The Mises Institute and Open Borders

by Alex Gore

I’ve been growing more and more aware that the Libertarian movement is Jewish and specifically serves Jewish interests. Prominent libertarians such as Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Alisa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand), and Stefan Molyneux are all Jews and all against migration controls. The Mises Institute just issued an article that states that immigration restriction is akin to individual US states restricting Americans from other states:

If it is sound to erect a barrier along our national boundary lines, against those who see greater opportunities here than in their native land, why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation? – Murray Rothbard

This however is an apples to oranges comparison. Historically, borders have been demarcated along racial, religious, and linguistic lines. And for good reasons. Open borders is an invitation to loss of culture and ethnicity, something your ancestors have worked for many centuries to maintain. I am all for free trade and trading with our neighbors. However, people belong to where they came from.

Early Americans, whom were largely WASPS (white anglo-saxon protestants), felt it was a God given right for homogeneity in America to be maintained. Since they made the largest contributions to the development of the country, they believed they had every right to determine the direction of it. They believed things were fine the way they were and saw no need for radical changes. The sort of immigration that was to be permitted should only be limited to those of their own kind. Even immigration of Italians, Irish, and Eastern Europeans, though white, were looked upon with suspicion as they could be a threat to the general order of things. Protecting one’s kind is actually a fundamental part of evolution to avoiding extinction. There is a need to keep a tab on who gets to come in and who doesn’t. Really the only type of migrants that a country should allow should be people who share the same beliefs, ideas, and ethnicity. I can’t think of a more peaceful solution.

Immigration policy is a paradigmatic example of conflicts of interest between ethnic groups because immigration policy determines the future demographic composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced by groups able to accomplish this goal. Immigration policy is thus of fundamental interest to an evolutionist. (Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, pg 240)

The type of people who’ve shaped Western immigration policy have been Jews. They have historically been behind mass immigration against the wishes of the native people. It doesn’t matter whether they are left-wing or right-wing Jews. George Soros, Ayn Rand, Barbara Spectre, and David Horowitz have been advocates of open orders and race mixing for the West but are staunchly against it for Israel – a clear double standard.

The article continues:

(L)inguistic and cultural majorities have a habit of using the political system to exploit the linguistic and cultural minorities. As these majorities change due to migration, this can lead to political conflict. For Mises, the answer to this was more fluidity in borders, and the use of secession and decentralization as tools in minimizing the power held by majority groups over minority groups. – Ryan McMaken

The type of minorities that the Institute is most interested in protecting are Jews. Again, they have historically been advocates of open borders.

At the intellectual level, Jewish intellectuals led the battle against the idea that races even exist and against the idea that there are differences in intelligence or cultural level between the races that are rooted in biology. They also spearheaded defining America as a set of abstract principles rather than an ethnocultural civilization. At the level of politics, Jewish organizations spearheaded the drive to open up immigration to all of the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations also played a key role in furthering the interests of other racial and ethnic minorities, and they led the legal and legislative effort to remove Christianity from public places. (MacDonald, C of C, page xx)

Ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. We have seen that historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously or ethnically homogeneous. Ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are thus more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles. (MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, p332)

Advertisements

Freud, Jews, and the Sexual Revolution

The following primarily comes from Chapter 4 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement.

Cultural Subversion Through Sex

frued

 

Jewish organizations like the AJ Congress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. (MacDonald, 148)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is considered the father of psychoanalysis and is certainly among the most recognized names in the social sciences. He was born in the Austrian empire in what is now the Czech Republic. Freud grew up in an upper class Jewish family and was strongly attracted to Zionism. In one letter he even described himself as a “fanatical Jew” and believed that Jews were superior to Gentiles in terms of manners, intellect, morality, and family life.

[Freud] was convinced that it was in the very nature of psychoanalytic doctrine to appear shocking and subversive. On board ship to America he did not feel that he was bringing that country a new panacea. With his typically dry wit he told his traveling companions, ‘We are bringing them the plague.’” Freud like many Jewish intellectuals believed that it was their duty and mission to lead the world on a moral mission to cure society of it’s ills. (MacDonald, 106)

The field of psychoanalysis, which was founded by Freud, has been a mission of Gentile subversion through sex. In Freud’s upside down world good was bad and bad was good. The goals of psychoanalysis has been to thoroughly debunk traditional Gentile values and culture. Traditional moral values such as strong child-parents relations, high investment parenting, and delay of sex until marriage were derided as psychopathic behaviors while promiscuity, having children out of wedlock, single parenting, and general immorality were considered normal and healthy. Freud considered sexual morality as pathological and something to be destroyed. He propagated the idea that aggression in humans was a result of sexual suppression and that by overcoming this “suppression”, man can be led to an era of universal love and peace. During the first half of the 20th century Freud was frequently referred to as the father of sexual liberation and came under heavy criticisms from conservatives and the religious right.

(A) small, active minority can set the spiral of silence in motion. They become spokespeople to confuse and disorient the majority, make their own ideology mainstream, and ultimately start peddling what used to be bad as something good. – Gabrielle Kuby in The Global Sexual Revolution

Just as with multiculturalism and mass immigration, the goals of psychoanalysis has been that of breaking apart solidarity by inciting rebelliousness in children, eradicating religion, encouraging instant gratification, and fostering “radical” individualism. Though Freud, like many prominent Jews, advocated multiculturalism for the gentiles, they at the same time were against assimilation and mixed marriages for the Jewish people. None of Freud’s children married a gentile and none converted to Christianity.

Attack on the Church

Freud believed that the church got in the way of “rational” living. His attitude towards the Church is illustrated in Moses and Monotheism published in 1939:

(Anti-Semitism) is said to result from the fact that many Christians have become Christians only recently as the result of forced conversion from even more barbarically polytheistic folk religions than Christianity itself is. Because of the violence of their forced conversions, these barbarians “have not yet overcome their grudge against the new religion which was forced upon them, and they have projected it on to the source from which Christianity came to them [i.e., the Jews]

Freud’s theory of anti-Semitism in Moses and Monotheism (Freud 1939, 114-117) contains several assertions that anti-Semitism is fundamentally a pathological gentile reaction to Jewish ethical superiority. (MacDonald, 117)

Rothman and Isenberg (1974) convincingly argued that Freud viewed Interpretation of Dreams as a victory against the Catholic Church and that he saw Totem and Taboo as a successful attempt to analyze the Christian religion in terms of defense mechanisms and primitive drives. Regarding Totem and Taboo, Freud told a colleague that it would “serve to make a sharp division between us and all Aryan religiosity.” (MacDonald, 115)

Finding Sex Everywhere

Freud had the obsession of finding sex everywhere and attempted to argue that the emotions of parental affection and love was an unhealthy desire. He equated those feelings with sexual desires being denied. Freud even goes as far as equating high sexual morality among Gentiles as anti-semitic behavior:

Within this perspective, anti-Semitism results from the denial of sexuality, and the role of the Jewish mission of psychoanalysis was to end anti-Semitism by freeing humanity of its sexual repressions. (MacDonald, 113)

Through his twisted logic, neoconservative Jew, Norman Podheretz, stated that the road to Auschwitz would result if Westerners stopped accepting mass immigration. Wilhelm Reich propagated the same for those wanting to “repress” sexuality. “For (Wilhelm) Reich, the character armor that results ultimately from repressing sexual orgasms begins in civil discourse and ends at Auschwitz.” (MacDonald, 142)

In the Theory of the Oedipal complex, Freud advanced the idea that children are sexually attracted to their opposite sex parents, such as sons having fantasies about their mothers or daughters having fantasies of their fathers. However, incestuous relations seldom happen in the real world of human and animal behavior because those types of activities would eventually destroy the species through the introduction of genetic defects in offsprings. The theory also promoted the idea of sons desiring to kill their fathers, with the consequences being children without important father figures.

War on Gentiles

This conflation between sexual desire and love is also apparent in many of Freud’s psychoanalytic successors, including Norman O. Brown, Wilhelm Reich, and Herbert Marcuse. The common thread of these writings is that if society could somehow rid itself of sexual repressions, human relations could be based on love and affection. This is an extremely naive and socially destructive viewpoint, given the current research in the field. Psychoanalytic assertions to the contrary were never any more than speculations in the service of waging a war on gentile culture. (MacDonald, 123)

The deferring of gratification actually has a powerful evolutionary basis and has helped make the achievements of mankind possible. Responsibility, discipline, careful planning, and the delay of gratification are essential elements of human development. The goals of Jewish led movements in social sciences has been to condition Gentiles into being “subservient slaves”. Interestingly, the promotion of debauchery has mainly affected the lower class of people while the upper class has been relatively immune to it. The upper class and those with high IQ’s, which Jews mainly belong to, have been little affected.

(The War on Gentiles is) a war that has resulted in a society increasingly split between a disproportionately Jewish “cognitive elite” and a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse. (MacDonald, 151) Studies have also found that Caucasians with poor parent-child relations have lower ethnocentricism scores than those with tight relations, exactly the results that was to be expected.

In The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy, Wilhelm Reich (1961, 206-207; italics in text), a Jew, wrote, “the forces which had been kept in check for so long by the superficial veneer of good breeding and artificial self-control now borne by the very multitudes that were striving for freedom, broke through into action: In concentration camps, in the persecution of the Jews… In Fascism, the psychic mass disease revealed itself in an undisguised form.”

The apex of the association between Marxism and psychoanalysis came in the 1920s in the Soviet Union, where all the top psychoanalysts were Bolsheviks, Trotsky supporters, and among the most powerful political figures in the country. (Trotsky himself was an ardent enthusiast of psychoanalysis.) This group organized a government-sponsored State Psychoanalytical Institute and developed a program of “pedology” aimed at producing the “new Soviet man” on the basis of psychoanalytic principles applied to the education of children. The program, which encouraged sexual precocity in children, was put into practice in state-run schools. (MacDonald, 114)

The Jewish Domination of the Psychoanalytic Movement

History made psychoanalysis a “Jewish science.” It continued to be attacked as such. It was destroyed in Germany, Italy, and Austria and exiled to the four winds, as such. It continues even now to be perceived as such by enemies and friends alike. Of course there are by now distinguished analysts who are not Jews… But the vanguard of the movement over the last fifty years has remained predominantly Jewish as it was from the beginning. (Yerushalmi 1991, 98)

In 1906 all 17 members of the (psychoanalysis) movement were Jewish, and they strongly identified as Jews (Klein 1981). In a 1971 study, Henry, Sims and Spray found that 62.1 percent of their sample of American psychoanalysts identified themselves as having a Jewish cultural affinity, compared with only 16.7 percent indicating a Protestant affinity and 2.6 percent a Catholic affinity. An additional 18.6 percent indicated no cultural affinity, a percentage considerably higher than the other categories of mental health professional and suggesting that the percentage of psychoanalysts with a Jewish background was even higher than 62 percent (MacDonald, 106).

Freud’s estrangement from gentiles also involved positive views of Judaism and negative views of gentile culture, the latter viewed as something to be conquered in the interest of leading humanity to a higher moral level and ending anti-Semitism. Freud had a sense of “Jewish moral superiority to the injustices of an intolerant, inhumane—indeed, anti-Semitic—society.” (Klein 1981, 86)

Freud often made Gentiles highly visible in the movement, so that the disproportionately high numbers of Jews in the movement would not be as salient, especially if the goal was to subvert gentile culture and create a pacified population. Gentile colleagues who worked under Freud, some for many years, however often complained about their subservient status within the organizations.

No Scientific Basis For Psychoanalysis

The development of consensual theories consistent with observable reality but without any scientific content is a hallmark of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements. (MacDonald, 123)

Psychoanalysis is regarded as a pseudo science with little scientific basis. MacDonald argues that the teachings of social “sciences” over the past century are not real sciences but Judaized political movements made to resemble science. Real science demands independence and objectivity with no attachments to ideology or strong authoritative “father” figures. Real science demands that previous theories and ideas be modified or abandoned when new data comes along to challenge it. Oddly, Freud’s works such as Studies of Hysteria and The Interpretation of Dreams are over a 100 years old, yet are still treated as standard references in the field of social sciences:

The continued use of Freud’s texts in instruction and the continuing references to Freud’s work are simply not conceivable in a real science. In this regard, although Darwin is venerated for his scientific work as the founder of the modern science of evolutionary biology, studies in evolutionary biology only infrequently refer to Darwin’s writings because the field has moved so far beyond his work. On the Origin of Species and Darwin’s other works are important texts in the history of science, but they are not used for current instruction. Moreover, central features of Darwin’s account, such as his views on inheritance, have been completely rejected by modern workers. With Freud, however, there is continuing fealty to the master, at least within an important subset of the movement. (MacDonald, 130)

What passes today for Freud bashing is simply the long-postponed exposure of Freudian ideas to the same standards of noncontradiction, clarity, testability, cogency, and parsimonious explanatory power that prevail in empirical discourse at large. Step by step, we are learning that Freud has been the most overrated figure in the entire history of science and medicine— one who wrought immense harm through the propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses, and fruitless lines of inquiry. Still the legend dies hard, and those who challenge it continue to be greeted like rabid dogs. (Crews et al. 1995, 298-299)

Whereas real science is individualistic at its core, psychoanalysis in all its manifestations is fundamentally a set of cohesive, authoritarian groups centered around a charismatic leader. (MacDonald, 132)

The workings of the (Psychoanalytic) Committee have been extensively documented by Grosskurth (1991, 15; italics in text) who notes that “By insisting the Committee must be absolutely secret, Freud enshrined the principle of confidentiality. The various psychoanalytic societies that emerged from the Committee were like Communist cells, in which the members vowed eternal obedience to their leader. Psychoanalysis became institutionalized by the founding of journals and the training of candidates; in short an extraordinarily effective political entity.” (MacDonald, 128)

There were repeated admonitions for the Committee to present a “united front” against all opposition, for “maintaining control over the whole organization,” for “keeping the troops in line,” and for “reporting to the commander” (Grosskurth 1991, 97). This is not the workings of a scientific organization, but rather of an authoritarian religious-political and quasi-military movement—something resembling the Spanish Inquisition or Stalinism far more than anything resembling what we usually think of as science. (MacDonald, 128)

The continued life of these notions within the psychoanalytic community testifies to the vitality of psychoanalysis as a political movement. The continued self-imposed separation of psychoanalysis from the mainstream science of developmental psychology, as indicated by separate organizations, separate journals, and a largely non-overlapping membership, is a further indication that the fundamental structure of psychoanalysis as a closed intellectual movement continues into the present era. Indeed, the self-segregation of psychoanalysis conforms well to the traditional structure of Judaism vis-à-vis gentile society: There is the development of parallel universes of discourse on human psychology—two incompatible worldviews quite analogous to the differences in religious discourse that have separated Jews from their gentile neighbors over the ages. (MacDonald, 124)

In the world of science, controversy leads to experimentation and rational argumentation. In the world of psychoanalysis, it leads to expulsion of the nonorthodox and to splendid isolation from scientific psychology. (MacDonald, 130)

Despite the paper thin arguments put out by Freud and the lack of scientific evidence, he continues to be treated with cult-like status among his peers.

Conclusion

Psychoanalysis, like many movements that are Jewish-dominated, is that of intentional Gentile cultural debasement. As part of a group evolutionary strategy, while Jews themselves engage in high-investment parenting and group cohesion, they have been engaged in promoting the opposite for Gentiles. It represents yet another battle in the Jew vs Gentile war that has been ongoing since at least biblical times.

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.

Jews and the Multicultural Movement

In Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald explains that the programs of multiculturalism, mass immigration, and political correctness are not something that happened by accident but has long been part of Jewish led movements. Jews have historically taken part in movements that have undermined cohesion, religion, tradition, and national identity. MacDonald is a retired professor of psychology at California State University-Long Beach. He has written several books on Jewish anthropology but C of C is considered his most important work.

At the intellectual level, Jewish intellectuals led the battle against the idea that races even exist and against the idea that there are differences in intelligence or cultural level between the races that are rooted in biology. They also spearheaded defining America as a set of abstract principles rather than an ethnocultural civilization. At the level of politics, Jewish organizations spearheaded the drive to open up immigration to all of the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations also played a key role in furthering the interests of other racial and ethnic minorities, and they led the legal and legislative effort to remove Christianity from public places. (MacDonald, C of C, page xx)

Ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. We have seen that historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously or ethnically homogeneous. Ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are thus more likely to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic and religious homogeneity among gentiles. (MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, p332)

American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.” (MacDonald, C of C, pg 85)

The results of these movements have been:

  1. A reduction in discrimination and anti-semitism
  2. A society that has made it easier for minority groups to thrive and prosper without fear of backlash
  3. A society that mainly views offending behaviors as individual characteristics rather than a characteristic of the entire group.
  4. A society that sees criticisms of groups being based on prejudice and hate rather than as caused by behavioral characteristics of that group.

MacDonald considers Judaism as a “group evolutionary strategy”. The group that possesses the most intelligence, the most in-group cooperation, the best strategy for eliminating competition, a high amount of motivation, and a long-term vision eventually wins out. What the West has been caught up in is essentially an ethnic war invisible to most. MacDonald describes an elite “that almost instinctively loathes the traditional institutions of European-American culture: its religion, its customs, its manners, and its sexual attitudes”, thus the title of the book.

ETHNOCENTRISM

Jews have high ethnocentricity. Ethnocentric people are cohesive and have strong ties to family and community. Group goals are emphasized over individual goals. Ethnocentric people are very protective of their own kind and view criticisms of individuals or their leaders as an attack on their entire race. Ethnocentric societies are typically collectivist and strong authoritarian leadership is valued. Ethnocentricity likely evolved as a defense mechanism against invasion from enemy groups over territory and resources. They evolved where conflicts with neighbors and other tribal groups were common. Cooperation among peers was of prime importance as peers joined together to fight for a common cause. Endogamous marriages tightened bonds and cohesiveness. The ingroup-outgroup barrier among is strong and difficult to penetrate. Blacks and Arabs have relatively high degrees of ethnocentricity as well.

On the other hand Caucasians, particularly those of northern European decent, have relatively low levels of ethnocentricity. They tend to be individualistic, independent, self-reliant, and have little in the way of “brotherly” attachment to people of their own kind. They have more positive attitudes to outsiders. Caucasians highly value strong individual rights and egalitarian forms of government. Ingroup-outgroup barriers among Caucasians are weak and permeable. Individual, not group goals, are paramount. It is theorized that Caucasians evolved as hunters in the cold harsh north with relatively little contact with others. Dealing with the physical environment was more of a concern than dealing with rival enemy groups. MacDonald discloses that the Caucasian features of “individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral universalism” are all features that are “entirely foreign to Judaism”.

ethno

European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less powerful defenses against such groups.(MacDonald, C of C, pg xxiii)

While strong collectivist groups tend to thrive in highly individualistic societies, they have difficulty penetrating societies that have strong ingroup-outgroup barriers such as Islamic societies. Short of military invasion, cohesive societies have been much more successful in keeping predatory groups on the outside looking in.

Collectivist cultures [like Judaism]… place a much greater emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup rather than on individual rights and interests. 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.” In collectivist cultures morality is conceptualized as that which benefits the group, and aggression and exploitation of outgroups are acceptable. (MacDonald, C of C, pg 165)

Europeans are groups with high levels of cooperation with strangers rather than with extended family members, and are prone to market relations and individualism. This suggests the fascinating possibility that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency toward altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy—a manifestation of their much stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter gatherers. (MacDonald, C of C, pg Xxviii)

Democracy is conceptualized as guaranteeing that majorities will not resist the expansion of power of minorities even if that means a decline in their own power. Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology. (MacDonald, C of C, pg 196)

IMMIGRATION

 Jews have been “the single most persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration policy” in the United States in the entire immigration debate beginning in 1881. (Neuringer 1971, 392-393)

Attitudes about race have changed tremendously over the years. What was considered normal discussion in the past is completely taboo today. A century ago people believed that there were inherent differences in intelligence and morality among the races. Some even believed that certain races were intent on dominating others. Early Americans, whom were largely WASPs (white anglo-saxon protestants), felt it was a God given right for homogeneity in America to be maintained. Since they made the largest contribution to the development of the country, they believed they had every right to determine the direction of it. They believed things were fine the way they were and saw no need for radical changes. The sort of immigration that was to be permitted should only be limited to those of their own kind. Even immigration of Italians, Irish, and Eastern Europeans, though white, were looked upon with suspicion as they could be a threat to the general order of things. Protecting one’s kind is actually a fundamental part of evolution to avoiding extinction.

Immigration policy is a paradigmatic example of conflicts of interest between ethnic groups because immigration policy determines the future demographic composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced by groups able to accomplish this goal. Immigration policy is thus of fundamental interest to an evolutionist. (MacDonald, C of C, pg 240)

Jewish groups were virtually alone in it’s support of the 1924 immigration bill (failed) and 1965 immigration bill (passed). The 1965 bill essentially gave the green light for mass immigration to America that continues to this day. Groups such as the American Jewish Committee, placed emphasis that immigration was to be based not on needed skill or talent but on family reunion. Immigration was to be opened up to all peoples of the world on a first-come first-served basis. Milton Konwitz of Cornell – “To place so much emphasis on technological and vocational qualifications is to remove every vestige of humanitarianism from our immigration policy.”

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, 23)

What is interesting is that Jews tend to have double standards when it comes to these programs. While prominent Jews like George Soros, David Horowitz, and Ayn Rand supported liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism for America and Europe, they were staunchly against those same programs for Israel. Dedicated Jews are generally against assimilation and mixed marriages for their people. Kaufman Kohler, a Reform intellectual, remarked that “Israel must remain separate and avoid intermarriage until it leads humankind to an era of universal peace and brotherhood among the races.

 Jews have consistently advocated an internationalist foreign policy because “an internationally-minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries” (MacDonald, C of C, pg 241)

Equating immigration restriction with genocide

 Walter Benjamin (1968, 262) notes, “Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren.” This is important because whatever one’s attitudes about the costs and benefits of immigration, a principal motivation for encouraging massive non-European immigration on the part of the organized Jewish community has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965. (MacDonald, C of C, pg x).

The plight of Jews in Europe during WWII has at least in part been blamed on the failed 1924 immigration act. Norman Podhoretz, an editor for Commentary magazine, is an example of the type of logic that many Jews employ to justify the programs they promote. The following two passages are from Understanding Jewish Influences also by the same author:

“My own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson…. The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Street law firms, could end in mass murder.”

And Jewish conservative, Lawrence Auster: “Now when Jews put together the idea that “all social prejudice and exclusion leads potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz. So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America would be tantamount to preparing the way to another Jewish Holocaust.”

CIVIL RIGHTS

Jews have heavily influenced civil rights organizations such as the NAACP, SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), ADL, ACLU, SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference), and LCCR (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights). Howard Sachar writes in A History of Jews in America that “In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise.”Additional Jewish-American founding members included Julius Rosenwald, Lillian Wald, and Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch. Wikipedia states that every president of the NAACP from 1915 to 1975 was Jewish. It is notable that Marcus Garvey, who is black, quit the NAACP in 1917 calling it a “white organization.” Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the funding for civil rights groups during the 1960s, the height of the civil rights movement, were by Jews.

 Jewish organizations view Anglo-Saxon (read Caucasian) nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support pro-black integration (i.e., assimilationist, individualist) policies for blacks in America, presumably because such policies dilute Caucasian power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Semitic Caucasian majority. (Harold Wright Cruse, black intellectual and author of The Crisis of the Negro Intellect)

Cruse notes that while Jews have been active in black civil rights organizations, the other way around has not been true. Blacks have been completely excluded from the inner workings and policy making of Jewish organizations.

kiwi-kaplan-martin-luther-king-jews-blacks-anc-275 mandela-slovo-jews-blacks-anc-275

Kiwi Kaplan – Martin Luther King   Nelson Mandela – Joe Slovo

 

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

As part of an evolutionary strategy, the successful advancement of your kind requires your kind to be portrayed in a positive light and outsiders in a less than positive light. This is not something exclusive to Jews but Jews have been the most successful with this. Hitler attempted to practice this for the German people.

Levinson views ethnocentrism as fundamentally concerned with ingroup-outgroup perceptions, a perspective that is congruent with social identity theory that I have proposed as the best candidate for developing a theory of anti-Semitism. Levinson concludes, “Ethnocentrism is based on a pervasive and rigid ingroup-outgroup distinction; it involves stereotyped negative imagery and hostile attitudes regarding outgroups, stereotyped positive imagery and submissive attitudes regarding ingroups, and a hierarchical, authoritarian view of group interaction in which ingroups are rightly dominant, outgroups subordinate” (MacDonald, C of C, pg 171)

What organized Jewry has accomplished is something that shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as out of the ordinary. They are simply looking out for themselves. This has helped Judaism survive for 2000 plus years despite Jews being almost always a diaspora group among gentiles. Besides battling anti-semitism, the author provides extensive evidence that multiculturalism is of intentional gentile cultural subversion.

Jewish moral particularism combined with a profound sense of historical grievancehatred by any other name—against European civilization and a desire for the end of Europe as a Christian civilization with its traditional ethnic base. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the menaces of “extremism, hate and fundamentalism”—prototypically against Jews—can only be repaired by jettisoning the traditional cultural and ethnic basis of European civilization. Events that happened five hundred years ago are still fresh in the minds of Jewish activists. (MacDonald, Understanding Jewish Influences, p10).

CONCLUSION

Jews know how to play the evolutionary game. Gentiles, particularly Caucasians, do not. The group that is the smartest, the most cunning, and the most patient eventually wins out. Multiculturalism is yet another battle of the many battles fought between Jews and Gentiles that date back to at least biblical times and has continued up into the present day.

(I will do a writeup of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 in the near future. There is too much information to put in one article)

 – Alex Gore


Highlights:

9:30 – If you don’t play the evolutionary game and decide to sit out, you will lose
28:00 – Taboo of C of C
44:30 – Ford’s conversion from Christianity to orthodox Judaism and what he discovered

Why Are Jews So Successful?

jews

Many wonder why are there so many Jews occupying high-level government, university, banking, and media positions. They make up just two percent of the US population. There must be something going on, right? Kevin MacDonald explains this in his book, Understanding Jewish Influences. My particular focus is on Ashkenazi Jews who make up the majority of Jews in the US. While the Jew’s high levels of intelligence is something that many of us are aware, the concept of ethnocentricity is something most of us are not familiar with. Understanding both of these things are crucial to understanding how those people, whom make up just 2 percent of the American population, are able to dominate so many high ranking positions in society.

(more…)

The Creation of Christianity and the 2000 Year Battle Against the Jews

by Alex Gore

The Jews and Gentiles have been at war with each other for a very long time and I believe that Christianity came about as a way of dealing with the Jews. This is my conclusion after studying some of the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Josesph Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah convinced me even further. Atwill illustrates that the New Testament Gospels actually parallels the military campaigns of Rome’s Titus Flavius, from Galilee to Jerusalem.

(more…)

the real Syrian Free Press

War Press Info ~ Archive of Most Important Reliable 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