Tag Archives: kevin macdonald

Talking with Luke Ford

luke_ford_hello_fellow_jewsArchive of the live stream: JQ Debate With Age Of Treason – good comments.

JQ Debate With Age Of Treason by Luke Ford on SoundCloud.

Is Luke Ford good for the Jews?

Our main topic was Cofnas’ attack on MacDonald.

My series of podcasts on crypsis starts here: Jewish Crypsis – An Introduction.

Here I discuss jew screeching about intermarriage: Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 3.

Stephen Steinlight on Jewish Power and Interests.

The Secret Jewish History Of Peeps.

Assessing Auster (with Kevin MacDonald and Carolyn Yeager).

(((Luke Ford))) (@lukeford) on Twitter.

UPDATE 19 April 2018: JewTube circumcised the video. Ford has preserved some comments and linked a few related videos here: Debating The JQ With Age Of Treason Blogger.

The Culture of Critique Cries Out in Pain as it Strikes MacDonald

cucking_jewing_jewingHas anyone provided a more thorough, more reasonable critique of jewing than Kevin MacDonald? From what I’ve seen, the mild-mannered professor makes a meticulous case, constructed mainly by citing prominent jews.

Judge for yourself. MacDonald focuses on immigration in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The specific link I most often refer to is Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review, Population and Environment, 19, 295-355, 1998. These works and more are gathered at MacDonald’s Publications on Jews and Western Culture.

In Žižek, Group Selection, and the Western Culture of Guilt MacDonald notes the “few very articulate defenders of the basic ideas expressed in Culture of Critique” commenting on a post by Steve Sailer. Among the best is Ben Tillman, who distilled MacDonald’s trilogy like so:

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

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

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

MacDonald himself summarizes the third volume this way:

A major theme of Culture of Critique is that Jewish intellectual movements developed theories which had a patina of science and according to which anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the behavior of Jews but was entirely an issue of the psychopathology of non-Jews. These theories were then promulgated by the elite media and Jewish activist organizations, and they came to pervade the academic world

Indeed, beyond merely gathering pages of names and incriminating statements by jews, MacDonald has identified a characteristic pattern of organized but veiled ethnic aggression, a recurring collective behavior he refers to as jewish intellectual movements. He has described, for instance, how this pattern fits neoconservatism. The summary of his argument, and his response to jew critics, is of particular relevance to the recent critique by Nathan Cofnas linked and quoted below:

I will argue that the main motivation for Jewish neoconservatives has been to further the cause of Israel; however, even if that statement is true, it does not imply that all Jews are neoconservatives. I therefore reject the sort of arguments made by Richard Perle, who responded to charges that neoconservatives were predominantly Jews by noting that Jews always tend to be disproportionately involved in intellectual undertakings, and that many Jews oppose the neoconservatives. This is indeed the case, but leaves open the question of whether neoconservative Jews perceive their ideas as advancing Jewish interests and whether the movement itself is influential. An important point of the following, however, is that the organized Jewish community has played a critical role in the success of neoconservatism and in preventing public discussion of its Jewish roots and Jewish agendas.

Similar scrutiny can and has exposed the “jewish intellectual movements” driving anti-”racism”, the legalization of pornography, the relentless promotion of race-mixing and sexual degeneracy, civil rights legislation, gun control legislation, “hate” legislation, holocaustianity, and other aspects of semitical correctness. Neoconservativism is just a relatively recent and egregious example of jews hijacking the minds and bodies of non-jews to serve the jews, and in the process causing incalculable suffering and death.

MacDonald’s key observation is that jews, as a group, are hyperconscious of themselves and their common interests as a group, distinct from every other group, but most especially Whites. The jews have made it taboo if not illegal to criticize the most explicit facets of their jewing. But more to the point, it is difficult to assess the full extent of the havok jews have wrought because, as MacDonald has documented, the jews have taken pains to disguise much of their jewing as something else. And the cover afforded by such dissembling and dissimulation only makes it easier for the jews to conspire, to silence critics, and ultimately to shift the blame elsewhere, usually by pinning it on Whites.

The jews are so ethnocentric it boggles even a race-conscious White mind. When they’re not shamelessly obsessing over what is or isn’t “good for the jews”, they’re psychopathologizing Whites for trying to do anything similar. The jewsmedia spews an endless stream of hyperbolic hand-wringing whose primary concern is either “anti-semitism” or “White supremacism”. The latest trend is to screech about both at the same time. The most sensible conclusion is that jews see themselves as utterly distinct from Whites, that they perceive Whites not as peers, but as their enemy, and thus as a legitimate target for any form of depredation.

While discussing Zizek’s review in 2014 (which turned out to be a plagiarization of Stanley Hornbeck’s review from 1999) MacDonald notes the dearth of serious criticism of his work. His long wait for a formal critique is finally over.

Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, by Nathan Cofnas:

MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West. While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

Even if Pinker was right that MacDonald’s theories did not have enough prima facie merit to warrant attention in 2000, developments in the past 18 years have changed the situation. There are at least three reasons to give MacDonald a hearing.

First, some respected psychologists and evolutionary theorists have reported that they found value in MacDonald’s work.

. . .

Second, it is an undeniable fact that, in the past few hundred years, Jews have had a disproportionate influence on politics and culture in the Western world, if not the whole world.

. . .

Third and perhaps most important, though, is that MacDonald’s work has been influential—enormously so—in a certain segment of the lay community, namely, among anti-Semites and adherents of the burgeoning movement known as the “alt-right.” It is hard to overstate his influence among this group.

. . .

The refusal of scholars to engage with MacDonald has had unintended negative consequences. Many of his enthusiasts see him as credible because there has never been a serious academic refutation of his theories. The strategy employed 18 years ago—declaring his work to be anti-Semitic and/or to not reach the threshold to warrant scholarly attention—had the doubly unfortunate effect of intimidating scholars with a legitimate interest in the topic of Jewish evolution and behavior, and creating a perception among some laypeople—even if it was false—that MacDonald was being persecuted by the academic community.

In recent years, Jews have continued to produce examples favoring the default hypothesis. The most high-profile opponent of liberal activism in social science is, without question, Jonathan Haidt (see Duarte et al. 2015), who is Jewish. The most high-profile advocate of incorporating Darwinism into the social sciences is another Jew, Steven Pinker (e.g., Pinker 2002). The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)—the most prominent organization that defends free speech on campus, primarily the speech of conservatives—was founded by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, both Jewish.

MacDonald paints a picture of Jews as hypocrites who impose liberalism on gentiles and adopt nationalism for themselves, but he ignores the fact that many of the most influential Jews seem to promote liberalism and multiculturalism for both gentiles and Jews.

