianic forms
of Zionism as well as intense commitment to Jewish nationalism
and religious and cultural separatism, and many individuals held
various and often rapidly changing combinations of these ideas."
That is, Judaism is an evolutionary strategy that requires its
members to formulate policy and moral positions for promoting
their own interests against other groups they find themselves
confronted by. And when groups vary in mental ability,
ethnocentrism, or morality, conflict will result.

The American Jewish left is now in a bitter feud with the
religious right of the Republican Party. They view the Christian
coalition as advocating a homogeneous Christian culture, one that
may turn inimical to Jewish interests. This seems absurd to me,
as the Christian Coalition is probably more a result of the final
death throws of fundamentalists in an increasingly secular world.
None the less, "Jewish voters were more supportive of
conservative fiscal policies and less supportive of government
attempts to redistribute wealth than either African Americans or
other white Americans. Recent Jewish political behavior is thus
self-interested both economically and in its opposition to the
ethnic interests of white Americans to develop an ethnically and
culturally homogenous society." That is, Jewish interests seem
overly egalitarian towards the poor when used for promoting
diversity and multiculturalism, but they flinch when their own
money is involved.

JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN THE PSYCHOANALYTIC MOVEMENT. Freudian
psychoanalysis was another highly authoritarian, patronizing cult
meant to attack and radically alter gentile culture in order to
make is safe for Juadism. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis became
the "Jewish science" based on the traditions of interpretations
of Jewish scriptures, and the blind obedience of his followers to
the dogma as formulated by their movement. The movement's
primary purpose was to subvert gentile culture. Freud's mission
grew out of his conviction that Jewish culture was superior to
gentile culture both intellectually and morally. Freud believed
that "Judaism as a religion was no longer necessary because it
had already performed its function of creating the
intellectually, spiritually, and morally superior Jewish
character." He viewed gentiles as sexually repressed and in
need of liberation, again to make the West safe for Judaism.
Psychoanalysis was seen as a mission to the gentiles, a modern
form of Jewish supremacy that only Jews could save the gentile
culture, by reforming it according to a Jewish perspective.
"This is not the workings of a scientific organization, but
rather of an authoritarian religious-political and quasi-military
movement--something resembling the Spanish Inquisition or
Stalinism far more than anything resembling what we usually think
of as science."

Like all of the Jewish intellectual movements attacking gentile
culture, psychoanalysis was also anti-scientific. With absolute
devotion to Freud, the only criterion was consistency of
doctrine, without any dissention, and therefore no need of any
empirical facts or hypothesis testing. And again like other
Jewish movements, there was a need for a number of gentiles to
occupy high positions to give the movement the appearance of
being open to all. MacDonald writes, "One rationalization for the
authoritarian character of the movement was that it was necessary
because of the irrational hostility psychoanalysis aroused in the
scientific and lay communities. However, Sulloway finds the
supposedly hostile reception of Freud's theories to be 'one of
the most well-entrenched legends' of psychoanalytic history.
More-over, one might note that Darwin's theory also provoked
intense hostility during Darwin's life, and recently there has
been a great deal of public hostil-ity directed at recent
elaborations of Darwin's theory as it pertains to human behavior.
Nevertheless, these theoretical perspectives have not developed
the authoritarian, separatist traits of psychoanalysis. Indeed,
evolutionists and behavioral geneticists have attempted to
influence mainstream research in anthropology, psychology,
sociology, and other fields by publishing data in mainstream
journals and often by using mainstream methodologies.
Contro-versy and hostility by itself need not lead to orthodoxy
or to separation from the university. In the world of science,
controversy leads to experimentation and rational argumentation.
In the world of psychoanalysis, it leads to expul-sion of the
nonorthodox and to splendid isolation from scientific
psychology." So in the tradition of Boaz and Gould,
psychoanalysis is another pseudoscience with its aim being a
Jewish evolutionary strategy to alter gentile culture.

The genetic differences between Jewish and gentile population
groups, especially the differences between those who evolved in
the crowded Mediterranean area versus the sparsely populated
northern European area, is born out again in the features shown
by Jews versus gentiles. Psychoanalysis was separatist,
authoritarian, and a collectivist cult-like movement, one that
was fundamentally an act of aggression toward the gentile
culture. These different perspectives seem to be part of the
very genetic differences that seem to show up in the different
expressions of culture between Jews and gentiles. MacDonald
notes that "Freud's views in Totem and Taboo and Civilization and
Its Discontents represent a failure to grasp the uniqueness of
Roman and later Christian institutions of marriage and the role
of Christian religious practices in produc-ing the uniquely
egalitarian mating systems characteristic of Western Europe. In
Western Europe the repression of sexual behavior has
fundamen-tally served to support socially imposed monogamy, a
mating system in which differences in male wealth are much less
associated with access to females and reproductive success than
in traditional non-Western civilizations where polygyny has been
the norm. As elaborated also in PTSDA (Ch. 8), polygyny implies
sexual competition among males, with wealthy males having access
to vastly disproportionate numbers of women and lower-status men
often being unable to mate at all. This type of marriage system
is very common among the traditional stratified human societies
of the world, such as classical China, India, the Muslim
societies, and ancient Israel. While poor males cannot find a
mate in such a system, women are reduced to chattel and are
typically purchased as concubines by wealthy males. Socially
imposed monogamy thus represents a relatively egalitarian mating
system for men." I find it interesting that Jews have also been
at the forefront of attacking gentile society for sexism, when in
fact it is the most liberating and egalitarian arrangement
between the sexes. I can only determine that gentiles will
continue to be attacked by Jews until we are seen as totally
emasculated as a people, and we submit totally to a Jewish
dominated culture. MacDonald notes that ". . . and Jews benefit
by the decline in relig-ious belief among gentiles. As Podhoretz
notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish
organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated
organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have
ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the
public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for
unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates
that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement
is a central component of this war on gentile cultural supports
for high-investment parenting." Of course this is a sad mistake,
because group hostility and competition is not dependent on a
cohesive religion or any other singular dogma. Religion is in
retreat, and the most formidable foe of Jewish postmodernism is
the relentless success that empiricism has shown by adopting an
open and intellectually honest approach to proof and refutations
of perspectives. Jewish intellectuals who continue to attack
gentile culture do so without the tools of modern scientific
approaches to understanding man, his past, his nature, and where
he can now progress to. The shackles of radical
environmentalism, psychoanalysis, diversity, political
correctness, multiculturalism, and open immigration policies
based on flawed reasoning has led to no new understanding of the
human condition or how to improve it. But it could lead to a
horrible backlash from a unified white gentile coalition.

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH. This chapter to me
expresses the very essence of the Jewish-gentile group
evolutionary strategies, though it is repeated throughout this
series of books. Before I begin this chapter it will help to
summarize this war of tribal morality, each side taking positions
based on their strengths and the history of their cultures. The
Jews in Europe have always been a highly intelligent,
authoritarian, cohesive, highly indoctrinated, and aggressively
motivated culture living amongst the lesser intelligent, more
easy going, and far less disciplined but universalist and highly
altruistic gentiles. In the past, the Jews have been repressed
and liberated over and over again with always the same results,
they climb too high too fast and they invite the envy of the
gentiles and then they are repressed again. But when
emancipated, no matter how much money they make, or how
influential they are in the media, academics, and politics, they
are bitterly resentful of having to serve as advisors to the
gentile elite, rather than taking command of the nation amongst
which they live. They are after all God's chosen people, the
'light of the nations,' and are morally and intellectually
superior to those around them. Why do Jews have to be
subordinate to these sub-human gentiles? It must be because of
anti-Semitism, otherwise the gentiles would see that Jews are the
rightful rulers, to be followed submissively into a utopian
future. And gentiles, like any ethnic group, when they see a
small minority that is successful and aggressively dominating all
aspects of their culture, will at some point turn away from muted
individualism and turn towards a collectivist retaliation against
the outsiders. This can be seen in numerous countries just
within the last 100 years, whether it is the Indians in Uganda,
the Chinese in Indonesia, or the whites in South Africa. It is a
natural and predictable reaction of human nature. And there is
no value system that can adjudicate the conflict.

In light of this predicament, it becomes necessary for Judaism to
shield itself from the contradiction of genetic and cultural
separatism while maintaining that it is the gentile culture that
is at fault. This requires, to say the least, a highly
sophisticated armament of deception, self-deception and dazzling
literary deconstruction of facts that are beyond rational
analysis or scientific inquiry. The Frankfurt School emigrated to
the United States when Hitler closed the Institute for Social
Research. The major works of this school of thought include
Studies in Prejudice, The Authoritarian Personality, Dialectic of
Enlightenment, and other works based on the schools fundamental
methodology -- Critical Theory. This, like psychoanalysis, was
primarily a Jewish sect with the goal of vindicating Jewish
history by again pathologizing gentile culture. It was founded
on the premise that empirically based pursuit of knowledge, that
uses the standard scientific method of enquiry and open debate,
was a form of domination and oppression. What is important to
remember is that empiricism had to be rejected by these cults,
because the very nature of the assertions made were contradictory
and irrational, but absolutely required to rationalize the
Holocaust in an acceptable way. Judaism could not be blamed for
such a horrible affliction, someone else had to bear fault. And
Critical Theory was born--necessarily absent of standard academic
controls or review of assertions made in an attempt to find
gentile culture wanting and vile.

The Frankfurt School claimed that "modern fascism is basically
the same as traditional Christianity because both involve
opposition to and subjugation of nature. While Judaism remained a
'natural religion' concerned with national life and
self-preservation, Christianity turned toward domination and a
rejection of all that is natural. . . . religious anti-Semitism
then arises because of hatred of those who did not make the full
sacrifice of reason." This mish-mash of speculative sociology
has no basis in scientific fact, but of course under an
authoritarian structure the school did not have anyone
questioning the doctrine. The movement then "attempts to show
that gentile group affiliations, and particularly membership in
Christian religious sects, gentile nationalism, and close family
relationships, are an indication of psychiatric disorder. At a
deep level the work of the Frankfurt School is addressed to
altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant
to anti-Semitism by pathologizing gentile group affiliations."
The motive here is a need to reject all forms of nationalism
while advocating radical individualism that nevertheless despised
capitalism--all gentile collectivism was to be condemned as a
pathology. But of course "no mention is made of the collectivist
nature of Judaism, Zionism, or Israeli nationalism, the
collectivist tendencies of modern gentile society are deplored,
especially fascism and communism. The prescription for gentile
society is radical individualism and the acceptance of
pluralism."

One of the major works of the Frankfurt School was the
multi-volume The Authoritarian Personality that became the bible
for social science study of ethnocentrism and right wing
authoritarianism. Though this work was based on some aspects of
empirical data, it was still highly flawed by its political
agenda to pathologize gentile culture. The questions were so
constructed that only gentiles could be counted as being
intolerant or ethnocentric, even though this trait is highest in
non-gentile cultures. For example: "The Ethnocentrism Scale has
three subscales, one involving attitudes to-ward African
Americans, one involving attitudes toward minorities in general,
and one involving patriotism. Although the presentation of the
Ethnocentrism Scale leads one to believe that the researchers are
studying ethnocentrism in general, in fact the scale items are
exclusively concerned with ethnocentrism among the Caucasian
Christian population. Those high in ethnocentrism according to
this scale have negative attitudes toward African Americans and
Jews and positive attitudes toward white, Christian dominance.
For example, one item on the Ethnocentrism Scale is 'In view of
the present national emergency [World War II], it is highly
important to limit responsible govern-ment jobs to native, white,
Christian Americans.' The result of including such items is that
a strongly identified Jew, for whom the ingroup-outgroup
dis-tinction is salient, would have a low score on Levinson' s
ethnocentrism scale." Again, the intent of this subversive study
was merely to pathologize the gentile family where parental
investment created strong family ties or close relationships,
this seen as leading to the children of accepting parental values
and group identifications. As MacDonald writes "This relatively
strong sense of ingroup thinking then tends, as expected by
social identity research, to result in negative attitudes to
individuals from different religions, communities, and nations.
From the standpoint of the authors of The Authoritarian
Personality, this type of family must be estab-lished as
pathological, despite the fact that this is exactly the type of
family necessary for the continuation of a strong sense of Jewish
identity: Jewish children must accept the social categorization
system of their parents. They must view their families as
ingroups and ultimately accept the ingroup repre-sented by
Judaism. Again, the fundamental intellectual difficulty that runs
throughout the entire book is that its agenda must inevitably
pathologize in gentiles what is critical to the maintenance of
Judaism. It is highly ironic that a publication of a major Jewish
organization would include a concern with social status and
material resources, high-investment parenting, identifying with
parents, and having pride in one's family among the signs of
psychiatric disorder in gentiles given the extent to which all
these attributes characterize Jews. Indeed, the authors make the
remarkable conclu-sion: 'We are led to suspect, on the basis of
results in numerous areas, that upward class mobility and
identification with the status quo correlate posi-tively with
ethnocentrism, and that downward class mobility and
identification go with anti-ethnocentrism'(p. 204)." And later,
"Yet, gentiles who are socially isolated, who have negative and
rebellious attitudes toward their families, who are ambivalent
and insecure in their sexual identities, who have low self-esteem
and are filled with debilitating insecuri-ties and conflicts
(including insecurities regarding parental affection), who are
moving downward in social status, and who have negative attitudes
toward high social status and acquisition of material resources
are viewed as the epitome of psychological health."

Altemeyer's subsequent studies on "right-wing authoritarianism"
(RWA) reanalyzes The Authoritarian Personality and other studies
and concludes, using empirical data rather than deconstructionist
propaganda, that three attributes are central: submission to
legitimate social authority; aggression toward individuals that
is sanctioned by the authorities; and adherence to social
conventions. These are all highly salient to Judaism, including
observance of Jewish religious law that is characterized by
negative attitudes toward gentile society. "Without question,
traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish Orthodox and
fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure.
These [RWA] theories serve the same functions that Jewish
religious ideology has always served: the rationalization of the
continuation of Judaism both to ingroup members and to gentiles
combined with very negative views of gentile culture."

Currently, the Frankfurt School retains a presence in
postmodernism's attack on science and promotes a balkanized,
multiculturalist view of the world, where all cultures are
equivalent, except for one. There is always an imbedded
tolerance for any group except the majority group, with a
relentless an hateful attack of Western gentile society. "It is
immensely ironic that this onslaught against Western universalism
effectively rationalizes minority group ethnocentrism while
undercutting the intellectual basis of ethnocentrism.
Intellectually one wanders how one could be a postmodernist and a
committed Jew at the same time. Intellectual consistency would
seem to require that all personal identification be subjected to
the same deconstruction logic, unless, of course personal
identity itself involves deep ambiguities, deception, and
self-deception." It seems apparent that postmodernism is very
equivalent to the Holocaust revisionists, pursuing facts and data
with the singular purpose of getting all minority groups to hate
and despise the West because only then will Jews be safe from the
gentile majority. The doctrine of postmodernism accepts without
evidence that "There is an implicit acceptance of a Balkanized
model of society in which certain groups and their interests have
a priori moral value and there is no possibility of developing a
scientific, rational theory of any particular group, much less a
theory of pan-human universals. Both the Frankfurt School and
postmodernism implicitly accept a model in there is competition
among antagonistic groups and no rational way of reaching
consensus, although there is also an implicit double standard in
which cohesive groups formed by majorities are viewed as
pathological and subject to radical criticism." Simply read,
all groups are equal, except the demonized gentile Western
culture, that needs to be changed for the good of mankind (but
especially the Jews). This theme is just another variation on
several thousand years of Jewish intellectual excoriation of the
outgroup, and a continuation of tribal morality where there must
be an enemy to reinforce group cohesiveness and genetic
separation from others. This is not a religion, a doctrine, a
moral system or progress in thinking about human nature, but
rather a siege mentality and hatred of the 'other.'

THE JEWISH CRITICISM OF GENTILE CULTURE. "The material in the
previous four chapters indicates that individuals who strongly
identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind
several highly influential intellectual movements that have
simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and
allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together
these movements comprise the intellectual and politi-cal left in
this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of
current leftist intellectual and political movements,
particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism. Collectively,
these movements have called into question the fundamental moral,
political, and economic foundations of Western society. A
critical feature of these movements is that they have been, at
least in the United States, top-down movements in the sense that
they were originated and dominated by members of a highly
intelligent and highly educated group. These movements have been
advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and
with a very high level of theoretical sophistication. Each
movement promised its own often overlapping and complementary
version of utopia: a society com-posed of people with the same
biological potential for accomplishment and able to be easily
molded by culture into ideal citizens as imagined by a mor-ally
and intellectually superior elite; a classless society in which
there would be no conflicts of interest and people would
altruistically work for the good of the group; a society in which
people would be free of neuroses and aggression toward outgroups
and in tune with their biological urges; a multicultural paradise
in which different racial and ethnic groups would live in harmony
and cooperation--a utopian dream that also occupies center stage
in the discussion of Jewish involvement in shaping U.S.
immigration policy in Chapter 7. Each of these utopias is
profoundly problematic from an evolution-ary perspective, a theme
that will be returned to in Chapter 8."

MacDonald goes on to explain yet another aspect of Jewish
intellectual dominance by the New York intellectuals. With a
common passion for viewing the real dangers to Judaism in the
forms of nationalism, rural nativism, and gentile backwardness in
general, they advocated a neoconservative cosmopolitanism that
included secular humanism and opposition to religious values.
The power of this group resulted from mutual support for
likeminded intellectuals while keeping out dissenters. As
cultural elitists, who abhorred cultural democracy and feared the
masses but remained left-of-center politically, this group
evolved slowly into neoconservatism, and derived their influence
by acting as a cohesive group in supporting each other's
publications, and ostracizing those intellectuals who did not
share their vision of America. Thus careers of Jewish writers
flourished, while gentile intellectuals, less cohesive as a
group, had difficulty competing against this intellectual
monopoly.

This Jewish solidarity is an interesting one in light of work
done by Rushton on the genetic means that kin recognize each
other and are therefore supported and promoted as being
genetically more alike. Jews admit to seeing this similarity
between themselves, both in looks and in behavior and attitudes,
while at the same time most of these movements described in this
book reject any genetic basis for defining group solidarity, a
position that is not born out when they openly discuss how when
they meet another Jew for the first time they instinctively feel
a closeness to them. This kinship or genetic similarity
recognition has been well documented by evolutionists in many
species besides humans, and can be considered the norm under the
new concepts of group selection, evolution of groups based on
competition including even genocide such as in the case of
chimpanzees and humans. And yet these Jewish intellectuals who
'feel' this bond simultaneously reject that this is even
possible. And this is the underpinning Jewish ethnocentrism that
binds Jews together genetically with a committed goal of
maintaining an exclusionary group that actively maintains
barriers between the ingroup and the rest of the world, an
insidious form of racism that is never admitted to.

This solidarity has also had a profound influence on the college
students and the media as they came to embrace the dogma of these
movements, even without any scientific foundations. But the
shear skill of these intellectuals made their formulations and
analyses so intellectually dazzling that they were followed
unquestioned. A few individuals noted that the works produced
would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but these voices of
reason were either in the wrong academic fields to be effective,
or they were marginalized by the Jewish dominated press and
sociologists, anthropologists, etc., leading the attack on
American culture and mainstream science. "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. This
ideology was promulgated by strongly identified members of a
group whose right to continue to exist as a cohesive, genetically
imper-meable group ideally suited to maximizing its own
political, economic, and cultural power was never a subject of
discussion. However, the failure to adopt these beliefs on the
part of gentiles was viewed as an admission of personal
inadequacy and an acknowledgment that one was suffering from a
condition that would benefit from psychiatric counseling.
Scientific and intellectual respectability was thus a critical
feature of the movements reviewed here. Nevertheless, these
intellectual movements have been fundamentally irrational--an
irrationality that is most apparent in the entire conduct of
psychoanalysis as an authoritarian, quasi-scientific enterprise
and in the explicit depiction of science as an instrument of
social domination by the Frankfurt School. It is also apparent in
the structure of psychoanalysis and radical political ideology,
which are, like traditional Jewish religious ideology,
essentially hermeneutic [interpretive] theories in the sense that
the theory is derived in an a priori manner and is constructed so
that any event is interpretable within the theory."

It is astonishing when one reads the attacks between the
scientists who supported the publication of The Bell Curve in
1994 and those who opposed it. Virtually every one of the
critics such as Gould, Rose, Lowentin, the media, et al., has
consistently been a critic of the accepted scientific methodology
and has attacked The Bell Curve (TBC) as propagandists, calling
it racist, pseudoscientific, lacking in academic review, and
nick-picking over such concepts as the definition of race (which
is not required to maintain the basic hypothesis presented).
Since TBC, numerous other scientists have taken the data supplied
by Herrnstein and Murray and continued on with additional
analysis and research, none of which has overturned the main
observations. These are all real scientists, using accepted
methods including academic review, repeatability of data sets,
etc. And yet it is the very Jewish obstructionists to scientific
enquiry who dare call real scientists 'pseudoscientists.' This
observation has been made by many legitimate scientists, but
rarely does it get public exposure. As another example, a
brilliant and thoroughly academically reviewed book by Arthur
Jensen entitled The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability
(1998) has been totally ignored by the media as just too damaging
to even be attacked. Anyone reading this book will understand
the very hard and real science proving that there are genetic
differences between the races in intelligence, and they are real
and innate. The research covers decades of work by the most
recognized authority on the subject, yet not a hint of the book
has been found in the popular press, so powerful is the Jewish
control on the media.

Why or how can this happen in an open society? "The fundamental
insight of the Frankfurt School and its recent postmod-ernist
offshoots, as well the Boasian School of anthropology and much of
the criticism of biological and evolutionary perspectives in the
social sciences reviewed in Chapter 2, is that a thoroughgoing
skepticism and its consequent fragmentation of intellectual
discourse within the society as a whole is an excellent
prescription for the continuity of collectivist minority group
strate-gies. Within the intellectual world, the greatest
potential danger for a collectiv-ist minority group strategy is
that science itself as an individualist enterprise conducted in
an atomistic universe of discourse could in fact coalesce around
a set of universalist propositions about human behavior,
propositions that would call into question the moral basis of
collectivist minority group strate-gies such as Judaism. One way
to prevent this is for science itself to be prob-lematized and
replaced by a pervasive skepticism about the structure of all
reality. The intended effect of such movements (and to a
considerable extent their actual effect) has been to impose a
medieval anti-scientific orthodoxy on much of the contemporary
intellectual world."

