Jewish success has depended on the evolution of a highly intelligent group of people using eugenics

Eugenics is a rather easy endeavor, one that has been used by farmers and breeders for thousands of years, without understanding the genetic principles involved. And nations likewise have been concerned about the quality of the gene pool, without understanding what mechanisms were responsible. Only in the last fifty years, because of propaganda and the Holocaust, have we turned our backs on what has been evident to most people for thousands of years - if one group reproduces faster than another, then the genetic capital or quality of the average citizen will change. And typically, wealth along with birth control, have led to mechanisms for dysgenic family practices to occur - the elite stop having as many children as the underclass.

In Dr. Kevin MacDonald's first book in 1994, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy as  part of the Seymour W. Itzkoff series on Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence - he discusses how Jewish eugenic practices led to the increase in intelligence of Western Jews to a level far above the average of the people they lived among. Jews average IQ is now 117 versus an average of 103 for Caucasians. His book details how this came about, using a selection process for intelligence that included not allowing outsiders to become Jews, while encouraging the less intelligent Jews to defect. So we know from this model that eugenics works and it is very beneficial for those who practice it. The problem is, the structure of Western culture is highly dysgenic for non-Jews and will remain that way until we can change the way we behave in the context of new economic and cultural realities.  That subject is addressed in his third book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. In this book he predicts that Western culture will revolt against multiculturalism and return to a more ethnocentric nationalism similar to the events that led up to the Holocaust.

This first article of three will deal with the realities of doing that, and I will use Kevin MacDonald's second book, released in 1998 in the series, to frame my arguments. The book, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, deals with the Jewish collectivist culture and how it forced other groups to take up racialist programs to compete for reproductive success and/or to counter the economic success of Judaism. MacDonald states, "The basic thesis of this book can be summarized by the proposition that Judaism must be conceptualized as a group strategy characterized by cultural and genetic segregation from gentile societies combined with resource competition and conflicts of interest with segments of gentile societies. This cultural and genetic separatism combined with resource competition and other conflicts of interest tend to result in division and hatred within the society." If we are to improve our genetic capital, we must understand human nature and the varying forms of cultural and political constructs that will lead us in the right direction.  Armed with evolutionary theory, we can go beyond transcendental utopias and rely on reasonable expectations of human behavior to put in place a practical eugenics policy based on empirical evidence, and not on religious or socialist dogma or one leading to violent clashes between competing groups.

At the very foundation of Jewish culture is the social cohesiveness achieved by a high level of ethnocentrism. And there are two parts to this phenomena - one is a naturally inherent trait and the other is a reaction to external threats, whether perceived or real. That is, social identity theory dictates that ethnocentrism will not kick-in as a flexible strategizer if the state is homogeneous, such as Japan, and earlier England and France during the Enlightenment. Then there is the innateness of ethnocentrism, the tendency for one population group to be orientated towards ingroup/outgroup conflicts. In a study conducted to measure ingroup bias, the Jews had the highest bias towards their own ethnic group, while white Anglo-Saxon Protestants had the least, with Asians, Italians, other Europeans, and blacks somewhere in-between. This ethnocentric bias is more prevalent in the more Eastern Muslim and Jewish cultures where authoritarianism/collectivist cultures with pronounced social status differences, practices of concubinage, etc. evolved due to the large number of people competing for the same land. At the same time, the more northern cultures evolved with people spaced much farther apart, with selection for innate tendencies towards individualism, assimilationist, and universalist traits. Ingroup/outgroup conflicts were less advantageous and cooperation between widely separated pockets of people inhabiting a hostile environment in the northern climates, selected against xenophobia and collectivism.

So Judaism has been an evolutionary strategy that has been highly cohesive by selecting for ethnocentrism. Jews who were lacking this trait, just like Jews who lacked high intelligence, were far more likely to defect from the group. Over thousands of years then, this secular religion based on concerns for racial purity has been able to hold the group together in the face of surrounding hostility, in fact using the hostility to fight even harder for supremacy in intellect and wealth. Judaism has always been deeply concerned with maintaining racial purity, with an unbending faith that it was the reason they were superior in intelligence and in morality. Erecting barriers to genetic penetration, while living among those without racial concerns, benefited the eugenic practices and solidified the group's subservience to principles that would cause repeated hostility from others.

LEADING UP TO THE 4th CENTURY ROMAN EMPIRE is the first of three principle events that MacDonald covers that were movements of anti-Semitism. During this time the empire was made up of numerous ethnic groups, languages and religions. Within this primarily Western universalist society was the Eastern concepts of separation practiced by the Jews. The walls of separation had been erected by the Jewish community much earlier, but their 1st and 2nd Century rebellions had greatly diminished their numbers and Jewish threat to the Empire. However, this was the ideal environment for the Jewish evolutionary strategy as a collectivist group. By the 3rd and 4th Centuries, their numbers had grown rapidly to approximately 10% in the Empire, and as high as 20% of the population in the Eastern Empire. Resource competition with the rest of society, along with universal education and a collectivist and materialist culture that valued obtaining wealth above all else, the Jewish culture flourished as the non-Jewish and ethnically diverse culture slid into poverty. During this time, abortion and exposure were common means of infanticide and the lower classes routinely had to kill their young to stay alive, while the much wealthier Jewish community grew bolder in numbers and wealth. Resource competition then set the stage for an anti-Semitic movement - the Christian church.

