Ethnocentrism, eugenics, and the Semitic Mind


"ETHNOCENTRISM: the feeling that one's group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups. Ethnocentrism may manifest itself in attitudes of superiority or sometimes hostility. Violence, discrimination, proselytizing, and verbal aggressiveness are other means whereby ethnocentrism may be expressed." (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.)

The above definition of ethnocentrism is as good as any, but one should keep in mind that the concept itself is highly problematic - few have attempted to link "ethnocentrism" with actual "behavioral traits." In addition, racism has been used interchangeably with ethnocentrism. For that reason, I will mix the two terms and treat them as a singular construct, similar to a behavioral trait such as "extroversion." That is, I will assume that racism/ethnocentrism are both genetically based and culturally influenced.

To explore the topic of racism and the Semitic mind, I will be using primarily Kevin MacDonald's 1994 book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. This book and his second book of the trilogy published in 1998, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, I highly recommend this new site with its massive number of on-line books and journals for about $15 per month. It is designed to help students write term- or research-papers, as well as providing an encyclopedic wealth of information or just a cheap way of reading books.

Tom Spears of the Ottawa Sun (12/21/2002) reports that researchers have found six distinct groups of sperm whales that speak to each other in different dialects. When these groups of sperm whales come in contact with each other, they will speak to other groups in their own dialect, but they do not interbreed. Their distinct dialects keep them genetically isolated. Could this be some strange form of whale racism?

In his 2002 book, Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, David Sloan Wilson states that the central thesis of his book is that, "Around the world and across history, religions have functioned as mighty engines of collective action for the production of benefits that all people want." An evolutionist like MacDonald, Wilson recognizes that evolutionary explanations of human behavior are powerful, robust, and falsifiable (what is lacking in most social science or religious studies).

In Darwin's Cathedral, he looks at Judaism along with several other religious examples, to show that religions that serve the needs of the group can be sustained over long periods. Judaism has the added uniqueness of a religion with a unique identity, maintained over thousands of years, and the history has been well documented. Wilson notes that, "The Ten Commandments are the tip of an iceberg of commandments that, at least in their intent, regulate the behavior of group members in minute detail....Two facts stand out about what the People of Israel, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible, were instructed to do by their religion. First, they were instructed to be fruitful and multiply. Their religion told them to be biologically successful. Perhaps cultural evolution strays from biological evolution in other cases, but not in this case. Second, the People of Israel were provided with two sets of instructions, one for conduct among themselves and another for conduct toward members of other groups. That is the basic concept of the covenant between God and Abraham. Toward each other, the People of Israel were expected to practice the charity and collective action that we typically associate with Judaeo-Christian morality...."

This theme is apparent to any theological scholar: the Old Testament (the Jewish Tanakh) is a racist screed with the purpose of setting the Jewish race apart from its neighbors. It preaches that the Jewish god is theirs alone, not to be shared with anyone else; it preaches that the Jewish race is superior to all other groups; it preaches that God will reward the Jewish race with earthly riches if the Jews abide by the collectivist laws; and that eventually the Jewish race will reign supreme over all other races - God willing of course. It is an earthly religion that preaches racial separatism and racial supremacy.

Rush Limbaugh, the syndicated radio talk show host, likes to talk about the Judeo-Christian culture in the United States, especially since the "War on Terrorism" has become his focus. However, isn't the Christian God closer to Islam than Judaism? Both Islam and Christianity worship the same universalist God, a God that believes in proselytizing, brotherly love, and racial equality. As a eugenicist of course, I prefer the Jewish God that preaches, "be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, my critique of racial attitudes has little to do with morals or what is right, but tries to examine how it came about that Europeans have been accused of racism while all people of color - including Jews - have been assumed to be innocent. This is what I seek to explain.

In Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the Jews' genocidal God instructs this warrior race (at that time): "When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not the towns of the nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them - the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites - just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their Gods, and you thus sin against the Loan your God."

Wilson writes, "There is a widespread tendency to regard in-group morality as hypocritical, leading to a form of moral outrage that becomes especially intense when applied to Judaism. After all, isn't it the ultimate in hypocrisy for a religion to simultaneously preach the Golden Rule and instruct its members to commit genocide? This double standard is indeed hypocritical from a perspective that envisions all people within the same moral circle. I am being sincere when I say that this perspective is laudable, important to work toward in the future, and possible at least in principle to implement. However, it provides a poor theoretical foundation for understanding the nature of religions and other moral systems as they exist today and in the past. As we have already seen, multilevel selection theory is uniquely qualified to predict both the benign nature of within-group morality and at least three forms of human conduct that appear immoral from various perspectives: conduct toward other groups, the enforcement of moral rules within groups, and the self-serving violation of moral rules within groups. Multilevel selection theory accounts for the double standard of the Hebrew Bible rather than merely reacting to it as hypocritical. No other theoretical framework fits the well-known facts of Judaism and other religions so well, or so I claim.

"Although the double standard of the Hebrew Bible is typical of religions and ethnic groups in general, Judaism is more remarkable in other respects. Most cultures and ethnic groups last for mere centuries before disappearing as recognizable entities by mingling with other cultures and ethnic groups. In contrast, Judaism has maintained its cultural identity for thousands of years against the greatest possible odds, as the religion of a landless people dispersed among many nations. It is easy to explain the persistence of a culture that is protected by military might or geographical barriers, but something about Judaism has proved stronger than the sword or even mountain ranges and oceans. Two questions need to be asked: First, how did Jewish communities remain culturally isolated within their host nations? Second, given their cultural isolation, how did Jewish communities survive despite frequent persecution?"

The Jewish experiment started in Egypt and then flourished in Babylon. This three-thousand-year-old religion, experimented, dabbled, and stumbled upon a formula that would sustain them very well indeed at certain times and in certain places. The Jewish formula was mathematically worked out by W. D. Hamilton in his 1975 paper, "Innate social attitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics." Hamilton showed that evolutionary group strategies are successful when the benefits from altruism towards kin outweigh the individual's loss, including the ultimate sacrifice of one's life. The Jewish strategy is easily observed in Hamilton's description of group evolutionary strategies for both humans and animals.

When the Jews were in Egypt, they inserted themselves between the ruling class and the masses, acting as a tight, cohesive, and literate tribe that became wealthy by acting collectively. When they were exiled to Babylon about 2600 years ago, they polished up their religious/tribal strategy in religious texts that have been used since then to produce a religion that is "this worldly." From that time on, since Babylon, they would become a people that would live amongst others, but never mixing with them, to keep the tribe cohesive - they would henceforth act as a group to increase wealth at the expense of other people.

The formula "be fruitful and multiply," along with universal education or literacy, made the Jews highly valuable in a world that was illiterate. The small number of Jews in each community or nation, could make themselves very useful to the nobility by providing them with services that were unique - they were highly educated and therefore useful where few others could count, keep books, etc. along with a willingness to act against those who were subordinated by the ruling class. That is, the Jews were often times intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. With strong altruistic bonds for their own race, they were willing and quite motivated to take advantage of non-Jews, or even other Jews that were more genetically distant.

Group evolutionary strategies are not all-or-nothing. Jews do compete aggressively between themselves, between families, and between larger Jewish groups. Their ethnocentrism is not clearly delineated between Jew and gentile. It is a matter of relatedness that is prevalent in the ethnocentrism we all have. First family, then kin, then nation and finally the rest of the world. However, the Jewish religion is specifically designed to encourage tribal loyalty while encouraging hostility towards others. Moreover, the hostility had to be cloaked and controlled.

If Jews were going to live amongst others while taking advantage of them, it is obvious that they would be occasionally persecuted for their behavior, and indeed, they were. Their entire history is one of spectacular success and growth followed by persecution and slaughter. The fundamentals of this cycle are played out repeatedly from the Egyptian Exodus to the Holocaust - Jews seen as immoral, greedy, and racially different.

This cycle of success followed by persecutions had another interesting side effect. It was the perfect formula for a eugenics' program that operated somewhat like this. First, as a people always on the move, a few would establish themselves in a new region of the world. I will use Europe as an example. From genetic studies, we now know that about 70 A.D. a small number of Jewish (males mostly) moved into Europe and established themselves by marrying local females. But quickly the barriers went up, "Once again, it is important to remember that Judaism, like other major religious traditions, exists in many specific versions that vary along a spectrum from extreme separation to extreme accommodation. This spectrum has existed throughout the history of Judaism in addition to the present day, as I will describe in more detail in chapters 5 and 6. Nevertheless, the strictest and strongest versions of Judaism can accurately be described as cultural fortresses that kept outsiders out and insiders in. The degree to which Jewish communities were isolated from their host cultures is even reflected at the level of gene frequencies. Population genetics data allow this fact to be determined with a high degree of certainty: Jewish populations from around the world are genetically more similar to each other and to the Middle Eastern population from which they were derived than to the populations among which they currently reside (Wilson 2002)."

With these racialist enclaves in place, the Jews practiced foremost selection for high intelligence. Every male was expected to excel at learning, and those that excelled the most would be married to daughters of wealthy men. It was the perfect solution for bringing together the brightest couples to have ever-increasing intelligent children. Wealthy men were more intelligent on average, as would be their daughters, and the Jewish males were just given a life-long intelligence test to pick out the smartest. In addition, arranged marriages based on a person's good looks were considered improper.

"Judaism existed before the advent of Christianity and Islam, which were designed to grow by conversion. It has always been possible to convert to Judaism (the Hebrew Bible provides numerous examples) but only with great difficulty. In a sense, this is exactly what Iannaccone would predict for a church that wants to remain strong by forcing its new members to demonstrate their commitment. Many religious sects are hard to join. Fraternity rites and high membership costs for exclusive clubs provide examples for nonreligious groups. However, these organizations usually seek new members, however demanding their initiation procedure. In contrast, Jewish communities almost never sought converts, even though they would accept them. Evidently there are no examples of Jewish missionaries or texts written to recruit outsiders to the faith. In addition, Jewish law sometimes accorded inferior status to converts (Wilson 2002)."

So here, we have numerous small Jewish groups living among other races of people, openly hostile to and keeping separate from them, while demanding high levels of altruism and community conformity among themselves." Cooperative groups robustly out-compete less cooperative groups. If Jewish communities were exceptionally cooperative by virtue of their religion, compared to the societies with which they interacted, this would give them an advantage in any endeavor that requires coordinated action. Their survival amidst other nations - at least in the absence of persecution - would be assured (Wilson 2002)."

Eugenics, as any breeder knows, is a simple matter of interbreeding for the qualities desired for, and for Jews the two most outstanding selected traits were intelligence and ethnocentrism. Conscientiousness was obviously necessary: the grueling hours of studying would not be tolerated by individuals without it - and the expression of ethnocentrism may enhanced by high levels of conscientiousness. The development of conscientiousness is a necessary component of acting collectively for the benefit of the tribe. Over thousands of years then, this cycle of selecting for intelligence and ethnocentrism has made the Jews the most intelligent race - but also the most ethnocentric. The cycles of prosperity (reproductive success) and persecutions (death or desertion) made sure of that.

Jews have also practiced a high level of inbreeding, with arranged marriages between nieces and uncles and between cousins. This type of accelerated eugenic breeding program can be deleterious as well as beneficial. In fact, the best type of selective breeding program is inbreeding followed by occasional outbreeding, and then starting the cycle over again. In this way, the genes for intelligence and ethnocentrism could be rapidly selected for by inbreeding, with deleterious recessive gene problems ameliorated through occasional outbreeding with less closely related Jews.

Of course, any eugenic breeding population, while selecting for certain traits needs a means of de-selecting also. Antisemitism has been with the Jews for thousands of years, and it took care of the de-selection problem. The less intelligent and the less committed (the dumb and less racist Jews) were either allowed to defect, forced to defect, or were more easily killed during massacres. That is, the more the Jews were persecuted, the more they could select for the very traits that made them anathema to those they lived with.

"I hope it is obvious that these acts are morally reprehensible, although dismayingly typical of between-group interactions in general. In the aftermath of World War II, psychologists made it an urgent priority to understand why people so easily adopt the kind of us/them mentality that allows atrocities such as the Holocaust to occur. Jewish psychologists such as Henri Tajfel, himself a Holocaust survivor, were at the forefront of this movement, which became known as social identity theory. The main conclusion to emerge was that us/them thinking can be triggered extremely easily in normal people. The seeds of genocide are within all of us.

"Social identity theory was developed in the optimistic spirit that science can help improve the human condition, despite its often sobering conclusions. Multilevel selection theory is the perfect compliment to social identity theory and needs to be approached in the same spirit. It provides the deep evolutionary explanation for why us/them thinking is so easy to invoke in normal people. It reveals the fault lines of moral reasoning that cause people to commit unspeakable acts with a clear conscience. These are not pleasant thoughts, but they must be confronted to discover practical solutions that do, in principle, exist. One purpose of this book is to argue that cultural evolution is an ongoing process capable of discovering genuinely new solutions, even out of old parts. When it comes to evolution, the fact that something hasn't happened before is a poor argument that it can't happen in the future. Let us now return to the subject of Judaism in this constructive spirit (Wilson 2002)."

The cycle of Jewish expansion and contraction took place at many levels, from individuals in a village (individual selection) to the elimination of entire Jewish populations (group selection). Nonetheless, when Jews did come under attack, the wealthiest were more likely to survive than the less wealthy - they could bribe their way out of harms way. In addition, only the most committed would stay and suffer the many persecutions - less committed Jews bailed out." The history of Judaism can be interpreted even more plausibly as a process of ongoing cultural and even genetic group selection, in which Jewish communities that fail to exhibit solidarity disappear, leaving the survivors to expand and create new communities. It would be extraordinary if the tragic persecution of Jewish communities over the last two thousand years did not result in a form of group-level selection (Wilson 2002)."

The Jews did not do as well in the Middle East as they did in Europe. In the Middle East, they were surrounded by their own kind, the Semitic people who evolved over at least 10,000 years in a densely populated part of the world, and it resulted in selection for high levels of ethnocentrism, tribalism or racism. Tribal warfare selected for group cohesion or racism. (We can see this tribalism at work today in Afghanistan where nation-building is virtually impossible.) When equally ethnocentric tribes came into contact with Jews, the Jews were suppressed, and they did not attain the high level of genetic intelligence as the European Jewish communities. That is, the Jews in the Middle East did not go through endless cycles of expansion, oppression and genocide. They were kept in an oppressed state without the resources available to set up the schools and system of eugenic selection that was available in Europe. The European Jews (Ashkenazi) have attained today an average general intelligence of 117, an astounding level considering that the average throughout the world is about 90 (Lynn & Vanhanen 2002).

Jews in Europe however did prosper through a strategy that worked quite often, with occasional setbacks. "Jewish history is not as simple as a displaced people struggling to survive amidst hostile neighbors. Jewish groups survived and even prospered through specific activities and relationships with different elements of their host nations. From a purely actuarial standpoint, periods of prosperity were required to balance the catastrophic declines caused by persecution. A common pattern was for Jews to form an alliance with one gentile segment of the host nation, usually the ruling elite, to exploit another gentile segment, such as the peasantry (Wilson 2002)."

The above was the pattern in Europe more than in the Middle East. Europeans evolved over the last 40,000 years in a sparsely populated and often glaciated environment. This ecological niche made individualism, universal altruism, and cooperation with neighbors much more valuable than warfare. As a result, Northern Europeans have exceptionally low levels of ethnocentrism or innate racism compared to other races. This made the Jewish exploitation of the Europeans easy, until the hostilities occasionally boiled over into conflict. Even with low levels of innate racism, Europeans would eventually rebel against outsiders taking advantage of them.

A cultural difference also existed between the European Christians and their Jewish guests, "Even Judaism, the religion from which Christianity is derived, focuses more on establishing the nation of Israel on earth than on what happens after death. Belief in a wonderful heaven must therefore be explained by a different set of principles than a general desire to explain the world and to obtain scarce resources. In his analysis of Christianity, Stark (1996, 80-81) emphasizes the secular utility of belief in the afterlife, as an adaptation to a particular environment, quoting with approval the following passage from McNeill (1976, 108):'Another advantage Christians enjoyed over pagans was that the teachings of their faith made life meaningful even amid sudden and surprising death.... Even a shattered remnant of survivors who had somehow made it through war or pestilence or both could find warm, immediate and healing consolation in the vision of a heavenly existence for those missing relatives and friends.... Christianity was, therefore, a system of thought and feeling thoroughly adapted to a time of troubles in which hardship, disease, and violent death commonly prevailed (Wilson 2002).'"

Life for Christians, under the thumb of feudalism, was tough enough without having the Jews insert themselves into the mix to gain wealth on the backs of the poor. Is it any wonder that antisemitism was so enduring for so long? As an earthly religion - obsessed with wealth, reproduction, and dominance over others - how could Jews be viewed with tolerance except by the elite who used the Jews to exploit the poor?

As Hamilton pointed out, the greater the genetic distance between groups, the greater the competition. Group-hunting carnivores pushed the need for collective cooperation during "the hunt" - only close kin could be depended upon. This is true for humans and for animals. Moreover, it is the basis for ethnocentrism or racism - there is no mechanism in the human species for universal cooperation. Cooperation has only come about due to language and culture - those general intelligence abilities that can at times suppress human group genocides.

An interesting example of group evolutionary strategies may be unfolding before our very eyes. Clonaid Has just announced the birth of the first cloned child. Whether this is true or not, this development shows how groups can be formed and how they can be genetically different from those around them. Clonaid Is funded by the Raelians, a religion that was formed based on the belief that humans were put here by aliens, and that by using genetic engineering it is possible to clone ourselves and to then "transport" our brains continuously from our aging bodies into our younger cloned bodies. Overwhelmingly, the public opposes cloning of humans. What this means is, that there is a real difference in the behavioral traits of the average Raelian and the rest of society.

As a group then, if the Raelians grow as an earthly religion like Judaism, and if they desire to live forever because they do not believe in a religious hear-after, and since genetic engineering requires a great deal of money, they may be the next successful group that will displace a more conservative one - or the status quo. It seems to me that these people have a common set of behavioral traits - they are not afraid of perpetual life, they desire wealth, pleasure, and technological progress. This formulation is not unlike that of Judaism. In addition, if the Raelians do find that they have a lot in common genetically, even though they are not racially exclusive, they could very well be creating a new race via the founder effect. That is, a small group of people who are cohesively genetically-different in some meaningful way from others.

For me, focusing on the Jewish evolutionary strategy has several purposes. First, it shows that a eugenic religion is possible because we have one as an example - Judaism. In addition, what is so exciting about it is how easy it was. Jews used what was common knowledge at the time about races and the differences between races, they discovered a useful tool - universal education, and they set down an earthly set of rules for behavior that gave them an advantage over other groups who they competed with.

Second, there is a need to show that part of the Jewish strategy has been to manipulate the host cultures they lived with. That is, as a group that lived off the labor of their hosts, what we would today call disparate outcomes because the Jews were far wealthier than the people they lived with, they had to "live the lie." Jews believe they are superior to all other races, that this superiority was mandated by God, that their God was only for the Jews, and that the Jews therefore were the natural born rulers of the earth. That is a racially explosive position to take, so within Judaism is an intellectual arm of apologia - or a formal defense or justification for their beliefs and actions.

This strategy, over the last fifty years, has worked best among Whites. As stated above, we are virtually defenseless against more ethnocentric groups to the point where Whites can easily be shamed into yielding to their demands. MacDonald explains this dilemma: Whites will apply universal moralism - even against their own kin. If they believe there was a wrong, they will punish their own kin or race even more than other races. All that has to be done is to make them believe that they have behaved badly. So today, Whites, not understanding how they are manipulated, have come to adopt affirmative action, multiculturalism, and egalitarian positions to the detriment of Whites in general.

Only in the West, do we invite in and support immigrants from around the world. Only in the West, do we give preferences to other races over our own. Only in the West, do we go to war not for profit but for moral causes that have no benefit for us. Only in the West, are we willing to give up much of our wealth and share it with genetic strangers. Only in the West, do Whites condemn other Whites for being racists. Only in the West, do we have Whites who celebrate the day that we will be a minority in our own land. Only in the West, are White males singled out and separated from White females as loathsome and despicable racists - Neanderthals who may have no hope of redemption.

MacDonald has detailed the strategy used by Jews to turn Whites against themselves, over the last 100 years, in his third book on Jewish group evolutionary strategies, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger press 1998; 1st Books Library 2002). Entering the 20th Century, the American people were influenced in their opinions by military, religious, and corporate spokespersons. That slowly changed such that mass-opinion and our values have been molded by government, academia, and the media - all powerfully influenced by Jewish interests.

The Jewish race: Exodus (1300 to 1600 B.C.) to 18th Century Enlightenment.
(Unless stated otherwise, all quotes in the following will be from A People That Shall Dwell Alone by Kevin MacDonald, 1994.)

A People That Shall Dwell Alone is an academic book, and was reviewed by a long list of evolutionists, et al. before publication. For this reason, I will be replacing some scientific terms by more common terms in [square brackets] to make the quotes more readable. In addition, I have left the references to sources in, to fully reflect that most of the material that MacDonald uses is from Jewish sources. Also, since this book is available on-line at Questia, any deletions, footnotes, or out of context quotes can be easily checked by merely searching for the words and checking out the original text.

"This project attempts to develop an understanding of Judaism based on modern social and biological sciences. It is, broadly speaking, a successor to the late-19th-century effort to develop ... a scientific understanding of Judaism. The fundamental paradigm derives from evolutionary biology, but there will also be a major role for the theory and data derived from several areas of psychology, including especially the social psychology of group behavior.

"In the present volume, the basic focus will be the attempt to adduce evidence relevant to the question of whether Judaism can reasonably be viewed as a group evolutionary strategy. The basic proposal is that Judaism can be interpreted as a set of ideological structures and behaviors that have resulted in the following features: (1) the segregation of the Jewish gene pool from surrounding gentile societies as a result of active efforts to prevent the influx of gentile-derived genes; (2) resource and reproductive competition between Jews and gentiles; (3) high levels of within-group cooperation and altruism among Jews; and (4) eugenic efforts directed at producing high intelligence, high-investment parenting, and commitment to group, rather than individual, goals.

"I believe that there is no sense in which this book may be considered anti-Semitic. This book and its companion volume are intended to stand or fall on their merits as scientific works. This implies an attempt on my part at developing a scientifically valid account of Judaism. Nevertheless, one cannot read very far in Jewish history without being aware that historical data do not exist in a theoretically pristine state in which they lend themselves to only one interpretation. While by no means always the case, the historiography of Jewish history has to an extraordinary degree been characterized by apologia [a series of apologies for Jewish behavior] and a clear sense of personal involvement by both Jews and gentiles, and this has been the case from the very earliest periods in classical antiquity. There is therefore considerable controversy about key issues in the history of Judaism which are of great importance to an evolutionary perspective. Jewish history, more so than any other area I am familiar with, has been to a considerable extent a social construction performed by highly interested parties intent on vindicating very basic moral and philosophical beliefs about the nature of Judaism, Christianity, and gentile society generally.

"Indeed, I would suggest that the very fact that the history of Judaism represents such a minefield for an evolutionary theorist (or any theorist) attempting to understand Judaism is itself an important fact about this endeavor that is highly compatible with an evolutionary perspective on Judaism: Theories of Judaism often reflect the interests of their proponents. These issues are discussed extensively in the companion volume, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (MacDonald 1998). The only point here is to say that, like any other scientific account, this one is open to rational, logical debate....

"Nevertheless, the proposal here is that it is possible to provide an account of Judaism that fits quite well with the idea that Judaism is an evolutionary group strategy and to do so by relying on a substantial body of scholarly research in the field of Jewish history, the vast majority of which has been written by Jews themselves....

"Besides social controls, another theoretically important feature of the present treatment is the proposal that the religious ideology of Judaism is essentially a blueprint for a group evolutionary strategy (see Chapter 3). The point here is that although ideology often rationalizes evolutionary goals, it is [inconclusive] by evolutionary theory. Ideologies, like group strategies generally, may be viewed as 'hopeful monsters' whose adaptiveness is an empirical matter....

"The main reasons for supposing that ideologies in general are [inconclusive] by evolutionary theory are that (1) ideologies often characterize an entire society (or, in this case, the subculture of Judaism), and (2) ideologies are often intimately intertwined with various social controls. In the case of Judaism, and as described in Chapters 3-6, these social controls act within the Jewish community to enforce the stated ideological goals of maintaining internal cohesion, preventing marriage with gentiles, enforcing altruistic behavior toward other Jews, and excluding those who fail to conform to group goals. To the extent that an ideology characterizes an entire group, it becomes insensitive to individual self-interest, and to the extent that it is reinforced by social controls, it is possible that individuals who do not benefit from adopting the ideology will be socialized to do so. This is especially important because the thesis here is that Judaism is an altruistic group strategy in which the interests of individuals are subservient to the interests of the group (see especially Chapter 6)."

What fascinates me about the Jewish evolutionary group strategy is that in order to work, several themes had to be played out over and over again. As will be shown later, the Jews have a history of several thousand years of logical debate, analysis, and pondering over great issues and meaningless issues alike. Yet today, when it comes to issues like intermarriage for example, they have no hesitation in promoting others doing it while they try to maintain their own racial purity - what they call the "silent holocaust." That is, in a multicultural society, Jews are starting to intermarry increasingly, while their co-religionists try to prevent it.