Just as problematically, in a number of cases MacDonald fails to report that Jews whom he identifies as ethnic activists took stands against Israel and other Jewish interests (again, defining “Jewish interests” in MacDonald’s terms as ethnic self-preservation).

But misrepresenting sources and distorting history are not part of the methods of evolutionary psychology, or any other legitimate academic discipline.

Cofnas’s arguments are not new. He has essentially formalized, with a “patina of science”, the kind of excuses and sneers jews and crypto-jews have been making for years. Unable to refute the quotes and facts MacDonald cites, the best his critics can do is insinuate that MacDonald is the problem, that his scholarly criticism is somehow unfairly biased against jews.

This is not just the standard jew take on MacDonald, but smacks of the standard jew psychopathologization of “anti-semitism”, as MacDonald himself has described. Crying “anti-semitism” generally suffices as an argument-ending trump card for jews. Indeed, while implying MacDonald is biased against jews, Cofnas chutzpathically displays his own bias in their favor, lamenting the increasing popularity of MacDonald’s insights among “anti-semites”. By his own account he’s seeking to counter the supposed “negative consequences” of MacDonald’s indictment of jews, as opposed to the harm caused by their jewing.

As with Perle’s excuse for neoconservative jewing, Cofnas puts forth a supposed “above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas” and “not all jews” as the excuse for anti-White jewing more generally. In short, Cofnas’ supposed “default hypothesis” is nothing more than his desired conclusion – heebs dindu nuffins! – smuggled in as an unsubstantiated premise.

What the Alt-Right Gets Wrong About Jews, published by alt-jewsmedia outlet Quillette, is another variation of Cofnas’ academic argument, though here the driving concern – that White racial consciousness is rising, and this isn’t good for the jews – is made more plain.

For many on the alt-right, every grievance is, at root, about Jews.

According to MacDonald, Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” Jews possess both genetic and cultural adaptations (including, on the genetic side, high IQ and ethnocentrism) that allow them to develop successful intellectual movements that undermine gentile society and promote their own group continuity. “Jewish intellectual movements,” MacDonald argues, are led by charismatic figures analogous to rabbis. They attack white nationalism while promoting Jewish nationalism, and use pseudoscience to “pathologize” anti-Semitism, which in reality is a justified response to “Jewish aggression.” According to MacDonald, Jewish intellectual movements include Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical theory, and multiculturalism. These movements, MacDonald claims, taught white gentiles to reject ethnocentrism and accept high levels of nonwhite immigration to their countries while tolerating Jewish ethnocentrism and racially restrictive immigration policies in Israel.

MacDonald’s theory and the anti-Semitism of many on the alt-right are largely reactions to the perceived liberalism of Jews. One of us (Cofnas) has just published an academic paper that examines MacDonald’s most influential book, The Culture of Critique, and finds that it is chock full of misrepresented sources, cherry-picked facts, and egregious distortions of history.

But MacDonald seems to be right that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical leftist political movements in the twentieth century, and in the US Jews tend to vote Democrat. We think this can be explained by the high average IQ of Jews in combination with their being a persecuted minority, which has tended to push them toward political views that emphasize social toleration and the free movement of people. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

Persecution of Jews began for religious reasons in the Middle Ages and morphed into political persecution as Jews began to climb the social ladder, and political leaders saw them as a useful out-group to use as a scapegoat for people’s economic and social woes. For example, when Italian traders inadvertently brought the Black Plague from Asia to Europe, thousands of Jews were murdered in retaliation when Christian peasants decided that the Jews had deliberately infected them.

We don’t think MacDonald will be able to rescue his hypothesis, built as it is on misrepresented sources and distortions. But for some dishonest alt-right leaders, the literal truth of his ideas is probably not that important. They need an enemy to unify their movement. There is no more convenient a people to play this role than Jews.

These are the most common tropes jews of every stripe – “liberal” or “conservative” – reach for when trying to jewsplain how jews and their jewing aren’t the problem, non-jews are. The jew version of history – this one-sided persecution narrative, this self-image as eternally victimized outsiders, we wuz slaves in Egypt – is the same story this parasitic tribe has always told, and has always used to justify their vindicitve malevolence towards their hosts.

For jews, every grievance is about “anti-semitism”, which is, at root, a result of jewing. Scapegoating, for example, is a jewy word for a ritualistically jewy behavior. The term is almost always used whenever someone is fretting that jews might be held to account for what jews have done – to transfer the sins of jews to someone else.

Cofnas, for example, tries to excuse jewing by shifting blame to MacDonald and more broadly to uppity Whites. His behavior confirms MacDonald’s arguments rather than refuting them.

Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 2

traitor_jew_lie

Continuing from Part 1.

‘Swedes will compare this to the Holocaust’, The Local, 20 April 2015.

What’s wrong with the Swedes — and so many other Whites?, by Kevin MacDonald, 25 April 2015.

Sweden’s asylum offer to refugees from Syria, BBC News, 23 October 2013.

Kent Ekeroth, Wikipedia.

The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession, Kevin MacDonald, YouTube.

Swedish Journalist Blamed Jews for anti-Semitism, Israeli Ambassador Wins the Day, The Jewish Press, 18 February 2015.

Nigel Farage says only middle-class white people think UKIP is racist, Daily Mail Online, 24 April 2015.

Green candidate in hot water over tweets suggesting Nigel Farage ‘emulates’ Hitler, Manchester Evening News, 25 March 2015.

Conservative candidate makes vile Jewish racist slur against Ed Miliband, Mirror Online, 26 April 2015.

Ed Miliband uses Holocaust Memorial Day to call for vigilance against the terrible roots of prejudice, Mirror Online, 27 January 2015.

The Realist Report: Top Jewish leader claims entire Western world culpable for “Holocaust”, John Friend, 26 April 2015.

Gaslighting

gaslight

I’d like to revisit and expand here on a point I made two weeks ago at the end of Pathology and Pathogen. The very last part of Andrew Joyce’s article I quoted was:

Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.

This, as I said, is the problem. It is an acknowledgement that there is a problem and at the same time it is a misconstrual of the nature and source of the problem.

As Joyce’s own description alludes, in the interactions between jews and non-jews in all locations and throughout historical time the sole common element is … the jews. Yet he also take pains to avoid this simple point – to emphasize that he, and other critics of jews seek “multiple sources and origins” which “can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers”.

But the answer is simple. No pathogen, no pathology. Or to put it slightly less simply, the impact of jewish pathologization and manipulation is so enormous that it’s difficult to imagine what problems would remain if they were removed.

At any rate, as the earlier portion of Joyce’s article made clear, and as I can attest to myself, an objective critic of jews can dig into as many details and develop as complex an understanding of jews as they like. But from the beginning jews will pathologize them and their effort as “anti-semitism” – as a congenital mental disease which has nothing to do with the jews. My argument is that the simple answer to such single-minded hostility is, first of all, to recognize it as such. Second, to recognize that whatever appeal objectivity has to Whites, however inborn it may be, it is in this case part of the problem.