The Jews were perceived as a racialist group, one that was obsessed with purity of blood rather than with religion, and one that hated all other groups. It was easy to understand why Jews would see themselves as superior -  with a high intellect and universal education. And the people they lived amongst must have seemed to be of a lower species altogether. This separation however was resented, and intellectuals at the time were solidifying around anti-Semitism as a state religion to oppose the success of the Jewish minority in their midst. The recurring theme predicted by social identity theory was being played out as Emperor Constantine declared that Christianity was the state religion, and the Roman Empire split along Jewish and non-Jewish peoples, and separation was now being enforced by both sides. The new corporate Catholic church was put in place to erect walls likewise against the Jews, as the Jews had erected walls against gentiles, a theme that was to play out again and again. This state religion was not driven by theological concerns, but by a need to formulate a strategy against the Jewish minority and its increasing wealth. The bitterness and resentment against Jews created a new collectivist and authoritarian church, one that was quick to elevate to sainthood those most anti-Semitic. There was no attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. Instead, the Jews were accused of practicing a highly ritualized religion of exclusion and racialism without any real moral content.

So at the very beginning of Western Christendom, we see the formation of a hegemonic ideology, one created from intergroup rivalry that was to exacerbate the dysgenic tendencies already well underway in the old Roman Empire. MacDonald writes, "Moreover, a consistent thread of Christian theology was to berate the Jews for interpreting the Old Testament literally; i.e. 'in a fleshly and bodily sense', referring to the Jewish concern with genealogy and the many promises of reproductive success and worldly riches. For Eusebius, Judaism had strong racial/ethnic overtones and erroneously interpreted its sacred writings as mandating reproductive success, control of resources, and emphasizing genetic relatedness. Christianity is the opposite: a universal religion for all humanity, a religion that glorifies spiritual accomplishments and celibacy rather than evolutionary goals so central to Judaism." So while Judaism continued to practice its form of eugenics, those around them put in place the mechanisms for capitulating to them reproductive success for a chance at capturing the spiritual. Is this what Nietzsche is so angered about, that Christianity was the establishment of the master and slave mentality? Though he doesn't state it directly, he must have been aware of the dysgenics of Christianity, and the desire to return to Greek civilization, the last time that other cultures besides Judaism had the vitality he envisioned necessary to carry man forward rather than being held back in despair.

DURING THE MIDDLE AGES a major anti-Semitic revival took place, primarily in the 12th and 13th centuries. The church remained the guardian of separation, keeping the Jews in a position of servitude, and exclusion from economic and political influence. In England, France and Spain the church was instrumental in the expulsion of Jews. The mendicant friars promoted the concept that the Jews were no longer necessary as a testimonial to Christianity but in fact had become a heretical religion. The acceptance of the Old Testament as being a common book to both religions was being replaced by the knowledge that the Jewish Talmud was now the religious book of choice for Jews, with its racist and anti-gentile doctrines. The Jews were increasingly portrayed as malevolent and separatist, and the collectivist church needed to protect itself from the Jewish menace. Church power over secular affairs at this time was at its zenith, and the corporate Christian economic community was attempting to push the Jews out of competing occupations. The highly collectivist and exclusionary medieval Christian society was seen as an organic unit, similar to Jewish collectivism, permeating all aspects of culture and commerce. The group was paramount, and individualism was repressed. Also, during this time, the mendicant friars were primarily from the affluent classes and adopted a monastic and ascetic lifestyle including celibacy. So as the Jews were practicing eugenics, [again] Christianity was inadvertently promoting dysgenic policy - the best and brightest were not have children.

The Iberian Inquisition was an especially violent response to Jewish racialist policy. In 1391 the Jewish community was forcibly converted to Christianity, with the result that everyone was now a Christian - the wall of separation between Jews and gentiles was removed with the result that the highly intelligent and cohesive Jews quickly moved into positions of political and economic power, as well as reproductive success. But while technically now Christian, the Conversos or cryptic-Jews continued a policy of racial purity and refused to assimilate, even though they were outwardly at least practicing Christians. Especially poignant was their continued practice of first-cousin marriages and uncle-niece marriages, an anathema to Catholicism. So again, the subsequent Inquisition became a mirror image of Jewish racial exclusionism, as the Old Christians put up new barriers to Jews based on purity of blood. The Inquisition in actuality had become a racist doctrine, in response to Jewish racism and the failed attempt at assimilation of the Jews, assuring that Old Christians were without the taint of Jewish blood. The refusal of Jews to intermarry ultimately caused the Catholic community to become obsessed with racial purity, as the church set about persecuting Jews who it felt were not sincere Christians. And again, many upper-class Old Christians with Jewish blood often remained celibate rather than pass on their taint, again causing a dysgenic breeding pattern for the Christians while the Jewish community continued its highly successful eugenic breeding program in tact.

THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST'S anti-Semitism is the most difficult to unravel due to the many forces and political philosophies that finally emerged in Nazi Germany. Socialism, nationalism and ultimately militarism are all intermingled - and universal dismissal of the Nazis has made their movement more a spectacle than a historical event. But a similar pattern emerges. With a large population of Jews, in 1850 they were emancipated with the understanding that they would assimilate and become true Germans, not a nation within a nation. But similar to the emancipation in Spain after the forced conversions, the decades that followed saw the Jews using their new freedoms not to assimilate, but to continue to maintain their racial purity while dominating the German economy and culture. Again, a small but highly cohesive, cooperative, and highly intelligent Jewish community, living within a Christian culture, was able to amass a great deal of wealth and prosper, to the envy of German peasants and intellectuals alike. But along with this emancipation and subsequent domination of German culture arose an intellectual debate concerning racial purity, Judaism and the German people, leading to the intellectual foundation for the emergence of National Socialism. There would be no Nazis had it not been for the racialism of the Jews.