Another example is the debate over the Black-White intelligence difference and whether it is partly genetic or not. On the one hand, the Jews have proclaimed for thousands of years that they are the smartest and best scholars, and yet now they are at the forefront in denying that general mental ability is about 80% genetic, as numerous studies have pointed out. In fact, they have lost this battle of promoting radical environmentalism to the point that they do not even try to provide research to prove it is the environment rather than our genes that make us smart, they have had to resort to calling anyone who discusses it "racist."

It seems to me that the only way that most Jews can hold so many contradictory positions is simply this - they have become a race that is low in open-mindedness and high in authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and innate paranoia. They literally have no choice - they must hold numerous contradictions in order to maintain their positions as they see it for the benefit of the tribe.

Note that I am not saying that Europeans (Euros) are more rational than Jews, only that at the highest levels of academia and politics, Euros are far more scientific - far fewer of them take up Marxist, deconstructionist, egalitarian, and other indefensible empirical positions. These irreconcilable or unscientific disciplines are almost entirely of a Jewish nature.

"Thus, for example, if living as a minority among the Egyptians during the original sojourn recounted in Genesis and Exodus had resulted in a large increase in wealth and population, a similar diaspora strategy might be viewed as viable in the future - a point that we shall return to in Chapter 8 when I attempt to develop an evolutionary perspective on the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The success of such a diaspora strategy could not have been foreseen with certainty, and its success may well not have been known beforehand by its participants, but given the early indications of success, it would be rational to continue the strategy.

"An evolutionary group strategy thus may be conceived, at least partly (see below), as an 'experiment in living,' rather than as the determinate outcome of natural selection acting on human populations or the result of ecological contingencies acting on universal human genetic propensities. Supporting these experiments in living are ideological structures that explain and rationalize the group strategy, including the social controls utilized by the strategy.

"Social controls in the service of achieving internal discipline (such as, for example, preventing exploitation by cheaters or non-cooperators) are theoretically important for the development of a successful altruistic group evolutionary strategy (D. S. Wilson 1989; see below). But there is no reason why an experiment in living must include such controls. One could perfectly well imagine a group strategy in which there were no provisions at all to exclude cheaters and exploiters. Such a strategy would presumably fail in the long run, just as Alexander's (1979) celibate religious sect failed. But that is not the point. Experiments are experiments: Some are successful and well designed, and others are not. The evidence reviewed in later chapters suggests that Judaism has survived as a group evolutionary strategy (albeit with several important changes) at least since the Babylonian captivity [2600 years ago]. If this is so, there is the implication that it has been a well-designed evolutionary strategy."

Simply put, the Jews stumbled upon a system of laws and behaviors that were so successful first in Egypt and then in Babylon that they continued to practice it. A racially pure group, living among other races, they used their solidarity to enrich themselves as a group, even if some members occasionally suffered at the hands of anti-Semites. To do this, they had to take up residence in the lands of other nations, in small enough numbers not to be persecuted by the illiterate masses that saw Jews as exploiters. This precarious existence or strategy then was not hatched in some grand plan, it was just stumbled upon and then enhanced as time went on, and modified as needed to keep the community unified while keeping the lowly Gentile masses from routinely slaughtering them or expelling them more often than they already were.

"In summary, Judaism is here considered fundamentally as a cultural invention that is underdetermined by evolutionary/ecological theory and whose adaptiveness is an empirical question. However, it does not follow that there are no biological predispositions at all for developing the type of group evolutionary strategy represented by Judaism. In Chapter 8, I suggest that the ancient Israelites were genetically predisposed to be high on a cluster of psychological traits centering around group allegiance, cultural separatism, ethnocentrism, concern with [inbreeding], and a collectivist, authoritarian social structure. Evidence cited there indicates that these tendencies are very strong among widely dispersed Jewish groups in traditional societies and that they appear to be more common among other Near Eastern peoples compared to [Euro] Western societies. Further, it is suggested that Judaism itself resulted in a 'feed-forward' selection process in which Jewish groups become increasingly composed of individuals who are genetically and [behaviorally] predisposed to these traits."

The level of ethnocentrism or racism several thousands of years ago was a continuum, with the most northerly races in Europe having the least, and the Semites the most - racism. As populations mixed between these two extremes then there is a gradual increase in racism from a low level in Scandinavian races to a high level in the Semitic races. (We need to look at other races such as Africans and Asians as soon as we can locate the cluster of behavioral ingredients that make up ethnocentrism from known behavioral traits.) MacDonald's second point above is that once Judaism was in place, it also had eugenic consequences that increased the innate levels of racism in Jews over other races - it became an advantageous genetic quality that improved the group's cohesiveness while holding hostile and exploitative attitudes towards outsiders. Having no remorse in exploiting the labors of other people of a different race can have important economic rewards for the exploiters. Euros in the United States had slavery, but they were also the ones who ended it. It was not felt to be morally justifiable and Euros slaughtered each other during the civil war to end slavery - a race divided upon itself.

"Human plasticity, which also includes mechanisms such as various forms of learning, provides a mechanism such that humans can adapt to environmental uncertainty and lack of recurring structure within a finite range. The point here is that societies and subcultures are able to take advantage of this plasticity and manipulate their own environments in order to produce adaptive [behaviors]. In the case of Judaism, it will be argued in Chapter 7 that both eugenic practices (taking advantage of human genetic variation) and manipulation of environments (taking advantage of human plasticity) have been enshrined in religious ideology and intensively practiced. By manipulating environments in this manner, Judaism has been able to develop a highly specialized group strategy, which has often been highly adaptive in resource competition within stratified human societies....

"At a theoretical level, therefore, a group strategy does not require a genetic barrier between the strategizing group and the rest of the population. Group evolutionary strategies may be viewed as ranging from completely genetically closed (at the extreme end of which there is no possibility of genetic penetration by surrounding populations) to genetically open (at the extreme end of which there is completely random mating). In the case of Sparta, membership in the group of Spartan citizens was hereditary, and there is no indication of any interbreeding between the Spartans and the Helots [slaves] (see MacDonald 1988a, 301ff). In the case of Judaism, evidence will be provided in Chapter 2 that in fact there have been significant genetic barriers between Jews and gentiles, and in Chapters 3 and 4, it will be shown that these barriers were actively maintained by a variety of cultural barriers erected by Jews against significant gentile penetration of the Jewish gene pool. The evidence provided there indicates that through the vast majority of its history Judaism has been near the completely genetically closed end of this continuum."

In short, Judaism could have been a group evolutionary strategy without its racist policies. That is, if it was a universalist religion, it could have openly encouraged the most intelligent and committed people in society to join their group, and they could still have had maybe even a more successful group strategy - they wouldn't have been perceived as being different from others. In fact, this is the approach of new eugenic movements now sprouting up on the Internet. Some are racially exclusive, but most are at least loosely defined racially. That is, racial purity is not an issue - and genealogies are only of interest with regards to genetic qualities.

"In the case of Judaism, the central [Jewish authority] of the system of self-government in the diaspora provided a powerful mechanism for excluding Jews (often termed 'informers') who failed to conform to group goals by, for example, collaborating with gentiles against the interests of the Jewish community or who engaged in behavior such as dishonest business practices with gentiles that was likely to lead to anti-Semitism. Moreover, as indicated in Chapters 4 and 6, there were strong community sanctions on individuals (and their families) who violated group norms against intermarriage with gentiles, socialized with gentiles, patronized businesses owned by gentiles, or attempted to bid against other Jews who owned franchises obtained from gentiles....

"In the case of Judaism, the material reviewed in Chapters 5-7 indicates that there were indeed powerful forces that tended to minimize conflict of interest within the Jewish community, including economic cooperation and patronage and high levels of charity. Nevertheless, the data do not indicate that Judaism has typically been characterized by a high degree of social and political egalitarianism. Rather, the historical record suggests that Judaism for much of its history has been characterized by the development of a highly competent elite who acted in the interests of the entire group and whose wealth came ultimately not from exploiting other Jews, but as a result of economic transactions with the gentile community."

Gentiles have no equivalent to this group exploitation based on a religion. I can't think of any mainstream Christian religion that uses a central authority to make its members buy from each other, while encouraging their members to exploit other groups. Only Judaism does this and I maintain that they still do. They no longer have a central authority to enforce conformity to pursuing group goals, and many of them defect and are secularists (in fact most), but as a group they are still highly racialist in their interactions with Gentiles where it counts - such as support for immigration, hostility to Protestant culture, or support for Israel. Most of them will march to the collectivist tune rather than feel the wrath of their kin for any transgressions.

"The strategizing group can engage in intragroup eugenic practices for traits conducive to the successful pursuit of the ecological role. (The Spartans practiced infanticide against any weak or sickly children. Significantly, the decision was made not by the parents, but by the central authorities - another indication of the privileged position of group interests over individual interests.)"

Later we will look at Jewish eugenic practices that today would be called coercive and beyond the pale ethically. And yet, two of the most successful group evolutionary strategies did just that - the state decided who would live, marry, and breed for the betterment of the tribe. (The Spartans through warfare eventually self-destructed from constant battles, but the strategy was successful in terms of wealth, social control, and conquest - while it lasted.) It is my contention that eugenics can be coercive and yet be very successful in terms of improving the betterment of the members' lives. I will elaborate on how this can be done later on.

"These twelve statements are related to five theoretically significant independent dimensions relevant to conceptualizing human group structure in evolutionary terms: (1) a dimension ranging from complete voluntarism, in which the strategizing group voluntarily adopts its strategy, at one extreme to complete coercion, in which the group is forced to adopt significant aspects of its strategy, at the other; (2) a dimension ranging from complete genetic closure, in which the group is closed to penetration from other individuals or groups, at one extreme to complete genetic openness (panmixia), at the other; (3) a dimension ranging from high levels of within-group altruism and submergence of individual interest to group interests at one extreme to complete within-group selfishness at the other; (4) a dimension ranging from high between-group resource and reproductive competition at one extreme to very little between-group resource and reproductive competition at the other; and (5) a dimension ranging from high levels of ecological specialization at one extreme to ecological generalization at the other. It is proposed that human group evolutionary strategies vary along all of these dimensions independently.

"Because of the lack of theoretical strictures on human group evolutionary strategies, the structure of this volume will reflect the need to provide empirical evidence regarding the status of Judaism on these five dimensions. Although qualifications to these propositions will be necessary at various points in the argument, the burden of this essay will be to show that historical Judaism can be reasonably conceptualized as follows: (1) Judaism is a self-imposed, non-coerced evolutionary strategy, although at times anti-Semitic actions have had effects that dovetailed with Judaism as an evolutionary strategy; (2) Judaism is a fairly closed group strategy in which much effort has been devoted to resisting genetic assimilation with surrounding populations, and, moreover, this effort has been substantially successful; (3) Jews have typically engaged in resource and reproductive competition with gentile societies, often successfully; (4) there is a significant (but limited) degree of within-group altruism, traditionally enforced by powerful social controls and always enshrined in religious ideology; and (5) there is a significant degree of role specialization, specifically specialization for a role in society above the level of primary producer characterized by cultural and eugenic practices centered around intelligence, the personality trait of conscientiousness, high-investment parenting, and group allegiance.

"At a fundamental level, a closed group evolutionary strategy for behavior within a larger human society, as proposed here for Judaism, may be viewed as pseudospeciation: Creation of a closed group evolutionary strategy results in a gene pool that becomes significantly segregated from the gene pool of the surrounding society."

By pseudospeciation, MacDonald is stating that due to racial purity, social isolation, and building particular social and economic niches for themselves - along with eugenics - that the Jews have been and continue to drift further from the norm of the human species. Many people are fond of saying, "there is just one race, the human race." Not only is this absurd, but with genetic engineering and using Judaism as a model, we can readily see that because of culture, humans can be engaged in socially constructed speciation. That is, there will most assuredly be more than one human species in the future as evolution rapidly accelerates through genetic engineering.

"The present thesis that Judaism is an evolutionary strategy does not rely on the proposition that Jews represent a distinct race. The minimal requirement for the present theory of Judaism as a fairly closed group strategy is that there be genetic gradients between well-defined groups of Jews and gentiles within particular societies that are maintained by cultural practices. It is the genetic gradient and the coincident competition between significantly different gene pools that are of interest to the evolutionist. Clearly, such a proposal is compatible with some genetic admixture from the surrounding populations. However, an evolutionary perspective must also consider the hypothesis that widely dispersed Jewish populations have significantly more genetic commonality than local Jewish populations have with their gentile co-habitants, since this hypothesis is relevant to developing an evolutionary theory of the patterns of altruism and cooperation among widely scattered Jewish populations.

"It should be noted at the outset that there are good reasons to suppose that there will be some differentiation of the Jewish gene pool among the different Jewish groups of the diaspora. These groups were separated, in many cases for two millennia or more, so that, even in the absence of genetic admixture with surrounding populations, one would expect that genetic drift as well as natural selection resulting, for example, from differences in climate or parasites, would begin to differentiate these populations genetically. Regarding genetic drift, the high frequencies of recessive disorders among Jewish populations and the fact that recessive disorders tend to be unique to particular communities strongly suggest that Jewish populations have been susceptible to founder effects and genetic drift (Chase & McKusick 1972; Fraikor 1977; Mourant, Kopec, & Domaniewska-Sobczak 1978). The general picture is that Jewish communities often originated with a very few families who married within the group, typically with high levels of inbreeding (see Chapters 4 and 8).

"There is also evidence that selection within the diaspora environment has been important in differentiating Jewish populations. Thus, Motulsky (1977b, 425) proposes that, given the clear evidence for the genetic distinctiveness of the Ashkenazi gene pool, the resemblance in physical characteristics and the ABO blood group between the Ashkenazim and the gentile European population is due to convergent selection (see also below). Lenz (1931, 667-668) suggests that the phenotypic resemblance of Jews to the local gentile population may arise from natural and sexual selection for individuals who resembled the local population, just as different species of butterflies may come to resemble each other. It is thus theoretically possible that a fairly small set of genes promoting phenotypic similarity could be amplified via natural selection within Jewish populations without precluding a large overall genetic distance between Jewish and gentile gene pools.

"Selective processes within far-flung Jewish communities might also lead to genetic divergence between them. For example, in Chapter 7, data are discussed indicating a great deal of assortative mating for traits related to intelligence, high-investment parenting, and group cohesion within Jewish communities. Although eugenic selection for a common [behavior or appearance] may result in selection for the same genes, this certainly need not be the case, since different Jewish populations may accrue different genetic mutations related to intelligence as well as different genes resulting from low levels of genetic admixture with local gentile populations. Supporting this possibility, Eldridge (1970; see also Eldridge & Koerber 1977) suggests that a gene causing primary torsion dystonia, which occurs at high levels among Ashkenazi Jews, may have a heterozygote advantage because of beneficial effects on intelligence. Further supporting the importance of selective processes, eight of the 11 genetic diseases found predominantly among Ashkenazi Jews involve the central nervous system, and three are closely related in their biochemical effects (see Goodman 1979, 463)....

"The data reviewed in Chapter 4 indicate that in fact there have been low levels of gentile proselytism to Judaism over the centuries, and Patai and Patai (1989) suggest that the rape of Jewish women by gentiles as well as the illicit affairs of Jewish women with gentile men may also have influenced the representation of gentile genes in the Jewish gene pool. It is possible that even this relatively small genetic admixture from surrounding populations could be adaptive for a strategizing group because the group would benefit from new genetic combinations."

The above is the long version of a simple system in evolution. Let us assume that we have a closed population group or race that lives separate from other races. Selection produces a certain type of race, but every so often a few genes from neighboring races (outbreeding) does occur, but at a very low rate (Wolpoff & Caspari 1997). An even easier example to explain the above phenomena goes something like this. I am a dog breeder of purebred attack dogs - Doberman pinschers. My neighbor also breeds Doberman pinschers, but of the friendlier temperament for a family pet - still a good watchdog but not as vicious as the attack dogs. Every once in a while, one of the attack Dobermans interbreeds with one of the neighbor's dogs, passing the attack dog genes to the friendly dog breed. The breeder, not knowing what has happened, may get a litter of Dobermans that are more aggressive than normal, but also they seem to have a very black, shiny coat, and also are a little less intelligent. The breeder then proceeds to breed the friendlier Doberman, but now has some new genes to play with - a very shiny black coat. Eventually the more aggressive genes are selected against (bred out) but the shiny black coat genes are kept.

In the case of Eastern Jews and Euros, the same thing can happen. A few Euro genes enter the Jewish gene pool every so often. The Jews can then selectively continue to breed for high intelligence (selecting against the less intelligent Euro genes) while selecting for traits like straight hair or lighter skin - that is looking more European. Maintaining high intelligence and a high level of ethnocentrism, while breeding to look more like the host population when you are of a race that lives off lesser people has a great deal of advantage - especially during times of genocide against Jews. The more intelligent Jews that look less like the typical Jew and more like the typical Euro would have had a far better chance of slipping away to safety or hiding out as a Gentile - eugenics at work in all of its various forms.

"Evidence in favor of this hypothesis would be that Jewish proselytism, while highly limited and restricted (see Chapter 4), has been far more successful among wealthy, intelligent, and talented individuals and that this pattern was actively encouraged by the Jewish community. Accounts of proselytes (see, e.g., Patai & Patai 1989) indicate that proselytism was more common among talented and wealthy people. For example, Patai and Patai (1989, 83), in describing proselytes in Germany, note that '[o]nce again history records only the conversions of those few proselytes in Germany who were exceptional among the many converts to Judaism because they were of high status in Gentile society prior to their conversion, or because they achieved renown after they had become Jewish....'

"Moreover, as might be expected, given the strong emphasis on elitism within the Jewish community, there is evidence that Jewish apostates tended disproportionately to be poor and obscure Jews, at least into the 19th century: Lea (1906-07, 1:111, 139) notes that prior to the forced conversions of 1391 in Spain, the converts to Christianity had been mostly of humble status, and prior to the expulsion of 1492, only the lowest classes of the remaining Jews converted to Christianity. Similarly, Weinryb (1972, 94) notes that, although voluntary conversions of Jews to Christianity in traditional Poland were small in number, they mostly involved poor and obscure Jews. Moreover, Kaplan (1983, 275) shows that poor Jewish girls who could not afford an adequate dowry were forced to marry gentiles as a last resort. Pullan (1983, 294ff) finds 12 cases of Jewish apostasy in 16th-century Venice, of whom 9 were poor Jews attempting to better their economic conditions. All three of the wealthy individuals apostatized in order to marry or have sexual intercourse with gentile females and/or obtain property, and in at least two of the cases, the conversions themselves appear to have been insincere. This trend for apostates to be disproportionately of humble status was altered beginning with the trend toward emancipation, but the reverse trend did not occur even then. During this period, Jewish apostates included many individuals hoping to advance their career options, but, as Katz (1986, 54) points out, the apostates did not differ economically or in terms of education or social success from those who remained Jews.

"If in fact poor and obscure Jews were disproportionately abandoning Judaism, there is no reason whatever to suppose that poor and obscure gentiles were even proportionately represented as proselytes to Judaism. Similarly, recent surveys in the United States indicate that more highly educated Jews and those with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry [only kin] (Eliman 1987), again suggesting a greater identification with Judaism among elite individuals. These findings are highly compatible with the idea that the few proselytes in traditional societies who did convert to Judaism were in fact disproportionately drawn from among the talented, educated, and wealthy."

To allow a few talented Gentiles to convert to Judaism, while allowing the lesser Jews to leave the tribe served two purposes - eugenics and apologia. With regards to eugenics, it allowed the less intelligent and less ethnocentric Jews to leave the breeding collective, while allowing some exceptional Gentile genes into the tribe - genes that may be of benefit if they were absent among Jews. In addition, and primarily I suspect because the eugenics of the Jews was not that overt, they allowed some Gentiles to convert so that they could claim they were not a closed racial group. They could point to a few high profile Gentiles who had converted to Judaism, without really discussing the closed genetic barriers in place between Jews and Gentiles. This was propaganda at its best.

I came across another form of this apologia by Jews on the Internet while debating conversions, and it was the reason I reread A People That Shall Dwell Alone. The reason stated for not trying to convert Gentiles to Judaism was due to the fact that "under Judaism, Jews do not believe that only Jews are going to heaven. That is, there was no need to convert others because we were all going to heaven - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, you name it." Yup, that was it! No racism in Judaism. And I thought I had heard all of the arguments before, but they seem to be endless and shifting to meet the current needs of the tribe.

Understand that I do not condemn Jews for their racism as much as I condemn Euros for being so easily duped and so universally moral. After all, it was the Indo-Europeans that went into India many thousands of years ago and set up the caste system to prevent race mixing once they conquered the natives. Unfortunately, under the ecological circumstances, the elite clans in India practiced female infanticide to the extent that they rarely had any female children, making inbreeding impossible between the elite (Hrdy 1999, pg. 326-7). They had to bring females up from the lower classes to marry their male heirs (though this form of control of wealth may not have persisted for that many generations - and then only in certain parts of India).

"This chapter has three purposes. The first is to show that the Tanakh (the Jewish term for what Christians refer to as the Old Testament) shows a strong concern for reproductive success and control of resources. The second purpose is to show that there is also a pronounced tendency toward idealizing [inbreeding] and racial purity in these writings. Finally, it is argued that the ideology of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy for maintaining genetic and cultural segregation in a diaspora context is apparent in these writings....

"Baron (1952a) notes that Judaism is often referred to as a 'this-worldly' religion. While there is very little concern with an afterlife, '[b]oth early and later Judaism ... continuously emphasized a firm belief in the survival of the group and in the 'eternal' life of the Jewish people down to, and beyond, the messianic age' (Baron 1952a, 9). Throughout the long history of Jewish writings, there is a strong emphasis on 'the duty of marriage and the increase of family' (p. 12) and 'a religious inclination toward [improving the status] of family and nation' (p. 31), as seen, for example, by numerous Biblical injunctions to 'be fruitful and multiply' and injunctions to the effect that one will obtain reproductive success by following the precepts of Judaism....

"There is an extremely strong concern for endogamy (i.e., marriage within the group) throughout the [Jewish Old Testament]. From an evolutionary perspective, [marrying only kin] results in a relatively high average degree of genetic relatedness within the group as a whole, with implications for the expected degree of within-group cooperation and altruism (see Chapter 6). To the extent that a group prevents gene flow from outside the group, the fitness of individuals becomes increasingly correlated with the success of the entire group, and this is especially the case if the group has a high level of inbreeding to begin with. At the extreme, consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage with biological relatives) results in the offspring being closely related to parents and each other, again with theoretical implications for familial and within-group solidarity. It is an extremely important thesis of this volume that Judaism has, at least until very recently, been immensely concerned with [marriage with kin] - what is often referred to as racial purity; moreover, Judaism has shown relatively pronounced tendencies toward [uncle-niece marriages and cousins marrying], especially in comparison with Western societies (see Chapter 8)....

"The importance of [marrying kin], at least from the standpoint of later [authors], can be seen in the treatment of the conquered peoples whom the Israelites displace after the Exodus (see also Hartung 1992, n.d.). The policy described in the Books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua is to commit genocide rather than permitting intermarriage with the conquered peoples in the zone of settlement. The chronicler of Deuteronomy states as a general policy regarding the displaced peoples that the Israelites 'shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son' (Deut. 7:3).

"As recorded in the Book of Joshua, this policy is then scrupulously followed when the Israelites cross the Jordan and eradicate the peoples there. Moreover, the emphasis on the need to exterminate other peoples in order to avoid intermarriage is repeated: 'Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you, and a scourge in your sides, and pricks in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you' (Josh. 23:12-13). These instructions are carried out: 'So Joshua smote all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the Lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining; but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded' (Josh. 10:40)."

It is amazing how we continuously write our own history to fit the current politically correct ethos. Nevertheless, a close reading of the Old Testament could be an exceptionally good manual for a eugenic religion. It has all of the essential ingredients and much more. Genocide is perfectly all right in order to get rid of lesser races that may be in the group's way, or may have resources to steal. Racial purity is maintained at all costs, and anyone who deviates from it is going against the eugenicists' God. In fact, there is only one real code, the group grows and prospers at the expense of all other races, which are really just lesser human beings anyway. This God wants its people to prosper at the expense of other races. The Old Testament is a book that Genghis Khan could embrace!

"Sexual relationships with the women of the surrounding peoples are invoked as a major source of evil within Israelite society. Thus, Moses orders the execution of Israelite men who consort with Moabite women (Num. 25:1-13). The men are executed and God also sends a plague because of the offense. Later, the Israelites are said to be living among a variety of peoples, 'and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods' (Judg. 3:6). As a result of these practices, the Israelites were said to be dominated by the Mesopotamians for eight years.