In the face of jewish aggression, Whites have historically capitulated and are now prostrate exactly because we have internalized the fundamental thrust of the jewish critique. Whites have blamed ourselves and our societies for not being tolerant or accomodating enough. The political term for this misguided belief is “liberalism”. The simple answer is to steel ourselves and advise our collective to be less prone to tolerance and accomodation, to resist the urge to blame ourselves and our collective, and instead to recognize manipulative alien collectives, first and foremost the jews, as an endless source of threats and pathology from which we individuals who are aware of the situation have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our collective.

I must emphasize now, again, that I credit Joyce with at least connecting his own discussion of “white pathology” to the jews and jewish power. This connection is obvious and simple to make. Yet it is missing from the diagnosis provided by many other pundits who like to use terms like “white pathology”. This is especially glaring for those pundits who insist on using terms like “white suicide” to push the suicide meme, as I discussed in Fear and Genocide. Pundits like the jew Lawrence Auster and the jewhadi Fjordman come immediately to mind.

I’m also thinking of pundits like Ricardo Duchesne and Jared Taylor, who more or less pretend the jews don’t exist or are “white”, and in either case the jews don’t play a significant role in anything they have to say about “white pathology” or “white suicide”. Duchesne and Taylor were among the handful of writers Kevin MacDonald asked to address the issue in late 2013, in Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology.

MacDonald has written about it himself. In an article from October of 2014, Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites, he begins:

A prominent feature of the Frankfurt School was the ideology that ethnocentrism among Whites (but not Jews) was a psychopathology. This weapon was taken up by the organized Jewish community which claimed that pro-White and anti-Jewish attitudes were literally public health problems and popularized phrases like “virulent anti-Semitism,” analogizing anti-Jewish attitudes to the spread of a virus.

This campaign has been incredibly successful among Whites. Whites who have internalized this pathogen naturally suppress such attitudes, and they do so despite their universality, and despite the reality that ethnic self-interest is eminently rational from an evolutionary perspective. And even despite the fact that many of those promoting this pathogen are proudly ethnocentric themselves.

But the campaign has been very effective: No one wants to publicly express attitudes that mark one as a psychiatric case.

So far, so good. He even identified jews as the pathogen, or at least as the source of a pathogenic campaign. But then he seems to balk and backpedal, showing some signs that he too has internalized a bit of the pathogen he just described:

Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

This isn’t the opposite suggestion. It’s the same suggestion: There’s something inherently and unfixably wrong with Whites, and it is not caused by the jews. That’s the suggestion. The main example MacDonald focuses on is Pastor Renita Marie, who in response to the jewsmedia propaganda about Ferguson, wrote an article for the jewsmedia expressing guilt about her Whiteness. MacDonald describes her as a “genuine liberal”, a term he says was used by the Frankfurt School. He then explains how the Frankfurt school pseudo-science was wrong, that they “create an upside-down world where ethnocentric Whites had parents who didn’t love them”. But the woman had an ethnocentric upbringing and still turned out to be a race traitor. Therefore, MacDonald seemed to be presenting this as a case of “white pathlogy”, minus the jews. As he puts it:

Rev. Marie has dropped out of the White race and has become a crusader against it. Of course, that means a good career and lots of praise from elites in the contemporary environment. But it’s pretty clear that her motivation is far deeper than merely taking advantage of all the opportunities available these days from hating Whites. A genuine race traitor. Noel Ignatiev would be proud.

But it isn’t at all clear that Marie’s motivation runs any deeper than the jewish pathogenic factors MacDonald himself describes. Instead it seems, as I previously discussed in the case of Joyce, that MacDonald simply doesn’t wish to accept that it is that simple.

Another indication is that MacDonald links Noel Ignatiev’s name to a search of his website. The first hit is an article of his from 2009 titled Promoting genocide of whites? Noel Ignatiev and the culture of Western suicide. He notes that:

the effort by a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and his journal, Race Traitor, to promote the “cultural and psychological genocide of whites.”

Amazingly, MacDonald refuses to take this seriously and argues instead that Ignatiev’s use of the word genocide and his anti-White arguments and activism are just so much hyperbole and nonsense. MacDonald describes how he sees Ignatiev and his allies:

Their hatred assumes a surface legitimacy because the hated “whites” are just a “social construct.” It’s not really about killing people, so where’s the beef? The “genocide” of whites is not about homicide or suicide; it’s only about getting white people to stop thinking that they are white.

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide.

The culture of critique is a jewish construct, not a White construct. Jews deliberately attempting to induce Whites to stop thinking of themselves as White is genocide, not suicide. This should be obvious to someone who is actually explaining the role played by the jews.

So I have to say – never mind what’s wrong with Whites, or what’s wrong with Duchesne and Taylor – what’s wrong with Joyce and MacDonald? Physicians, heal thyselves!

When I first discussed “white pathology” (in Pathology and Pathogen), I acknowledged that many Whites are clearly behaving pathologically. My point was that the pathogen, the jews, explains this. Furthermore, jewish psychological influence is visible even in Whites who are conscious of race and the jews, even in those who attempt to explain jewish psychological influence, like Joyce and, as I’ve just described, MacDonald.

The most negative response I’ve gotten was, “We know already what is wrong with the Jews … we should now ask ourselves what is wrong with us”. This is precisely the suggestion Joyce and MacDonald have made and that I’ve taken issue with.

I consider it a problem that even White men as knowledgable about the jews and jewish power as MacDonald and Joyce are can, for fear of appearing simple-minded, come across instead as overeager to buy into the less plausible idea of a congenital “white pathology”, independent of the jews. An idea which is primarily promoted by jews themselves and others who seem most interested to ignore or at least downplay the role of jews.

So far I’ve been reiterating and fleshing out of points and arguments I’ve already made. I’d like to add a new twist now, another way of seeing the relationship between Whites and jews that I think dovetails with this discussion. It also fits my previous suggestion that Whites need to confront the parasitic nature of that relationship, and not shy from taking the White side in it.

I first discussed Stockholm Syndrome in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3. It was trying to understand and explain the behavior of men like John Derbyshire (see John Derbyshire and The Suicide Thing), who is well aware of jewish power and the fear they induce, but who in spite of that, or rather because of it, minimizes the role of the jews and denounces braver and more honest men than himself who don’t, men like Kevin MacDonald.