Science then has been under attack by a highly cohesive group of
Jewish intellectuals with the explicit purpose of using
postmodernism, multiculturalism, pluralism, and as we will see
later, immigration to tear apart gentile culture and prevent any
hope of understanding human nature for the furtherance of
knowledge. This is not of course universal, these same Jewish
intellectuals are fought by other Jewish scientists and scholars
who recognize the absurdity of their obfuscation and suppression
of open and honest debate (My all time favorite is Michael Levin,
author of Why Race Matters (1998), a self-described libertarian,
and an absolute brilliant philosopher that is also fun to read).
"Real scientists change their beliefs on the basis of evidence
and are willing to abandon presently held beliefs if they
conflict with the evidence." Real science has also made
progress, always moving forward, building upon knowledge bases
laid down in the past, and showing that what they discover is
again and again proven valid because the airplanes fly, the
medicine given works to save lives, the computers get faster, and
we are unraveling the genetic code of our being, without once
having a major setback that was not overcome. Social science on
the other hand has made no consensual progress, nor has it given
us any tools to deal with modern social problems, and is stuck in
a quagmire of excuses and new formulations as the old ones in
turn fail from lack of any empirical scientific basis. It is
sorcery at best, even if couched in intricate prose that give the
illusion of insight and hope. These social scientists start with
a political agenda and try to find evidence to support it, and
when that fails they turn to pejoratives against the detractors
rather than debate the issues with verifiable data.

So far the legacy of the Jewish Bolsheviks has won the popular
battle precisely because a tightly cohesive, authoritarian, and
ethnocentric collectivist group can easily invade an open
individualist society, a strategy that Judaism has repeated over
and over again. But the reaction is always the same, the
outgroup they attack becomes more collectivist or nationalist and
begins to fight back using similar propaganda if necessary. But
it is my hope that it will maintain the high ground. I favor a
renewed cultural identity, even trans-nationalism, but based on
science while rejecting religion and petty ethnic categories as
the social glue for a broader delineation of population groups
(European, North Asian, South Asian, and African) based on our
understanding of genetic gene flows as documented by
Cavalli-Sforza in the Human Genome Diversity Project. Renewed
nationalist forces do not need to be antagonistic any more than
competing football teams. It does not mean aggression outside of
mere economic development as a way of competing with other
nations, while maintaining a diversity of nations, rather than
destroying diversity with a universalist world order, where no
one will be free to criticize the status quo.

JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN SHAPING U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY. Jewish
radicals or leftists promoted open immigration in order to
break-up any Anglo-Saxon hegemony in the United States. But this
same pattern was used in other Western countries as well, to make
them safe for Judaism. In their way of thinking, only countries
where there is no cultural or racial majority could Jews feel
safe from anti-Semitism. It mattered little to them whether any
country (aside from Israel) had the right to determine their own
destiny. It was incumbent upon these Jews to alter the very
make-up of those countries they lived among, even while they
themselves held dual loyalties with the United States and Israel.
This activism was just one more hammer blow directed at
preventing any mass movement that may interfere with their own
evolutionary goals for dominance over culture, academics, and
material wealth accumulation. And the safest immigrants to use
for this purpose are any that are not European, and also would
not challenge Jewish interests in the future. Flooding the
country with Hispanics was especially beneficial, as they would
not challenge Judaism in any intellectual field due to their low
intelligence, and yet they were also a diverse group that had
maintained allegiances and continued conflicts amongst
themselves. Puerto Ricans dislike Mexicans and vice versa, and
both groups are hostile to blacks. So these new immigrants would
disrupt the American status quo without threatening it with
another singularly powerful group that could also easily become
anti-Semitic.

The African American's already here were also brought into this
multiculturalism by way of monetary and intellectual support by
Jewish groups. Until 1933, there were no black lawyers in the
Jewish supported NAACP. The main purpose of Jewish support for
black civil rights was to aid in their own Jewish efforts against
gentiles, not concern for the well-being of blacks. Blacks, like
immigrants, were just pawns in the ongoing group tribalism
between gentiles and Jews, while the gentiles never understood
that the civil rights movement was primarily a Jewish led
movement, with gentiles recruited to legitimize it. It was
always promoted as purely a moral issue. "Jews want cultural
pluralism because of their long-term policy of [racial]
non-assimilation and group solidarity" while fighting what they
maintain is their greatest danger, "Anglo-Saxon (read Caucasian)
nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have
tended to support black integration policies, presumably because
such policies dilute Caucasian power and lessen the possibility
of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Semitic Caucasian majority. At
the same time, Jewish organizations have opposed a black
nationalist position while pursuing an anti-assimilationist,
nationalist group strategy for their own group."

The 1924 immigration act was a highly debated and emotional, one
reported by Stephen Jay Gould as a racist attempt to restrict
other groups because they were seen as being of lesser
intelligence. But the Congressional Record and other observers
and researchers of the debates report quite a different story.
Again, the Jewish lobby was at the forefront of trying to open
the flood gates of immigration. But the restrictionists, not
only not racist, were very aware of the talents and competition
that other groups would bring with them, to the detriment of
existing citizens. Senator Jones stated during the debates, "We
admit that [the Japanese] are as able as we are, that they are as
progressive as we are, that they are as honest as we are, that
they are as brainy as we are, and that they are equal in all that
goes to make a great people and nation." And Representative
Miller described the Japanese as "a relentless and unconquerable
competitor of our people wherever he places himself." So
contrary to what Gould would like to bring into the current
debate on intelligence and race, the facts about the debates
during the twenties were remarkably perceptive with regards to
race realism and in no way were racist. We were in fact fearful
of others who were more intelligent and driven than the average
American. Again, Representative Leavitt indicated the salience
of Jewish congressmen to their opponents during the debate, " The
instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be
condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better
able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America
American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is
leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New
York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman.
They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the
identity of their race throughout the centuries because they
believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain
ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity
means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them
and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in
the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint,
which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only
demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such
kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter
racial characteris-tics more rapidly than there can be
assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood.
(Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924, 6265--6266)." The Jews from the
East during these debates were not welcome, not because of some
supposed mental defect, but because they were viewed as being
radicalized, unpatriotic, infected with Bolshevism, and
unassimilable. Contrary to what has been portrayed, it was the
racist nature of this group, their unwillingness to marry out,
there view of Judaism not as a religion but as a racially
superior group opposed to allowing gentiles to convert to
Judaism, and there secular separateness that made them unwelcome.
These were cultural, not racial reasons for not wanting them to
immigrate to the United States, because it was understood that as
a blood cult, they would in fact resist the very assimilation
they accused others of trying to shun. As it turns out, they did
in fact behave exactly as those resisting the 1924 immigration
act predicted, and have continued dual patriotism and have not
assimilated into American culture.