Over the next 70 years, National Socialism emerged as a mirror image of Judaism. A movement primarily arising in Catholic Munich, it was based on anti-Semitism, the organization of a workers' socialism based on trades or professions and it embodied many of the ideals of Judaism. Individualism was rejected for a highly cohesive and organic national identity, where everyone had an opportunity to improve themselves, not unlike socialism. However, these socialists also were anti-Semitic and were therefore violently opposed to the internationalist Soviet Bolsheviks who were dominated by Jews. The German socialists, because of Jewish separatism, had adopted socialism with an ingroup/outgroup delineation rather than one of internationalism. This was an ideology of egalitarianism only for the German people. So National Socialism strove for racial nationalism and a cohesive collectivist culture with tight controls on its members  -  just like Judaism. It indoctrinated the group in selfless behavior, outgroup hostility, and rejected individualism  -  just like Judaism. It emphasized the organic unity of the state and rejected the universalism of Christianity, similar to Jewish secularism. It practiced eugenics to improve racial qualities  -  just like Judaism. It inculcated loyalty irrespective of consequences and strong family values and moral principles  -  just like Judaism.

 In almost every way, it was the mirror image of Judaism. It was the antithesis of liberalism, and rejected extending altruism to anyone outside of the German people. It had become a new Judaism, but without the time needed to breed a highly intelligent German population that could go into other cultures themselves and dominate like the Jews had successfully done. It was bent on domination by military force alone. It is probably fair to say that even in the practice of genocide, they were merely a couple of thousand years behind the Jews in slaughtering enemies based on their race alone. National Socialism had taken a page out of the book of Judaism, but did not allow the thousands of years it had taken Judaism to breed the highly ethnocentric and intelligent qualities needed to become a dominant international force. The Nazis had not understood completely the need for a substantial genetic change in the make-up of their people, dictating all Germans to multiply, rather than only those cognitively gifted. The eugenics movement in Germany was poorly understood and doomed to failure thanks to the short time available and their half-hearted commitment to its basic tenets. They practiced negative eugenics, while the Jews had practiced positive eugenics for thousands of years. The Germans would be no match against international Jewry and the resultant war that would result, where the only winner was Soviet Bolshevism. The slaughter of people would continue, but they however would not be only Jews in Stalin's concentration camps - a total of over 60 million Soviet citizens would die.

The Holocaust had become the new secular religion for the Jews to maintain separatism. As MacDonald says, "Recently, the Holocaust has assumed a preeminent role in this self-conceptualization. A 1991 survey found that 85 percent of American Jews reported that the Holocaust was 'very important' to their sense of being Jewish  -  a figure higher than the percentage who attribute a similar importance to God, the Torah, or the state of Israel (Abrams 1996). Jewish leaders have attempted with great success to use awareness of the Holocaust to intensify Jewish commitment, to the point that the Holocaust rather than religion has become the main focus of modern Jewish identity [and racial purity] and the principal legitimator of Israel (Wolffsohn). Within Israel the Holocaust acts as a sort of social glue, which helps to integrate the various social classes, ethnic groups, and generations into a cohesive society. As Holocaust historian Zygmunt Bauman notes, Israel uses the Holocaust 'as the certificate of its political legitimacy, as safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and, above all, for advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit' (Stannard)."

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM to any secular eugenics' movement is simply this, it shows us that as flexible strategizers, population groups that would not normally be inclined towards ethnocentrism and collectivism can do so under ecological conditions, and especially when ethnic rivalry is present, as we are seeing in Bosnia and in the break-up of the Soviet Union today. The Jewish model of separatism has resulted in a small group of people (2.5 % in the U.S.), who have been traditionally discriminated against, being able to rise above the dominant culture and control it, both monetarily and culturally. As noted by MacDonald, "Moreover, Judaism, because it is characterized by high intelligence and resource acquisition ability, has produced ethnic warfare virtually wherever Jews have lived. But by retaining the view of themselves as the morally pure outsider arrayed against a pathologically anti-Semitic gentile society, Jews are able to simultaneously pursue their own ethnic interests and conceptualize their opponents as morally depraved (and also, as Weiss notes, as 'dimwitted'). Self-deception is very useful in this warfare, because it essentially allows Jewish leaders to deny the reality of Jewish wealth and political and cultural influence."

I personally feel that being duped is insufferable. And that as the carrier of my own ethnicity's genes, it is important to climb to a higher level of intelligence so that my people will never be duped by any other group or ideology again, as we have been duped by liberalism and universal egalitarianism. But who are my people and what is the struggle that I desire to give meaning to life? For me, and for anyone who understands the concepts of evolution and self-organization, it is simply to be able to leave my population group, however defined, with genes that are environmentally sound, that is  -  more intelligent. Ignoring any other trait for the near future, in deference to the one trait that stands out as being the most important, intelligence is the one factor we should be trying to improve. But how?

BY PURSUING THE COLLECTIVE GOOD, as has been demonstrated by Jewish eugenics, the first step is to commit totally to a program of improving the intelligence of those who come after us, as our representatives for the future. Life is all about reproductive success, but it can be easily destroyed when care is not given to what genes are being passed on. If we continue, as an ethnic nation, to allow the less endowed to breed faster than the better equipped, then the group as a whole will eventually parish. As a group, it must be recognized that just as warfare has been determined not to be civilized under the present conditions (as well as dysgenic), we must now recognize that reproductive freedom without regards to the genes one is passing on is no longer acceptable. No one has the right to knowingly produce off-spring that will eventually represent the nation as a subjugated people, under the domination of other more intelligent people, leading to enslavement that no one likes to ponder or would want to bequeath to those who will come after us.

Simply put, this means that as a collective group we prize and give recognition to those who were lucky enough to be endowed with intelligent genes, while others are willing to forego personal reproduction. In the jargon of evolutionary theory this is called inclusive fitness, and allows for a great deal of altruism within the group. By recognizing first that genes matter, we can impose upon ourselves the collective awareness of who should be breeding and who should be abstaining with the knowledge that the children, generation after generation, will be far better off than when the less intelligent are breeding for the simple purpose of having children as a substitute for a more intellectual and meaningful life. Just as the Catholic church encouraged ascetic behavior for the worship of a god, by denying priests and nuns not only reproduction but human sexually intimacy, is it not far more humane and reasonable to ask one only to abstain from passing on their genes for the good of the group, while not restricting in any way sexual indulgence or the pleasure of communally helping others to raise intelligent children.