Stockholm syndrome:

or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

At the time I quoted a portion of an article describing the Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, which I’ll quote again here, because it can be seen as a metaphor for the broader mainstream media and political zeitgeist, well beyond Derbyshire and MacDonald:

Included in these traits are the prisoner’s belief (correct or incorrect, it doesn’t matter) that he or she cannot escape, which means that survival must occur within the rules set by the all-powerful captor; and the prisoner’s isolation from people not being held by the captors, which prohibits any outside view of the captors from infringing on the psychological processes that lead to Stockholm syndrome.

In the current zeitgeist the White “prisoners”, or hosts, dare not question their jew “captors”, the parasites, who quite literally dictate and diligently enforce the rules of “proper” discourse. This is popularly referred to as political correctness, though the term semitic correctness is more fitting.

The crux of capture-bonding is that the “prisoners” don’t see their “captors” as wrong-doers, but out of ignorance or pity come over time to sympathize and make excuses for them instead.

There is a related psychological phenomenon whose symptoms are just as much or more relevant to the relationship between Whites and jews, and specifically the discussion of “anti-semitism” and “white pathology”. It’s called gaslighting:

Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.[2] Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

The term owes its origin to the play Gas Light and its film adaptations, after which it was coined popularly.

Sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically, are also charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.

The obvious analogy is that the jews and their psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit “white pathology” as a result of it.

Another definition of the term explains in more detail:

Gaslighting – The practice of brainwashing or convincing a mentally healthy individual that they are going insane or that their understanding of reality is mistaken or false. The term “Gaslighting” is based on the 1944 MGM movie “Gaslight”.

Casting You as the Crazy One

In the classic suspense thriller, Gaslight, Paula (Ingrid Bergman) marries the villainous Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), not realizing that he is the one who murdered her aunt and is now searching for her missing jewels.

To cover up his treachery, he tries to persuade Paula that she is going mad, so he can search the attic for the jewels without her interference. He plants missing objects on her person in order to make her believe that she has no recollection of reality.

Essentially, it describes forms of manipulation which are designed to make the victim lose their grip on the truth or doubt their perception of reality.

Among the examples of what it looks like that fit the jews:

A person acts threateningly and then accuses you of abuse when you react in self-defense.

How it Feels

Gaslighting can be a terrifying experience. It can quickly put you on the defensive – trying to justify your own actions or behaviors – when you started out by challenging someone else’s questionable behavior.

A gaslighting perpetrator’s fabrications may be presented so convincingly and with such conviction you begin to question yourself and your own memories and judgment.

Among a list of points advising what NOT to do:

Don’t waste your time trying to convince someone who has already made up their mind about you that they should reconsider.

In other words, don’t bother arguing with jews or other true-believer anti-Whites.

Don’t blame yourself for what the other person is feeling or how they are behaving. Don’t look for ways to change yourself to try to fix another person. As the OOTF 3 C’s mantra says: “You didn’t cause it, you can’t cure it and you can’t control it.” You are only responsible for your own words and actions.

In other words, don’t go searching for “white pathology” when the effort jews make to create it is staring you right in the face. If you do, then you are responsible for that.

I’ll emphasize again right here that I’m drawing an analogy. It’s not a perfect fit. For one thing, gaslighting ordinarily describes a relationship between two individuals, whereas the analog I’m making is for the relationship between Whites and jews collectively, even though within those collectives there are a broad spectrum of individual motives and attitudes.

I do think however that the analogy is useful because it fits the most relevant and important aspect of the relationship between Whites and jews, the relatively conscious and lopsided relationship between White and jew elites.

Another description from a blog called Narcissists Suck:

Gaslighting occurs when a person you trust to tell you the truth about reality, is, in fact, bending reality with lies. When this happens consistently over a period of time it causes you to question your sanity.

This is important. For whatever reason one participant in the gaslighting relationship trusts the other. They do not expect and cannot accept that the other could lie to them. The other participant, in contrast, is deliberately manipulating and exploiting that trust.

Driving the victim insane may not be their main intent, as it is described elsewhere, but can instead be seen as a long-term result of the primary ingredient, the unrequited love, the one-sided abuse and deceit.

If you find yourself often questioning your own sanity you need to suspect you are being gaslighted. In the absence of any who will support what you are seeing, hearing, and knowing, please give yourself permission to believe yourself. Gaslighting is a deliberate and evil tactic. So when you’ve determined that someone is doing this to you, it is past time to remove yourself from this person’s sphere of influence.

I found a description connecting narcissism, gaslighting and Stockholm Syndrome. Once again, there are some obvious parallels to the relationship between elite Whites and jews – in particular the description of narcissists fits the jews.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disease (DSM) – 5 2013 Changes:

Narcissistic Victim Syndrome (NVS)

Is the result of the damages that occur to a person who is closely connected or involved with or works with a Narcissist. A narcissist is someone who needs total control and believes the world revolves around them and them only. The narcissist craves constant praise, admiration, honor and respect, even when they do not deserve it. They will use any means within which to obtain this constant control including the following: intimidation, abuse (physical, sexual, emotional and more), isolation, deprivation, financial/economic control and anything else that they can use to keep the victim under their thumb and control. One of their best tools is Gaslighting or the denigrating of the victim so they believe they are crazy and that only the Narcissist is capable of taking care of them or being with them. The narcissist is also always right and the perfect person, thus they could never possibly be wrong. This lends well with the theory of Gaslighting as the Narcissist will have the victim believe that they are too weak, or crazy, or delusional and more. They will actually cause the victim to distrust their own selves and ability to think for themselves. Narcissists are about total and complete submission of control to them. They do not recognize any boundaries or borders between them and others. They are the border control

Some of the signs and symptoms of NVS include:

A victim of NVS can exhibit Stockholm syndrome or cult-like behavior joining up with the aggressor. They will defend and protect the narcissist for fear of not being loved or part of their inner circle. The victim’s self-esteem is so torn down by the Gaslighting and other crazy making behaviors of the Narcissist that it is just easier for them to follow along. They often are so emotionally beaten down they do not realize what is even happening to them, just that they are angry or sad all the time, and feel like they have no persona or sense of self.

They will/can show signs of Cognitive Dissonance, which basically means that they know that the situation they are in is no good, but they continue to stay it, using false rational. Yet, they are angry, scared, confused, lost and do not know where to turn to. They fear things that never happened or even exist but because the Narcissist says they did, the Victim is programmed to believe it is so. [calls to mind "RAMPANT ANTI-SEMITISM!" and "THE HOLOCAUST!" -T] Their ability to think clearly has been disrupted and taken over by the Narcissist.

There’s much more I could say about this analogy, but as with what I had to say about parasitism, the main point is that it is not only more explanative than some vague “white pathology”, but prescriptive as well.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, for example, offers some further advice:

the only way to escape this dangerous dependency upon a psychopath is to remove yourself permanently from his influence. Any contact with him keeps you trapped in his web of manipulation and deceit. In some respects, however, this is a circular proposition. If you have the strength to leave a psychopath and the lucidity to reconsider your relationship with him, then you’re probably not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

As we recall, psychopaths establish control of their victims BITE by BITE, like emotional vampires. Once again, “BITE” stands for “behavior, information, thoughts and emotions.” Psychopaths attempt to control all aspects of their partners’ experience of reality.