But the relentless Jewish lobby finally won out. From 1953 with
the passage of the McCarran-Walter Act to restrict immigration,
until the 1965 immigration act that opened the flood gates to
immigration, America would be no more. And even now they are
rejoicing that by 2050, whites will be in the minority and no
longer able to interfere with Jewish interests. "The implicit
assumption [of Jewish groups] is that the United States ought to
be composed of cohesive subgroups with a clear sense of their
group interests in opposition to the peoples deriving from
Northern and Western Europe or of the United States as a whole.
Also, there is the implication that Italian Ameri-cans have an
interest in furthering immigration of Africans and Asians and in
creating such a multiracial and multicultural society." The
Jewish radicals clearly saw a distinct group of Europeans as the
enemy, one to be destroyed and annihilated by immigration. How
could they have not seen that as secularism grows, white people
can coalesce around a common threat. As others, much more
different than us enter the United States, old rivalries based on
religion or ethnic differences will melt away. The new Nordic or
Aryan threat is no more because those people did in fact give up
their racialist ways and assimilated. But primarily with other
groups that equally could be a problem for Jewish hegemony over
the West. It was a bad gamble, and even now as immigration
continues it is mobilizing the very forces that it was supposed
to obliterate. Whites everywhere are beginning to wake up and
take action, and it will not be forgotten from where this tragedy
began and for what purpose. To destroy the dominant white
culture in a world where diversity was to be cherished, not
destroyed. The hypocrisy and lies are now exposed.

CONCLUSION: WHITHER JUDAISM AND THE WEST? MacDonald summarizes
what he thinks the future holds for Judaism given the nature of
human behavior. Based on his understanding of evolutionary group
strategies his message is simply that the status quo will not
last. Allowing a small and powerful minority to control the
direction of Western nations that is contrary to the majority's
interests will and must be responded to, but how? I am seeing,
from just a couple of years ago, a shift in discussing such
subjects as affirmative action and immigration, to one of how
Jews have manipulated these issues for their own benefit, and
with the help of the Internet it is becoming harder and harder to
hide behind the Holocaust and pejorative rebuttals when the
evidence points to a relentless undermining of science and
culture in the interest of one group's desire to dominate. The
genie is out of the bottle.

There has been an enormous growth in Jewish power in the West
since 1960. In the United States, with a representation of only
2.4% of the population they have nine times the average wealth,
they represent half of the Wall Street executives, 40% of
admissions to Ivy League colleges, contribute over a quarter of
all political contributions, rank among the most powerful ethnic
organizations, direct mainstream political processes including
support for Israel out of proportion to vested American interests
in the region, and control 26% of "cybemetic resources"
(government, media, finance, academia, corporations, and
entertainment). Compare this reality with the fact that Jews
with only 1% of the population in early 20th-century Germany
controlled 20% of the economy, leading to the Holocaust. Knowing
this, and knowing they are following the same path as they did in
Germany of controlling all aspects of the culture and economy,
they must defuse any hope of there ever again being a dominant
white gentile culture that could oppose them. The attack on
religion, the push for global government, the insistence on
Western immigration from third world countries, the undermining
of scientific methodologies in favor of Marxist dialectics, are
all meant to prevent any future anti-Semitism, while white
America sits by and allows their social structure ripped out from
under them.

It seems that after decades of trying to understand black
pathology, someone would have bumped into one cause that seems to
be ignored for the violence and hatred spewed forth by virtually
all black activists for putatively racist white America. Until
Jewish activists preached that they should be equal in every
respect to whites, expectations by blacks was not out of
proportion to their level of intelligence. With the civil
right's struggle, not only were they given their freedom, they
were promised the monetary wealth also, and MacDonald points out
that "Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing
of their own group in terms of resource control and relative
reproductive success. They are also willing to take
extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political
power in defense of these group imperatives." So I ask, if
blacks demand equal average wealth with white America, why cannot
white gentile America demand equal average wealth (and power?)
with white Jewish America? What the Jewish Bolsheviks started
why shouldn't we finish? MacDonald outlines how the future will
play out under these changing circumstances given what we know
about human nature, and the differing ethnic groups' talents,
abilities, conscientiousness, and most importantly intelligence.
"Because ethnic groups have differing talents and abilities and
differing parenting styles, variable criteria for qualifying and
retaining jobs would be required depending on ethnic group
membership. Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other
ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against
individual Jews for admission to universities or access to
employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews
to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth,
since at present Jews are vastly over-represented among the
wealthy and the successful in the United States. This would
especially be the case if Jews were distinguished as a separate
ethnic group from gentile European Americans. Indeed, the final
evolution of many of the New York Intellectuals from Stalinism
was to become neoconservatives who have been eloquent opponents
of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing
resources."

Of course, this is all dependent on how whites eventually react
to their new situation. With immigrants moving into the trades,
unionism will continue to decline and good paying jobs for whites
will be lost. As Asians take over engineering jobs, even college
educated whites will find their prospects gloomy. And as the
global economy pushes all skills and professions down, the gap
will widen between those who control and those who earn the
wealth. When the good times take a dive, as they always do for
one reason or another, scapegoats will be looked for by everyone
who has been hurt. MacDonald notes that " If the history of
Judaism tells us anything, it is that self-imposed ethnic
separatism tends to lead to resource competition based on group
membership, and consequent hatred, expulsions, and persecutions.
Assuming that ethnic differences in talents and abilities exist,
the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable
situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of
power situation maintained with intense social controls, as
described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups
be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition. . . .
From this perspective, the Spaniards should have realized their
inferiority and acquiesced in being economically, socially, and
politically dominated by another ethnic group. Such a "morality"
is unlikely to appeal to the group losing the competition, and
from an evolutionary perspective, this is not in the least
surprising. Goldwin Smith (1894/1972, 261) made a similar point a
century ago: 'A community has a right to defend its territory
and its national integrity against an invader whether his weapon
be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian
Republics the Jews might so far as we see, have bought land and
taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had
thoroughly taken to trade. Under the falling Empire they were the
great slave-traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and
probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time.
They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There
was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the
brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative
has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that,
if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews
would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the
exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden
to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who
would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their
own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the
survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply,
that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the
fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled.
It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the
field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the
ancient and mould the modern world'."

The first Jewish line of defense in preventing a competing group
from becoming more cohesive, is to condemn others for acting like
they do. It is apparent now as the Christian Coalition is
attacked for wanting to promote their own vision of America,
relentlessly condemned for becoming cohesive and organized. Any
talk of promoting white interests are labeled as white supremacy
by the very group that believes they are the 'light unto the
nations.' But both groups are just using the natural blueprints
for group evolutionary strategies, devoid of any inherent value
or moral system. In the dynamics of ecological niches,
unbalancing is as prevalent amongst human groups as it is in
nature. And the argument that we are all just humans and should
love one another without competition rings hollow when seen
through the reality lens of nature as it actually exists. Human
groups innately do compete with each other as do individuals. To
do otherwise takes a great deal of self-delusion or political
indoctrination, and then only will be accepted when everyone
agrees--which is highly doubtful. Moral systems are only
possible because we have an innate nature to set them up and
adhere to them as a way to form a cohesive group against other
groups. Intergroup morality is only found in utopian dreaming,
and only possible when there are no group differences. The
problem with the concept that "we are all just humans" is that
some groups that are more ethnocentric just don't believe it, and
act out their aggressive dominance over other groups.

Eventually however, the uniqueness of European behavior will have
to change in response to the impending majoritarian behavior of
ethnocentrism, collectivism, and ethnic warfare. Western culture
will be in the minority and will have to adapt to those cultures
that do not practice universal reciprocity or altruism. Western
culture assumes that other ethnic groups are also empathetic to
all groups, and once it is personally observed that this is not
the case, Western culture will change from tolerance to a
collectivist strategy to better match the now majoritarian
culture that has displaced it. And this will not be a happy or
peaceful world. MacDonald writes, "One may expect that as ethnic
conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly
desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of
multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the
psychopathology of majority group ethnocentrism, as well as with
the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought
and behavior. I suppose that a major reason some non-Jewish
racial and ethnic groups adopt multiculturalism is that they are
not able to compete successfully in an individualistic economic
and cultural arena. As a result, multiculturalism has quickly
become identified with the idea that each group ought to receive
a proportional measure of economic and cultural success. As
indicated above, the resulting situation may oppose Jewish
interests. Because of their high intelligence and
resource-acquisition ability, Jews do not benefit from
affirmative action policies and other group-based entitlements
commonly advocated by minority groups with low social status.
Jews thus come into conflict with other ethnically identified
minority groups who use multiculturalism for their own purposes.
(Nevertheless, because of their competitive advantage within the
white, European-derived group with which they are currently
classified, Jews may perceive themselves as benefiting from
policies designed to dilute the power of the European-derived
group as a whole on the assumption that they would not suffer any
appreciable effect. Indeed, despite the official opposition to
group-based preferences among Jewish organizations, Jews voted
for an anti-affirmative action ballot measure in California in
markedly lower percentages than did other European-derived
groups.) Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by
Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of
separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western
state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism
may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for
Judaism. Irving Louis Horowitz (1993, 89) notes the emergence of
anti-Semitism in academic sociology as these departments are
increasingly staffed by individuals who are committed to ethnic
political agendas and who view Jewish domination of sociology in
negative terms. There is a strong strain of anti-Semitism
emanating from some multiculturalist ideologues, especially from
Afrocentric ideologues (Alexander 1992), and Cohen (1998, 45)
finds that 'multiculturalism is often identified nowadays with a
segment of the left that has, to put it bluntly, a Jewish
problem.' Recently the Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan,
has adopted an overt anti-Semitic rhetoric. Afrocentrism is often
associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi
Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper
basis of self-identity and self-esteem and in which a close
connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Western ideals
of objectivity, universalism, individualism, rationality, and the
scientific method are rejected because of their ethnic origins.
Asante accepts a naive racialist theory in which Africans (the
"sun people") are viewed as superior to Europeans (the "ice
people"). Such movements mirror similar Jewish ideologies that
rationalize a powerful concern with Jewish ethnicity and attempt
to produce feelings of ethnic superiority within the group. These
ideologies have been common throughout Jewish intellectual
history, the most enduring embodied in the idea of chosenness and
the 'light of the nations' concept. SAID (Ch. 7) reviewed
evidence indicating that Jewish historians and intellectuals,
beginning in the ancient world, have often attempted to show that
gentile cultural influences have had specifically Jewish
precedents or even that various gentile philosophers and artists
were actually Jews. This tradition has been carried on recently
by two Sephardic Jews, Martin Bernal (1987) in his Black Athena
and Jose Faur (1992) in his In the Shadow of History: Jews and
Conversos at the Dawn of Modernity."

So the enlightenment ideals the West has adopted are fragile when
attacked by ethnocentric behavior that has a strong genetic
component. But even the West is capable of adopting collectivism
in the face of hostile outgroups, as no doubt it will. "I have
suggested that there is a fundamental and irresolvable friction
between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social
structure. The present political situation in the United States
(and several other Western countries) is so dangerous because of
the very real possibility that the Western European tendency
toward hierarchic harmony has a biological basis. The greatest
mistake of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements described
in this volume is that they have attempted to establish the moral
superiority of societies that embody a preconceived moral ideal
(compatible with the continuation of Judaism as a group
evolutionary strategy) rather than advocate social structures
based on the ethical possibilities of naturally occurring types.
In the twentieth century many millions of people have been killed
in the attempt to establish Marxist societies based on the ideal
of complete economic and social leveling, and many more millions
of people have been killed as a result of the failure of Jewish
assimilation into European societies. Although many intellectuals
continue to attempt to alter fundamental Western tendencies
toward assimilation, muted individualism, and hierarchic harmony,
there is a real possibility that these Western ideals are not
only more achievable but also profoundly ethical. Uniquely among
all stratified cultures of the world, prototypical Western
societies have provided the combination of a genuine sense of
belonging, a large measure of access to reproductive
opportunities, and the political participation of all social
classes combined with the possibilities of meritocratic upward
social mobility."

And then what is to be done when the now collectivized Western
gentiles and Jews find themselves perhaps at odds with each
other, but even more at odds with other groups less
intellectually equipped to compete. As the hostility escalates
between Jews and gentiles, the new majoritarian underclass will
be fighting with each other and with whites in general, Jew and
gentile alike, with Jews being more hated as they are now by
black activists. The social experiment, based on the misguided
assumption of radical environmentalism, will be as devastating as
all the other Marxist attempts at utopian formulations for the
promotion of Jewish interests. Whether the new order goes
towards neo-Marxism or neo-nationalism, the ethnic tension seen
in National Socialist Germany will pale in comparison, unless we
can somehow sustain a permanent economic growth that feeds off
other third world economies for sustenance. This is a zero-sum
game. For the United States to keep the peace by continually
rapidly expanding the economy, other nations will have to
subjugated to our economic interests, which is in itself
nationalistic. Quite a quandary, to say the least?