A secular eugenics religion then worships the human body as a carrier of the sacred genes, or in Richard Dawkin's perspective the "selfish-genes." Instead of seeing our bodies as created by god for her selfish pleasure, we must see our bodies as temporary capsules that contain the precious genetic code that makes us what we are  -  and allows us to determine our own destiny. For humans to ignore this opportunity to rise above petty warfare, resource competition, and ethnic hatred in favor of nurturing a more adaptable and highly intelligent future people is to ignore the one trait that makes us different from all other species. We alone understand at an early age that we are mortal and will someday die. This angst is what makes us both suffer and cling to reaffirming ideologies that can sustain us and give us purpose the short time we are here, for it is the selfish genes themselves that have over eons of time adapted our bodies to hang onto life at any cost. And the only time we are willing to bravely give up this life is through our tribal instincts to die for the group in an effort to preserve our own genes through our immediate relatives (i.e. inclusive fitness). Then is it too much to ask of any one individual, to forego reproduction in favor of the collective good? Not if the collective becomes the purpose and support structure for everyone. That is, the entire nation or group takes pride in the collective enrichment and indoctrination of those children who will pass on to their children the dream of an ever evolving gene pool of scholars instead of beggars.

As part of the bargain then, everyone must participate in the exultation of success when highly intelligent children are nurtured and are added to the group. This means an end to selfish individualism and the hedonistic pursuit of materialism in favor of a more reflective and purposeful life. This does not mean a commitment to poverty, but only the recognition that if there is to be more to life than the pursuit of wealth accumulation followed by death, that caring for the future generations can have a great deal of meaning and purpose that can replace mindless reproduction. When I look around at my own people or culture, unaware of any purpose or goals other than the present consumption of goods and services, unwilling to discuss any topic beyond cursory comments and nihilistic acceptance, it becomes evident that their lives are hollow. In contrast, the Jewish community, though still obsessed with material acquisition, has far more members able to transcend temporal issues to look into the future and reflect on what has passed and what is to come, and how it can be directed through personal intervention. The collective is a powerful tool that we need to embrace again to advacne our group in the face increasing attack from other groups.

There are three primary ways that eugenics can be brought about. First, in an individualist society as we have in the United States, those with the resources and the foresight will be able to enhance the genetic viability of their own children with the aid of reproductive science (if it is not restricted by the government). But this will not solve the problem of the dysgenic trend of the nation as a whole. If a select group moves up and away from the masses, and as they isolate themselves from any responsibility for the plight of the dimwitted, speciation may actually begin to take place. Now, with universal education, the intelligent are selecting each other as never before, leaving the less intelligent to breed separately. In the past, there was a lot more mixing of intelligence levels because many people were unaware of the other's true intelligence (except Jews who have had universal education for thousands of years, and have increased their average intelligence as a result). This type of eugenics will further stratify society, as it flattens the bell curve and alienates groups. One only has to reflect on the poor prognosis for blacks with an average IQ of 85 - already in dire straights, to find meaning and purpose in a technological age.

Second, eugenics could be part of government policy, giving incentives to those with higher intelligence to have children, while prohibiting those that cannot care for children from having them. This would not be as difficult as many people think politically, but it is almost impossible in a multicultural society. The government would be forced to highly favor Jews over others, and would have to restrict reproduction by most blacks. This would be unacceptable in a democracy. But Japan, China, and a few other homogeneous states could follow such a policy if they so desired. Which means that in the future, ethnically diverse societies will have little chance to take advantage of the new genetic tools capable of accelerating eugenics and rapidly increasing the average intelligence of the nation. What if China had allowed only couples who both had an IQ above 105 have as many children as they wanted, while the rest could have none? The average increase in IQ would be phenomenal in just a few generations.

Third, we could follow the Jewish model, but accelerating it through sacrifice and determination to speed up the process. We have a lot of catching up to do with an average IQ of 103 versus the average Jewish IQ of 117. That is, since the Jews are a closed racialist group, other groups need to form their own competing eugenics collectives to improve intelligence. I see this third option as one of awareness and cooperation. Competitiveness can lead to hatred or to giving purpose. It seems rather than trying to exterminate the Jews because of their intelligence and racial purity, Eurasians should adopt many of the same techniques of genetic enhancement. That is, voluntary collectives of people that owe their allegiance to their people and not to any particular state, working in cooperation with the singular goal of enhancing the cognitive resources of their future generations. This is the peaceful way of using the Jewish/National Socialist model of eugenic practices that can compete in academia rather than on the streets in hateful rivalry and violence. If the Jews are morally and intellectually superior to the Christian West as they claim, we have only ourselves to blame for being in ignorance for so long. We no longer have that excuse. Behavior genetics and evolutionary science have provided us with a means to improve our lot in life through the success of our children, and our children's children.

The ongoing clash between the socialist-egalitarian left and the bible-thumping right must be replaced with an understanding of human nature that is based on science and not utopian dreams of a classless society or of returning to a more idyllic world that never was. By adopting Wilson's concept of consilience, where natural science and social science come together to understand in an empirical way how evolution has equipped us to deal with each other in differing environments, we can begin to build social structures that will improve the future with a population that is less stratified in differing intelligences, and one that is more peaceful due to less resentment between competing groups for access to wealth and resources. The bell curve of intelligence must be increased overall, with far fewer people at the lower tail where they are left behind in those very things that makes one a productive citizen, able to work, contribute, vote intelligently, and take responsibility for your personal behavior.

Most importantly, we must be able to understand social identity theory with its inherent conflicts between groups and what it will mean if the United States continues to become a more diverse society, and not allowing enough time for immigrants to truly assimilate genetically and culturally. All indications are that resource competition and disparities in intelligence and conscientiousness between groups will turn what once was one nation into a collective of independent groups, some dominating different parts of the Country, and passing particularistic laws to the detriment of other groups. We can see these same ethnic conflicts in every free country where different ethnic groups are not equally endowed with intelligence.

IN POLITICAL LIBERALISM John Rawls again attempts to formulate the idea of justice as fairness he presented in A Theory of Justice. And again he has ignored both history and human nature in trying to bring forth an egalitarian formulation for the structure of society. I'll just comment on some of the most glaring omissions with respect to evolution and social identity theory. Rawls asks " Thus, the second question is what are the grounds of toleration so understood and given the fact of reasonable pluralism as the inevitable outcome of free institutions? Combining both questions we have: how is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?" Here, and throughout the text Rawls believes that religious, philosophical and moral doctrines are the forces that divide people. If that were true, then under a totalitarian government it should be possible to bring the forces of indoctrination into play to make people accept the same concepts and to bring forth his perceived justice as fairness. But as we have seen, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, people when given the chance will split apart and take up battle for land and resources when given the chance. What Rawls is ignoring is the differences that are not only philosophical, but differences in innate intelligence and behavioral traits. As numerous studies have shown, intelligence is the primary indicator of one's well being in a society, especially a homogeneous one where one group's intelligence and wealth is not the envy of those with less intelligence (the personality trait of conscientiousness is second to intelligence). In the United States we see this animosity playing out, as the blacks with the lowest IQ attacking and hating those Eastern Asians and Jews with the highest IQs. And this condition is repeated in numerous ways in other countries where recognizable groups are innately more intelligent than others: most recently in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Africa, and India. Ethnic conflicts arise when people differ in intelligence and in outward appearance.

To make matters worse, Rawls wants to accelerate the dysgenic forces in modern liberal democracies by dumbing-down success. He states, "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society." Why? Nature has never given more to the least fit, to reproduce faster than the fit! Is there any reason for such an egalitarian stance? Just one according to Rawls, he perceives all differences between people as facts of circumstances outside of their genetic make-up, a position one could only hold by being completely ignorant of behavior genetics and evolutionary principles. Perhaps this is the real veil of ignorance he finds necessary for his perfect world, the ignorance of human nature.

Rawls believes that inequalities are the result of inequalities from the past, not just the present. He states, "To this end, we assume that a state of nature once existed in which there was relative abundance and  -  the actual configuration of people's holdings raised no moral questions." And later, "If one starts from a state of nature in which the existing array of holdings is just, and if everyone always acts subsequently in accordance with justice in acquisition and transfer, then all later configurations, are likewise said to be just." And again, "But in addition, fairness depends on underlying social conditions, such as fair opportunity, extending backward in time and well beyond any limited view." Rawls fails to recognize that even in chimpanzee society, newborns are automatically given a higher or lower status in the troop depending on the status of the mother. That is, if born into a higher status family, the newborn is going to get more food, be less abused, be conditioned for success, and given all of those little head starts that Rawls finds so abhorrent in modern societies. But if we have learned anything, it is that the status received must be maintained through natural talents. The chimpanzee born to a higher ranking female will not be able to pass on that gift to future generations in violation of evolutionary principles. And likewise, as MacDonald has so eloquently revealed, the Jews in Western society when subjugated and then made free, always emerged dominant in wealth, power, prestige, and reproductive success. And likewise, wherever blacks have been given full and complete equal opportunity and then some, they have failed to prosper as a group. The population groups who do well in modern society, on average, are those who are more intelligent  -  period. We may find this unsettling and unfair, but nature has no time for such sentimentalities.

Using Judaism's model of eugenics to breed more intelligent citizens

The controversy about intelligence usually contrasts the white average IQ of 103 with the African American average IQ of 85. But why have these two groups become the criteria for analysis and discussion by the press?  It seems if we want to look at real differences we should compare the very highest average IQ, that of the Ashkenazi Jew (IQ 117), with the lowest IQ, that of the sub-Saharan Black (70). This disparity amounts to a standard deviation of greater than 3, which makes any argument that the difference can be made up by improving the environment of the lowest intelligent groups ludicrous.

In MacDonald's book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, the process of a group using eugenics to improve their IQ by 17 points above the average, and almost a standard deviation above the second highest group, Asians (IQ 105), is fully explained. Without a doubt, the high IQ of the (Ashkenazi specifically) Jews has been shown to be due to the way they have bred their group for selection of intelligence, along with other traits, including high-investment parenting. We should use this model, of the only group that has been able to use eugenics successfully for over 2,000 years to improve their genetic capital in intelligence, for developing a eugenics program for the 21st century. We need a more intelligent human to deal with a more sophisticated world. The place to start is to see when and how it has worked in the past.

How the Jews got so smart
MacDonald's book relies on numerous books and resources regarding the social structure and history of Judaism. What is clear is that from the very beginning of Judaism, intelligence was selected for by stressing universal education. In fact, until recently, Judaism is the only group strategy that stresses universal education and intellectualism that resulted in selective breeding for intelligence. In the Jewish culture, one could rise by ability alone. Though the Jews kept detailed records of family genealogy to assure the purity of a family's blood, mating also involved looking at the number of scholars a person had in their family and how intelligent a person was, based on the level of scholarship one could master regarding Jewish law.