To counteract their dangerous influence, you need to BITE back. Give the victim a true perception of reality and real emotional support.

Whites need to produce our own media, which offers a true perception of reality and real emotional support. Explain what the jews are doing, and how they are doing it. Counter the lie that they’re just an odd kind of “white” people who are, or could ever be, on the same side. Point out that the jews are gaslighting Whites – that their anti-White narrative about “racism”, “anti-semitism”, “blood libel”, “the holocaust”, and more is manipulative, abusive. Whites shouldn’t put up with this because it obviously isn’t good for Whites.

Pathology and Pathogen

biohazard

Andrew Joyce’s recent article, The Bizarre World of Dr Theodore Isaac Rubin, is mostly excellent. It’s about how jews explain “anti-semitism”:

Although written in 2009, Ted Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind,[1] is in several respects a relic of a by-gone era in that it is a classic work of old-school Freudianism and psychoanalysis. Kevin MacDonald has noted in The Culture of Critique that:

One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories very greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.[2]

Rather than antipathy being a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest, antipathy towards Jews is thus seen as a psychological illness — owing absolutely nothing to the behavior of Jews, and everything to Western culture. This is the central thrust of Rubin’s book.

Rubin wastes no time in applying medical and psychiatric language to anti-Jewish attitudes. They comprise (11–12) a “malignant emotional illness,” a “psychiatric illness,” and a “chronic, pandemic and incredibly destructive disease.”

I agree with Joyce and MacDonald’s assessment. Antipathy is a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest. I would add that the key word in “conflicts of interest” is conflict, and the roots of the antipathy and conflict are racial. More than anything else, Joyce’s article brings out the clash between White and jewish mentality – the completely different way each group sees the conflict between the groups.

These are racial differences in mental processes. MacDonald explains some of these differences in a recent article of his own, On the HBD Chick Interview. There he summarizes part of a chapter from the first volume of his trilogy on jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:

Briefly, the idea is that Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, are high on several personality systems, resulting in 1.) tendencies toward personalities that react intensely to environmental contingencies (i.e., high on the emotionality system), 2.) strongly attracted to dominance, social status, reward (including sex), and prone to aggressiveness (i.e., high on the behavioral approach system), and 3.) able to have strong top-down control over modular systems related to emotions and behavioral approach (i.e., high on the conscientiousness system).

. . .

I updated some of this material in “Background Traits for Jewish Activism” (2003) which focuses on traits that are most important for the success of Jewish activism: hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity (emotionality), and aggressiveness.

To put it in less genteel terms, the jews are a race of ruthless crooks and liars, at least when it comes to dealing with Whites.

Jews are instinctively collectivist and assign jewish interests the highest priority, to the point they have co-opted science and committed fraud to serve that end. In the jewish mind emotionalism trumps rationalism. They also tend to project their negative thinking onto the Other.

Whites, in contrast, are relatively individualist and universalist, with a higher regard for objectivity. In the White mind rationalism trumps emotionalism. Whites tend to project our positive thinking onto the Other. These are tendencies, partly encoded in our genes, partly inculcated into our minds after birth. The big difference is group consciousness. The jews inculcate their own with an unapologetic preference for their own kind and distaste for the Other. Jews inculcate most Whites too, but with exactly the opposite moral standards.

This kind of lopsidedness, or asymmetry, is characteristic of the entire history and nature of the conflict between Whites and jews. Jews have continuously aggressed against Whites. Whites, for the most part, have been oblivious of this. As Joyce observes, jews unabashedly distort reality and invert the conflict, placing 100% of the blame for it on Whites. Jews use the most harsh-sounding biomedical terms, describing their enemies not as participants in a conflict with an opposing point of view, but as pests who should be simply silenced and even exterminated.

Whites, in contrast, have generally reacted to this kind of bombast by recoiling defensively, in denial, trying to argue that they aren’t the congenital monsters the jews accuse them of being. In accordance with our instinct for objectivity, Whites consistently step outside and above the conflict, to seek out some less harsh-sounding explanation for it. We imagine, for example, that the jews aren’t so different and must be deceiving themselves, because that’s how Whites tend to deal with unpleasant realities.

The real root of this asymmetry, as the jews recognize, is biomedical. The jews are racially distinct. They are far more racially conscious, far more aware of racial distinctions. They not only see the distinction between themselves and others more clearly, they are more willing and able to ruthlessly exploit those differences.

The jews dedicate a great deal of effort not only to nurturing their own consciousness, but to tearing down such consciousness in their hosts. The jewish pseudo-science of psychoanalysis Joyce examines is an example of both – excusing and leveraging their own consciousness and ethnocentrism while at the same time they psychopathologize White consciousness and ethnocentrism.

Joyce calls attention to the key component of this psychopathologizing:

Another of Rubin’s assertions, and this is equally common among many Jewish psychologists and academics, is that those holding anti-Jewish attitudes are low in self-esteem and are (31) “desperate for simplistic explanation and solutions, especially for those they may find outside themselves.” But ‘anti-Jewish theory,’ if one wants to call it that, is far from simplistic. The assumption is made by the psychoanalysts that since the only problem causing conflict with Jews exists solely in the mind of the ‘anti-Semite,’ then the ‘anti-Semite’ needs only a ‘symbol’ to cure his own inner conflicts — this symbol is the Jew. He is said to cling to the simplistic belief that “the Jews” are behind all of his personal problems, and thus he can externalize his internal conflicts by ‘hating’ Jews, and somehow raising his own self-importance and self-esteem in the process. But this assessment is built on a deeply flawed assessment of both anti-Semitism and the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes.

Overall I think Joyce is very perceptive, but in this I think it’s his assessment of jewish behavior that’s flawed. The jews are not making a mistake. It is about esteem.

First of all, by blaming “anti-semitism” they are excusing themselves, placating and even feeding their own already enormous collective esteem for themselves as a people. Second, they are deliberately attacking the esteem of “anti-semites”, in other words, those Whites who are most racially conscious and most aware of the jews. The attack the jews make elicits a defensive posture, causing their enemy to question themselves. That the jews cloak their attack in scientific terms, as a medical diagnosis, is an intentional deception. Such fraud is a feature of their aggression, not a flaw.

The psychoanalysts never acknowledge that some of the most high-profile anti-Jewish writers of the past have been at pains to blame their own people and nation before the Jews — there has never been a rush to ‘externalize’ all blame for the ills of society.

The jews get the defensive response they seek: “B-but we’re not stupid or crazy. A-allow me to provide some objective arguments and examples.” Joyce supplies several paragraphs in this vein, and it’s as eye-opening and edifying as his writing usually is. He perceives the jews as enemies, but the examples he cites demonstrate the point. Throughout history even the most notorious “anti-semites” have been far too willing, in the attempt to be objective and fair, to blame our own people, to fruitlessly seek some built-in flaws our race simply must have, somewhere.

The irony is that in striking such a defensive posture it is self-esteem which keeps us from accepting that this behavior is the flaw we’re looking for. Whites don’t have an inherent racial lack of self-esteem relative to jews, we have a relative lack of group-esteem. We have a relative willingness to accept responsibility, especially guilt, especially collectively.

I don’t think this lack is entirely inborn. I think a large portion of it is induced by jews pushing the psychological button Joyce has noticed but mistaken the significance of. Jews have been moralizing and lecturing Whites for millenia now that, “It’s all your fault, you stupid/crazy/evil goyim.” While some Whites are able to shrug it off, few actually see it for the purposeful guilt-tripping, the aggression, the assault it is.

Contrary to the arguments of the psychoanalysts, the problem always contains a very significant internal element, and thus the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes is rarely free to simply blame all on ‘the Other.’

This phenomenon continues today. Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.

This is the problem. The jews shamelessly attack and blame everything on their enemies. And in response their enemies, not wanting to appear simplistic, try to rationalize and intellectualize and demonstrate how fair-minded they are. That is “white pathology” in a nutshell.

As I’ve said before, where there is a pathology there must be a pathogen. So what is it? If we’re going to speak of this phenomena in biomedical terms, then let’s grab the bullshit by the horns, shall we?

Jews clearly see that there is a conflict of interests, first and foremost with Whites. Whites are now so deracinated and ennervated that they are afraid to see any conflict whatsoever, because that would make them “racists”. Jews hate Whites. Whites worship jews. Whatever anyone thinks caused this situation, this lopsided Stockholm Syndrome relationship with jews, it’s clear that to the extent most Whites even see it as a problem, they blame jews for approximately none of it. Instead, the popular explanation is the jewish explanation: Whites are to blame for all of it.

“White pathology” is a non-explanation for this situation. For one thing, the idea forgets or at least downplays the racial conflict. Joyce at least brings it up while discussing the jews. More often it is used alone, without any mention of jews or their aggression, implying there is some “suicidal” problem baked into Whites and only Whites.

The idea is solipsistic. It is a self-satisfying pathologization of Whites. It plays on the same psychological mechanism behind the jewish explanation of “anti-semitism”. It’s an attack on our self-esteem, our fear of being seen as “stupid” for seeing an enemy as an enemy. Which, if you think about it, is what’s really stupid.

What’s also really telling about the falseness of the idea is that the term itself has a completely different meaning to most Whites. When racially conscious Whites say “white pathology”, they mean Whites as a group aren’t racially conscious enough. But if you try and explain “white pathology” to a typical deracinated White they’ll take it as confirmation that Whites, especially Whites like you, are too “racist”.

The “white pathology” idea appeals to the racially aware because there is a grain of truth to it. It’s a diagnosis that comes close but literally gets stuck on the pathology, the symptoms, and too often neglects to ever identify the cause, the pathogen. If Whites are behaving pathologically, well-meaning Whites should be doing their best to identify the pathogen causing this behavior. We should be seeking, without fear, ways to neutralize the cause, rather than ourselves.

The problem is not that Whites have blamed the jews too much. Quite the opposite. It’s clear that the jews have encouraged this solipsistic attitude exactly because it serves them. Thinking Whites alone, right now, determine White destiny is a notion that appeals especially to the most racially conscious Whites. But it is a fantasy as long as most Whites remain, as they are, unconscious of any collective destiny.

Calling the jews pathogens or parasites it is not an idle insult. Nor is it an excuse for Whites, their hosts. In fact, it’s a degrading and humiliating situation that is painful for Whites to acknowledge. Such terms are simply more honest and explicative. It is an acknowledgement not just of the conflict but its asymmetric nature. Among the benefits of calling a parasite a parasite is parasitology – an existing body of understanding based on true science, which offers practical insights and potential solutions no amount of “white pathology” navel-gazing ever will. Another benefit: Rather than misdirecting White resentment toward ourselves, it is directed at the cause, where it belongs – the detestable, whiny, self-obsessed, manipulative, exploitative jews. Without jews Whites would still have problems – but these “anti-semitism”/”white pathology” bugbears wouldn’t be among them.

Examples of this pathogen at work are easy to find in the mainstream jewsmedia:

UK must ‘wipe out’ anti-Semitism – Home Secretary

BERLIN: Europe’s Jews ponder: Is it time to flee again?

Do we really mean ‘never again’?

Race and Jews – Part 3

kevin_macdonald

This time we’ll contrast William Graham Sumner’s view of ethnocentrism with Kevin MacDonald’s view specifically focused on the jews. Sumner wrote in 1907, when it was still reasonable to imagine that the White man ruled America and Europe, or as Francis Parker Yockey put it, ruled 18/20ths of the world.

Recall Sumner’s definition of ethnocentrism:

15. Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.

Though Sumner saw the significant role jews played in the development of Western folkways and mores, and noted their ethnocentrism, he showed no discernable sign of alarm concerning jewish power.

A hundred years later it is still common, more common, to flatly ignore the jews or even deny that the jews have any power. However, it is more difficult to defend such a position in the face of the jews’ dominance in the realms of finance, media, and politics. Today those who are critical of jewish influence and power are openly punished for doing so.

Kevin MacDonald is a good example. Like Sumner, MacDonald is an academician specializing in social psychology. He has described the jews not only as ethnocentric, but as a hostile elite with a particularist morality, where “good is what is good for the jews”. In fact, MacDonald has noted the unique and extreme qualities of jewish ethnocentrism, often referring to it as hyperethnocentrism.

The abstract for MacDonald’s monograph, Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism, begins with this sobering overview of the history of White/jew relations:

Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.

Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.

The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2

Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.

How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer that question.

The main body of MacDonald’s monograph is in the first section, titled I. Jews are Hyperethnocentric. His review of jewish behavioral traits is in direct comparison to Whites:

Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries.

Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based.

In this monograph MacDonald reiterates many of the themes he has written about elsewhere, including the aforementioned moral particularism of jews. He discusses self-deception, a term and concept I have taken issue with. Jewish deception is especially evident in their crypsis, the claims jews make as to the harmless or insignificant nature of jewish identity which are so often and blatantly belied by their activism.

MacDonald notes the long historical memory of the jews, their “memory of persecution and impending doom”, ostensibly at the hands of Whites. The point of How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity is to see the jewish victimology narrative for the aggressive inversion of reality it is.