So we are now "in play" as MacDonald would put it. "To suppose
that the conflict over immigration has been merely a conflict
over the universalist tendencies of Western culture would,
however, be disingenuous. To a great extent the immigration
debate in the United States has always had powerful ethnic
overtones and continues to do so even after the European-derived
peoples of the United States have become assimilated into a
Western universalist culture. The present immigration policy
essentially places the United States and other Western societies
"in play" in an evolutionary sense which does not apply to other
nations of the world, where the implicit assumption is that
territory is held by its historically dominant people: Each
racial and ethnic group in the world has an interest in expanding
its demographic and political presence in Western societies and
can be expected to do so if given the opportunity. Notice that
American Jews have had no interest in proposing that immigration
to Israel should be similarly multiethnic, or that Israel should
have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of
Jews. I rather doubt that Oscar Handlin (1952, 7) would extend
his statement advocating immigration from all ethnic groups into
the United States by affirming the principle that all men, being
brothers, are equally capable of being Israelis. I also doubt
that the Synagogue Council of America would characterize Israeli
immigration law as 'a gratuitous affront to the peoples of many
regions of the world' (PCN 1953, 117). Indeed, the ethnic
conflict within Israel indicates a failure to develop a
universalist Western culture. Consider the disparities between
Jewish attitudes regarding multiculturalism in Israel versus the
United States. 'From a Jewish viewpoint, rejection of Zionism as
an ideology and a force shaping the state [of Israel] is like
rejecting the state itself. The refined distinction between the
state and its character, and that between its Jewishness and
Zionism, are neither understood nor condoned by the Jews. They
are not interested in having Israel as a state, but rather as a
Jewish-Zionist state. . . . While it is legal, but not
legitimate, in Israel to reject publicly or act against Zionism,
according to the 1985 amendment of the election law, one may not
run for the Knesset on an election slate which denies Israel as
the state of the Jewish people. (Smooha 1990, 397)' 'A
substantial digression from [the principle of equality] is caused
by the special legal status accorded to the Jewish Agency and
Jewish National Fund. They perform quasi-governmental functions
such as planning and funding of new rural localities, support for
cultural enterprises, provision of assistance to the elderly and
other disadvantaged groups, and development and leasing of lands.
Yet by their own constitution, these powerful institutions are
obliged to serve Jews only. . . . Discrimination is also embedded
in the Jewish Religious Services Law which provides for publicly
funded religious services to Jews only. Most of the
discrimination is, however, rather covert.(Smooha 1990, 401)'
Smooha (1990, 403) also notes that in a 1988 survey, 74 percent
of Israeli Jews said that the state should prefer Jews to Arabs,
and 43 percent favored the denial of the right to vote to Israeli
Arab citizens. Whereas American Jews have been in the forefront
of efforts to ensure ethnic diversity in the United States and
other Western societies, 40 percent of the Jewish respondents
agreed that Israel should encourage Israeli Arabs to leave the
country, 37 percent had reservations, and only 23 percent
objected to such a policy. Almost three quarters of Israeli Jews
did not want to have an Arab as a superior in a job. Moreover,
immigration to Israel is officially restricted to Jews. It is
also noteworthy that whereas Jews have been on the forefront of
movements to separate church and state in the United States and
often protested lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union,
the Orthodox rabbinical control of religious affairs in Israel
has received only belated and half-hearted opposition by American
Jewish organizations (Cohen 1972, 317) and has not prevented the
all-out support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that
Israel's policy is opposite to what Jewish organizations have
successfully pursued in Western democracies. This phenomenon is
an excellent example of the incompatibility of Judaism with
Western forms of social organization, which results in a
recurrent gap between Jewish behavior vis-a-vis its own group
strategy and Jewish attempts to manipulate Western societies to
conform to Jewish group interests. At present the interests of
non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and
politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral
imperative, whereas the attempts of the European-derived peoples
to retain demographic, political, and cultural control is
represented as 'racist,' immoral, and an indication of
psychiatric disorder. From the perspective of these
European-derived peoples, the prevailing ethnic morality is
altruistic and self-sacrificial. It is unlikely to be viable in
the long run, even in an individualistic society. As we have
seen, the viability of a morality of self-sacrifice is especially
problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which
everyone is conscious of group membership and there is
between-group competition for resources. Consider from an
evolutionary perspective the status of the argument that all
peoples should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. One
might assert that any opposition to such a principle should not
interest an evolutionist because human group genetic differences
are trivial, so any psychological adaptations that make one
resist such a principle are anachronisms without function in the
contemporary world (much like one's appendix). A Jew maintaining
this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree
that the traditional Jewish concern with [marrying only other
genetically related Jews] has been irrational. Moreover, such a
person should also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain
political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to
suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor
should Jews attempt to influence the political process in the
United States in such a manner as to disadvantage another group
or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should
also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of
their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based
opposition to such immigration. Indeed, if this chain of logic
is pursued to its conclusion, it is irrational for anyone to
claim any group interests at all. And if one also rejects the
notion of individual genetic differences, it is also irrational
to attempt to further individual interests, for example, by
seeking to immigrate as an individual. Indeed, if one accepts
these assumptions, the notion of genetic consequences and thus of
the possibility of human evolution past and present becomes
irrational; the idea that it is rational is merely an illusion
produced perhaps by psychological adaptations that are without
any meaningful evolutionary function in the contemporary world.
One might note that this ideology is the final conclusion of the
anti-evolutionary ideologies reviewed in this volume. These
intellectual movements have asserted that scientific research
shows that any important ethnic differences or individual
differences are the result of environmental variation, and that
genetic differences are trivial. But there is an enormous irony
in all of this: If life is truly without any evolutionary
meaning, why have advocates propagated these ideologies so
intensely and with such self-consciously political methods? Why
have many of these same people strongly identified with their own
ethnic group and its interests, and why have many of them
insisted on cultural pluralism and its validation of minority
group ethnocentrism as moral absolutes? By their own assumptions,
it is just a meaningless game. Nobody should care who wins or
loses. Of course, deception and self-deception may be involved. I
have noted (p. 195) that a fundamental agenda has been to make
the European-derived peoples of the United States view concern
about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational
and as an indication of psychopathology. If one accepts that
both within-group and between-group genetic variation remains and
is non-trivial (i.e., if evolution is an ongoing process), then
the principle of relatively unrestricted immigration, at least
under the conditions obtaining in late twentieth-century Western
societies, clearly involves altruism by some individuals and
established groups. Nevertheless, although the success of the
intellectual movements reviewed in this volume is an indication
that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups,
I rather doubt such altruism will continue if there are obvious
signs that the status and political power of European-derived
groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases.
The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of
social identity research, is that as other groups become
increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the
European-derived peoples of the United States will become
increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive
influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual
orientation, social class differences, or religious differences,
will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these
groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political
orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will
be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and
Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.
Jewish interests in immigration policy are an example of
conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles over the
construction of culture. This conflict of interests extends well
beyond immigration policy. There is a growing realization that
the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s is a watershed event
in the history of the United States. Such a conceptualization is
compatible with the work of Roger Smith (1988), who shows that
until the triumph of the cultural pluralist model with the
counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, there were three
competing models of American identity: the 'liberal'
individualist legacy of the Enlightenment based on 'natural
rights'; the 'republican' ideal of a cohesive, socially
homogeneous society (what I have identified as the prototypical
Western social organization of hierarchic harmony); the
'ethnocultural' strand emphasizing the importance of Anglo-Saxon
ethnicity in the development and preservation of American
cultural forms. From the present perspective no fundamental
conflict exists between the latter two sources of American
identity; social homogeneity and hierarchic harmony may well be
best and most easily achieved with an ethnically homogeneous
society of peoples derived from the European cultural area.
Indeed, in upholding Chinese exclusion in the nineteenth century,
Justice Stephen A. Field noted that the Chinese were
unassimilable and would destroy the republican ideal of social
homogeneity. As indicated above, the incorporation of
non-European peoples, and especially peoples derived from Africa,
into peculiarly Western cultural forms is profoundly problematic.
As discussed at several points in this volume, the radical
individualism embodied in the Enlightenment ideal of individual
rights is especially problematic as a source of long-term
stability in a Western society because of the danger of invasion
and domination by group strategies such as Judaism and the
possibility of the defection of gentile elites from the ideals
represented in the other two models of social organization. These
latter two events are particularly likely to destroy the social
cohesiveness so central to Western forms of social organization.
As Smith notes, the transformations of American society in the
post--Civil War era resulted from the 'liberal' cultural ideal
'that opposed slavery, favored immigration, and encouraged
enterprise while protecting property rights' and that posed a
severe threat to the collective life at the center of American
civilization."

As Malcolm X has said, "The so-called Negroes are nothing if we
do not know our history." And the same is true for Anglos. We
are at the precipice of repeating the past, based on the same
fundamentals of human nature and evolutionary laws that cannot be
suspended because it would be a better world if we could be born
tabula rasa, as the Marxists wished we were. We could then be
indoctrinated to accept any political system that must by nature
be totalitarian to ensure uniformity in thought and behavior. So
what are we to do? I can only conceive of two scenarios, a
return to nationalism or a continued liberal progression towards
a radically individualistic libertarianism.