MacDonald states, "Scholarly study became an important arena of natural selection for intelligence by serving as a vehicle of upward mobility within the Jewish community, as well as providing access to resources and reproductive success." He also adds, "This suggests [the stressing of education] that the Jewish response was self-consciously motivated by a need to develop an educated intelligentsia able to compete in the Greek world." So the Jews were the very first to put in place universal education along with rigorous testing of its people for achievement. This could be thought of as the very first implementation of a universal IQ test. To be accepted within the community one had to prove their intellectual abilities by being able to recite and debate Jewish law. MacDonald describes this process: "The incredible elaboration of Jewish law in these writings suggests that this mass of material is the result of intense intellectual competition within the Jewish community and that the resulting Torah then provided an arena for intellectual competition within the Jewish community." MacDonald also describes that this evolutionary strategy also selected for high-investment parenting, a necessary component in making sure that all the children were driven to the very highest levels of achievement, thus making sure that accomplishment was based on variation in intelligence, not on the vagaries of some family's dedication to learning. Everyone was in intense competition to show they were of the very brightest genetic stock. Young men by their scholarliness, and young girls by the success of their families and their pedigrees (how many scholars were in their family trees). These things determined who married who, what families would form alliances, and which Jews would be regarded as inferior.

Once this system of test-and-select was in place, it had to be followed by a eugenic means to increase the number of intelligent Jews or to discard the less intelligent. Judaism did both. Since Judaism is a non-proselytizing, closed group strategy, all that was required was to encourage the smart and successful to prosper and multiply by all means available, and to encourage the poor and obscure Jews to defect and become gentiles. It has been shown that the genes of Jewish communities shows that there was a significant difference between Jews and others. MacDonald states, "The most important conclusion is that the hypothesis of zero genetic differences between Jewish and gentile populations is, on the basis of the above data, essentially unthinkable." It is also fair to say that if the Jews had not pushed out Jews of low intelligence into the gentile gene pool, the differences genetically would have been even more profound - at least we were blessed with some unique Jewish genes that may have bee mutations available only to the Jews.  In essence then, the Jews selected for high intelligence, keeping and promoting the intelligent and allowing the less intelligent to become gentiles. MacDonald notes, "Indeed, they [Jews], are the only group that has successfully maintained genetic and cultural segregation while living in the midst of other peoples over an extremely long period of time." Select for the smartest, discard the least intelligent, and continue the process generation after generation. This is the same process used for breeding dogs, cattle, chickens, and anything else we want to change genetically to improve the worth of the product.

The exorcising of the least intelligent Jews to be discarded to the gentile gene pool is described by MacDonald: "There is some indication that at times the [Jewish] community regulation of marriage was motivated by a concern for an overpopulation of Jews." And later, ". . . it is a salient fact that throughout Jewish history there has been a tendency for the relatively poor and obscure to defect from Judaism, suggesting that within-group altruism is insufficient to overcome the pull of assimilation for these individuals." So the Jews encouraged the less intelligent to leave the community, an essential component of a group eugenic practice to increase the intelligence of those left behind. This, combined by rigid and difficult barriers against allowing anyone to become a Jew, allowed the group to keep the intelligent while discarding the stupid and at the same time preventing any contamination of the gene pool by outsiders (see MacDonald on the barriers against proselytizing). Even today in the United States, Jews of higher socioeconomic status and education marry other Jews more often than lower status Jews. Even now, the process of eugenic selection for intelligence is occurring and may be actually accelerating as lower status Jews are more socially integrated with gentiles (MacDonald 29).

Why their high intelligence has to be genetic and not environmental

First, to understand how the high intelligence of Jews is fixed in their genetic make-up, we need to look at the data of what and how their unique intelligence is constituted. Almost any definable group has differences in intelligence, including gender differences. But the disparity in Jewish intelligence is truly profound. First, because of the form of the test-and-select process, whereby memorization and interpretation of Jewish law was used for thousands of years to determine the most scholarly of the Jews, verbal IQ is an astonishing 127 average among Ashkenazi Jews. MacDonald summarizes available data: "Research on psychometric intelligence clearly shows that there is a strong general component to intelligence (Spearman's g factor). Being able to master this vast mass of writings [Jewish law] is thus an excellent indication of a high level of general intelligence, and, as indicated below, especially verbal IQ."

Because of the specific form of breeding used by Jews to select for intelligence, their average intelligence is estimated to be 117, but their verbal IQ is a phenomenal average of 125, while their performance IQ is closer to the average of 103. Note the great imbalance between the two IQs that for other groups are much closer together. This is due to the extreme selection pressure for verbal intelligence over performance intelligence tasks in the Jewish community over the past several thousand years.

But why couldn't this be due to training and environment - the high-investment parenting of the Jewish family? No doubt this has been the reasoning used by those who wish to deny genetics, what Tooby and Cosmides call the Standard Social Science Model.  But even under these false rationalizations, they are used more for justifying why some children in deprived environments do poorly, and seldom used to explain giftedness. So how can the environment increase the Jewish intelligence so dramatically when there is every indication that it is genetic, not environmental? Sandra Scarr has researched socialization theories versus behavior-genetic theories and states in the book Intelligence, Heredity and Environment, "A dispassionate reading of the Patterson group's report reveals that they tried very hard, with seven different models, to avoid the inference that higher-IQ parents have higher-achieving offspring, even among youths at risk for conduct disorder. The observation they ultimately could not avoid, and they included in just one of seven models, was that the highest correlate of youths' academic test scores was parental IQ (r=0.424). Home environments provided by low-average-IQ adoptive parents are nearly as advantageous for intellectual development as those provided by superior IQ adoptive parents. . . . Because between-family environmental effects have been shown over and over again to be quite small, social-class differences must be largely genetic and to some extent heritable."

In the same book, Arthur Jensen states, "To the extent that adult family members resemble each other in intelligence, they do so almost entirely because of their genetic similarity." Jensen goes on to discuss how over the past decade, we have discovered non-genetic variance that is not tied to the family environment. He states that, "The puzzle of non genetic variance is this: By late adolescence, the between-families (BF) environmental variance in IQ has diminished to near zero, and the only remaining source of non genetic variance is within families (WF). What, then, are the kinds of environmental effects that could be the source of the WF variance? This is a puzzling question, because psychologists have generally believed that the main environmental effects on IQ exist between-families as differences in the psychological-educational-socioeconomic-cultural environments."

What this means is simply, the family is not going to be responsible for increasing the intelligence of the individual, through psychological or educational means. Again, the high intelligence of the Jews is due primarily to selective genetic breeding for intelligence and has nothing to do with an environment of learning. Learning alone cannot be passed on from generation to generation, only the genes can do that by providing the potentiality for high achievement. Similarly, no matter how much one feeds and nourishes a child, if they do not have the genetic potentiality to grow to seven-foot tall, they will not make it, and no matter how many generations try to grow children to seven-feet tall, without selective breeding it will not be done (see the secular increase in IQ also by Jensen). And finally also in the same book, an article by Bouchard of the Minnesota Twins Study states, "We now know that unrelated individuals reared in the same home show no similarity whatsoever if their IQs are measured in adulthood." Again, raise a gentile in a Jewish family or vice versa and you will still have an average gentile and an exceptionally smart Jew- on average. The environment will not have any significant impact on IQ once adulthood has been reached and intelligence fully developed.

How we can use the Jewish eugenics model to increase our genetic capital

In fact we have already started. With universal education only becoming a realization in the last few decades, where everyone is encouraged to go onto college or trade schools, we are finally allowing each individual to display their level of innate intelligence. Along with this universal education, such other factors as delayed marriage, birth control, and stratification of intelligence being selected for at differing levels of prestigious universities and occupations, assortative mating is accelerating. The intelligent are increasingly marrying each other. If this trend continues, and as more and more people realize that the genetic quality of their mates will have much to do with the eventual intelligence of their children, more people will be careful about how intelligent their mates are. But the intelligence of the person one marries is not the full story.

If I want to select the very best mate for breeding intelligent children, I must also know how many of my mate's relatives are also intelligent or successful as a proxy for intelligence. Genes are a crap game, and I will do much better at selecting a mate with a high probability of carrying many smart genes to be passed onto our children, rather than picking a mate who just happens to be a lucky specimen of intelligence from a family of dullards. The more everyone that is related to my mating choice shows high intelligence, the more confident I can be that only the very best genes are present, those expressed and those laying in wait for future generations.

A final note about selection by intelligence. It is not only for breeding intelligent children that people self-sort by intelligence. Studies have shown that even at a very young age, children of like intelligence will tend to form groups. The smart run with the smart and the stupid with the stupid. It is not the compelling component for forming associations, but it is one of the most important traits, even more so than race or ethnicity. So it is quite natural for associations to be made along levels of intelligence or intelligent indicators proxies.

Promoting high intelligence for global competition


In a competitive global market, a nation relies on its very finest technicians and scientists to develop new products and services to stay competitive. But supplying the demand for a highly intelligent (gifted) people for the scientific and business communities is not as easy as just breeding the smartest through assortative mating. As Jensen states, "Geniuses rarely pass on their extraordinary emergenic gift. Like anyone else, they transmit but a random half of their genes to each of their offspring. That this random half will include the genius's particular rare combination of genes is very unlikely. Hardly anyone questions the conclusion that the extraordinary achievements of genius exemplify both emergenesis and genetic-environment correlation. John B. Watson notwithstanding, there is no evidence that any special kind of environmental influences, if applied to a random sample of healthy infants, would be at all likely to produce the equivalent of a Shakespeare, a Beethoven, a Newton, a Michelangelo, a Ghandi, or a Babe Ruth."

That is, genius potential is innate, and develops to its full potential in a few of those who have the right stuff. But first the smart genes have to be present, such as in the Ashkenazi Jew.

The very high intelligence of Jews has produced a disproportionate of success stories in relation to their numbers. I will again summarize MacDonald, but the data is available and verifiable in many similar works:

  • Despite representing less than 1% of the population, Jews controlled 20% of the commercial activity in Germany from 1819 to 1935.
  • In Berlin in 1930, Jewish/gentile income ratio was at least 2 to 1, and more probably in the range of 4 to 1.
  • (19th century) Jews were viewed as more intelligent, more educated, and more able to compete economically than the mass of Russians by a broad range of political opinion, with the result that the authorities viewed completely free economic competition with considerable trepidation.
  • By 1952, Jews constituted 24% of the students at Harvard, 23% at Cornell, 20% at Princeton, and 13% at Yale despite constituting only 3% of the U.S. population.
  • In 1968 - 20% of the faculty at prestigious schools were Jewish.
  • In 1957 - Jews constituted 32 of the 70 most eminent intellectuals in a list compiled by Public Interest.
  • In 1993, almost half of American billionaires were Jews as were approximately 10% of the members of the U.S. Congress.

Almost any source one uses, over and over again, the Jews, due primarily to their extremely high intelligence, are heads and shoulders above any other race (using Cavalli-Sforza's classification of race). How or why would anyone not want other groups to aspire to the same levels of productiveness and service to scientific advancement?

We must first recognize that good breeding is what makes gifted children possible, and the government, the media, and academia must be at the forefront in facing this reality of genetics. Second, government policy must always promote the increasing reproductive success of our most intelligent citizens while deterring the lowest intelligent people from having children. Everything from tax policy to withholding welfare until the underclass volunteers to be sterilized should be used to this end. And third, immigration should be singularly concerned with allowing only the very brightest from entering our borders. At this point in time, the best way to achieve this is to encourage the highly intelligent Pacific Rim Asians to emigrate to the U.S. while restricting anyone else who is not in some way gifted or highly intelligent.

High intelligence for democracy, freedom, and non-coercive egalitarianism

According to Somit and Peterson, (in Darwinism, Dominance & Democracy), democracy is a fragile and quite alien form of government because "evolution has endowed our species, as it has the other social primates, with a predisposition for hierarchically structured social and political systems." And in addition, thanks to language, humans have "....[a] truly unique capacity [for] indoctrinability."

This means we are willing to follow anyone or any group willingly, even putting aside our own biological urges. The church can indoctrinate us to be celibate, the culture indoctrinates us to be monogamous and after we complain about high taxes, we give freely to other charities, and we freely believe we are the best country in the world, even though most Americans know little of other countries. We are a species of sheep that will blindly follow the state unless others challenge the basic beliefs and change our minds for us. What all this means is, we are not a free and autonomous people, but a species of herd animals that can be led to do and believe anything. Our only hope against this is intelligence, the intelligence to understand what we are, how we got here, and what it means in terms of freedom. We can not be sure of preserving democracy without a highly intelligent populace.

Somit and Peterson's studies regarding democracies show that they are more likely where:

  • There is a reasonably equitable distribution of wealth;
  • A comparatively high level of education;
  • An urbanized society;
  • Effective communications networks;
  • And ethnic, linguistic, and religious unity.

The key to all of the above, I would argue, is a citizenry of high intelligence. That is, when we are intelligent enough not to be duped by politicians; to rise above sectarian mistrust, suspicion and bigotry; to use communications networks effectively; and to redistribute wealth based on egalitarianism only among like-minded and productive people; then and only then will democracy be assured. If the intellectuals, scholars, politicians, and the media truly believe that we are an informed, rational, and intelligent voting public, why has there been so little discussion or advocacy for direct democracy? I would argue because the herd mentality cannot tolerate the idea of freedom and responsibility, precisely because we have not evolved the adequate intelligence to take on direct democracy. But without it we will never be free of the political forces that sap the strength of the nation to fulfill the petty greed of those who control our money and our lives. Only a national eugenics program, to elevate the average voter to a level of intelligence that will allow us to go beyond our primitive instincts, will allow us to rise to the next level of human dignity and become what we are capable of.

What will happen to the rejects?

I am convinced that society is already approaching a natural split between the overclass and the underclass. With associative mating taking place, at an accelerated rate as people become more aware of others' abilities, humans will begin to split. What I mean by this is the bell curve of intelligence will begin to flatten and may eventually become bi-modal, or develop two peaks. For example, there may develop two peaks of normal or average intelligence at say 110 IQ and another peak at 90 IQ. We will have begun the natural phenomena of speciation, that is the separation of two breeding groups over a long enough period of time that they develop into two distinct species. This usually happens in nature when subspecies become separated geographically over a long period of time, each eventually ending up as a separate and distinct species.

There is no theoretical reason why that same process cannot happen under a human cultural system where the separation is selected for by intelligence. There will always be some genetic flow between the groups, but for all practical purposes we will divide irrevocably into the haves and the have-nots. And the haves will no longer be as forgiving when it is assumed to be the natural outcome of the innate lack of intelligence of the underclass. Charity will dry up when it is seen as not just bad luck or hard times, but the result of bad genes. Of course, with the current debate over immigration, there seems to be some argument for encouraging an underclass that is willing to pick crops cheaply, take care of our gardens, clean our homes, and work in restaurants for low wages so that we can dine-out more cheaply. But if this underclass becomes a burden, and too expensive to maintain, they will be dispensed with as soon as they are no longer economically viable as a cheap labor pool.

A better alternative is to try and raise the average intelligence there is no underclass that is left behind - or at least only a few that will not be a burden. If we really are willing to reduce class conflict, why not adopt a national eugenic's program that attempts to increase the average intelligence of everyone through immigration and breeding policies that will assure that each generation will be smarter than the one before it, while shifting the bell curve upward and the standard deviation down? ( that is less intellectual disparity between the overclass and the underclass.) A nation's genetic capital will live on for generations, unlike cultural capital that can be lost by a single generation in warfare or economic collapse.

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twientieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

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 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 collectivist 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 strategies such as Judaism. One way to prevent this is for science itself to be problematized 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 orthodoxy which was fundamentally anti-Semitic, it is an orthodoxy that simultaneously 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 strategies. 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 incompatible 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 multicultural 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 recruited 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 importance 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 conviction.' 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 an 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 intolerance of  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 falsehoods and deception.

Gould's most egregious attack in his above book was against H. H. Goddard's role in 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 .

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 environmentalist 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 programmed 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 committed 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 re quired 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 U nited 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 humanity? 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. Nonetheless, "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."  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 Judaism. 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. Moreover, 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 hostility 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. Controversy 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 expulsion 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 producing the uniquely egalitarian mating systems characteristic of Western Europe. In Western Europe the repression of sexual behavior has fundamentally 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 religious 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 toward 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 government jobs to native, white, Christian Americans.' The result of including such items is that a strongly identified Jew, for whom the ingroup-outgroup distinction 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 established 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 represented 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 conclusion: 'We are led to suspect, on the basis of results in numerous areas, that upward class mobility and identification with the status quo correlate positively 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 insecurities 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 and 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 which 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 political 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 composed of people with the same biological potential for accomplishment and able to be easily molded by culture into ideal citizens as imagined by a morally 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 evolutionary 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 impermeable 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 postmodernist 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 strategies. Within the intellectual world, the greatest potential danger for a collectivist 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 strategies such as Judaism. One way to prevent this is for science itself to be problematized 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 airplanes fly, medicine given works to save lives, 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 we 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 toward 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 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 characteristics 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 Americans 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 b arbarian 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 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 accept the dogma, 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 be 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....

"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 de-ethnicized 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.


Self-Directed Evolution

Articles  News  Science  Philosophy  Politics  Eugenics  Heaven  Links  Prometheism  Transtopia  Neoeugenics  News Blog 

>> Site Map <<


euvolution sacred hands



Eugenics Papers | Martinez Perspective | Transtopia Site (New) | Prometheism | Euvolution | Pierre Teilhard De Chardin