MacDonald touches on the uncanny ability jews have to identify each other and identify with each other, to recognize who is “us” and who is “them” – a trait informally known as jewdar.

MacDonald describes the strong identification jews have with Israel and zionism. Referring to an ADL press release responding to the liberalization of Germany’s immigration policies in 1999, MacDonald notes:

The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned.

Words fail to capture the spectacle of professional jews, acting as spokesmen for the world’s most outstanding practitioners of “us vs them”, lecturing and moralizing us “them” on the evils of thinking in terms of “us vs them”. MacDonald concludes his section on jewish hyperethnocentrism with another attempt:

Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so fascinating is the cloak of intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, the complexity and intellectual sophistication of the rationalizations for it—some of which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents58 and the rather awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception) of it, given Jewish opposition to ethnocentrism among Europeans.

The three subsequent sections describe other heritable, i.e. racial, personality traits of jews. An excerpt from II. Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy):

Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. A good example is the long and ultimately successful attempt to alter U.S. immigration policy.

The next section is titled III. Jews Are Psychologically Intense. MacDonald describes jews as having higher than average emotional intensity:

In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues.

Several examples of such instant, massive responses come to mind.

Judaized Discourse – A Holocaust Over Blood Libel documents such a response to Sarah Palin.

What’s Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht documents another example.

Another more serious and recent example came just a few months ago with the Israeli military bombed Gaza, hitting schools and hospitals. Four Jews, One Opinion on Israel captures a portion of the surreal response, where “liberal” jews got up on their jewsmedia soapboxes to defend Israel, and jews in general, describing themselves as the real victims.

All of the above brings to mind the proverb, “The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

The last section is titled IV. Jews Are Aggressive. One excerpt:

These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”97

MacDonald’s work, and specifically this monograph on jewish hyperethnocentrism, highlights the racial divide in mentality and the great difficulty Whites face in trying to understand jews, a difficultly the jews themselves mockingly refer to as goyishe kopf.

What we’ve discussed here are really all just various facets of an inborn racial ruthlessness, the stereotypical willingness of jews to say almost anything in defense of jews, or to excuse the harm jews do to others. Anyone who has debated jews is familiar with the lies, illogic, personal insults and other distractions to which they readily resort.

The term ethnocentrism doesn’t really capture this ruthlessness. Hyperethnocentrism is only slightly better. Loxism, or jewism, though relatively uncommon and unknown, are better words because they do capture the unique, incomparable nature of jewish racial ruthlessness. As Alex Linder recently remarked:

Whites assume jews aren’t conspiring, because whites don’t. Jews assume whites are conspiring, because they do. #loxism

Picture source: Is Orange County professor Kevin MacDonald ‘the most dangerous living anti-Semite?, in which the jewish interviewer/author exhibits his entirely jew-centric views and many other of the jewish personality traits MacDonald has described.

LA-as-Buckminster-Fuller

Assessing Auster (with Kevin MacDonald and Carolyn Yeager)

Kevin MacDonald’s assessment of Auster, Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America, in a nutshell:

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

This is true, but too charitable. Auster often writes about “whites”, seemingly sympathetically. His overriding concern, however, is for the jews. Auster has called out jews, but only to deliver a proverbial slap on the wrist. He ultimately excuses jews of any real wrong-doing vis-a-vis Whites. He faults jews mainly for not doing what’s he thinks best for themselves. He accompanies most of these critiques with far more venomous words aimed at White “anti-semites”.

Auster frequently distinguishes jews from Whites, and invariably puts jewish interests first. At the same time he condemns Whites who distinguish Whites from jews, even those who only unconsciously or inadvertently put other interests ahead of those of jews. Auster’s critiques of jews are innoculative. He offers strong-sounding but fundamentally weak arguments that could be made more forcefully, especially if made from the point of view of Whites. His efforts are preemptive and proscriptive, the effect if not intent being to discount and discredit a truly pro-White position. He has regularly incited “the majority” to “assert itself”. Meanwhile he attacks even the most mild-mannered White opposition in which he detects a whiff of “anti-semitism”.

As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.”

Auster’s analysis of others can often be mapped onto himself or jews in general. For example, Auster does not regard Whites as his people. In effect, he sees only “whites”, deliberately conflating jews and Whites, similarly to how he says Podhoretz sees “America”. Jewish rhetoric is often aimed at a broader collective, at least until they feel the specific needs of jews are better served by speaking more directly in terms of jews.

As I noted in Auster’s Personal Announcement, he has never forgotten who his people are. The First Law of Jewish Influence demonstrates how shallow his big ideas are and how transparent his dissembling is.

MacDonald contrasts Auster with Alan Dershowitz, noting:

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America.

The key difference is that jews like Auster are able to see the situation from the perspecitve of those they condemn. They may wander farther afield, but they remain part of the jewish whole and play their own part in its fight against “anti-semitism”. Whereas mainstream jews like Dershowitz openly identify themselves as jewish warriors, jews like Auster insinuate themselves among us, dissembling and dissimulating, posturing in ways that fool some Whites, at least for a while.

I’ll be appearing with Kevin MacDonald on Carolyn Yeager’s Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager tomorrow at 2PM ET to discuss Auster. Join us then.

UPDATE 16 Mar 2013: the White network – MacDonald and Tanstaafl on Auster and Jewish Influence (mp3)

CofC-2

Criticism of The Culture of Critique

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career (original emphasis):

When I started reading Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, I didn’t quite know what I was getting into. John Derbyshire was warned about people who get “the Jew thing”, and as I mentioned in Who’s Afraid of Kevin MacDonald? his own review of MacDonald’s work more or less pretends that the last 40 years of major Jewish influence on conservative politics never happened. It’s one thing to find this influence an overall positive thing, but to forget to mention that it happened strikes one as careless, especially when reviewing a work that discusses just this influence.

If conservatives are not introspective it follows that they are not closely focused on the permutations of conservatism that go beyond policy debate, including the permutations that lead to conservatism’s dark side. This dark side includes a tendency towards authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and paranoia. Liberalism has its extremism, conservatism has its dark side. It would be naive to fail to acknowledge this dark side when approaching controversial work like MacDonald’s. Unlike Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve, The Culture of Critique is not anchored in decades of irrefutable science, it is a more at a theory that attempts to explain Jewish dominance in Western academia, politics, and business. Moreover it is a theory tied to an already controversial idea, that ethnic groups can have an unconscious or subconscious group evolutionary strategy which benefits not merely the individual but the group itself. This goes beyond the normal attachment one feels for one’s nationality or ethnicity, and suggests that genetics and culture can interact in such a way that the result is justifiably called an evolutionary strategy.