NATIONALISM. As white gentiles slowly drift towards ethnocentrism
and nationalism like the Jews there will be: a suspension of open
immigration, the welfare state will be abolished, strict laws
against crime and corruption will be passed, unions will be
restricted to conform to a communitarian social structure,
increased working class egalitarianism will be promoted against
an elite individualist wealthy class while providing little
economic rewards for the underclass, civil liberties will be
reduced for many special groups such as the disabled and
minorities, and freedoms generally will be sacrificed for the
common good. This new nationalism may not be racist in any way
but it will be a meritocracy, and the less intelligent classes
will not do well at all, nor will the new collectivism pursue the
old altruism and humanitarianism that once felt compassion for
the poor. As groups become cohesive, they will not be concerned
with the welfare of other groups, and the underclass will be
turned out into the cold, just deserts for destroying American
culture. This will be the terrible backlash against a once
openly tolerant and benevolent culture that cared for all ethnic
groups, until those ethnic groups were finally perceived as being
not only ungrateful, but outright hostile to the charitable
culture they chose to immigrate to. This new white culture will
demand that empathy, altruism and nurturance shall no longer be
available or extended to those outside of the group, and women
especially will be prevented from pursuing their pathological
altruism (based on an evolutionary maladaptation). Eugenics in
such a culture will be both personal and social. That is parents
with resources will be able to enhance the genetic capital of
their own children, but in addition the state will intervene to
try and reduce the number of lesser intelligent and genetically
flawed people from being born. Along with this will be
restricting resources wasted on the terminally ill, euthanasia,
etc. in order to spend more money on the genetically gifted and
healthy to better serve the collective good. MacDonald explains,
"Another critical component of the evolutionary basis of
individualism is the elaboration of the human affectional system
as an individualistic pair-bonding system, the system that seemed
so strange that it was theorized to be a thin veneer overlaying a
deep psychopathology to a generation of Jewish intellectuals
emerging from the ghetto (Cuddihy 1974, 71). This system is
individualistic in the sense that it is based not on external,
group-based social controls or familial dictate but, rather, on
the intrinsically motivated role of romantic love in cementing
reproductive relationships (see pp. 136--139). The issue is
important because Western cultures are typically characterized as
relatively individualistic compared to other societies (Triandis
1995), and there is reason to suppose that the affectional system
is conceptually linked to individualism; that is, it is a system
that tends toward nuclear rather than extended family
organization. Triandis (1990) finds that individualistic
societies emphasize romantic love to a greater extent than do
collectivist societies, and Western cultures have indeed
emphasized romantic love more than other cultures (see PTSDA,
236-245; MacDonald 1995b,c; Money 1980). This system is highly
elaborated in Western cultures in both men and women, and it is
psychometrically linked with empathy, altruism, and nurturance.
Individuals who are very high on this system--predominantly
females--are pathologically prone to altruistic, nurturant and
dependent behavior (see MacDonald 1995a). On an evolutionary
account, the relatively greater elaboration of this system in
females is to be expected, given the greater female role in
nurturance and as a discriminating mechanism in relationships of
pair bonding. Such a perspective also accounts for the
much-commented-on gender gap in political behavior in which
females are more prone to voting for political candidates
favoring liberal positions on social issues. Women more than men
also endorse political stances that equalize rather than
accentuate differences between individuals and groups (Pratto,
Stallworth & Sidanius 1997). In ancestral environments this
system was highly adaptive, resulting in a tendency toward pair
bonding and high-investment parenting, as well as intrinsically
motivated relationships of close friendship and trust. This
system continues to be adaptive in the modern world in its role
in underlying high-investment parenting, but it is easy to see
that the relative hypertrophy of this system may result in
maladaptive behavior if a system designed for empathy, altruism,
and nurturance of family members and others in a closely related
group becomes directed to the world outside the family. The
implication is that Western societies are subject to invasion by
non-Western cultures able to manipulate Western tendencies toward
reciprocity, egalitarianism, and close affectional relationships
in a manner that results in maladaptive behavior for the
European-derived peoples who remain at the core of all Western
societies. Because others' interests and perspectives are viewed
as legitimate, Western societies have uniquely developed a highly
principled moral and religious discourse, as in the arguments
against slavery characteristic of the nineteenth-century
abolitionists and in the contemporary discourse on animal rights.
Such discourse is directed toward universal moral
principles--that is, principles that would be viewed as fair for
any rational, disinterested observer. Thus in his highly
influential volume, Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1971) argues
that justice as objective morality can only occur behind a 'veil
of ignorance' in which the ethnic status of the contending
parties is irrelevant to considerations of justice or morality."
And later, "The present tendencies lead one to predict that
unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the
multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue
their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals)
but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North
America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a
substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural
influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented
unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist
would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of
resistance by a significant segment of the population. As
indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to
ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have
shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political
forms that best suit their current interests. The prediction is
that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will
eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being
ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the
ideology of deethnicized individualism. If the analysis of
anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected reaction
will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving,
collectivist ideologies and social organizations. The
theoretically underdetermined nature of human group processes
(PTSDA, Ch. 1; MacDonald 1995b) disallows detailed prediction of
whether the reactive strategy will be sufficient to stabilize or
reverse the present decline of European peoples in the New World
and, indeed, in their ancestral homelands; whether the process
will degenerate into a self-destructive reactionary movement as
occurred with the Spanish Inquisition; or whether it will
initiate a moderate and permanent turning away from radical
individualism toward a sustainable group strategy. What is
certain is that the ancient dialectic between Judaism and the
West will continue into the foreseeable future. It will be ironic
that, whatever anti-Semitic rhetoric may be adopted by the
leaders of these defensive movements, they will be constrained to
emulate key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
Such strategic mimicry will, once again, lead to a 'Judaization'
of Western societies not only in the sense that their social
organization will become more group-oriented but also in the
sense that they will be more aware of themselves as a positively
evaluated ingroup and more aware of other human groups as
competing, negatively evaluated outgroups. In this sense, whether
the decline of the European peoples continues unabated or is
arrested, it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a
group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western
societies."

LIBERTARIANISM. Another possible scenario will be an increase in
individualism by a state that embraces a libertarian agenda.
Libertarianism, with its limited government, would allow all
groups to pursue their own self-interests without interference
from nor help from the state. Except for the increase in crime,
derelicts, homeless, unemployed, and degenerates, the society
will do just fine by ignoring those in need and let the chips
fall where they may. This will include abolishing all
preferential racial laws such as affirmative action, but it would
also probably allow open immigration if not citizenship so that
workers can come here and work for whatever the market will bear.
This will be a capitalist's utopia. Taxes will be reduced so
that the new middle and upper classes can move to secure and
isolated locations, ignoring the underclass. And with the
Internet supplanting the large inner cities as communication
hubs, companies will be able to disperse to more rural locations
in order to flee the despair of the inner cities. The culture
will begin to divide up into regions of people based on wealth,
with those without resources left to fend for themselves.
Eugenics will only be personal, with those with money hiring
genetic engineers to select the very finest genes for their
children, as well as couples selecting each other based on their
genetic quality, thus increasing the overall intelligence
standard deviation. The underclass will continue to multiply,
but without state support many of the children will die, and if
times get hard enough even the ignorant poor will forego having
children, with free abortions, sterilization and contraception
one of the remaining services the state will willingly provide to
the underclass. If both scenarios seem harsh and uninviting,
blame those radical environmentalists who undertook to undermine
the Western culture we had in order to further their own
self-interests. They, not European gentiles, changed the
demographics that created another round of ethnic warfare. It
has begun.

This material is not copyrighted and can be made available
without my permission, copied, distributed, and used in any way
for the furtherance of science.

--
The Eugenics Home Page: How to Breed a Better Human Being
http://pw2.netcom.com/~nuenke/evolve.htm