"The origination of the Samaritans as a separate Jewish sect was also the result of a general abhorrence of [marrying outside the pure Jewish race]. When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians and its elite were taken away, the remnant intermarried with the new settlers, creating a 'mixed race' (Schurer (1885) 1979, 17). The intermarriage with aliens meant that 'the Samaritans were not ethnically what they claimed to be' (Purvis 1989, 590), the Pharisees going so far as to refer to them as kutim (i.e., colonists from Mesopotamia). Their racial impurity was then 'used to deny the Samaritans their original Israelite heritage. From that point onwards, their claim to be part of the chosen people . . . was never again acknowledged by the Jews' (Johnson 1987, 71). The returning exiles rejected the offer of the Samaritans to help in rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 4:1-5), and intermarriage with the Samaritans was regarded with horror. Thus, Nehemiah comments on the marriage of the son of the high priest Eliashib to the daughter of the Samaritan Sanballat: 'Therefore I chased him from me' (Neh. 13:28).

"The [deification] of the abhorrence of [marrying outside the Jewish race] appears in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah which recount events and attitudes in the early post-exilic period. The officials are said to complain that 'the people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations.... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands' (Ezra 9:2).

"The use of the phrase 'holy seed' is particularly striking - a rather unvarnished statement of the religious significance of genetic material and the religious obligation to keep that genetic material pure and untainted. The result was a vigorous campaign of what Purvis (1989, 595) refers to as 'ethnic purification.' Nehemiah states, "In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God: 'Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves' (Neh. 13:23-25).

"All who have intermarried are urged to confess their guilt and give up their foreign wives and children. Ezra provides a list of 107 men who renounced their foreign wives and their children by these women. These books also refer to genealogies that were used to deny access to the priesthood to some of the returnees from the Babylonian exile because there was a question regarding the racial purity of their marriages. The result was a hierarchy of purity of blood, at the top of which were those who could prove their status by providing genealogical records."

Now that Senator Joseph Lieberman has thrown his hat in the ring for the presidential race in 2004, and considering that he is an Orthodox Jew, will he be asked to answer if he still believes in the superiority of the Jewish race, does he still believe in maintaining Jewish racial purity, is not in fact the Jewish religion one that is based on racial supremacy? Of course, this will be discussed on the Internet, but will it get into the mainstream press? Actually, this may be the time to get it out in the open - do Jews have a double standard in calling all White males racists, while pretending to be of a higher moral character? After all, the Old Testament is the Jewish bible, and as an Orthodox Jew, Lieberman follows the law as the Jewish God proscribes - and it is a God for only the Jews. How will he be able to explain that the Jewish God and the Christian God are not the same. One stands for Jewish supremacy and intolerance towards any human "seed" that is impure. The Christian God is a universalist and tolerant God, inclusive of all.

"For the Israelites, there was really only one purpose for God - to represent the idea of kinship, ingroup membership, and separateness from others. Supporting this view of Israelite monotheism, there is evidence that monotheism became more important in the exilic period - precisely the period in which barriers between Jews and gentiles were being created and enhanced....

"Significantly, Ezra, whose abhorrence of intermarriage was a major influence on subsequent generations and who was revered among the Israelites as 'a virtual second Moses' (McCullough 1975, 49), views intermarriage as a 'great sin against Israel's God' (McCullough 1975, 48), a comment indicating the close connection between ethnic purity and the Israelite concept of God. In a very real sense, one may say that the Jewish god is really neither more nor less than Ezra's 'holy seed' - the genetic material of the upper-class Israelites who were exiled to Babylon."

It seems that today, looking at religions that are the most similar, that the World Church of the Creator headed up by Matt Hale, who was just arrested for planning the murder of a federal judge, is closer to Judaism than any other religion. Before his arrest, I could never understand the WCOTC's stance. Why not just call themselves a new sect of Jew, follow the Old Testament rules against race mixing, declare themselves superior to other Jewish sects, and compete with Jews by practicing eugenics. Love of one's own kind is the flip side of hatred of one's enemies - ethnocentrism is a losing strategy for most Whites who just do not have enough kinship allegiance to be able to win against more racially aware group strategies. Maybe the best we can do is be like the insular Hasidim, and live in our gated communities.

"Worshiping other gods is like having sexual relations with an alien - a point of view that makes excellent sense on the assumption that the Israelite god represents the racially pure Israelite gene pool....

"[Marrying outside the Jewish race] is a crime against God - a belief that makes sense if indeed, as argued above, God simply is another way of denoting an inbreeding, unitary ethnic group - the holy seed of Israel....

"This phenomenon can also be seen in the modern world. For example, Meyer (1988, 338) notes that the response of liberal Reform Jews to the increased anti-Semitism of the Hitler years in Germany was increased identification with Judaism, increased synagogue attendance, a return to more traditional observance (including a reintroduction of Hebrew), and acceptance of Zionism. Following World War II, there were upsurges of religious observance and/or ethnic identification among American Jews in response to the Nazi holocaust and as a reaction to crises in Israel. The response to persecution is therefore a tendency to stress a unique Jewish identity, rather than to assimilate....

"Unlike the Christian conception of an afterlife of happiness, the Tanakh makes clear that the rewards of keeping the faith and obeying religious regulations will be a high level of reproductive success, a return to power and prosperity in Israel, and the destruction and/or enslavement of Israel's enemies...."

In a multicultural society, where Whites are about seventy percent of the population and Jews only about 2 percent, it will be harder and harder for most Jews to interbreed. There is a strong attraction for successful Jewish men to marry beautiful White (or Asian) women, because the selection is so much higher. This imbalance is common throughout modernity. Women can now go to work, be successful, and no longer need a man for support. Many of these successful women, of higher intelligence, are only attracted to men with a higher status, and unless they are ravishing beauties, there are far fewer men to choose from.

On the flip side, the highly intelligent males, having success, can choose from a large pool of women based on their looks, and only moderately on the women's intelligence. This "bimbo effect" acts against assortative mating, and it is also dysgenic. It is a dilemma not only for Jewish racial purity, but also for any eugenic program that relies strictly on matching intelligent men with intelligent women - the pool to select from is unbalanced because of what women desire in men and what men desire in women.

It is safe to assume that Jewish supremacy may die faster than the White gene pool will be anialated by miscegentaion, as the Jews have far fewer numbers to sustain itself. Whites still associate primarily with other Whites, and it will be a very long time before we cease to exist. But on both sides there is a real ironly. Let's say that Whites did intermarry in large numbers with Asians, Blacks, Semites, etc. What would happen is that we would lose our individualism, our universal moralism, and our lack of racism - the Jews would have essentially an even more hostile majority to deal with. In that world, if they maintained their advantage in wealth, power, education and status - there would be a new affirmative action directed against the Jews instead of Whites.

"Among the factors facilitating separation of Jews and gentiles over historical time have been religious practice and beliefs, language and mannerisms, physical appearance and clothing, customs (especially the dietary laws), occupations, and living in physically separated areas, which were administered by Jews according to Jewish civil and criminal law. All of these practices can be found at very early stages of the diaspora, and in the ancient world, a Mitzvoth of 613 commandments evolved, including prohibitions that very directly limited social contacts between Jews and gentiles, such as the ban on drinking wine touched by gentiles and the undesirability of bantering with gentiles on the day of a pagan festival....

"During the period of Greek hegemony, the Jewish religion was unique in forcibly resisting Hellenizing influences (Schurer (1885) 1973, 146), and the Jewish struggle with Rome was the most prolonged and violent of any of the peoples in the Empire. Indeed, one of the major results of the development of the Roman Republic and Empire was that the great diversity of ethnic groups, which characterized Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean region, was largely assimilated. For example, in Italy during the fifth century B.C., Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians, Latins, Romans, and a variety of other groups were assimilated into a larger culture in which these ethnic divisions disappeared. The Jews were the only ethnic group to survive intact after the upheavals that occurred at the end of antiquity."

And here is another lesson for neoeugenicists. All around us we see degeneracy, crime, and the indoctrination of our children by the State. Like the Jews did in the past, it is time we set up our own communities to place some distance between us and the "the other." A lot of White separtists feel they have to move to the North West to flee from alien life forms, but the Jews maintained their separtism easily for three thousand years, and it was primarily in the more populated centers where commerce and money was readily available. Hate crime laws, directed at Whites, makes interactions between Whites and other races highly problematic - a simple altercation over a parking spot could end up sending one to jail if the wrong word slipped out. The only solution for such draconian measures directed against Whites is separation. Except at work, where you might have to interact with minorities, all other activities should be directed at separation. Children should not be taught by the state to hate themselves - home schooling or our own private schools should separate them. From kindergarten through college, Euros are taught to hate themselves while celebrating diversity and racial solidarity for all races except their own. Yes, we can learn a lot about how the Jews have maintained their race while living among hostile people. And now, Whites are the ones in danger of constant abuse and disregard of our rights.

"The issue of Jewish proselytism in the ancient world has received a great deal of attention from historians of Judaism, and often there is a clear apologetic tone in these writings. Several discussions of proselytism by Jewish historians, beginning with the studies of Bamberger ([1939] 1968) and Braude (1940), have developed a revisionist perspective, which attempts to show that Judaism has been a universalist religion at least since the Biblical period. However, they argue that, as a result of the hegemonic actions of governments or other religions (see also Eichorn 1965a; Raisin 1953; Segal 1988), Judaism failed to attract sufficient converts.

"From an evolutionary perspective, the implicit argument would then be that the result of these hegemonic actions of other religions was an unintended genetic and cultural segregation from other peoples. Jewish actions facilitating this segregation were necessary in order to preserve a purely religious/ethical integrity whose correlation with genetic segregation was unintended and purely coincidental.

"The idea that Jewish separatism fundamentally derives from a moral, even altruistic, stance has been common throughout Jewish history. Baron (1952a, 12) notes that an integral aspect of the ideology of Judaism has been that 'segregation is necessary to preserve at least one exemplary group from mixing with the masses of others' who are viewed as morally inferior. Separatism not only is motivated by ethical reasons, but involves altruism: In being Jews, they were 'living the hard life of an exemplar.' And by serving as a morally pure exemplar, 'they were being Jews for all men' (italics in text).

"This sense that Judaism represents a moral ideal to the rest of mankind - 'a light of the nations' (Isa. 42:6) - has been common throughout Jewish intellectual history, reflected, for example, in Philo, who depicts Israel 'as a nation destined to pray for the world so that the world might be delivered from evil and participate in what is good' (see McKnight 1991, 39); or 'the Jewish nation is to the whole world what the priest is to the state' (McKnight 1991, 46). This theme also emerged as a prominent aspect of the 19th-century Jewish Reform movement and remains prominent among modern Jewish secular intellectuals (see below). Moore (1927-30, 1:229) notes that in the ancient world the ideology contained the thought that 'Israel is not only the prophet of the true religion but its martyr, its witness in suffering; it bears uncomplaining the penalty that others deserved, and when its day of vindication comes and God greatly exalts it, the nations which despised it in the time of its humiliation will confess in amazement that through its sufferings they were saved.

"The implicit argument would then be that, even though the Jewish religion ended up denoting a...genetically segregated kinship group in which there was a great deal of within-group altruism and cooperation, combined oftentimes with successful competition with gentiles for resources (and sometimes with exploitation of gentiles; see Chapter 5), this fact is simply a consequence of its failure, despite its best efforts, to attract adherents, perhaps in conjunction with normative human tendencies for resource competition.

"Apart from the difficult empirical question of whether Judaism was really self-consciously racialist and nationalistic in the ancient world (see below), the anti-voluntarist perspective is problematic from an evolutionary perspective. If indeed the present perspective that historical Judaism has often involved successful resource and reproductive competition with host population gene pools is correct (see Chapter 5), it is certainly reasonable to suppose that this behavior conforms to evolutionary expectations that humans often attempt to maximize biological fitness (reproductive success). One must then suppose that, even though historical Judaism often coincided with what one might reasonably suppose to be individual (and group) genetic self-interest, this result was a major departure from the original intention, since the original intention was to develop not only a religion that was theologically universalist, but also one in which ethnicity was theoretically irrelevant and in which there was an eager attempt to foster genetic assimilation with surrounding populations....

"From an evolutionary perspective, in the absence of actual genetic assimilation one is left to conclude that this Jewish sense of moral and religious idealism, which results in genetic segregation, is in fact a mask for a self-interested evolutionary strategy aimed at promoting the interests of a kinship group that maintains its genetic integrity during a diaspora."

Well that was then - how about now? Most Jews, far more than any other Western race of people, are secularists. Does that mean they no longer believe that Jews are morally superior to all other races, that they are no longer the natural leaders of all peoples and of all nations? If you have been following the interactions between the different players leading up to the conflict with Iraq (January 2003 as I write), you will notice that the most vocal advocates for war are the neoconservatives, who are dominated by Jews. It seems that nothing has changed with regards to Jewish supremacy - whether secular or religious. They still consider themselves morally, intellectually, and racially superior to all other races. Because of this, the neoconservatives feel that they can control US foreign policy, and that we can help to dismantle any Arab country that may be a threat to Israel or US hegemony. Actually, from my perspective, there are four forces leading us to war: to protect Israel from its Arab neighbors, to help Bush win the presidency in 2004, to use those wonderful weapons we have (kids with toys), and force democracy on the Islamic world since they can't do it themselves (or the neoconservative agenda).

"There appeared a large apologetic literature intended to present Jewish life, and particularly Jewish separatism, in a positive light and to present Jews as morally superior to gentiles by, for example, extolling their family life: 'Most of the works which have been regarded as propaganda literature show little interest in proselytizing, but show a desire to share and be accepted in the more philosophically sophisticated strata of Hellenistic culture. Salvation is seldom restricted to membership of the Jewish people' (J. J. Collins 1985, 169).

"Modern psychological research indicates that portraying Judaism as open to conversion would have important effects on gentile conceptions of Judaism. Consistent with the results of social identity research (e.g., Hogg & Abrams 1987), portraying Judaism as open to conversions would be expected to result in the perception among gentiles that Judaism is a permeable group, and this latter perception would be expected to reduce gentile hostility and perceptions of conflict of interest with Judaism. The perception that Judaism is a permeable group would also be expected to reduce the ability of gentiles to act in a collective manner in opposition to Judaism.

"In fact, beginning with Hecataeus of Abdera (early third century B.C.) and culminating with Tacitus and others, Jewish intellectuals were confronted with a great many Greco-Roman writers whose basic criticisms centered around Jewish separatism, xenophobia, and misanthropy. Given this context, there was a felt need among Jewish intellectuals to present Judaism as a universal religion."

Ergo, nothing has changed about the Jews in over two thousand years. Now we debate on the Internet about why they don't want anyone to join their religion. Nevertheless, the debate and the excuses are perennial.

"One might therefore reformulate the ideal strategy for Judaism as a fairly closed group evolutionary strategy as follows: Allow converts and intermarriage at a formal theoretical level, but minimize them in practice. This de facto minimization could occur as a result of failing to make strenuous, organized efforts to obtain converts or to encourage intermarriage; erecting imposing cultural barriers that would minimize social intercourse between Jews and gentiles and thus prevent the types of social contacts that would be the normal precursors of conversion and intermarriage; engaging in cultural practices that result in anti-Semitism, with the result that gentiles would be less likely to convert to a stigmatized religion; the existence of special Jewish taxes, such as the fiscus Judaicus imposed by the Romans; maintaining hostile and/or ambivalent attitudes to conversion, as well as hostile and/or ambivalent attitudes toward converts after they were admitted to Judaism, within a significant portion of the rabbinic leadership, as well as among the Jewish community as a whole; making the procedures of conversion highly unpleasant and demeaning (by, e.g., including requirements for the physically painful and dangerous rite of circumcision); reminding the convert of the dangers of being a Jew; relegating the convert to a lowered status within the community and giving the convert fewer rights than other Jews; making these disabilities continue for a number of subsequent generations before the convert's descendants could expect to attain full Jewish status; continuing the practices of [inbreeding] among elite groups within the Jewish community and strictly keeping genealogies among these groups to ensure racial purity so that converts would be aware that marriage into these families would never occur, despite its theoretical possibility, even after many generations; continuing vestiges of Jewish national sovereignty, as represented by the existence of families that were reputed to be descended from the priests and kings of Israel and that retained prestige and authority among diaspora Jews; and keeping the messianic hope of a return to political power in a particular geographical area."

Of course, Judaism is always changing, and many of the above items are now only strictly practiced by the more religious of Jews, while the secularists have become more like the Gentiles they are around. But have they given up on "messianic hope of a return to political power?" I would contend that they can't, given their eugenic history of breeding a race of people who are far more intelligent, conscientious, and authoritarian than any other group I am aware of. They have been breeding for dominance - and one cannot give up their nature with an epiphany of the contradictions in one's perspective. We all live our lives as our primitive brains direct us, then we make excuses for why we do what we do (see The Illusion of Conscious Will by Wegner, 2002). Jews are no different - their desire for power and control is no different from anybody else's, just far more extreme as will be shown below in the discussion on behavioral traits.

"As indicated in Chapters 3 and 8, the Jewish tendency toward [marrying biological relatives] is of considerable theoretical importance. During the Second Commonwealth, the Pharisees attached special spiritual significance to marriages with nieces. Uncle-niece marriage was common during the Second Commonwealth (Epstein 1942, 250ff; Mitterauer 1991; Jeremias 1969, 218). While marriage to nieces was essentially tolerated by the Levitical rules, later it came to be viewed as desirable by the more devout, including priestly families whose concern with purity of blood and genealogy is a recurrent theme of this volume. Uncle-niece marriage was idealized in the Talmud: 'One who married his sister's daughter - on him the Bible says: 'They thou will call and G-d will answer'' (b. Yeb 62b). The Shulhan Arukh, an authoritative legal compilation dating from the 16th century, also idealized uncle-niece marriage....

"Maimonides notes that the rules of the Torah and the Sages are fairly lenient regarding intercourse with a slave woman. He states, however, '[n]evertheless, let not this transgression be esteemed lightly in your eyes, just because the Torah does not prescribe a flogging, for this also causes a man's son to depart from following after the Lord, since the bondswoman's son is likewise a slave, and is not of Israel' (p. 83). The offspring of a concubine/slave is thus not admitted to the community, and, indeed, intercourse with such a woman is compared to sodomy, citing Deuteronomy 23:18. Conversion of the bondswoman removes these difficulties, but Maimonides reiterates the general distrust of proselytes typical of the ancient world, citing the Talmudic dictum that '[p]roselytes are as hard to bear for Israel as a scab upon the skin,' since the majority of them become proselytes for ulterior motives and subsequently lead Israel astray, and once they become proselytes it is a difficult matter to separate from them' (p. 91). The latter comment indicates that the community would attempt to remain separate from proselytes....

"It should be noted that the Sephardic sense of exclusivity and superiority is legendary even among the other branches of Judaism (e.g., Patai 1977, 381-383; Chapter 8). After the expulsion, the Sephardim continued to use a dialect of archaic Spanish (Ladino) in their communities in other parts of the world, so that in the 19th century most Sephardic Jews living in the Turkish Empire could understand neither Turkish or other local languages such as Greek and Romanian. In Morocco, the Sephardic Jews continued to speak a Castilian dialect which differed from Ladino until the 19th century.

"Benardete (1953) emphasizes that, in addition to this 'secretive language for communication among coreligionists' (p. 59), there was a wide variety of other religious customs, gestures, celebrations, and culinary laws that separated them from gentiles and even other Jews living among them. Benardete cites observations indicating that the Sephardim in the United States considered themselves 'a people apart' with 'hermetic groupings' and superior to Ashkenazi Jews, even though they were of lower social class than the latter (whom they referred to with the derogatory term tedesco) (1953, 145-146; see also Patai 1977, 381-383; Sachar 1992, 63; Baron 1973, 36). In Morocco, the Sephardim remained separate for the most part from the native Jews for whom they used the disdainful term forasteros (aliens) (Patai 1986)."

Abhorrence of the other, what some would call racism, what behaviorists call ethnocentrism, and what I would prefer to call tribalism because it fits in better with an evolutionary explanation of behavioral differences between races, is the underpinning uniqueness of the "chosen ones." Jews are not a singular race or even a defined group of races. Races rather are any group of people who differ - and the groupings can be subdivided down to identical twins (by splitters) or lumped into the four or five major races by lumpers (Jensen 1998). Jews likewise, with their high levels of racialism, will easily fight amongst themselves. Different Jewish groups do not speak with one voice, nor could there be a "Jewish conspiracy" to control or take over the world. Rather, it is made up of a race of individuals who feel especially entitled. That is, the ethnocentrism or xenophobia is carried by the individual, but its intensity is expressed as concentric circles from the closest kin towards the reviled outer ring of Gentiles.

"Regarding attitudes, the Jews viewed themselves as separate even from the land: Many rabbis viewed Poland itself as defiled and unclean, and not the permanent habitat of the Jews (Weinryb 1972). Reflecting this sense of sojourning, the burial service in traditional Ashkenazi shtetl communities included depositing a small amount of soil from Palestine under the head of the deceased (Zborowski & Herzog 1952). Katz (1961a) notes that Jews were conscious of being only temporary resident aliens and were considered in this manner by gentiles. There was also a powerful sense of separation from gentiles. Katz (1961a, 26ff) describes the common philosophical belief among Jews that Judaism and Christianity differed not merely in matters of ritual and belief, but also in essence. Moreover, this essential difference was often viewed as ultimately the result of racial differences, with Jews descending from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while the gentiles descended from Esau....

"There are indications that when Jews converted to Christianity, they were able to rapidly intermarry with Poles, indicating that the barriers to intermarriage were mainly erected by the Jews....

"Moreover, from the present perspective, the precise meaning of assimilation is important. Barriers such as clothing and language are important to viewing Judaism as a fairly closed group evolutionary strategy only insofar as they are means toward the end of genetic segregation. However, it is quite possible that these barriers could fall, but that genetic segregation (as well as resource and reproductive competition between ethnic groups) could continue. Indeed, Lichten (1986) notes the broad range of Jewish assimilationist positions in Poland from the late 19th century to the pre-World War II period, the vast majority of which were consistent with continued genetic segregation and resource competition."

Is it any wonder then that the Polish people had as much antagonism as the Nazis for the Jews in their presence, especially when there were so many more Jews in Poland than in Germany as a percent of the population?

"It is not an overstatement to claim that the European Enlightenment has been the most traumatic event in the history of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. We have seen that in traditional societies over nearly two millennia the separation between Jews and gentiles was more or less complete, with the result that 'nobody would have doubted at the end of the eighteenth century that the Jews were an ethnic unit, separate from the local inhabitants in any place where they may have built a community. Similarly, the unity of these communities all over the world was also taken for granted' (Katz 1986b, 90). The barriers erected to restrict the normal intercourse among individuals were very high indeed, and Jews generally organized themselves as a state within the larger gentile political organization.

"However, with the Enlightenment all this changed. Jews were expected to take their place as citizens like any other in nation-states, and the powerful centralized Jewish governments disappeared as a condition of Jewish citizenship. Judaism was forced to come to grips with the fact that the intense cultural separatism characteristic of Jews in traditional societies was widely viewed as incompatible with life in a modern nation-state. Judaism of necessity became a voluntary association, and there was no way for any central authority to prevent intermarriage or complete defection from Judaism.

"The problem, then, was whether separation could be maintained in this radically new environment. Jews were forced to walk a very fine line between two unacceptable alternatives: On the one hand Jews were strongly motivated to avoid the traditional hermetic Jewish separatism because of its perceived incompatibility with citizenship in a modern state and its tendency to provoke anti-Semitism. On the other hand, there was a powerful fear that abandoning these traditional practices would result in true assimilation into gentile society and the end of Judaism as fundamentally a cohesive national/ethnic entity."

So, who are the real racists? Whites opened up to the Jews, on the condition that they would fully assimilate, not just change their outward appearances. That meant coming to grips with racist attitudes towards those they lived with, taking on the allegiances of the nations they were part of, and giving up their tribalism. Much like the Gypsies (Roma), they were a people that chose separation - would they now become part of the nations via crypto-Judaism? It seems so. The Euros are constantly condemned for not intermarrying more with other races. Failure to do so say the academic egalitarians, dominated by Jews, shows that Whites are racists. However, at the same time, within Jewish culture, there are efforts to prevent intermarriage else, Judaism dies. What about European's culture and race? This double standard is seen by more and more people who do not accept the therapeutic state's message that Whites must be cured of their racism, while Jews are merely preserving their tribe by not breeding with other races. The hypocrisy is so obvious, that the only way it is refuted is not with arguing the obvious, but by calling anyone who questions Jewish separatism an antisemite.

"In the period following the riots of 1391, Jews who had been forcibly converted 'continued to maintain the hold of their class and race on trading and capital' (Kamen 1965, 7). Johnson (1987), Roth (1974), and Salomon (1974) write of the conflict between the Spanish masses and the Conversos that developed when the latter had entered Spanish society in the 15th century, 'quickly penetrating the ranks of the Castilian middle and upper classes and occupying the most prominent positions in the royal administration and the Church hierarchy' (Salomon 1974, ix). The economic progress of the Conversos and their descendants was 'phenomenally rapid.... The law, the administration, the army, the universities, the Church itself, were all overrun by recent converts of more or less questionable sincerity, or by their immediate descendents. They thronged the financial administration, for which they had a natural aptitude, protest being now impossible. They pushed their way into the municipal councils, into the legislatures, into the judiciary. They all but dominated Spanish life. The wealthier amongst them intermarried with the highest nobility of the land' (Roth 1974, 21).

