[PLEASUREMAN]

Quote

For those interested, a copy of MacDonald's The Culture of Critique can be purchased at Amazon through this link. If you want to give me a very tiny donation, you can use http://www.amazon.co...2229/udolpho-20 to purchase the book instead.

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

Conservatives are not by nature introspective. When William F. Buckley, Jr. (briefly) contemplated his own lack of introspection, he concluded that if the unexamined life was not worth living, then his life was not worth living. Going from there, conservatives aren't very curious about whatever motivates them, other than a memorized series of banal "values" such as hard work, honor, and family--there is a perceived arrogance in the way conservatives seem to take ownership of such ordinary values, which causes them to speak in losing ways.

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

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

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

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

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

[little felipe]

PLEASUREMAN, 13 January 2010 - 11:51 PM:

In my view, MacDonald's incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups bears further study, particularly with regard to American political life. I think it is just as likely that Jewish culture as it was shaped over the millenia has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is evolutionary or not is beside the point--it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

I view COC as a long-overdue volley over the net in response to Adorno's "Authoritarian Personality", and everything by Marcuse.

I read it as a print-on-demand book, has it gotten a real publisher yet?

[PLEASUREMAN]

little felipe, 14 January 2010 - 06:58 PM:

I view COC as a long-overdue volley over the net in response to Adorno's "Authoritarian Personality", and everything by Marcuse.

I read it as a print-on-demand book, has it gotten a real publisher yet?

No it is still 1st Books which is as you describe. There probably isn't a publisher in America who would touch it (other than the kind MacDonald would not want to be affiliated with).

[PLEASUREMAN]

Chapter 1 - Jews and the Radical Critique of Gentile Culture: Introduction and Theory

MacDonald begins by refuting the charge that is usually thrown at him, which is the product of either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation (as can be seen with Derbyshire, those not implacably hostile to MacDonald's approach seem to have retained little from their light skimming):

MacDonald:

There is no implication here of a unified Jewish "conspiracy" to undermine gentile culture, as portrayed in the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Since the Enlightenment, Judaism has never been a unified, monolithic movement, and there has clearly been a great deal of disagreement among Jews as to how to protect themselves and attain their interests during this period. The movements discussed in this volume (Boasian anthropology, political radicalism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the New York Intellectuals) were advanced by relatively few individuals whose views may not have been known or understood by the majority of the Jewish community. The argument is that Jews dominated these intellectual movements, that a strong sense of Jewish identity was characteristic of the great majority of these individuals, and that these individuals were pursuing a Jewish agenda in and participating in these movements.

In the case of Jewish-dominated movements like neoconservatism, which developed as a reaction to political radicalism, the disagreement with other Jewish intellectuals is obvious. However, this does not mean that these apparent adversaries did not share views perceived to be crucial to the advancement of Jewish interests, such as the movement for open borders.

That men may bind together with co-ethnics, co-religionists, countrymen, political allies, and other configurations to advance the interests of the group should not be controversial, and is not in fact controversial when applied to nearly every group other than Jews themselves. Clearly when looking at these other groups we do not assert that every single black American or every single Chinese or every single Catholic is in agreement and acting in concert in schemes for advantage. Nevertheless the enthusiasm of black Americans for affirmative action is a case of obvious group self-interest (notwithstanding that the majority of blacks do not actually benefit from affirmative action, which mainly serves to secure the livelihoods of the mean-regressed offspring of upper class blacks). The interest that Mexican Americans have in lax enforcement of the southern border is plainly the result of ethnic loyalty asserting itself.

This will need to be restated often, for the first line of attack on MacDonald has been that he asserts a conspiratorial unity among Jews, and to note that the intellectual movements discussed in his book also counted many gentiles among their adherents (as if this disproves a pattern of Jewish involvement). I have found that even after clearly explaining the difference between Jews forming conspiracies and Jews acting independently to defend and promote Jewish interests and values, the arguments persist as if MacDonald is asserting the former. Such an argument can go nowhere.

As MacDonald notes, gentiles can be attracted to the same movements that attract Jews for much the same reason (competition with a dominant outgroup), as for example the appeal of Leftist ideologies to black intellectuals. Even where an intellectual movement is composed of a large gentile majority, the significantly higher Jewish mean IQ means that leadership positions may still be dominated by Jews, and therefore the movement itself may end up guided toward Jewish interests despite having only a small Jewish membership (and without, to repeat, a concerted or subversive plan on the part of Jews).

Similarly, Steve Sailer has observed the overrepresentation of Jews among the Atlantic 50. While the Atlantic 50 would appear to cover a fair bit of ideological ground from left to right, the very fact that so many Jews are in a position of influence should give ample reason to examine the question of whether Jewish identity asserts itself through such influence, however benignly or unconsciously (it is remarkable that the list also includes an overrepresentation of Catholics).

Two other points made by MacDonald are that gentiles were recruited into these intellectual movements to assist their acceptance by the majority gentile population, and that Jewish involvement may have been a crucial factor in the success of certain movements (again referencing high Jewish IQ, work ethic, and natural cohesion). The first point may seem to edge closer to the Judaism-as-conspiracy idea, but MacDonald points out that the likelier explanation is that Jews were simply aware of anti-Semitism and that any intellectual movement too closely associated with Jews might find itself targeted and discredited by anti-Semites for that reason alone.

Dominance of a movement's leadership and public voice can lead to ideological changes even to the point of expelling members of the movement who disagree with Jewish views. This has in fact happened on the right over the issue of immigration, most notoriously at National Review, where immigration became a closed issue and Buckley himself indicated that a restrictive position on immigration was no longer politically tenable (Buckley's reliability as a conservative was greatly overstated). This has created some tension as the popular view on the right is overwhelmingly opposed to current levels of both legal and illegal immigration; conservative organs such as National Review have had a ticklish time with this issue.

The high Jewish IQ may also lead Jews to become more involved in critical intellectual movements irrespective of Jewish interests, on the notion that high IQ people are more likely to criticize the status quo and develop intellectual theories relating to its reorganization (having a greater preference for novelty and exhibiting greater openness). MacDonald cites Jewish radical intellectuals in Weimar Germany, who were seen by German university professors as overly critical and as advancing the disunity of German society, fuelling anti-Semitic views. (More than once MacDonald aruges that the Jewish view--that anti-Semitism is not a reaction to Jewish behavior--is contradicted by the frequent and open competition for resources and influence with other groups.)

Jewish economic success has tended to lead to restrictions on Jewish activity, as in czarist Russia, which then creates an adversarial relationship between Jews and gentile society, which then leads to increased anti-Semitism and Jewish strategies intended to counter anti-Semitism. This, in a nutshell, is MacDonald's model for many of the interactions between Jews and other groups. In this sense it all comes down to a struggle for resources between a highly cohesive and highly intelligent ethnic group and the groups it competes with. As a reminder, the standard deviation which separates the Jewish and (white) gentile mean IQs gives Jews a considerable advantage, an advantage further exploited by Jewish cohesion.

Among other factors, MacDonald puts his finger on an element of Jewish psychology which one can find many corroborative examples of:

MacDonald:

Indeed, intense hatred of perceived enemies appears to be an important psychological characteristic of Jews. It is remarkable that Schatz finds that while all Polish communists in the interwar period hated their enemies, Jewish communists had more perceived enemies and hated them more intensely.

If true, such a heightened tendency to form adversarial relationships could also explain the development of anti-Semitism, and could explain the enmity that Jewish organizations like the ADL seem to constantly discover throughout the world.

Finally, based on all of this one will expect that intellectual movements dominated by Jews will tend to be aggressive, critical, and extraordinarily cohesive. As we will find in the examination of later chapters, this is true of all the movements that MacDonald considers.

[rho]

My problem is with "group evolutionary strategy". This sounds way too much like the "Jews as a favored people of God" to me.

It's all well and good to couch it in terms of a theory, but if there's not a clear and unambiguous strategy here, there's too much selective interpretation going on. Might as well say that God ordained it; it's simpler, takes less time to state, and is just as irrefutable.

[PRCalDude]

Does anyone know if "200 Years Together" is available in English yet?

[PLEASUREMAN]

rho, 15 January 2010 - 07:34 PM:

My problem is with "group evolutionary strategy". This sounds way too much like the "Jews as a favored people of God" to me.

It's all well and good to couch it in terms of a theory, but if there's not a clear and unambiguous strategy here, there's too much selective interpretation going on. Might as well say that God ordained it; it's simpler, takes less time to state, and is just as irrefutable.

Look up group selection which is what he is really talking about. Human beings naturally favor group selection in that we have a tendency to form communities which may not benefit a given individual but which offer benefits to the group as a whole. Group selection might be seen to operate by bestowing greater benefits to those with a stronger attachment to the group and who exhibit a higher level of cooperation.

Now imagine how these benefits might acrue to a highly cohesive ethnic group in its competition with other groups. It's my feeling that Dawkins et al have always been too focused on the individual; human beings are inherently social creatures and a great deal of our interactions deal with group behavior.

I don't know what you mean when you say that this implies Jews are favored by God, it's clear from reading MacDonald that he believes that Jews are just the most extreme case of group-oriented behavior, not exceptions in this regard. We'll be looking at further examples of what he means in the succeeding chapters.

[PRCalDude]

The idea of group selection is so obvious it's not even worthy of debate. The very reason there are ethnic groups is because of group selection and group cohesiveness leading to the success or failure of groups and the propagation of groups' genomes. Geneticists find this everywhere they're not too cowed by PC to look. Bruce Lam, for example, was looking at group IQ before he was chastised by Francis Collins and other PC enforcers tied to genetic research and gave it up.

[rho]

PLEASUREMAN, 15 January 2010 - 10:32 PM:

I don't know what you mean when you say that this implies Jews are favored by God, it's clear from reading MacDonald that he believes that Jews are just the most extreme case of group-oriented behavior, not exceptions in this regard. We'll be looking at further examples of what he means in the succeeding chapters.

That's great, but my point is MacDonald's argument is indistinguishable from the tripe I've heard from fundamentalists.

By which I mean group evolutionary strategy is just a bunch of words unless it's meaningful as a method to predict future actions to a greater degree than "God says so". Right off hand I'd say that Jews are not doing so well as a group, since nobody sticks up for them other than the the most purblind NR fanboys. If it's a group evolutionary strategy it sucks on ice; if it's a Divine Plan, it might not make sense, but it seems to be working, in that we're not rendering Jews down for cleansing soap.

MacDonald's argument--which, granted, I have not read--sounds like post-hoc rationalization. Jews are doing well, far outside of their numbers in awkward situations; why? Picking and choosing from some historic facts may lend weight to a theory, but not if the historic facts weigh heavily against the Jews. I dunno about you, but a shitload of dead Jews seems to indicate that Jewish group evolutionary strategy needs some work.

Or, the other option: Jews continue to exist because God said so. I dunno, it seems a wash to me. If MacDonald can prove otherwise, I'm eager to hear it.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I think you are jumping to conclusions about what MacDonald means. He doesn't mean that Jewish group strategy is necessarily highly successful, because in several environments it has been notably unsuccessful; one of the risks of Jewish cohesion is that it makes them more distinct as an outgroup and their competitiveness can spur retribution (obviously it didn't fare so well in either Russia or Germany). Again, I think you'll have a better idea what he is driving at once we get through a few more chapters.

[rho]

I'll grant the possibility, but my problem lies in predictability; if it's unpredictable, where's the value? If GES works, except when it doesn't, how is that different from simple chance?

Like, I'll grant that MacDonald says "This and this happened, and this was good for Jews," but to turn around and say "This and this was bad for Jews, and it still proves that Jews were acting in their racial/ethnic/religious interest" is a matter of interpretation.

I haven't dismissed it as horseshit, but I've got to hear more to believe otherwise. It's not enough to come to the conclusion based on the fact that Jews have not been turned into handy industrial lubrication; I need some kind of predictive basis.

[PLEASUREMAN]

rho, 16 January 2010 - 12:52 AM:

I'll grant the possibility, but my problem lies in predictability; if it's unpredictable, where's the value? If GES works, except when it doesn't, how is that different from simple chance?

Like, I'll grant that MacDonald says "This and this happened, and this was good for Jews," but to turn around and say "This and this was bad for Jews, and it still proves that Jews were acting in their racial/ethnic/religious interest" is a matter of interpretation.

I haven't dismissed it as horseshit, but I've got to hear more to believe otherwise. It's not enough to come to the conclusion based on the fact that Jews have not been turned into handy industrial lubrication; I need some kind of predictive basis.

A strategy doesn't result in predictable outcomes, just predictable behavior in attempting to achieve goals. It's just evolutionary strategy (such as reproductive strategy) applied at the group level. Of course if you do not accept that we can have evolutionary strategies at the individual level you will not accept it at the group level either. MacDonald is assuming that everyone is onboard that train.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Chapter 2 - The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences

MacDonald opens this chapter with the rise of Jewish intellectuals in the social sciences and their opposition to Darwinism. Throughout The Culture of Critique MacDonald often quotes Jewish intellectuals themselves in characterizing certain movements as being molded by Jewish thought. Jewish self-consciousness was a matter of fact. Claude Levi-Strauss wrote:

Claude Levi-Strauss:

[C]ertain mental attitudes are perhaps more common among Jews than elsewhere... Attitudes that come from the profound feeling of belonging to a national community, all the while knowing that in the midst of this community there are people--fewer and fewer of them I admit--who reject you. One keeps one's sensitivity attuned, accompanied by the irrational feeling that in all circumstances one has to do a bit more than other people to disarm potential critics.

We will return to this sense of Jewish self-consciousness and insecurity later, but it is easy to imagine how such feelings might guide the thinking especially of Jewish intellectuals. MacDonald notes, "Like many Jewish intellectuals discussed here, Levi-Strauss's writings were aimed at enshrining cultural differences and subverting the universalism of the West, a position that validates the position of Judaism as a non-assimilating group."

Discussion of Jews as non-assimilating has acquired another dimension in contemporary American life, where there is some anxiety over the assimilation, biological or cultural, of Jews into mainstream gentile society. This may be a reason why Jewishness is virtually omnipresent in popular culture, a compensating mechanism intended to reinforce Jewishness and guide Jews who stray back to the comfort of their cultural womb. By its own matrilineal definition, it is possible to be considered Jewish while having overwhelmingly gentile blood, therefore a good deal of this anxiety is voiced against intermarriage. The point is that assimilation remains an issue despite the fact that Jewish intellectuals have largely succeeded in shaping American culture and demographics to their liking.

MacDonald moves on to Franz Boas, discussing his acute awareness of anti-Semitism, his strong Jewish identity, and his alienation from gentile culture. Boas' views were a reaction to the prevailing idea that modern European culture existed at the topmost of a series of developmental stages, and that the European's stature was a product of his superior race. Such a view could be used to justify European colonialism as a vehicle for bringing civilization to a savage and barbaric world.

MacDonald:

An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution, such as those implying developmental sequences, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity, but in fact no general theories emerged from this body of research in the ensuing half century of its dominance of the profession. Because of its rejection of fundamental scientific activities such as generalization and classification, Boasian anthropology may thus be characterized more as an anti-theory than a theory of human culture. Boas also opposed research on human genetics--what Derek Freeman temrs his "obscurantist antipathy to genetics."

While today the denial of Darwinian evolution is popularly associated with religious Christians, a far greater animosity had developed among Jewish intellectuals like Boas. These Jewish intellectuals experienced far greater success in discrediting or diminishing Darwinian science. MacDonald posits that this animosity arose from Jewish hostility to Western hegemony and a fear that any argument from biological difference or racial superiority would inevitably lead to disadvantages for unassimilated ethnic groups.

Like Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology indulged anti-scientific methods and allowed itself to be shaped into an ideology by a central personality--indeed, both movements were openly authoritarian. MacDonald notes that by 1926 "every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas's students, the majority of whom were Jewish." Boas was able to use this influence over anthropology to promote Margaret Mead's (now discredited) study of the Samoa, which was a crucial salvo in the nature-nurture debate. (According to MacDonald, Mead was one of several gentiles recruited into anthropology by Boas in order to de-emphasize Jewish presence within the field.) Another of Boas' students, Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), was a major proponent if not the originator of the claim that race was a social construct.

As MacDonald observes, "The entire enterprise may thus be characterized as a highly authoritarian political movement," which prefigured the politicization of academia we see today, and against which legitimate science must still struggle fiercely.

Boasian anthropology was also concerned with a heavy-handed critique of Western society as, among other things, excessively sexually repressive. Here Mead's study of the Samoa was again important, depicting the Samoan savages as experiencing a sexual idyll in which violence, jealousy, possessiveness, and discipline were unknown or unnecessary. Meanwhile scientific research showing the universality of warfare and conflict was largely ignored by Boasians, an inconvenient truth for social critics who wished to show the superiority of non-Western peoples.

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

One myth that Gould worked hard to promote was that IQ testing played a critical role in the immigration debates of the 1920s.

MacDonald:

Degler finds that Gould engaged in a "single minded pursuit" of Goddard, presenting a false picture of Goddard as a "rigid hereditarian or elitist." Gould ignored Goddard's doubts and qualifications as well as his statements on the importance of the environment. There can be little doubt that Gould was engaging in scholarly fraud in this endeavor...

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

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

MacDonald cites other examples of Jewish intellectuals (particularly Richard Lerner) whose preoccupation with anti-Semitism has heavily influenced their thinking. One must not miss the point, in evaluating the reasonableness of such fears in the aftermath of the Holocaust, that the distortion produced by them has nonetheless held back science and advanced completely mistaken notions in popular opinion.

These thinkers were predominantly socialist and Marxist in their politics, notwithstanding the problems that befell Jews in the Soviet Union or the dangers that radical environmentalism (the belief that human behavior is completely malleable) poses for an outgroup that is committed to maintaining its own identity. There appears to be a common tendency in Jewish thinking to develop critical analysis of the majority culture without regard to its detrimental side effects on Jews themselves. (Seen also in Jewish advocacy of open borders.) The effort to reduce anti-Semitism can take so aggressive a form that it stimulates a more severe anti-Semitic reaction--this is part of the gamble.

