Jews and the Leftwing Movement

Note: Kevin MacDonald is controlled-opposition and could very well be a Jew in disguise. Nonetheless, he presents some interesting information. They have to do this in order to build their audience. I did this write-up before I was aware of that fact.

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”.

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   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 grievance—hatred 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

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8SwLm6YG64

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