"Indeed, Walsh (1940, 144) describes a common belief during the period that the New Christians [Jews] 'were planning to rule Spain, enslave the Christians, and establish a New Jerusalem in the West.' These beliefs were abetted by two tracts written by the Converso Selemoh ha-Levi, formerly a highly respected rabbi, but later the Bishop of Burgos, in which he declared that the Jews were attempting to rule Spain. Another common belief was that the Conversos had infiltrated both the aristocracy and the Church and were attempting to destroy Spanish society from within (H. Kamen 1985)."

This sounds like the same accusations made against Jews today. Hollywood Jews put out movie after movie on the Holocaust to place guilt on Whites, while they ignore the 100 million deaths from the Red Holocaust that they participated in under Communism. Not one movie that I am aware of has been made to show the magnitude of this horror in the West (in the East, The Killing Fields was one of the few movies made showing the Khmer Rouge's atrocities). The Jewish strategy has always been to try and weaken the cohesiveness of the nations they live in, to make it safer for Jews to operate without being noticed. The more mixed up a nation is with different races, cultures, and competing value systems, the easier it is to distract the masses with endless debates about abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, racial profiling, ad infinitum.

"Mosse (1987, 204) estimates that despite representing less than 1 percent of the population, Jews controlled 20 percent of the commercial activity in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1935, as indicated by percentages of Jews among the economic elite. Moreover, Jewish involvement in the largest companies was even more substantial than this figure might indicate. For example, Mosse (1987, 273-274) finds that in 1907 Jews had a dominant position in 33 of the 100 largest companies and in 9 of the 13 companies with share capital over 100 million marks. Jews occupied a similar position through the Weimar period (pp. 357-358). In some areas where Jews were concentrated, the overrepresentation of Jews was far higher. Thus, in the capital of Berlin, Jews accounted for nearly 45 percent of the official government Kommerzienrat awards given to outstanding businessmen, and in Prussia in 1911 44 percent of the 25 richest millionaires were Jews, as were 27.5 percent of the 200 richest millionaires and 23.7 percent of the 800 richest. In Berlin, as in the Hesse-Nassau area, 12 of the 20 wealthiest taxpayers were Jews....

"However, the largest overrepresentation of Jews in Germany during this period was in the media: the theater, arts, film, and journalism. In Berlin in 1930, fully 80 percent of the theater directors were Jewish, and Jews wrote 75 percent of the plays produced. Jews edited leading newspapers and were vastly overrepresented among journalists (Gordon 1984; see also Laqueur 1974). Not surprisingly, average Jewish income was considerably higher than average gentile income, with tax return data suggesting that the Jewish/gentile income ratio was at least 2 to 1, and more probably in the range of 4 to 1.21."

Of course this scenario is played out wherever Jews operate freely without being oppressed. The same situation is happening in the United States, but here the class struggle has been refocused on the disparity between Blacks and Whites, as the Jews have slid into the White category with regards to the census, but not with regards to being labeled as racists. Now the question is always asked, if Jews as a minority continue to emerge in country after country with most of the wealth and power, what is the reason? In the past it has been either labeled as greed or it has been admitted that they are more intelligent than other races and they cooperate together to make money. That is, they are not really greedy or nefarious in their buisness dealings, but they cooperate with their Jewish kin to take advantage of business opportunities.

"In Russia, restrictions on Jews were justified by the authorities because they feared that the Slavic peasants could not compete with the Jews in the newly industrializing economy - fears made more intense because of the tremendous growth in Jewish population in the 19th century (Lindemann 1991, 135-137). 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. 'There was, in short, a rather widespread consensus in Russia that Jews were a separate, somehow superior race, stubbornly resisting assimilation, and steadily working to dominate those among whom they lived' (Lindemann 1991, 138-139)...."

"Before concluding this section, it is worth making a brief comment on Jewish­-gentile competition in the United States in the early 20th century. As noted above in the case of France, there was concern that Jews would 'overrun' prestigious private universities if intellectual merit were the only criterion (Sachar 1992, 328). As a result, quota systems were developed to restrict Jewish competition not only in private universities, but also in professional schools, although in most cases the percentage of Jewish students was still well above their representation in the population. As expected, the diminished resources available during the Great Depression exacerbated these attempts to limit Jewish access to elite schools and high-status professions, or indeed other jobs. Numerical quotas in the professions became more restrictive, and employment advertisements carried an unprecedented number of restrictions on Jews. These quotas were lifted following World War II, and by 1952, Jews constituted 24 percent of the students at Harvard, 23 percent at Cornell, 20 percent at Princeton, and 13 percent at Yale despite constituting only 3 percent of the population (Sachar 1992, 755).

"There are a number of other indications that Jews very rapidly achieved a highly disproportionate representation in several key areas of American society in the post-World War II era, and especially after 1960. Rothman and Lichter (1982) summarize data on the extraordinary representation of Jews in the American academy in the 1960s and 1970s. A 1968 survey found that 20 percent of the faculty at prestigious schools were Jewish, and there was a strong concentration in the social sciences, with fully 30 percent of the most productive faculty in social science departments at elite universities being Jewish. Similarly, Jews constituted 20 percent of the legal profession during this period and represented fully 38 percent of the faculty at elite law schools. Sachar (1992, 755) notes that in 1957, Jews constituted 32 of the 70 most eminent intellectuals in a list compiled by Public Interest, and in 1973, Jews were overrepresented by 70 percent in the Directory of American Scholars.

"More informally, Patai and Patai (1989) found that in 1972, 6.5 percent of a sample from Who's Who in America were Jewish although, they represented only 2.7 percent of the population. Similarly, Weyl (1989, 21), using the Jewish last name method, found Jews overrepresented on several indices of achievement, including Who's Who in America, American Men and Women of Science, Frontier Science and Technology, Poor's Directory of Directors, Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Directory of Medical Specialists, and Who's Who in American Law.

"Rothman and Lichter (1982) note that academic social science departments are an important source of social influence, and this disproportionate Jewish influence on society extended also to the media during this period. A quarter of the Washington press corps were found to be Jewish in a 1976 study, and 58 percent of the television news producers and editors at the ABC television network in a 1973 study were Jewish. A 1979 study found that Jewish background was characteristic of 27 percent of the staff at the most influential news media. During this period, half of prime-time television writers were Jewish, and 32 percent of influential media critics were Jewish.

"Jewish representation in academia and the media may well have increased in recent times. Ginsberg (1993, 1) notes that as of 1993 the percentages of Jewish representation at elite academic institutions were undoubtedly higher than in the late 1960s. Ginsberg also states that despite the fact that Jews comprised only 2 percent of the population, almost half of American billionaires were Jews as were approximately 10 percent of the members of the U. S. Congress. Jewish overrepresentation continues to be apparent in the media. Kotkin (1993, 61) notes that '[t]he role of Jews within Hollywood and the related entertainment field remains pervasive.' Ginsberg (1993, 1) notes that the owners of the largest newspaper chain and the most influential newspaper (The New York Times) are Jews, as are the chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios. Rothman and Lichter's (1982, 98) conclusion would appear to be accurate: 'Americans of Jewish background have become an elite group in American society, with a cultural and intellectual influence far beyond their numbers.'"

The patterns emerge everywhere in Western nations where Jews are present in any significant numbers - including a fraction of a percent. However, there is no mystery to this phenomenon, it is merely a pattern that emerges due to the innate intelligence of Jews and their innate behavioral traits. The same situation of evolutionary strategies holds in much of South Asia, where East Asians dominate - or Asian Indians in Africa. A more intelligent race can dominate over the majority but less intelligent race.

In the United States, the dominance would hold between Whites and Blacks if it were not for aggressive quota systems and massive amounts of wealth transferred from Whites to Blacks. Whites have an average IQ of about 100 and Blacks 85. Whenever the gap in intelligence is more than a few points, one race will dominate another in a free and open society.

This is one of the reasons that there is so much effort put into calling anyone who points out racial disparities in intelligence - a racist, because ad hominem attacks are the only arguments left. If innate intelligence is understood to be the cause of economic disparity, then Euros will not only be able to use the same arguments against Jews to equalize economic inequality, but they will no longer be so easily demonized by the Left. There are good reasons in a merit-based society for different races to have different economic success as groups. If this was openly accepted, the Jewish strategy would have to reinvent itself with a whole new dogma - "Whites are not the racists they have been made out to be - it was racial differences all the time."

A new strategy of honesty about race would not really impact Jews in my opinion. I think many of us on the eugenics/nationalist Right would accept Jewish apologies for their attacks on our culture and move on - but I just can't see that happening. Instead, as the genetic and psychometric data comes in validating Jensenism, the therapeutic state will make all discussions of innate differences between races a criminal offense, as it is in much of the West already.

"Thus, unlike universalist religions such as Christianity and Islam, Judaism over its history has fundamentally been a large kinship community in which the threshold for altruistic behavior toward group members was markedly lower than for altruistic behavior toward outgroup members.

"In addition, the degree of biological relatedness within the many small and scattered Jewish diaspora communities was undoubtedly much higher than the degree of biological relatedness characteristic of the Jewish population as a whole. This is especially so since these communities were often founded by a very few families, so that the actual level of biological relatedness within particular Jewish communities may well have been very high indeed. Several authors (e.g. Chase & McKusick 1972; Fraikor 1977; Mourant, Kopec, & Domaniewska-Sobczak 1978) have emphasized the importance of founder effects and inbreeding in the population genetic history of the Jews, stemming ultimately from the fact that Jewish communities were often founded by very few individuals who [inbred], including relatively high levels of uncle-niece and first cousin marriage (see also below). The point here is that this phenomenon would also have increased the level of biological relatedness within Jewish communities and lowered the threshold for altruism. Moreover, as indicated below, immigration from other Jewish communities was often strongly discouraged by the Jewish community itself. Such a policy would also have the effect of keeping the level of biological relatedness within the Jewish community relatively high....

"The diaspora situation itself also facilitated within-group cooperation among Jews. The diaspora resulted in Judaism being essentially a large kinship group in which internal divisions were de-emphasized and in which the major division was between Jews and gentiles, rather than within the Jewish community. As discussed below, by shifting to a diaspora context, economic oppression of Jews by other Jews was minimized, and Judaism itself developed a relatively homogeneous set of interests. Economic cooperation within the community was maximized and economic exploitation minimized, but conflict and competition with the gentile societies among whom they lived remained.

"A principal theme of this volume is that Judaism is a collectivist culture in the sense of Triandis (1990, 1991; see also Chapters 7 and 8). Collectivist cultures (and Triandis [1990, 57] explicitly includes Judaism in this category) place a much greater emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup than on individual rights and interests. Ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and submerge individual goals to the needs of the group are paramount. 'Collectivists are concerned about the results of their actions on others, share material and nonmaterial resources with group members, are concerned about their presentation to others, believe in the correspondence of outcomes of self and ingroup, and feel involved in the contributions and share in the lives of ingroup members' (Triandis 1990, 54). Collectivist cultures develop an 'unquestioned attachment' to the ingroup, including 'the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities, and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup. These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups' (p. 55). Each of the ingroup members is viewed as responsible for every other member, and relations with outgroup members are 'distant, distrustful, and even hostile' (Triandis 1991, 80). In collectivist cultures, morality is conceptualized as that which benefits the group, and aggression and exploitation of outgroups are acceptable (Triandis 1990, 90). These themes will be apparent in the following."

It will be interesting to see how these innate differences in the Jewish gene pool will change now that more Jews are marrying Gentiles, with some estimates up to 50% in the United States. If the Jews who marry Gentiles are those who are less tribal or racist than those who marry Jews, then we would expect there to be an increase in these already exaggerated traits. This is interesting because many eugenic detractors claim that because there are so many genes that are involved in behavioral traits, they cannot be selected for, and yet we can see that they have been in the past - Jews differ in remarkable ways from Gentiles (as we will see later).

"Communication was also an element of Jewish economic cooperation. Katz (1961a, 151) emphasizes the fact that Jewish economic unity in the face of dispersion was important for its economic success: 'The possibility of constant communication with people living in other countries, with whom there existed a kinship of language and culture, gave an economic advantage to the Jews, who were scattered over many lands.' For example, writing of the Court Jews during the period from 1640 to 1740 in Europe, Stern (1950, 18-19) notes that 'the Jew seemed to be better qualified for the position of war commissary than the Christian. He was in close contact with his coreligionists throughout Europe. He was therefore able to maintain agents and correspondents in all countries and could receive through them necessary goods and important news.'

"Stern (1950, 137) also notes that Jews were also ideally suited to function as financial agents to gentile princes because of their contacts with foreign banking firms. Ties of language were especially advantageous, since Jews from widely dispersed areas could easily communicate with each other. Shaw (1991, 94) also describes a system of bills of exchange that were honored by other Jewish traders and bankers and that gave Jewish traders a competitive advantage over Christian and Muslim traders."

This "kinship in every land" is an excellent strategy even today. It is also one that could be used effectively by eugenicists. If eugenicists are to be a ruling elite in competition with Jews, then we will no doubt be few in number and will not be located in one area, but will be dispersed everywhere in the world. Breeding programs will be coordinated globally, as we are seeing the Raelians doing now with their attempts to clone humans. With resources, communications, and will, the new eugenics' programs can adopt many of the successful programs that have been used by Jews - and we know they work.

"Despite the Talmudic injunction regarding the obligation to provide dowries for poor girls, the Ashkenazim consistently regulated the marriages of the lower classes (Hyman 1986; Katz 1961a; Weinryb 1972), and Hundert (1986b) notes that the marriages of poor and indigent Jews came under special scrutiny by community officials. (The poor were also prevented from voting in Kehilla elections [Katz 1961a]). For example, it was common for the Jewish communities of Poland to have a quota of marriages of individuals with less than a certain dowry. Hundert cites a community regulation of 1595 to the effect that 'no betrothal may take place in which the bride gives under 150 zlotys before there has been an investigation establishing that they will not become a burden on the community' (p. 23). In 1632 a couple was allowed to marry on condition that they not receive any community support for five years, and in 1679 and 1681 in Poznan a regulation was passed prohibiting no more than six marriages in which the dowry was less than 400 zlotys. Other communities had a lottery for poor girls allowed to marry...."

There are numerous arguments against coercive eugenic practices, but the above shows how the Jews enforced the less gifted to forego marriage and reproduction. It was by any standard rather severe - if you were of lesser quality (on average) than other Jews, you would not be allowed to reproduce. The same program could be instituted today by a nation-state or by a eugenic religious group. Only the most fit would reproduce, and the less fit would forego reproduction (but now they could still marry and have sex thanks to birth control or sterilization). I find nothing wrong for example, of requiring anyone who wants to live off the state's welfare to be required to be sterilized first. It is voluntary and fair. What is unfair is an underclass that perpetuates itself year after year, living off the state, and never provides any goods or services in return. We need to separate the idea that people some times need a hand through hard times from the masses of people who are simply unfit for a technological society.

History also teaches us that there are no ethical or moral standards, and that coercive eugenics has been used many times in the past. I see nothing harsh in preventing people from having children. I come across too many happy couples that have decided to not have children because their lives are so rich in other ways. The drive to have children is far less than the sexual drive - so it can't be that much of a burden to ask those who are social parasites not to continue their genetic failures by having more children. As an evolutionary group strategy, it is perfectly legitimate to put group goals ahead of individual self-interest.

"The material summarized in this chapter indicates that historical Judaism can be characterized as a group evolutionary strategy in which individual self-interest was significantly submerged in the interests of group goals. This group orientation does not imply the absence of competition within the Jewish community. On the contrary; in the following chapter, it will be shown that competition for social and economic status within the Jewish community (and its correlative reproductive success) was intense. However, the data reviewed here indicate that this intense competition within the group was not allowed to compromise group goals. From the standpoint of the group, it was always more important to maximize the total resource flow from the gentile community to the Jewish community, rather than to allow individual Jews to maximize their interests at the expense of the Jewish community. Within the Jewish community, however, there was a significant redistribution of wealth, so that in the end decrements to individual interests resulting from these community social controls were minimized.

"As throughout this volume, in order for a particular practice to be considered an aspect of an evolutionary strategy, there must be evidence of a conscious purpose, rather than passive imposition. The proposal here is that Judaism represents an ecologically specialized group evolutionary strategy. The data presented in Chapter 5 indicate that Jews have competed with gentiles in a very wide range of economic activity and aspects of social status, ranging from artisan guilds to positions of influence with the government. These findings make generalization difficult. However, one very common feature of Jewish economic activity, noted, e.g., by Lindemann (1991, 146) is that Jews have often been overrepresented among middlemen as conduits for gentile primary production, as well as in relationships of manager over gentiles or employer to gentiles. We have also noted a strong tendency for Jews to compete successfully for positions that require education, literacy, and intelligence. In ecological terms, the generalization is that Jews tended to concentrate at the top of the human energy pyramid in prototypical societies throughout their history.

"In this regard, Jews are typical of several other 'middleman minorities' that have occupied a similar ecological role in a variety of human societies (e.g., the Chinese in Southeast Asia; see Sowell 1993; Zenner 1991). The point here is that Jews, and undoubtedly other middleman minorities as well, tend to have a suite of traits that enable them to attain this ecological position above other groups in the society, the most important being intelligence and certain traits related to what personality psychologists refer to as 'conscientiousness.'

"The purpose of this chapter is to show that Judaism as an evolutionary strategy has emphasized education and high-investment parenting, as well as eugenic practices and cultural supports related to intelligence and resource acquisition ability. In addition, however, there is evidence for the development of traits conducive to the group cohesion that is so essential to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy."

Dawkins dealt with what he termed the extended phenotype - where a species interacts with other species to form niches (see my article Maladaptive Altruism). The Jews just like the Gypsies, have formed a niche based on their innate intelligence and behavioral type (the Gypsies niche is that of a bottom-feeder that is also tribal, living off begging, stealing and other socially deviant behaviors). The question is then how should other races react to manipulation by parasites like Gypsies and Jews. Both have been unwelcome visitors, but in the West, both have been protected by a universal moralism that is not in the interests of the majority or in the interests of other less able minorities.

"There is evidence in the ancient world for an intense interest in education among the Jews. The Jewish religious law was incredibly elaborated in the first centuries of the Christian era, culminating with the writing of the Mishnah and the Palestinian (Yerushalmi) and Babylonian (Bavli) Talmuds. These documents not only contain an extraordinary amount of sheer information, but also are presented in an extremely complex rhetorical style, so that thorough mastering of Jewish law requires an extremely high level of literacy, the retention of voluminous detail, and the ability to follow highly abstract arguments.

"The proposal here is that Torah study as the [greatest virtue] within the Jewish community had four important benefits relevant to the present perspective on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: (1) Most obviously, scholarly study resulted in knowledge of an incredibly wide ranging set of laws and customs, which constituted an important source of the barriers between Jews and gentiles and therefore was important for facilitating genetic and cultural segregation. There is also a long scholarly tradition that holds that the Pharisees and their successors utilized their knowledge and practice of the law to separate themselves from the [lower-class Jews] (Sanders 1992, 428; see discussion below). (2) Training in the Jewish law would result in a relatively high level of education for the Jewish population as a whole compared to surrounding populations. This training would then be useful in resource competition with surrounding populations. (3) However, apart from the general level of Jewish education compared to surrounding populations, the educational system was geared to producing a highly educated elite. We have seen that the prosperity of the Jewish community in traditional societies often depended on the actions of a highly educated, wealthy elite of courtiers, capitalists, and lessees who in turn employed other Jews and thereby advanced the fortunes of the entire Jewish community. (4) 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.

"It should be noted that knowledge of barriers between Jews and gentiles could be obtained by means of oral communication of the law to the masses. As emphasized by Bickerman (1988, 170), if the only goal were to ensure that the people were aware of the large number of segregative rituals, there would be no need to develop a highly educated elite or to emphasize universal education for a high level of literacy within the Jewish community as a whole. Nor would it be necessary to develop a system that resulted in a large overlap among intelligence, education, resource control, and reproductive success. However, beginning around 200 B.C., perhaps with the writings of Ben Sira (Bickerman 1988, 170), there was an attempt to develop an intelligentsia separate from the priestly clans in which wisdom was identified with knowledge of the Torah and there was a concomitant effort to make some level of education available to the entire community of Jews....

"This suggests that the Jewish response was self-consciously motivated by a need to develop an educated intelligentsia able to compete in the Greek world. Indeed, Bickerman suggests that being a sage or a student of a sage was a necessary preparation for success in the Greek world, and by the end of the second century the author of pseudo-Aristeas could say that the ideal Jew not only was learned in the Torah, but also could impress Greek philosophers, with the result that 'the myth of Jewish intellectual superiority began to take shape in Jewish thought' (p. 175)....

"In the language of modern research on intelligence, there is a strong emphasis in the traditional Jewish curriculum on verbal knowledge, rote memory, verbal concept formation, and comprehension of abstract ideas (Levinson 1958, 284).

"It is important to note that the vast literature of the Mishnah, the Yerushalmi and Bavli, Midrashic collections, and subsequent commentary actually 'contributed relatively little to the fundamentals of Judaism. All the essentials had been laid down by the Pharisaic scribes with an astounding finality, and Talmudic Jewry adhered to them with unswerving fidelity' (Baron 1952b, 310). Although there was a definite need for a body of civil and business law and other aspects of life as a self-governing community in the diaspora covered by the Mishnah and Talmuds, evidence provided here indicates that these documents contain a vast amount of material for which there are no practical functions at all. The incredible elaboration of Jewish religious 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.

"To begin with, these writings are extremely difficult to understand without a great deal of study. There is no attempt to develop an easily comprehensible code of law or religious ideology that would be comprehensible to an individual who did not have an extraordinary degree of education and commitment to study.

"'What is said in the Mishnah is simple. How it is said is arcane.... Its deep structure of syntax and grammatical forms shapes what is said into an essentially secret and private language. It takes many years to master the difficult argot ....' (Neusner 1988b, xxv; italics in text).

"Neusner notes that although the Mishnah may be described as a law code, a schoolbook, and a corpus of tradition, it is best described as a work of philosophy in the Aristotelian tradition. The Aristotelian nature of much of this work is well illustrated by Neusner's (1988a, 111:204-205) analysis of Tractate Terumot, a tractate concerned with designating a portion of agricultural crops for heave-offering for priests, which is an expansion of six verses from the Book of Numbers (18:8-13). The tractate contains extremely complex discussions of the classification of mixtures and things that fall into different classes. The differences between potential and actual and between intentional and unintentional are important for classification, and the tractate discusses cases that involve several principles of classification. 'I cannot imagine a more profoundly philosophical reading of a topic that, in itself, bears no philosophical interest whatever' (Neusner 1988a, 111:205).

"Many of the problems appear to involve intellectual disputation for its own sake. The Mishnah is thus not constructed in order to produce a logically organized, easily grasped set of laws for purity and legal codes for self-government during the exile. Rather, '[t]he Mishnah begins nowhere. It ends abruptly. There is no predicting where it will commence or explaining why it is done. Where, when, why the document is laid out and set forth are questions not deemed urgent and not answered' (Neusner 1987, 87-88). Sanders (1992, 471) says simply that the Mishnah 'does not consist of set rules that governed society. It consists of debates.'

"Yet the Mishnah is 'the initial and definitive statement of Judaism' (Neusner 1988a, 1:5) - an integral part of Jewish canon. Moreover, and this is the point, the mastery of this canon was the [greatest virtue] of a religion whose elite were not a group of celibate intellectuals, but rather a group of individuals with a great deal of social status and control of resources and whose first religious obligation was to 'be fruitful and multiply.'

"This massive set of writings is therefore substantially unnecessary in terms of fulfilling any purely religious or practical legal need. Although, as indicated above, much of the Mishnah itself appears to exist only for the sake of intellectual disputation, this is even more true of the massive set of later writings. Neusner (1986a) shows that the majority of the material in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli is [analysis], including a great deal of expansion, of the Mishnah. Thus, it is common to generalize from the Mishnaic rules and to raise further questions, or establish entirely new lines of inquiry within the overall framework of the Mishnaic tractate. The consistency of rules from the Mishnah (and sometimes between the Mishnah and Tosefta) is explored.

"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 is thus an excellent indication of a high level of general intelligence, and, as indicated below, especially verbal IQ.

"One need not suppose that there was a conscious intent on the part of the rabbis to develop a Torah that could serve as a forum for high-stakes intellectual competition. Once scholarship was established as the [greatest virtue] and the key to social status, resource control, and reproductive success within the Jewish community, there would be intense competition to develop an intellectual reputation. The writings produced as a result of this competition therefore become increasingly complex and inaccessible to those with less intellectual ability. Within a fairly short time, one could not hope to enter the arena without a very long period of preparation, a firm dedication, and persistence, as well as (I would suppose) native intellectual ability....

"Viewed in this manner, the development of this massive corpus of material is more a consequence of the development of the strategy than a consciously intended aspect of the strategy.

"Despite the logical veneer, the point was not to make a rational, scholarly argument. A great deal of intelligence was required, but ultimately there was no attempt to seek truth, religious or otherwise. These writings are thus ultimately irrational. And as is inevitable with irrational undertakings, acceptance of the Jewish canon was essentially an act of authoritarian submission.

"On the other hand, an illiterate [lower-class Jews]... was at the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, despised as not really a complete Jew. Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 152) show that the dichotomy intellectual/non-intellectual was more or less coincident with Jew/non-Jew, and persons without intellectual ability were constantly confronted by the social superiority of those who had intellectual ability. Persons without intellectual ability were also morally suspect - suspected of being more likely to beat their wives and engaging in other horrible deeds (p. 82). Parents scolded their recalcitrant children with the prospect that if they continued to fail to excel at scholarship, they would descend to the depths of being [a lower-class Jew]."

In the book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About it by Jon Entine, he describes a tribe in East Africa that has exceptional long distance running abilities, resulting in numerous marathon wins for a small racial group. How did they do it? They were cattle rustlers, and after stealing they would run with their booty - the slower runners were caught and were killed or worse. So goes human unnatural selection from niche building (see my review of Taboo. Entine is a Jew, and the Tribe came down hard on him for this glimpse into racial realism).

We could speculate on other examples of culturally driven selection, like sub-Saharan African's dancing ability (ritual war dances) or Europeans artistic ability (cave drawings 40,000 years ago). Almost any culturally driven arms race can be stumbled upon that results in increasing a naturally occurring trait or skill to higher and higher levels. What MacDonald is describing above is such an arms race, stumbled upon by the Jews thousands of years ago - those male scholars who were more intelligent and more dedicated rose to the top, married the wealthiest female daughters of the elite, and had more children than their lesser peers.

As the competition increased of course, the testing material had to become more difficult. This phenomenon is well known in intelligence testing - the tests test best when they are matched to the group being tested. For intelligence tests, they are more accurate when used to determine people around the norm of 100. When testing people with an IQ of over 150 however, they become less reliable because they are not developed to discern differences between the super smart. Likewise, as the Jewish eugenics' program continued on over time, and as scholars became brilliant in verbal intelligence, they developed written material that became increasingly difficult to analyze and master over years of study. This was necessary, just like intelligence tests are normed for the average, the average Jewish verbal intelligence rose to an average of 127 (while performance intelligence remained closer to the norm). The Jewish brain was evolving asymmetrically towards a very specific cluster of skills, still seen today in the Ashkenazi gene pool.

The other obvious fact is that among Jews, religious or secular, they know they are different and far superior to those around them. It is obvious to them from their first contact with Gentiles - "we have a superior intellect than the Gentiles." It is easy to see that this was accepted as fact by the Jewish religion, but as more and more Jews became secular, how did they reconcile this with their desire to deny that races were different? Jewish dogma today is to either not discuss their superior intellect, or try to make excuses for why they just seem to be so smart.

With the rise of antisemitism at the beginning of the 20th Century, and starting with the Boasian school of anthropology, racial differences had to be denied. If the Jews really were genetically superior in intellect to all other races, they would be in extreme danger of oppression. Therefore, a program of racial egalitarianism took hold and is still firmly entrenched in Western culture. Any assertion that one race is more intelligent than another race must be vehemently denied, and the only way remaining to deny this fact is by censoring those who present the scientific evidence. The egalitarians have no empirical evidence to show that there could be environmental causes for the Jews having an average intelligence of 117, while the average intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans is only 70. It is not that the Jews feel badly about being so smart as any reading of their history will show, they feel threatened by it if it should become known.

Note how the Jews have natural allies in suppressing the known disparity in innate racial intelligence - neither Blacks or any other racial group is willing to accept that they are genetically less intelligent than another, so the dogma is accepted by most people for obvious reasons of pride (allowing for the exceptional empiricist that is). I have seen too many White supremacists on the Internet who will argue that Blacks are stupid, but when it comes to Jews, they are just tricky and deceitful. No amount of evidence is going make these Whites believe they are any less intelligent on average than Jews.

So, do the Jews present one set of facts to the Gentiles while believing a different set of facts among themselves? This dilemma reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit where there is a bus filled with Whites, and a lone Black male gets on. All the Whites sit quietly, reading their papers, looking out the window, nothing out of the ordinary going on. After a few stops, the Black man gets off, and the party resumes: the Whites are handing out money to each other, partying, and having a gay old time. This is absurd of course, but humans are naturally prone to believing conspiracies where none exists.

So how do so many Jews, especially in academia, hold such obviously cognitive dissonant perspectives on racial differences? I think the evidence points to a selection process that along with intelligence, also increased authoritarian submission that makes the Jewish mind naturally anxious when their belief systems are contradictory. With that anxiety comes an extreme need to rationalize away these conflicts, using the very skills of debate that MacDonald describes above. This is the same sort of legal mind that can defend a criminal with such resoluteness, because the facts are less important than the argument - argumentation exists aside from facts or truths. Arguments are meant to produce results, truth. This rationalization process is a very human response to unpleasant situations or thoughts.

This also explains why Jews dominate in genres such as Marxism, social sciences, deconstructionism, postmodernism, messianism, neoconservatism, politics, etc. They are all anti-empirical in that they start with an objective (quite often Anglophobic) and construct their realities from whole cloth - the exact antithesis of the European mind of science. (Of course, I am talking in terms of average racial differences in behavioral traits - there are exceptions on both sides.)

"Eugenicists such as Hughes (1928) and Weyl (1963, 1989) have long emphasized Jewish eugenic practices as resulting in high levels of intelligence among Jews. Although there are major differences between an evolutionary perspective and a eugenics perspective on Judaism, the evolutionary perspective is highly compatible with the supposition that eugenic practices have been an important aspect of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy. From this perspective, not only did the Jewish canon perform an educational function, but also there is evidence that the Talmudic academy often functioned as an arena of natural selection for intelligence.

"The first major eugenic effect occurred when the Babylonian exiles returned to Israel (now a part of the Persian Empire) in the fifth century B.C. The Babylonian exiles were disproportionately wealthy compared to the Israelites left behind, and in Chapter 3 data were presented indicating that these relatively wealthy and aristocratic exiles returning from Babylon refused to intermarry or associate with the "people of the land" - [lower-class Jews] - both the Samaritan remnants of the northern kingdom and the former Israelites of the southern kingdom. The main reason given for this exclusion was that these groups had not preserved their ethnic purity, but Ezra's policy of removing all individuals of foreign taint from the Israelite community would also have had a eugenic effect.

"Dating the origins of eugenics as a conscious policy among Jews is difficult. The evidence described in this chapter indicates that concern with education originated at least by the second century B.C., and there is evidence for social, economic, and genetic discrimination against the less educated classes at least from the period following the Second Commonwealth (70 A.D.). Moore (1927-30, II:157ff; see also Alon 1977; Safrai 1968) suggests that, following the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the new class division was between an educated, religiously observant elite called 'associates'... and the [lower-class Jews], who were either characterized by a withdrawal from Torah education and knowledge or suspected of being careless in the performance of the religious law....

"These comments indicate that the policies of the haverim would have had negative economic effects on the [lower-class Jews], and the social discrimination might reasonably be supposed to result in defections of the [lower-class Jews] from Judaism. Of particular interest here is that 'marriage between the two classes was condemned in terms of abhorrence' (Moore 1927-30, 11:159-160). Thus, the Talmud states that: 'A Jew must not marry a daughter of [lower-class Jews], because they are unclean animals [sheqes] and their women forbidden reptiles [sheres] and with respect to their daughters the Scripture writes: "Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast [Deut. 27:21]! ... Said R. Eleazar: one may butcher a [lower-class Jew] on a Day of Atonement that happens to fall on a Sabbath [when any kind of work constitutes a violation of a double prohibition]. His disciples said to him: Master, say 'slaughter' [instead of the vile word, butcher]. But he replied "slaughtering requires a benediction, butchering does not require a benediction."' (b. Pesachim 49b)

"The Talmuds show a strong concern with eugenics. Marriage with a scholar or his children is highly recommended: 'For marriage, a scholar was regarded ... as more eligible than the wealthy descendent of a noble family.' The Tannaim did not tire of reiterating the advice that 'under all circumstances should a man sell everything he possesses in order to marry the daughter of a scholar, as well as to give his daughter to a scholar in marriage.... Never should he marry the daughter of an illiterate man' (Baron 1952b, 235).

"Feldman (1939) shows that the authors of the Talmud, like the other ancients, believed that heredity made an important contribution to individual differences in a wide variety of traits, including physical traits (e.g., height), personality (but not moral character), and, as indicated by the above quotations from the Talmud, scholarly ability. 'Every care was taken to prevent the birth of undesirables by a process of selective mating' (p. 32). Individuals contemplating marriage are enjoined to attend to the family history of the future spouse: 'A girl with a good pedigree, even if she be poor and an orphan, is worthy to become wife of a king' (Midra Num. R.i, 5; quoted in Feldman 1939, 34). A prospective wife should be scrutinized for the presence in her family of diseases believed to be inherited (e.g., epilepsy), and also the character of her brothers should be examined, suggesting an awareness of the importance of sex-linked factors. Physical appearance was not to be a critical resource for a woman: 'For "false is grace and beauty is vain." Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children' (Taanith 26b and 31a; quoted in Feldman 1939, 35).

"Feldman interprets the k'tsitsah (severance) ceremony, described in b. Kethuboth 28b, as intended to show the extreme care the rabbis took to ostracize anyone who had contracted a marriage not made according to eugenic principles. A barrel of fruit was broken in the market place in order to call attention to the event, and the following words spoken: 'Listen ye our brethren! A. B. married an unworthy wife, and we fear lest his offspring mingle with ours; take ye therefore an example for generations to come that his offspring may never mix with ours....'

"There is also very clear evidence for eugenic practices among the 19th-century Ashkenazim. Etkes (1989) finds that, although a variety of traits were important in the choice of sons-in-law, including appearance, health, and temperament, particular value was placed on the perceived potential for Torah study. In other words, marriage with the daughter of a wealthy man and consequent support of study during the years of adolescence (the kest period) were conditioned primarily on scholarly ability, and, indeed, the prospective father-in-law would give the future son-in-law an examination prior to agreeing to the marriage. The father-in-law would then support the couple for a specified period of years and provide a large dowry, which would secure the financial future of the couple....

"Beginning in the ancient world, wealthy men would marry their daughters to promising scholars and support the couple until adulthood (Baron 1952b, 221). This practice became a religiously sanctioned policy and persisted among both the Ashkenazim (Katz 1961 a) and the Sephardim (Neuman 1969). Katz (1961 a) notes that this pattern of early marriage, and the associated period of prolonged dependency on adults (the kest period referred to above), was assured only to the wealthy: 'Only members of the upper class who were outstanding in both wealth and learning could afford the luxury of an early match without lessening their prospects. They were assured of a "good match" by their very position' (p. 142). The poor, even when allowed to marry, would be forced to marry later, and there was a group of both sexes that was forced to remain unmarried - a clear marker of sexual competition within the Jewish community. On the other hand, upwardly mobile individuals would often defer marriage until they had obtained status, whether in the business world or by developing a reputation as a scholar....

"As in all traditional European societies (see, e.g., Herlihy & Klapische-Zuber 1985), Hundert (1992) finds that there was a positive association between wealth and numbers of children in Jewish households in the 18th century, and Weinryb (1972) notes that there were marked differences in fertility among Jews, with successful business leaders, prominent rabbis, and community leaders having a large number of children reaching adulthood, while families of the poor were small. Vogel and Motulsky (1986, 609) note that in mid-18th-century Poland prominent Jews had 4-9 surviving children, while poorer Jewish families had 1.2-2.4 surviving children. As is typical in pre-industrial societies, wealthy families also benefited from having adequate food and were better able to avoid epidemics. Similarly, Goitein (1971, 140) notes that the families of wealthy Jews in the Medieval Islamic world were much larger than those of poor Jews."

Today, most Jews deny that eugenics is a valid practice - even that it is possible. It has been declared a pseudoscience - the false hope of racists. But when eugenics was at its intellectual zenith (if not its practical zenith as shown by Jews, Sparta, and numerous other culturally driven selectionist niches), it was accepted by Jews and Gentiles alike, and both socialists and conservatives. It was not until after the beginning of the Boasian era circa 1930 did eugenics become anathema first to Jews worried about National Socialism, then to the rest of the Western world as it was made to suffer the guilt of incorrect thought.

Again, just like the difference in the average intelligence between races, how could any Jewish scholar be unaware of the Jewish obsession with good breeding? It is threaded throughout Jewish writings; clearly, it must have been stumbled across over and over again. However, just like racial intelligence differences, eugenics had to be denied because they were the practitioners of eugenics, just as they were eugenics' greatest success story.

"Given these phenomena, it is expected that Jews will tend to exceed gentiles in intellectual ability, and particularly in what psychologists term verbal intelligence. As Levinson (1958, 284) notes, traditional Jewish education emphasizes verbal knowledge, verbal concept formation, and ability to understand abstract ideas - exactly the abilities tapped by modern measures of verbal intelligence.

"The belief in the superiority of Jewish intelligence has been common among Jews and gentiles alike. Patai and Patai (1989, 146ff) review data indicating that Jewish intellectual superiority was a common belief among many 19th-century and early 20th-century scholars, including some for whom the belief in Jewish intellectual superiority had anti-Semitic overtones: Galton and Pearson believed that Jews had developed into a parasitic race which used its superior intelligence to prey on gentiles. Castro (1954, 473) shows that both scholars and the populace agreed that the Jews of Spain had superior intelligence, and, indeed, Patai (1977) summarizes data suggesting that, during the medieval period in Spain, Jews were overrepresented among outstanding scientists by a factor of 18.

"Data reviewed in Chapter 5 indicate a general Jewish overrepresentation in a wide range of fields in the modern world, including business, science, social science, literature, and the arts. At the pinnacle of achievement, Jewish overrepresentation is particularly striking. Patai and Patai (1989, 159) show that Jews received a highly disproportionate number of Nobel prizes in all categories from 1901 to 1985, including 11 percent for literature, 12.7 percent for chemistry, 20.2 percent for physics, 35.2 percent for physiology and medicine, and 26.1 percent for economics. Moreover, the extent of overrepresentation has increased since World War II, since Jews were awarded twice the number of prizes in the years 1943-1972 compared to 1901-1930. In Germany, Jews received 10 of 32 Nobel prizes awarded to German citizens between 1905 and 1931 despite constituting less than 1 percent of the population during this period (Gordon 1984, 14).

"Studies of gifted children are of particular interest because IQs in the gifted range are unlikely to result from environmental influences acting on individuals whose genetic potential is near the population mean. Terman's (1926) classic study found twice as many Jewish gifted children as expected on the basis of their representation in the population, although the true representation of Jews in this group may have been higher because some may have concealed their Jewish identity. These subjects had IQs ranging from 135 to 200 with a mean of 151. One of Terman's Jewish subjects had an IQ of 184 when tested at age seven. His close relatives included a chief rabbi from Moscow, a prominent lawyer, a self-made millionaire, a concert pianist, a writer, and a prominent Polish scientist. His maternal great-grandfather was a rabbi famous for his compilation of a Jewish calendar spanning over 400 years, and the rabbi's descendants (the boy's cousins) had IQs of 156, 150, 130, and 122.

"Research suggests an average IQ of Ashkenazi Jewish children in the range of 117. In two studies of representative samples of Jewish children, Bachman (1970) and Vincent (1966) found an average IQ of 117 and 117.8, respectively, although Vincent's results are said to be an underestimate because they excluded a large percentage of an elite group of Jewish children attending fee-paying schools.

"There is good evidence that Jewish children's Verbal IQ is considerably higher than their Performance IQ. Brown (1944) found several sub-test differences compatible with the hypothesis that Jewish children are higher on verbal abilities, while Scandinavian children are higher on visuo-spatial abilities. Lesser, Fifer, and Clark (1965) found large differences favoring Jewish children over Chinese-American children on verbal ability, but insignificant differences in favor of Chinese-American children on visuo-spatial abilities. And Backman (1972) found that Jewish subjects were significantly higher than non-Jewish Caucasians on a measure of verbal knowledge but were significantly lower on visuo-spatial reasoning.

"Large verbal/performance IQ differences have been found within Jewish populations. Levinson (1958) studied a representative sample of yeshiva students and found an average Verbal IQ of 125.6, an average Performance IQ of 105.3, and an average Full Scale IQ of 117.86, although he suggests that there may have been a ceiling effect for some students on the verbal portion. Whereas in the general population there was a correlation of 0.77 between Verbal and Performance IQs, among Jewish children it was only 0.31. Finally, Levinson (1960b) found that a sample of Jewish boys (age 10-13) with an average Verbal IQ of 117 had a Performance IQ of 98, while Irish and Italian samples matched for Full Scale IQ had Verbal/Performance differences of only approximately 5 points (approximately 110-105). Levinson (1959) provides evidence that the Verbal/Performance difference for Jewish children increases from pre-school to young adulthood. When children were matched on the basis of full-scale Wechsler IQ, pre-school children showed a small (3-point) difference between Performance and Verbal IQ, while elementary school-age and college student subjects showed a difference of approximately 20 points.

"Taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a Verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a Performance IQ in the average range. These results, if correct, would indicate a difference of almost two standard deviations from the Caucasian mean in Verbal IQ - exactly the type of intellectual ability that has been the focus of Jewish education and eugenic practices. While precise numerical estimates remain somewhat doubtful, there can be no doubt about the general superiority of the Ashkenazi Jewish children on measures of verbal intelligence (see also Patai & Patai 1989, 149)....

"Within this high pressure, relatively homogeneous Jewish environment, individual differences are most likely due to genetic variation. (This is a general principle of behavioral genetics: As one diminishes the environmental variation, the only remaining source of variation must be genetic.) As a result, eugenic marriage practices are assured of being based overwhelmingly on genetic variation, rather than environmental variation. As a result, one can be assured that by marrying a relatively intelligent Jew, one is marrying someone with a relatively high genetic potential for intelligence, rather than simply one who came from a relatively favorable environment."

What MacDonald is saying above is similar to the cattle rustlers described in Taboo, they are very good at long distance running, but not sprinting. Differences in athletic abilities between races have not been studied to any great degree of course - not to the degree and for the number of years that psychometricians have been studying mental ability. Nonetheless, the analogy will do. In order to be so genetically asymmetrical in terms of intelligence, an asymmetry not seen in any other race, means that the Jewish brain has been molded very differently from the norm. It also means that the high average intelligence of Jews could not be due to environmental influences for this simple reason: even secular Jews, those who no longer immerse themselves in Talmudic studies, show the same asymmetry - a verbal IQ of 125, an average IQ of 117, and a fairly normal performance IQ. General intelligence or g is a hierarchical construct where two lower factors make up overall intelligence: performance and verbal intelligence.

This fact alone should be sufficient to show that genetic differences within races are also responsible for the genetic differences between races. The Ashkenazi Jews as a race have a far higher average IQ than any other race, and the asymmetry proves that it has to be genetic, because it occurs in all Jews - secular or religious. Culture plays no part therefore in the Jewish excellence in academic achievement. Even Jensenists have missed this point, preferring to compare primarily Asians, Whites and Blacks to prove that genetic differences between races account for their average intelligence differences. Note, that this asymmetry is not universal among Jews. Many Jewish groups, such as those from Yemen, do not show either high intelligence or a higher verbal over performance IQ due to the impoverishment and suppression under Islam. There are many Jewish groups who have been separated for thousands of years, and they evolved under differing ecologies, with differing results.

"The personality system of conscientiousness is a biological system that underlies attention to detail, neatness, orderliness, striving for achievement, persistence toward goals in the face of difficulty, and the ability to focus attention and delay gratification (Digman 1990). At the extreme, such a person is obsessive/compulsive and guilt-ridden (e.g., Widiger & Trull 1992). There is a strong positive association between conscientiousness and academic success (r = 0.50) (Digman & Takemoto-Chock 1981). The scales of neat, careful (of own work), persevering, and planful load positively on this dimension, while irresponsible and careless (of property) load negatively (Digman & Takemoto-Chock 1981; Digman & Inouye 1986). Correlations between high school grades and assessments of this factor performed six years previously were in the 0.50 range. Similar correlations occurred for occupational status assessed when subjects were in their mid-20s. Eugenic practices related to ability in Jewish religious studies would clearly influence this trait.

"Studies of conscientiousness also indicate that this dimension includes items such as 'trustworthy,' 'reliable,' 'dependable,' and 'responsible' which comprise what one might call 'social conscientiousness' (e.g., Costa & McCrae 1992). Social conscientiousness appears to be a sort of 'don't let down the group' trait, originally proposed by Darwin (1871) as the basis of group allegiance. As Goldberg (1981, 161) states, '[m]y knowledge of the status of a person X on the trait of Conscientiousness answers the question "Can I count on X?"' Because of the importance of a sense of obligation to the group for Judaism throughout its history, there is reason to suppose social conscientiousness may be of particular importance to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

"Individuals high on this trait would be expected to feel intense guilt for having failed to fulfill their obligations to the group. Moreover, given the importance of conformity to group norms for Judaism, it would be expected that individuals who were low on this trait would be disproportionately inclined to abandon Judaism, while successful Jews who were the pillars of the community and thus epitomized the group ethic of Judaism would be disproportionately likely to be high on group conformity and also likely to be reproductively successful. The result is that there would be strong selection pressures toward high levels of social conscientiousness within the Jewish community. And since social conscientiousness is psychometrically (and presumably biologically) linked to the other aspects of conscientiousness, these pressures would also result in a general trend toward higher levels of all aspects of conscientiousness within the Jewish community.

"For example, Jordan (1989, 138) notes that Jews who defected during the Middle Ages (and sometimes persecuted their former co-religionists) tended to be people who were 'unable to sustain the demands of [the] elders for conformity.' This trend may well have accelerated since the Enlightenment because the costs of defection became lower. Israel (1985, 254) notes that after the Enlightenment defections from Judaism due ultimately to negative attitudes regarding the restrictive Jewish community life were common enough to have a negative demographic effect on the Jewish community. Moreover, in Chapter 4, it was noted that there was discrimination within the Jewish community such that the families of individuals who had apostatized or engaged in other major breaches of approved behavior had lessened prospects for marriage. To the extent that there is heritable variation for such non-conformity (and all personality traits are heritable [e.g., Rowe 1993]), such practices imply that there will be strong selection pressures concentrating genes for group loyalty and social conformity within the Jewish gene pool....

"Thus, a child reared in a traditional Jewish home would have been strongly socialized to continually monitor his/her behavior to ensure compliance with a vast number of restrictions - exactly the sorts of influences expected to strengthen the conscientiousness system. Indeed, the popular conception of the talmid khokhem (scholar) among the wider community of Eastern European shtetl Jews and especially among the Hasidim was that he was pre-occupied with endless rituals and consumed with anxiety that he had neglected some regulation (Zborowski & Herzog 1952, 140). Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 202) also describe individuals who are consumed with anxiety lest they omit opportunities to help others, since failure to take advantage of such an opportunity was a violation of a commandment. One function of the Hasidic rabbi was to reassure people who were anxiety-ridden because of fear that they had violated one of the myriad regulations of rabbinical Judaism (p. 179)...."

Conscientiousness and/or group conscientiousness is only one of the Big-Five personality factors that dominates the field of personality traits research - the others being extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness. Conscientiousness has been shown to be second only to intelligence for success, so it is not a unusual that Jews are dominant not only in intelligence, but in the motivation to excel in academic and other cognitively demanding tasks or professions. It is therefore not surprising that they are more successful as individuals in anything they strive to do. Eugenics works better than natural selection.

What is worrisome however is that social conscientiousness, when it is tribal rather than universal, leads to ingroup/outgroup conflict. How are Euros when it comes to conscientiousness? Without having extensive data between races on this personality trait, it is hard to tell. However, Europeans seem to also have moderate to high levels of conscientiousness, especially when it comes to being or acting proper and being held accountable for their actions, and they are also heavily guilt laden even when they are not guilty. Told that they are racists they now go about beating up on their own race because they feel they have committed a moral transgression - rather than understanding they have merely been indoctrinated into a belief system foisted upon them by others. Having low levels of ethnocentrism, Euros are prime targets by other groups for moral extortion.

"Modern psychological research is highly compatible with the idea that parent-child relationships may indeed be characterized by intense affection combined with hostility (i.e., ambivalence, as in ambivalent attachment), since these emotions are associated with two independent biological systems (MacDonald 1992a). The ability to form close family relationships and engage in high-investment parenting is clearly an extremely important aspect of Judaism as an evolutionary strategy, but it is reasonable to suppose that being able to compartmentalize one's relationships is also a highly important skill (MacDonald 1992a). Being able to engage in close family relationships would thus be highly compatible with engaging in purely instrumental behavior toward other individuals outside one's group, including behavior of a hostile, exploitative nature. This type of flexibility would appear to be a general feature of human evolved psychology and thus common among all human groups (MacDonald 1992a), but the literary and ethnographic evidence suggests that Jewish family relationships very strongly facilitate both the affectional system and the ability to engage in aggressive and hostile interactions with others....

"The common perception of Jewish and gentile psychiatric workers from the late 19th century until at least the end of the 1920s was that compared to gentiles, Jews (and especially male Jews), had relatively sensitive, highly reactive nervous systems, thus making them more prone to the diagnoses of hysteria, manic-depression, and neurasthenia [chronic fatigue, weakness, loss of memory, and generalized aches and pains] (Gershon & Liebowitz 1977; Gilman 1993 92ff). Consistent with these early findings, Gershon and Liebowitz (1977) find that Jews had a higher rate of hospitalization for affective disorder than did non-Jews in New York. Strongly suggestive of a genetic basis for the greater prevalence of affective disorder [disturbance in moods] among Jews is their finding that among Jews bipolar affective disorder constituted a higher percentage of all affective disorder than was the case in gentile populations in the United States or Sweden. Individuals with bipolar affective disorder have periods of intense euphoria or paranoid-anger as well as periods of despondency, worry, and hopelessness - exactly the traits expected to characterize individuals who are extreme on affect intensity.

"There is some indication that Jews tend to be extreme on all personality systems. Patai (1977, 391) provides a long list of personality traits which appear to be more pronounced among American Jews. Although this type of data must be evaluated with caution, the traits involved appear to include items from all of the Five-Factor Personality Dimensions (see Digman 1990), including items suggesting a strong tendency toward neuroticism (e.g., 'is more neurotic'; 'anxious') and extraversion (e.g., 'greater extraversion'). Indeed, this pattern would be expected given the supposition that Jews are higher on affect intensity. Affect intensity is related to all personality systems with a strong emotional component (Larsen & Diener 1987) and may be viewed as a behavioral energizing system that can be directed toward behavioral approach (related to extraversion) as well as behavioral avoidance and attention to danger (related to neuroticism and conscientiousness) (MacDonald n.d.). Individuals high on affect intensity are thus highly motivated to intensive interaction with the environment and often have conflicting goals because both behavioral approach and behavioral avoidance systems are prone to activation. Thus, the proposal is that a critical component in Jewish adaptation has been the elaboration of affect intensity as a personality system.

"The suggestion is that via processes of cultural and natural selection Jews have developed an extremely powerful set of psychological systems that are intensely reactive to environmental contingencies. Personality systems underlie a set of adaptive interactions with the environment (see MacDonald 1988a, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, n.d.). Behavioral approach systems direct us toward active, highly motivated involvement in the world, risk-taking, and the acquisition of resources and stimulation. On the other hand, behavioral avoidance, including the conscientiousness system, underlies the ability to react intensely to anticipated danger, defer gratification, persevere in unpleasant tasks, and be dependable and orderly.

"Another personality system influenced by affect intensity is the affectional system (often termed agreeableness, warmth, or love in personality research). This system underlies the ability not only to form close, intimate relationships related to high investment-parenting (MacDonald 1992a; see above), but also other types of long-term relationships of reciprocity, trust, and sympathy (Buss 1991; Wiggins & Broughton 1985). Such a trait would appear to be critical to membership in a cohesive, cooperative group such as Judaism. In this regard, it is of interest that Jews exhibit low levels of anti-social personality disorder (Levav et al. 1993), a disorder linked to being low on the agreeableness system (MacDonald 1992a; Widiger & Trull 1992).

"Evolution, like a good engineer, designed people with a good engine (the behavioral approach systems) and a good set of brakes (behavioral avoidance and conscientiousness). Individuals who are very high in all of these systems are likely to have a great deal of inner conflict (also noted by Patai [1977, 391] as a trait of American Jews), since they are pulled in different directions by these biologically and psychometrically independent systems (MacDonald n.d.). Exemplars would be the sort of fictional characters who populate Woody Allen movies: individuals who have very powerful drives toward resource acquisition, social dominance, and sensual gratification, but who also have a high level of anxiety, guilt, and inhibitory tendencies.

"All personality systems are adaptively important, and being high on all of them provides the ability to be flexibly (and, indeed, intensely) responsive to environmental contingencies. An individual who was high on both the behavioral approach systems and the conscientiousness systems would be strongly motivated to engage in highly rewarding approach behaviors, including extraverted behavior related to resource acquisition, social dominance, and sensual gratification (aspects of behavioral approach), but would also show an ability to react intensely to threatened danger, delay gratification, persevere in the face of difficulty, and be dependable and orderly (aspects of behavioral avoidance and conscientiousness)."

MacDonald covers the other four personality traits (of the Big-Five) above besides conscientiousness: neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, and extroversion. He points out that as well as being highly conscientious, Jews are high on neuroticism, extroversion and agreeableness. What really makes Europeans different from the Semites however is not so much differences in neuroticism, conscietiousness and extroversion, but differences in aggreableness and openess. Euros are individualistic, low on ethnocentrism, and when they interact with other people they will tend to feel the same shame or guilt whether the other person is a family member, another European, or someone from another race - at least in degrees compared to Semites.

The Semitic mind, as MacDonald points out, feels no remorse in treating others badly outside of the tribe. It seems to be easy for Jews more than for Euros to view "the other" as a mere tool for gaining or acquiring what they want - others are instruments to their needs. Ethnocentric people are those that will cut in front of someone in a line, are pushy at the grocery store, or overbearing and demanding. Do we see Jews behave like this? No, because a wise person knows when to be pushy and when to be hostile to others - perhaps in business dealings rather than cutting in front of someone in a line. Blacks are more likely to cut into a line for example, while a wise Jew would more likely be a slum lord - a wise form of exploitation.

This ethnocentrism may in fact be an innate characteristic in most races, but relatively absent in Euros because of our unique evolutionary past - but we will only know this when we study other races with regards to personality profiles. But where does this leave open-mindedness? Euros seem to have a slight monopoly on this behavioral trait - MacDonald does not mention it specifically other than alluding to the fact that Jews are high on this trait also. However, I would question this assumption based on Europeans' dominance in science and innovation, results that seem to have a strong connection with openess. As a people, I do not know of any other race that would open its borders like we have, letting in third world immigrants who are prone to criminal activity, low intelligence, and thus requiring welfare assistance, while expecting nothing in return. In fact, many Whites believe it is their moral duty to help everyone in the world (our maladaptive universal moralism) and to attack any Whites who disagree.

For clarification, MacDonald is really discussing two different behavioral trait systems above (remember, this is an academic book). One is the five factor system or OCEAN (Neuroticism versus stability; Extroversion versus introversion; Openness to experience or intellect, imagination, or culture; Agreeableness versus antagonism; and Conscientiousness or will to achieve). It is the most commonly accepted number of factors for describing behavioral traits. Another is a three factor system that seems more reflective of an evolutionary system in all animals:

Affectional system - animals care for their young and take care of their own.
Behavioral approach - animals have to explore for food and mates like rats in maze.
Behavioral avoidance - animals have to be careful not to get eaten or killed.

There are numerous systems in psychometrics for describing personalities, and if they are valid systems they can be transposed from one to the other, or are intercheangable. They vary more on the descriptions they use than on what they actually mean in terms of human behavior.

"A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a 'sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one's fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage - with the suffering of Jews throughout history....'

"Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely....

"To conclude: Judaism as a group strategy has developed a wide range of practices that serve to cement allegiance to the group and the submergence of individual goals to the overall aims of the group. Eugenic practices and the development of intensive cultural supports for group identification have resulted in a very powerful group orientation among Jews.

"'[Ethnocentrism is] a schismatic in-group/out-group differentiation, in which internal cohesion, relative peace, solidarity, loyalty and devotion to the in-group, and the glorification of the "sociocentric-sacred" (one's own cosmology, ideology, social myth, or Weltanschauung; one's own "god-given" social order) are correlated with a state of hostility or permanent quasi-war (status hostilis) towards out-groups, which are often perceived as inferior, sub-human, and/or the incorporation of evil. Ethnocentrism results in a dualistic, Manichaean morality which evaluates violence within the in-group as negative, and violence against the out-group as positive, even desirable and heroic.' (van der Dennen 1987, 1)

"I believe that the area of psychological research most relevant to conceptualizing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy is that of research on individualism/collectivism (see Triandis 1990, 1991 for reviews). Collectivist cultures (and Triandis [1990, 57] explicitly includes Judaism in this category) place a great emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup, rather than on individual rights and interests. Ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and submerge individual goals to the needs of the group are paramount. Collectivist cultures develop an 'unquestioned attachment' to the ingroup, including 'the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities, and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup. These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups' (p. 55).

"As indicated in Chapter 7, socialization in collectivist cultures stresses group harmony, conformity, obedient submission to hierarchical authority, the honoring of parents and elders. There is also a major stress on ingroup loyalty, as well as trust and cooperation within the ingroup. Each of the ingroup members is viewed as responsible for every other member. However, relations with outgroup members are 'distant, distrustful, and even hostile' (Triandis 1991, 80). In collectivist cultures, morality is conceptualized as that which benefits the group, and aggression and exploitation of outgroups are acceptable (Triandis 1990, 90).

"People in individualist cultures, on the other hand, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and 'finding yourself' (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes toward outgroup members (1991, 80). They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more 'rational' in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups (1990, 61).

"The expectation is that individualists living in the presence of collectivist subcultures will tend to be less predisposed to outgroup hostility and more likely to view any offensive behavior by outgroup members as resulting from transgressions by individuals, rather than being stereotypically true of all outgroup members. On the other hand, collectivists living in an individualist society would be more likely to view ingroup/outgroup distinctions as extremely salient and to develop stereotypically negative views about outgroups.

"Like the Essenes and other Jewish extremist groups, contemporary haredim are also deeply concerned about issues of racial purity. Indeed, the resurgence of Orthodox Judaism and ultra-Orthodox Jewish fundamentalism may well result in a schism of the Jewish people along the lines of racial purity. As indicated in Chapter 4, genealogy is an extremely important aspect of status in the Hasidic community. Moreover, Landau (1993, 291 ff) describes the opposition of the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities to intermarriage and to procedures that facilitate conversion to Judaism. Orthodox Jews and certainly the haredim do not recognize conversions performed by Reform or Conservative rabbis. Nor do they recognize the recent change in traditional Jewish law by the Reform movement that allows individuals to trace their genealogical Jewishness through the father, rather than the mother. Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik of Yeshiva University stated that the result of the proposed policy would be that "mamzerut [bastardy] will be escalated to a maximum" (quoted in Landau 1993, 320). From the perspective of the Orthodox and the fundamentalists, the rest of Jewry is highly contaminated with non-marriageable individuals whose taint derives from their genetic ancestry."

The mystery of Jewish success and antisemitism all falls into place once we understand that in order to protect themselves, and because they are a hyper racialist race, the Jews have managed as a highly ethnocentric/collectivist tribe to convince the tolerant/individualist European majority that "Euros" are the racists. That is, as a highly intelligent tribe, with extreme behavioral attributes for aggression, hostility towards others, and censorship among themselves when it comes to those who would deviate, they have managed to make Euros feel guilty - even though we are the least tribal of any race. This is not a statement of moral outrage toward the Jews as much as it is a sad statement on the weakness of the Euro mind amidst collectivist cultures. The Jews are typical; Euros are atypical.

Let's take Blacks as another example, even though in the United States they vary greatly in the amount of White genes that any individual Black may have, as a group they are every bit as tribal it seems as Jews are. They censor anyone who deviates from being a fellow Afrocentric brother (Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, etc.). They call all Whites racist while they are intolerant of and hostile towards Whites themselves. They violently attack Whites far more than Whites attack them based on race. Overall, they are hostile to Whites while Whites have strived to give them far more than they could have produced by themselves in Africa. It seems to me that the major difference between Jews and Blacks is that the Jews are a highly intelligent tribe and have been able therefore to hold high positions in academia, the media, and government where they have been able to indoctrinate Euros into believing in the racism myth. Moreover, we have swallowed the message so well that liberal Euros have now taken up the cause and will severely punish any European that claims that we have the same right of self-preservation as do other races.

While doing research on ethnocentrism, I stumbled across The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) in Testing and Assessment in Counseling Practice edited by Watkins Jr. and Campbell, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishers, 2000 (also available at Questia online). In an extremely simple synopsis of what they have to say about authoritarianism/ethnocentrism it is attributed to Alpha type personalities - those people who have very low ego strength, are extroverted, and rule-following. It also states that intolerant or prejudiced people tend to be Gamma type personalities - those people who have very low ego strength, are extroverted, and rule-breaking. Notice that only "rule-breaking" is different, but of the four personality types, intolerance and ethnocentrism fall into separate categories.

What is interesting about the above robust personality inventory, the CPI, is that extroversion and low ego strength are associated with intolerance, ethnocentrism, and/or authoritarianism. Are most Euros extroverted and low on ego strength? It hardly seems like the behavioral traits usually attributed to Euros. In fact, it is extremely hard to find much information at all on ethnocentrism/collectivism and its relationship to personality types, even though it is part of neo-Darwinism and the general principles are discussed at length for all animals, not just humans. So why do we live in a society that talks so much about racism, but virtually no research has been done to correlate what racism IS based on behavioral traits? Frankly, that would not be in the Jews best interest, and they dominate the academic disciplines of psychology, social science, and cultural anthropology. Research therefore on racial differences in the levels of ethnocentrism are not just ignored, they are prohibited.

TABLE 1: CONTRASTS BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND JEWISH CULTURAL FORMS, from page xxxi of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by Kevin MacDonald, 2002 edition published by 1st Books Library.



European Cultural Origins

Jewish Cultural Origins

Evolutionary History

Northern Hunter-Gatherer

Middle Old World

Kinship System

Bilateral; Weakly Patricentric

Unilineal; Strongly Patricentric

Family System

Simple Household

Extended Family; Joint Household

Marriage Practices

[Outbreeding]; Monogamous

[inbreeding], Polygynous

Marriage Psychology

Companionate; Based on Mutual Consent and Affection

Utilitarian; Based on Family Strategizing and Control of kinship Group

Position of Women

Relatively High

Relatively Low

Social Structure

Individualistic; Republican; Democratic

Collectivistic; Authoritarian; Charismatic Leaders

Ethnocentrism

Weakly Ethnocentric/ Xenophobic

Strongly Ethnocentric/ Xenophobic

Socialization

Stresses Independence, Self-Reliance  

Stresses Ingroup Identification; Obligations to Kinship Group

Intellectual Stance

Reason; Science

Dogmatism; Charismatic Leaders  (e.g., Freud, Boas); Submission to Ingroup Authority

Moral Stance

Moral Universalism: Morality is Independent of Group Affiliation

Moral Particularism; Ingroup/Outgroup Morality

Jews in American Politics
MacDonald's analysis was based to a large part on Jewish provided research, but that still does not make it fact. He could still twist and distort the interpretations to fit his personal perspective, so to check it out I read Jews in American Politics, edited by Maisel and Forman, Rowman & Littlefield Press, 2001. This book seems to verify everything that MacDonald claims, and it was written entirely by Jews about Jews, with an introduction by Senator Joe Lieberman. What makes it even more interesting is that the book was released just months prior to 9/11, and the book seems to reflect that at the time, the Jews were feeling like they had never been safer. Remember, this is a people who are obsessed with concepts of oppression - it is built into their religion and into their genetic makeup. Jews innately have a persecution complex, because it was required to justify their flexible strategizing to both take advantage of the Gentiles they lived with, while rationalizing the blowback when they got caught. Those lacking in the genes that make up the Jewish psyche often defected, and the Jewish unique psychological makeup increasingly reflected those left behind.

Jews in American Politics then is a good window into this world of race consciousness, feelings of racial superiority, and fear of persecution behind every goyim action. If only the Jewish mind understood how little Europeans even think about Jews unless the Jews aggressively insinuate themselves into Europeans' affairs - as is happening with the (second) war against Iraq as a stepping stone for the United States to neutralize Arab threats in the region on behalf of Israel. Will the Jews escape culpability if the war escalates into World War III? Not this time, this is the information age and people watch events unfold while being analyzed as to why, by any interested citizen - the Internet has made that possible.

The following excerpts then from Jews in American Politics shows a self-confident Jewish race, one that is unaware what will unfold just months away. If the book had been written months after rather than months before 9/11, I believe it would read very differently. All quotes from this point on are from this book.

"[Benjamin Ginsberg] Jewish political life in America poses a basic dilemma. Can the Jews succeed where others have failed and lead America while still remaining separate from it? On the one hand, Jews have risen to positions of influence and leadership in America far out of proportion to their numbers. On the other, leaders of the American Jewish community have struggled to maintain Jewish identity and distinctiveness in a nation that 'melts' its ethnic groups - at least its white ethnic groups - into a barely distinguishable mass.... 

"For example, the beginning of the century nearly half the students enrolled in Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons were Jews. By the beginning of World War II, less than 7 percent of Columbia's medical students were Jews. The Jewish enrollment in Cornell's School of Medicine fell from 40 to 4 percent between the world wars: Harvard's, from 30 to 4 percent. [Because of quotas]

"During the 1940s and 1950s, Jewish organizations used the threat of legal action to compel universities to end overt discrimination against both blacks and Jews in their admissions policies. In 1945, for example; Columbia University altered its restrictive admissions procedures, when the AJCongress's Commission on Law and Social Action initiated a legal challenge to the university's tax-exempt status. Cohen and Orren show that other universities, including Yale, moved to preclude similar suits by modifying their procedures as well. Through these actions Jewish organizations allied themselves with blacks, although the number of African Americans seeking admission to elite universities in the 1940s was very small. By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews, Jewish groups were able to position themselves as fighting for the quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice, rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone. College admissions would not be the last instance in which Jewish organizations found that Jews and African Americans could help one another....

"At the national level, Jewish organizations induced President Truman to create a number of panels to investigate discrimination in employment and education. The President's Commission on Higher Education recommended that university applications eliminate all questions pertaining to race, religion, and national origin. Similarly, the President's Committee on Civil Rights attacked Jewish quotas in university admissions....

"Jews played a major role in the coalition that worked to end officially mandated school prayer and other forms of public (and almost always Christian) exercise of religion. The AJCongress, together with the AJC and the Anti-Defamation League, joined with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a Protestant group - 'Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State' - to initiate a series of federal court suits opposing school prayer. Fearing an antisemitic backlash, the three Jewish organizations were very anxious to diminish the visibility of Jews as opponents of school prayer. The AJC, for example, insisted that the ACLU find both a non-Jewish plaintiff and non-Jewish attorney for its ultimately successful attack on a New York state law providing for released time from school for religious instruction.

"The ACLU complied with the AJC's Wishes. Ironically, the public generally assumed that plaintiff Tessim Zorach and attorney Kenneth Greenawalt - both Gentiles - in the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clausen were Jews. Similarly, according to Samuel Walker, in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, challenging the constitutionality of New York's nondenominational school prayer, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) assigned William Butler, the only non-Jew on the NYCLU lawyer's committee to the case....

"This historic background and the continuing relationship between Jews and the national government help explain one of the most notable characteristics of Jews in American politics: their strong adherence to liberalism, and especially to the Democratic Party, as loyal voters, leading activists, and major financial contributors. Geoffrey Brahm Levey has ascribed Jewish liberalism to the inherently humanistic character of Jewish values and traditions. This explanation seems somewhat fanciful, however, since in some political settings Jews have managed to overcome their humanistic scruples enough to organize and operate rather ruthless agencies of coercion and terror such as the infamous Soviet-era NKVD.

"Like the politics of the Catholic Church, often liberal where Catholics are in the minority but reactionary where Catholics are in the majority, the politics of Jews varies with objective conditions. Jews have, at various times and in various places been republicans, monarchists, communists, and fascists, as well as liberals. In the United States, Jews became liberal Democrats during the 1930s because in the face of social discrimination, Jews found protection and opportunity in a political coalition organized by the Democrats around a liberal social and economic agenda....

"The liberal, Democratic coalition also promoted and, to some extent, continues to promote principles of civil rights that serve the interests of Jews. Democratic civil rights policies have worked to Jews' advantage in a direct way by outlawing forms of discrimination that affected Jews as well as blacks. Equally important, these policies have served to expand the reach and power of the federal government (an institution in which Jews exercised a great deal of influence) relative to the private sector and sub-national jurisdictions (where Jews' influence was less)....

"For most American ethnic groups, success and assimilation have gone hand in hand. Though many Jews seem thoroughly Americanized and 'marrying out' has become a major issue in recent years, some argue that Jews remain less assimilated than other American ethnic groups of European origin. The continuing identity and distinctiveness of the Jews is a tribute to communal leadership. Jews have helped lead America for a few decades, but this is but a brief moment in the extended history of Jewish leadership. For more than two long millennia, Jews have practiced and honed the leadership skills needed to maintain communal coherence in the Diaspora. Everywhere that a sizeable Jewish community has existed, Jews have also established a complex of religious, educational, and communal institutions that collectively serve as a Jewish government in exile, regulating the affairs of the Jewish community.

"Often, these institutions were created or transplanted in response to antisemitism and discrimination. However, once established, as is true for any other government, this government in exile has a vested interest in maintaining itself by maintaining its constituency as a separate and distinct group. Whether or not Jews need Jewish institutions, these institutions certainly need Jews if they are to survive. The survival of Jewish institutions, moreover, depends on the continued existence of the Jews as a separate and distinct group. Hence, these institutions and their leaders have promulgated a doctrine of separatism beginning with a religion that emphasizes the uniqueness of Jews as God's 'chosen people', and a version of history that emphasizes the danger posed by non-Jews.

"The government-in-the-Diaspora is responsible for maintaining Jewish identity despite the temptation faced by Jews to defect. A complex of lay and religious leaders and institutions, making use of secular techniques of governance as well as religious rituals and laws, maintain the existence of a Jewish community. The Jewish philosopher, Ahad Ha-am, once observed; 'More than the Jews kept the Sabbath: the Sabbath kept them.' This observation could be expanded to assert that Jews do not create Jewish institutions so much as these institutions create Jews and work to ensure their continued existence. It is because of the continuing efforts of these institutions that there continue to be Jews in America....

"This enormous complex of organizations and agencies asserts that they exist to serve the needs of the Jewish people. And, of course, they do. They work to combat antisemitism, deliver social services, provide educational opportunities, ensure religious training, resettle immigrants, and protect Israel's interests. However, the major goal of most, if not all these organizations, agencies, and institutions is what Jonathan Woocher has called 'sacred survival.' That is, they work to ensure the continuity of the Jewish people as a distinctive group both by struggling against enemies seeking to destroy the Jews and, at the same time, struggling to prevent the assimilation of the Jews into the larger society....

"Moreover, on the one hand, Jewish organizations are forever vigilant against any and all manifestations of antisemitism, believing that the ultimate aim of every antisemite is the annihilation of the Jewish people. On the other hand, as frightening as annihilation may be, Jewish organizations are equally worried about the danger that Jews will disappear as a result of assimilation. Major Jewish organizations have made the fight against assimilation a primary goal. Through their cultural and educational programs Jewish groups emphasize three major points. First, Jews today have a debt to their ancestors to pass on their Jewish heritage to their children. To fail in this duty is to betray the millions of Jewish martyrs who fought and died for their faith and their people over the past four thousand years. Second, Jews as a people have made an enormous contribution to civilization through the philosophical ideals and scientific principles they have introduced. Thus, Jews have an obligation to humanity to maintain their distinctive identities, 'because we are struggling to teach men how to build a better world for all men,' as woocher has said. Finally, only as self-conscious members of the Jewish community, the Jewish leadership avers, can Jews lead meaningful lives.

"Thus, the great key to Jewish survival over the centuries: a government in exile that has struggled to preserve the identity and integrity of its people; a government in exile, moreover, that has had centuries to perfect three instruments on which it relies in its fight to maintain a Jewish community. These are law and religious practice, education, and communal mobilization.

"A central precept of Jewish law and religion is the distinctiveness or 'chosenness' of the Jewish people. Jewish religious practice, moreover, serves to reinforce this distinctiveness by maintaining the unity of the community and separating it from the Gentile community. For example, Jews have their own rituals, their own holidays, their own dietary codes. All these are justified as the special duties of Jews stemming from their special relationship with God. The effect of these practices is to remind the Jewish practitioner and the Gentile observer - that Jews are different and distinctive, in order to separate Jews from the influence of Gentile society.

"The notion of the Jews as a people chosen by God begins with God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis: 'I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your off-spring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and your offspring to come. I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding, I will be their God.' This covenant is renewed in Exodus, which suggests that the Jews, as God's chosen people have a special mission. 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians; how I bore you on eagle's wings and brought you to Me. Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'...

"Every year, hundreds of thousands of Jewish children attend Jewish educational institutions, ranging from Jewish day schools, through afternoon Hebrew schools, to morning Sunday schools. These schools offer a variety of different curricula. In the Hebrew day schools, a great deal of instruction is offered in the Hebrew language and in Jewish law and history. In the afternoon Hebrew schools, some of which meet only once a week, the curriculum is abbreviated. In the weekly Sunday schools, with typically shorter sessions still, the curriculum is very limited.

"The differences among these schools are instructive. As instructional time is reduced and curricular content abbreviated, training in the Hebrew language is usually the first subject to be eliminated. Next to go is the study of Jewish law. Next is training in prayer and ritual. What is left, then, when everything else has been dropped from the curriculum? The irreducible minimum, conceived to be more important than law, religion, or language, is the inculcation of Jewish national identity and loyalty. In other words, even where children are taught hardly anything about the substance of Jewish belief and practice, an effort is made to teach them to identify themselves as Jews, to take pride in their difference from other people.

"Jewish identification and distinctiveness are also the themes of the three holidays that form the pillars on which the education of Jewish children is presently built: Passover, Purim, and Hanukkah. As is often pointed out by religious purists, these three celebrations are not the most significant events in the Jewish religious calendar. Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, and several other festivals are more important. Nevertheless, it is Passover, Purim, and Hanukkah that are chiefly emphasized in the Jewish schools. Not only are these cheerful holidays, deemed likely to appeal to childish sensibilities, but these three holidays help teach three fundamental concepts to Jewish children. Passover teaches chosenness, Purim emphasizes the potential duplicity of Gentiles, and Hanukkah emphasizes the evil of assimilation....

"American Jewish support for Israel is also, in part, based on something that Jews will admit to one another but seldom to non-Jews, a fear that, as has occurred so often in Jewish history, Jews just might some day find themselves compelled to leave America and seek refuge elsewhere. Israel, to many Jews, represents a form of insurance policy against a major upsurge of antisemitism in the United States....

"In the early 1950s, an accommodation was reached between the Jewish state in Israel and the Jewish state in America. The Israeli government agreed to stop embarrassing American Jews and undermining the American Jewish leadership with declarations that Israel was the only true home for a Jew. The American Jewish leadership, for its part, agreed to provide financial and political support for Israel but to refrain from attempting to meddle in Israeli policies. In the aftermath of this accommodation, previously non-Zionist American Jewish organizations like the AJC became staunch supporters of Israel. The position developed by American Jewish organizations and given the blessing of Israeli leaders was that American Jews had a religious and moral commitment to support Israel but no obligation to come to Israel to live. Indeed, some prominent Jewish leaders in America argued that American Jews could best fulfill their moral obligation to Israel by remaining in America, where they could use their political influence and organizational strength to assure Israel of American financial and military support.

"In this way, the threat posed by the state of Israel to the Jewish 'state' in America was defused and transformed into an opportunity....

"As the emphasis in this letter suggests, over the past twenty-five years, the Holocaust has become one of the most important vehicles for rallying support and raising funds in the Jewish community. Three major Holocaust museums have been built in the United States in recent years, and Holocaust history has become an important curricular focus for all levels of Jewish education.

"While this acknowledgment of the tragedy that took place is important, during the actual Holocaust, unfortunately, American Jewish organizations were mainly silent, more concerned with antisemitism at home than with the fate of millions of Jews in Europe. For example, Leon Wells relates that when Joseph Proskauer became president of the AJC in 1943, his acceptance speech, which dealt with the problems American Jews were likely to face in the postwar period, made no mention whatsoever of the ongoing slaughter of European Jews or of any possible rescue efforts. Similarly, in Deafening Silence Medoff states that the 'Statement of Views' adopted by the AJC's 1943 annual meeting has no mention of the Germans' ongoing efforts to destroy the European Jews, something that was already known by American Jewish leaders at that time....

"The story of the Holocaust, moreover, became a useful parable on the dangers of assimilation and the evil of which even the best Gentiles were capable. After all, had not the Jews lived in Germany for centuries? Did many German Jews not regard themselves as Germans first and Jews second? Did their German friends and neighbors not turn on the Jews in a murderous rage? During the 1970s, this version of the story of the Holocaust began to join or even to replace Bible stories as mechanisms through which to teach American Jews - especially American Jewish children - to be wary of identifying too closely with the world of Gentile America....

"The prominence currently given to the story of the Warsaw ghetto tragedy is especially ironic given the lack of a response among American Jewish leaders to the uprising when it actually occurred. In April and May 1943, as the ghetto was being liquidated by the Germans, Jewish resistance fighters made a series of dramatic broadcasts and desperate calls for help over their clandestine radio station. On April 22, the station told the world that 'Gun salvos are echoing in Warsaw's streets. Women and children are defending themselves with bare hands. Come to our aid!' On May 25, the BBC reported monitoring a broadcast telling of Jews being executed by firing squads and being burned alive. Yet many American Jewish organizations had other priorities and gave little attention to the grim news from Warsaw. Only years later, when it became an important vehicle for communal mobilization, did the story of the Warsaw ghetto become a prominent focus of American Jewish concern.

"A similar story could be told about another contemporary focus of Jewish organizations' mobilizing efforts - the discovery of the plight of the Russian Jews. When Stalin was actually murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews, little interest in this tragedy was expressed in the West. In the United States, as Paul Appelbaum has observed, 'The few calls for concerted action [to help the Soviet Jews] were, for the most part, gently put and generally ignored' (614). Indeed, many left-wing American Jewish organizations and leaders denied that Jews were actually persecuted in the Soviet Union. In later years, however, when the utility of Israel as a rallying point for fund-raising and organizational activities was compromised, American Jewish organizations made much of the importance of saving the Russian Jews.

"Communal mobilization has thus been the third instrument through which leadership has preserved the Jewish community in America. Religious practice, education, and communal mobilization have prevented the Jews from completely disappearing into America. Because of the community's leadership, the Jews continue to maintain a measure of cohesion and identity in a nation whose other European ethnic groups are now largely indistinguishable.

"[David G. Dalin] During his eight years in the White House, Bill Clinton appointed more Jews to high-level positions than had any other president. Five Jews headed cabinet departments during Clinton's eight years; six others held portfolios with cabinet rank. The positions were of importance and covered the breadth of government activity....

"More Jews also served in prominent White House staff positions in the Clinton administration than at any time since the New Deal....The number of Jews appointed to sub-cabinet positions or to ambassadorships is equally impressive.

"In many respects, the 1990s were a historic - indeed, a golden-era for Jews in American politics and government. In that decade more Jews won election to the Congress and Senate than at any other time in American history. During the first four years of the 1950s, only one Jew was a member of the United States Senate; during the 1990s, eleven served at one time. For the first time in American history, a president, Bill Clinton, appointed two Jews to the United States Supreme Court. In the eight years of his presidency, Clinton appointed almost as many Jews to cabinet posts as had all of his predecessors combined. During the Clinton presidency, Jews received more ambassadorial appointments including the first appointment as ambassador to Israel, than in any other administration in American history.

"Although it has been hardly remarked on, a distinctive legacy of the Clinton presidency was the extraordinary number of Jewish appointees in important policymaking and advisory positions throughout the executive branch of the federal government. Indeed, through appointments to his White House staff, cabinet, and a variety of sub-cabinet and diplomatic posts, President Clinton brought more Jews into high-level positions in government than had any other president. Through these presidential appointments, American Jews have received an unprecedented degree of political recognition and influence in American government and public life that would have been unimagined in any earlier generation....

"[Connie L. McNeedy and Susan J. Tolchin] Jews number only l to 2 percent of the population, however, when their influence has been disproportionate to their numbers, antisemitism has tended to emerge. Fearing this reaction, many politically active Jews have preferred, until very recently to exercise their power behind the scenes and not in the forefront of politics. More typically, Jews have occupied high-ranking positions as advisers, financiers, publishers, and media figures.

"After the 1992 election, for the first time in history, the number of Jews in the Senate grew to ten, symbolically representing the first time that Jews in the Senate could form a minyan - the minimum number required for a 'prayer quorum.'...

"[Robert A. Burt] Of the 108 justices who have served on the United States Supreme Court since its founding, seven have been Jews....

"If the Jewish seat as such once had but no longer has strong social leaning, the question remains whether Jewishness has had any intrinsic significance for its occupants in their conception of their social role as (Jewish) justices. Two sentimentalized claims are often made for such significance: that Jews are inclined toward the legal profession because of the rabbinic tradition of close talmudic reading, and that Jews are inclined toward protection of all vulnerable minorities because of the Old Testament injunction to 'remember that you once were slaves in Egypt.' The causal connection is not, however, convincing. The Hebrew Bible expresses conflicting admonitions: alongside commandments for empathy with other socially vulnerable groups, there are directives for narrow self-aggrandizement [Jewish power] as God's 'chosen people' entitled to oust vulnerable others from divinely promised lands. The special affinity of Jews for the legal profession might well have some connection to rabbinic pursuits, but it is most plausible to see this Jewish concentration in the pursuit of professional credentials as 'helpers' and 'fixers' (whether in law, medicine, or accounting) as a secular strategy for self-protection and aggrandizement in a Gentile world offering limited social acceptance to Jews. It is less the rabbinic tradition than the hallowed social role of court Jew - as protected servant and financial facilitator of Christian kings in their struggles to exert centralized authority over feudal nobility - that marked the path leading so many American Jews to the legal profession (and seven of them to the Supreme Court)....

"[Gerald M. Pomper and Miles A. Pomper] The characteristic forms of Jewish politics in America are also broadly related to Lawrence Fuchs's classic description of fundamental Jewish values. Fuchs argues that three basic values provide the sources of American Jewish liberalism: learning (Torah), charity (tzedakeh), and nonasceticism, a celebration of life's pleasures. The emphasis on Torah made Jews receptive to intellectual designs for social reconstruction. The duty of tzedakeh [charity] stimulated Jews to support efforts toward redistributive justice. The emphasis on worldly pleasures made Jews seek improvements in their earthly life rather than patiently await redemption in a heavenly paradise.

"We admittedly stretch these terms in the following three-part analysis. In the first section, we examine machine politics, an expression of materialist values - another possible meaning of nonasceticism. What Fuchs defined as an emphasis on this-worldliness and the enjoyment of life here and now can become manifest in Jewish striving toward the machine's material rewards of money, prestige, and power....

"The Jewish impulse toward reform has not only been evident within the Democratic Party but also - a generation after Franklin Roosevelt - in direct opposition to it. In the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, some Jews came to believe that the Democratic Party had been corrupted by narrow, special interests - too corrupted to be reformed. Dismayed by the weaknesses they perceived in the presidency of Jimmy Carter, they argued that the United States had lost its moral compass both internationally and domestically.

"Inheritors of the ADA tradition on international issues, they came to believe that the Democratic Party was increasingly 'soft' on communism, indifferent to the Soviet Union's persecution of Jews, and acquiescent to third-world countries' domination of the United Nations on such issues as the notorious 1975 United Nations resolution condemning Zionism as racism. At home, they began to react against such conventional liberal policies such as affirmative action. Racial preferences were seen as contradictory to Jewish ideals of merit-based achievement and objective academic advancement. Not insignificantly, these programs were also seen as harmful to Jewish self-interests.

"These 'neoconservatives' had actually been slowly moving to the Republican Party since the 1950s: a half dozen Jews were among the founding members of National Review, the leading magazine of the intellectual right. But two events accelerated their movement to the Republican Party, in the late 1970s: the defeat of their Democratic champion, Henry M. 'Scoop' Jackson, in the 1976 Democratic Party presidential nomination and the emergence of Ronald Reagan as the GOP standard-bearer in the 1980 elections.

"Reagan's moralistic voice in international relations struck a chord with these 'neocon' Jews. They, too, regarded the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire,' and they welcomed Reagan's hard-line defense of Israel. More basically, Reagan's upbeat, optimistic view of the United States' role in the world resonated with these successful Americans, who felt that their fellow Jews had finally found a safe home in the United States, and angrily rejected the left's constant criticism. As one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, wryly said of American tolerance, Christians in the United States were less eager to persecute them than to have them marry their sons and daughters. Kristol's son, William, became an important player in GOP policy circles, serving as a key Republican strategist, editor of the Republican-leaning Weekly Standard, and as Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff....

"Yet, with a few exceptions, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, the Jewish role in GOP politics has been largely behind the scenes. But, aside from the major recent exception of Lieberman, that description is also true of the Democrats. In a role that harks back to the old 'court Jew' tradition of hidden influence over political decisions and invokes Fuchs's description of Torah or 'learning,' Jews have served as key advisers to both political parties, using their intellect to influence leaders while largely remaining out of the limelight....

"From the early twentieth century through the early 1950s, the primary agenda of the Jewish community was combating antisemitism at home and abroad and the corollary of antisemitism, discrimination, which was pervasive. From the early 1950s to the mid-1960s, the Jewish communal agenda was the civil rights movement, on the assumption that Jews would only be secure if all groups in American society were secure: again, a single issue to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Civil rights were the Jewish agenda. The separation of church and state played a significant role during these years as well. The great landmark cases were decided during this period, with essential participation - indeed, leadership - of the Jewish community. But the first priority was civil rights.

"Two events occurred in the mid-1960s that radically changed American Jewish priorities: the emergence of the Soviet Jewry movement in the United States in 1963 and the Six-Day War in 1967. The crucial impacts of these two developments were that they led American Jews to become preoccupied with Israel and Soviet Jewry and to move away from the broad range of domestic advocacy issues that encompassed social and economic justice concerns. Issues on the domestic agenda were yet on the Jewish agenda, but they were no longer the priority issues for advocacy. Almost overnight the Jewish advocacy agenda became more particularistic, more 'Jewish.'...

"Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, with radical changes in the communal agenda, American Jewry is once again reevaluating those issues it considers crucial to its survival and security. Levels of both behavioral and attitudinal antisemitism are very low, and in any case antisemitism poses no real threat to the ability of Jews to participate fully in the society. With the collapse of the Soviet Union a decade ago, the Soviet Jewry issue no longer constitutes an agenda for political and international advocacy but for social services. Finally, the Israel agenda, long the most critical for American Jews and Jewish advocacy groups, has changed radically. Whatever the serious problems and deep pitfalls in the peace process, the issues that have come to the fore are related more to the relationship between Israel and America's Jews than with the physical security of Israel.

"The Jewish community, then, is clearly in a transitional period. One principle, however, remains the central organizing principle for issues on the public affairs agenda: The issues that the community addresses - that are 'selected' for advocacy - are those in which there is a consensus of the community that they affect Jewish security....

"At the center, some issues immediately and directly relate to Jewish security: antisemitism, Israel, and the security of Jewish communities abroad. These issues, tautologically 'security' issues, lie at the core of advocacy.

"We then move one concentric circle out. In the penumbra [outlying region] of Jewish concerns, the relationship to Jewish security remains absolutely central. The separation of church and state - the central guarantor of Jewish security in the United States - is the most obvious in this category. This circle includes First Amendment and other political freedom issues. Jewish communal leader Earl Raab suggests a construct: what government cannot do to an individual, and what one individual cannot do to another. Bill of Rights protections - the balancing of the interests of government, the state, the individual, majorities, and minorities - fall under this rubric.

"The next level of concentric circles includes issues that, while they are located at the periphery of Jewish concerns, are clearly important to the health of the society and are therefore important to Jews as enhancing the health of American Jewish society. The questions are not of restraint, as are those of political and personal freedom, but of positive beneficence: what government can and should do for a person. Social and economic justice, the environment, and other such issues fall into this category.

"As the agenda expands, the inevitable question arises: 'Why is this issue a priority for Jewish advocacy?' Issues are priorities for Jews when they implicate Jewish security. To take one dramatic example, the Jewish community became involved in civil rights not out of liberal philosophies but out of Jewish self-interest. As discussed later in this chapter, it was not without vigorous debate within the Jewish community over the question as to whether 'relations with Negroes' was central to Jewish security. The Jewish advocacy agenda, therefore, ought not be refracted through the prism of the 'liberal agenda' - and it never was in any case. The conventional wisdom that the 'old-time religion' of 1950s and 1960s liberalism has driven the Jewish agenda is only partly right - and therefore mostly wrong. Jewish social and political tradition is neither liberal nor conservative; it is Jewish. American Jews have long understood that the advocacy agenda is the enabler of all of the other agendas of the community and is the vehicle which a contemporary realization of the traditional imperatives of kehilla (community) and tzedakeh (justice and charity) is expressed.

"With the receding of the exogenous 'security-and-survival' advocacy agenda, the concern of American Jews has turned increasingly inward, to its own values - indeed, to its very continuity. Concern over rates of intermarriage and massive Jewish functional illiteracy has brought about an agenda of identity. Jewish continuity, and Jewish 'Renaissance.' With the significant shift in priorities toward strategies aimed at guaranteeing Jewish continuity, Jewish advocacy organizations will be called on to rethink their missions and retool their operations. It remains to be seen whether the new emphasis on Jewish continuity can be effected without damage to the community's traditionally broad public-affairs advocacy agenda.

"[Jerome A. Chanes] Although observers perceive the Jewish community, with its multiplicity of organizations, as being chaotic, the reality is that the disparate forces do in fact work together. The resultant voice of American Jewry is an effective one and has had a significant impact on the public affairs agenda of the American polity - indeed, on the shaping of American society. It was the collective voice of American Jews that ensured U.S. support for Israel over the last half-century and secured administration and congressional backing for a tough stand in favor of the emigration of Soviet Jews. This voice immeasurably improved American society, by helping shape the civil rights movement, to repeal the National Origins Quota System for immigration to maintain and to strengthen the separation of church and state, and to provide a model for social service.

"On the other hand, the Jewish community is not in danger of being 'balkanized.' Most Jews in America do not concede to any one organization the right to express their particular views: they may well look to a number of different organizations, and this dynamic is very important in shaping the voices of the community. American Jews are willing to accept a fair amount of elasticity on views and positions, as long as basic, elemental consensus positions (e.g., the security of the state of Israel) are at their core. These basic positions remain strong and secure....

"The strength of the Jewish community - and by extension of Jewish communal advocacy - lies in the pluralistic structure of the community. The community does not seek unity merely for the sake of unity but in order for the community to achieve collectively its shared goals. One perception has it that the American Jewish community, with its multiplicity of agencies, is chaotic. The reality is that the community possesses the mechanisms that are capable of getting these disparate, often cacophonous, voices to work together. This collective voice - an effective one in terms of its impact on public policy, as we have seen - is the envy of other groups. The vitality demonstrated by this coordinated activity bodes well for the future of the American Jewish polity....

"[Matthew R. Kerbel] From the beginning, the names of the people who witnessed and forged these changes were both Jewish and Gentile. They became publishers and editors, reporters and columnists - people with influence owing to their ownership of the press and those with influence owing to their skillful contributions to what was published and broadcast. For the Protestants among their ranks, it is safe to say that religious self-identification was not a universally important component of how they went about their work. But, for the Jews, it does not overstate the case to say that religious orientation - or, at least those cultural aspects of being Jewish in a Christian world - was of overriding concern. Even for those like Walter Lippmann, who steadfastly avoided all mention of his Jewish heritage, it was throughout his life the five-ton elephant in the middle of the room. The issue is a familiar one: how to handle the countervailing pressures of fitting in and being different.

"[Ira N. Forman] As understood by ordinary members of the 'tribe,' being a 'good' Jew seems to have little connection to religious behavior. By a two-to-one margin, in fact, the participants in Jewish surveys have rejected the notion that 'good Jews' must do something as basically religious as believe in God or attend synagogue faithfully. Rather, most Jews define a 'good' Jew as somebody who contributes to Jewish causes, supports civil rights for black Americans, favors generous social welfare benefits, and embraces other progressive social values. Asked explicitly about the qualities that most strongly define their own Jewish identity, Jews are four times as likely to mention a commitment to social equality as they are to choose either support for Israel or religious involvement. In other words, for many Jews, the values of their religion are understood to promote attachment to a liberal political agenda carried into public life.

"The attachment to liberal values and candidates is just one of the traits that make American Jewry such an interesting phenomenon in American public life. Jewish Americans represent an extremely small percentage of the population, 2 to 3 percent, depending on how Judaism is defined; yet, as voters, donors, activists, leaders, and thinkers, they have had a profound impact on American political debate and the political process. The extent to which liberalism defines Jews' political attitudes is remarkable because it violates all the assumptions we make about the effect of upward mobility and assimilation on political behavior. Most immigrant groups move politically to the right as they become more integrated in American society. By contrast, American Jewry has retained a distinctive political identity and a liberal ideology, despite rapid social advancement and acceptance. We find relatively little political differentiation among Jews based on their economic or educational attainment. While other ethnoreligious groups are said to be dividing politically on the basis of religiosity, the link between religious commitment and political outlooks among Jewish Americans is much weaker.

"Looked at from almost any angle, then, the political attitudes and behavior of American Jews are paradoxical. In this chapter, we explore the puzzling phenomenon by profiling contemporary Jewish beliefs about politics and elections. In most of the chapter, we present information about how Jews differ from non-Jews, taking advantage of a rare public opinion poll commissioned for this chapter. We also look for signs of internal political division among American Jews, emphasizing the role of religious commitment, age, gender, and other potential sources of disagreement. Before turning to the specifics of Jewish political behavior, we first summarize what scholars have written about Jewish politics in the United States, emphasizing in particular the explanations for Jewish distinctiveness and the claims that Jewish political cohesion will disappear in the near future.

"When he wrote that 'Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans,' Milton Himmelfarb nicely captured the central paradox of Jewish politics in the contemporary United States. If politics is about economic self-interest, as so many observers believe, Jews should vote and think politically like Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and other high-status groups. Yet despite their affluence and status, Jewish voting patterns and attitudes are much closer to the norms for African Americans, Hispanics, and other groups who have the most to gain from progressive economic and social policies. This anomalous pattern has long perplexed scholarly observers and infuriated conservative activists like Irving Kristol who denounce what they call 'the political stupidity of the Jews.'

"In making sense of Jewish political patterns, one should start with the recognition that nothing is inevitable about the contemporary political alignment of American Jews. Although many Jews feel that their community's liberal political slant is nothing more than applied Judaism, the facts tell a different story. At other periods of American history, Jews were attached to a variety of political parties and causes. Although hard to know for sure, analysis of electoral data suggests that many Jews identified with Republican causes before Franklin Roosevelt came to the presidency. Moreover, a look at global and historical information reveals that Jews have been all over the political map. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, Jews in England, Australia, and Canada are often found politically divided or even on the conservative side in public debates. American Jews, who often blithely assume that Judaism by its nature compels support for human rights and progressive social values, are sometimes shocked to discover that Israeli Jews find very different political norms embedded in Judaism....

"Fuchs contends that these political lodestars are in turn anchored by three elements of Judaism. First, the Jewish emphasis on learning disposes Jews to support ambitious plans of social reconstruction under the aegis of government authorities. Jews have no trouble with the idea that experts ought to help plan society. Moreover, the commitment to education also makes Jews fierce defenders of intellectual freedom and hostile to restrictions on civil liberties. Such issues often divided Republicans and Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s.

"Fuchs's second religious value, tzedakeh [charity], is invoked to explain Jewish sympathy for the weak and oppressed and their commitment to social justice and compassion. Third, Fuchs calls attention to the worldly, nonascetic nature of Judaism. Unlike some forms of Christianity, Judaism does not regard human pleasure as something separate from God but emphasizes the godliness of sensuality. Nor does Judaism believe that human beings should postpone gratification for an ideal heaven. Together, these values render Jews enthusiastic supporters of plans to remake the world in God's image....

"Scholars who are puzzled by Jewish liberalism and support for Democrats often assume that such behavior is contrary to Jewish interests. As an affluent community, surely American Jews have more to gain by embracing conservatism than by continued attachment to liberalism. These observers frequently wonder aloud why Jews do not follow their 'interests' in politics. In response, some observers have asserted that Jews do indeed pursue their own interests in politics to the same degree as other ethnoreligious groups in the United States. Their behavior is puzzling only to people who assume that Jewish self-interest is defined solely by economic considerations. Looked at more broadly, advocates of this perspective contend, Jews remain liberal and Democratic because both alliances are good for them.

"According to this view, Jews have thrived especially well in the liberal political and economic system of the United States. The low level of antisemitism and the easy breaking of barriers to advancement were possible for the Jews because of the pro-civil rights measures and policies pursued over the years by liberal politicians. Jews supported the efforts to make discrimination illegal because they benefited substantially from an open and fair competitive system. At the end of the day, nothing is very puzzling about Jewish political behavior because it simply reflects a rational calculation of the impact of public policies on Jewish existence....

"[Anna Greenberg and Kenneth D. Wald] Clearly, Jewish liberalism, while strong, is by no means monolithic. But what is striking is how little variation shows within the Jewish community on most issues. The absence of internal political diversity distinguishes Jewish Americans from other citizens who are divided by class, religiosity, geography, and race. Certainly younger Jews are less partisan and more socially liberal than their elders, yet Jews overall are politically undifferentiated by class, geography, and, surprisingly, level of religious observance. In this high level of internal agreement, Jews resemble African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minority groups who exhibit a remarkable and enduring degree of internal political cohesiveness. Both in what they believe and how strongly they agree with one another, Jews continue to confound many of the commonplace assumptions about group political behavior.

"Jewish Americans do not exhibit the same political tendencies as other demographically equivalent groups. For instance, we might expect Jewish Americans to become more conservative in their beliefs and voting preferences as succeeding generations attain higher levels of affluence and education. In fact, Jewish Americans are among the most highly educated, professional, and affluent members of the population. In the Jewish Public Opinion Study, 58 percent of Jewish Americans have a college degree, compared to 22 percent of non-Jews. Twenty-eight percent of Jewish Americans describe themselves as professional, compared to 10 percent of non-Jews. Thirty-seven percent of Jews earn over $85,000, compared to 13 percent of non-Jews....