In discussing the use of the social sciences by Jews to combat anti-Semitism, MacDonald makes this very interesting statement:

MacDonald:

Although humans appear to be biologically predisposed toward ingroup-outgroup conflict, there is no reason whatever to suppose that group membership or group permeability itself is genetically determined; that is, there is no reason to suppose that there is a genetic imperative that societies must be organized around impermeable groups, and indeed, prototypical Western societies have not been organized in this manner. Social identity research indicates that hostility toward outgroups occurs even in randomly composed groups and even in the absence of between-group competition. The outstanding feature of Judaism has been that it has steadfastly raised barriers between Jews as an ingroup and the surrounding society as an outgroup. But, though it is reasonable to suppose that Jews are genetically more prone to ethnocentrism than Western peoples, the erection of cultural barriers between Jews and gentiles is a critical aspect of Judaism as a culture.

This renders somewhat ironic the Jewish opposition to the study of genetic differences and its eugenic applications, and undermines Jewish promotion of a multi-ethnic, multiculturalist society in America as a strategy for reducing anti-Semitism.

This chapter illustrates the use of scientific skepticism (and what MacDonald calls "obscurantism") to attack scientific trends that Jewish intellectuals strongly disliked, and the promotion of pseudo-science that assuaged Jewish fears of anti-Semitism. This effort has enjoyed great success and even today an atmosphere of intense politicization in academia has muffled what should be a tumultuous, energetic discussion of genetic differences to a cautious mumble. MacDonald notes that the brilliance of "scientific skepticism" is that it attacks science at a vulnerable point, its openness to criticism.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Chapter 3 – Jews and the Left

MacDonald begins this chapter by noting a paradox: although Jews have long been associated with the radical or Marxist Left, Marxism itself is a universalist ideology that rejects ethnic and nationalist barriers. Marx, while ethnically Jewish, has been characterized as an anti-Semite, and his writing furthered the negative Jewish stereotype of the greedy capitalist.

Jewish cohesion and resistance to assimilation would seem to put them at odds with universalist ideologies. Were the Jews who were drawn to the radical Left exceptions to the rule? What attracted these Jews to universalist principles? Did they retain their Jewish identities while participating in Leftist politics? Did the tension between ethnic cohesion and universalist ideology create problems for Jews?

MacDonald reminds the reader that these questions do not presume that a majority of Jews were involved in or sympathetic to the radical Left, or that Jews constituted a majority of those involved in radical politics. Rather, the question is why were some Jews drawn to the Left despite the inherent tension that this produced, and was this behavior consistent with Jewish cultural imperatives and group strategy.

The first question MacDonald considers is whether Jews involved in the Left retained a strong Jewish identity. He concludes that this was in fact the case, citing the Jewish Bunds in Poland and Russia. Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union were concerned with preserving a secular Jewish identity even while working against traditional Jewish institutions and customs:

MacDonald:

Despite an official ideology in which nationalism and ethnic separatism were viewed as reactionary, the Soviet government was forced to come to grips with the reality of very strong ethnic and national identifications within the Soviet Union. As a result, a Jewish Section of the Communist Party (Evsektsiya) was created. This section "fought hard against the Zionist-Socialist Parties, against democratic Jewish communities, against the secular life pattern based on Yiddish as the recognized national language of the Jewish nationality; in fighting for Jewish national survival in the 1920s; and in working in the 1930s to slow down the assimilatory process of the Sovietization of Jewish language and culture".

As a result, Jews developed a Yiddish subculture that retained separatist Jewish qualities. There is a suggestion that Jewish radicals were especially drawn to Jewish leaders such as Trotsky, regardless of whether those leaders emphasized or acknowledged their Jewishness. Judaism appeared to function for these radicals as a supra-ideology, such that it could reconcile (with itself at least) the contradiction between universalism and strong group identity.

Part of the motivation behind adopting a universalist ideology was to lessen anti-Semitism, therefore this retention of Jewish culture and language was self-defeating.

MacDonald:

In terms of social identity theory, anti-Semitism would make it difficult to adopt the identity of the surrounding culture. Traditional Jewish separatist practices combined with economic competition tend to result in anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism in turn makes Jewish assimilation more difficult because it becomes more difficult for Jews to accept a non-Jewish identity.

While many Polish Jews did increase their assimilation during the interwar period (for example adopting Polish as their native language), the efforts by other Jews to preserve Jewish culture resulted in increased anti-Semitism. MacDonald suggests that in these situations gentiles may develop an exaggerated perception of Jewish traits in order to guard against deception. The mixture of assimilating and non-assimilating Jewish behavior may appear to be a strategic deception, leading anti-Semites to look for the smallest indications of Jewishness. The more self-conscious the effort at assimilation, moreover, the greater the sense of deception. Previous encounters with Jewish crypsis may also have increased gentile suspicion of Jewish assimilation.

With this self-sustaining ingroup-outgroup tension, it is easy to see how even the most universalist radical Jew could be driven to seek refuge and safety in Jewish community, despite the dangers or contradictions that result.

The issue is further complicated by the nature of Jewish identification. MacDonald writes:

MacDonald:

Jewish identification is a complex area where surface declarations may be deceptive. Indeed, Jews may not consciously know how strongly they identify with Judaism. Silberman, for example, notes that around the time of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that "I had not known how Jewish I was".

I have heard anecdotal accounts of Jews who seem to self-consciously reject their Jewishness or display pronounced irreverence of Judaism in early adulthood, only to develop a stronger sense of Jewish identification in later life. Such behavior would not be unique to Jews; it is common for young adults to rebel against the tradition and beliefs represented by their parents, only to find themselves conforming closely to that parental model in their later years. (This might indicate a strong biological component to human behavior; a similar "regression" is seen with childhood vs. adult IQ measurement in cases where intensive schooling appears to raise IQ, but without lasting effects.) In modern society, this reversion or regression may be amplified by feelings of guilt over "renouncing" one's ethnic heritage.

Finally, Jewish involvement in radical Left politics did not exist in a vacuum. The czarist government against which Bolsheviks agitated was officially anti-Semitic, and up to the 1940s Jews tended to enjoy positions of influence and status in the Bolshevik power structure. Seeming inconsistencies between Marxist universalism and Jewish identity must be viewed from this context.

MacDonald then takes a closer look at Poland and the rise to power of its communist Jews. Their intensely Jewish upbringing, the anti-Semitism of the Polish government, and the status that Jews had gained in the Soviet Union strengthened the sense of identity among Polish Jews and reinforced the allegiance they felt to communism.

The views of Polish gentiles differed, and they saw the Jewish-dominated KPP (Communist Party of Poland) as an agency of Moscow, unpatriotic, and of an ethnically alien character. To counter this impression, an effort was made by Polish Jews to recruit and promote gentiles. Nevertheless, Polish gentiles favored the anti-Soviet opposition while Polish Jews allied themselves with the communist government. The result was an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence. In such an environment, Polish Jews came more and more to rely on each other for internal security; ethnic Jews were considered more trustworthy.

MacDonald:

The evidence indicates that this group pursued specifically Jewish interests, including especially their interest in securing Jewish group continuity in Poland while at the same time attempting to destroy institutions like the Catholic Church and other manifestations of Polish nationalism that promoted social cohesion among Poles. The communist government also combated anti-Semitism, and it promoted Jewish economic and political interests. While the extent of subjective Jewish identity among this group undoubtedly varied, the evidence indicates submerged and self-deceptive levels of Jewish identity even among the most assimilated of them.

Jewish identification was also characteristic of the Jewish Left in America. Leftist publications run by Jews exhibited a distinctively Jewish character, which can also be seen in modern publications such as the neoliberal Slate and the neoconservative Commentary. Whatever the political ideology espoused, including Emma Goldman's anarchism, Jewish identity comes through quite strongly.

While Jewish involvement in these movements sometimes changed in relation to the relevance of those movements to Jewish interests (e.g. support of Israel), one way of more closely bonding the Jewish Left with their organizations was use of Yiddish and emphasis on the importance of Leftist causes to ending Jewish persecution.

Jews were extremely active on the American Left and dominated the CPUSA, but many Jews broke with the American Communist Party when Soviet anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel forced them to choose between Leftist principles and Jewish identity. The Jews who remained resorted to rationalization and denial, similar to the attitudes of Russian Jews during the Stalinist purges. This division doubtless contributed to the rightward shift of some Jews and dictated the anti-communism of neoconservatives. Jews who remained apologists for the Soviet Union latched onto opposition to McCarthy and the "paranoid style of American politics", i.e. traditional opposition to the right, especially the suspect American gentiles who had a strong connection to un-cosmopolitan rural America.

One interesting difference in the Jewish involvement in radical student protests of the 1960s was their relatively affluent backgrounds compared to their Russian and Polish counterparts, combined with their highly vocal contempt for the working class. Here again there is evidence of overrepresentation of Jews among the student radicals (many of whom were self-described "red diaper babies" steeped in radical politics) along with open expressions of Jewish identity, perhaps brought to the fore by a sense that they were confronting injustices related in nature to anti-Semitism. Despite having evolved from an earlier generation of radical Leftists, for these Jewish radicals the traditional Marxist rhetoric and ideology gave way to a politics far more closely centered on identity and particularly ethnic identity.

The standard argument against taking notice of Jewish overrepresentation in radical politics has been that Jews have also been overrepresented in other areas, such as business and science--i.e. Jewish activity on the Left is not characteristic of Jewish behavior but of Jewish tendency to excel. What this argument omits, MacDonald notes, is that Jewish involvement is underrepresented in rightist political movements, which undermines the argument that Jewish exceptionalism entirely explains these disparities. While it might be counter-argued that anti-Semitism would have driven Jews out of nationalist or populist movements, this argument has two problems: 1) anti-Semitism on the Left has not greatly diminished Jewish activity on the Left, and 2) it presents a chicken-and-egg riddle by supposing that Jewish antagonism to rightist movements is driven by anti-Semitism which in turn drives Jewish antagonism. MacDonald writes:

MacDonald:

Even if nationalist movements are anti-Semitic, as has often been the case, anti-Semitism should be irrelevant if these individuals are indeed completely deethnicized as Pipes proposes. Jewish prominence in occupations requiring high intelligence is no argument for understanding their very prominent role in communist and other leftist movements and their relative underrepresentation in nationalist movements.

There is one caveat which may be added here, which is the possibility that high IQ individuals are naturally drawn to leftist movements for psychological reasons intrinsic to their high IQ. However, using similar reasoning one would expect high IQ Jews to de-emphasize their ethnicity, which does not appear to be the pattern. We will revisit this idea later.

MacDonald by no means considers Jewish identity to result in lockstep behavior.

MacDonald:

As with all experiments in living, leftist universalist ideology and political structure may not achieve the results desired by their Jewish proponents... In retrospect, Jewish advocacy of highly collectivist social structure represented by socialism and communism has been a poor strategy for Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Judaism and bureaucratic, statist socialism are not obviously incompatible, and we have seen that Jews were able to develop a predominant political and cultural position in socialist societies, as they have in more individualistic societies. However, the highly authoritarian, collectivist structure of these societies also results in the highly efficient institutionalization of anti-Semitism in the event that Jewish predominance within the society, despite a great deal of crypsis, comes to be viewed negatively.

Considering the issues that Jews face under such circumstances, MacDonald concludes, "In the long run, radical individualism among gentiles and the fragmentation of gentile culture offer a superior environment for Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, and that is indeed an important direction of current Jewish intellectual and political activity."

Neoconservatism is one result of this realization. Neoconservatives advocate economic freedom important to Jews while rejecting potentially threatening statist government. Meanwhile they give little attention to social issues and/or openly espouse liberal views which further the fragmentation of gentile culture. Neoconservatives are notably hostile to traditionalist conservatives, who arouse more hostility among neocons than anyone to their left.

As MacDonald puts it, Judaism is a series of experiments in living. Despite its internal disagreements over ideology, it has remained incredibly unified across class and nationality. "In this sense, Jewish radicalism must be viewed as one of several solutions to the problem of developing a viable Judaism in the post-Enlightenment period, along with Zionism, neo-Orthodoxy, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, neoconservatism, and Judaism as a civil religion."

[PLEASUREMAN]

I wish to add here that the last long post covers one of the less interesting and more scattered chapters in MacDonald's book (there are eight in total, in case you are counting down). I think this is partly the case because there is so much ground covered, much of it very familiar to anyone aware of the development of Soviet communism or the migration of neoconservatives from communism to anti-communism (I deny that neoconservatives are conservative in any sense).

The next few chapters should be more interesting, particularly the immediate chapter which covers Freudian psychoanalysis as a development in Jewish group strategy. I happened to have read the majority of Freud's published work in college, where despite the evident weakness of his theories I nevertheless found him fascinating as a historical and cultural figure. In revisiting some of this material in The Culture of Critique, I found myself anticipating most of MacDonald's thoughts on Freud and his work. If you asked me to sum psychoanalytic theory up I would say it was a slightly better rationalized Scientology, i.e. a crackpot pseudo-intellectual cult. But I won't spoil the chapter.

Feel free to interject any comments. I'm not sure if anyone is really going to read all of this, but I am hoping at least to make it a useful summary of MacDonald's book, which is badly needed as it has been grotesquely misrepresented as racist pseudo-science. It really seems to be a couple of (very good) books in one, a history of Jewish intellectual movements in the 20th century and an examination of several different aspects of group behavior.

[Graybeard]

"The Culture of Critique" is also available free online as a full pdf here: www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

Also, James Bowery has a pretty interesting theory about the evolution of what he calls "Jewish virulence" that's complementary to MacDonald's thesis in CoC. It's concisely summarized here: http://wiki.majority...ewish_virulence

And here's a great article from Haaretz from 2006 about a meeting of the "executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations": http://www.haaretz.c...l?itemNo=730443

It reads like one of those articles in the mainstream press that Steve Sailer says seems like it was secretly written by Kevin MacDonald to elucidate his theories.

[PLEASUREMAN]

Graybeard, 20 January 2010 - 01:42 PM:

"The Culture of Critique" is also available free online as a full pdf here: www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

Also, James Bowery has a pretty interesting theory about the evolution of what he calls "Jewish virulence" that's complementary to MacDonald's thesis in CoC. It's concisely summarized here: http://wiki.majority...ewish_virulence

And here's a great article from Haaretz from 2006 about a meeting of the "executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations": http://www.haaretz.c...l?itemNo=730443

It reads like one of those articles in the mainstream press that Steve Sailer says seems like it was secretly written by Kevin MacDonald to elucidate his theories.

I don't want to be a killjoy but has MacDonald authorized his book to be distributed in PDF form? (He may well have.) Just asking...

Regarding that last link, it is sometimes amazing what Jews are willing to say about themselves in Jewish publications:

Quote

The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power.

If a prominent gentile were to write that Jewish intellectuals conceive of America as a "host country" it would surely prompt livid accusations of anti-Semitism, dual loyalty smears, blood libel (for form's sake), and so on. As to the controversy mentioned, one must keep in mind that Jewish thinking is often heterodox on the specifics but strikingly orthodox on the general premise.

But I think that quote is an indication that, whether or not you think it is captured by evolutionary processes, Jewish group strategy exists on conscious and unconscious levels.

[Graybeard]

Interestingly enough, the King of All Nerds himself, hacker Eric S. Raymond, put up a post on Tuesday about Jews and Kevin MacDonald's work. It seems like everybody's doing it - everyone's talking about MacDonald! He's like the cool, new new thing now or something.

Raymond seems to generally agree with MacDonald.

The comment thread is the usual. What you'd expect when discussing this sort of thing. Just nerdier.

Here's the link to the Raymond article:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1595

[PLEASUREMAN]

Graybeard, 21 January 2010 - 10:39 PM:

Interestingly enough, the King of All Nerds himself, hacker Eric S. Raymond, put up a post on Tuesday about Jews and Kevin MacDonald's work. It seems like everybody's doing it - everyone's talking about MacDonald! He's like the cool, new new thing now or something.

Raymond seems to generally agree with MacDonald.

The comment thread is the usual. What you'd expect when discussing this sort of thing. Just nerdier.

Here's the link to the Raymond article:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1595

Second paragraph starts: "I have yet to read his actual books, but..." That would explain why he spells his name "McDonald". Lesson: You CANNOT STOP a nerd from pontificating from a position of ignorance. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the nerd will find a way to speak like a veteran of peer-reviewed journals.

I hate to rag on a guy who is willing to give MacDonald more than 15 seconds of his time, even if all of it is consumed reading about his books and then retiring to his nerdary to blog about what that was like.

But he is only likely to garble things (which he does) and encourage nerd arguments in which uninformed tech support drones confidently assert that MacDonald has all his facts wrong and is objectively evil. Fortunately this concerns the least relevant segment of humanity, and half of Raymond's blog post seems to be about his boring differences with nerd adversary Richard Stallman.

So why does Raymond say things like, "Neither McDonald [sic] nor I believe..."? Apart from the comical misspelling, he just admitted he hasn't even read him. And then he concludes with this nerd wisdom:

Eric S. Raymond:

There are a few obvious lessons here. One: Some tactics don’t scale well. Another: Be careful what you wish others to believe, because you might succeed.

What the fuck kind of bullshit fortune cookie shit is this? Can these guys grasp any concept that doesn't relate to programming and/or trite aphorisms?

edit: The comments are dumb and nerdy (as expected), and I count only three people who spell his name correctly (one of them calls him "a vile crackpot").

[Graybeard]

Pleasureman,

Are you a programmer? I'm not a programmer so I don't really understand why this Eric Raymond is supposed to be so great. What exactly has he done in the computer programming field? I don't believe he had a startup or anything like that.