But more than that, MacDonald’s scholarship is in what contemporary culture defines as forbidden territory. It must stand in the shadow of a malevolent lunatic fringe that has always followed conservative thought–a fringe that finds Jewish (and other) conspiracies everywhere, lives in fear of sinister forces, and rages impotently about everything it sees as a potential threat. There is no way to approach the question of Jewish influence without both conjuring this fringe and finding oneself accused of sympathy with it.

In my view, MacDonald’s incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups deserves attention, particularly with regard to the ongoing transformation of American political life from a culture formed and guided by Northern Europeans to one that is approaching complete ethnic pluralism. I think it is likely that Jewish culture, as it has been shaped over the millenia, has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is driven by evolutionary forces is beside the point–it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

My initial goal here is to summarize MacDonald’s arguments and evidence, by chapter. This post is an introduction, and subsequent posts will take the chapters in sequence.

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, “When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews.” Get ready to talk about the Jews.

MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn’t exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould’s views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.

Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America’s Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould’s response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould’s worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was “ephemeral”.) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould’s book.

Gould further claimed that the 1924 immigration law was in some sense responsible for the deaths of Jews unable to emigrate from German-held territories before World War II, a hyperbolic and frankly hysterical conclusion that has become typical of Jewish anti-intellectualism. This rhetorical behavior is readily found in much Jewish political output, and MacDonald catalogues the varieties of it found in Gould’s work, including use of denigrating labels, oversimplified straw men, gilded writing, and perhaps the most popular technique, claiming moral superiority over one’s debate opponents. Nevertheless, Gould maintains a high level of posthumous prestige.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 2:

A response to The Culture of Critique

I was going to canvass some of the responses to MacDonald’s book, but why not just quote from the SLPC’s considered, measured review:

SPLC:

Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald, who also is a board member of the white supremacist Charles Martel Society, published a trilogy that supposedly “proves” that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups. After the publication of a 2007 Intelligence Report exposé detailing MacDonald’s anti-Semitism, his teaching duties were reduced and many of his colleagues publicly condemned his racist research.

This is, as you have seen in my summary of MacDonald’s book, wholly malicious, tendentious, and dishonest. But we expect nothing less from the SPLC, a Jewish dominated organization that carefully manages its Wikipedia page to remove any hint of criticism. The SPLC is fixated on white supremacist groups but has of late broadened its scope to include any right-wing rhetoric that is more arousing than David Brooks after a bong hit. It doesn’t have any serious charter to pursue hatred as such, or else it would have to monitor itself for its flamboyant belligerance and crude bullying and coercion.

It may as well be said that this type of aggressive, moralistic posturing is a signature of Jewish rhetoric. It has such a long tradition that it must be recognized by everyone today as the sort of thing Jews often do–it is a hallmark, for example, of arguments in favor of Israel’s right to do everything, and was used extensively by neocons to justify the Iraq War.

This manner of argument is in keeping with Judaism’s aggressive competitive tendencies, high Jewish IQ, and legalistic morality. I add the last item because legalistic moral systems must of necessity be rigid. They are based on the idea that goodness is not arrived at by communal judgement (favored in altruistic societies), but by command of authority–and here the difference with Christianity could not be more striking. As I have noted in another context, much of the behavior we see today is premised on the notion that what is legally permissable is morally permissable–a statement very pregnant with meaning, and very much an inheritance from Jewish thinking, whether we realize it or not.

And what about The Culture of Critique? MacDonald chose his title well–Jewish culture is very tied up in the idea that argument, even tendentious argument, is good. I am not sure I follow him in his belief that Jewish behavior is an evolutionary adaptation–but let me qualify this. The idea of group evolutionary behavior remains controversial. There is some question as to how it operates through natural selection; I am not expert enough to present either side of this question. But then I suspect that the interaction between culture and natural selection is rather murky and difficult to quantify, much as most mixed nature-nurture traits are.

It is quite possible that characteristic Jewish culture was formed by happenstance–that is, it was shaped by the unique series of events and struggles it found itself in due to its place and time of origin and adjacent cultures. As a firm believer in the role that randomness plays in all life, I am not convinced that an explanation of cultural thinking must be any less arbitrary than this.

This remains an academic question because we can never develop a rigorous and falsifiable theory–we are left to believe what we will. But however it came to be, Jewish culture as it is today is a compelling force that has dramatically changed Western culture.

Perhaps a more interesting line of argument is that Jewish culture is a byproduct of high IQ. The pursuit of pluralism, for example, can be seen as Jewish defensiveness given its competitive nature–but it is also the mark of high IQ novelty seekers. Similarly, many of the ideological movements that MacDonald surveys had little trouble attracting gentiles of a certain type, however dominated their upper ranks may have been by Jews. And by “certain type” I am referring to the cognitive elite–the class of person who is readily won over to abstract theories and is disdainful of traditional practices. That Jews dominate may have less to do with Jewish culture and more to do with Jewish IQ. One omission MacDonald makes is in comparing Jewish achievement and wealth without controlling for IQ.

However this book is an impressive survey of Jewish involvement in the great changes of the 20th century. Wherever one comes down on this subject, it deserves better than the SPLC’s malicious and disingenuous treatment, or the cool oblviousness of most of the rest of Western society. It opens the door to many fascinating questions, not only to Jewish culture but to the whole nature of Western civlization and its potential downfall, to the study of group interaction, to the contrast between impermeable and assimilationist societies. It is a serious and manifestly well-intentioned academic work.

And for that reason, the reception of MacDonald’s work should be considered scandalous. We do not live in a freely thinking society if this careful and conscientious exploration of group behavior is beyond the pale. But then, looking around, one can readily see that we in fact live in a society governed by frivolity, snark, and clownishness–clownishness much like the SPLC’s ridiculous summary of MacDonald’s study of Jewish culture. Such is our intellectual world.

I do not agree with MacDonald that ethnic separatism offers European-derived culture anything more than devolution. I think ethnic separatism within a diverse nation will alter what we think of as Western culture and turn it into something no better than the self-interested ethnic enclaves that have exploited it. Universalism is simply a hallmark of the West; if it loses this trait, it loses itself.

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 3:

It’s sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.

Kevin MacDonald:

I do think that the social tensions resulting from this assault on our people and culture will eventually get to the point that there will perforce be an audience for my work. It may seem odd to phrase it this way, but in a real sense all of us writing from a pro-White, pro-European perspective should be desperately trying to break through into the wider culture — to become famous and respected. If it doesn’t happen for any of us, then we have surely lost.

Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

http://www.wermodand…0220110000.html

The treatment of MacDonald shows the ugliest side of Jewish culture, particularly because the venue is academia. For me it is a reason I can never feel sympathetic toward Jewish concerns or Jewish claims of injustice; their culture is very hospitable to injustice and quite glibly so.