"At the present time, school vouchers remain hypothetical for the vast majority of American school districts. Although Jewish organizations have joined teachers' groups in challenging their constitutionality, the Jewish rank and file may not yet have understood the church-state implications of vouchers or considered the possibility that this innovation may hurt public school funding or permit state funds to flow to racist and antisemitic schools....

"As interesting as these attitude differences are to Jews and students of political behavior generally, the general reader might wonder why they matter. If Jews constitute less than 3 percent of the American population, why should we care about their distinctive political habits? The answer is that Jewish Americans do have an important impact on American politics despite their small numbers. We know that Jews 'over-participate' in politics: they are more likely than other Americans to vote, contribute to campaigns, and embrace social activism. In a society in which politics is a spectator sport with an audience base that ranks somewhere below professional sports, Jews thus have a political impact beyond their numbers. But does this disparity stem from something distinctly Jewish or from the fact that Jews tend to have more resources than other Americans? As we know from studies of political participation, political engagement is closely related to the socioeconomic resources an individual possesses. For a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this chapter, highly educated and affluent citizens are much more likely than the disadvantaged to participate and exert influence in politics. But is Jewish participation higher or lower than we would expect after taking into account the social conditions of the Jewish community in the United States?

"Comparing Jews with non-Jews of comparable socioeconomic status reveals that Jews 'over-participate' not because they are Jewish, but because they possess considerable resources. Overall, statistically significant differences exist between Jews and non-Jews on making campaign contributions, voter registration, and voting in the 1996 election. But high-status non-Jews' participation rate across a range of measures is nearly identical to Jewish Americans. The only exception is interest in politics Jews are significantly more likely to be 'very interested' in politics and public affairs than high-status non-Jews....

"Scholars argue that African Americans maintain their political cohesion in the face of increasing internal differentiation because they think of their political interests in terms of group interests. They gauge their understanding of political and economic events by considering their effect on African Americans relative to other groups such as white Americans....

"[Edward Shapiro] Words used to describe the voting patterns of American Jews include paradoxical, dissonant, peculiar, strange, curious, contradictory, and idiosyncratic. Things were not always perceived this way. In the nineteenth century, Benjamin Disraeli remarked about the political conservatism of Jews. He once described himself as the blank page between the Old and New Testaments. In his book Lord George Bentinck, he calls Jews 'the trustees of tradition, and the conservators of the religious element.... All the tendencies of the Jewish race are conservative. Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy; and it should be the interest of statesmen that this bias of a great race should be encouraged and their energies and creative powers enlisted in the cause of existing society.'...

"After the Six-Day War of 1967, however, some liberals now described the Jewish state as militaristic, imperialistic, capitalistic, and racist. Jews had once been in the forefront of the civil rights movement and had believed that Jews and blacks comprised a holy brotherhood of the oppressed. By the late 1960s, antisemitism had become an important staple of the rhetoric of black radicals, as, for example, in Harold Cruse's 1967 book, The Crisis of the Black Intellectual, and liberals seemed to be willing to overlook or excuse such talk out of fear of lending aid and comfort to the right. 'Whatever the case may have been yesterday, and whatever the case may be tomorrow,' Podhoretz said, 'the case today is that the most active enemies of the Jews are located not in the precincts of the ideological Right but in the Radical Left.'

"In a perceptive 1988 Commentary essay, Dan Himmelfarb, the managing editor of The Public Interest, stressed the differences between the traditionalist conservatives or paleoconservatives, as they came to be called - and the neoconservatives, a group composed largely of Jews disaffected from contemporary liberalism....

"Paleoconservatives also find it difficult to sympathize with the reflexive support of neoconservatives for Israel. They view the Jewish state as simply another foreign country with its own distinctive interests, and these interests frequently conflict with those of the United States. Russell Kirk, in a notorious crack, complained that neoconservatives such as Podhoretz and his wife, Midge Decter, frequently 'mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.' This statement deeply angered neoconservatives, particularly Decter, a staunch Zionist. By raising the old antisemitic canard of dual loyalty, Kirk had fostered doubts among the neoconservatives as to whether the conservative movement was truly sympathetic to legitimate Jewish concerns and whether it welcomed committed Jews to their ranks....

"This atrophying of neoconservatism was perhaps best seen in the willingness of some Jewish neoconservative intellectuals to break with the Jewish consensus regarding the danger of religious involvement in public life. Elliott Abrams, the son-in-law of Decter and Podhoretz, even wrote a book titled Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, which criticizes the 'high wall of separation' theory of church-state relations popular among Jews, praises Christian evangelicals, and asserts that believing Christians are not antisemites and do not threaten Jewish interests. In fact, he claims, Christians are now more respectful of Judaism than Jews are of Christianity. 'Anti-Christian bias is apparently the only form of prejudice that remains respectable in the American Jewish community,' Abrams declares. 'The notion that the more fervent a Christian's belief the more danger he or she represents to Jews should be rejected outright.'...

"[Stephen J. Whitfield] The student radicals who rebelled at Berkeley, Columbia, and Harvard and were also inclined to protest on other Ivy League and Big Ten campuses were privileged. They were not motivated by material self-interest, nor were they hampered by prejudice or discrimination. Jews constituted about a tenth of all college students in the 1960s, yet they were often half or more of the radicals on leading campuses. The American Council of Education concluded, after a survey of 1966-67, that the most accurate predictor of protest was the matriculation of Jewish students....

"They identified with the executioners, not the victims, of Stalinism, which means that one needs to explain how, say, leftist Jews selectively applied their religious heritage. Radicals in the post-Emancipation era distanced themselves from both pious and impious homes. But it is by now a commonplace that the most observant Jews are rarely radical, and the most radical are rarely observant. The more radical the Jew, the less he or she is likely to know (or care) about normative Judaic practice....

"Anti-Zionism has been almost entirely a phenomenon of communism and of the putatively revolutionary regimes of the Third World. At the same time the Jewish proletariat largely disappeared, thus eliminating whatever class basis once existed for socialist ideology....

"If Jews have been disproportionately radicals, it may be because they have been disproportionately intellectuals. Randolph Bourne and Thorstein Veblen were among the first Americans to recognize - during the era of the Great War - the spectacular impact that Jewish intellectuals were making on Western culture. But the remarks of Nikos Kazantzakis are even more to the point. 'Ours is an age of revolution,' the Greek writer says of the interwar period: 'That is, a Jewish age.' Modern life had become fragmented and decomposed, and 'the Jews have this supreme quality: to be restless, not to fit into the realities of the time; to struggle to escape; to consider every status quo and every idea a stifling prison. This spirit of the Jews shatters the equilibrium.' More than any other immigrant group, the Jews harbored intellectuals among their tired, huddled masses; and they fostered a radical spirit and outlook. According to Murray Polner, linguist Noam Chomsky, for example, has recorded his own indebtedness to the 'radical Jewish working-class milieu' to which his family belonged: 'It was a very unusual culture .... [It was] a mixture of a very high level of intense intellectual life, but at the same time it was really working class.'...

"Oddly enough, his own youthful radicalism was barely shaped by reading as such. Nathan Glazer's family - itself on the welfare rolls in Harlem during the Great Depression - was so unfamiliar with his own vocation as a writer and an editor that his mother, once asked to describe his occupation, vaguely asserted that he was 'in the pen business.' Irving Howe also grew up in a working-class home devoid of a single book yet pursued the same inclinations. A hypothesis that emphasizes such vocations does not require the ascription of intellectuality to the Judaic faith, as the source of a certain tendency toward radicalism. That is another advantage of the theory....

"The latter pressure resulted in the pathetic Evian Conference in 1938 in which only the Dominican Republic offered sanctuary to Jews....

"[Steven L. Spiegel] In 1948, as violence escalated between the Arabs and Jews, Truman and his aides were more concerned about a possible communist victory in Italy, the future of Germany, and the Berlin blockade.

"The national security bureaucracy was unanimous in its assessment that the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East was a terrible idea and injurious to American interests. The State Department argued that a Jewish state would alienate the Arabs and large sectors of the Muslim world, endanger oil supplies to an impoverished Europe, and even threaten Jewish security in the United States when Americans realized the perils of U.S. support for a Jewish state. Most bureaucrats in the executive branch thought the Jews could not win after an inevitable Arab attack, and America's demobilized army would not be able to rescue them. Even if the Jews miraculously emerged victorious, the communists would benefit as the Arabs would hold the West, and especially the United States, responsible. Some even thought Israel would be an ally of the Soviets, as many of its leaders had emigrated from Russia and held socialist beliefs. In short, supporting a Jewish state was seen as either a disaster or at best a luxury America could not afford.

"Eisenhower and Dulles went further, concluding the Arabs were essential to blocking the advance of international communism. True believers in the vision of a Middle East organized in the image of Europe, they proceeded to push for the Baghdad Pact - a Near East NATO - meant to contain the Soviets through cooperation with the 'northern tier' of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and to promote 'technical' solutions to the problems of the area, such as the equitable sharing of the waters of the Jordan river. Israel was seen as a burden, even an obstacle, because Eisenhower and Dulles knew they would have to resolve Arab fears concerning Israel in order to get Arab cooperation in their plans to contain Soviet influence in the region....

"Although Soviet Jews were an important focus of Carter's human rights campaign, and notwithstanding his successful mediation of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, American Jews found others of his actions, most notably his expressed empathy for the Palestinians, disturbing enough to prompt their continued high level of engagement in the foreign policy arena. Despite intense activity by Jewish organizations and lobbyists, however, the pro-Israeli forces suffered a major defeat in Carter's 1978 arms sale to Saudi Arabia....

"Despite its general pro-Israeli orientation, however, the Reagan administration also completed a sale of AWACS jets to the Saudis in 1981, a bitter defeat for the American Jewish community that led to a significant expansion of Jewish lobbying efforts. The AIPAC flagship expanded dramatically. What began as a small office in Washington had, by the mid-1980s, become a national operation with a significantly enhanced capability for lobbying Congress, as well as hitherto untouched branches of government such as the Department of Defense. Other organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents' Conference also increased their foreign policy involvement. Taking advantage of the post-Watergate election-funding reforms, pro-Israeli political action committees (PACs) were created around the country. As PACs made it easier for incumbents to win congressional elections, the strength of the pro-Israeli community was dramatically strengthened in the 1980s.

"By the end of the Reagan era, the pro-Israeli community was in its strongest position ever. An increased number of Jewish legislators headed a bipartisan pro-Israeli coalition that included both liberals and conservatives, prominent representatives from all of the country's geographic regions and many of its ethnic groups. Impressive victories had become commonplace on issues such as foreign aid to Israel, arms sales, dealings with the United Nations, and the disposition of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) offices in the United States. Yet, despite these successes, when George H. W. Bush assumed the presidency, the Jewish community was unable to prevent him from returning to a modified Carter perspective marked by a willingness to pressure Israel for its own good and to improve America's relations with the Arabs.

"The end of the Iran-Iraq War, the continuation of the Intifada (the Palestinian uprising against Israel), and a brief U.S. dialogue with the PLO all encouraged renewed attention to the Arab-Israeli peace process, but Bush saw the Shamir government as an impediment to successfully reaching a deal. The period of working together to reverse Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait notwithstanding, Bush's approach to Israel was most notable for his decision in the fall of 1991 not to approve loan guarantees for Israel so long as the Shamir government continued to expand settlements in the West Bank. Jewish organizations protested vehemently, but Bush stood firm during the ensuing political firestorm. Even though his administration went on to arrange the path-breaking Madrid peace conference in October 1991, the damage was done and American Jews turned against Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, in passionate form in the 1992 election campaign.

"Bill Clinton came to power with little foreign policy experience, planning to concentrate on domestic policy, celebrate the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and depend on the Arabs and Israelis to negotiate with each other. Surrounded by Jews and comfortable with Israel as a key U.S. ally, Clinton pursued a policy that was a Democratic version of Reagan's, and American Jewish influence blossomed. Given the Clinton administration's strong pro-Israeli leanings, the Democratic Congress was in the unusual position of cheering the president on. That situation would not last long, however, because the Republican revolution of 1994 brought both houses under the control of the Republicans. It is a largely unrecognized achievement of the pro-Israel community that it was rapidly able to gain the support for a new pro-Israel view from new Republicans with hitherto little experience in the Middle East.

"The mid-1990s witnessed a sharp downturn in mass Jewish interest in foreign policy generally and in Israel in particular. The Oslo Accords seemed to suggest the end of Israel's conflict with the Arabs. Other factors also contributed to this downturn in concern: the dissension in Israel between religious and secular Jews, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, the settlement of Soviet Jews in Israel and the consequent removal of this issue from the political agenda, and the end of the Cold War, which resulted in a downturn in interest in foreign policy on the part of most Americans.

"Nevertheless, Jewish lobbyists were still able to exercise considerable influence. The official Jewish organ supported and Congress passed additional aid to Palestinians after the signing of Oslo II in September 1995 and after the 1998 Wye agreement and its 'Sharm El Sheikh' annex in 1999. Passage occurred despite conservative and rightwing protestations that the aid should be cut off due to what critics saw as the Palestinian Authority's failure to live up to previous agreements. Congress also approved legislation by huge margins in both houses that recognized a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital and required that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv be moved to Jerusalem (although Clinton subsequently suspended the action)....

"Thus, by 2000, the American Jewish community had become a major player in the coalition within the United States that advocated a global and internationalist perspective on foreign policy. As trusted members of the elite, Jews were in a position to express views that no longer seemed outrageous and outside the establishment consensus, as had been the case in 1948, 1956, or even 1967 and 1973. With 10 percent of the Senate being Jewish, with prime foreign policy advisers in both parties being Jewish, with Jews in government playing key roles even in dealing with Middle East policy, it was difficult to pretend that Jewish foreign policy views did not belong in the political establishment. Indeed, even the prime think tank for Middle East affairs in the nation's capital, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was clearly sympathetic to Israel despite its well-deserved reputation for academic quality and professionalism.

"From this brief review of the record of ten administrations, we can extract several lessons about the role of American Jews in the formulation of American foreign policy. First, when the priority of the Arab-Israeli issue is high due to American interest in gaining support in the Arab world, tensions with Jerusalem increase no matter what Jews do. We can see a large range of disputes between Jerusalem and Washington under Eisenhower, in the late Nixon period, and again under Ford, Carter, and Bush. When the priority of this issue is low, in the main because the United States is preoccupied with other, more pressing, global issues, as under Truman and Kennedy, it is difficult to gain the attention of high-ranking policymakers. This situation increases the influence of the national security bureaucracy, which works against close relations with Israel, since the bureaucracy tends to have a more geopolitical view of the issue. American Jews working on behalf of Israel seem to do best either when there is a president ideologically sympathetic to the Jewish state, such as Johnson, Reagan, or Clinton, or when a president sees Israel as playing a positive strategic role in the region, as with Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton....

"There is little consideration in American Jewish community circles of the relevance of Russia, China, or Europe, or economic or Third World policy for an American worldview that Jews can support. This lack of attention is in part because disagreement exists within the American-Jewish community between neoconservatives and liberal internationalists, but it also reflects an inability to conceive of a global picture that would include support for Israel in particular and Jewish interests more generally. Moreover, this lack of a philosophical underpinning has exacerbated differences within the community and weakened the ability of American Jews to speak for Americans as a whole....

"[David M. Shribman] By numbers, Jews account for ten members of the Senate, and twenty-seven members of the House in the 107th Congress - 10 percent of the upper body, 6 percent of the lower. By any measure, these are remarkable figures considering that Jews constitute only 2.3 percent of the nation's population. This prominence is even more striking when contrasted to the period between 1960 and 1967; during those years, only three Jews (Jacob K. Javits, the New York Republican, and Democrats Abraham A. Ribicoff from Connecticut and Ernest H. Gruening from Alaska) sat in the Senate.

"But what is most indicative of Jews' place in the host community is that half of the ten senators serving in 1996 were elected from states where Jews accounted for less than 1 percent of the electorate. Indeed, two Jewish Democrats, Russell D. Feingold and Herb Kohl, now serve in the Senate from Wisconsin, where Jews constitute 0.5 percent of the population. And for the past twenty-one years, a Jewish senator has represented Minnesota, a state where Jews account for 0.9 percent of the population and a state once widely known as an island of antisemitism. When Republican Senator Rudy Boschwitz, who was elected in 1978, was defeated in 1990, he was beaten by Democrat Paul Wellstone, providing the remarkable situation of one Jew succeeding another Jew in the Senate. In the 1990 race, an unusually bitter contest, Senator Boschwitz attempted to win favor among Minnesotans by suggesting that Wellstone, a political scientist, was an insufficiently observant Jew.

"With two Jews on the Supreme Court and with one Orthodox Jew, Democratic Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, serving in the Senate (and refusing to work on the Sabbath), most of the hurdles to Jewish service in American civic life seem to be eliminated. (Jews have played prominent roles in the cabinet for years, symbolized in modern times by the ascension of Henry A. Kissinger to the position of secretary of state in the Nixon administration.) The final barrier remains the White House....

"This is one of the preeminent issues in American life, occupying the minds not only of Jews but also of other groups, including many of the Jewish people's colleagues among the host population. This issue is so difficult for Americans because it involves a conflict between two important values: the political value, important in contemporary times, of national control of borders; and the cultural value, important in the American heritage, of open borders.

"Jews on the whole are more open to immigration than are many other groups in the United States, in part because they are slow to recognize their status as part of the host community and still regard themselves, in spirit if not in reality, as part of the immigrant community. To Jews, America was and is the golden land. American University sociologist Rita Simon, who has written widely on Jewish life in America, believes that Jews living in America are experiencing what she calls 'the Golden Age of Jews.' For that reason, Jews in the future will be reluctant to close the immigration doors. The people who are proud to have been part of the wretched refuse that found earthly redemption in the Great Hall on Ellis Island are likely to work to offer that redemption to others....

"A decade ago observers found little support among Jews outside the Orthodox community for school vouchers and tuition-tax credits. But in recent years a number of new Jewish private schools, and not only those Orthodox in orientation, have grown and prospered, with prominent examples in Atlanta and Washington. Many of these schools draw students from the children of secular Jews; among the reasons are a growing sense of spirituality among these Jews and their growing skepticism over the rigor, discipline, and curriculum in the public schools. Thus, vouchers and tuition-tax credits, once regarded as anathema among all but the most observant Jews, have become major issues within the Jewish community. The most recent annual survey of American Jewish public opinion by the American Jewish Committee found that 57 percent opposed a school voucher program - but that 41 percent favored it. This debate almost certainly will heat up in coming years."

[End of Quotes from Jews in American Politics]

The above passages from Jews in American Politics seem to underpin as true everything that MacDonald presents in A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Far too often, when out-groups see Jews acting in concert to enrich themselves, they assume there is some type of conspiracy. In reality, the racial conflicts that abound today and in the past are best understood as natural, as existing in our evolutionary past. Racial conflict is a part of altruism, group evolutionary strategies, and it will not go away through government decrees or new social initiatives to make people get along.

What makes the study of Jewish racialism so interesting I think is not that it is unique to Jews - even if Jews have evolved a heightened form of genetic ethnocentrism; it is the fact that they are more intelligent than any other group. As such, they are able to insinuate themselves into positions that make other groups envious of their success and power - an unfortunate side effect of having both innate intelligence and innate ethnocentrism.

This then evokes a fundamental paradox of the Jewish mind - how do Jews openly claim to be the masters of the world in terms that are so closely akin to say Black supremacy, and yet they fail to see that they behave or think in exclusively racialist terms. Throughout Jews in American Politics, there are not so subtle references to maintaining Jewish racial separatism, that Jews are the chosen ones, and that Jews are the natural leaders of world. In fact, they claim that because Jews are so superior to any other group, it is necessary for them to maintain their racial purity for the good of all of the other lesser races. I don't know any other way of interpreting their position from the opening quote I presented above. Yet, Jews continually call Europeans racists if they do not willingly intermarry with other races, especially Blacks. Failure of Euros to marry Blacks as if there were no racial differences between Blacks and Euros is proof of racism according to Jews - a standard that Jews ignore when it comes to them marrying out.

The other amazing paradox is in the Jewish assertion that Europeans in the United States suppress "people of color" and the proof is in the fact that Euros have "White privilege." That is, because Europeans oppress others, we have more in terms of economic and political success than any other group. Nowhere in Jews in American Politics did I see this anomaly addressed, that Jews, due to their high level of conscientiousness and intelligence, have far more in terms of wealth, educational achievement, and political power than Europeans. In fact, in terms of social economic status, Europeans are in the middle - Jews and East Asians are above us, while Blacks and Amerindians are below us. (It seems unnatural not to say Hispanic, but in fact, that term is meaningless in terms of race and really should be tossed out. It only seems to exist as a way of solidifying a large group of racially mixed groups against Europeans.)

Intellectuals make way too much of Jewish power. It seems that the only difference between Jews and other races is the fact that Jews are far more intelligent than other competing races, and Europeans have the unique innate characteristics that include individualism rather than collectivism and universal- rather than particularist-moralism (see chart above from The Culture of Critique). What results is the astonishing situation where Europeans, to my knowledge, are the only race to be collectively attacked by other races for being too oppressive, and in addition we not only accept the charges but join in the chorus - we attack our own race as a form of moral outrage for charges never proven. We have simply been indoctrinated into beating ourselves up. The study of group evolutionary strategies can help us understand how we have stood human nature on its head, how far we have strayed from rationality, and how insane it is to adopt any moral stance without understanding behavioral genetics.

Let's look at another race that is as homogeneous as Europeans - East Asians. They have migrated to South Asian nations and they dominate those countries. East Asians have an average IQ of about 105 while South Asians have an IQ closer to 90 on average - the same difference between races as Blacks are to Euros or Euros are to Jews - about 15 points. "In Indonesia, for example, barely one percent of the population, [East Asians] control about 80 percent of the non-state-owned wealth." The situation is similar in many other countries where the East Asian diaspora has made the minority East Asians economically dominate to the chagrin of the befuddled natives. What is the response from this East Asian oppression? Nothing. The world community totally ignores it, no doubt to a large degree because East Asians, being a more ethnocentric race, would not accept the moral assertions and turn on their own kind like Europeans have on themselves.

To test this dichotomy of positions between Euros and all other races, try your own simple experiment. On the Internet, do a Google search on "White privilege" (including the quote marks) and see how many hits there are. Read through a few of them to see just how vehemently Euros are attacked - it is singularly the most astonishing awakening any European could have that so dramatically illustrates just how much of a smear campaign we have been under over the last few decades. Following are the results of my January 25, 2003, Google search for other races as well:

White privilege - 16,900
Jewish privilege - 165
Black privilege - 119
Asian privilege - 2

My claim is then, that Euros are less ethnocentric than any other race, based on the available empirical evidence. Now, with all of the attention that racism has received over the last fifty years and more, one would think that we could find its quantitative source in psychometrics - which includes the study human behavior and how people vary on such things as dominance, introversion, authoritarianism, etc. Unfortunately, no one seems to be interested in unraveling this mystery - it has primarily been sustained in the popular folk myth of racism. I did however find enough scientific evidence that leads me to believe that psychometrics is fully capable of defining levels of ethnocentrism in people. To that end, I will look at some sources from academic journals, books, and studies to see where we are at with regards to racism/ethnocentrism and authoritarianism.

Numerous attitude surveys try to show how racism is pervasive among Whites. One thing I wanted to know was how empirically valid were these tests? One source is the Buros Institute's Mental Measurements Yearbooks.

The 9th Mental Measurements Yearbook, 1985, lists 260 test reviews. The only one seemed of any interest: System of Multiculturalism Assessment.

The 10th yearbook, 1989, lists 210 test reviews. Nothing was found.
The 11th yearbook, 1992, lists 330 test reviews. The Racial Attitude Test was the only race/ethnocentrism test of the six most recent yearbooks reviewed.
The 12th yearbook, 1995, lists 420 test reviews. Only Diversity Awareness Profile was found, and not very relevant.
The 13th yearbook, 1998, lists 370 test reviews. Only the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale was found, and not very relevant.
The 14th yearbook, 2001, lists 430 test reviews. Two tests dealt with psychopathy.

If racism has some relationship with psychopathy, then these tests may be of interest. But since psychopathy is found in all races, and in very low percentages, it hardly seems that this condition is related in anyway to racism, except for the occasional brutal murder or similar attack by a psychopath[s].

If racism is of such interest, why was there only one test listed since 1985? It seems that accusations and proof of racism has never really been tested, and outside of the evolutionary sciences has never really been rationally approached. What we do have in social sciences, education, political science, etc. are numerous articles and books that discuss racism, but never produce any hypotheses that are scientifically based on the falsifiability standards as discussed by Popper as the only legitimate form of scientific inquiry. Racism is discussed as just-so-stories, without facts or empirical data.

In evolutionary biology, the situation is different. There is an active unraveling of group evolutionary strategies that underlie ethnocentrism for example:[1]


Self-Directed Evolution

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

>> Site Map <<


euvolution sacred hands