Jews and the Subversion of Anthropology

boas

(This post is in reference to Chapter 2 of Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald and is a continuation from “Jews and the Multicultural Movement” posted a week ago.)

Observers have noted radical changes in the social sciences upon entry of Jews into the field. Franz Boas (1858-1942) is considered the “Father of Anthropology”. He was strongly aware of his Jewish identity and was intensely committed to fighting anti-semitism. During the early 20th century, Boas in his fight against discrimination, essentially transformed the school of anthropology from one that studied the relationship between evolution and race to one that completely removed the concept of race. By doing this he also transformed what used to be a respectable science into an ideological movement. Post-Boas, variations in behavior among races was attributed almost solely to “culture” and the direct environment. Darwinism was suppressed.

Boas engaged in a “life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture”. “Boas, almost single-handedly, developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science”. (MacDonald, C of C, 22)

Boas rarely cited works of people outside his group except to disparage them, whereas, as with Mead’s and Benedict’s work, he strenuously promoted and cited the work of people within the ingroup. The Boasian school of anthropology thus came to resemble in a microcosm key features of Judaism as a highly collectivist group evolutionary strategy: a high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests. (MacDonald,  26)

Many scientists consider Boas a fraud:

Although Boas made his conjectures in a very dogmatic manner, his“historical reconstructions are inferences, guesses, and unsupported assertions [ranging] from the possible to the preposterous. Almost none is verifiable” (White 1966, 13).

Israel Ehrenberg (Ashley Montagu), who was a student of Boas, once quipped,“if you are brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic… I think it is a good working hypothesis” (Shipman, 1994, 166). Of course he, like many Jews, rarely suggest that their own behavior may in fact be the cause of anti-semitism. Ehrenberg worked tirelessly to promote the idea that race was a myth. The result of racial de-emphasis and assertions of “we are all the same inside” is that Jews as a whole will not be singled out:

The expectation is that individualists will tend to be less predisposed to anti-Semitism and more likely to blame any offensive Jewish behavior as resulting from transgressions by individual Jews rather than stereotypically true of all Jews. However Jews, as members of a collectivist subculture living in an individualistic society, are themselves more likely to view the Jewish-gentile distinction as extremely salient and to develop stereotypically negative views about gentiles. (MacDonald,  166)

Jewish led movements in social science has essentially been that of “anti-science”. Unlike hard science, such as what Jewish physicist Albert Einstein practiced, social sciences had been rift with uses of unscientific methods to advance group interest:

(The) issues of the ethnic identification and even ethnic activism on the part of people like Einstein are entirely separate from the issue of whether such people viewed the content of the theories themselves as furthering ethnic interests, and, in the case of Einstein, there is no evidence that he did so. The same cannot be said for Freud, the New York Intellectuals, the Boasians, and the Frankfurt School, in which “scientific” theories were fashioned and deployed to advance ethnic group interests. This ideological purpose becomes clear when the unscientific nature of these movements is understood. Much of the discussion in CofC documented the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of empirical rigor, the obvious political and ethnic motivation, the expulsion of dissenters, the collusion among co-ethnics to dominate intellectual discourse, and the general lack of scientific spirit that pervaded them. In my view, the scientific weakness of these movements is evidence of their group-strategic function. (MacDonald,  vii)

Anthropology had become Jewish dominated during the past century:

By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board (Stocking 1968, 285). In 1919 Boas could state that “most of the anthropological work done at the present time in the United States” was done by his students at Columbia (in Stocking 1968, 296). By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas’s students, the majority of whom were Jewish. (MacDonald,  25)

MacDonald discloses that the result of this is that by the mid-20th century, educated Americans could assert that “modern science has shown that all human races are equal.” Real science, however, has shown that there are differences among races in terms of IQ, ethnocentricity, xenophobia, aggression, instant gratification, sex drive, thinking in logic, and even in the treatment of animals. The continuation of the study of anthropology with respect to race and evolution was unfeasible from the standpoint of Jews because of the fear that they would eventually be exposed. It would then become known that the high IQ’s of Ashkenazi Jews and their tendencies to form kinship based networks have, at least in part, been responsible for their dominance in key areas such as media, banking, and domestic and foreign policy making.

The shifts in anthropology was not relegated to the US. Madison Grant who authored in 1921, The Passing of the Great Race, written “it is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name. The underlying idea seems to be that if publication can be suppressed the facts themselves will ultimately disappear. Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France”.

Levi-Strauss

Portrait de l'ecrivain Claude Levi Strauss. © Effigie/ Leemage

Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), was a French anthropologist with a strong sense of Jewish belonging and a colleague of Boas. He too rejected biological and evolutionary theories and believed that cultures, like languages, had no real relationship to ethnicity. He believed that the roles of the anthropologist was to be “a natural subversive”.

Levi-Strauss’s most significant works were all published during the breakup of the French colonial empire and contributed enormously to the way it was understood by intellectuals… [H]is elegant writings worked an aesthetic transformation on his readers, who were subtly made to feel ashamed to be Europeans… [H]e evoked the beauty, dignity, and irreducible strangeness of Third World cultures that were simply trying to preserve their difference… [H]is writings would soon feed the suspicion among the new left… that all the universal ideas to which Europe claimed allegiance—reason, science, progress, liberal democracy—were culturally specific weapons fashioned to rob the non-European Other of his difference. (Lilla 1998, 37)

Gould

gould

Another Jew, Steven Jay Gould who written, The Mismeasure of Man, during the early 1980s attempted to debunk the relationship between brain size and IQ. Gould presents himself as an expert on evolution and is widely respected among those who know little about biology. But among biologists, Gould is considered a fraud. Evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith refers to him as “a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with”. Browse through some of Amazon’s One-Star reviews of The Mismeasure of Man.

Conclusion
Over the past half-century, the goals of organized Jewry is to have Judaism perceived as just “another religion”. This has allowed Jews to more easily pursue group-based goals at the expense of others:

The downgrading of the ethnic aspect of Judaism essentially allowed Jews to win the ethnic war without anyone even being able to acknowledge that it was an ethnic war. (MacDonald, xxii)

Coming Up: Freud and the Sexual Revolution – Follow my blog to get the latest update.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

the real Syrian Free Press

War Press Info ~ Reliable Archive of Most Important Global War News

The Holocaust is a Hoax

Time to expose the lies!

The Rabbit Hole

Denying the truth, doesn't change the facts.

Levant Report

the Real Middle East, debunking the sound bites

Mothman777's Blog

Perfect nutrition in spiritual context

%d bloggers like this: